I've never hear or read these magazines or zines in particular Riot Grrrl. After reading this article "Be a Zinester" I googled it and i thought the concept was great! exactly what i felt was lacking in mainstream. I love pink and I will be burried wearing high heels and a dress but it doesnt mean i dont want to beat down that cunt (she knows who she is) for disrespecting her mom, or i wont write about some fat ass dick in a petite slut's pussy, or a freckle faced man jagging off at himself in the mirror. so the idea that that kind of magazine, and the preceeding zines thereafter, dared to go there and break those stereotypical "woman" roles was so awesome to me. not every girl is prissy and dainty, or hard and crude. it's called being human. of course, i hadnt heard of them cuz i live in a bubble of myself. so, im a little slow on the scene. plus im not down with the scene altogether so that statement doesnt make much sense.
anyways, there is so much crap published out and there is so much awesome shit that just gets completely ignored and that is unfortunate. Zines are that voice when corpo-shit's wont publish you because for whatever reason. Or its the words you cant get yourself to say. its true that everyone has a story but not everyone is willing to share it and when they go through the trouble of creating, writing, submiting their zines it shows it was important to you.
Not every zine is just a folded up piece of paper, a lot of thought goes into making them and it's very idiotic to think that all zines are brain farts. I'm not saying there arent any that someone just thinks, 'zines are hip, i'll do one to fit it.' and thats just crap. nothing should be done because its trendy or the in-thing and if it is, you would hope people learn something from the process. i personally dont enjoy zines but thats only cuz i have limited time to read and process information, my brain rebells against knowledge but if i had a full day to wander the isles of quimbys you bet i would flip through every zine and take it all in.
basically, i really enjoyed this article because it gave me stuff to research and learn more about. yay.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Reading for next week
Here is the story I want you to critique for your writer.
And just in case: I didn't write. And actually, it was a long discussion about accepting it to featherproof, one that never really had an end to it.
Michael Miner distro story. And another, to catch you up to speed.
This is all of the reading for this week. Have fun!
And just in case: I didn't write. And actually, it was a long discussion about accepting it to featherproof, one that never really had an end to it.
Michael Miner distro story. And another, to catch you up to speed.
This is all of the reading for this week. Have fun!
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
reading response: bookmark now.
I'm glad that Bookmark Now lives up to its inviting, in-the-know cover graphics. Or at least it does so far-- having only read the introduction and the contributor bios, I can't say for sure that each essay will be as enjoyable to read. Smockler does do a great job setting the tone in the intro though, talking about literacy and the future of books in a way that really isn't dull. There's a lot out there on the subject that claims not to be dull, but actually is, because talking about books and marketing and dying artforms is pretty dull, in general, and usually people who aren't total squares already know about the existence of blogs and hip-hop. (I find that a lot of "new" and "refreshing" points of view on the book industry spend a great deal of time explaining what blogs are and then I think that the person writing it is not selling any books because they are really old and clueless and have never heard of blogs and are probably writing young characters into their novels that are clearly written by old, clueless people who have never heard of blogs, or hip-hop.)
Anyway, all of that to say that I think Smockler is actually pretty interesting to read and I like his style. I was particularly impressed that he managed to bring up hip-hop in a way I hadn't really thought about before, making a claim for the somewhat accidental increasing literacy of young Americans, who are living lives that revolve around language just by listening to hip-hop music. This is by far the most positive voice on the topic I've heard, and one that I think is not just wishful thinking, but actually kind of true.
In contrast, I'd argue that just because millions of American teenagers are reading and writing blogs and Facebook messages all the time does not make them any more literate (another of Smockler's points.) If anything, I think it's often making them less literate, because sometimes the language of blogs and Facebook messages is such a far cry from actual language or, often, even vaguely coherent communication of any kind that it's not exactly enriching the reading and writing of young people.
But hip-hop, that's different. That's actual craft, an art. And if you've ever read or listened to some of the poetry that is in the best of those songs, you'd realize that it's really not at all ridiculous to say that its listeners are getting a lyrical, literate education, even if they don't know it. Some verses in some hip-hop songs, even single lines, are so exact, so clever and often beautiful, I've been jealous of them, knowing I've written pages and pages of "literary fiction" without being even a little bit close to a line like that. There's a lot of shit out there too, of course, but there's a lot of shit novels out there also, which doesn't make East of Eden any less awesome and necessary.
And so I found that inspiring, as a book lover. As a reader who hopes that our last hope is not blogging and Facebook messages, that some of us are still writers-- and it reminded me that, to quote Smockler, us writers are still telling stories, which is worthwhile, even as "humble and plain our creations may seem in comparison" [to hip-hop], i.e. maybe what we're doing is still relevant and not useless.
(All of that was great and encouraging, but can I also say that one of the contributor bios noted that the writer, having been published in The New York Times, still works at Foot Locker on the weekends. So, you know, let's not get carried away.)
Anyway, all of that to say that I think Smockler is actually pretty interesting to read and I like his style. I was particularly impressed that he managed to bring up hip-hop in a way I hadn't really thought about before, making a claim for the somewhat accidental increasing literacy of young Americans, who are living lives that revolve around language just by listening to hip-hop music. This is by far the most positive voice on the topic I've heard, and one that I think is not just wishful thinking, but actually kind of true.
In contrast, I'd argue that just because millions of American teenagers are reading and writing blogs and Facebook messages all the time does not make them any more literate (another of Smockler's points.) If anything, I think it's often making them less literate, because sometimes the language of blogs and Facebook messages is such a far cry from actual language or, often, even vaguely coherent communication of any kind that it's not exactly enriching the reading and writing of young people.
But hip-hop, that's different. That's actual craft, an art. And if you've ever read or listened to some of the poetry that is in the best of those songs, you'd realize that it's really not at all ridiculous to say that its listeners are getting a lyrical, literate education, even if they don't know it. Some verses in some hip-hop songs, even single lines, are so exact, so clever and often beautiful, I've been jealous of them, knowing I've written pages and pages of "literary fiction" without being even a little bit close to a line like that. There's a lot of shit out there too, of course, but there's a lot of shit novels out there also, which doesn't make East of Eden any less awesome and necessary.
And so I found that inspiring, as a book lover. As a reader who hopes that our last hope is not blogging and Facebook messages, that some of us are still writers-- and it reminded me that, to quote Smockler, us writers are still telling stories, which is worthwhile, even as "humble and plain our creations may seem in comparison" [to hip-hop], i.e. maybe what we're doing is still relevant and not useless.
(All of that was great and encouraging, but can I also say that one of the contributor bios noted that the writer, having been published in The New York Times, still works at Foot Locker on the weekends. So, you know, let's not get carried away.)
Zinester
First off, sorry this is just getting up today. For some reason my computer just did not want to open blogger (it said it wasn't safe, but we're all friends here, I trust you all, and now apparently so does my computer once again).
Secondly, I love reading articles like this because they just get you pumped to go out and do something. Noelle was touching on this in her post, but I'll say it again, the ending of Moore's piece just gives such a great sort of indirect explanation for why zines are important. And, I have to admit, after searching through Quimby's stacks and stacks of zines the other week, I was thinking to myself, "God, why do they carry all this thrown together in 2 minutes photocopied junk." But after reading Moore, now I'm feeling, man, that's really the point, isn't it?
It's getting everybody's stuff out there. EVERYBODY's. Even the people that can't really draw or can't really write. Because somewhere in at least one of the worst, most half-assed zines, there's some nugget, some piece of awesomeness. And it's really great that someone's going to read that or see that and appreciate it, get into that author's or artist's head just a little bit. And that might spark something new creatively for that person who picked up that zine. Or just encourage them to do their own thing, be it a zine or whatever, but to feel that their voice is worth getting out to the public. This sounds kinda flowery I guess or overly cosmic, new-agey--everyone's unique voice is important, your thoughts can cause a chain reaction of other people bringing their thoughts to the people. But I don't really care. I like this idea. The more history, however minute a moment or scene, the more individual perspectives we have archieved and available, the more we can learn. And you can always skip over the stuff that doesn't resonate with you.
Secondly, I love reading articles like this because they just get you pumped to go out and do something. Noelle was touching on this in her post, but I'll say it again, the ending of Moore's piece just gives such a great sort of indirect explanation for why zines are important. And, I have to admit, after searching through Quimby's stacks and stacks of zines the other week, I was thinking to myself, "God, why do they carry all this thrown together in 2 minutes photocopied junk." But after reading Moore, now I'm feeling, man, that's really the point, isn't it?
It's getting everybody's stuff out there. EVERYBODY's. Even the people that can't really draw or can't really write. Because somewhere in at least one of the worst, most half-assed zines, there's some nugget, some piece of awesomeness. And it's really great that someone's going to read that or see that and appreciate it, get into that author's or artist's head just a little bit. And that might spark something new creatively for that person who picked up that zine. Or just encourage them to do their own thing, be it a zine or whatever, but to feel that their voice is worth getting out to the public. This sounds kinda flowery I guess or overly cosmic, new-agey--everyone's unique voice is important, your thoughts can cause a chain reaction of other people bringing their thoughts to the people. But I don't really care. I like this idea. The more history, however minute a moment or scene, the more individual perspectives we have archieved and available, the more we can learn. And you can always skip over the stuff that doesn't resonate with you.
Monday, February 23, 2009
"Where the hell is the fun?" - Boodmark Now
It's funny, reading Kevin Smokler's Bookmark Now Introduction and his commentary on literature's reputation and public image as being CSPAN and hushed library readings, got me thinking: After seeing Columbia's AWP Literary Rock 'n Roll "Concert" I noticed how much we were a part of this literary revolution and how we're not only re-defining and re-thinking the writer's process (story workshop) but the portrayal of the writer.
There probably couldn't be better grounds to test out this new radical side of literature that Smokler discusses.
And there's this part where Smokler envisions a world where lendable books line hotel lobbies, bus stations, coffee shops, and subway platforms, that made me melt a little inside. "How soon," he writes "before readers feel the same attachment to their favorite writers and books as they do to their favorite bands?"
He's right. It's time to stop looking at the recent spike in technology- internet, videogames, television- as the death of literature. Literature, as he displayed, surely has a place in the virtual world and it's about time we start taking advantage of it. If anything, this is our avenue, our ticket to that every-writer's-dream he described. We just need to get on the bandwagon.
Andi White
Zinesters: A New Kind of Historian
In her article Be a Zinester, Anne Elizabeth Moore writes: "Be aware when reading a history of zines that for every single sentence you read committed to paper by a devotee of some subject or another, a different sentence was uttered somewhere and never written down. It was more accurate than whatever you just read, and more beautiful, and spoke more directly to you and your experiences. You can think of it as lost, gone, and unavailable to history-or you can assume it is there, still, somewhere."
Wow. Talk about a great way to end an article. Not only does her statement speak to the importance of zines, but it speaks to the overall importance of being heard and exercising one's voice. Historians will never get it exactly right, because there will always be a certain bias or generalization or neglected segment of the population. Someone or something will always get left out. It's the unfortunate and inevitable nature of it all. But zines allow for those same people to be heard, opinions to be expressed, and subcultures to be defined, while maintaining a certain amount of accessibility and flexibility to the process.
If it's not through zines, I hope that people continue to find creative ways to be heard and to express themselves. As for me, I'm excited to continue learning more and more ways to get my own voice out there, whether it be through zines or other methods. In the meantime, I can't stop thinking about that single sentence, the one that may or may not be gone forever, and part of me can't help but think maybe, just maybe, the point of it all, the point of being a writer in the first place, is in small part to find those lost sentences, those lost voices, and make sure they are finally given that chance to be heard.
Be a zinester response
I like Moore's definition of the zine. She sets it up in a bigger sense than just talking about the lonely kid sitting in his basement cutting and pasting a zine of his together. She makes it sound like more of a movement that you're involved in, rather than a self-indulgent project.
I also like that she thinks of it as a sort of self-educating system where these creators can push the limits and try new things with the support of their following. They don't have to worry about traditional rules overstepping their urge to do something new and to take risks. I've never read a history of zines that included porn. I never really thought of it in that way.
I think the 90's zine genre is one of my favorites. I just read "Shit Magnet" (Jim Goad) for one of my other classes. He was also the creator of the trouble-making zine ANSWER me! He basically just chose the most obscene topics for his zine; anything that would piss people off. He even did an issue that satired rape which caused a huge hubbub and was even put on trial, in a sense. That area in time (connected with the whole grunge era in music) seemed to just really push harder and harder in the questioning of the mainstream, of the government. Any type of authority was glared at under everyone's individual microscope.
