workshopped here -- published -- or not?
Alan Walkington
Google is considered published.
This is the question I have started e-mailing to editors. Please --- if
anyone decides to do the same, add the responses here.
Gentlefolks:
alt.fiction.original is a Usenet newsgroup. It is open
to public scrutiny, and is archived by Google.
Would you consider a story that has been workshopped on
that newsgroup to have been 'published'?
If your answer is 'yes', would keeping it off Google's
archive change your answer?
Thanks
Alan walkington
Alan Walkington
Print View
Show Headers
Report Junk Mail
Date: 3 Feb 13:10 (PST)
To: ur...@walkington.org
Subject: Re: published or not?
Hi Alan.
I would certainly consider printing a story that's been on a newsgroup.
Dave
------------
Dave Switzer
Editor & Publisher
Challenging Destiny: New Fantasy & Science Fiction
http://challengingdestiny.com
Alan Walkington
Date: 3 Feb 10:44 (PST)
To: "Alan Walkington" <ur...@walkington.org>
Subject: Re: Published?
Hi Alan
Thanks for getting back. On the basis of what you've said, it doesn't
seen to me as if a story workshopped there should be precluded from
consideration.
Submit away :).
Debbie Moorhouse
Submissions Manager
NFG Magazine
--
Mrs. Peabody's Desk
mrspe...@nfg.ca
NFG Magazine, www.nfg.ca
Quadpus
>
> We have speculated as to whether a story workshopped here and picked up by
> Google is considered published.
>
> This is the question I have started e-mailing to editors. Please --- if
> anyone decides to do the same, add the responses here.
I asked Howard Junker of Zyzzyva this question awhile back and while
his answer was somewhat vague, I got the definite impression that it
didn't matter to him.
Alan Walkington
Reply-To: zyz...@netwiz.net
Date: 3 Feb 14:33 (PST)
To: ur...@walkington.org
Subject: Re: Published -- or not?
if google can find it, it's been published.
surely you can write another story to tempt me with.
best, howard
Quadpus
Well, phooey. You must have phrased the question better than I did.
Joel Crum
news:nfUTb.7398318$Id.12...@news.easynews.com:
> This is the question I have started e-mailing to editors. Please ---
> if anyone decides to do the same, add the responses here.
I forget the magazine, but a web-publisher posted here looking for
submissions & clients. Since it was just after one such published / not
published debate. He was OK with peices workshopped on the group.
An the editor of www.scifi.com/scifiction (a paying online venue) was
asked in their discussion boards if stories that had been workshopped
online were counted as previously published.
The editors answer:
"That's a tough question, BuffySquirrel. I'm not familiar with the
uk one you're talking about but I think it would depend on what kind of
traffic they actually get. If the final story is "published" and left up
on the site I'd consider it already published. If it's just up for a
short period to allow it to be critiqued that might not be as bad."
--
- Joel C.
"I hate Clocks, I hate they way they tick
They make me nervous, they make me itch.
Man there’s a lott’a things I ain’t done yet."
- Southern Culture on the Skids.
Joel Crum
news:Xns94849E3804E60...@129.250.170.94:
> Since it was just after one such published /
> not published debate. He was OK with peices workshopped on the group.
"I asked his thoughts on the issue" should fall between those sentances.
--
- Joel C.
"I'm glad everybody is sorry. I'm sorry, too; it was a sorry incident."
FCC chief Michael Powell
Alan Walkington
General note: Because I get many emails, please be sure--if your email
program (such as AOL or Yahoo) doesn't do it automatically--to copy and
paste the complete thread of our conversations so I have the best chance of
helping. Thanks so much!
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Walkington [mailto:ur...@walkington.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 7:13 PM
To: Burmeister-Brown, Susan
Subject: Opps! Is it published?
Gentlefolks:
alt.fiction.original is a Usenet newsgroup. It is open to public scrutiny,
and is archived by Google.
Would Glimmertrain consider a story that has been workshopped on that
Dave Allyn
> "That's a tough question, BuffySquirrel. I'm not familiar with the
>uk one you're talking about but I think it would depend on what kind of
>traffic they actually get. If the final story is "published" and left up
>on the site I'd consider it already published. If it's just up for a
>short period to allow it to be critiqued that might not be as bad."
That almost sounds like the group is okay, but the AFO archives make
it "published". Dito for Google.
email: dallyn_spam at yahoo dot com
In the words of Abe Lincoln when asked to review a book
he didn't care for:
"For the people that like that sort of thing, I think it's
just the sort of thing they would like."
Alan Walkington
From: "Lit Pot Press, Inc." <lit...@veryfast.biz>
Reply-To: <lit...@veryfast.biz>
Date: 4 Feb 13:00 (PST)
To: <ur...@walkington.org>
Subject: RE: Oops! Is it published?
Hi Alan,
We accept work that has been shown in private workshops like
Zoetrope or the groups where you need to apply, get a password, and all
such as that. But open to the public? No, that would be considered
published, I would think. And if it's archived, for public
consumption, then yes, it would be published by anyone's standards.
Sorry,
Best
Beverly A. Jackson
Editor-In-Chief/Publisher
lit...@veryfast.biz
Lit Pot Press, Inc.
3909 Reche Rd. #132
Fallbrook, CA 92028
http://www.litpot.com
http://www.litpotpress.com
INK POT, a literary journal
LIT POT, eclectic e-zine
Alan Walkington
Date: 4 Feb 11:20 (PST)
To: ur...@walkington.org
Subject: Re: published or not?
Alan,
I guess my big concern would be wheter the newsgroup is owned by any one
person. Electronic publishing is still a mystery to most print mags because
we dont know whether to consider pieces in electronic form published or
not. Since i am of the mind that electronic media is a great way to get
your work out there, i would have to think that your work is considered
published. However, the loophole being that it is a newsgroup and if
indepenent of anyone, not really published (like writing a poem for a class
and having it published in the school newspaper). I hope i havent made life
seem too complicated,
Jordan Fry, the Harpweaver staff
At 12:46 PM 03/02/04 -0800, you wrote:
>Gentlefolks:
>
>alt.fiction.original is a Usenet newsgroup. It is open
>to public scrutiny, and is archived by Google.
>
>Would you consider a story that has been workshopped on
>that newsgroup to have been 'published'?
>
>If your answer is 'yes', would keeping it off Google's
>archive change your answer?
>
>Thanks
>Alan walkington
Jordan Fry, the Harpweaver staff
(905) 688-5550 ext. 4603
Brock University, office A325
harp...@spartan.ac.brocku.ca
Patrick Null
"Alan Walkington" <homeN...@walkington.net> wrote in message
news:pQdUb.6541394$be.10...@news.easynews.com...
> From: Harpweaver <harp...@spartan.ac.brocku.ca>
> Date: 4 Feb 11:20 (PST)
> To: ur...@walkington.org
> Subject: Re: published or not?
>
> Alan,
>
> I guess my big concern would be wheter the newsgroup is owned by any one
> person. Electronic publishing is still a mystery to most print mags
because
> we dont know whether to consider pieces in electronic form published or
> not. Since i am of the mind that electronic media is a great way to get
> your work out there, i would have to think that your work is considered
> published. However, the loophole being that it is a newsgroup and if
> indepenent of anyone, not really published (like writing a poem for a
class
> and having it published in the school newspaper). I hope i havent made
life
> seem too complicated,
>
> Jordan Fry, the Harpweaver staff
I've read all of these, and I actually like their response the best.
They're honest when they say they don't really know, but they give a good
example of this loophole.
Makes a ton of sense to me.
nativelaw
"Alan Walkington" <homeN...@walkington.net> wrote in message
news:pQdUb.6541394$be.10...@news.easynews.com...
> From: Harpweaver <harp...@spartan.ac.brocku.ca>
> Date: 4 Feb 11:20 (PST)
> To: ur...@walkington.org
> Subject: Re: published or not?
>
Hi Alan,
The results are pretty much what we previously speculated they would be, I
think (we meaning a number of folks who have discussed this topic at AFO
previously.) It was imagined some editors will say yes, some will say no,
and most will say "it depends" and the factors upn which "it depends"
include both editor preference, editor thoughts on where readership is
coming, degree of availability to public, etc.
I would be willing to bet that for every person who previously said no, you
could give them circumstances under which they'd change to a yes, too and
vice versa.
Personally? Why tell so many editors specifically about a.f.o? I think the
queries may be counterproductive, if you want my 2 bits.
Andrea
Joel Crum
$Id.12...@news.easynews.com:
> This is the question I have started e-mailing to editors.
Dang dude, you sure do know a lot of editors! You put a story or two in
front of them as well, right?
--
- Joel C.
"I once asked my wife to pose as a writer's model. I thought it terribly
unfair that artists had models and not writers. So she took off her clothes
and posed in the corner while I wrote. (I didn't get a lot written....)" -
Eric Idle
Alan Walkington
> Personally? Why tell so many editors specifically about a.f.o? I think
the
> queries may be counterproductive, if you want my 2 bits.
>
> Andrea
>
Good point, and I'll stop right now!
Alan
>
Alan Walkington
"Joel Crum" <cru...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:Xns948599E528F6C...@129.250.170.81...
> "Alan Walkington" <homeN...@walkington.net> wrote in news:nfUTb.7398318
> $Id.12...@news.easynews.com:
>
> > This is the question I have started e-mailing to editors.
>
> Dang dude, you sure do know a lot of editors! You put a story or two in
> front of them as well, right?
>
I've stopped waving a.f.o. under their noses, per Andrea's comment.
Alan
doc
It would to me, too, if it weren't for the school newspaper analogy.
Actually, none of any of this subject makes sense to me. At least, it
doesn't when it comes to newsgroups. The idea that posting a story to a
newsgroup also constitiutes prior "publication" is pretty ridiculous, when
you think about it. The closest you could come is to have your post
accepted on a moderated group where you have to meet certain submission
guidelines. On unmoderated groups, anybody can post anything. Does anyone
on AFO seriously think they can claim to be a published author solely based
on their submissions to this group? Seems too much like one of those
college-diplomas-by-mail schemes to me ("Send us $250 and we'll send you a
Genuine PhD in any area you choose from Crankshaft University, accredited
by the AAMOE*!").
Please.
Doesn't matter how ridiculous it may seem, though, if some editors take
usenet group postings as serious publications. To avoid that little
pitfall, just rename your story when you submit it to a paper-type, paying
publisher. Forget reworking the story itself; why should you have to go to
all that trouble just to ease the mind of some paranoid editor who wants to
spend his or her time searching the web to find out if you might just have
posted the same story previously on one of some 86,000+ usenet groups?
I have one advantage that many in this group don't: I post my stories under
a pseudonym, both as author and as poster. Although I _AM_ docfarquar, I
would never use that name if I ever submitted to a paying magazine. That's
something that other aspiring writers might want to take under
consideration: if you're going to leave a trail, then make it as difficult
as you can to follow.
So far, though, it seems that Alan's queries have revealed that most
editors either don't know or don't care if you've already posted your stuff
to usenet. That's encouraging.
A big "Thanks!" to Alan for doing something that's only been discussed on
this group for years. Kinda reminds me of the old Greeks who would discuss
implications for years and years, but never actually go and find out. At
least Alan went and found out.
By the way, you can still call me "doc". All my best friends do and have
for over thirty years.
doc
*American Association of Mail-Order Educators
doc
> "Alan Walkington" <homeN...@walkington.net> wrote in message
> news:pQdUb.6541394$be.10...@news.easynews.com...
> > From: Harpweaver <harp...@spartan.ac.brocku.ca>
> > Date: 4 Feb 11:20 (PST)
> > To: ur...@walkington.org
> > Subject: Re: published or not?
> >
> Hi Alan,
>
> The results are pretty much what we previously speculated they would be,
> I think (we meaning a number of folks who have discussed this topic at
> AFO previously.) It was imagined some editors will say yes, some will say
> no, and most will say "it depends" and the factors upn which "it depends"
> include both editor preference, editor thoughts on where readership is
> coming, degree of availability to public, etc.
That's all true, but at least Alan has provided some info about which
editors to avoid, which to culture, and which to lie to.
>
> I would be willing to bet that for every person who previously said no,
> you could give them circumstances under which they'd change to a yes, too
> and vice versa.
I think that's where the "which to lie to" part comes in.
>
> Personally? Why tell so many editors specifically about a.f.o? I think
> the queries may be counterproductive, if you want my 2 bits.
Joe Konrath has already said that one's principles are secondary to one's
ambitions. I think that's pretty good advice for anyone who's not wedded to
principles; and who is, these days, anyhow? Everything is ephemeral.
I'll pick up Joe's books either at my second-hand book store or at my
library's annual book sale. Each book'll cost me a buck, at the most, and
I'm sure I'll enjoy them greatly at that price. I guess he'll still garnish
a few cents from me through those sales, and I hope he does. But I'd never
pay full price for the formulaic content he's posted to this ng. It's
enjoyable, true, but ultimately unsatisfying, at least to me. Maybe it's
just me. Maybe it's the price he's paid for the the price he's paid.
I don't know, of course.
doc
Joe Konrath
I'll be sure to pick up your books, too.
Er... where can I pick those up?
J
--
WHISKEY SOUR by J.A. Konrath
Coming in hardcover, June 2004, from Hyperion
www.jakonrath.com
"doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:20040204201214.541$R...@newsreader.com...
doc
> Thanks, doc.
You, too, Joe.
>
> I'll be sure to pick up your books, too.
I highly doubt it, Joe; my conceit was even bigger than yours: I wrote a
multi-volume set for the US government on nuclear reactor meltdowns which
included causes, effects, actions, and counter-measures. It's considered
the definitive post-accident tome.
I'm sure you got a _LOT_ more money than I did for your cutesy little
stories, though. Of course, I didn't have to compromise any of my
principles for my meager compensation, like you did.
I guess you win, don't you?
>
> Er... where can I pick those up?
You might try the NRC's site under, "After the Big One."
You could also piss up a rope.
doc
Quadpus
>
> Joe Konrath has already said that one's principles are secondary to one's
> ambitions. I think that's pretty good advice for anyone who's not wedded to
> principles; and who is, these days, anyhow? Everything is ephemeral.
What principles?
The principle of using lots of redundant adverbs? The principle of
writing boring, unengaging openings? The principle of using cliches
'til the cows come home? The principle of recycling tired ideas? The
principle of making self-satisfaction a priority over satisfying the
person who is taking the time to read your story? The principle of
writing shit nobody wants to read and expecting to be paid and
published for it?
I hear a lot of talk about these vaunted principles that are somehow
being violated by treating fiction writing as a marketable skill
instead of some pure distillation of the essence of one's soul, but
nobody ever says just what the hell they _are._
Sure, I saw a copy of "Beverly Hills 90210 Fantasies: A Novel" at my
library's last booksale, and I suppose whoever wrote that probably
felt like something of a whore afterwards, but that's the extreme case
and it's certainly not what anybody is talking about around here.
What _are_ we talking about, here?
Help me understand.
Seymour Grass
"doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
I'd like to see Doc say something like that to, like, Nancy Drew and see
what it gets him-- or I mean, say that to "Carolyn Keene" (who was actually
a man) if he thinks it's kind of "cutesy" for guys like Joe to be writing
about lady detectives. I mean, really, this totally is Doc's way of saying
that Joe might as well be writing "Secret of the Hidden Staircase", isn't
it?
Or perhaps there's more to it than that, an implication of pandering to the
sort of "G. I. Jane" mentality that wants to blur all gender lines into a
kind of wan sexless grayness for a futureworld of hermaphrodites where
neither male nor female are seen anymore to exist?
Well, if that is Doc's implication, to be perfectly frank, I must say that
if there is anything that nauseates me to the extreme, it is an image like
that of Sigourney Weaver in *Aliens* where she's sort of doing a kind of
failed macho swishing waltz while she carries that huge, weird firearm in
her hands--not that there isn't a way for a woman to look sexy and feminine
with a nice, dainty little pearl-handled, shiny nickel-plated revolver in
her hands. Not at all. No, it's only when women start aping (very badly)
the attitudes, swagger and overall physical carriage of men--that's when I
start to sort of gag and wretch.
I mean, I get the same visceral reaction when I see a female impersonator: I
think to myself, like, okay, we've got women, so what do we need with a man
trying to give us a fake version of the real thing, if we can have the real
thing? No, I see no art in it, because I never see it done to
perfection--you can always tell.
