Hey guys,
So I know that it's Thursday, and you're all wondering why you haven't felt right for a couple of days now. Just to set you back on your axis, I figured I'd post so you can all stop missing me.
A quick note about the McEggers Tang Clan piece: I really appreciated everyone's responses. This was by far the most controversial reading we've had in this class, which I think is exciting, definitely. Some of you are probably still wondering why I assigned it, and Richard noted that I said something about "what happens when your voice takes over your publication," and that's a lot of it: How sometimes we (and when I say "we" I mean me, and maybe you, with your project) can get so deep into how we're doing something that we get away from the what we're doing. This is a major criticism of McSweeney's, that its style has overcome its substance. Another point: The small press world, particularly as navigated by your guileless instructor, tends to be fairly chummy. "We're all pals doing it for the love," that sort of thing. But it's important to remember that, even when you're working on a smaller scale, there'll be critics out there. Thick skins can come in handy.
Hope everyone is enjoying their break. And in case you are, here's a nice succinct explanation of how corporations have destroyed the industry nearest to all of our hearts. Have fun!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Aaaand I'll jump in right here.
So I don't read McSweeney's or the Believer. And believe it or not, I've never had the desire to pick up A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genuis. This is not because I have something against Eggers. I just haven't gotten around to it. I know the magazines and have read a little bit of them but not enough to qualify me as "one of them." That being said, this article was nothing but cheap laughs to me. Obviously it was satire. I got that much, but not being on the inside with the McSweeney subscribers it was hard for me to appreciate it as satire. I felt like I was on the outside of an inside joke most of the time and although the footnotes were pretty funny, they did nothing to involve us outsiders.
I do have to agree with Casey in the fact that satire is supposed to poke fun at things that have grown too big for their own good. The fact that McSweeney's is a zine that was probably never meant to get this big and most likely started out making fun of others who have "sold out" (like most indie things), is funny and ironic.
On a random note (because it just popped into my head) I may have found a slight error in Lanham's tiny tangent about Stephen King and plot. In King's "On Writing," he talks about how he does not worry about plot much:
"...You may wonder where plot is in all of this. The answer-my answer, anyway- is nowhere. i won't try to convince you that I've never plotted any more than I'd try to convince you that I've never told a lie, but I do both as infrequently as possible. I distrust plot for two reasons..."
Anyway, you get the point. It might not change much in Mr. Lanham's self-indulgent satire but it makes me happy to know that there is a tiny error in one of his footnotes.
Or maybe I'm wrong and this was a side note of satire as well. That's what I don't like about satire. It can get sticky and confusing and if you're just going to confuse your readers, then there's no sense in writing.
I feel like this "debate" going on right now in this very blog is exactly what Lanham wanted to evoke and I can't help but imagine him sitting alone in front of his computer, googling his name and reading this blog.
On an ending note, those writer trading cards are a pretty sweet idea.
So I don't read McSweeney's or the Believer. And believe it or not, I've never had the desire to pick up A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genuis. This is not because I have something against Eggers. I just haven't gotten around to it. I know the magazines and have read a little bit of them but not enough to qualify me as "one of them." That being said, this article was nothing but cheap laughs to me. Obviously it was satire. I got that much, but not being on the inside with the McSweeney subscribers it was hard for me to appreciate it as satire. I felt like I was on the outside of an inside joke most of the time and although the footnotes were pretty funny, they did nothing to involve us outsiders.
I do have to agree with Casey in the fact that satire is supposed to poke fun at things that have grown too big for their own good. The fact that McSweeney's is a zine that was probably never meant to get this big and most likely started out making fun of others who have "sold out" (like most indie things), is funny and ironic.
On a random note (because it just popped into my head) I may have found a slight error in Lanham's tiny tangent about Stephen King and plot. In King's "On Writing," he talks about how he does not worry about plot much:
"...You may wonder where plot is in all of this. The answer-my answer, anyway- is nowhere. i won't try to convince you that I've never plotted any more than I'd try to convince you that I've never told a lie, but I do both as infrequently as possible. I distrust plot for two reasons..."
Anyway, you get the point. It might not change much in Mr. Lanham's self-indulgent satire but it makes me happy to know that there is a tiny error in one of his footnotes.
Or maybe I'm wrong and this was a side note of satire as well. That's what I don't like about satire. It can get sticky and confusing and if you're just going to confuse your readers, then there's no sense in writing.
I feel like this "debate" going on right now in this very blog is exactly what Lanham wanted to evoke and I can't help but imagine him sitting alone in front of his computer, googling his name and reading this blog.
On an ending note, those writer trading cards are a pretty sweet idea.
Friday, March 20, 2009
McWhat now (part2)
so ive read people's comments on the mceggers article and dont get me wrong i understand its satire and supposed to be like a parody and whatever but i guess what i didnt get was a conscience to it. i dont know, maybe i was asking too much but it just seemed like a shooting insults, stereotypes, labels, generalities, with a mess of racism, sexism, etc-isms. it didnt have any context, or any meat to it, for me. it just just line after line of inside jokes that didnt seem to really point out how elitist and pretentious mcsweeny's can be. i dont know. but i compared it to dennis miller comedy and here is why...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBeD8LmnSJw
also, i googled lanham but didnt get much info on his background aside from beign born in virginia, that doesnt exactly ring hardcore, part of the minority, and with limited means.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBeD8LmnSJw
also, i googled lanham but didnt get much info on his background aside from beign born in virginia, that doesnt exactly ring hardcore, part of the minority, and with limited means.
refreshingly sincere
I don't spend so much time in fiction these days. I read fiction voraciously up until a year or two ago, and then I discovered, or rather re-discovered, a passionate love of works of science. I've spent the last couple years pursuing this love affair while pitifully neglecting my relationship with made-up stories. As a result, I had forgotten that writing can lack sincerity, honesty, modesty, subtlety, etc. Say what you will about science writing but the right writer can turn cold hard facts in to a profound and entertaining piece of literature without irony, without sarcasm, without snark.