I might've just talked myself into an idea for my own zine.
I also like that she thinks of it as a sort of self-educating system where these creators can push the limits and try new things with the support of their following. They don't have to worry about traditional rules overstepping their urge to do something new and to take risks. I've never read a history of zines that included porn. I never really thought of it in that way.
I think the 90's zine genre is one of my favorites. I just read "Shit Magnet" (Jim Goad) for one of my other classes. He was also the creator of the trouble-making zine ANSWER me! He basically just chose the most obscene topics for his zine; anything that would piss people off. He even did an issue that satired rape which caused a huge hubbub and was even put on trial, in a sense. That area in time (connected with the whole grunge era in music) seemed to just really push harder and harder in the questioning of the mainstream, of the government. Any type of authority was glared at under everyone's individual microscope.
I might've just talked myself into an idea for my own zine.
be a zinester
It’s interesting to read Anne Elizabeth Moore’s article on zine’s and also think about the first article on zine’s we read and see all the different points both writers brought it. It’s almost like for each of them, zines history is completely unique and not something that is exactly the same for each person, like a war or a presidential election can be.
I think this has a lot to do with how Anne Elizabeth Moore feels about the history or zines and that it sort of doesn’t exist.
Zines to me have always seemed important because it was people keeping notes on what was going on, or a moment or a thought that makes that person who they are. We don’t have enough of that in this world. Too many of us ‘average’ people kind of just die and no one remembers much of anything from them- no one learns from them.
But to me, zines give us the ability to write history as we know it and not how it’s delivered to us in school.
So if we are the history keeper who’s keeping history on us? Maybe that can explain why the word zine isn’t in the dictionary, or why there really isn’t a solid history of it.
But I want to believe the reason why there is no historical document on zines is because all the zines created are the historical documents. Zinesters are keeping their own histories.
I think this has a lot to do with how Anne Elizabeth Moore feels about the history or zines and that it sort of doesn’t exist.
Zines to me have always seemed important because it was people keeping notes on what was going on, or a moment or a thought that makes that person who they are. We don’t have enough of that in this world. Too many of us ‘average’ people kind of just die and no one remembers much of anything from them- no one learns from them.
But to me, zines give us the ability to write history as we know it and not how it’s delivered to us in school.
So if we are the history keeper who’s keeping history on us? Maybe that can explain why the word zine isn’t in the dictionary, or why there really isn’t a solid history of it.
But I want to believe the reason why there is no historical document on zines is because all the zines created are the historical documents. Zinesters are keeping their own histories.
Be a Zinester
What intrigued me most about this piece was her emphasis throughout that the zine is special because it is the history that doesn't reach the history books. Those disenfranchised, marginalized and forgotten have found a place whether it is in the tijuana bibles or the code quilts of the underground railroad. I think zines are also a strong reminder of what we as individuals can do, what we can create; zines put the power of entertainment and information back in to our hands. This article actually reminded me of an interview that The Onion had with Michel Gondry right after the release of Be Kind Rewind. In the interview, Gondry expressed an excitement and anticipation for a world where people create their own entertainment, and spend less time searching for the perfect movie or song or book wrought by the many hands of corporate and get out there and make it for themselves. This is what zines are: a way for losers to write the history and the audience to make the entertainment.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Be A Zinester response
Firstly, who would've thought that picking up a small 10 page book put together with staples, tape, and a copying machine could have such an intricate and long history. And not only the history, who would've thought that these small books could have so much meaning and passion behind them. They are, as Elizabeth Moore agrees, a way for people to voice their unique opinions and desires that are not often discussed or written in large publications. Breaking away from the norm is, essentially, what zines are all about.
I am, of course, a little biased and proud of what zines did for female publications. The fact that females were finally able to actually use female names (what a concept) was a big step. And then beyond that... the fact that females were actually more prominent than males in the zine world was very surprising. It wasn't surprising to me that porn helped change the subject of zines to something beyond simply music, comics, and sci-fi because... well... what better way to grab peoples attention?
I liked Moore's idea about the possibility that the history of zines could be lost completely. There is so much we don't know because it was simply not written down. Way to leave us on edge...ugh.
I am, of course, a little biased and proud of what zines did for female publications. The fact that females were finally able to actually use female names (what a concept) was a big step. And then beyond that... the fact that females were actually more prominent than males in the zine world was very surprising. It wasn't surprising to me that porn helped change the subject of zines to something beyond simply music, comics, and sci-fi because... well... what better way to grab peoples attention?
I liked Moore's idea about the possibility that the history of zines could be lost completely. There is so much we don't know because it was simply not written down. Way to leave us on edge...ugh.
Quimbys... Well, sorta
Because I missed the Quimby’s trip I decided to pull one of my favorite small press (Fantagraphics) books off the shelf: “Holy Moly” by Leah Hayes.
The outside cover is perfect bound, card stock and a bit of an irregular size. Both the front and back cover are printed with a hand drawn version of an old-school composition book. The inside form follows with each page lined in blue. The drawings all look to be done in ball-point ink pen and wonderfully imperfect. You feel upon the first page like you’ve been drawn in to someone’s sketchbook world, that you’ve stumbled upon something fragile and fantastic that was never ever meant for your eyes.
As you flip each page of this sketchbook you almost feel a story unfold. You watch young and smiling, rummy-eyed dancers and lovers spill and move across the page. You see their words but you’ve missed the entire meaning. You’re left with phrases like: “...a tripple-hanky tear-jerker!” “This has become a trouble” “There is something to youth, afterall” “Here is a taste of your own medicine” and “oh fer god’s sake what are you talking about?” These one-liners fill almost every page, and every dreamy, jerky dancer on Leah Hayes’ stage is guilty of uttering them, even down to the snails and the sea lions, but it feels more like a bad dub. We know it’s not a narwhal or a butterfly or Siamese twins talking but someone else trying to twist original thought in to platitudes, recreating the words over and over to make them more palatable but the bitterness lingers and the heartache pervades. All the while hope creeps in.
A list of my favorite quotes from this book:
and now we are on... cloud 9
there is sum hope (just kidding!)
“asslicious”
whadda buncha bologna
Also, here is Leah Hayes’ website for those interested:
http://www.leahhayes.com/main.htm
The outside cover is perfect bound, card stock and a bit of an irregular size. Both the front and back cover are printed with a hand drawn version of an old-school composition book. The inside form follows with each page lined in blue. The drawings all look to be done in ball-point ink pen and wonderfully imperfect. You feel upon the first page like you’ve been drawn in to someone’s sketchbook world, that you’ve stumbled upon something fragile and fantastic that was never ever meant for your eyes.
As you flip each page of this sketchbook you almost feel a story unfold. You watch young and smiling, rummy-eyed dancers and lovers spill and move across the page. You see their words but you’ve missed the entire meaning. You’re left with phrases like: “...a tripple-hanky tear-jerker!” “This has become a trouble” “There is something to youth, afterall” “Here is a taste of your own medicine” and “oh fer god’s sake what are you talking about?” These one-liners fill almost every page, and every dreamy, jerky dancer on Leah Hayes’ stage is guilty of uttering them, even down to the snails and the sea lions, but it feels more like a bad dub. We know it’s not a narwhal or a butterfly or Siamese twins talking but someone else trying to twist original thought in to platitudes, recreating the words over and over to make them more palatable but the bitterness lingers and the heartache pervades. All the while hope creeps in.
A list of my favorite quotes from this book:
and now we are on... cloud 9
there is sum hope (just kidding!)
“asslicious”
whadda buncha bologna
Also, here is Leah Hayes’ website for those interested:
http://www.leahhayes.com/main.htm
Saturday, February 21, 2009
"Be A Zinester" Response
I like how Anne Elizabeth Moore began "Be A Zinester" by connecting zines to the timeless issue of being in control of your own voice. This is one of the most exciting aspects of zines and is probably over-looked by people who can't find any value in them.
It really surprised me that in the early fanzine scene the ratio between men and women was generally equal. Moore equates their position outside of academia and the "traditional, masculine world of professional publishing" with their democratic nature, as it allowed women, and other silenced and/or marginalized groups, the freedom to express their own voices. Her elaboration of Riot Grrrl zines illustrates the importance of this ability, as the work of Nomy Lamm that she mentions is definitely still taboo today. Although she does not explain the details of the mainstream press distorting the Riot Grrrl message, nor the ensuing media blackout, it says a lot about the power of independent publishing for these zines to have garnered so much attention (despite it being, most likely, negative/anti-feminist backlash) from the mainstream media.
It is also surprising that most dictionaries do not contain the word "zine," and how greatly they are misunderstood in mainstream culture. They do not define zines, as the real history is the zines themselves, Moore relays to us at the close of her article. The importance of this being that the struggle for an authentic, independent voice is not a thing of the past, as even the rebellious writers of Riot Grrrl zines, after the scene ended, were placed into boxes, as Moore puts it, by mainstream media misinformation/revisionism. Moore's call to the reader to explore, analyze and construct a history of zines for her/himself seems to be rooted in a nostalgia for zine ethos, and seems to present a daunting challenge to those of us coming after this time period to revive this age of truly democratic expression--that we should be zinesters.
(Again, to those who see no value in this kind of stuff...weak. "Don't be so lame" is what I would say. "You just don't get it.")
-Richard
It really surprised me that in the early fanzine scene the ratio between men and women was generally equal. Moore equates their position outside of academia and the "traditional, masculine world of professional publishing" with their democratic nature, as it allowed women, and other silenced and/or marginalized groups, the freedom to express their own voices. Her elaboration of Riot Grrrl zines illustrates the importance of this ability, as the work of Nomy Lamm that she mentions is definitely still taboo today. Although she does not explain the details of the mainstream press distorting the Riot Grrrl message, nor the ensuing media blackout, it says a lot about the power of independent publishing for these zines to have garnered so much attention (despite it being, most likely, negative/anti-feminist backlash) from the mainstream media.
It is also surprising that most dictionaries do not contain the word "zine," and how greatly they are misunderstood in mainstream culture. They do not define zines, as the real history is the zines themselves, Moore relays to us at the close of her article. The importance of this being that the struggle for an authentic, independent voice is not a thing of the past, as even the rebellious writers of Riot Grrrl zines, after the scene ended, were placed into boxes, as Moore puts it, by mainstream media misinformation/revisionism. Moore's call to the reader to explore, analyze and construct a history of zines for her/himself seems to be rooted in a nostalgia for zine ethos, and seems to present a daunting challenge to those of us coming after this time period to revive this age of truly democratic expression--that we should be zinesters.
(Again, to those who see no value in this kind of stuff...weak. "Don't be so lame" is what I would say. "You just don't get it.")
-Richard
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Quimby's Purchase = Good, good, good.
I chose a collection of short stories that reads like a journal of sarcastic and witty observations of female sillyness by Claire Zulkey, called “Girls, girls, girls”.
It's rare to find a woman who can really write about women. I don't mean in the way that has become popular in the past few years, showing women as emotional wrecks, sex fiends, marriage hounds, or a number of other stereotypes that women seem to have claimed for themselves (as if to prove that these traits are both normal and admirable). Zulkey can write about women–and she can write about these traits–but instead of glorifying them, she pokes fun at them for the moments of stupidity they actually are. Zulkey isn't anti-woman and she doesn't demean them–she just manages to point out the ridiculous behavior that even the most intelligent women showcase at times. And she does it with great humor.
She makes fun of the way women behave and she does it in a way that can be only be done by a woman who knows how ridiculous we can be. Zulkey's best piece in the book is titled, "Fat: The New Thin." Written as if it were to run in any mainstream fashion magazine, she makes outright jabs at the American female obsession with weight and adoration and admiration held for stick-thin celebs. However, now the weight obsession is reversed, with plump bodies the latest trend and pin thin models hiring “eating trainers” to help them catch up. Said a “John Galliano” in the piece: “It's time to see fabrics stick, pull, grab, and pucker. I'm sick of bare little midriffs; I want stomachs hanging out of shirts. It's time to see rolls, dimples, and flesh squeezing out of hems like sausage spilling out of so many casings.” Hilarity ensues and different “tactics” are described like “liposuction in reverse.” The ending, however, is priceless: "'I’m so goddamn happy,' reads a release from Oprah Winfrey’s press office."