When I see a lady cop wearing a typically male uniform and attempting to
perform (but not really succeeding) in a traditionally male role, there's
always just something about the look of that which strikes me as nothing but
transvestitism. And you wonder what on earth is going to happen to the fine
arts of fashion design, interior decoration, needlepoint, all that lovely,
clever Martha Stewart stuff when all the pretty culture of femininity has
been swallowed by the ugly, macho, stinky, sweaty, muscle-bound culture of
men? Women who think that trading roles with men is the realization of
their highest aims as women, got another long think coming. All you get is
the destruction and disappearance of that which is uniquely feminine.
So if "compromising principles" according to Doc means writing to the sort
of fad consciousness that crafts unreal and impossible roles for women to
model their career dreams after, then maybe I can agree that there are some
gender-lines that can be crossed only at the expense of creating ungainly,
clumsy characters than cannot be true to life insomuch as natural,
biological differences just won't let it happen except at the greatest
psychological and sociological cost resulting in weird neurotic syndromes
like anorexia and bulimia, clinical depression at epidemic levels being the
tragic result.
No, I don't like lady detectives aping the masculine style of heroes out of
Hammet and Chandler any more than I could stand to watch some guy ape the
role of Holly Golightly in *Breakfast at Tiffany's". While Hollywood is
scripting all these "powerful" "strong" roles for women, all the delicate
beauty and class that we had in Audrey Hepburn, Juliet Prowse and Leslie
Caron is being sacrificed to a lot of goddam women's basketball and soccer.
I never could stand to look at it and never will--not so long as I can
choose rather to buy a ticket for the Bolshoi ballet, or better yet, the
Zeigfeld Follies (don't I wish).
--
JPDavid http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
"What I'm opposing is the anti-intellectualism of contemporary feminism.
Feminism in its current phase began as a movement of eccentric
individualists, but it has really rigidified into a kind of cult. They're
like Moonies. . . . They're not intellectuals. " Camille Paglia in *Vamps
and Tramps*
doc
> doc <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> >
> > Joe Konrath has already said that one's principles are secondary to
> > one's ambitions. I think that's pretty good advice for anyone who's not
> > wedded to principles; and who is, these days, anyhow? Everything is
> > ephemeral.
>
> What principles?
>
> The principle of using lots of redundant adverbs? The principle of
> writing boring, unengaging openings? The principle of using cliches
> 'til the cows come home? The principle of recycling tired ideas? The
> principle of making self-satisfaction a priority over satisfying the
> person who is taking the time to read your story? The principle of
> writing shit nobody wants to read and expecting to be paid and
> published for it?
No. The principle of repeating, over, and over again. Joe said, himself,
that he just kept at it until he lost his identity and became just another
hack writer. He made big bucks by doing it; you can, too.
Joe couldn't make it by being Joe; he had to change, so he knuckled under
by being ed-Joe; and now he's rich. But he's not Joe anymore and he'll
never be again. Shit. Tom Clancy lives about ten miles from me; he's a
complete dickhead, and he always was, even before he became famous. Joe is
just a Clancy wanna-be. At least Clancy did some serious research.
doc
Seymour Grass
"Quadpus" <qua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f4m320pquc64mhq78...@4ax.com...
| doc <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
| >
| > Joe Konrath has already said that one's principles are secondary to
one's
| > ambitions. I think that's pretty good advice for anyone who's not wedded
to
| > principles; and who is, these days, anyhow? Everything is ephemeral.
|
| What principles?
|
| The principle of using lots of redundant adverbs? The principle of
| writing boring, unengaging openings?
That is not a "principle".
| The principle of using cliches
| 'til the cows come home?
Nor that.
|The principle of recycling tired ideas?
Again, not.
| The
| principle of making self-satisfaction a priority over satisfying the
| person who is taking the time to read your story?
There could be a principle buried in that were it not being couched in terms
that presume a thing that is false, that in order to write to one's own
satisfaction, one must necessarily sacrifice the satisfaction of the reader.
A case in point is the two reviews that are presently on the board here for
*Duck Walk*. The one guy didn't like it because all the references to
various obscure blues artists were unknown to him. Then another review came
in from a guy who, whether he knows about the blues or not, was able to pick
up the groove surrounding all that, anyway. If I were to take the first
man's criticism to heart, I would be barred from every writing about the
things I know that other people don't. But, I always had the absurd notion
of how that was the job of a writer, in part, to inform and to inspire the
minds of others to find out more about more things. I mean, like, shoot me
down dead, for being so presumptuous as to think that literature should, God
forbid, manage to find a way to be informative. How shameful, how uncool!
I don't get it, this presumption implicit in what you say there that there
must be some sort of self-sacrifice of self-satisfaction to the end of
satisfying the "person who is taking the time to read your story?" Man, do
you ever need to get hip to some of the opinions of Ayn Rand who made
hundreds of thousands of dollars on her books by doing precisely the
opposite and preaching about doing the opposite while she was at it. Yes,
her attitude was to say, piss on "the person who is taking the time to read
my story", it's a product that either suits them or it doesn't and if they
don't like it, they know what they can do about it. She wrote to please
herself, and so long as she found herself very well-pleased, so were the
people who were all the more pleased to pick up her book to be further
pleased by that attitude, which she wrote into an entire philosophy.
| The principle of
| writing shit nobody wants to read and expecting to be paid and
| published for it?
Who is this ephemeral "nobody"? Again, you have nothing suiting the
definition of a principle there. That concept you have of "nobody" is
really *everybody*, or "most people", the mass audience that will not read a
work that in the least way tests their mental acumen; you're referencing a
public that persists at the lowest common denominator of a pulp fiction
interest, but you make a false presumption that an author needs everybody,
or most people to like his books in order for his books to be marketable.
How large a percentage of the reading public do you suppose is interested,
ten years after the death of Jerry Garcia to read the authorized biography
of the Grateful Dead? I'll bet you it's a figure of less than one percent.
Is McNally writing to please everybody? Hell no. No, *he* has an interest
in the Grateful Dead and he doesn't give a damn what *you* are interested
in. He is interested in writing for the people who share *his* interests,
and even though far from everybody is going to share that interest there are
going to be enough of those people out there to cram a few hundred thousand
dollars into his bank account for him. You totally do not have to please
*most people*. You can write with the aim of displeasing most people, and
make a bundle by it.
Nothing can be more bogus than the notion that an author like 'owes' his
audience something, anything, other than that he should be true to his own
interests, his own voice, his own message, what he as an individual has to
say. And where is the "principle" in that? It is strictly in not allowing
anybody to come along to convince him that he needs to sacrifice any of that
to some delusionary notion that there is a public out there with specific
needs to be met which demand an end to this author's self-satisfaction--and
worse, far worse than that, is to think that the patron of one's creative
endeavor is doing the author a favor. Are you kidding? That patron is
doing nothing except paying his money for a product that is damned well
worth every cent he lays down--if he lays it down. It is the author who has
done the favor, by doing the huge job of work it took to turn that book out.
Man, do you ever need to get out and rent you a video of *The Fountainhead*
so that you can wash your mind clean of all these phony notions of some kind
of ill-conceived "altruism", this sort of debt owed to the public you got
clogging up your head. The most often debt the public is owed is a good
swift kick in the ass.
|
| I hear a lot of talk about these vaunted principles that are somehow
| being violated by treating fiction writing as a marketable skill
| instead of some pure distillation of the essence of one's soul, but
| nobody ever says just what the hell they _are._
You got nothing there but a false dichotomy. You got attitudes in that
which serve some hostile sense you have in your head that has no basis in
reality.
|
| Sure, I saw a copy of "Beverly Hills 90210 Fantasies: A Novel" at my
| library's last booksale, and I suppose whoever wrote that probably
| felt like something of a whore afterwards, but that's the extreme case
| and it's certainly not what anybody is talking about around here.
|
| What _are_ we talking about, here?
|
| Help me understand.
There is nothing difficult to understand about a sacrifice of principle.
Either you get it or you don't.
--
John http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/ http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"They held even this, thus: namely, True Nature is that which does not
mislead another. And Wisdom is that which does not mislead itself. And
Conscientiousness is that which when it recognizes virtue, performs it." --
Zoroaster
doc
> "doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:20040204232328.426$l...@newsreader.com...
> | "Joe Konrath" <hak...@comcast.net> wrote:
> | > Thanks, doc.
> |
> | You, too, Joe.
> |
> | >
> | > I'll be sure to pick up your books, too.
> |
> | I highly doubt it, Joe; my conceit was even bigger than yours: I wrote
> | a multi-volume set for the US government on nuclear reactor meltdowns
> | which included causes, effects, actions, and counter-measures. It's
> | considered the definitive post-accident tome.
> |
> | I'm sure you got a _LOT_ more money than I did for your cutesy little
> | stories, though. Of course, I didn't have to compromise any of my
> | principles for my meager compensation, like you did.
> |
> | I guess you win, don't you?
> |
> | >
> | > Er... where can I pick those up?
> |
> | You might try the NRC's site under, "After the Big One."
> |
> | You could also piss up a rope.
>
> I'd like to see Doc say something like that to, like, Nancy Drew and see
> what it gets him-- or I mean, say that to "Carolyn Keene" (who was
> actually a man) if he thinks it's kind of "cutesy" for guys like Joe to
> be writing about lady detectives. I mean, really, this totally is Doc's
> way of saying that Joe might as well be writing "Secret of the Hidden
> Staircase", isn't it?
>
You could apply your "Junior G-Man" kit to anyone's post, couldn't you
John? But you chose me because I've been less than positive about your
recent contributions. So, it's nothing more than evens-up, right?
Fact is, I've been waiting for you to be you, not Faulkner or Hemingway or
anyone in between. Just be you.
We can trade insults, of course, and we have. If you like to keep score,
then you're way ahead of me. Makes you feel great, I'm sure. But I still
keep your description of coming down from the Andes to the shore. That was
masterful storytelling, John.
So, what do you have, lately, that makes me want to care like I did before?
doc
Quadpus
>
> No. The principle of repeating, over, and over again. Joe said, himself,
> that he just kept at it until he lost his identity and became just another
> hack writer. He made big bucks by doing it; you can, too.
>
> Joe couldn't make it by being Joe; he had to change, so he knuckled under
> by being ed-Joe; and now he's rich. But he's not Joe anymore and he'll
> never be again. Shit. Tom Clancy lives about ten miles from me; he's a
> complete dickhead, and he always was, even before he became famous. Joe is
> just a Clancy wanna-be. At least Clancy did some serious research.
I still don't get it.
What was Joe before that he isn't now?
Is the change from not-acceptable to acceptable to publishers always a
de facto change for the worse? Why? I mean, this smacks to me of a
knee-jerk anti-business attitude that I wouldn't have associated with
you; you come across as a fairly conservative guy.
So what's the deal? What aspect of Joe's identity do you see him as
having lost?
Quadpus
>
> There could be a principle buried in that were it not being couched in terms
> that presume a thing that is false, that in order to write to one's own
> satisfaction, one must necessarily sacrifice the satisfaction of the reader.
> A case in point is the two reviews that are presently on the board here for
> *Duck Walk*. The one guy didn't like it because all the references to
> various obscure blues artists were unknown to him. Then another review came
> in from a guy who, whether he knows about the blues or not, was able to pick
> up the groove surrounding all that, anyway. If I were to take the first
> man's criticism to heart, I would be barred from every writing about the
> things I know that other people don't. But, I always had the absurd notion
> of how that was the job of a writer, in part, to inform and to inspire the
> minds of others to find out more about more things. I mean, like, shoot me
> down dead, for being so presumptuous as to think that literature should, God
> forbid, manage to find a way to be informative. How shameful, how uncool!
And that is something good writers can often do: take something that
the reader previously had no interest in and _make_ her interested.
And of course there's nothing wrong with writing to please oneself and
not giving a fig about what any hypothetical readers might think --
but you can hardly be surprised if that sort of thing doesn't get
snapped up by a commercial publisher.
> Who is this ephemeral "nobody"? Again, you have nothing suiting the
> definition of a principle there. That concept you have of "nobody" is
> really *everybody*, or "most people", the mass audience that will not read a
> work that in the least way tests their mental acumen; you're referencing a
> public that persists at the lowest common denominator of a pulp fiction
> interest, but you make a false presumption that an author needs everybody,
> or most people to like his books in order for his books to be marketable.
> How large a percentage of the reading public do you suppose is interested,
> ten years after the death of Jerry Garcia to read the authorized biography
> of the Grateful Dead? I'll bet you it's a figure of less than one percent.
> Is McNally writing to please everybody? Hell no. No, *he* has an interest
> in the Grateful Dead and he doesn't give a damn what *you* are interested
> in. He is interested in writing for the people who share *his* interests,
> and even though far from everybody is going to share that interest there are
> going to be enough of those people out there to cram a few hundred thousand
> dollars into his bank account for him. You totally do not have to please
> *most people*. You can write with the aim of displeasing most people, and
> make a bundle by it.
But if McNally goes off on a ten-page tangent about the mating habits
of the three-toed sloth, it would be entirely reasonable for his
editor to suggest that he cut that part out, because his audience is
people who want a book about Jerry Garcia. I'm not referencing the
lowest common denominator, I'm referencing the intended audience of
the story, and I do think the writer has something of an obligation to
engage and hold the interest of that audience, whether by meeting
their expectations or by challenging them, if he expects to be read
and appreciated.
> Man, do you ever need to get out and rent you a video of *The Fountainhead*
> so that you can wash your mind clean of all these phony notions of some kind
> of ill-conceived "altruism", this sort of debt owed to the public you got
> clogging up your head. The most often debt the public is owed is a good
> swift kick in the ass.
This isn't about altruism, it's about having reasonable expectations
when one is entreating a business which exists for the sake of its own
profits to invest thousands of dollars in the printing and
distribution of one's work. If you're shouldering your own publishing
burdens, no constraints need apply. If you're expecting Knopf to do it
for you, and pay you an advance for the privilege, you'd damn well
better at least have some idea of who your audience is and why your
book is worth their time and money.
I'll rent "The Fountainhead" if you rent "Heartbeeps." Deal?
> There is nothing difficult to understand about a sacrifice of principle.
> Either you get it or you don't.
Much as I enjoyed reading and responding to what you've had to say, I
still don't see what principles are being violated by conforming to
the needs of the publisher one wants to extract money and printing
services from.
Hell, it's a big world out there, and a hell of a lot of books that
would never fly with the supermarket-paperback-reading crowd get
published. The idea that one has to make their fiction bland and
simplistic enough to be marketable to every bored commuter and soccer
mom out there is patently false.
doc
> doc <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> >
> > No. The principle of repeating, over, and over again. Joe said,
> > himself, that he just kept at it until he lost his identity and became
> > just another hack writer. He made big bucks by doing it; you can, too.
> >
> > Joe couldn't make it by being Joe; he had to change, so he knuckled
> > under by being ed-Joe; and now he's rich. But he's not Joe anymore and
> > he'll never be again. Shit. Tom Clancy lives about ten miles from me;
> > he's a complete dickhead, and he always was, even before he became
> > famous. Joe is just a Clancy wanna-be. At least Clancy did some serious
> > research.
>
> I still don't get it.
Joe wants to tell us how to be as successful as he's been, but he still
doesn't have a clue as to what that means. Joe's a reject; about 6000 times
over ten years, by his own accounting. That's a winning formula?
Puh-lease.
Tom Clancy lives about seven miles from me; he'd have Joe polishing his
boots, and Joe would do it with a spit-shine.
No. I don't care for Clancy, even though he's my neighbor. But I care for
Konrath less; at least Clancy isn't a pedantic ass-kisser. And I don't like
Tom Clancy.
doc
nativelaw
"doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:20040204201214.541$R...@newsreader.com...
Where, doc? And show me that is what he meant?
This guy is 100% heart. You should be applauding, or at the very least if
you don't agree with what he's saying, helping him, doc, and putting forth
another point of view respectfully, not attacking him.
If you don't agree with what he set his sights on and wanted for his own or
if you don't like his writing, you sink really low to attack his moral
character for it. You don't even know Joe. Or is this just posting while
intoxicated again and you'll come back with another huge apology in two
days? C'mon, doc, you're better than this.
Joe is doing everything he can to give back to the community, to teach, to
help others achieve the kind of success he has achieved. If they don't feel
that his kind of success is "success" they won't bother. If they don't like
his style of story they won't read it. Insulting the man accomplishes
nothing but get people pissed off at you, doc. Joe is a wonderful guy and a
very good writer and he is also intelligent enough to see for himself if
there are limitations in his formulas and he'll be the first to admit them.
He is supporting his family doing just like every other person out there and
he also busts his butt to help other people every day. Tell me Tom Clancy is
busting his ass in a community college, offering free seminars and free tips
to others to help them get where he is? Tell me Tom Clancy runs around
saying, "I'm just a poor dumb schmuck, if I can do it, you can too?" No one
is as humble and self-effacing and as encouraging to others as Joe is. He
wants everyone to be as successful as he has been. If you think he's wrong,
you can say so nicely. Don't say he's evil or morally bankrupt as that's
just a crock of shit, doc.