I don't appreciate the humor in McEggers Tang Clan. That is, I'm not offended; I'm just not amused. I'm not in on the joke, I'm not a part of the fan club so trying to follow any of that piece was just exhausting and tedious.
I don't appreciate the humor in McEggers Tang Clan. That is, I'm not offended; I'm just not amused. I'm not in on the joke, I'm not a part of the fan club so trying to follow any of that piece was just exhausting and tedious.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
so would Dave Eggers be ODB?
The McEggers Tang Clan seems to strike a pretty equal balance between flattery and mockery. It's so carefully constructed and precise that you know Lanham is well-versed in a lot of McSweeney's stuff, not just a random guy making fun of it because he resents it. Though, he does seem kind of resentful and a little jealous. It was tiresome to read after awhile, until I got to the mention of McGriddle breakfast sandwiches and the reader discussion question section, because, seriously, ARE Vin Diesel and the Rock the same person? I've wondered this before, for at least ten troublesome minutes.
It is interesting to consider the place McSweeney's holds in publishing nowadays, whether or not it's really any kind of literary revolution. It does have that whole success-and-backlash thing going that tends to happen when things make an impact. And, undeniably, McSweeney's has made an impact. They are "tastemakers" of sorts, though at this point I think what they're putting out in all its forms has become a little incestuous-- it's repetitive and their style hasn't changed much over the years, so I feel they're reaching the same audience (both of readers and writers) and not necessarily re-inventing or evolving, just writing for other members of the Clan. But I think they have really expanded the possibilities of independent or small-press publishers, sort of proving the fact that if you invest in a solid enough product and create it meticulously enough, you will make a name for yourself. I don't often feel very drawn to the writing in McSweeney's books or even in the Believer, but I can recognize that they put a lot of care and thought into what they're doing. The books themselves are beautiful, and as a publisher, they seem to have a pretty unshakeable sense of self: what they want to put out there, what they want it to look like. How their writing sounds and what their books and magazines look like are both almost unmistakable, while still managing to be at least a little diverse. They are a presence in publishing that is so hard to find, even for larger presses, in that they are so distinctive, that they have such a loyal following, a subculture almost. When someone can write an entire essay making fun of your style, you know you've done something right. I'm reminded of that saying, and I can't remember who said it now, but it's something about not knowing who you are until someone hates you.
As I type this in the Fiction Writing computer lab, there's this huge Believer poster staring over me and I feel like all these McSweeney's writers are watching over me. I don't like a lot of them, and I have my own biases against the McEggers Tang Clan (how I will now refer to McSweeney's writers and hangers-on) but I do respect what they've done. How could you not? And to me it seems obvious Lanham does too. I can't speak to his feelings on Wiccans, however.
It is interesting to consider the place McSweeney's holds in publishing nowadays, whether or not it's really any kind of literary revolution. It does have that whole success-and-backlash thing going that tends to happen when things make an impact. And, undeniably, McSweeney's has made an impact. They are "tastemakers" of sorts, though at this point I think what they're putting out in all its forms has become a little incestuous-- it's repetitive and their style hasn't changed much over the years, so I feel they're reaching the same audience (both of readers and writers) and not necessarily re-inventing or evolving, just writing for other members of the Clan. But I think they have really expanded the possibilities of independent or small-press publishers, sort of proving the fact that if you invest in a solid enough product and create it meticulously enough, you will make a name for yourself. I don't often feel very drawn to the writing in McSweeney's books or even in the Believer, but I can recognize that they put a lot of care and thought into what they're doing. The books themselves are beautiful, and as a publisher, they seem to have a pretty unshakeable sense of self: what they want to put out there, what they want it to look like. How their writing sounds and what their books and magazines look like are both almost unmistakable, while still managing to be at least a little diverse. They are a presence in publishing that is so hard to find, even for larger presses, in that they are so distinctive, that they have such a loyal following, a subculture almost. When someone can write an entire essay making fun of your style, you know you've done something right. I'm reminded of that saying, and I can't remember who said it now, but it's something about not knowing who you are until someone hates you.
As I type this in the Fiction Writing computer lab, there's this huge Believer poster staring over me and I feel like all these McSweeney's writers are watching over me. I don't like a lot of them, and I have my own biases against the McEggers Tang Clan (how I will now refer to McSweeney's writers and hangers-on) but I do respect what they've done. How could you not? And to me it seems obvious Lanham does too. I can't speak to his feelings on Wiccans, however.
McEggars Response
I feel that Casey summarized it well. I wasn't familiar with Lanham, so I was having trouble understanding his position regarding McSweeney's. At first I couldn't tell if he was making fun of McSweeney's or making fun of making fun of McSweeney's, though I definitely didn't think he was serious (um, talk about over-the-top). Also, I recall John mentioning this essay in regard to what could happen if you let your press be dominated too much by a certain voice. By the end, I felt like this essay was attempting to address annoying things about McSweeney's to kind of blow off some steam, so that this idiosyncratic literary super-star press could be viewed more impartially, or, less obscured by the hype. Does that make sense?
I think the problem with it could be that in making fun of something seen as pretentious you might have to necessarily come off as a little pretentious, as some of the people you are making fun of it to don't know what you're talking about. Really I don't think it's much of a problem, because this essay is pretty clearly written for the appreciation of those more familiar with McSweeney's than it is an attempt to warn newcomers away.