The only downside is that it’s only 60 pages! I read this easily on my way home from Quimby’s and on the way to work the next morning (laughing entirely too loud for a 7am commute). She’s capable of hilarious, longer stories and I started perusing her blog, also equally hilarious. More laughter has ensued on the bus.
All in all, ‘tis a very good read.
It's rare to find a woman who can really write about women. I don't mean in the way that has become popular in the past few years, showing women as emotional wrecks, sex fiends, marriage hounds, or a number of other stereotypes that women seem to have claimed for themselves (as if to prove that these traits are both normal and admirable). Zulkey can write about women–and she can write about these traits–but instead of glorifying them, she pokes fun at them for the moments of stupidity they actually are. Zulkey isn't anti-woman and she doesn't demean them–she just manages to point out the ridiculous behavior that even the most intelligent women showcase at times. And she does it with great humor.
She makes fun of the way women behave and she does it in a way that can be only be done by a woman who knows how ridiculous we can be. Zulkey's best piece in the book is titled, "Fat: The New Thin." Written as if it were to run in any mainstream fashion magazine, she makes outright jabs at the American female obsession with weight and adoration and admiration held for stick-thin celebs. However, now the weight obsession is reversed, with plump bodies the latest trend and pin thin models hiring “eating trainers” to help them catch up. Said a “John Galliano” in the piece: “It's time to see fabrics stick, pull, grab, and pucker. I'm sick of bare little midriffs; I want stomachs hanging out of shirts. It's time to see rolls, dimples, and flesh squeezing out of hems like sausage spilling out of so many casings.” Hilarity ensues and different “tactics” are described like “liposuction in reverse.” The ending, however, is priceless: "'I’m so goddamn happy,' reads a release from Oprah Winfrey’s press office."
The only downside is that it’s only 60 pages! I read this easily on my way home from Quimby’s and on the way to work the next morning (laughing entirely too loud for a 7am commute). She’s capable of hilarious, longer stories and I started perusing her blog, also equally hilarious. More laughter has ensued on the bus.
All in all, ‘tis a very good read.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Quimby's entry
I wanted to choose a novel from Quimbys because I honestly don’t know anything about zines and...well... publishing novels is what plan on doing with my education. (I hope I wasn't supposed to choose a zine or something!) I was originally drawn to Coraline by Neil Gaiman because, obviously, it is a New York Times Best-seller and is going to be turned into a movie, but also because I was drawn to the eerie cover. It actually surprises me that a children’s book would have such a haunting looking cover, but it really fits the story. The story is of a young girl who is always exploring and often bored by her surroundings, but when she discovers a secret door in her house, she discovers a nearly identical family that is far more exciting, but with a colder, harsher look and big, black button eyes. It is a fantasy world where animals can talk and there are always new and exciting things. But there is a twist to that fantasy, as the new parents have kidnapped her real parents, and plan on locking her away from her old life forever, and to sew the buttons onto her eyes and make her one of them. There are other children trapped there as well, but they are trapped within the mirrors of the house. It is up to Coroline to save herself, her parents, and the other children. Neil Gaiman said of this book that, “It was a story, I learned when people began to read it, that children experienced as an adventure, but which gave adults nightmares. It's the strangest book I've written, it took the longest time to write, and it's the book I'm proudest of.”
There are illustrations inside the book that drew me to it in the bookstore as well. If i was just judging by his website, I would assume this is the first and last time the illustrator, Dave McKean, has been asked to draw for a childrens novel. His website might lead you to believe he is varying shades of mentally disturbed... but the dream-like, mystical qualities of the drawings in the novel are very appropriate for the story. Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean have collaborated on two other novels as well. Its good to see a collaboration like that and the way they promote each other.
Reading the book I thought it was edited very well. The font is the right size for a children’s novel (bigger than normal, but not too big). It is a book that can easily be enjoyed by an adult or a child. (In that sense, very Harry Potter-esque if I dare). I think, as an editor, I would choose different subjects or scenarios to illustrate in the book. I think the scenes they chose were very random. While I was reading the book, there were certain scenes that I found myself really wanting to see what Dave McKean would have drawn. I wanted to see these more so than the illustrations he chose to include. Like I said, I like the cover choice because that is what originally drew me in. Everything about the editorial choices certainly adds to the eeriness and mystery of the story, which I loved because it made me more excited to read it than I would have been otherwise.
There are illustrations inside the book that drew me to it in the bookstore as well. If i was just judging by his website, I would assume this is the first and last time the illustrator, Dave McKean, has been asked to draw for a childrens novel. His website might lead you to believe he is varying shades of mentally disturbed... but the dream-like, mystical qualities of the drawings in the novel are very appropriate for the story. Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean have collaborated on two other novels as well. Its good to see a collaboration like that and the way they promote each other.
Reading the book I thought it was edited very well. The font is the right size for a children’s novel (bigger than normal, but not too big). It is a book that can easily be enjoyed by an adult or a child. (In that sense, very Harry Potter-esque if I dare). I think, as an editor, I would choose different subjects or scenarios to illustrate in the book. I think the scenes they chose were very random. While I was reading the book, there were certain scenes that I found myself really wanting to see what Dave McKean would have drawn. I wanted to see these more so than the illustrations he chose to include. Like I said, I like the cover choice because that is what originally drew me in. Everything about the editorial choices certainly adds to the eeriness and mystery of the story, which I loved because it made me more excited to read it than I would have been otherwise.
week three: what I read post-Quimby's.
I picked up the zine anthology Invincible Summer Volume II by Nicole J. Georges when we were at Quimby's. It's a perfect-bound book, not really a zine, because it collects years worth of this girl's zine by the same name. I had read Volume I several years ago and had been meaning to read the second one since I knew it existed, but hadn't gotten around to buying it. It may have been more interesting for me to get something I'd never heard of before, for the sake of the assignment, but I hadn't read this zine in so long that it was like reading it for the first time.
And it was weird. It made me realize how much my sensibilities have changed over the past few years. I know that going to school for writing has really widened the scope of what I read and how I read it, but every now and then I have these moments where I pick up something that I thought was incredible years ago and realize that it doesn't hold my interest anymore, that I read things more critically and need more from writing than I ever have before. Or at least I'm more aware of what I'm feeling about what I'm reading--what elements of it I'm enjoying, what I know it lacks. Reading personal zines is always hit-or-miss and as a reader, you have to have different expectations going in. It's not as though I was expecting The Great Gatsby.
Invincible Summer is a personal zine told in comics and drawings about Nicole's day-to-day life, which mostly revolves around her band, her pets, vegan baked goods, the queer scene of Portland, Oregon and vintage dresses paired with knee socks. It's very...precious. I remember that when I first read it, I was more fixated on this exact type of "alternative culture" in small ways. I couldn't relate to a lot of it, necessarily, but I've always been fascinated with the minutiae of people's daily lives, and I loved reading about her and the lifestyle of her friends, when it was still new to me. Now, she seems very much a stereotype of lots of young women I've encountered the past few years. Which I don't necessarily mean in a bad way. I don't dislike her as a writer or character, but nothing about the zine surprises me, and I think I'm reading it more from the perspective of many critics of personal zines, which is to say that I've found myself thinking "who cares?"
That said-- some of it I do still love, just different parts of it. I like her drawing style and there are certain full-page drawings mixed into the book, unrelated to the storyline, drawn carefully and in great detail and I like those a lot. There are also occasional moments that hit what I love about reading personal zines (and other forms of creative nonfiction, be it blogs or memoirs or whatever.) Moments that feel both unique and universal, that seem true and sincere and not narcissistic and overwrought. I do like reading about what people eat and how they spend their days, but my interests have shifted some and Invincible Summer doesn't quite capture my attention the way it used to, when zines, knee socks and seitan sandwiches were all new ideas to me. I have a feeling a lot of zines would feel a lot more self-indulgent to me now, because of how I read differently and because of how I think differently.
And it was weird. It made me realize how much my sensibilities have changed over the past few years. I know that going to school for writing has really widened the scope of what I read and how I read it, but every now and then I have these moments where I pick up something that I thought was incredible years ago and realize that it doesn't hold my interest anymore, that I read things more critically and need more from writing than I ever have before. Or at least I'm more aware of what I'm feeling about what I'm reading--what elements of it I'm enjoying, what I know it lacks. Reading personal zines is always hit-or-miss and as a reader, you have to have different expectations going in. It's not as though I was expecting The Great Gatsby.
Invincible Summer is a personal zine told in comics and drawings about Nicole's day-to-day life, which mostly revolves around her band, her pets, vegan baked goods, the queer scene of Portland, Oregon and vintage dresses paired with knee socks. It's very...precious. I remember that when I first read it, I was more fixated on this exact type of "alternative culture" in small ways. I couldn't relate to a lot of it, necessarily, but I've always been fascinated with the minutiae of people's daily lives, and I loved reading about her and the lifestyle of her friends, when it was still new to me. Now, she seems very much a stereotype of lots of young women I've encountered the past few years. Which I don't necessarily mean in a bad way. I don't dislike her as a writer or character, but nothing about the zine surprises me, and I think I'm reading it more from the perspective of many critics of personal zines, which is to say that I've found myself thinking "who cares?"
That said-- some of it I do still love, just different parts of it. I like her drawing style and there are certain full-page drawings mixed into the book, unrelated to the storyline, drawn carefully and in great detail and I like those a lot. There are also occasional moments that hit what I love about reading personal zines (and other forms of creative nonfiction, be it blogs or memoirs or whatever.) Moments that feel both unique and universal, that seem true and sincere and not narcissistic and overwrought. I do like reading about what people eat and how they spend their days, but my interests have shifted some and Invincible Summer doesn't quite capture my attention the way it used to, when zines, knee socks and seitan sandwiches were all new ideas to me. I have a feeling a lot of zines would feel a lot more self-indulgent to me now, because of how I read differently and because of how I think differently.
Be A Zinester
I'm not sure if we were supposed to read this for this week or not, but it was on the syllabus, so I did.
To me, it seemed like Moore was sort of bashing everyone else who's ever written a history or zines. Like she was the only expert and only person who knew anything at all about the legitimate history because she worked for Riot Grrrl. It was sort of annoying to read her just tell us that no one really knew the history of zines. What makes her the expert? And is anyone an expert on anything really?
One thing she said did stick with me thought, but probably not in the way she wanted it to. she said "work against mainstream culture to bring their unique voices to people..." and "tell the kinds of stories deliberately ignore, glossed over, or entirely forgotten by mainstream media." This is how I feel about the novel's i write. I try to write about things that aren't widely known about or understood, or at least write about things that I have strong opinions over.
I'm still really not into the whole zine thing. It's just not my thing, I guess. Not that I don't think that some are interesting but I just don't really enjoy reading them. As far as writing goes, I don't really enjoy reading a lot of short stories either, just novels mostly. And the same goes for my writing.
But anyhow, this article basically only told me what I already knew from reading one of the article we had to read before, but then she tried to un-legitimatize it. I guess I really didn't get a whole lot out of it. But no one can like every article that they read.
To me, it seemed like Moore was sort of bashing everyone else who's ever written a history or zines. Like she was the only expert and only person who knew anything at all about the legitimate history because she worked for Riot Grrrl. It was sort of annoying to read her just tell us that no one really knew the history of zines. What makes her the expert? And is anyone an expert on anything really?
One thing she said did stick with me thought, but probably not in the way she wanted it to. she said "work against mainstream culture to bring their unique voices to people..." and "tell the kinds of stories deliberately ignore, glossed over, or entirely forgotten by mainstream media." This is how I feel about the novel's i write. I try to write about things that aren't widely known about or understood, or at least write about things that I have strong opinions over.
I'm still really not into the whole zine thing. It's just not my thing, I guess. Not that I don't think that some are interesting but I just don't really enjoy reading them. As far as writing goes, I don't really enjoy reading a lot of short stories either, just novels mostly. And the same goes for my writing.
But anyhow, this article basically only told me what I already knew from reading one of the article we had to read before, but then she tried to un-legitimatize it. I guess I really didn't get a whole lot out of it. But no one can like every article that they read.