I'm not going to insult your book or your principles doc but I'd sure as
hell rather see you writing stories like you used to than either writing
about nuclear reactors or writing shit about friends.
Andrea
P.S. We have to stop meeting like this. You know? I sure wish you would
put up some more of yourstories and show others who haven't experienced the
doc stories that you know how to write and not just to yell at people and
blindside them.
Huw Lyan Thomas
docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com says...
> Quadpus <qua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > doc <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > No. The principle of repeating, over, and over again. Joe said,
> > > himself, that he just kept at it until he lost his identity and became
> > > just another hack writer. He made big bucks by doing it; you can, too.
I probably missed this post of Joe's.
> > > Joe couldn't make it by being Joe; he had to change, so he knuckled
> > > under by being ed-Joe; and now he's rich. But he's not Joe anymore and
> > > he'll never be again. Shit. Tom Clancy lives about ten miles from me;
> > > he's a complete dickhead, and he always was, even before he became
> > > famous. Joe is just a Clancy wanna-be. At least Clancy did some serious
> > > research.
> >
> > I still don't get it.
>
> Joe wants to tell us how to be as successful as he's been, but he still
> doesn't have a clue as to what that means. Joe's a reject; about 6000 times
> over ten years, by his own accounting. That's a winning formula?
So, the only way to succeed with honour is to succeed first time, au-
naturel as it were. Anyone who succeeds through adaptation has sold out.
Does this apply just to writing, I wonder, or can it be extended to
other areas like getting a job, or a date, or out of the primaeval
slime?
A bit of a downer for the entire evolutionary process, that last one.
To me, this debate comes down to
"keep trying different things until I get it right"
vs
"keep doing the same thing that gets it wrong(*)".
In every field -- not just in writing -- the first approach is more
likely to lead to a good outcome. Sadly, many humans choose the second
approach, because it leads to less short-term discomfort.
* there's a value judgement implicit in this "right" and "wrong". It's
one that applies to those who want to get published, who worry if
"publication" on AFO will scotch their chances, who write letters to
rejection sites bemoaning the rude notes they got from editors. It's one
that's irrelevant to those who write for other reasons.
--
Huw
http://huw.hexlibris.com
Seymour Grass
"nativelaw" <REMOVEn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvta0h$10g5j6$1...@ID-198738.news.uni-berlin.de...
| > Joe Konrath has already said that one's principles are secondary to
one's
| > ambitions.
|
| Where, doc? And show me that is what he meant?
|
| This guy is 100% heart. You should be applauding, or at the very least if
| you don't agree with what he's saying, helping him, doc, and putting forth
| another point of view respectfully, not attacking him.
That's an attack to say Doc is "attacking". That is totally an attack and a
far more serious thing than just some strongly stated disagreement--unless
you think you can make a federal case out of telling somebody to "go piss up
a rope." What you do is by far the more injurious, to charge, as you
certainly do, that there is something, like <insert lip smacking, nasal
quality of tone> socially "inappropriate" about such strongly worded
disagreement. But your intent is censorious with authoritarian overtones
which palpably contain a threat of ostracism. And that is not mere
disagreement, it is totally an *attack*. So why don't *you* go "piss up a
rope," Andrea--or just sort of pee down it, as gender issues are duly
considered?
|
| If you don't agree with what he set his sights on and wanted for his own
or
| if you don't like his writing, you sink really low to attack his moral
| character for it.
Pshaw! How dare you suggest that questions about morality are verboten in
public discourse? Who the hell are you to make up the rules? Or i.e. why
should you be our Moses, rather than a genius like Ayn Rand, eh? Dig what
she has to say as she asks the question, *How Does One Lead a Rational Life
in an Irrational Society?* . . .
"I will name only one principle, the opposite of the idea which is so
prevalent today and which is responsible for the spread of evil in the
world. That principle is: One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.
Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture of a man's character as
thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must
never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of
anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil."
June '64 The Ayn Rand Letter
So, why are you attacking Ayn Rand, Andrea? Why are you trying to tell her
what she can or cannot do, and okay, like who the hell do you think you are,
anyway, with all this mewling, mawkish, jive of fake altruism that comes
spewing forth from your wet lips under a dewy eye once again? I mean crap
like this . . .
| Joe is doing everything he can to give back to the community . . .
Schtupp the community. What the hell is the goddam "community"? The
stinking "community" is the outfit that sets the date for the execution of
the Rosenbergs on their wedding anniversary--there's your lovely goddam
community. This lovely community of ours which presided over the massacre
at Wounded Knee? Tell your community to go piss up a rope, Andrea. The
"community" was that gaggle of gobbling geese that conducted the Salem Witch
Trials. Not a far cry from that to what you appear to have in mind for Doc.
Dig it, Andrea: think of the name of the Shakespeare character, "Puck",
then imagine the letter 'f' in place of the 'p' and put that in front of
your beloved, bourgeois, brain dead, pea-picking "community". Okay?
<snip a lot of sentimental slop>
--
JP David http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
Asked to construct a spur of the moment sentence containing the word
'horticulture', Mrs. Dotty Parker was heard to quickly quip: "You can lead a
horticulture but you cannot make her think."
nativelaw
"Seymour Grass" <JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
news:bvu88m$10fhja$1...@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "nativelaw" <REMOVEn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bvta0h$10g5j6$1...@ID-198738.news.uni-berlin.de...
> | > Joe Konrath has already said that one's principles are secondary to
> one's
> | > ambitions.
> |
> | Where, doc? And show me that is what he meant?
> |
> | This guy is 100% heart. You should be applauding, or at the very least
if
> | you don't agree with what he's saying, helping him, doc, and putting
forth
> | another point of view respectfully, not attacking him.
>
> That's an attack to say Doc is "attacking". That is totally an attack and
a
> far more serious thing than just some strongly stated disagreement--unless
> you think you can make a federal case out of telling somebody to "go piss
up
> a rope."
<snip>
<whew>
I'll grant you one thing, John...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
i c e
i n
w i n t e r.
<g>
Other than that, as Dave Mason once said, I guess We Just Disagree.
Andrea
Miki Kocic
Huw Lyan Thomas wrote:
> So, the only way to succeed with honour is to succeed first time, au-
> naturel as it were. Anyone who succeeds through adaptation has sold out.
> Does this apply just to writing, I wonder, or can it be extended to
> other areas like getting a job, or a date, or out of the primaeval
> slime?
Well, the Bible tells us a little anecdote about that. It's set in the
Garden of Eden. Eve and Adam definitely adapted.
Martin Heidegger, who certainly was no Bible-thumper, insisted to the
day of his death that philosophy was at its pinnacle in the time of the
Presocratics and has been in decline ever since. It has adapted, and
therefore it has wandered steadily away from what it's supposed to be.
Today it's pretty much dead.
My experience, and my observation of many people, has been that life
grinds you down. Every birthday is a wake for hopes, dreams, and
principles sacrificed on the altar of survival. At age 38 I no longer
remember what I aspired to when I was 18, except for the vague
impression that I was single-handedly going to make the world a better
place for everyone in it. But i am definitely a survivor. All I've
ever met are people who survived.
Perhaps we need a psychic medium on this NG so we can hear from people
who never sacrificed even a single piece of themselves - and therefore
quickly died, as 99.999% of such people do.
In the meantime, I'm glum because I refuse to rationalize just so I can
make myself feel better.
Miki
Huw Lyan Thomas
viathna...@sympatico.ca says...
> Huw Lyan Thomas wrote:
>
> > So, the only way to succeed with honour is to succeed first time, au-
> > naturel as it were. Anyone who succeeds through adaptation has sold out.
> > Does this apply just to writing, I wonder, or can it be extended to
> > other areas like getting a job, or a date, or out of the primaeval
> > slime?
>
> Well, the Bible tells us a little anecdote about that. It's set in the
> Garden of Eden. Eve and Adam definitely adapted.
Some believe that the loss of innocence was the worst tragedy ever to
befall the human race.
My own interpretation is that, in this parable, it's what made humans
human.
> Martin Heidegger, who certainly was no Bible-thumper, insisted to the
> day of his death that philosophy was at its pinnacle in the time of the
> Presocratics and has been in decline ever since. It has adapted, and
> therefore it has wandered steadily away from what it's supposed to be.
> Today it's pretty much dead.
A particular ancient Greek Goddes might have sprung fully-armed from her
father's head, but I don't believe that ancient Greek philosophy did. A
pinnacle implies a process of change on both the uphill and downhill
slopes.
> My experience, and my observation of many people, has been that life
> grinds you down. Every birthday is a wake for hopes, dreams, and
> principles sacrificed on the altar of survival. At age 38 I no longer
> remember what I aspired to when I was 18, except for the vague
> impression that I was single-handedly going to make the world a better
> place for everyone in it. But i am definitely a survivor. All I've
> ever met are people who survived.
I'm not sure if you mean "survive" literally, as in, people must choose
between self-sacrifice and extinction, but you're using "survive" when I
would use "succeed". Maybe it's because I live in a welfare state.
You also seem to be saying that the abandonment of youthful ideals is
some form of selling out (I can't really judge; my youthful ideals were
to have fun until the early hours and then stay in bed until noon and
borrow the notes for the morning's lectures. In this matter I remain
true to myself, apart from no longer requiring the notes).
To the extent that I *do* now get up earlier on occasion, I think this
is probably an improvement rather than a sell-out <g>
> Perhaps we need a psychic medium on this NG so we can hear from people
> who never sacrificed even a single piece of themselves - and therefore
> quickly died, as 99.999% of such people do.
Unless satisfying your requirement for information counted as a
sacrifice of their time :-)
> In the meantime, I'm glum because I refuse to rationalize just so I can
> make myself feel better.
Don't worry, you'll probably feel better when you hit 40 <vbg>
--
Huw
http://huw.hexlibris.com
Miki Kocic
Huw Lyan Thomas wrote:
> Some believe that the loss of innocence was the worst tragedy ever to
> befall the human race.
>
> My own interpretation is that, in this parable, it's what made humans
> human.
I think both viewpoints are correct. No one can prove for sure whether
the loss of innocence in the Garden of Eden ever happened historically,
and barring time travel, I don't think anyone ever will. But loss of
innocence happens in many lives and has the same tragic personal outcome
as what happened to Adam and Eve. When I was overdosing on Nietzsche
early in 2003, I wondered whether what we call "learning experiences" or
becoming better people as a result of unpleasant experience isn't a
rationalization so we can put the loss of innocence behind us, lest the
pain of that loss overwhelm us and make us unable to function. From
what you say below, this isn't a universal experience, because you don't
seem to have had it, but it has definitely been my experience and that
of other people I've dealt with.
I think I've blocked out the memory of what I hoped to accomplish when I
was in my teens. The closest I get to remembering is that the world was
going to become paradise based on what I did. The details would
probably be too painful to deal with right now. But I can write decent
fiction with very little effort - and I'm by far the laziest contributor
to AFO - and that fiction can make a few readers feel a little bit
better for a few moments. That's probably why I refuse to compromise
when it comes to my writing. A second loss of innocence would be
unbearable.
> A particular ancient Greek Goddes might have sprung fully-armed from her
> father's head, but I don't believe that ancient Greek philosophy did. A
> pinnacle implies a process of change on both the uphill and downhill
> slopes.
I'm no expert on Heidegger, but he definitely saw Socrates as a decline
from Thales. What went on before Thales is lost in the mists of time.
Heck, even Aristotle is mostly lost in the mists of time - about all we
have of his work is lecture notes that Renaissance scholars compiled
into books. So I think the question of whether Heidegger is right will
remain forever open for simple lack of evidence.
> I'm not sure if you mean "survive" literally, as in, people must choose
> between self-sacrifice and extinction, but you're using "survive" when I
> would use "succeed". Maybe it's because I live in a welfare state.
Suppose someone has never told a lie. He gets his first job. On his
first day at work, he has a choice between lying to the client or
getting fired. He lies to the client and keeps his job until he gets a
better one in three or four years. One might say that he has succeeded,
because he is building a progressive career. One might also say that he
has merely chosen the path of survival, because he is now a liar. And
with every lie the lying gets easier until he loses the ability to know
within himself what is true. I would say that's an almost universal
experience in office work.
Regarding your welfare state comment: I'm proud that I don't know how to
take free money. I've been holding down a job since I was 14 years old
except when I was sick or in school. The one time I tried to apply for
social assistance, I filled out the form and was immediately told I'd
have to wait three months for the first cheque. The intake worker
expected me to wail and moan and complain that my children were
starving, so she'd eventually agree to make me wait only one and a half
months. She was accustomed to people stooping to anything in order to
save themselves. I simply walked out, and I still remember the
astonishment on her face as she watched me leave. I've been friends
with about a dozen people on social assistance, and they radiate a sense
of entitlement that is completely foreign to me. Whatever they may
think of their impoverished, miserable lives, they behave as if they
have a natural right to get money for nothing. They have no choice.
> Don't worry, you'll probably feel better when you hit 40 <vbg>
A friend of mine tells me he hit 40, looked in the mirror while shaving,
and thought: "What's the big deal?" He had shaved the day before and
didn't notice any difference. I suspect my experience will be
identical. I've already had my midlife crisis.
Miki
R. Westermeyer
<JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote:
It must be terrible to have presumption not only constantly hanging
between you and reality like a piece of plywood, but also smacking you
in your blah-blah-cunt every few seconds.
Seymour Grass
Herr Reichsminister "R. Festermeyer" <rweste...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:pau720hotn5ulv07d...@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:15:15 -0600, "Seymour Grass"
| <JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote:
|
|
| It must be terrible to have presumption not only constantly hanging
| between you and reality like a piece of plywood, but also smacking you
| in your blah-blah-cunt every few seconds.
|
One more time . . .
| >Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate culture or a man's character as
| >thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one
must
| >never pass moral judgment on others."
| >June '64 The Ayn Rand Letter
| >
|| >Schtupp the community. What the hell is the goddam "community"? The
| >stinking "community" is the outfit that sets the date for the execution
of
| >the Rosenbergs on their wedding anniversary--there's your lovely goddam
| >community. This lovely community of ours which presided over the
massacre
| >at Wounded Knee? Tell your community to go piss up a rope. The
| >"community" was that gaggle of gabbling geese that conducted the Salem
Witch
| >Trials.
|>Think of the name of the Shakespeare character, "Puck",
| >then imagine the letter 'f' in place of the 'p' and do some of that to
| >your beloved, bourgeois, brain dead, pea-picking "community". Okay?
Hurry up! Get it up and get down. Your community needs you, wants you, it
pants for it. Give it what you got.
Upon occasion of hearing a man confess to having spoken as a 'total
asshole', one anonymous rake thinking himself very witty was heard to say,
"Yes, well, we are often left with no other option than to let our assholes
speak for themselves. And if, ever so often our mouths should begin to speak
for our assholes, there is very little surprise in that. Let us only dread
the day when the Good Lord decides to permanently seal our mouths so that
only our assholes are left speaking for us, in the subway, the elevator, the
studios at CNN, upon occasion of every political speech and presidential
address. Some might suppose, and not without exquisite reason, that we have
long since come to the Age of the Speaking Asshole, when giving 'Peace a
Chance' will call for nothing more than an international boycott on beans."
Huw Lyan Thomas
viathna...@sympatico.ca says...
> > I'm not sure if you mean "survive" literally, as in, people must choose
> > between self-sacrifice and extinction, but you're using "survive" when I
> > would use "succeed". Maybe it's because I live in a welfare state.
>
> Suppose someone has never told a lie. He gets his first job. On his
> first day at work, he has a choice between lying to the client or
> getting fired. He lies to the client and keeps his job until he gets a
> better one in three or four years. One might say that he has succeeded,
> because he is building a progressive career. One might also say that he
> has merely chosen the path of survival, because he is now a liar.
Only if his alternative was starving on the street, which typically it
ain't. In all other cases, we're talking about (perceived) betterment as
opposed to literal survival. Usually, what happens is that an office
liar exchanges integrity for short-term career gain, which is no kind of
exchange at all (but see my comment below).
> And
> with every lie the lying gets easier until he loses the ability to know
> within himself what is true. I would say that's an almost universal
> experience in office work.
In the absence of a truly exceptional upbringing, the opportunities to
seemingly better one's position through lying start shortly after
learning to speak and contine through school life and beyond. In my
experience, the value a person places on truth is formed long before the
first job, and someone who has resisted the temptation all the way into
adulthood will most likely continue to do so.