It does remind me of the critiques of the blogging world in the "Amazing Paper Weblog" article. One thing I like about McSweeney's is that it actually is pretty accessible to people who aren't on the way to getting MFA's in creative writing. Back in high school I knew kids who read and talked about McSweeney's, none of which went into writing, and that's pretty cool. However, these kids did tend to have a sense of humor that was very much aligned with what the article was satirizing, very much the McSweeney's style. Yet, that's a pretty fine balance to strike. Most small presses that I know of that get a lot of attention do have some kind of defining character or style--people like that. Without it you can seem pretty obscure, inhuman. The problem is that whatever you do, someone's not going to like it just as much as others do. I'm not sure if Lanham was telling McSweeney's to tone it down, or just giving the rest of us a good laugh and allowing us to cool down.
-Richard
I think the problem with it could be that in making fun of something seen as pretentious you might have to necessarily come off as a little pretentious, as some of the people you are making fun of it to don't know what you're talking about. Really I don't think it's much of a problem, because this essay is pretty clearly written for the appreciation of those more familiar with McSweeney's than it is an attempt to warn newcomers away.
It does remind me of the critiques of the blogging world in the "Amazing Paper Weblog" article. One thing I like about McSweeney's is that it actually is pretty accessible to people who aren't on the way to getting MFA's in creative writing. Back in high school I knew kids who read and talked about McSweeney's, none of which went into writing, and that's pretty cool. However, these kids did tend to have a sense of humor that was very much aligned with what the article was satirizing, very much the McSweeney's style. Yet, that's a pretty fine balance to strike. Most small presses that I know of that get a lot of attention do have some kind of defining character or style--people like that. Without it you can seem pretty obscure, inhuman. The problem is that whatever you do, someone's not going to like it just as much as others do. I'm not sure if Lanham was telling McSweeney's to tone it down, or just giving the rest of us a good laugh and allowing us to cool down.
-Richard
A few resources
Hey folks,
While the McEggers Tang Clan debate rages on, thought I'd intercede with a few links to things we've discussed in class. Here are a few sample quotes, to give you a sense of what they look like:
1, 2 and 3.
And here are some sites for printers:
United Graphics
Edwards Brothers
Kinko's
Alphagraphics
Bookmobile
Lightning Source
I recommend looking up others, via the might power of Google.
For web stuff, I recommend reserving your URL (domain name) through GoDaddy. Some of the content management/publishing software systems we've discussed:
Wordpress (just the blog)
Drupal
Joomla
Campware
Movable Type
Also, if you're having trouble tracking down an interview, these resources might help you find someone:
CLMP
NewPages
Good luck!
While the McEggers Tang Clan debate rages on, thought I'd intercede with a few links to things we've discussed in class. Here are a few sample quotes, to give you a sense of what they look like:
1, 2 and 3.
And here are some sites for printers:
United Graphics
Edwards Brothers
Kinko's
Alphagraphics
Bookmobile
Lightning Source
I recommend looking up others, via the might power of Google.
For web stuff, I recommend reserving your URL (domain name) through GoDaddy. Some of the content management/publishing software systems we've discussed:
Wordpress (just the blog)
Drupal
Joomla
Campware
Movable Type
Also, if you're having trouble tracking down an interview, these resources might help you find someone:
CLMP
NewPages
Good luck!
Satire! Controversy! Argg!
I'm gonna come out and say it: Yes, I totally do want some trading cards with Aimee Bender and George Saunders and Zadie Smith and whoever else. That would be awesome.
With that said, this whole thing reminds me of a conversation I overheard standing outside the fiction building last week.
So this girl, whose name was apparently Heather was telling this story. Goes like this.
"So I walked around the corner and there was Eric sitting there with his accoustic guitar. And when he saw me he started to play "Stairway to Heaven." Then he stopped and he was like, 'Get it? "Stairway to Heather'..? And now I just pretty much hate him. Because art is like the only thing in life I take totally seriously."
What I'm saying is, come on, it's satire. Satire's job is to knock down anything when it starts getting too big for its britches (I can't believe I just wrote "too big for its britches). But that doesn't actually mean that the satirist hates everything about what he/she's writing about. I mean why would you spend all that time disecting something you completely loath?
After all, Lanhma is actually making work for him what he's poking fun at. At one point or another this piece falls into most of the categories he lays out for the "McSweeney's Tone." Academically clever, snarky clever, playfully adorably clever, self-indulgent.
Lanham is constantly subverting or undercutting most things he says. He has this whole satirical hyperbole about McSweeney's being our generation's only bona fide literary movement. Then, at the end, he pokes at those who would dismiss McSweeney's making them into the sort of people who used to dismiss rap music as a trend. And to those people that would still seem a reasonable argument. Meaning Lanham actually thinks its ridiculous to dimiss McSweeney's.
Or consider it this way...We were talking about Neal Pollack a few weeks back. Lanham does basically what Pollack used to do. They write satire. Pollack's satire was..wait for it... published by McSweeney's. Pollack fits the McSweeney's mold Lanham is talking about, therefore Lanham fits the McSweeney's mold Lanham is poking fun at. That's ironic. And I'm gonna say it's done in a totally intentional way. Real irony. Not like rain-on-your-wedding-day-ironic.
And that issue McSweeney's did on comics did rule. I doubt Lanham would actually seriously argue that.
With that said, this whole thing reminds me of a conversation I overheard standing outside the fiction building last week.
So this girl, whose name was apparently Heather was telling this story. Goes like this.
"So I walked around the corner and there was Eric sitting there with his accoustic guitar. And when he saw me he started to play "Stairway to Heaven." Then he stopped and he was like, 'Get it? "Stairway to Heather'..? And now I just pretty much hate him. Because art is like the only thing in life I take totally seriously."
What I'm saying is, come on, it's satire. Satire's job is to knock down anything when it starts getting too big for its britches (I can't believe I just wrote "too big for its britches). But that doesn't actually mean that the satirist hates everything about what he/she's writing about. I mean why would you spend all that time disecting something you completely loath?
After all, Lanhma is actually making work for him what he's poking fun at. At one point or another this piece falls into most of the categories he lays out for the "McSweeney's Tone." Academically clever, snarky clever, playfully adorably clever, self-indulgent.