Quimby's
I picked up Loop 4 at Quimby's. It's a small "supterranean poetry journal" published out of Oakland, California. It has a table of Contents indicating that each other will have more than one poem inside the publication, which is true. Toward the back, there is a biography section, supports and order form. They do not have a mission statement unless "Loop: the supterranean poetry journal of....address here" counts. It's printed on while paper with black times new roman type. The title of each open is one font size bigger than the text and also in bold. Each author's name is displayed at the bottom of each of their poems (the last name is all caps and bolded) and underneath that is the page number. A lot of the poems have taken stylistic liberties and aren't simply linear. Although I do enjoy this, I found a lot of them to not have enough space between one line, let’s say, left aligned and then one that's right and then left again. They were too close together and my eyes were having a hard time figuring out where they were supposed to go next. Some of the poems are in normal poetry form and others in paragraph form, so the journal is diverse in that way. After reading through it, the poems don't all have a common theme either, which I enjoy. The cover (forgive me, but I don't know all the forms of covers and bindings and things like that) is a little thicker than the normal pages and had a beautiful cover photograph of the phases of the moon taken with a timed shutter release. This is what attracted me to the journal in the first place. Also on the cover are all the contributors’ names. The journal is bound by three staples in the middle, all the pages put inside of each other. Unfortunately, I did find some spelling errors while going through the journal, but other than that I would say it was well made and well edited.
As an editor, I would probably make sure everything is spelled correctly (I mean on offense, but poems don't exactly have millions of words in them, it can't be that hard). I would spread out different authors entries throughout the journal. Also, I would definitely name sure the non linear poems were easier to read.
As an editor, I would probably make sure everything is spelled correctly (I mean on offense, but poems don't exactly have millions of words in them, it can't be that hard). I would spread out different authors entries throughout the journal. Also, I would definitely name sure the non linear poems were easier to read.
Reading Response
It's really interesting that a main theme driving Temple's article, its responses and as the main inspiration for Munroe's work has been this sharp divide between the independent and mainstream worlds of publishing. Because I know next to nothing about either it's hard for me to comment. But I do have a pretty good understanding of the independent music and movie communities, and perhaps publishing is different but I've found that the only real difference between "indie" and "corporate" is more a matter of labels and that the reality lies somewhere on a continuum. For example, I worked at an "independent" movie theatre that featured arthouse and foreign films. The truth of the matter is that behind all of those small production houses was a major movie producer. Really, it was kind of a rip-off. People came in to see real independent movies: assured that their movie ticket bought them entrance in to a unique and alternative world that they eitherwise would not be privy but really they were paying the same companies for pretty much the same schlock except with maybe some titties, tattoos and dirt. Is John Waters an independent movie maker? If so, how does that account for Hairspray?
And, what about indie music? It seems these days that indie is just a name for a genre or a sound and has little or nothing to do with the type of production involved. I think Johnny Temple actually revealed the ambiguity of the word independent, especially in music, when he spoke of his experience with Girls Against Boys. For the majority of the band's career they could be considered an independent band. Did they lose that title during the brief period that they were contracted to Geffen? Did they regain it when they went back to an indie label?
Perhaps it is due to the money generated by both of these industries that creates the indefiniteness of this term. It seems that most big companies have no problem creating a system that obscures the mainstream support of an "independent" product so that they can reach a wider audience. This might make the distinction between the movie and music industries and the publishing world. Where budgets are smaller, and perhaps the audience less discerning of the origins of their entertainment, it is easier to mark the place that separates independent and corporate. It seems that nothing in life, and especially in business, is really that easy peasy one-two-threesy.
And, what about indie music? It seems these days that indie is just a name for a genre or a sound and has little or nothing to do with the type of production involved. I think Johnny Temple actually revealed the ambiguity of the word independent, especially in music, when he spoke of his experience with Girls Against Boys. For the majority of the band's career they could be considered an independent band. Did they lose that title during the brief period that they were contracted to Geffen? Did they regain it when they went back to an indie label?
Perhaps it is due to the money generated by both of these industries that creates the indefiniteness of this term. It seems that most big companies have no problem creating a system that obscures the mainstream support of an "independent" product so that they can reach a wider audience. This might make the distinction between the movie and music industries and the publishing world. Where budgets are smaller, and perhaps the audience less discerning of the origins of their entertainment, it is easier to mark the place that separates independent and corporate. It seems that nothing in life, and especially in business, is really that easy peasy one-two-threesy.
Monday, February 16, 2009
quimby's entry
I picked up a copy of Burn Collector by Al Burian for this class. I’ve kind of randomly read some of his zines, and he is still cutting and pasting them for two dollars, which is great, because it felt like a lot of zines were more artfully put together (which also means they are more money).
What’s cool about Al Burian is he pops up just about everyone- on a shelf at Quimbys, at the Metra station, or lost at Myoptic books. Everyone I know has had a number of incidents of running into him. The only reason why I feel this is important to mention is because Al Burian’s energy in his zine is the same in person.
What is interesting about his collection is the fact it’s a book and in his opening page Al’s insecurities as to why his work is being made into a book sweats through the pages. “The prospect of a book perturbs me. It seems to imply that I’m somehow graduated from the trenches.” I think Al feels he needs to justify why he is putting out a book and that he isn’t trading in one form for another.
I’ve never really thought about the politics of putting out a zine anthology. I guess that’s because, by the time I found zine’s Chicago’s scene was dissolving: There was readings and festivals, and I used to work at a coffee shop where CUL kept their archives. But even back then, people would tell me “it’s just not the same”. And I guess one of the things that weren’t just the same was zine anthologies.
I never looked at zine anthologies/books in the same way Al Burian does. I always looked at them as a way for a kid like me to catch up with everything I’ve missed out because I was born in the late 80’s instead of the early ‘80s.
That’s what Al’s zine anthology did for me- it caught me up with everything that occurred in his life/zine way before I had my braces removed. We go from hearing about stealing copies from Kinko’s to Rhode Island and then right into his head, reading about his anxiety about not being able to sleep. And I haven’t even finished the book.
I think the politics of putting out a zine anthology are interesting. Did he become a sell out? Was he only doing his zine because he wanted a book to be made? I don’t know. That might be true- but in all honesty I don’t think it is- I think in the case of zine anthologies a distro/person/whatever decided to preserve a zine, hold onto it a little longer then the copy machine paper could typically last. It’s not that Al’s written a book, it’s more so, he’s put together a zine that can last through dust and water damage.
What’s cool about Al Burian is he pops up just about everyone- on a shelf at Quimbys, at the Metra station, or lost at Myoptic books. Everyone I know has had a number of incidents of running into him. The only reason why I feel this is important to mention is because Al Burian’s energy in his zine is the same in person.
What is interesting about his collection is the fact it’s a book and in his opening page Al’s insecurities as to why his work is being made into a book sweats through the pages. “The prospect of a book perturbs me. It seems to imply that I’m somehow graduated from the trenches.” I think Al feels he needs to justify why he is putting out a book and that he isn’t trading in one form for another.
I’ve never really thought about the politics of putting out a zine anthology. I guess that’s because, by the time I found zine’s Chicago’s scene was dissolving: There was readings and festivals, and I used to work at a coffee shop where CUL kept their archives. But even back then, people would tell me “it’s just not the same”. And I guess one of the things that weren’t just the same was zine anthologies.
I never looked at zine anthologies/books in the same way Al Burian does. I always looked at them as a way for a kid like me to catch up with everything I’ve missed out because I was born in the late 80’s instead of the early ‘80s.
That’s what Al’s zine anthology did for me- it caught me up with everything that occurred in his life/zine way before I had my braces removed. We go from hearing about stealing copies from Kinko’s to Rhode Island and then right into his head, reading about his anxiety about not being able to sleep. And I haven’t even finished the book.
I think the politics of putting out a zine anthology are interesting. Did he become a sell out? Was he only doing his zine because he wanted a book to be made? I don’t know. That might be true- but in all honesty I don’t think it is- I think in the case of zine anthologies a distro/person/whatever decided to preserve a zine, hold onto it a little longer then the copy machine paper could typically last. It’s not that Al’s written a book, it’s more so, he’s put together a zine that can last through dust and water damage.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Assignment clarification for 2/17
Well done on the reading comments on the blog. Keep those up. Some interesting thoughts.
So here's what I'd like to see from you in class on Tuesday. I'd like for you folks to write up a short (just a couple pages) critique of the item you bought at Quimby's last week. I'd like to get a sense of what the publication is, what it's trying to do, and how well it achieves those goals. Does it have a mission statement? If so, how do its contents adhere to that statement? What's the quality of the entire project (i.e. editorial quality, production quality, etc.).
What I want you to do is look at it as an editor: If this were your project, what would you have changed, and what do you like (i.e., what have you learned from it?)
Sound good? DOn't worry so much about what's on the syllabus. I'd like for you to focus on this.
Thanks,
Jonathan
So here's what I'd like to see from you in class on Tuesday. I'd like for you folks to write up a short (just a couple pages) critique of the item you bought at Quimby's last week. I'd like to get a sense of what the publication is, what it's trying to do, and how well it achieves those goals. Does it have a mission statement? If so, how do its contents adhere to that statement? What's the quality of the entire project (i.e. editorial quality, production quality, etc.).
What I want you to do is look at it as an editor: If this were your project, what would you have changed, and what do you like (i.e., what have you learned from it?)
Sound good? DOn't worry so much about what's on the syllabus. I'd like for you to focus on this.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Reading Responses
For starters, I guess the most useful thing I got out of these readings were the ten billion references to different independent publishers and small presses. After I finished up with what Temple and Munroe had to say, I had an absolute field day on Google looking at all of the people they plugged. Speaking as someone who knew next to nothing about the world of small press prior to entering this class, it was great to suddenly have so many names thrown at me, and only in the second week, too.
I absolutely identified with what the Temple fellow had to say about the corporate takeover of the book world. "Even young people, new to the trade," he says, "long for the time we never actually knew when publishing wasn't dominated by faceless corporations and the public was hungrier for good books." I am so one of those people, and I think it's wonderful that independent publishers are still willing to take a leap of faith when it comes to selling things that aren't exactly "mainstream". Hell, hardly anything I read is mainstream. Prior to this reading, I'd never really noticed that before. And while the constant comparison to punk music can get old kinda fast for those of us who have nothing but 80s hair metal on their mp3 player- I assume that's only me, though- I was very interested to hear how effective it can be to aggressively promote your own book.
I enjoyed the section of No Media Kings where the different options for do-it-yourself book press were explained, along with all of their pros and cons. After reading it, however, I am 100% positive that I will -never- be able to hand bind my own hardcover book, as it seems to require a level of craftiness that a person as entirely lacking in domesticity as myself could never hope to achieve. That was a bit upsetting. I like hardcovers.
I absolutely identified with what the Temple fellow had to say about the corporate takeover of the book world. "Even young people, new to the trade," he says, "long for the time we never actually knew when publishing wasn't dominated by faceless corporations and the public was hungrier for good books." I am so one of those people, and I think it's wonderful that independent publishers are still willing to take a leap of faith when it comes to selling things that aren't exactly "mainstream". Hell, hardly anything I read is mainstream. Prior to this reading, I'd never really noticed that before. And while the constant comparison to punk music can get old kinda fast for those of us who have nothing but 80s hair metal on their mp3 player- I assume that's only me, though- I was very interested to hear how effective it can be to aggressively promote your own book.
I enjoyed the section of No Media Kings where the different options for do-it-yourself book press were explained, along with all of their pros and cons. After reading it, however, I am 100% positive that I will -never- be able to hand bind my own hardcover book, as it seems to require a level of craftiness that a person as entirely lacking in domesticity as myself could never hope to achieve. That was a bit upsetting. I like hardcovers.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Reading Response 2
Nomediakings is full of helpful info and although the the assigned reading was a do-it-yourself, I didn't feel I was being talked down to- even when he explains how to make a blog and zines, which is almost common knowledge.
But I was especially surprised to get some actual ideas from the do-it-yourself. To be honest, I feel the majority of us know the basics and gorilla ways of getting our stuff out there: blogs, zines but the Quick Tips were often helpful. Like how one references Canzine in Toronto. I think almost everyone gave a nice referenced site. And from all of the reading, I now have a little library of bookmarks of literary sites. And it's only been 2 weeks into the semester.
Reading Response
Temple's An Argument for Writer's Taking Charge helped to sort of identify the zine world, and the literary world as well. The references to authors and publishers and their sites gave me an idea of where and who was a part of this culture. Sadly, some of the companies had died or converted but I realize the document was written in '05.
It was interesting to get a publisher's stance on self-publishing, and while, at first, I thought he could be a bit bias, he strongly supported it. In fact, he strongly pushed for it and argued the many benefits.