I concede that it's possible for a usually-honest person to be made
less-honest by career pressure. In that case, I'd say that the real
problem lies in the societal context (commitments, employment law, job
options) rather than the specific pressure to lie. Ironically, welfare
states -- for all their undoubted flaws -- protect employees from these
pressures more effectively than capitalism red in tooth and claw.
[pasting out of order]
> But I can write decent
> fiction with very little effort - and I'm by far the laziest contributor
> to AFO - and that fiction can make a few readers feel a little bit
> better for a few moments. That's probably why I refuse to compromise
> when it comes to my writing. A second loss of innocence would be
> unbearable.
This, taken with your points about lies, suggests to me that you might
perceive writers as purveyors of personal truth, and that market-driven
adaptation corrupts this truth.
Now, I don't think I'm a bad writer, but I have neither the ambition nor
the talent to be a teller of great truths. What I hope for is to do a
workmanlike job on a story or two, and have people enjoy them and maybe
throw some coins my way.
I believe that a writer who genuinely seeks to touch lives outside his
immediate circle would do well to heed the demands of the marketplace.
--
Huw
http://huw.hexlibris.com
doc
> P.S. We have to stop meeting like this. You know? I sure wish you
> would put up some more of yourstories and show others who haven't
> experienced the doc stories that you know how to write and not just to
> yell at people and blindside them.
I'm not a writer, Andrea; I'm a dilettante. I don't even save the stories
I've written. But I enjoy well-written stories by others, whether they be
famous or not.
I am good at yelling at people, though. It's not a skill in particularly
great demand, I admit, but it serves a purpose. I'm not always right, of
course; that would be too much to expect from anyone. But whenever I sense
that there's a mass swing to any one side, my alarms go off and I say
something that's going to upset someone. I think that's essential to avoid
the kind of groupthink that's led to so many human tragedies.
By the way, there's no such thing as blind-siding. If we don't think about
what we say, then we're open to any comments, good or bad, from those who
do. It's our ability to think that separates us from every other species on
this world. If we say something without thinking, then we're liable. That
applies to me, you, and Joe Konrath.
doc
R. Westermeyer
I think I'm coming in very late in this thread, but it seems that "the
"topic" is how much a writer should compromise. I think it depends on
many variables. I am a terrible speller and grammatically impaired big
time, and any help in that department is always accepted, as it does
not compromise anything, it only improves it. Substantive revisions,
well, that's a different issue. Depends on what you want as a writer,
and what kind of a writer you are. If you're passionate about writing,
and want to tell a straight-forward story, I would think editorial
advice, even altering the storyline, ending, etc, would be okay, and
wouldn't be viewed as compromise, as you both have called it, but
rather collaboration. Watercolor class a long time ago, I was in the
middle of a painting, and the teacher made direct recommendations
about the color values I was using. Darkened the shit out of it.
Changed the painting entirely, but I didn't look at it as compromise.
Still my painting.
Speaking for myself as an experimental writer, I dont' tell
straight-forward stories, and advice from someone to change what I
consider the art of it is often politely refused, as changing it would
be compromise. It may mean I never get a six figure deal with my
fiction, but that's not why I write fiction. It's self-stimulation
(someone in this thread said that's childish), and the fervent desire
to find someone who is equally stimulated. Changing the stimulation
level of your art to match someone else's, well, that just sounds like
a drag. I remember writing my dissertation. Three chairpersons telling
me what and how to write. What a drag.
--R
doc
> On 05 Feb 2004 08:50:03 GMT, doc <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> I think I'm coming in very late in this thread, but it seems that "the
> "topic" is how much a writer should compromise. I think it depends on
> many variables. I am a terrible speller and grammatically impaired big
> time, and any help in that department is always accepted, as it does
> not compromise anything, it only improves it.
Yeah, you could use a little help on spelling and grammar and I can't
figure how you got through college without it, but you definitely have
ideas and imagination.
Compromise?
You never compromise when there's a principle involved. You might lose by
not getting published, but you'll never lose by staying true to your
beliefs. The problem with today's culture is shifting beliefs; whatever's
popular is also correct: don't believe in anything so you can believe in
everything. Where is the trust? Where is the honor? Or are trust and honor
so old-fashioned concepts that we can just dispose of them like empty beer
cans?
No, Bob; you have to compromise on spelling and on grammar; you need the
help. Don't compromise on your mind, though; that's what makes you Bob, not
some mindless fucking hack.
doc
Miki Kocic
R. Westermeyer wrote:
> Speaking for myself as an experimental writer, I dont' tell
> straight-forward stories, and advice from someone to change what I
> consider the art of it is often politely refused, as changing it would
> be compromise. It may mean I never get a six figure deal with my
> fiction, but that's not why I write fiction. It's self-stimulation
> (someone in this thread said that's childish), and the fervent desire
> to find someone who is equally stimulated. Changing the stimulation
> level of your art to match someone else's, well, that just sounds like
> a drag. I remember writing my dissertation. Three chairpersons telling
> me what and how to write. What a drag.
You may be correct that there is no single right way about it. The
beauty of the situation most of us find ourselves in is that we truly do
have a choice with non-lethal consequences. At a paying job, you either
slut your ass or get fired. Just ask that guy who's testifying
against Martha Stewart right now - he was forced by his boss to disclose
privileged information to Stewart, then later forced by the police to
turn stoolie or face prison. But a person is free to become a
businessman and make a living writing, or stick to his guns and write
for pleasure in his spare time. He isn't forced to become a
businessman-writer in order to avoid starving on the street, the way it
is with most situations. Almost all of us have day jobs we're good at
and have become accustomed to, so the choice to write commercially or be
true to oneself is a genuine choice. I find that a heartening fact in a
largely disheartening world.
Miki
doc
>
> Where, doc? And show me that is what he meant?
From four different messages:
"If I continued serving my muse rather than putting on that business hat, I
wouldn't be on Amazon."
"I like integrity, Bob. But I also like going to Amazon.com and seeing my
name."
"How much are you willing to compromise to break in? Your odds get better,
the more you're willing to bend."
"There's nothing wrong with writing what you want, and doing it your way,
if it makes you happy. But don't expect to sell much."
Andrea, I'm a capitalist. I see nothing wrong with making money from one's
efforts. I applaud it.
I just happen to be in the minority that believes that integrity and profit
aren't mutually exclusive.
And I don't think that Joe Konrath has those same beliefs. That's fine for
him; it's not fine for me. I'm not saying that Joe is unethical; he's very
clear in his beliefs, and they're quite legal. But I have a problem with
anyone who's willing to compromise themselves for money, no matter how
legal it may be. Call me an idealist.
Maybe I just don't care about seeing my name on Amazon.com; maybe I just
don't care about seeing my name anywhere. It's a big thing for Joe; it's
not for me. I only want to go out knowing that I stood for something. No
one will ever look up my name and say, "He wrote stories." I really don't
care about that. I'd rather they say, "He had principles, and he adhered
to them." Yeah, and pissed people off because of them.
You know my situation with a very special little lady. I'll never see my
efforts come to fruition with her, but I hope to God she remembers that the
strength of character I've tried to instill in her will provide some
guidance when she has to make some very hard, but unpopular, decisions.
"Putting on that business hat" rather than following the muse would be
pretty hard to swallow.
doc
Alaric
"Huw Lyan Thomas" <hth...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a8e37852...@192.168.0.1...
> immediate circle would do well to heed the demands of the marketplace.
Dead on.
Alaric
> Much as I enjoyed reading and responding to what you've had to say, I
> still don't see what principles are being violated by conforming to
> the needs of the publisher one wants to extract money and printing
> services from.
I agree, Brian. And like you, I suspect, the principle of not kicking sand
in the face of a helpful guy like Joe Konrath who happens to have got
somewhere by doing a skilful job of work is one I'll stand by.
I'll buy your book, Joe, when it reaches the UK, and it'll have pride of
place next to Bob Sloan's. When guys I know get somewhere, it makes me feel
good. Simple as that.
Alaric
other foot.
"Seymour Grass" <JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
news:bvu88m$10fhja$1...@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
doc
Bullshit. That just makes the writer a cheerleader, and the world is
already full of them. If you genuinely seek to touch lives, then deliver a
message that gives people hope.
doc
Patrick Null
"doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
Nope. It is dead on, doc. If you don't heed to the demands of the
marketplace, editors won't buy your manuscripts, you won't get published,
and then you won't touch any lives at all, will you? Indeed, the only fancy
you'll be tickling is your own, and that goes against the whole "writing to
touch people's lives" idealogy, doesn't it?
Alan Walkington
> Joe Konrath has already said that one's principles are secondary to one's
to
> principles; and who is, these days, anyhow? Everything is ephemeral.
>
> library's annual book sale. Each book'll cost me a buck, at the most, and
> I'm sure I'll enjoy them greatly at that price. I guess he'll still
garnish
> a few cents from me through those sales, and I hope he does. But I'd never
> pay full price for the formulaic content he's posted to this ng. It's
> enjoyable, true, but ultimately unsatisfying, at least to me. Maybe it's
> just me. Maybe it's the price he's paid for the the price he's paid.
>
> I don't know, of course.
>
> doc
I guess I don't understand you, Doc. We had a good discussion going here,
and you have to insert a personal attack.
Somewhere you say this isn't 'blindsiding', but it is, and you know it. To
switch the trend of a discussion from theoretical to personal _is_
blindsiding.
It doesn't matter that what you say may be true, the truth is only the
ultimate defense in a court of law. When you couch your statements in such a
manner, you only serve to turn yourself into a troll.
Civility is the grease that makes discourse possible, why do you wish to be
the sand that grinds it to a halt?
Like I said, Doc, I don't understand you.
Alan
doc
Yeah. The marketplace also demands 10 mpg SUV's, doesn't it?
You're wrong on this one, Patrick; you've only iterated the same old tired
domino effect without demonstrating the intelligence to understand how it
could be done differently. This is alt.fiction.original. Try doing the
original part and stop parroting the party line, just because it's popular
and profitable.
If you can't deliver a message of hope because it doesn't pay, then you're
not much of a writer.
doc
Patrick Null
"doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> "Patrick Null" <pat...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040206223852.481$C...@newsreader.com...
> > > "Alaric" <alar...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > > "Huw Lyan Thomas" <hth...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:MPG.1a8e37852...@192.168.0.1...
> > > > > In article <s1SUb.11750$ZN1.6...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> > > > > viathna...@sympatico.ca says...
> > > > > I believe that a writer who genuinely seeks to touch lives outside
> > > > > his immediate circle would do well to heed the demands of the
> > > > > marketplace.
> > > >
> > > > Dead on.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. That just makes the writer a cheerleader, and the world is
> > > already full of them. If you genuinely seek to touch lives, then
> > > deliver a message that gives people hope.
> >
> > Nope. It is dead on, doc. If you don't heed to the demands of the
> > marketplace, editors won't buy your manuscripts, you won't get
published,
> > and then you won't touch any lives at all, will you? Indeed, the only
> > fancy you'll be tickling is your own, and that goes against the whole
> > "writing to touch people's lives" idealogy, doesn't it?
>
>
> Yeah. The marketplace also demands 10 mpg >SUV's, doesn't it?
>
> You're wrong on this one, Patrick;
Heh. Who's right? Who's wrong? Does it even fucking matter? The last
time I looked, opinions are neither right nor wrong.
>you've only iterated the same old tired
> domino effect without demonstrating the >intelligence to understand how it
> could be done differently. This is >alt.fiction.original. Try doing the
> original part and stop parroting the party line, >just because it's
popular
> and profitable.
I have found that people who state opinions without anything to back them up
and give no examples of how that can be done is full of nothing but hot air.
>
> If you can't deliver a message of hope because it >doesn't pay, then
you're
> not much of a writer.
You're missing the point. How can you give hope to anybody if no one sees
your stuff? It's like acting in a closet. No one sees you, no one can
appreciate you. I happen to believe that it's not an either/or situation
anyway. I believe you can give editors what they want and still not
sacrifice your principles.
Besides, I don't write to give hope anyway. I always write to tell a story.
That's it. It's selfish. But writing is a selfish business, isn't it?
doc
> >
> > Joe Konrath has already said that one's principles are secondary to
> > one's ambitions. I think that's pretty good advice for anyone who's not
> > wedded
> to
> > principles; and who is, these days, anyhow? Everything is ephemeral.
> >
> > I'll pick up Joe's books either at my second-hand book store or at my
> > library's annual book sale. Each book'll cost me a buck, at the most,
> > and I'm sure I'll enjoy them greatly at that price. I guess he'll still
> garnish
> > a few cents from me through those sales, and I hope he does. But I'd
> > never pay full price for the formulaic content he's posted to this ng.
> > It's enjoyable, true, but ultimately unsatisfying, at least to me.
> > Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's the price he's paid for the the price
> > he's paid.
> >
> > I don't know, of course.
> >
> > doc
>
> I guess I don't understand you, Doc. We had a good discussion going
> here, and you have to insert a personal attack.
It's a personal attack because I expressed an opinion? You don't have to
agree with my opinions, Alan, but calling my opinions a personal attack is
quite chilling. It's like saying I don't have a right to express myself.
Maybe if I agreed with you, you'd have no problem with anything I say. Is
that what you want? Total agreement? Everything would be okay, then?
>
> Somewhere you say this isn't 'blindsiding', but it is, and you know it.
> To switch the trend of a discussion from theoretical to personal _is_
> blindsiding.
That's bullshit, too, and you know it.
>
> It doesn't matter that what you say may be true, the truth is only the
> ultimate defense in a court of law. When you couch your statements in
> such a manner, you only serve to turn yourself into a troll.
Truth doesn't matter? Since when?
And speaking of personal attacks: when you call someone a troll for
speaking the truth, what does that say about you and about your beliefs, if
you have any?
>
> Civility is the grease that makes discourse possible, why do you wish to
> be the sand that grinds it to a halt?
I like that metaphor. Reminds me of Harold MacMillan; peace in our time,
and all that.
>
> Like I said, Doc, I don't understand you.
Sometimes, Alan, someone has to speak up, no matter how unpopular the
message. You probably wouldn't understand that, either.
>
> Alan
doc
doc
> Besides, I don't write to give hope anyway. I always write to tell a
> story. That's it. It's selfish. But writing is a selfish business,
> isn't it?
Yeah, I guess it is. I think that's what this whole thread boils down to,
now that I think about it.
Best wishes, Pat. Don't give up on hope.
doc
Alan Walkington
"doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> "Alan Walkington" <alan[REMOVE]@walkington.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe Konrath has already said that one's principles are secondary to
> > > one's ambitions. I think that's pretty good advice for anyone who's
not
> > > wedded
> > to
> > > principles; and who is, these days, anyhow? Everything is ephemeral.
> > >
> > > I'll pick up Joe's books either at my second-hand book store or at my
> > > library's annual book sale. Each book'll cost me a buck, at the most,
> > > and I'm sure I'll enjoy them greatly at that price. I guess he'll
still
> > garnish
> > > a few cents from me through those sales, and I hope he does. But I'd
> > > never pay full price for the formulaic content he's posted to this ng.
> > > It's enjoyable, true, but ultimately unsatisfying, at least to me.
> > > Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's the price he's paid for the the price
> > > he's paid.
> > >
> > > I don't know, of course.
> > >
> > > doc
> >
> > I guess I don't understand you, Doc. We had a good discussion going
> > here, and you have to insert a personal attack.
>
> It's a personal attack because I expressed an opinion? You don't have to
No doc, it's personal when you single out an individual ... that's what
personal _means_.
> agree with my opinions, Alan, but calling my opinions a personal attack is
> quite chilling. It's like saying I don't have a right to express myself.
I know you can express your opinions without aiming them at an individual.
> Maybe if I agreed with you, you'd have no problem with anything I say. Is
> that what you want? Total agreement? Everything would be okay, then?
That's not what I said. When you say:
> Sometimes, Alan, someone has to speak up, no matter how unpopular the
> message.
You are making a cogent argument.
When you add:
>You probably wouldn't understand that, either.
You are trolling.
>
>
> >
> > Somewhere you say this isn't 'blindsiding', but it is, and you know it.
> > To switch the trend of a discussion from theoretical to personal _is_
> > blindsiding.
>
> That's bullshit, too, and you know it.
Really? What part of it is bullshit? The 'moving from theoretical to
personal' part? or the blindsiding part? 'To blindside' means to attack from
an unexpected and usually unprotected direction. Is that the bullshit part?
You are good at blindsiding, Doc. You blindsided Sue when you accused her
of writing like a ninth grader.
You blindsided me when you showed your fury at my second posting in this NG
being called 'untitled' by interjecting the word 'fucking' into each
sentence you threw in my face.