Lanham is constantly subverting or undercutting most things he says. He has this whole satirical hyperbole about McSweeney's being our generation's only bona fide literary movement. Then, at the end, he pokes at those who would dismiss McSweeney's making them into the sort of people who used to dismiss rap music as a trend. And to those people that would still seem a reasonable argument. Meaning Lanham actually thinks its ridiculous to dimiss McSweeney's.
Or consider it this way...We were talking about Neal Pollack a few weeks back. Lanham does basically what Pollack used to do. They write satire. Pollack's satire was..wait for it... published by McSweeney's. Pollack fits the McSweeney's mold Lanham is talking about, therefore Lanham fits the McSweeney's mold Lanham is poking fun at. That's ironic. And I'm gonna say it's done in a totally intentional way. Real irony. Not like rain-on-your-wedding-day-ironic.
And that issue McSweeney's did on comics did rule. I doubt Lanham would actually seriously argue that.
Monday, March 16, 2009
McEggers Response
Well, I can see that this article has been just a little offensive to some people. But honestly, I found it very entertaining. Unless I read this entirely wrong, I was pretty sure this entire article was sarcasm. Which always seems to be the kind of reading I find amusing. I wish I knew more about the "McSweeny" group, but I think the way he mocks the whole idea of originality is hilarious. He obviously doesn't think that having an agent with a good nickname is the key to success, or that you should make up a persona to make yourself sound good, or that you should deny having ever been published by McSweeny. Yeah, so he sounds pretentious and abrasive... and if I took him seriously I would probably be pretty pissed. But I don't... as I don't think he intended this reading to be.
I found this particularly humorous because there is so much pressure today, as I'm sure it is the same with McSweenys, to be original and use shock value to awe the readers. I believe this is a mocking of that. I mean, he doesn't really want people to insert a picture of bells and whistles in their writing if they can't do it in words.
If taken the wrong way, this article can be incredibly offensive. If read as if it were a sarcastic mocking article, I think it's witty and hilarious.
I found this particularly humorous because there is so much pressure today, as I'm sure it is the same with McSweenys, to be original and use shock value to awe the readers. I believe this is a mocking of that. I mean, he doesn't really want people to insert a picture of bells and whistles in their writing if they can't do it in words.
If taken the wrong way, this article can be incredibly offensive. If read as if it were a sarcastic mocking article, I think it's witty and hilarious.
McEggers: Hehehe...
Um, guys? Cool it. It was satire. Lanham didn't really mean any of that stuff, he was criticizing the styles present in McSweeney's by parodying them. It was a joke. I severely doubt that he really hates Wiccans, and he was definitely -making fun- of the fact that some people think plot is unnecessary. He wasn't seriously suggesting that you should forget about plot and just have quirky characters. He was saying that people who choose to do that are idiots. Essentially, he pulled a Jonathan Swift (although I'm very glad that he didn't go so far as to suggest that we should feed our babies to the rich. People would REALLY have gotten pissed off about that one...)
And, frankly, I thought the whole essay was funny as hell.
I would probably have enjoyed this more if I was more knowledgeable about McSweeney's, but it made me giggle anyway. The bit about how the perfect title should have just the right amount of inaccessibility? Classic. I'm so freaking tired of writers giving their stories huge, nonsensical, self-indulgent titles that sound pretty. Like, really tired of that. Like, the next person in one of my classes who does that will probably get punched in the face. And I loved the comment about how it's easy to impress people if you appear to be neurotic.
Now, like I said, I don't know much about McSweeney's. Maybe it is as stupid as Lanham suggests, or maybe he's being terribly hard on it. But, whether they are in McSweeney's or not, there really are stupid-as-hell writers who really do believe that it's good to only have quirky characters and to write like you're snarky and clever and to trade talent for put-on originality. And I hate those people. And I'm really glad that someone else hates them too, and that, unlike me, they went and wrote an essay about it. You go Robert Lanham.
And, frankly, I thought the whole essay was funny as hell.
I would probably have enjoyed this more if I was more knowledgeable about McSweeney's, but it made me giggle anyway. The bit about how the perfect title should have just the right amount of inaccessibility? Classic. I'm so freaking tired of writers giving their stories huge, nonsensical, self-indulgent titles that sound pretty. Like, really tired of that. Like, the next person in one of my classes who does that will probably get punched in the face. And I loved the comment about how it's easy to impress people if you appear to be neurotic.
Now, like I said, I don't know much about McSweeney's. Maybe it is as stupid as Lanham suggests, or maybe he's being terribly hard on it. But, whether they are in McSweeney's or not, there really are stupid-as-hell writers who really do believe that it's good to only have quirky characters and to write like you're snarky and clever and to trade talent for put-on originality. And I hate those people. And I'm really glad that someone else hates them too, and that, unlike me, they went and wrote an essay about it. You go Robert Lanham.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
McEggers=umm what?
I'm in complete agreement with Patty when I say, what the fuck was that? That was seriously the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. And offensive to be quite honest. Not to be one of those people, but i'm Pagan, and the fact that he basically bashed Wiccan's twice kind of gets under my skin because it was totally uncalled for. This entire "article" if you can call it that, which I wouldn't, is a whole bunch of bullshit, in my opinion. Oh your novel doesn't need a plot, that's not important if you have quirky characters? Um. No. Oh, get an agent with an awesome nick name, just make sure it isn't the Wiccan and don't say candelabra (even though it's the actual name for something). This guy seriously needs to get a life. I don't know very much about McSweeney's and thanks to Robert Lanham I don't think I want to know anything. If what he describes is the type of things they publish, then I've got a major problem with it.
I don't really have anything else to say about this...it was pointless and a complete waste of my time to read.
I don't really have anything else to say about this...it was pointless and a complete waste of my time to read.