It was interesting too to see how the punk scene and zine culture are connected. And it was helpful to get a couple different avenues to self-publishing or self-promotion strategies.
The info about BookScan was maybe my favorite insight. I was comforted, but then disapointed to hear that most "best sellers" don't sell too many copies. Comforted because 5,000 seems like an attainable number but then disappointed that literature does so poorly next to film or music sales' numbers.
Ultimately I sympathized with the image of literature no longer having the same impact as it did decades ago.
Week2 Readings
I was talking to my sister the other day about that vid that came out on Saturday Night Live a couple weeks ago, I dont know if anyone saw it, it just just this guy who wins a trip on a boat and he takes a friend and singer T.I. and they basically just sing about being on a boat. We just laughed about the ridiculous lyrics that some songs have, even if they mean nothing, as long as they have a good beat (preferably a dancable beat) then it doesnt matter what the lyrics are. If it sticks to people's heads, there's an existing audience, sells a few records, then the company is happy. Why bother with out of the box singers when you've got tons of cookie cutter one's that will guarantee you album sales. I guess the same applies to books. If you have a writer who is fairly established, it's much easier to publish his works even if they start to suck as long as you have a built in audience for it.
Johnny Temple's article got me thinking about that. Dont get me wrong, I totally enjoy the pop songs that get me moving and vacuuming my house. I need the energy with two kids, and I dont mind glancing at the books by writer's that have been around for a while. But i think it's more of a trust issue. You expect certain things from pop music, you expect to dance and not think too deep. You expect certain things from Patterson, Rice, King, if you like the genres then you anticipate religion, crime, the supernatural. Books are expensive so not everyone has the money or time to invest in a writer they have never heard before, it seems convenient and easier to hear someone say, "hey you should check this book out," or "lots of people are reading this.." and its not to say that you will automatically like it but it seems like well if these people read this book and enjoyed it so much to recommend it to others, then why not try it yourself.
I think its great that there are independent publishers taking risks, really getting to know fresh names, books that may never be touched by larger publishers and that's great for everyone. because it means there is someone else out there who's voice is being heard.
I dont ever see myself publishing anything I've written, thats for me to keep. I hope to one day get good enough to write that i can find another medium to write in. Theres too much to risk to publish my own work. It's not to say that the article has deterred me from wanting to publish, i never really had that desire. As you can see, I'm a terrible speller. But in the position in life that i am right now, thats not a risk for me. But I would hope that knowing there are people out there, as rare as they are, who will take the time to get to know you, to invest in your vision, to give you the opportunity to basically run your own show and thats an incredible thing, for anyone who loves to write.
Johnny Temple's article got me thinking about that. Dont get me wrong, I totally enjoy the pop songs that get me moving and vacuuming my house. I need the energy with two kids, and I dont mind glancing at the books by writer's that have been around for a while. But i think it's more of a trust issue. You expect certain things from pop music, you expect to dance and not think too deep. You expect certain things from Patterson, Rice, King, if you like the genres then you anticipate religion, crime, the supernatural. Books are expensive so not everyone has the money or time to invest in a writer they have never heard before, it seems convenient and easier to hear someone say, "hey you should check this book out," or "lots of people are reading this.." and its not to say that you will automatically like it but it seems like well if these people read this book and enjoyed it so much to recommend it to others, then why not try it yourself.
I think its great that there are independent publishers taking risks, really getting to know fresh names, books that may never be touched by larger publishers and that's great for everyone. because it means there is someone else out there who's voice is being heard.
I dont ever see myself publishing anything I've written, thats for me to keep. I hope to one day get good enough to write that i can find another medium to write in. Theres too much to risk to publish my own work. It's not to say that the article has deterred me from wanting to publish, i never really had that desire. As you can see, I'm a terrible speller. But in the position in life that i am right now, thats not a risk for me. But I would hope that knowing there are people out there, as rare as they are, who will take the time to get to know you, to invest in your vision, to give you the opportunity to basically run your own show and thats an incredible thing, for anyone who loves to write.
week two: the silver lining?
Reading Johnny Temple's article was eye-opening without being the least bit surprising. I don't feel that I learned anything new, but I thought it was really effective for Temple to draw the comparison between self-promotion in music and self-promotion in books. One of the reasons I think this comparison doesn't just occur to people naturally, particularly writers, is because a writer's perception of writing as a career is different than a musician's perception of what their career in music will be like. That came out kind of confusing-- and maybe what I'm trying to comment on is actually more of a stereotype about a "writer's disposition." That is to say that young musicians promote without even having to think about whether or not they will promote, because it is part of what they love about playing music: playing shows and touring. That's a huge part of promotion, but the musicians don't necessarily have to think about whether or not they want to play shows. Of course they do. And of course they want to tour playing their music, why wouldn't they? Obviously this is also a stereotype, but let's say for the sake of argument that many, if not most, musicians want to play their music in public. At least a little. Whether or not they have the money to do so is another story altogether, but I do think self-promotion does, to an extent, come more naturally to the up-and-coming musician than it does the writer.
Writers, for one, write alone. With few exceptions, writing is a solitary act driven by something totally unrelated to sharing the work, at least initially. Later, you may think of how audience fits into what you're writing, but at first, you are writing because you want to write. And how do you share that easily? Reading series are hard to come by in most places, and GOOD reading series are almost impossible to find. Book tours are rare and it's difficult to get a bookstore to schedule a tour stop for you if no one has ever heard of you. And besides, book readings are often awkward, forced, even anti-social. Because writing, by nature, isn't something easy to share with others in a large group. A lot of writers themselves are awkward when presented with the opportunity to read to a group of people. We're writers, not performers.
So my point is really this: if you have corporate money backing your book, they set up your book tour for you. They promote, get people to the reading. Strangers see the poster at the bookstore and show up, things like that. But when you have to do a lot of self-promotion, in creative "baton-twirling" ways or in more traditional ways, you are forced to interact with other people in the writing community. You make connections with people at bookstores, invite your writer friends, collaborate with the other artists in your life that can help you out-- graphic designers, bloggers, anyone who can be a part of your effort to get your writing out there. Otherwise, no one will ever read it or buy it, and you'll never make any money and support yourself as a writer. So I think something great about the difficulty of getting a book published and promoted is that it's made it necessary for writers to work with one another and create a real life community across the country and internationally, taking writers away from the initial incubator of creating the work and into the world of sharing that work with other people.
If it wasn't for the near-impossibility of getting real money from a major publisher for your book, we'd all be promoting and publishing via a series of e-mails with a Simon & Schuster editor or PR person that we've never met. This way, we need each other's help. Plus, there aren't enough occasions for baton twirlers. The real discussion here should be about how to get baton twirlers more jobs and more pay, right?
Writers, for one, write alone. With few exceptions, writing is a solitary act driven by something totally unrelated to sharing the work, at least initially. Later, you may think of how audience fits into what you're writing, but at first, you are writing because you want to write. And how do you share that easily? Reading series are hard to come by in most places, and GOOD reading series are almost impossible to find. Book tours are rare and it's difficult to get a bookstore to schedule a tour stop for you if no one has ever heard of you. And besides, book readings are often awkward, forced, even anti-social. Because writing, by nature, isn't something easy to share with others in a large group. A lot of writers themselves are awkward when presented with the opportunity to read to a group of people. We're writers, not performers.
So my point is really this: if you have corporate money backing your book, they set up your book tour for you. They promote, get people to the reading. Strangers see the poster at the bookstore and show up, things like that. But when you have to do a lot of self-promotion, in creative "baton-twirling" ways or in more traditional ways, you are forced to interact with other people in the writing community. You make connections with people at bookstores, invite your writer friends, collaborate with the other artists in your life that can help you out-- graphic designers, bloggers, anyone who can be a part of your effort to get your writing out there. Otherwise, no one will ever read it or buy it, and you'll never make any money and support yourself as a writer. So I think something great about the difficulty of getting a book published and promoted is that it's made it necessary for writers to work with one another and create a real life community across the country and internationally, taking writers away from the initial incubator of creating the work and into the world of sharing that work with other people.
If it wasn't for the near-impossibility of getting real money from a major publisher for your book, we'd all be promoting and publishing via a series of e-mails with a Simon & Schuster editor or PR person that we've never met. This way, we need each other's help. Plus, there aren't enough occasions for baton twirlers. The real discussion here should be about how to get baton twirlers more jobs and more pay, right?
rambing about the reading (week 2)
Well, if there's anything I've learned in these readings, it's that you have to assemble a rock and roll band or hire a baton twirler show up at Barnes and Noble just to get people to buy your book. Oh, is that not exactly what he said? Okay, sorry... that was my attempt at humor. But in all seriousness, it made me realize the importance of self promoting and (of course) of working with an independent publisher. Hey, if they really pay more attention to my book and are more creative in marketing... sign me up! And... as I'm seeing is a common complaint from our class, I want to design my book. duh. We can try to say we go to a very diverse, accepting school and are averse to stereotyping.... but hey, we all judge a book by its cover. That just adds to the fact that I can often be an anal perfectionist, and I want everything to be exactly the way I want it (which I'm finding is something I might need to work on if I'm going to be anywhere in the world of publishing).
Oh, and look out fellow writers. BookScan has been revealed! But hey.... if I'm even on BookScan I'm going to celebrate because that means I've got at least one up there! This whole topic is really quite depressing, actually. You have to sell 1,000 books to get a positive review in The New York Times... and they ridiculed her for that "low" number. I'm just a measely freshman who is getting quite overwhelmed with this whole business. All of this is just teaching me that... well... I better marry rich! Okay I was definitely joking about that one. Now that I know you all judge a book by its cover, I better watch what I say. Wow, I should really stop rambling now. That's it. I'm done.
Oh, and look out fellow writers. BookScan has been revealed! But hey.... if I'm even on BookScan I'm going to celebrate because that means I've got at least one up there! This whole topic is really quite depressing, actually. You have to sell 1,000 books to get a positive review in The New York Times... and they ridiculed her for that "low" number. I'm just a measely freshman who is getting quite overwhelmed with this whole business. All of this is just teaching me that... well... I better marry rich! Okay I was definitely joking about that one. Now that I know you all judge a book by its cover, I better watch what I say. Wow, I should really stop rambling now. That's it. I'm done.
I'm proud to judge books by the cover.
Well, I’m not a writer, but I am a judger. A judger of books by their covers.
Going off of the post below me, I completely agree. Like I said, I don't write, and after this semester, I hope I never have to involuntarily write again, BUT, I am an avid reader.
As a complete bibliophile, I browse through the shelves of Barnes & Noble, Bookman's Alley, Myopic Books, and the like multiple times a week/day/hour. I’m always drawn to the books that are aesthetically pleasing. And more often than not, they are independently published. I guess this stems from my extreme neat-nick self, wanting everything to be aligned: stars, planets, fonts, quotes, etc... I’m constantly aligning all my articles as "justified" on Microsoft Word, making sure that everything is in its place. "A place for everything, and everything in its place," I always quip.
Anyway, (and you'll see from these weekly posts that I just LOVE going off on tangents that never have anything to do with anything) I completely agree that if you are putting out YOUR work for the world to see, it must represent you. Not the company you're going through, not what the advertisers want it to be, but you. It’s yours and you're sharing.
This is why I think its very smart to self-publish, and if not self publish, make sure you're a part of every tiny thing, every step of the way.
Back to original tangent, when I am perusing the stacks of books in whatever book heaven I may be in that day, the books that stand out to me are the books that are BAM. Bam as in Emeril. His BAMS always mean, WOWEE! And when I see a cover of a book that says WOWEE to me, I buy it. I don't care what it's about (which always leads to too many books, not enough bookshelves, thus stacked up books along the wall...enough to make a bench out of. yes, I’ve sat on my stacks of books many-a-time. and see, another tangent).
ANYWAY, when looking at these books, which I’m browsing through my living room finding such books, I always read the author's bio, then Google said author. Then, most likely you're directed to their website and you can truly see if the book that is representing them is in fact a true representation, not some generic, "the-man", representation full of crap.
And so, with too many tangents and a love for judging books by their covers, I bid you adieu.
Going off of the post below me, I completely agree. Like I said, I don't write, and after this semester, I hope I never have to involuntarily write again, BUT, I am an avid reader.