So don't pretend you don't know that you 'blindside' people.
>
> >
> > It doesn't matter that what you say may be true, the truth is only the
> > ultimate defense in a court of law. When you couch your statements in
> > such a manner, you only serve to turn yourself into a troll.
>
> Truth doesn't matter? Since when?
Again, that's not what I said. I said it's not a defense against being
accused of trolling.
>
> And speaking of personal attacks: when you call someone a troll for
> speaking the truth, what does that say about you and about your beliefs,
if
> you have any?
That's not what I said either. I said you were a troll for making the
personal attacks on Joe.
Do you know how much you sound like John? How much you use his style in your
arguments?
That was a troll, doc, in case you didn't recognize it. It was personaling
the argument in an offensive manner. It was the sand I accused you of below.
>
>
>
> >
> > Civility is the grease that makes discourse possible, why do you wish to
> > be the sand that grinds it to a halt?
>
> I like that metaphor. Reminds me of Harold MacMillan; peace in our time,
> and all that.
No, the metaphor has no relationship to that, and if you were interested in
anything approaching truth, let alone civility, you wouldn't have written
that. Civility does not imply acceptance. It merely allows a discussion to
continue without digressing into irrelevance. As this one has.
I still don't know why you took this thread down this path, Doc. And now I
don't care.
Alan
Seymour Grass
"doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:20040207005139.949$h...@newsreader.com...
| > here, and you have to insert a personal attack.
|
| It's a personal attack because I expressed an opinion? You don't have to
| agree with my opinions, Alan, but calling my opinions a personal attack is
| quite chilling. It's like saying I don't have a right to express myself.
| Maybe if I agreed with you, you'd have no problem with anything I say. Is
| that what you want? Total agreement? Everything would be okay, then?
Don't waste a moment of time trying to argue principle with people who don't
have any principles, you poor, silly schmuck, Doc. Don't you know that
nothing can be more futile. Where's your former good sense? They can't
debate honestly when they have no principles forcing them to face or speak
truth. Dig it, Dude: All they know is compromise, which is the mother's milk
of hypocrisy. Do you see them railing against Herr Reichsminister
FesterMire for the sort of language he dredges from the toilet or extracts
from a juicy pudenda to smear in reference to a person? Never. They have no
principles and no moral high ground, these clowns. But no sooner does
somebody who these nudniks think they got tagged for a wild hair come along
to say something so mild as "go piss up a rope", they want to get that pissy
rope in their hands to haul that guy out for a lynching. They have nothing
but their prejudices in the place where good men and women have their
principles.
When they have no principles, then they are automatically in the majority
which gives them the louder say. In Konrath they see (they hope to see) an
object worth some suck-up value. By kissing the Redbutt ass, maybe they can
get some juice out of the deal, so they value the dude far above somebody
who does not show some sort of glitzy 'star status' to dazzle their greedy
little eyes and bring their butt-kissing lips to a lather. So, staying on
good terms with the perceived Star may be worth money and fame to them.
They will deny that to be the reason for their hypocrisy of course when it
comes to identifying who is truly making the attacks around here. They
flatter themselves to think they make these determinations according to
affection and taste. But you and I have seen the smarmy way they act, and we
know better, we see the fact that a true kindness of spirit is the farthest
thing from the empty chests of people with principle. They are phonies from
the git to the gate, these hollow men who brag about having no principles
and who are ready to totally sell their own asses at the drop of a hat or a
business card--hey they wouldn't know true affection if it came up and bit
'em in the ass.
Hear the words of an author who disagrees with me (about my use of the word
compromise), and teaches me by the process who made her fortune according to
the exact opposite formula as outlined by Joe Konrath and his screeching
Greek chorus of slavering suckups . . .
"Today, however, when people speak of "compromise," what they mean is not a
legitimate mutual concession or a trade . . ." You see how she adheres to
principle by sticking to the true definition of the term, refusing to misuse
it as I did up there. See for the best example in the world of a totally
non-mutual concession that was no proper compromise by looking at when M.
Begin gave the Sinai, complete with Israeli discovered oil wells 'back' to
Egypt--after being aggressed upon by Egypt--for nothing in exchange for all
that blood and life lost, the expenditure of tears and sweat, after all
that, what do they get but a crumby, lousy 'promise of peace'? As she goes
on in this passage, she does most stridently deny that compromise can
consist in anything of the kind, but rather, to the contrary when the
concessions are not mutual, not a fair trade, then you're not talking about
"compromise" you're looking at ". . . precisely a betrayal of one's
principles." Ayn Rand in the essay, *Doesn't Life Require Compromise*?
She's saying that true compromise may not involve sacrifice of principle,
and any time that happens, it amounts, in her words, to "unilateral
surrender to (some) groundless, irrational claim." Take for example some
hack like Tina Brown, some half-literate pulp fiction editor's notion of
what is or is not marketable--see how the owners fired her ass from the
staff of the New Yorker for running it into the low-brow ground during her
tenure because they'd seen enough of her damned fool notion that an author
must write for some already established market. And just how dim is that?
Well how dense does it really get that an editor should be so blind as not
to see how the best authors over the years have created their own markets by
producing a creative product the like of which had never been seen before; a
product that outsells them all by virtue of its novelty?
You can't argue with these unprincipled hacks, Doc--and I don't know why any
person of good sense would even care to try. But then you seem to have lost
all your sense and taste of late, so perhaps that explains it. Even so, one
does tend to keep hoping for your redemption: There are so many better
things to do than to be jumping in to share the dirty bathwater of this rank
smelling herd of nerds, Doc. Why don't you come back home to where things
have stayed hip, cool, and real friendly like? ;-)
A word to the wise: in any public space, always expect that a majority of
those you wind up rubbing shoulders with will be cause for you to go home
and wash your shirt. So long as you remember that, then look rather with a
hopeful eye toward what always has been and always will be just that mere
one or two clean folk out there among the horde that will be truly nice
people capable of real affection, honor, fidelity. So then what on earth can
cause you to think you have any need of making nice to suck up to the rest,
that you should make sacrifice of your individual soul to that unprincipled
beast?
Never do it, because that way you miss out on all the fun of putting those
suckers in their place. :-)
--
JPDavid http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
"You can't reason a person out of a position he didn't reason himself into
in the first place." --Jonathan Swift
Huw Lyan Thomas
pat...@earthlink.net says...
> Besides, I don't write to give hope anyway. I always write to tell a story.
> That's it. It's selfish.
Setting out to tell a story the opposite of selfish, Patrick, because by
definition you're thinking about what other people want when you do
this.
Writing to satisfy internal demons (which I think is at the other end of
the scale from writing to satisfy the market) might occasionally
generate great literature (it might be the *only* way to generate great
literature, though statistically it's more likely to generate pulp), but
it can hardly be said to be unselfish.
--
Huw
http://huw.hexlibris.com
Seymour Grass
| In article <c01tmr$11u1nv$1...@ID-173005.news.uni-berlin.de>,
| pat...@earthlink.net says...
|
| > Besides, I don't write to give hope anyway. I always write to tell a
story.
| > That's it. It's selfish.
|
| Setting out to tell a story the opposite of selfish, Patrick, because by
| definition you're thinking about what other people want when you do
| this.
That is nothing but the purest horse-crap. That is getting the horsecrap
way before the cart, and you get such a crap-blown cart by doing that. You
write to please your own personal peculiar sensibilities in order to see if
others will have an appreciation for the sort of thing that is most deeply
*you*. If you are not thinking about mining out of yourself that mystery of
what is you, then you've got nothing to give; except some superficial,
fad-oriented idea of what the public has had laded upon it millions of times
before.
What you express is a cloying trite pretense, a conceit of altruism that is
really not that at all, it is an excuse you give to yourself for selling
out, a feather you stick in your own cap, a fake brass halo you hang over
your own head that says, "I'm not really a soul-less sell-out to the
on-going market of the same old crap, I'm a little saint who gives the
public just what they want." Little do you know that it's not at all what
they want. They want something with guts, something novel, brave,
principled a creation that is uniquely an expression of an INDIVIDUAL, a one
of a kind person--they are not looking for one more idiot in floppy pants
and a backward cap with plastic shoes who thinks like he looks, like he came
off an assembly line. On that you can damned well go to the bank.
And besides, who the hell are you to decide what the public wants? You got
ESP or something? You don't know what they want because they don't know what
they want. They want to open a book like it was a present with a big
surprise inside. They sure as hell don't want to know in advance what they
are getting.
|
| Writing to satisfy internal demons (which I think is at the other end of
| the scale from writing to satisfy the market) might occasionally
| generate great literature (it might be the *only* way to generate great
| literature, though statistically it's more likely to generate pulp), but
| it can hardly be said to be unselfish.
Do you always stack the deck of your arguments like that?
--
JPDavid http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
"Don't be afraid to take a big step if one is indicated. You can't cross a
chasm in two small jumps.--David Lloyd George
Alaric
"Patrick Null" <pat...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c01pu1$11k3c7$1...@ID-173005.news.uni-berlin.de...
Absolutely. That was the point Brian was making. Can't say it better than
you have, Patrick.
Alaric
"doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
If you can't answer the point Patrick made, it's cowardly to swerve away
into personal insults.
Alaric
"Seymour Grass" <JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
>
> "Huw Lyan Thomas" <hth...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a8ecd6b9...@192.168.0.1...
> | In article <c01tmr$11u1nv$1...@ID-173005.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> | pat...@earthlink.net says...
> |
> | > Besides, I don't write to give hope anyway. I always write to tell a
> story.
> | > That's it. It's selfish.
> |
> | Setting out to tell a story the opposite of selfish, Patrick, because by
> | definition you're thinking about what other people want when you do
> | this.
>
> That is nothing but the purest horse-crap. That is getting the horsecrap
> way before the cart, and you get such a crap-blown cart by doing that.
You
> write to please your own personal peculiar sensibilities in order to see
if
> others will have an appreciation for the sort of thing that is most deeply
> *you*.
This, from you, would be another eight page one-sided dialogue covering why
John is right about Freud, why it's right to bring up Hitler in every
thread, why you suffer for your half-Jewishness, why feminism is shit - as
per your last three stories. Oh, you're definitely not thinking of the
reader, John. I'll give you that.
Alaric
"doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> "Alan Walkington" <alan[REMOVE]@walkington.net> wrote:
> > >
You don't have to
> agree with my opinions, Alan, but calling my opinions a personal attack is
> quite chilling. It's like saying I don't have a right to express myself.
Joe's a sellout.
Patrick's not a writer.
Yes, they're opinions.
They're personal attacks too.
nativelaw
"doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:20040206222109.301$r...@newsreader.com...
> "nativelaw" <REMOVEn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Where, doc? And show me that is what he meant?
>
> From four different messages:
>
> "If I continued serving my muse rather than putting on that business hat,
I
> wouldn't be on Amazon."
>
> "I like integrity, Bob. But I also like going to Amazon.com and seeing my
> name."
I think this was just a quip, and a tongue in cheek statement. I took it
with a grain of salt, and I think if Joe were to say this over he wouldn't
have used the word integrity (unless he was, again, going for a cheap
laugh.)
That's my writerly interpretation, anyway.
I don't really believe that Joe thinks there is black and white - integrity
on the one side and fame on the other -- or that he thinks "service to the
muse" is necessarily this compartmentalized thing exclusive of anything
else. I got the sense he's more talking about writing for oneself,
_without_ consideration of the audience, than writing something someone else
might like to read. But of course balance is always necessary.
I get him saying that there *is* a formula for the particular success that
he has experienced, is all. I don't think that he's really saying there is
only one kind of success, or one way to success. I think it's tongue in
cheek, exaggerated humor to make his point -- like us calling him "Joe
Conflict". Does anyone here really think conflict is the _only_ important
thing in a story? No. Is it important? Yes. Perhaps he sees it as
what's lacking from most stories he reads. I think it's important, too.
But he and I don't write the same style of stories and never will (though I
toy with the idea of a plotted mystery at times just because I want to see
if I _can_.)
>
> "How much are you willing to compromise to break in? Your odds get better,
> the more you're willing to bend."
Why do you assume this means "compromise your integrity"? I took it in the
vein similar to Faulkner saying "kill your darlings". Be willing to second
guess yourself. Be willing to expand your vision -- but this is all
predicated on IF you want to write a bestseller. Me? I have the gravest of
conceits; I want to write something that will be a part of me, that will
outlive me and carry forward a message I believe is important. But unless
I've built the pedestal upon which to place that eventual book, no one will
ever know or care about it. So I'd hope it isn't the only thing I ever
write, or that I wouldn't stretch myself to try other things I think I don't
like as much, just to see if I can.
But then again, I don't particularly care at this point in my life if I am
ever published. My ambition for it is not strong, right now. I think it
will be in years to come, if I am so lucky to get other things done in my
life, first.
>
> "There's nothing wrong with writing what you want, and doing it your way,
> if it makes you happy. But don't expect to sell much."
Same interpretation as above.
>
> Andrea, I'm a capitalist. I see nothing wrong with making money from one's
> efforts. I applaud it.
>
> I just happen to be in the minority that believes that integrity and
profit
> aren't mutually exclusive.
It's a common conceit to think this group is really a minority, doc. I
don't think too many people except cartoon characters really *think* that
integrity and profit are mutually exclusive. You might think among the rich
that is a minority; I used to think so too years ago but then I got to know
some of the rich. Now I think there are some people who probably didn't
have integrity from their very childhoods or had mental or other disorders
that prevented it and it carries through to their work ethics and how they
live their lives. They got rich in spite of it, but very often they get
taken down anyway. But I think they are a minority, just as the *very rich*
are a minority, especially those who have it handed down. Most of the rich
work their butts off to get that way. And I think they do it with
integrity. (I may think their values are wrong; but I don't think they lack
integrity.)
>
> And I don't think that Joe Konrath has those same beliefs.
Then, we differ. I think he does.
That's fine for
> him; it's not fine for me. I'm not saying that Joe is unethical; he's very
> clear in his beliefs, and they're quite legal. But I have a problem with
> anyone who's willing to compromise themselves for money, no matter how
> legal it may be. Call me an idealist.
You _are_ an idealist, and I say that happily. I think I am too. But what
I objected to was the personal attacks. You can say everything you said and
say it in a more general way. Here's where you made personal attacks:
"Joe couldn't make it by being Joe; he had to change, so he knuckled
> > under by being ed-Joe; and now he's rich. But he's not Joe anymore and
> > he'll never be again."
That was the milder end; but still how do you say such things?
Let's assume for a moment (hopefully against the odds) that Joe could give a
flying fuck what any one of us think of him.
Do you really believe that success necessarily changes someone, Doc? Or
that it's really changed Joe? If he moved away and sat himself up in the
Hearst mansion and flew in tons of ice to keep the polar bears cold every
day, yeah, I'd say he changed. But your quotes are all things he was saying
here on AFO LONG before he got a three book deal and a six figure advance.
What he said was he persevered until he got that book deal. How horrible of
him.
I don't know Tom Clancy at all but Joe is his own person, I think. I admire
that he's giving back. He didn't have to teach writing. Know how damn
boring that can be 90% of the time? Listening to a bunch of kids that think
they are "good writers"? Working for the bureaucracy called a university --
well, you worked for govt. so you should know all about that. He's trying to
show them a sort of formula for success, yes; but I'll bet that he can learn
as much there as he did here and does anywhere.
And of course once you get that success it can get harder. Now you've lost
your anonymity and stepped into the limelight where everyone thinks they
have the right to judge you. And you feel like you have to keep juggling
those balls, and your family is depending upon you that much more to not go
back to slinging pizzas. Not that there is any dishonor in slinging pizzas,
but I'm sure he feels happy to be able to give his children a little more
and also have his books -- his other babies -- getting read. Rather than
adorning the walls staring at him.
Hmm... probably there's a story here instead of all this ranting <g>.
"Joe wants to tell us how to be as successful as he's been, but he still
doesn't have a clue as to what that means. Joe's a reject; about 6000 times
over ten years, by his own accounting. That's a winning formula?"
I think it was Einstein said that it's in your failures that you learn, not
your success. The formula for him was learning from what didn't achieve his
goals and yes, I'd call that success.
"Tom Clancy lives about seven miles from me; he'd have Joe polishing his
boots, and Joe would do it with a spit-shine."
If he did, it would only be because he's a nice guy and felt sorry that Tom
couldn't bend over to do it himself, and would be so pompous that he would
even _ask_.
"No. I don't care for Clancy, even though he's my neighbor. But I care for
Konrath less; at least Clancy isn't a pedantic ass-kisser. And I don't like
Tom Clancy."