McWhat now?
okay so i have no clue what i just read. im dead freaking serious and mind you, i will attempt to refrain from the expletives but fucking shit! what the hell was that?
i totally had to google every name drop and reference. okay so mcsweeneys was a publishing house and mag right? okay but is this article mocking that? cuz im afraid i am way too uncool and unhip to get it. i think i have a good sense of humor but this was like dennis miller comedy, way over my head.
that smuggling mexicans over the border shit, so not funny. im mexican. im trying hard not to swear but what the fuck was that?
if anyone can explain it to me, i'd appreciate it because i'd like to take this shit look off my face. thanks.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Delayed Response to the last two weeks's readings
I love blogs and free e-books. Even the ones I do not care to read. I do love them because they are free, and because, as long as you have acccess to a library, you will probably be able to access them. That's not to say that I don't recognize that the average person is not necessarily intrigued by the prospect of contemporary literature, but to say that the fact that it is possible for those who are and can and will take the time to do so, that they are now eligible to read new things, that that seems a great thing. I also love free e-books because of all the possibilities: Featherproof's free downloadable mini-books are great! Scantily Clad's free e-chapbooks are great! A plethora of online literary magazines are great! Anything free to read and possibly download and so much of it that it would clog my brain were I to try it all seems totally great. Sometimes stuff just sucks, but usually, I think, one can take comfort knowing someone with a different taste enjoys whatever it is your patience is finding so taxing.
"A Computer Ate My Book"
I enthusiastically agree with a lot of what Rushkoff is saying. Releasing books or excerpts of them online are a great idea. As Rushkoff points out, reecord executives who were against broadcasting their recordings for fear of losing sales were totally wrong. Radio sells CDs. From another perspective, it's also just a very genuine thing to do--allowing people to make sure that they really want to spend precious money on your book is a pretty trusting decent thing. His observance that books have an "object value" is very important to me. I think we have already discussed this in class, with John talking about designing a book as a print book, and how this can be a different way to approach books which could foster new possibilities for publishers and distributors and, most excitingly, writers and readers.
The two articles were pretty upsetting, as they showed just how fragile the world of independent publishing can be. What was really sad about it is how difficult it is to do that kind of work, to be the ones out there looking for, supporting, publishing new writers--the idea that the very ground beneath these kind of publishers and writers can be so bleak. Of course, that does not really make mainstream publishing seem like the way to go. As we started this class with a discussion about how the mainstream publishing world is unstable, it doesn't seem like a much better choice if you're looking for safety. What this seems to say is that if you're going to try to be a writer today (and probably any day really) you're going to have to take a lot of risks.
"The Amazing Paper Weblog"
Krucoff's and Cage's paper weblog is a humorous idea, and, though I definitely can see it having an effect on the blog world, I can't imagine it being brought to a halt or magnificently changed by one bold ironic move--especially as Krucoff seems to have acheived status as a darling jokester. I mean, even the guy he's constantly parodying and doesn't consider him a hostile presense. It is a pretty ridiculous idea, pretty funny, clever, and I do not mean to say I am against it, but um... I don't think the impact could be quite so dramatic.
The problem with blogging being an "incestuous" community and the testaments of high-profile bloggers saying that they've had to take a break speak not to the limits of blogging itself, but only to that of human nature. I've certainly heard the worlds of literature, academia, politics, etc. accused of being like this. They are yet to suffer downfall from this in-breeding. Of course, it is unfortunate that so many blogs are dictated by memes, there are always other bloggers, just like with anything else, who are able to keep creating (at least for a short period of time) original, relevant content.
-Richard
"A Computer Ate My Book"
I enthusiastically agree with a lot of what Rushkoff is saying. Releasing books or excerpts of them online are a great idea. As Rushkoff points out, reecord executives who were against broadcasting their recordings for fear of losing sales were totally wrong. Radio sells CDs. From another perspective, it's also just a very genuine thing to do--allowing people to make sure that they really want to spend precious money on your book is a pretty trusting decent thing. His observance that books have an "object value" is very important to me. I think we have already discussed this in class, with John talking about designing a book as a print book, and how this can be a different way to approach books which could foster new possibilities for publishers and distributors and, most excitingly, writers and readers.
The two articles were pretty upsetting, as they showed just how fragile the world of independent publishing can be. What was really sad about it is how difficult it is to do that kind of work, to be the ones out there looking for, supporting, publishing new writers--the idea that the very ground beneath these kind of publishers and writers can be so bleak. Of course, that does not really make mainstream publishing seem like the way to go. As we started this class with a discussion about how the mainstream publishing world is unstable, it doesn't seem like a much better choice if you're looking for safety. What this seems to say is that if you're going to try to be a writer today (and probably any day really) you're going to have to take a lot of risks.
"The Amazing Paper Weblog"
Krucoff's and Cage's paper weblog is a humorous idea, and, though I definitely can see it having an effect on the blog world, I can't imagine it being brought to a halt or magnificently changed by one bold ironic move--especially as Krucoff seems to have acheived status as a darling jokester. I mean, even the guy he's constantly parodying and doesn't consider him a hostile presense. It is a pretty ridiculous idea, pretty funny, clever, and I do not mean to say I am against it, but um... I don't think the impact could be quite so dramatic.
The problem with blogging being an "incestuous" community and the testaments of high-profile bloggers saying that they've had to take a break speak not to the limits of blogging itself, but only to that of human nature. I've certainly heard the worlds of literature, academia, politics, etc. accused of being like this. They are yet to suffer downfall from this in-breeding. Of course, it is unfortunate that so many blogs are dictated by memes, there are always other bloggers, just like with anything else, who are able to keep creating (at least for a short period of time) original, relevant content.
-Richard
What to say about The Amazing Paper Weblog...