As a complete bibliophile, I browse through the shelves of Barnes & Noble, Bookman's Alley, Myopic Books, and the like multiple times a week/day/hour. I’m always drawn to the books that are aesthetically pleasing. And more often than not, they are independently published. I guess this stems from my extreme neat-nick self, wanting everything to be aligned: stars, planets, fonts, quotes, etc... I’m constantly aligning all my articles as "justified" on Microsoft Word, making sure that everything is in its place. "A place for everything, and everything in its place," I always quip.
Anyway, (and you'll see from these weekly posts that I just LOVE going off on tangents that never have anything to do with anything) I completely agree that if you are putting out YOUR work for the world to see, it must represent you. Not the company you're going through, not what the advertisers want it to be, but you. It’s yours and you're sharing.
This is why I think its very smart to self-publish, and if not self publish, make sure you're a part of every tiny thing, every step of the way.
Back to original tangent, when I am perusing the stacks of books in whatever book heaven I may be in that day, the books that stand out to me are the books that are BAM. Bam as in Emeril. His BAMS always mean, WOWEE! And when I see a cover of a book that says WOWEE to me, I buy it. I don't care what it's about (which always leads to too many books, not enough bookshelves, thus stacked up books along the wall...enough to make a bench out of. yes, I’ve sat on my stacks of books many-a-time. and see, another tangent).
ANYWAY, when looking at these books, which I’m browsing through my living room finding such books, I always read the author's bio, then Google said author. Then, most likely you're directed to their website and you can truly see if the book that is representing them is in fact a true representation, not some generic, "the-man", representation full of crap.
And so, with too many tangents and a love for judging books by their covers, I bid you adieu.
Responses, week two.
from the Johnny Temple article:
"A common complaint from writers working with big houses is that they have no say in their book-cover designs."
As if I needed any more reason to only submit to small presses. Call it anal retentive, call it petty, but I care about how my novel looks, inside and out. Or will look, when I care about writing it. But the idea of having a first novel put together by a freshman graphic designer just learning Photoshop nauseates me. Most people won't care about the sort of tiny details I do--font types, chapter headings, header and footer on each page. Not having control over these details has always been a worry of mine if I ever considered getting a novel published. I'd be much happier putting out a beautiful book that breaks even than a poorly designed collection of words that makes maybe somewhat of a profit. It's comforting to know that my obsessive stance on this sort of thing would be somewhat honored with a small press. I also suspect that I have a crazy gene that just makes me want to design books for the rest of my life, since the ones in print I usually see coming out hardly look worth investigating, something which Temple also mentions briefly.
No Media Kings is super-impressive. The DIY articles cover all kinds of sweet stuff, from comic books to radio dramas, which I refuse to believe are really dead. I adore Jim Monroe's attitude--clearly he detested the idea of what was "out there" and just started his own publishing company to publish what he wanted. This is the same impression I got from one of the earliest small press owners I met, before I really knew what small press even meant. This bubbly, published woman came to my high school, read some happy poems, and talked about how she and her husband, or something, just didn't care for anything being published, so they set out to do their own stuff. I remember thinking, "You can do that?" Then, a few years later, my instructors smacked me over the head about small presses and literary magazines, and it still didn't click. I read blogs like this and think I could have been headlong into so many projects by now. But really, it's college, so it's a better time than never.
"A common complaint from writers working with big houses is that they have no say in their book-cover designs."
As if I needed any more reason to only submit to small presses. Call it anal retentive, call it petty, but I care about how my novel looks, inside and out. Or will look, when I care about writing it. But the idea of having a first novel put together by a freshman graphic designer just learning Photoshop nauseates me. Most people won't care about the sort of tiny details I do--font types, chapter headings, header and footer on each page. Not having control over these details has always been a worry of mine if I ever considered getting a novel published. I'd be much happier putting out a beautiful book that breaks even than a poorly designed collection of words that makes maybe somewhat of a profit. It's comforting to know that my obsessive stance on this sort of thing would be somewhat honored with a small press. I also suspect that I have a crazy gene that just makes me want to design books for the rest of my life, since the ones in print I usually see coming out hardly look worth investigating, something which Temple also mentions briefly.
No Media Kings is super-impressive. The DIY articles cover all kinds of sweet stuff, from comic books to radio dramas, which I refuse to believe are really dead. I adore Jim Monroe's attitude--clearly he detested the idea of what was "out there" and just started his own publishing company to publish what he wanted. This is the same impression I got from one of the earliest small press owners I met, before I really knew what small press even meant. This bubbly, published woman came to my high school, read some happy poems, and talked about how she and her husband, or something, just didn't care for anything being published, so they set out to do their own stuff. I remember thinking, "You can do that?" Then, a few years later, my instructors smacked me over the head about small presses and literary magazines, and it still didn't click. I read blogs like this and think I could have been headlong into so many projects by now. But really, it's college, so it's a better time than never.
Monday, February 9, 2009
way, way, way too long reading response
Alright, first off, not that I'm really familiar with Akashic aside from seeing the name once in a while pop up on books, so I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the Girls Against Boys connection. Looking into that on allmusic.com and seeing their singer listed as "Scott McCloud" made me think, "Jesus, is everyone in this band moonlighting in books?" But a bit of googling quickly showed that Girls Against Boys' Scott McCloud is not the Scott McCloud of "Understanding Comics" fame. Anyway, I'm a nerd and I'm rambling. The only really revelent thing I wanted to throw in there was a quote from their allmusic bio; "their jump to major label Geffen, 1998's Freak*on*ica, was the worst record of their career." That statement just seems fitting in with Temple's comments and comparisons about his own experience with a "major" that totally didn't get it.
For me, reading the statement about how 175,000 new books were published in 2003 just made me curious what that number might have been in say, 1957. Or 1922? I mean, I know there was that whole WWI to WWII crowd of Stein and Hemingway and these others that sort of burst into the public eye (Pound, Joyce, Faulkner and later all the Beats). And a lot of these people really sorta had what today might be considered "rock star status." So what was that all about? Were there just less books being published? Was it a fluke? Was it something about the time (pre-tv domination, people needing escape and answers after the wars and finding it in literature)? Or was it the promotion techniques? I don't really know anything about what they would have been at that time. Nothing too radical, I'd guess. I think as far as the Beats would be concerned (who didn't really explode until the mid-60's, after most of them had been on the scene for several years) there would definately be a connection to the times and a whole (counter)culture of people finding something to identify with in their writings, pushing them into that rock star status (which was also something new and a force of its own as a concept at that time, so maybe there's a connection there too).
I don't know. I'm just tossing around ideas seeing if anyone else has thought about this. But it does seem like that rock stars of the literary world concept has pretty much died. Yeah there's the occasional Chuck Palahniuk. But that's one in how many? And even then, if you asked like your mom who Chuck Palahniuk is, would she know? Would she be able to name something he's written? And he publishes on the majors.
Anyway, I like Temple's comparison between the indie world of books and music. And both scenes seem to have come about out of necessity. You hear so much these last couple of years about how people had to break from the standards of their medium because those standards and practices had become broken and obsolete, yet these big companies just wanna beat a dead horse. The immediate and big publicity one coming to mind is Radiohead's on-line release of their last album. Or just the other day I read an interview with Joss Wedon (writer/creator Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Toy Story, lord of the fanboys), and he was talking about his new show and saying how he never plans to work in tv again when (he didn't even say "if") this fails because the people in charge of the networks just don't realize that their medium is failing--they don't allow the people creating their programming to be creative--to do their job. It seems the exact same thing is going on and has been going on in music and literature. So those forms went to indie publishing (Wedon sees one underdeveloped option for independent creation in the short form video on the web, which he's begun toying with beginning with a hugely succesful mini-series that in its first 3 weeks sold more than any downloadable tv show on itunes ever has).
So, going back to what I was talking about with things being a sign of the times, maybe there's something to that. This seems to be really been stewing over the last 30 years, with the new indies of different formats starting to actually have a wider impact in the last 20 (which isn't to say there hasn't been some form of a much smaller independent avenue for artists even earlier, but...). Music headed towards indies in the early '80's along with books with more succesful indie labels and publishers really coming to prominance in the early to mid '90's, many of which have continued to grow to this day (Matador, Merge, Temple's Akashic, McSweeney's, etc.). The same seemed to happen with movies in the same time period, things like "Slacker" and "Clerks" bringing them to a wider audience. Not becoming household names and not making their creators millionaires, just wider audiences than might have gotten in say 1980. Now it's starting with tv, just a little later. But then, it's a newer medium than the others.
Temple says "independents are often far more attentive to their books, and more creative with their marketing, even if their budgets are smaller." I'd say it's the same with any of these mediums. I'd actually guess it could be revised to say "BECAUSE their budgets are smaller." You have to be more creative. Plus there's more of a personal drive to succeed--it's your work and you have a sense of ownership over it. And even then, since there's no expectations of "making it huge," why not experiment, try something new, see what sticks? There's really not much to lose.
Temple says that only by embrasing the new realities of publishing "can literature hope to reclaim the magic it once exerted upon the public." Is that all there is to it? Or are some people in this era just done with books, or at least books that force you to be engaged with the text while reading? I mean, most people these days just don't want to bother to make the effort it takes to listen to good music and I doubt it's much different with books. And I know that might sound elitist and pretentious but, don't worry, I'm not gonna get started on payola and Clear Channel and the coming rapture. But I recognize that it is a time consuming and sometimes draining effort. And I know everyone taking this class is here because they have an interest in "other" "non-cookie-cutter" voices. But sometimes when we're blessed enough to spend most of our days immersed in an open and idea accepting climat like Columbia (or "art" school in general), it can be easy to forget that we are definately not most of the world. Most of the world likes Oprah to say "this is what we're reading next" or radio stations to say "this is what you like because you've listened to it four times in the last hour" or big Hollywood studios to manipulate stereotypes and say "girls like crying movies, boys like explosions." And, no, not everything on the radio is bad, or every Hollywood movie, and even Oprah has her moments. But by this point, with most people having only known any given form of art in this way for their entire lives, how many people out there really care that this is the scenario? How many people actually want something different? So there aren't the literary big shot, rock stars anymore. But maybe that's not that awful. I mean, I wouldn't wanna see Sonic Youth or Pavement at Lollapalooza anyway. I wanna see 'em in a tiny club. The same way I wanna be able to write authors to ask them questions for class presentations at their e-mail address for the college they teach at because they aren't rock stars and they don't live in mansions.
For me, reading the statement about how 175,000 new books were published in 2003 just made me curious what that number might have been in say, 1957. Or 1922? I mean, I know there was that whole WWI to WWII crowd of Stein and Hemingway and these others that sort of burst into the public eye (Pound, Joyce, Faulkner and later all the Beats). And a lot of these people really sorta had what today might be considered "rock star status." So what was that all about? Were there just less books being published? Was it a fluke? Was it something about the time (pre-tv domination, people needing escape and answers after the wars and finding it in literature)? Or was it the promotion techniques? I don't really know anything about what they would have been at that time. Nothing too radical, I'd guess. I think as far as the Beats would be concerned (who didn't really explode until the mid-60's, after most of them had been on the scene for several years) there would definately be a connection to the times and a whole (counter)culture of people finding something to identify with in their writings, pushing them into that rock star status (which was also something new and a force of its own as a concept at that time, so maybe there's a connection there too).
I don't know. I'm just tossing around ideas seeing if anyone else has thought about this. But it does seem like that rock stars of the literary world concept has pretty much died. Yeah there's the occasional Chuck Palahniuk. But that's one in how many? And even then, if you asked like your mom who Chuck Palahniuk is, would she know? Would she be able to name something he's written? And he publishes on the majors.
Anyway, I like Temple's comparison between the indie world of books and music. And both scenes seem to have come about out of necessity. You hear so much these last couple of years about how people had to break from the standards of their medium because those standards and practices had become broken and obsolete, yet these big companies just wanna beat a dead horse. The immediate and big publicity one coming to mind is Radiohead's on-line release of their last album. Or just the other day I read an interview with Joss Wedon (writer/creator Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Toy Story, lord of the fanboys), and he was talking about his new show and saying how he never plans to work in tv again when (he didn't even say "if") this fails because the people in charge of the networks just don't realize that their medium is failing--they don't allow the people creating their programming to be creative--to do their job. It seems the exact same thing is going on and has been going on in music and literature. So those forms went to indie publishing (Wedon sees one underdeveloped option for independent creation in the short form video on the web, which he's begun toying with beginning with a hugely succesful mini-series that in its first 3 weeks sold more than any downloadable tv show on itunes ever has).