This is where you made it personal, especially. I think if pressed you'd
say it's what you *think* Joe stands for that you don't like. It isn't
*Joe* (whom I'm pretty sure neither of us know personally.) That's what I
see as the difference between stating a case and making it personal. And
why I say "blindsided" is because no one expects personal attacks on a
newsgroup like this except for those that come from our resident trolls so
when they come from persons whose opinions I respect, to me, it's
blindsiding.
> Maybe I just don't care about seeing my name on Amazon.com; maybe I just
> don't care about seeing my name anywhere. It's a big thing for Joe; it's
> not for me. I only want to go out knowing that I stood for something. No
> one will ever look up my name and say, "He wrote stories." I really don't
> care about that. I'd rather they say, "He had principles, and he adhered
> to them." Yeah, and pissed people off because of them.
And I think --no, I know for a fact -- that there are writers out there
doing ALL of those things and not having it be mutually exclusive. You could
certainly join them if you chose.
>
> You know my situation with a very special little lady. I'll never see my
> efforts come to fruition with her, but I hope to God she remembers that
the
> strength of character I've tried to instill in her will provide some
> guidance when she has to make some very hard, but unpopular, decisions.
> "Putting on that business hat" rather than following the muse would be
> pretty hard to swallow.
>
> doc
We all take different paths, doc. You've had your own successes though, you
aren't exactly a failure, my friend. I hope you will want that special
person to find her own definitions of happiness, too. Teach that little
lady not to begrudge other people, theirs, and to adhere to her own
principles, and to speak up for what she believes is right; I just think,
personally, that we can (and should try to) do all of those things without
making it personal. Not in order to make her words easier to swallow; but to
make them fairer and more accurate.
Andrea
Patrick Null
Hi, Huw.
Writing is selfish because we write primarily to please ourselves. I say
primarily because I know that when you initially sit down to tell a story, I
would be very surprised if you said "Well, I'm telling this story because I
want to please my audience." I seriously doubt it; you sit down initially
because you have a story to tell, and to not tell it is instant soul death.
Now, once it's written, you might make changes in the rewrite to satisfy the
marketplace, but, initially, when you first put pen to paper or cursor to
the computer screen, your first thought is "I have a story to tell. And
here it is." You're writing to please yourself.
It's selfish because even though you say you will sacrifice principles to
satisfy an editor, I doubt you would sacrifice all of them. If you wrote a
story about a fireman who rescues a little girl from a burning building, and
the editor says "You know what? Why don't you make the fireman a policeman?
And make the little girl a puppy dog? And scrap the heroism thing. I want
a story about a policeman buying a puppy dog for his little daughter who is
dying of cancer." I would be very surprised if you agreed because that is
not the story you wanted to tell.
It's selfish because it's a solitary business. Instead of spending hours
writing at your desk, you could be spending them with your wife or your
son/daughter.
Wind River
>
> Writing is selfish because we write primarily to please ourselves. I say
> primarily because I know that when you initially sit down to tell a story, I
> would be very surprised if you said "Well, I'm telling this story because I
> want to please my audience." I seriously doubt it; you sit down initially
> because you have a story to tell, and to not tell it is instant soul death.
> Now, once it's written, you might make changes in the rewrite to satisfy the
> marketplace, but, initially, when you first put pen to paper or cursor to
> the computer screen, your first thought is "I have a story to tell. And
> here it is." You're writing to please yourself.
>
> It's selfish because even though you say you will sacrifice principles to
> satisfy an editor, I doubt you would sacrifice all of them. If you wrote a
> story about a fireman who rescues a little girl from a burning building, and
> the editor says "You know what? Why don't you make the fireman a policeman?
> And make the little girl a puppy dog? And scrap the heroism thing. I want
> a story about a policeman buying a puppy dog for his little daughter who is
> dying of cancer." I would be very surprised if you agreed because that is
> not the story you wanted to tell.
>
> It's selfish because it's a solitary business. Instead of spending hours
> writing at your desk, you could be spending them with your wife or your
> son/daughter.
I don't think it's this black and white, Patrick. If your son asked you
to write him a story about a haunted house, and you put your heart and
soul into creating a story with flourishes written especially for him,
would it be selfish? Of course not.
When I did illustrations for the challenge winners, I didn't do it for
myself. I did it for Barry and Brian, based on their stories. If I'd
been doing it for myself, the pictures wouldn't have contained the same
elements.
Yes, sometimes creativity is selfish, but not always.
Is it selfish to write instead of spending every moment with your wife?
I don't think so. If you didn't write, you'd possibly be grouchy around
her for keeping you from something you love. That might be worse.
Just another perspective ....
-Sue
nativelaw
"Wind River" <windswe...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:4024F5B3...@voyager.net...
Well said, Sue.
Writing is a part of us. And "selfish" also, means, "derived from love of
self" which can be a wonderful thing. We should all love ourselves -- it
doesn't have to mean loving ourselves "to the exclusion of others."
Andrea
Patrick Null
Oh, I agree, Sue. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it is black and white.
Of course there are times where it is selfless, but sometimes, it is also
selfISH. Yeah, yeah, degrees and all that.
Huw seemed to imply that it's not selfish at all, and I was only responding
where there can be times where it IS selfish.
Sorry for the confusion.
Wind River
>
> Oh, I agree, Sue. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it is black and white.
> Of course there are times where it is selfless, but sometimes, it is also
> selfISH. Yeah, yeah, degrees and all that.
>
> Huw seemed to imply that it's not selfish at all, and I was only responding
> where there can be times where it IS selfish.
I know. You're not a selfish person, and I wanted you to see that aspect
of yourself. You give far more than you receive; that's evident from all
those detailed critiques. So, don't start thinking of yourself as a
selfish writer. You're not.
-Sue
Huw Lyan Thomas
JP...@VirtualTourist.com says...
To apply for the bank's "impecunious writer" loan scheme, no doubt.
Still, it's possible to be rich in other ways: in youthful idealism,
perhaps, matured in the bile that comes from one's work (one's self,
such a writer might well say) being rejected instead of being applauded
as it should be.
> And besides, who the hell are you to decide what the public wants? You got
> ESP or something? You don't know what they want because they don't know what
> they want. They want to open a book like it was a present with a big
> surprise inside. They sure as hell don't want to know in advance what they
> are getting.
The businesslike writer doesn't decide what the public wants. Such
"knowledge", as you demonstrated above with your parable of the Writer
Who Went to the Bank, is the province of the misunderstood artist. The
businesslike writer attempts to understand the public's taste (or some
part of it) by studying the marketplace and then refining his offerings
based on its feedback.
What would *really* compromise my integrity would be to settle for the
comfort blanket of self-deception; to become the sort of writer who sets
out wondrous pearls that, inexplicably, everyone else perceives to be a
pile of poo, and who proudly takes home the same pile of poo^H^H^Hpearls
that he started with, having learned nothing and recognised nothing.
Better, in my view, to go through the story of one's life as a
protagonist.
> | Writing to satisfy internal demons (which I think is at the other end of
> | the scale from writing to satisfy the market) might occasionally
> | generate great literature (it might be the *only* way to generate great
> | literature, though statistically it's more likely to generate pulp), but
> | it can hardly be said to be unselfish.
>
> Do you always stack the deck of your arguments like that?
Your posts would be more fun if your sophistry was more original and
less transparent. There, that's a bit of non-marketplace feedback for
you ;-)
--
Huw
http://huw.hexlibris.com
galaine
"doc" wrote
>
> Sometimes, Alan, someone has to speak up, no matter how unpopular
the
> message. You probably wouldn't understand that, either.
Does it matter what the message is, when it gets lost in the delivery?
Your personal opinion of Joe is the message received, not what I
believe you intended.
Was it worth it or was there a better way?
Tracey
Alaric
>
> "Huw Lyan Thomas" <hth...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a8ecd6b9...@192.168.0.1...
> > In article <c01tmr$11u1nv$1...@ID-173005.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > pat...@earthlink.net says...
> >
> > > Besides, I don't write to give hope anyway. I always write to tell a
> story.
> > > That's it. It's selfish.
> >
> > Setting out to tell a story the opposite of selfish, Patrick, because by
> > definition you're thinking about what other people want when you do
> > this.
> >
> > Writing to satisfy internal demons (which I think is at the other end of
> > the scale from writing to satisfy the market) might occasionally
> > generate great literature (it might be the *only* way to generate great
> > literature, though statistically it's more likely to generate pulp), but
> > it can hardly be said to be unselfish.
>
> Hi, Huw.
>
> Writing is selfish because we write primarily to please ourselves. I say
> primarily because I know that when you initially sit down to tell a story,
I
> would be very surprised if you said "Well, I'm telling this story because
I
> want to please my audience." I seriously doubt it; you sit down initially
> because you have a story to tell, and to not tell it is instant soul
death.
Y'know, it's funny, Pat, but I always write (do I write? it's been a while)
with a reader in mind. I want folk to enjoy or see where I'm coming from,
and I often remove whole sections for that reason alone. Still, I think
we're saying the same thing.
Huw Lyan Thomas
pat...@earthlink.net says...
> Hi, Huw.
>
> Writing is selfish because we write primarily to please ourselves. I say
> primarily because I know that when you initially sit down to tell a story, I
> would be very surprised if you said "Well, I'm telling this story because I
> want to please my audience." I seriously doubt it; you sit down initially
> because you have a story to tell, and to not tell it is instant soul death.
> Now, once it's written, you might make changes in the rewrite to satisfy the
> marketplace, but, initially, when you first put pen to paper or cursor to
> the computer screen, your first thought is "I have a story to tell. And
> here it is." You're writing to please yourself.
>
> It's selfish because even though you say you will sacrifice principles to
> satisfy an editor, I doubt you would sacrifice all of them. If you wrote a
> story about a fireman who rescues a little girl from a burning building, and
> the editor says "You know what? Why don't you make the fireman a policeman?
> And make the little girl a puppy dog? And scrap the heroism thing. I want
> a story about a policeman buying a puppy dog for his little daughter who is
> dying of cancer." I would be very surprised if you agreed because that is
> not the story you wanted to tell.
>
> It's selfish because it's a solitary business. Instead of spending hours
> writing at your desk, you could be spending them with your wife or your
> son/daughter.
Fair point, Patrick. I was writing from my own perspective, which is
that (apart from a few "in the zone" occasions) writing fiction is hard
work for me, rather than pure pleasure, and I constantly evaluate what
I'm doing from the POV of its likely (or at least intended) impact on
the reader.
About the editor asking for changes, I'd probably treat that as a story
commission, rather than an intrusion into my own creation. Would I take
commissions? I don't know. I'd be reluctant to do explore fictional
ideas that didn't engage me, but if the money was right... well, it
wouldn't be the first time I've done a job of work I didn't enjoy :-)
Anais Nin used to write porn for a private collector for a dollar a
page. To me, the only questionable thing about that was that she took
the money but never really gave the customer what he wanted (which was
100% porn, 0% poetry). In my book, the fact that it was money rather
than muse that led her to write the stuff in the first place is neither
here nor there.
--
Huw
http://huw.hexlibris.com
Opus
> This, from you, would be another eight page one-sided dialogue covering why
> John is right about Freud, why it's right to bring up Hitler in every
> thread, why you suffer for your half-Jewishness, why feminism is shit - as
> per your last three stories. Oh, you're definitely not thinking of the
> reader, John. I'll give you that.
Actually, Alaric, I think I agree with him on this point:
> If you are not thinking about mining out of yourself that mystery of
> what is you, then you've got nothing to give; except some superficial,
> fad-oriented idea of what the public has had laded upon it millions of times
> before.
>
It's the reason we have so many derivative writers today--because they are too
fucking scared to dig deep within themselves and actually slice open a vein and
bleed all over the page. There has GOT to be _some_ part of you in your work,
or else it _will_ read like drivel without a soul. (it's the reason community
theatre is inherently bad as well. Too many scared actors afraid to delve
emotionally into their characters)
> They want something with guts, something novel, brave,
> principled a creation that is uniquely an expression of an INDIVIDUAL, a one
> of a kind person--they are not looking for one more idiot in floppy pants
> and a backward cap with plastic shoes who thinks like he looks, like he came
> off an assembly line. On that you can damned well go to the bank.
>
Totally agree again. The reading public has had so much of what an editor's
idea of "good writing" is, that in a way it has become Alan's metaphor for
fast-food: it all tastes the same, nothing new on the menu. It's been
dumbed-down, which is the reason no one can sit through 52-word sentences
anymore. It's the reason you CAN'T begin a story with sonorous setting. But
then we're delving into that old argument, literature vs. writing. Dickens,
Wharton, Austen, Flaubert, Hemingway, Wilde; none of them would be publishable
by today's standards, and yet when asked who their icon authors, writers will
throw those names consistently up in conversation as models.
And somehow, as the buying public, we've settled for someone else's opinions of
what is good. As the writer, we've done the same. When what we should've been
doing was writing from our gut to begin with, and then finding a market to fit
it, instead of chasing the market fads and twisting our work to fit it. We have
it backwards in a way.
And in that way, I think both Joe and doc would agree that you CAN make money by
writing and still retain your virtue as a writer. There _is_ a happy medium
somewhere--we just need to help each other find it, because an editor, agent or
publisher damn sure isn't.
Opus
--
"'Slut' used to mean a slovenly woman. Now it means a woman who will go to bed
with everyone. This is considered a bad thing in a woman, although perfectly
fabulous in a man. 'Bitch' means a woman who will go to bed with everyone but
you."
--Cynthia Heimel
http://www.carlarene.com
http://www.opusgraphics.net
Opus
> satisfy an editor, I doubt you would sacrifice all of them.
>
to be. I don't think there is a complete need to throw out your virtue
as an artist and writer, when there are so many markets. Gone is the
need to tailor, tweak and twist your writing to fit someone else's
mold. I disagree with Huw. THAT is being disingenuous to yourself, I
think, when there really is no need for such compromise. There are
enough markets available that we can sit down as writers and write what
we know with full emotional disclosure, and still have it appreciated
and validated by someone in the way of eventual publication. I just
can't believe otherwise. This world is too diverse, too full of
possibilities.
Alaric
"Opus" <opus...@bloomcounty.com> wrote in message
news:40250C39...@bloomcounty.com...
> Alaric wrote:
>
> > This, from you, would be another eight page one-sided dialogue covering
why
> > John is right about Freud, why it's right to bring up Hitler in every
> > thread, why you suffer for your half-Jewishness, why feminism is shit -
as
> > per your last three stories. Oh, you're definitely not thinking of the
> > reader, John. I'll give you that.
>
> Actually, Alaric, I think I agree with him on this point:
Any point John makes is to serve his own interests.
>
> It's the reason we have so many derivative writers today--because they are
too
> fucking scared to dig deep within themselves and actually slice open a
vein and
> bleed all over the page. There has GOT to be _some_ part of you in your
work,
> or else it _will_ read like drivel without a soul. (it's the reason
community
> theatre is inherently bad as well. Too many scared actors afraid to delve
> emotionally into their characters)
Good writing is fundamental. Thinking of the reader is also fundamental.
Otherwise the writer is masturbating.
There's nothing wrong with that. I hear it's fun (wouldn't know myself,
obviously.) But it's a solo activity. You don't often invite friends round
to watch.
Seventy five per cent of John's work is masturbation, with an added yell of
"Hey everybody, look how big it is." Twentyfive per cent is promising, and
interesting to a reader. His problem is he can't distinguish.
Your late Jan story (review still coming, honest) is an honourable attempt
to access an out of fashion style. That's a different and credible idea. My
own take was to love the second half and struggle with the first, but I see
clearly that it's personal taste, and that the luxurious description has a
potential readership, even (disgraceful concept) a market. You don't want to
entertain others? (Not you, O, in general.) Why bother with AFO) then? Keep
a notebook.
Opus
> Otherwise the writer is masturbating.
>
> There's nothing wrong with that. I hear it's fun (wouldn't know myself,
> obviously.)
>
Heh.
> But it's a solo activity. You don't often invite friends round
> to watch.
>
Speak for yourself.
(Oh god, did I just _go_ there???)
> Your late Jan story (review still coming, honest) is an honourable attempt
> to access an out of fashion style. That's a different and credible idea. My
> own take was to love the second half and struggle with the first, but I see
> clearly that it's personal taste, and that the luxurious description has a
> potential readership, even (disgraceful concept) a market. You don't want to
> entertain others? (Not you, O, in general.) Why bother with AFO) then? Keep
> a notebook.
>
That is a fair point as well. But doesn't one come AFTER the other?