Well, I guess, to a certain extent, I agree. Blogging has been around for some time now. It's past it's what's this new craze stage. But I wouldn't be so quick to say it's done. Yes, it may be done in the sense that it's no longer the new trend- like what paperzines and mixtapes used to be. It's "trend-ed" out. Everyone's doing it. But this book was published in '05, and I assume the article was written some time before that. I mean, four years ago, I didn't know much about blogs and, before this article, would have argued that blogging wasn't even around back then. But I can probably blame that on my age, and the fact that I grew up in some farm town in the middle of nowhere. What i'm getting at is that, four years ago I wouldn't have been so quick to argue that blogging was dead. I hadn't even found out that it had existed!
It sounds like the way that Neal, Spiers, and Krucoff and Cage view the weblog is as some secret jewel they all refined and are now mad at the rest of the world who found out about it and spoiled- which is usually the case with everything cool.
A great example of this is when Krucoff and Cage "jokingly" speak of creating a selective blog community in which they control who is allowed to be a part of. How 2nd grade is that?
My argument: Blogging still hasn't reached its fullest potential. There's still much to be done. For example, I know of this class where these students are thinking up ways of bringing the publishing world web-wide.
It's like TV. Gosh, it's been around forever. Well, not really but in relation to Spiers frame of mind it has. And it's still being re-invented: Reality TV, Interactive TV (texting and internet voting), I can't think of anything else and class starts in a half an hour, but there are other examples.
Although I love the idea of a paper weblog, I don't think it had to happen out of some desparate reaction to the death of something wonderful. Yes, everyone has a blog. And now new offshoots of it are being born (Facebook) but that doesn't mean the death of it.
"The blog as a shiny new thing, separate and apart from the rest of media, is dead," says Spiers.
It's just the death of some fashionable trend.
Andi White
It sounds like the way that Neal, Spiers, and Krucoff and Cage view the weblog is as some secret jewel they all refined and are now mad at the rest of the world who found out about it and spoiled- which is usually the case with everything cool.
A great example of this is when Krucoff and Cage "jokingly" speak of creating a selective blog community in which they control who is allowed to be a part of. How 2nd grade is that?
My argument: Blogging still hasn't reached its fullest potential. There's still much to be done. For example, I know of this class where these students are thinking up ways of bringing the publishing world web-wide.
It's like TV. Gosh, it's been around forever. Well, not really but in relation to Spiers frame of mind it has. And it's still being re-invented: Reality TV, Interactive TV (texting and internet voting), I can't think of anything else and class starts in a half an hour, but there are other examples.
Although I love the idea of a paper weblog, I don't think it had to happen out of some desparate reaction to the death of something wonderful. Yes, everyone has a blog. And now new offshoots of it are being born (Facebook) but that doesn't mean the death of it.
"The blog as a shiny new thing, separate and apart from the rest of media, is dead," says Spiers.
It's just the death of some fashionable trend.
Andi White
Blogging: a blog post.
I also laughed about the Neal Pollack bit.
I don't know too much about blogging. I read Neil Gaiman's blog pretty religiously between the ages of fifteen and eighteen, and I have a Facebook, but that's about it. Back in the eigth grade my friend's all had blogs on some hip teen site, where we'd post little bitch-fests about how Adam shouldn't be such a dick to his ex-girlfriend or Laura shouldn't wear ugly green pants or blah blah blah, and that sort of turned me off the whole blogging thing. All the ones I've run into or have been directed to by acquaintances are usually just what I expect them to be: overgrown teenagers who either complain about things way too much, bash other overgrown teenagers with semi-literate insults, post really bad poetry that clearly didn't go through more than a single rough draft, or talk about what their cats did that day.
Now, I'm sure that there are good blogs out there, but I just haven't run into that many. And personally, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to wade through all the crap out there to get at the gems.
As for the whole idea of networking and community, I'm not sure. Yes, it's definitely got an appeal. It's got to be a real high to post some crap about your day and suddenly have a dozen comments from like-minded bloggers encouraging you to write more. But, like several of the people below me, I feel like this encouragement and sense of community doesn't really have any importance in the real world. I mean, what happens when you send something out to a publisher and they reject it? Are you going to send back an angry letter saying "Who needs you morons anyway? My blogger friends think I'm awesome." That'll sure change some minds.
I can't deny that blogging has lead to some big things for people, though. This piece shows that. And I'm always running into bookstores and seeing books that have been adapted from something published online, like a story or a webcomic. I even have a friend whose being turned into a Batman character because DC liked his blog. Hell, I even saw a -billboard- for someone's blog a few months ago. A freaking billboard. Maybe these signs point to the fact that I haven't given blogs a fair chance, and that I still don't understand their full potential. Maybe one day I will break down and start one, and then we can laugh at me like we laugh at Neal Pollack. Anything's possible.
I don't know too much about blogging. I read Neil Gaiman's blog pretty religiously between the ages of fifteen and eighteen, and I have a Facebook, but that's about it. Back in the eigth grade my friend's all had blogs on some hip teen site, where we'd post little bitch-fests about how Adam shouldn't be such a dick to his ex-girlfriend or Laura shouldn't wear ugly green pants or blah blah blah, and that sort of turned me off the whole blogging thing. All the ones I've run into or have been directed to by acquaintances are usually just what I expect them to be: overgrown teenagers who either complain about things way too much, bash other overgrown teenagers with semi-literate insults, post really bad poetry that clearly didn't go through more than a single rough draft, or talk about what their cats did that day.
Now, I'm sure that there are good blogs out there, but I just haven't run into that many. And personally, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to wade through all the crap out there to get at the gems.
As for the whole idea of networking and community, I'm not sure. Yes, it's definitely got an appeal. It's got to be a real high to post some crap about your day and suddenly have a dozen comments from like-minded bloggers encouraging you to write more. But, like several of the people below me, I feel like this encouragement and sense of community doesn't really have any importance in the real world. I mean, what happens when you send something out to a publisher and they reject it? Are you going to send back an angry letter saying "Who needs you morons anyway? My blogger friends think I'm awesome." That'll sure change some minds.