So, going back to what I was talking about with things being a sign of the times, maybe there's something to that. This seems to be really been stewing over the last 30 years, with the new indies of different formats starting to actually have a wider impact in the last 20 (which isn't to say there hasn't been some form of a much smaller independent avenue for artists even earlier, but...). Music headed towards indies in the early '80's along with books with more succesful indie labels and publishers really coming to prominance in the early to mid '90's, many of which have continued to grow to this day (Matador, Merge, Temple's Akashic, McSweeney's, etc.). The same seemed to happen with movies in the same time period, things like "Slacker" and "Clerks" bringing them to a wider audience. Not becoming household names and not making their creators millionaires, just wider audiences than might have gotten in say 1980. Now it's starting with tv, just a little later. But then, it's a newer medium than the others.
Temple says "independents are often far more attentive to their books, and more creative with their marketing, even if their budgets are smaller." I'd say it's the same with any of these mediums. I'd actually guess it could be revised to say "BECAUSE their budgets are smaller." You have to be more creative. Plus there's more of a personal drive to succeed--it's your work and you have a sense of ownership over it. And even then, since there's no expectations of "making it huge," why not experiment, try something new, see what sticks? There's really not much to lose.
Temple says that only by embrasing the new realities of publishing "can literature hope to reclaim the magic it once exerted upon the public." Is that all there is to it? Or are some people in this era just done with books, or at least books that force you to be engaged with the text while reading? I mean, most people these days just don't want to bother to make the effort it takes to listen to good music and I doubt it's much different with books. And I know that might sound elitist and pretentious but, don't worry, I'm not gonna get started on payola and Clear Channel and the coming rapture. But I recognize that it is a time consuming and sometimes draining effort. And I know everyone taking this class is here because they have an interest in "other" "non-cookie-cutter" voices. But sometimes when we're blessed enough to spend most of our days immersed in an open and idea accepting climat like Columbia (or "art" school in general), it can be easy to forget that we are definately not most of the world. Most of the world likes Oprah to say "this is what we're reading next" or radio stations to say "this is what you like because you've listened to it four times in the last hour" or big Hollywood studios to manipulate stereotypes and say "girls like crying movies, boys like explosions." And, no, not everything on the radio is bad, or every Hollywood movie, and even Oprah has her moments. But by this point, with most people having only known any given form of art in this way for their entire lives, how many people out there really care that this is the scenario? How many people actually want something different? So there aren't the literary big shot, rock stars anymore. But maybe that's not that awful. I mean, I wouldn't wanna see Sonic Youth or Pavement at Lollapalooza anyway. I wanna see 'em in a tiny club. The same way I wanna be able to write authors to ask them questions for class presentations at their e-mail address for the college they teach at because they aren't rock stars and they don't live in mansions.
Response to readings
Johnny Temple’s comparison of music roots to writing hit me hard. In a way that I’ve realized writing is one of the last things left in our society that still holds onto punk rock ethics.
Music is too easily capitalized on. Three minute songs and chorus lines can buy homes and diamonds. What is available in mainstream music exists because there are big corporations telling society that what we want to hear is chorus lines that don’t challenge much more then how we swing our hips at a Logan Square house party.
The publishing industry does the same thing as big time record labels. They tell us what we want to read and even have control over what kind of politics can be represented in print. By doing this and paying the gigantic advances to big name writers, David Barsamian asks if this takes away the money that could be invested in the writers not mentioned in the New York Times.
But the major difference between the newest Kings of Leon album and these big name writer’s new books is the fact that there is very little money to be made.
The fact books do not make as much money as movies or music made me think about why people do not read as much as they used to. I don’t know if it’s the stupid naive college student in me, but I really don’t believe the amount of people reading books has fallen because American’s don’t want to read. I think the reason why there are less readers out there is connected to the fact books don’t make a lot of money. Our society is sadly controlled by big corporations and if these corporations can not make as much money off literature as they could with a new album then why would they want consumers to be readers?
Seeing how the destruction of independent bookstores has also greatly affected book sales scares me. Mostly because as people like Johnny Temple and us pull up or sleeves and fight to keep independent publishing and literature alive, it’s hard not to acknowledge there is a chance we might all fail- that the big bad corporation can crush us.
I think it’s kind of beautiful that books are not commercially strong. People don’t become writers because they want to be rich and famous- I think realistically we all know that just because we went to college for writing we are not going to write the Great American Novel that will become the Great American Movie. We write because it’s just what we do- because we love it.
Johnny Temple and Jim Munroe are keeping independent literature alive not because they want fancy cars and penthouses. They are doing it for the same reasons why we all wanted to become writers.
I guess that’s why I believe books are the last punk rock culture alive, because a majority of it exists for the art and not a pay check. I also believe this is why Zines are so important and why small presses need to stay small. If the entire United States became one big corporation (although who says it isn’t already) there are still tons of writers and publishers living off the grid- who are not accepting what is being fed to us- but are craving and fighting for the alternative.
Jim Munroe said “I’d rather participate in culture by making it instead of buying it.” And I believe this is the kind of ethic that will save us from the cavity infested fangs of corporate America. With the economy in the crap hole it’s in, big box businesses deflating like balloons and the record Industry begging for a pace maker to keep their heart pumping, maybe we’ll get lucky and the Johnny Temples and Jim Munroe’s will survive and grow while still holding onto their morals and ideals. But if worst comes to worst and we all crash and burn, I think we can be reassured to know that no matter what, small presses and zines and the people who have kept it alive this long will always be doing it.
Music is too easily capitalized on. Three minute songs and chorus lines can buy homes and diamonds. What is available in mainstream music exists because there are big corporations telling society that what we want to hear is chorus lines that don’t challenge much more then how we swing our hips at a Logan Square house party.
The publishing industry does the same thing as big time record labels. They tell us what we want to read and even have control over what kind of politics can be represented in print. By doing this and paying the gigantic advances to big name writers, David Barsamian asks if this takes away the money that could be invested in the writers not mentioned in the New York Times.
But the major difference between the newest Kings of Leon album and these big name writer’s new books is the fact that there is very little money to be made.
The fact books do not make as much money as movies or music made me think about why people do not read as much as they used to. I don’t know if it’s the stupid naive college student in me, but I really don’t believe the amount of people reading books has fallen because American’s don’t want to read. I think the reason why there are less readers out there is connected to the fact books don’t make a lot of money. Our society is sadly controlled by big corporations and if these corporations can not make as much money off literature as they could with a new album then why would they want consumers to be readers?
Seeing how the destruction of independent bookstores has also greatly affected book sales scares me. Mostly because as people like Johnny Temple and us pull up or sleeves and fight to keep independent publishing and literature alive, it’s hard not to acknowledge there is a chance we might all fail- that the big bad corporation can crush us.
I think it’s kind of beautiful that books are not commercially strong. People don’t become writers because they want to be rich and famous- I think realistically we all know that just because we went to college for writing we are not going to write the Great American Novel that will become the Great American Movie. We write because it’s just what we do- because we love it.
Johnny Temple and Jim Munroe are keeping independent literature alive not because they want fancy cars and penthouses. They are doing it for the same reasons why we all wanted to become writers.
I guess that’s why I believe books are the last punk rock culture alive, because a majority of it exists for the art and not a pay check. I also believe this is why Zines are so important and why small presses need to stay small. If the entire United States became one big corporation (although who says it isn’t already) there are still tons of writers and publishers living off the grid- who are not accepting what is being fed to us- but are craving and fighting for the alternative.
Jim Munroe said “I’d rather participate in culture by making it instead of buying it.” And I believe this is the kind of ethic that will save us from the cavity infested fangs of corporate America. With the economy in the crap hole it’s in, big box businesses deflating like balloons and the record Industry begging for a pace maker to keep their heart pumping, maybe we’ll get lucky and the Johnny Temples and Jim Munroe’s will survive and grow while still holding onto their morals and ideals. But if worst comes to worst and we all crash and burn, I think we can be reassured to know that no matter what, small presses and zines and the people who have kept it alive this long will always be doing it.
Writers Adopt a "Do-It-Yourself" Attitude
The publishing industry, like any lasting industry, continues to change and evolve over time, stressing the importance for writers, like myself, to find creative ways not only to adapt but also to advance in this dynamic environment. In “10 Ways to Get Your Writing Out There” Jim Munroe makes the comment, “Other than actually writing, the most important thing to do as a writer is to get your writing out to readers.” His web site (No Media Kings) is a true reflection of this more proactive and hands-on attitude in which artists are becoming more and more accustomed to utilizing when getting their work out there. Munroe, in reference to his own career path, explains, “I try a lot of things simply because I realize I can do them.” I believe that this do-it-yourself mentality, now more than ever, is essential to becoming a successful writer (or any type of artist really) in today’s highly competitive market, and I think Munroe’s web site is a great source of information for those us who don’t know quite where to start.
Similarly, I enjoyed the message in Johnny Temple’s article “An Argument for Writers’ Taking Charge.” People often devote large chunks of their lives into writing their manuscripts, but then get stuck in the mindset that all of the hard work stops at the time of publication. I guess I don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to play a more active role in what happens next. Temple makes a great comparison when he brings up the do-it yourself attitude of many bands. I pass musicians all the time standing out on street corners and handing out samples of their band’s music just to be heard, helping to generate some sort of excitement around what they’re doing. These same bands go from bar to bar, city to city, state to state and play for strangers, hoping to gain some kind of a following or fan base. And I think it’s great that writers are starting to take a similar approach with their work. Why not? No one needs to wait to be discovered anymore. There are too many avenues to explore, especially with the advancement of the literary scene online, independent publishers, and self publishing, further widening the opportunities at a writer’s disposal. Ultimately, I think that the changes in the publishing industry are headed in a direction that will help to promote, as well as strengthen, that sense of connection, collaboration, and community that a large majority of writers hope to attain.
Similarly, I enjoyed the message in Johnny Temple’s article “An Argument for Writers’ Taking Charge.” People often devote large chunks of their lives into writing their manuscripts, but then get stuck in the mindset that all of the hard work stops at the time of publication. I guess I don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to play a more active role in what happens next. Temple makes a great comparison when he brings up the do-it yourself attitude of many bands. I pass musicians all the time standing out on street corners and handing out samples of their band’s music just to be heard, helping to generate some sort of excitement around what they’re doing. These same bands go from bar to bar, city to city, state to state and play for strangers, hoping to gain some kind of a following or fan base. And I think it’s great that writers are starting to take a similar approach with their work. Why not? No one needs to wait to be discovered anymore. There are too many avenues to explore, especially with the advancement of the literary scene online, independent publishers, and self publishing, further widening the opportunities at a writer’s disposal. Ultimately, I think that the changes in the publishing industry are headed in a direction that will help to promote, as well as strengthen, that sense of connection, collaboration, and community that a large majority of writers hope to attain.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Response to Week Two Readings
After reading Johnny Temple's "An Argument for Writers' Taking Charge," Todd Dill's Little Engines interview of Jim Munroe, and Hamish MacDonald's "Do-It-Yourself Book Press" from nomediakings.org, I’m feeling increasingly strongly about DIY/self-publishing. Perhaps it's easier for me to abandon the idea of a big name publisher accepting my work because I'm primarily a poet, and I rarely see them publish many of us, let alone young/new ones, let further alone ones that I find the least bit interesting. They're pretty conservative when it comes to the poetry that they publish, and I can't stand that. Jim Munroe mentions Verse Press (now Wave Books, f.y.i.) and Ugly Duckling Presse toward the end of his article, which, though small presses in actuality, are HUGE from my point of view in the "poetry world."
I feel the same way that Temple does about publishers not letting an author have a say in their own book design. Maybe this is because I feel strongly about how a book looks as a whole, the entire design aspect, and those that just want to have their manuscript printed and be done with it might feel differently, that the cover art is something extra to the book and that their work is already done without contributing to that process. But I can't accept the idea of having written a book myself, having it finally be published, and then having no say in what it will look like. I suppose it would be fine if they did a great job, but if it looks like a book I wouldn't want to read I certainly don't want to have written it. That would be extremely frustrating. I know that one “shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover,” but I feel that a book’s cover, like it or not, communicates something, so the wrong cover can obscure what your book is trying to do in the same way that reading one’s very interesting work in a very boring way obscures the fact that it isn’t just boring work.