Isn't one consideration placed before the other? Or, rather, shouldn't
it be? I guess what I was saying, in that I agreed with John, is that
writing because we love it should come first, as you pointed out with my
story, and THEN seeking the market should come. I view it almost like
Donald Trump: he said he _never_ has turned over a deal because of the
money. He always loved it first and foremost, and his advice was to do
something because you love it, then your market will come. Don't know
how true that is here, but it seems similar.
But I do think there are still elements of emotion missing from a lot of
writers' work. And I guess that was the point I agreed with.
Miki Kocic
Huw Lyan Thomas wrote:
> What would *really* compromise my integrity would be to settle for the
> comfort blanket of self-deception; to become the sort of writer who sets
> out wondrous pearls that, inexplicably, everyone else perceives to be a
> pile of poo, and who proudly takes home the same pile of poo^H^H^Hpearls
> that he started with, having learned nothing and recognised nothing.
Well, there is such a thing as good fiction writing. People may
disagree on the details because fiction writing is not a science with
measurable outcomes, but I figure that all of us here believe there is a
target of accomplishment as artists and craftspeople that we can aspire
to. This is a workshop newsgroup, after all, and if we didn't believe
in good writing, how could we believe that our writing can improve?
There would be no basis for judging improvement. So you're absolutely
right that a writer, to be credible, needs to have that desire to get
better at what he does instead of just taking a position and defending
it. Leave the firm, inflexible positions to the lawyers.
But to hear some people talk, you'd think what editors want were the
ultimate standard of what makes good writing. I adamantly say it is
not. Editors are human beings who get to impose their tastes on
writers. They have their reasons, but ultimately, they aren't any
smarter or better judges of good writing than 95% of the people who post
and crit on AFO. This is why I get upset when people, for example, take
an editor's distaste for adverbs and infer that therefore adverbs are no
good in an absolute sense. Questions such as what role adverbs play in
the English language and in good writing need to be examined
independently of the latest fashion in published writing.
We need to keep in mind that being a good writer and getting published
are parallel goals. They're not incompatible, but they're not the same
thing. Getting published does get you a bigger readership and some
money, but if your writing is such that you have to betray yourself in
order to get published, I say that it's not worth it.
I should add that, unlike Huw and some others, I get great satisfaction
out of the act of doing that first draft, and that satisfaction is my
primary reason for writing at all. The satisfaction I might get from
having someone read my work is secondary, because it's really
satisfaction at KNOWING that someone is reading it and perhaps giving
feedback. Knowing that a faceless, anonymous 5,000 people have
purchased my book isn't satisfying in even that way.
Miki
R. Westermeyer
<JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote:
>Ayn Rand in the essay, *Doesn't Life Require Compromise*?
RAnd (alissa Rosenbaum) was not a nice person. a real me-machine.
Didn't she first want to make it big in Hollywood? If I'm not
mistaken, the wife of the man she had an affair with wrote a bio.
Apparently, keeping the affair secret wasn't an issue. It would seem
that she orchestrated a meeting with the be-cheated spouses laying
down the new terms, which i think were: we will require one evening a
week alone. Damn.
I understand her work continues to be quite popular with the pimply
freshman crowd.
--R
R. Westermeyer
>R. Westermeyer <rweste...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 05 Feb 2004 08:50:03 GMT, doc <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think I'm coming in very late in this thread, but it seems that "the
>> "topic" is how much a writer should compromise. I think it depends on
>> many variables. I am a terrible speller and grammatically impaired big
>> time, and any help in that department is always accepted, as it does
>> not compromise anything, it only improves it.
>
>Yeah, you could use a little help on spelling and grammar and I can't
>figure how you got through college without it, but you definitely have
>ideas and imagination.
gee...thanks (?)
>Compromise?
>
>You never compromise when there's a principle involved. You might lose by
>not getting published, but you'll never lose by staying true to your
>beliefs. The problem with today's culture is shifting beliefs; whatever's
>popular is also correct: don't believe in anything so you can believe in
>everything. Where is the trust? Where is the honor? Or are trust and honor
>so old-fashioned concepts that we can just dispose of them like empty beer
>cans?
So true. And it's so apparent in the arts these days. Movies, music,
popular fiction, TV. the banality and risklessness of it is as
sickening as watching the masses line up for it.
>No, Bob; you have to compromise on spelling and on grammar; you need the
>help. Don't compromise on your mind, though; that's what makes you Bob, not
>some mindless fucking hack.
I don't know about you, but my favorite artists, without exception,
are the ones who broke rules. That's when something great happens. ANd
then, once the risk is gone, the followers show up.
>doc
Alan Walkington
out of this discussion. Yeah, right.
I think a valid argument can be made that _everything_ we do is done for
_selfish_ reasons. Now Sue, stay calm, let me finish first. <g>
If you give a dollar to a panhandler, you either do it because:
1) he a) scares b)disgusts you and you want him somewhere else as fast as
possible, or
2) you believe he needs help, and you give him some.
Either way, you win. In the first you feel relief and satisfaction at your
own wellbeing, and in the second, you feel gratification at having helped
someone. (and relief and satisfaction at your own wellbeing) In either
case, your underlying motivation was _selfish_, the gratification of a
personal human need. _Your_ need.
I will allow an exception to this. That of the responsibility to family,
although I no longer believe that is as hard-wired into us as I once
thought. There was a thread about mother-love. Of course (Miki's opinion
not withstanding) it is still strong. Ditto for a father's. Ditto for an
adult to any child. But as I said, this is something with which we are
genetically endowed, no real choice there.
A soldier doesn't charge the machine gun for some great patriotic reason. He
does it because he doesn't want to appear to let his buddy down. He is more
afraid of another's perception of him than he is, at that moment, of death.
And that again, when you reason it out, is a _selfish_ motivation. .
Do you write to give pleasure to others? Surely that's selfish; you derive
your own personal enjoyment from the giving. Let's face it; altruism _is_
selfish.
If you are (here I look around the room and lower my voice) a secret
scribbler who keeps a private journal hidden under the fresh paper lining of
your panties drawer, or perhaps in the bottom of your greasy tool box under
the Grenlee punches and the Universal wrenches, if you are one of those, you
are serving a selfish purpose, the gratification of your own needs.
If you self-publish through what used to be called, with now unacceptable
honesty, a vanity press, you are serving the same selfish purpose.
If you diligently search for some tiny publisher of an obscure literary
magazine with an annual circulation of 250, who will pick _your_ ms out of
the 200 per month they receive to be one of the 7 or 8 he/she will use that
_year_, you are serving a selfish purpose.
Do you care about the reader? Sure. Do you care about the editor? Of course.
But you care about them as the means to the end you desire. (I was going to
say, as the means to _your_ end, but with this audience ---)That _you_
desire. You are serving a selfish purpose. We all are. We are looking for
gratification. It's different for all of us. But it's still selfish.
Cheer on for selfish. Without it we'd still be sneaking out of our caves to
chuck stones at rabbits for dinner.
Well --- anyway,
Alan
Dave Allyn
<alan[REMOVE]@walkington.net> wrote:
>I will allow an exception to this. That of the responsibility to family,
>although I no longer believe that is as hard-wired into us as I once
>thought. There was a thread about mother-love. Of course (Miki's opinion
>not withstanding) it is still strong. Ditto for a father's. Ditto for an
>adult to any child. But as I said, this is something with which we are
>genetically endowed, no real choice there.
This is the only part I disagree with. I believe the responsibility
to family still could (on a fundamental level) far into the selfish
catagory. you don't want the crummy feeling that comes with letting
them down. Some people may not feel that feeling, and as such there
are lots of people that do nothing for thier families. Even love of
your spouse. i.e. I'm happy when you're happy. Everything in life
is selfish, even dying for someone. YOu want the feeling that you
will get knowing they will be happy.
just my two bits....
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
email: dallyn_spam at yahoo dot com
In the words of Abe Lincoln when asked to review a book
he didn't care for:
"For the people that like that sort of thing, I think it's
just the sort of thing they would like."
galaine
"Miki Kocic" wrote
Just as there is "good writing," there is the contrast of "bad
writing." We have all sent something then wished we could fix it
before anyone sees it. We've all read a book that was a better tree.
As we mine from "good writing," we also do from "bad." Sometimes it
is easier to define what is wrong, than what is right. Those who
strive to improve often use those "wrongs" as a set of rules or guides
to eliminate as much defined "bad writing" as possible. It's an
attempt to minimize the "bad" while striving for the "good." The
why's become less conscious when the "rules" become more instinctive.
The basis for judging improvement changes every time I pick up a
magazine or book, every time I write something or comment in afo. It
isn't a fixed base, it grows. Sometimes what I learn changes what I
believe, sometimes it reinforces it.
> But to hear some people talk, you'd think what editors want were the
> ultimate standard of what makes good writing. I adamantly say it is
> not. Editors are human beings who get to impose their tastes on
> writers. They have their reasons, but ultimately, they aren't any
> smarter or better judges of good writing than 95% of the people who
post
> and crit on AFO. This is why I get upset when people, for example,
take
> an editor's distaste for adverbs and infer that therefore adverbs
are no
> good in an absolute sense. Questions such as what role adverbs play
in
> the English language and in good writing need to be examined
> independently of the latest fashion in published writing.
Just as you have a gut reaction to adverb distate, I have one to any
hint of "my writing is art and therefore cannot be improved or touched
and you should like it the way it is or you are just a dumb reader."
It is the flag of a closed mind.
I can't believe an editor has the power to "impose taste," unless a
writer gives that power. Editors are just readers and if you can
entertain a reader, I don't see why that would exclude an editor.
They're just selective about what they read, aren't you? I am.
> We need to keep in mind that being a good writer and getting
published
> are parallel goals. They're not incompatible, but they're not the
same
> thing. Getting published does get you a bigger readership and some
> money, but if your writing is such that you have to betray yourself
in
> order to get published, I say that it's not worth it.
If you betray yourself for publication there's bigger problems
involved.
> I should add that, unlike Huw and some others, I get great
satisfaction
> out of the act of doing that first draft, and that satisfaction is
my
> primary reason for writing at all. The satisfaction I might get
from
> having someone read my work is secondary, because it's really
> satisfaction at KNOWING that someone is reading it and perhaps
giving
> feedback. Knowing that a faceless, anonymous 5,000 people have
> purchased my book isn't satisfying in even that way.
For me there's nothing like that creative high, but I've been hacking
at keys enough to have had times when it is work. I'm trying to write
"longer" and it is a struggle. I get satisfaction when I pick up
something I've written and can't find another thing to improve, then
share it and have that reader unable to improve it. It's when readers
use that cursed word "more."
Tracey
Huw Lyan Thomas
@walkington.net says...
> I think a valid argument can be made that _everything_ we do is done for
> _selfish_ reasons. Now Sue, stay calm, let me finish first. <g>
>
> If you give a dollar to a panhandler, you either do it because:
> 1) he a) scares b)disgusts you and you want him somewhere else as fast as
> possible, or
> 2) you believe he needs help, and you give him some.
> Either way, you win. In the first you feel relief and satisfaction at your
> own wellbeing, and in the second, you feel gratification at having helped
> someone. (and relief and satisfaction at your own wellbeing) In either
> case, your underlying motivation was _selfish_, the gratification of a
> personal human need. _Your_ need.
Logically, you're perfectly correct: every action is by definition
selfish, because in those particular circumstances, the actor must have
wanted to do it. Even when co-erced (whether by an aggressive panhandler
or a torturer with rusty pincers), the actor decides that the action is
preferable to the alternative. The problem with accepting such "one size
fits all" definitions is that our ability to discriminate between
different kinds of actions is impoverished.
Whatever labels you choose, there's a clear difference in motivation
between:
"I helped the tramp because otherwise he would have hurt me."
"I helped the tramp because he was starving."
even if both actions arise from the same evolutionary pressure towards
altruism.
--
Huw
http://huw.hexlibris.com
Wind River
>
> I was so annoyed at doc for subverting the thread that I was going to stay
> out of this discussion. Yeah, right.
>
> I think a valid argument can be made that _everything_ we do is done for
> _selfish_ reasons. Now Sue, stay calm, let me finish first. <g>
What!? Why should I stay calm? What's in it for me?
Ejucaided Redneck
> Compromise?
>
> You never compromise when there's a principle involved. You might lose by
> not getting published, but you'll never lose by staying true to your
> beliefs.
Have you ever been edited? Do you perceive editing to be a great
philosophical debate? It ain't.
Editors suggest changing a word here or there, perhaps rearranging
paragraphs, or even deleting them.
Are they pushing a writer to surrender some sort of artistic integrity?
No. Not even close.
A good editor can improve anyone's prose.
Got a "message" in your story? The editor will strengthen it.
Got an idea for a new --or at least interesting-- way of looking human
behavior? The editor will make it clearer.
Convinced your prose can't be improved, that it took form from your
brain wholly formed and perfectly stated? Don't get involved with an
editor.
Deeming any form of literature "worthless" or a "sell out" is ignorant
and childish, whether it's writers sniffing at sf/fantasy, mystery
writers projecting disdain at work appearing in university quarterlies,
or the whole kit and caboodle contemptuously dismissing writers of
Harlequin or Silhouette romances.
--
It's not a good idea to put your wife
into a novel; not your latest wife
anyway.
-- Norman Mailer
--
"Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories From Appalachia"
is now available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble,
or your favorite local bookstore.
Fiction, poetry, essays
New MP3: "Second Cousin"
http://www.bobsloansampler.com/
Radio Interview: http://tinyurl.com/2zjd4
Television Interview: http://www.athensvps.com/fun/fun.html
Seymour Grass
| > It's selfish because even though you say you will sacrifice principles
to
| > satisfy an editor, I doubt you would sacrifice all of them.
| >
| I just don't think it's as black and white as doc originally made it out
| to be. I don't think there is a complete need to throw out your virtue
| as an artist and writer, when there are so many markets. Gone is the
| need to tailor, tweak and twist your writing to fit someone else's
| mold. I disagree with Huw. THAT is being disingenuous to yourself, I
| think, when there really is no need for such compromise. There are
| enough markets available that we can sit down as writers and write what
| we know with full emotional disclosure, and still have it appreciated
| and validated by someone in the way of eventual publication. I just
| can't believe otherwise. This world is too diverse, too full of
| possibilities.
|
Right on!
--
JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"Are you content that an idiot like Toscanini ruled sixty years long above
everybody else? I am not." Sergiu Celibidache
Miki Kocic
Just two comments and one question (with the comments coming first):
galaine wrote:
>
> Just as you have a gut reaction to adverb distate, I have one to any
> hint of "my writing is art and therefore cannot be improved or touched
> and you should like it the way it is or you are just a dumb reader."
> It is the flag of a closed mind.
I hope you wouldn't describe me that way. There is one fellow on this
NG, whom I killfiled long ago, who seems to fit your description. Me, I
butt up against my limitations as a writer all the time.
>
> I can't believe an editor has the power to "impose taste," unless a
> writer gives that power. Editors are just readers and if you can
> entertain a reader, I don't see why that would exclude an editor.
> They're just selective about what they read, aren't you? I am.
Let's say that I've had extremely bad experience with editors. And when
I say they impose their taste, I mean that they are the ones who decide
what gets published and what doesn't. When it comes to writing, I think
taste and judgment flow into each other: There is obvious taste, and
there is obvious judgment, and a vast sea of ambiguity in between.
> If you betray yourself for publication there's bigger problems
> involved.
What would you say the bigger problem is?
Miki
Seymour Grass
| > Good writing is fundamental. Thinking of the reader is also fundamental.
| > Otherwise the writer is masturbating.
| >
| Yep--good point.
|
completely contradicted yourself to accept that smarmy premise. I see that
every word of what you quoted was, when the going got tough, totally wasted
on you. Where is your staying power, your commitment to an ideal?
And there suddenly seemed to be such a bright ray of hope for you, too.
Tsk-tsk-tsk.
Here's what needs to be understood about the reason a person like Alaric
can't hack most of what I've been driving at: people who "think" like he
does, people whose popular prejudices and social dogmas are the lenses
through which they view the world are the target of nearly all my work. He
doesn't like getting his glasses broken when he's reading me--and why should
he like it, it is my fullest intent that he should not like it. That is my
aim. If there is a clown in one of my stories, it is bound to be a person
like Alaric McDermott.
Are you hip to the historical dope on the barbarian "Alaric, the Goth" who
this war lord of the nerd herd is named after? Know only this: he lives up
to his bloody, hairy namesake. ;-)
It is a false analogy, this masturbation metaphor, to say that the person
who writes in absence of some hackneyed notion of what pleases the public,
is therefore writing only to "please" himself. It is often anything but
'pleasing' or pleasurable to feel constrained to remain true to the truth
about your true feelings--will you dare confess to them? Harder yet is the
job of honoring the principles which are not your own, but a standard that
you admire and accept as being right, hard as it may be to stick to them.