I can't deny that blogging has lead to some big things for people, though. This piece shows that. And I'm always running into bookstores and seeing books that have been adapted from something published online, like a story or a webcomic. I even have a friend whose being turned into a Batman character because DC liked his blog. Hell, I even saw a -billboard- for someone's blog a few months ago. A freaking billboard. Maybe these signs point to the fact that I haven't given blogs a fair chance, and that I still don't understand their full potential. Maybe one day I will break down and start one, and then we can laugh at me like we laugh at Neal Pollack. Anything's possible.
I don't know if blogs are evil. I don't know if blogs are good. But I do think they're too much. Too much blogs. But I, personally am not overwhelmed by them. I mean I get the benefits, the ones Spiers mentions, the ones that even turned her on to blogs in the beginning. There's a nice sense of community sometimes and, sure, you can get all this feedback on your writing and your ideas, especially when there's a group of people who are following those ideas and that writing, so they have a grander concept of your intentions as a whole. But there's the down side to that when everyone is presenting their writing and their ideas as the Truth without anyone to edit out the shit.
Still, blogs, as many of them as there are, aren't totally unavoidable. If you don't want to hear someone's opinion don't read it. Myself, I've never followed a blog. Besides of course the one for this class and one I had for a CRW. But those were the opinions of people I knew (at least somewhat) and could trust. Actually, as fascist or ellitist as the "Soho House of blogs" password protecting idea brought up by Gage in the article is, it would have it's benefits. I mean, this blog is pretty much like that. Someone from outside of the class couldn't just jump in and start throwing around ideas. What's wrong with having a selected group of people using a blog as a forum to discuss a subject that everyone there is known to be knowledgable in? If you started a writers group you would want to invite people whose opinions and writing you trusted. You'd be pissed off if some moron got invited in and was wasting everyone's time because they didn't understand or have enough experience to add something worthwhile to the critiquing so he ended up just constantly talking out of his ass.
But then that's not the motivation behind most blogs. Most blogs are created in an attempt to get the word out about the creator's work and opinions. The creator of that blog wants as many people as he/she can get to see what they've posted and then continue to spread the word. But in those cases, the people that are responding, that are commenting on that initial blog, if they say something stupid no one really cares. When they start an poorly constructed argument only morons with too much time on their hands bother to argue back. So yeah, there's a lot of space on the web devoted to stupid opinions and worthless arguments. But no one HAS to read them. No one HAS to respond to them. The self-congratulation, the "echo chamber effect" and in-jokes within in-jokes: they're pretty easy to spot. And when you spot them you just move on, you don't read it. It's the same thing with the 5-minute thrown together zines. No one HAS to read those either.
I'll add this too. I think it's a little funny how harsh Neal Pollack is on blogs in this piece (no matter how much I enjoy his writing). Because, as some people might have heard when he came to Columbia last semester, he now makes (what I would assume would be a decent chunk of) his living blogging on a parenting website. Oh, well.
Still, blogs, as many of them as there are, aren't totally unavoidable. If you don't want to hear someone's opinion don't read it. Myself, I've never followed a blog. Besides of course the one for this class and one I had for a CRW. But those were the opinions of people I knew (at least somewhat) and could trust. Actually, as fascist or ellitist as the "Soho House of blogs" password protecting idea brought up by Gage in the article is, it would have it's benefits. I mean, this blog is pretty much like that. Someone from outside of the class couldn't just jump in and start throwing around ideas. What's wrong with having a selected group of people using a blog as a forum to discuss a subject that everyone there is known to be knowledgable in? If you started a writers group you would want to invite people whose opinions and writing you trusted. You'd be pissed off if some moron got invited in and was wasting everyone's time because they didn't understand or have enough experience to add something worthwhile to the critiquing so he ended up just constantly talking out of his ass.
But then that's not the motivation behind most blogs. Most blogs are created in an attempt to get the word out about the creator's work and opinions. The creator of that blog wants as many people as he/she can get to see what they've posted and then continue to spread the word. But in those cases, the people that are responding, that are commenting on that initial blog, if they say something stupid no one really cares. When they start an poorly constructed argument only morons with too much time on their hands bother to argue back. So yeah, there's a lot of space on the web devoted to stupid opinions and worthless arguments. But no one HAS to read them. No one HAS to respond to them. The self-congratulation, the "echo chamber effect" and in-jokes within in-jokes: they're pretty easy to spot. And when you spot them you just move on, you don't read it. It's the same thing with the 5-minute thrown together zines. No one HAS to read those either.
I'll add this too. I think it's a little funny how harsh Neal Pollack is on blogs in this piece (no matter how much I enjoy his writing). Because, as some people might have heard when he came to Columbia last semester, he now makes (what I would assume would be a decent chunk of) his living blogging on a parenting website. Oh, well.
The Amazing Paper Weblog
I'm really at a loss as to what to say in reaction to this piece. While I know that there is a world devoted to the blogging community, I feel as if it's never really touched my world. And, even though I spend hours on the internet, I don't particularly have any interest in what goes on here. I like talking to people. Face-to-face.
Blogging is like masturbating on webcams to me: It's fun to do, and while for some it might be exciting and validating to be watched and encouraged, I don't care. I'm not getting off, and I don't care if a bunch of strangers are. Besides that, it's an activity that necessitates isolation, or a false sense of community and intimacy that has no real world meaning. And, as Spiers points out, it's an occupation that quickly loses its appeal. After a while, you grope away to pacify the public but you really couldn't care less.
(Funny thing, upon spellchecking this piece "internet" came up. Apparently, you have to capitalize it, like God.)