I feel that it could definitely be difficult (awkward, scary, queasy..) to have to take on the seemingly impossible task of promoting your book in a serious/significant way, but I feel that if you are involved in every aspect of its production, then it's bound to be something you believe in strongly enough to stand up and promote. I think I'd feel uncomfortable trying to hawk this thing that I've handed off to some giant publisher at people, but, as Temple and Munroe bring up with their analogies to the indie music, I think people are much more willing to trust/believe in something that's been worked at hard from the ground up (I know I am!), and if there is perhaps a condescending attitude that the general public may have toward those who take this route, I feel that it will lessen over time, or that it can be assuaged by showing them books that are of high quality, both writing and design-wise, and seeing that it is not just the poorly slapped together ravings of an angry/melancholic artist who resorted to self-publishing as a last ditch effort after having failed to be published by anyone else for years.
I chose to read McDonald's article because I'm really interested in the idea of making one's own mini-press at home. Though the more expensive equipment described is certainly out of my reach for now, I think it's empowering to be able to produce a book/zine of one's own, even if you're not thinking of attempting to officially self-publish or distribute it, that it gives you a different perspective on the whole publishing process and you can learn a lot from doing it. Hand-binding hardcover books was definitely the most accessible of the four ways of doing this that McDonald discussed, in my mind. Certainly sewing isn't one of the skills most people pick up naturally while learning to be a writer, and there is a lot to learn when it comes to any kind of self-publishing (even in simply designing a page layout, printing and stapling together a small chapbook there was a lot to learn for me), but all the extra skills are definitely worth it, as you can easily extend them (well, maybe not easily...) to publishing others' works.
-Richard
I feel the same way that Temple does about publishers not letting an author have a say in their own book design. Maybe this is because I feel strongly about how a book looks as a whole, the entire design aspect, and those that just want to have their manuscript printed and be done with it might feel differently, that the cover art is something extra to the book and that their work is already done without contributing to that process. But I can't accept the idea of having written a book myself, having it finally be published, and then having no say in what it will look like. I suppose it would be fine if they did a great job, but if it looks like a book I wouldn't want to read I certainly don't want to have written it. That would be extremely frustrating. I know that one “shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover,” but I feel that a book’s cover, like it or not, communicates something, so the wrong cover can obscure what your book is trying to do in the same way that reading one’s very interesting work in a very boring way obscures the fact that it isn’t just boring work.
I feel that it could definitely be difficult (awkward, scary, queasy..) to have to take on the seemingly impossible task of promoting your book in a serious/significant way, but I feel that if you are involved in every aspect of its production, then it's bound to be something you believe in strongly enough to stand up and promote. I think I'd feel uncomfortable trying to hawk this thing that I've handed off to some giant publisher at people, but, as Temple and Munroe bring up with their analogies to the indie music, I think people are much more willing to trust/believe in something that's been worked at hard from the ground up (I know I am!), and if there is perhaps a condescending attitude that the general public may have toward those who take this route, I feel that it will lessen over time, or that it can be assuaged by showing them books that are of high quality, both writing and design-wise, and seeing that it is not just the poorly slapped together ravings of an angry/melancholic artist who resorted to self-publishing as a last ditch effort after having failed to be published by anyone else for years.
I chose to read McDonald's article because I'm really interested in the idea of making one's own mini-press at home. Though the more expensive equipment described is certainly out of my reach for now, I think it's empowering to be able to produce a book/zine of one's own, even if you're not thinking of attempting to officially self-publish or distribute it, that it gives you a different perspective on the whole publishing process and you can learn a lot from doing it. Hand-binding hardcover books was definitely the most accessible of the four ways of doing this that McDonald discussed, in my mind. Certainly sewing isn't one of the skills most people pick up naturally while learning to be a writer, and there is a lot to learn when it comes to any kind of self-publishing (even in simply designing a page layout, printing and stapling together a small chapbook there was a lot to learn for me), but all the extra skills are definitely worth it, as you can easily extend them (well, maybe not easily...) to publishing others' works.
-Richard
Friday, February 6, 2009
Response to Readings
So, I read How to Get a Book Deal with out an Agent, and am realizing that many of the authors that I read have been published due to an interns "mistake." Which, on the one hand, is great for the author, and on the other, makes me nervous. I'm not one of those people that goes against the rules and sends my manuscripts to big publishing houses if they don't accept unsolicited manuscripts. I don't know why I haven't done that, I think I'm just scared out of my mind. Maybe I should. I'm also not one of those who does as Jim Munroe suggests and sends my stuff to places that aren't my kind of stuff. After interning at Browne and Miller for a semester and reading tons of queries, I have a different respect for sending out only what a publisher or agent is looking for. Because I can't tell you how annoying it is to have people submitting children's books when the website clearly states we DO NOT take on children's books.
In thinking about cover art for novels and such, it makes me really angry that authors don't have more of a say on what THEIR novel will look like. This is unfair for many reasons. The biggest one being because some people go to a book store and if they don't like the cover they won't read the book (which is dumb, but it happens). I think the author should have a lot of say in the art for their book. It is after all, their book. Its the same with children's picture books. The author of the text has no say over the illustrations at all. It's such a weird concept--to have created something and then not get a say in how the final product looks. Needless to say, it makes me upset.
I totally understand what Munroe means when he says it's hard to get an agent to take you on. I myself have been searching and submitting with no luck so far, and it's a really frustrating process. But I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing, and trying and keeping my fingers crossed that someday I'll meet someone who wants to take me on, or I'll get lucky and an agent i submit to will actually like my stuff. The only good thing, is that I have gotten a lot of positive feedback.
The other article, An Argument for Writers' Taking Charge made me think about the fact that once I get taken on by an agent or a publisher that the person who actually cares about my book could very well get fired--and that also scares me to death. The article also talked about the sale of books and how usually most first time authors don't sell that many books, and honestly, that would be fine with me. I just want to be able to say I was published and have the physical copy in my hands. And leave it to fate whether someone picks it up and really loves it and it becomes and world wide phenomenon. That's not to say that I'm not going to market my butt off, because I would.
I've learned a lot about publishing in the recent years at Columbia and especially after my internship and I'm starting to believe that publishing is extremely scary! However, I'm still holding out on the hope that some day I'll make it big in a big house and get that lofty advance!
In thinking about cover art for novels and such, it makes me really angry that authors don't have more of a say on what THEIR novel will look like. This is unfair for many reasons. The biggest one being because some people go to a book store and if they don't like the cover they won't read the book (which is dumb, but it happens). I think the author should have a lot of say in the art for their book. It is after all, their book. Its the same with children's picture books. The author of the text has no say over the illustrations at all. It's such a weird concept--to have created something and then not get a say in how the final product looks. Needless to say, it makes me upset.
I totally understand what Munroe means when he says it's hard to get an agent to take you on. I myself have been searching and submitting with no luck so far, and it's a really frustrating process. But I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing, and trying and keeping my fingers crossed that someday I'll meet someone who wants to take me on, or I'll get lucky and an agent i submit to will actually like my stuff. The only good thing, is that I have gotten a lot of positive feedback.
The other article, An Argument for Writers' Taking Charge made me think about the fact that once I get taken on by an agent or a publisher that the person who actually cares about my book could very well get fired--and that also scares me to death. The article also talked about the sale of books and how usually most first time authors don't sell that many books, and honestly, that would be fine with me. I just want to be able to say I was published and have the physical copy in my hands. And leave it to fate whether someone picks it up and really loves it and it becomes and world wide phenomenon. That's not to say that I'm not going to market my butt off, because I would.
I've learned a lot about publishing in the recent years at Columbia and especially after my internship and I'm starting to believe that publishing is extremely scary! However, I'm still holding out on the hope that some day I'll make it big in a big house and get that lofty advance!
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Reading for next week
Here are the links to the two readings cited in your syllabus:
Johnny Temple
Jim Munroe
Watch this space for any other readings that might pop up, by Thursday at noon.
Johnny Temple
Jim Munroe
Watch this space for any other readings that might pop up, by Thursday at noon.
reading response: the history of zines
First of all, can I just say that it must be hard to write a successful senior thesis on the history of zines when it requires that you quote and take seriously people with names like "Larry-bob" ? That is all on that note.
So I used to read zines a lot when I was younger. Not that much younger, just a few years ago, but still, I feel like it was a phase of sorts for me. I don't remember how I was initially introduced to zines, but I'm sure it was filtered through to me in some way related to the independent bookstore I worked at in Austin. A lot of the people who worked there were very passionate about the bookstore as an independent business. I had always loved it just because it was the best bookstore in the city, hands down, and because I could see that the atmosphere was unique, so much more engaging and enjoyable and multi-faceted than the big box bookstores. It was working there that I first discovered, even heard the terms for, things like small press publishing, self-publishing, zines and chapbooks. A few people I worked with made zines and I eventually made them too, feeling inspired by a friend of mine who showed me some of the best. She ran a zine distro on the Internet and I feel like it was the best introduction to zines I could have gotten-- she knew me and recommended things she knew I would like.
About a year later, I visited Chicago for the first time and went to Quimby's because she had told me to go. I was amazed! I spent a ton of money on zines and art books and devoured them. I later bought a bunch of materials and even conducted an interview for a zine I never did make. I hope to produce some version of it still.
I liked that this essay compared the creators of zines to James Joyce and William Borroughs and Benjamin Franklin. I feel like a lot of the stigma with zines comes from the sillier ones, the stereotypical drunken hipster narcissist zines that really offer nothing but another demonstration of a personality type made public by photocopying and stapling. The truth is, there are a lot of really bad zines out there, and I think that's what eventually turned me off of reading them. They were unreliable and with few exceptions, I'd buy a bunch that seemed intriguing but ended up being really dull and not unique.
But I've always been behind what zines stand for, and I think this essay drove that point home. Regardless of content, zines are hugely valuable as an alternative to traditional publishing, in both magazines and books. I was initially drawn to them because they weren't like anything else and because I found the creativity and self-discipline of the authors really inspiring. I love that they exist at all, the good ones and the bad. I've never really read political zines, but even the zines that are about gardening or music or whatever are all making their own kind of political statement, quietly.
Some of my favorite zines ever are still some of my favorite things I've read, and I think I would be a different writer and reader without them. A different thinker, even. I liked reading this history because I like remembering what is important about zines, even if some of them are really stupid. I've always defended zines when this is mentioned to me, and I always will but now I have some history to back it up.
So I used to read zines a lot when I was younger. Not that much younger, just a few years ago, but still, I feel like it was a phase of sorts for me. I don't remember how I was initially introduced to zines, but I'm sure it was filtered through to me in some way related to the independent bookstore I worked at in Austin. A lot of the people who worked there were very passionate about the bookstore as an independent business. I had always loved it just because it was the best bookstore in the city, hands down, and because I could see that the atmosphere was unique, so much more engaging and enjoyable and multi-faceted than the big box bookstores. It was working there that I first discovered, even heard the terms for, things like small press publishing, self-publishing, zines and chapbooks. A few people I worked with made zines and I eventually made them too, feeling inspired by a friend of mine who showed me some of the best. She ran a zine distro on the Internet and I feel like it was the best introduction to zines I could have gotten-- she knew me and recommended things she knew I would like.
About a year later, I visited Chicago for the first time and went to Quimby's because she had told me to go. I was amazed! I spent a ton of money on zines and art books and devoured them. I later bought a bunch of materials and even conducted an interview for a zine I never did make. I hope to produce some version of it still.
I liked that this essay compared the creators of zines to James Joyce and William Borroughs and Benjamin Franklin. I feel like a lot of the stigma with zines comes from the sillier ones, the stereotypical drunken hipster narcissist zines that really offer nothing but another demonstration of a personality type made public by photocopying and stapling. The truth is, there are a lot of really bad zines out there, and I think that's what eventually turned me off of reading them. They were unreliable and with few exceptions, I'd buy a bunch that seemed intriguing but ended up being really dull and not unique.
But I've always been behind what zines stand for, and I think this essay drove that point home. Regardless of content, zines are hugely valuable as an alternative to traditional publishing, in both magazines and books. I was initially drawn to them because they weren't like anything else and because I found the creativity and self-discipline of the authors really inspiring. I love that they exist at all, the good ones and the bad. I've never really read political zines, but even the zines that are about gardening or music or whatever are all making their own kind of political statement, quietly.
Some of my favorite zines ever are still some of my favorite things I've read, and I think I would be a different writer and reader without them. A different thinker, even. I liked reading this history because I like remembering what is important about zines, even if some of them are really stupid. I've always defended zines when this is mentioned to me, and I always will but now I have some history to back it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)