McDermott's analogy is false, and it is just more of his usual slanderous
and sometime libelous fare, which we learn to expect from him, as we now
begin to wonder whether this manner of his had anything to do with the
reason he's been recently fired from his job. Did his co-workers finally
decide they'd had enough of his style of back-shooting skullduggery?
I believe that is a fair question. Why did you get the axe, Alaric? C'mon.
Show the guts to bare the deepest stuff you got happening to you without
massaging it for your own pleasure into something that pleases you.
And you, Opus, why don't you show some real *soul* for once in your life?
--
JP David http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting
to improve the world." Anne Frank
Seymour Grass
"Miki Kocic" <viathna...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9f9Vb.26452$bp1.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
|
| But to hear some people talk, you'd think what editors want were the
| ultimate standard of what makes good writing. I adamantly say it is
| not. Editors are human beings who get to impose their tastes on
| writers. They have their reasons, but ultimately, they aren't any
| smarter or better judges of good writing than 95% of the people who post
| and crit on AFO. This is why I get upset when people, for example, take
| an editor's distaste for adverbs and infer that therefore adverbs are no
| good in an absolute sense.
That's dogma being foisted on writers by these low rent would-be Hemingway
clones without a clue. They hate modifiers because they simply can't think
of any to use, so their envy of writers who do read, and do have basketfuls
of the things is palpable. Never be snowed by the envious scorn of the
unwashed illiterate horde and their noisy barbarian war lords.
Let us learn at least that.
Questions such as what role adverbs play in
| the English language and in good writing need to be examined
| independently of the latest fashion in published writing.
|
That's right.
--
John http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"It is men's views of their public . . . existence that . . . has protected
[them] from the march of civilization, and has preserved [them in as it
were] a wildlife sanctuary, ruled by the mores of prehistorical
savagery--and what leaps into the political arena is a caveman who can't
conceive of any reason why the tribe may not bash in the skull of any
individual, if it so desires." Ayn Rand from the essay, "Collectivized
Ethics"
Seymour Grass
"R. Westermeyer" <rweste...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i39a20p8mmpe807l4...@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 03:08:58 -0600, "Seymour Grass"
| <JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote:
|
| >Ayn Rand in the essay, *Doesn't Life Require Compromise*?
|
|
|
|
| RAnd (alissa Rosenbaum)
Is there one person here with the guts to tromp this sleazy swine for that?
Or are you going to allow him to suggest he has no purpose in mind to do as
he thinks by this to 'expose' Any Rand for a Jewish person? Are you going
to allow him that, are you all just a bunch of smarmy little anti-semites
just like him?
Man, I'm telling you: you better do something about it, you better not
leave it to me. You all need to stand up and call him on that, because if
you don't (I'm talking to every one of you) if you don't, I will, and you
really, really, really don't want for me to do it. Because I will do it in
a way that is going to make all of you look really, really bad.
| was not a nice person.
How does this fool, a Ph.D. in psychology imagine that smearing a person
with slander after this fashion has the power to refute what she has to say?
A "nice person"? Christ. Some of the greatest geniuses that ever lived, if
it was the last thing on earth that they were not, it was in the view of
hordes, "a nice person". Rent the video of Bob Dylan, "Don't Look Back".
We don't neeeeeed no steeeeekning badges of "nice persons" in order to
discover the Theory of Relativity and produce an Atomic Bomb. We don't need
any "nice persons" in order to paint the goddam ceiling of the Sistine
Chapel, and the sooner you boobs get that figured out, the better off you're
going to be.
Ejucaided Redneck
> Editors are human beings who get to impose their tastes on
> writers. They have their reasons, but ultimately, they aren't any
> smarter or better judges of good writing than 95% of the people who post
> and crit on AFO.
Save the above.
If you ever have a personal encounter with an editor, read those lines
again and marvel at how little you once knew.
> Questions such as what role adverbs play in the English language and in
> good writing need to be examined independently of the latest fashion in
> published writing.
That's what goes on in any number of critiques in this newsgroup.
See especially galaine's very capable explanation of why a plethora of
weak adverbs propping up weaker adjectives is a bad idea.
> Getting published does get you a bigger readership and some
> money, but if your writing is such that you have to betray yourself in
> order to get published, I say that it's not worth it.
What on earth is this "self-betrayal" some seem to think is part and
parcel of the editorial process?
> Knowing that a faceless, anonymous 5,000 people have
> purchased my book isn't satisfying in even that way.
Has such a thing happened to you?
On occasion, thirteen million faceless, anonymous people hear me on
NPR. More than a few react, respond, go out of their way to find me to
say something about it.
Someone I'll never meet put a postcard in the mail addressed to "Bob
Sloan / Writer / Rowan County KY" and I got it. Granted I don't live in
Chicago --or even Louisville-- but that was more gratifying than
anything that ever transpired via any newsgroup. That's just one
example of what can happen from a faceless and anonymous audience.
I've been the happy recipient of phone calls, e-mails and letters from
total strangers, people I'll never meet, telling me words _I_ wrote made
a significant difference, literally changed their lives.
Vets have come up to me after reading "Troops" and thanked me for
expressing something for which they were unable to find words.
When someone's mother died, they sent an e-mail asking if they could
play a tape one of my radio pieces at her funeral. I took half a day
off because I couldn't stop thinking about that one.
I've got lots of similar stories. Lots and lots, and hope to have more.
Editors are not my favorite people. Problems with one is why I haven't
been heard on NPR in a while, but I promise you I'll keep trying,
because faceless and anonymous people make for a more interesting life
than I'd otherwise have..
--
Student asking a question after a reading:
"If you were told you would lose all five senses tomorrow
morning, what would you read tonight?"
British Author Julian Barnes, after a long pause:
"What would I _read_?! I'd be too drunk to read."
Opus
> completely contradicted yourself to accept that smarmy premise. I see that
> every word of what you quoted was, when the going got tough, totally wasted
> on you. Where is your staying power, your commitment to an ideal?
>
> And there suddenly seemed to be such a bright ray of hope for you, too.
> Tsk-tsk-tsk.
>
my presupposition that nothing was as black and white as it seemed, and
I demonstrated that here again. You're smart enough to know that no
matter how definitive an argument or hypothesis seems, there is ALWAYS
an element of the antipodal truth within it and only a fool fails to
recognise that grain of truth. Now, the question is, how much weight
are you willing to place upon that small grain of truth? I betrayed
none of my principles or premise by conceding to Alaric that he _did_
have a point. Writing is, or should not be, masturbatory. This does
not mean that is the only point I give credence to in this whole
argument.
> Here's what needs to be understood about the reason a person like Alaric
> can't hack most of what I've been driving at: people who "think" like he
> does, people whose popular prejudices and social dogmas are the lenses
> through which they view the world are the target of nearly all my work. He
> doesn't like getting his glasses broken when he's reading me--and why should
> he like it, it is my fullest intent that he should not like it. That is my
> aim. If there is a clown in one of my stories, it is bound to be a person
> like Alaric McDermott.
>
And I refuse to comment on this, because it has nothing to do with the
issue at hand. Don't bring up who said it, when we're discussing what
they said. It's about the issue, nothing more.
> Are you hip to the historical dope on the barbarian "Alaric, the Goth" who
> this war lord of the nerd herd is named after? Know only this: he lives up
> to his bloody, hairy namesake. ;-)
>
Nope. I could care less about either of your histories, for that is not
what is at issue here. So let's not go there, and keep it real, k?
> It is a false analogy, this masturbation metaphor, to say that the person
> who writes in absence of some hackneyed notion of what pleases the public,
> is therefore writing only to "please" himself.
>
Now we're back to the issue. I think there is still a grain of truth to
it. Why do you post your stories to AFO, rather than keep your social
tomes to yourself on your hard drive? Because it pleases you to be
setting these people straight. You have a sharp lesson to teach us,
John. And that pleases you. I did not say I entirely agreed with the
principle, I merely conceded that there was truth to it, and you must
also concede, that for some people, it is their only truth.
> It is often anything but
> 'pleasing' or pleasurable to feel constrained to remain true to the truth
> about your true feelings--will you dare confess to them? Harder yet is the
> job of honoring the principles which are not your own, but a standard that
> you admire and accept as being right, hard as it may be to stick to them.
>
Hey, I'm right there with you. And that was my original point. In most
cases, to pursue something for sole financial gain is going to make you
hate it so much you'd rather throw up on your own shoes than to have to
face it one more day. The reason I don't play jazz trumpet
professionally anymore, is because one day before graduation I realised
that I couldn't stomach the music business any longer. Duke Ellington
said, "You gotta dance with what brung ya." I wasn't dancing anymore,
but I could've made a lot of money in it if I had wanted to. Once the
joy of it was gone, I wanted no more part of it, and I've been playing
for 30 years. That was a damn difficult decision that I wrestled for
over five years.
> McDermott's analogy is false, and it is just more of his usual slanderous
> and sometime libelous fare,
>
Oh, c'mon, there was nothing slanderous or libellous about it. Both are
erroneous terms to describe his comment, which, frankly, surprises me
from you. It was neither slanderous because it damaged no one in
particular nor defamed their reputation in the process, nor was it
libellous, because it lacked the intent to discredit and malign. It was
an opinion, just like yours, and you do yourself a severe disservice to
allow your emotions to cloud your thinking like this. I think you're
better than this, John. Will you show me that?
> which we learn to expect from him, as we now
> begin to wonder whether this manner of his had anything to do with the
> reason he's been recently fired from his job. Did his co-workers finally
> decide they'd had enough of his style of back-shooting skullduggery?
>
Look, I appreciate the fact that you hate the guy and you have a
history, but can we stick to the facts and issue please?
> And you, Opus, why don't you show some real *soul* for once in your life?
>
There's nothing wrong with my soul, John, so you can relax. I've
betrayed nothing that I believe in. It's a wise man who can accept the
grain of truth in someone else's opinion, but that doesn't mean he buys
completely into it.
R. Westermeyer
<JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote:
>
>Man, I'm telling you: you better do something about it, you better not
>leave it to me. You all need to stand up and call him on that, because if
>you don't (I'm talking to every one of you) if you don't, I will, and you
>really, really, really don't want for me to do it. Because I will do it in
>a way that is going to make all of you look really, really bad.
>
Ha ha ha. Good fishy. Good fishy. Now get off my hook and swim back
to your slough.
And listen to him threaten everyone. What a joke. "I'll do it in a way
that is going to make ALL OF YOU..." Ho, man.
Your threats are empty, fuckface. You hide behind a safe little
internet moniker, throw down gauntlets then dont' show up.
"Expose" indeed. Every time someone's figured out something about who
and what you're made of, you scurrying little piss beetle, you throw a
tantrum.
What a crib adult you are.
--R
Dan Rogers
>
> Logically, you're perfectly correct: every action is by definition
> selfish, because in those particular circumstances, the actor must have
> wanted to do it. Even when co-erced (whether by an aggressive panhandler
> or a torturer with rusty pincers), the actor decides that the action is
> preferable to the alternative.
Yes, please. More of the torturer with the rusty pincers. Hi Huw.
Dan Rogers
> I think you're better than this, John. Will you show me that?
Let's face facts. He's a slug in dire need of a good bitch-slapping. I
kill-filed his ass long ago, and the people here who respond to his inane
antics only provide him with that audience he so desperately needs, even
though he falsely claims to need no one to read his pathetic drivel.
Michael
"Seymour Grass" <JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
news:c03srn$11tdoe$1...@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Opus" <opus...@bloomcounty.com> wrote in message
> news:40251CD9...@bloomcounty.com...
> | > Good writing is fundamental. Thinking of the reader is also
fundamental.
> | > Otherwise the writer is masturbating.
> | >
> | Yep--good point.
> |
> What? Girl, you still turning with each breath of the wind. You have
just
> completely contradicted yourself to accept that smarmy premise. I see
that
> every word of what you quoted was, when the going got tough, totally
wasted
> on you. Where is your staying power, your commitment to an ideal?
>
> And there suddenly seemed to be such a bright ray of hope for you, too.
> Tsk-tsk-tsk.
>
> Here's what needs to be understood about the reason a person like Alaric
> can't hack most of what I've been driving at: people who "think" like he
> does, people whose popular prejudices and social dogmas are the lenses
> through which they view the world are the target of nearly all my work.
He
> doesn't like getting his glasses broken when he's reading me--and why
should
> he like it, it is my fullest intent that he should not like it.
He's also the only person here who *does* read you, you tedious windbag.
How's about sticking a cork in it for a while until you have something worth
saying to say? Think of it as win-win. We win by not having to download
and then skip your repetitive and eye-glazing tirades; you win by having the
time to dream up something to say that might - just might - be original, or
at least not quite as stultifyingly predictable as the limits of your
creakingly two-dimensional persona would suggest.
Incidentally, that last sentence of yours needs attention to punctuation.
I'm fine with you pitching your tent on the self-styled literary moral high
ground, but please try to be literate about it.
Alan Walkington
news:c04bgf$123cj7$1...@ID-197978.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Seymour Grass" <JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
> news:c03srn$11tdoe$1...@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Opus" <opus...@bloomcounty.com> wrote in message
> > news:40251CD9...@bloomcounty.com...
> > | > Good writing is fundamental. Thinking of the reader is also
<SNIP>
>
> He's also the only person here who *does* read you, you tedious windbag.
>
Michael, It's called a kill-file. On OE, it's the Block Senders List. I
never used it for anything but spam before John. But you have no idea how
pleasant it is not to see Show-more Ass all over the place. Now if you folks
would just do the same, or at least not respond to his sophomoric trash, I
wouldn't have to step even in his second hand scat.
Just pick any of his poisonous offering and left-click to select it. Go to
the Message menu at the top of the OE main window and click on 'Block Sender
...' You will get a popup telling you that Show-more has been added to the
Blocked Senders List, and asking if you wish to remove his shit from your
life. I would certainly recommend saying yes. I have. It's absolutely
delightful.
It was so much fun, that I look forward to his next name change, or e-mail
change, just so I can do it again.
Alan
Patrick Null
"Alan Walkington" <alan[REMOVE]@walkington.net> wrote in message
news:iFiVb.7859408$Of.12...@news.easynews.com...
> It was so much fun, that I look forward to his >next name change, or
e-mail
> change, just so I can do it again.
OMG, this had me rolling, Alan. Thanks for the chuckles.
Patrick Null
"Alan Walkington" <alan[REMOVE]@walkington.net> wrote in message
news:iFiVb.7859408$Of.12...@news.easynews.com...
> news:c04bgf$123cj7$1...@ID-197978.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Seymour Grass" <JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
> > news:c03srn$11tdoe$1...@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Opus" <opus...@bloomcounty.com> wrote in message
> > > news:40251CD9...@bloomcounty.com...
> > > | > Good writing is fundamental. Thinking of the reader is also
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> > He's also the only person here who *does* read you, you tedious windbag.
> >
>
> Michael, It's called a kill-file. On OE, it's the Block Senders List. I
> never used it for anything but spam before John. But you have no idea how
> pleasant it is not to see Show-more Ass all over the place. Now if you
folks
> would just do the same, or at least not respond to his sophomoric trash, I
> wouldn't have to step even in his second hand scat.
Alan, thanks to your advice, I just did it.
Ah. Freedom.
Mick
[...]
> Deeming any form of literature "worthless" or a "sell out" is ignorant
> and childish, whether it's writers sniffing at sf/fantasy, mystery
> writers projecting disdain at work appearing in university quarterlies,
> or the whole kit and caboodle contemptuously dismissing writers of
> Harlequin or Silhouette romances.
My impression has been that much of this discussion is about worthiness.
I know a psychologist who writes various sorts of fiction. She decided to
start a small press both to publish one of her own manuscripts and to publish
other small-time writers. After research she decided that making it a genre
collection would be best, the sort of cheap thing people stick in their pocket
or handbag and read on the train, and which newsagents display in a little
stand on or near the front counter. She figured out all the distribution costs
etc, and that was affordable to her budget and would meet her ambitions.
So then she had to decide what genre. She was trying to choose between
detective/mystery stuff and romance, so she went to a few conferences for
each. She found that both cons had an equal share of very strange people,
which was no different to other more literary cons, but that the romance
writers worked harder, much harder, and were much more aware of the mechanics
of their writing.
She eventually decided to go with detective/mystery because there was more
room in the market. She published her own book first, and then seven or eight
others before it folded. Maybe she should have gone with those hard-working
romancers :)
Mick.
--
"You are the music while the music lasts" - Antonio Damasio (after TS Eliot).