Blogging is like masturbating on webcams to me: It's fun to do, and while for some it might be exciting and validating to be watched and encouraged, I don't care. I'm not getting off, and I don't care if a bunch of strangers are. Besides that, it's an activity that necessitates isolation, or a false sense of community and intimacy that has no real world meaning. And, as Spiers points out, it's an occupation that quickly loses its appeal. After a while, you grope away to pacify the public but you really couldn't care less.
(Funny thing, upon spellchecking this piece "internet" came up. Apparently, you have to capitalize it, like God.)
blogging
The closest thing I’ve come to blogging is my facebook and myspace accounts, which up until a couple of months ago, I was ashamed to even have.
Let me explain: I had this boyfriend and he and I had this thing for being Amish. We didn’t like wonderbread or T.V. We road bikes to bars and at those bars we only consumed beer that was around when our grandparents were young (knocking out all experimental and fun drinking nights we could have had). We smoked cigarettes but only when we were listening to Hank Williams. We wore flannel, but before it became it became an Urban Outfitters thing (or at least we liked to pretend we did), because we were Midwest. In Andrew Krucoff’s words, we were pretty ‘retarded’.
And then, he found out I had a myspace and faceboook profile and he reacted as if he found out I had some kind of S.T.D.
Because we was just too cool for that.
But here is the thing- I got both of those because everyone else had one. I followed. But I followed because I wanted to know what was going on that weekend- what party was going on- where everyone was at. Now I’m realizing, these networks are important in the same way gaining network/connections in college is important ( I mean isn’t that the reason why we go to school?)
I get something out of my myspace and facebook accounts by just existing on them- I don’t have to do much other then occasionally update my mood.
And this is exactly why I haven’t blogged. When a blog works, it takes a lot of time. It’s more then posting a bulletin about whatever party/bar you’re going to be at that night. It’s in it’s own world of writing. I think that’s why a lot of people feel blogged out.
If I ever get somewhere in my writing career I know a blog will be important. I defently think they’ll be here forever or they’ll be an important tool. But for better or worse, that’s a bandwagon I haven’t jumped on yet.
Let me explain: I had this boyfriend and he and I had this thing for being Amish. We didn’t like wonderbread or T.V. We road bikes to bars and at those bars we only consumed beer that was around when our grandparents were young (knocking out all experimental and fun drinking nights we could have had). We smoked cigarettes but only when we were listening to Hank Williams. We wore flannel, but before it became it became an Urban Outfitters thing (or at least we liked to pretend we did), because we were Midwest. In Andrew Krucoff’s words, we were pretty ‘retarded’.
And then, he found out I had a myspace and faceboook profile and he reacted as if he found out I had some kind of S.T.D.
Because we was just too cool for that.
But here is the thing- I got both of those because everyone else had one. I followed. But I followed because I wanted to know what was going on that weekend- what party was going on- where everyone was at. Now I’m realizing, these networks are important in the same way gaining network/connections in college is important ( I mean isn’t that the reason why we go to school?)
I get something out of my myspace and facebook accounts by just existing on them- I don’t have to do much other then occasionally update my mood.
And this is exactly why I haven’t blogged. When a blog works, it takes a lot of time. It’s more then posting a bulletin about whatever party/bar you’re going to be at that night. It’s in it’s own world of writing. I think that’s why a lot of people feel blogged out.
If I ever get somewhere in my writing career I know a blog will be important. I defently think they’ll be here forever or they’ll be an important tool. But for better or worse, that’s a bandwagon I haven’t jumped on yet.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Amazing Paper Weblog
I have to say, although it will probably make me look ignorant, I had no idea how big the blogging community was. The only blog i had ever really seen was pinkisthenewblog.com which is a blog stalking celebrities and dishing all the juicy gossip that i saw girls in my high school obsessing over. I had definitely never heard the term "blogging community". I know I know, and I'm a writer. I guess I can use the excuse that I'm a freshman and certainly none of the people at my snooty private high school in nashville were a part of such a thing. After realizing the truth about the popularity of blogging, I've been even more confused as to what the fascination is. (no offense to other bloggers, i think this is mostly because I have a very short attention span). The conclusion that I have come to is that it is an interactive way to promote yourself and others, and share ideas. So what then, is the benefit of having a "paper weblog"?
Although I'm clueless when it comes to the world of blogging, it makes me feel a little better that people who have been blogging for years have the same confusion. Pollack says "it's just so damn meaningless that it makes my teeth hurt." Hourihan says, "I just kept feeling like, 'I don't even think this stuff is important in the real world.'"
I actually find it kind of amusing that there is such competition between bloggers like Krucoff and Lockhart. Bashing each other back and forth via websites seems like a pretty safe way for a little man to talk a big game.
Spiers believes that "the blog as a shiny new thing, separate and apart from the rest of the media, is dead." I'm not sure how I feel about this statement. Has blogging become so mainstream from the media that it lacks what spiers calls the "other"-ness? Maybe so. Will it continue to grow because of this and simply attract more attention? Maybe so. I'm willing to bet that for every blogger who gets tired of it, and suddenly fails to see the point, there is another blogger in the making.
Although I'm clueless when it comes to the world of blogging, it makes me feel a little better that people who have been blogging for years have the same confusion. Pollack says "it's just so damn meaningless that it makes my teeth hurt." Hourihan says, "I just kept feeling like, 'I don't even think this stuff is important in the real world.'"
I actually find it kind of amusing that there is such competition between bloggers like Krucoff and Lockhart. Bashing each other back and forth via websites seems like a pretty safe way for a little man to talk a big game.
Spiers believes that "the blog as a shiny new thing, separate and apart from the rest of the media, is dead." I'm not sure how I feel about this statement. Has blogging become so mainstream from the media that it lacks what spiers calls the "other"-ness? Maybe so. Will it continue to grow because of this and simply attract more attention? Maybe so. I'm willing to bet that for every blogger who gets tired of it, and suddenly fails to see the point, there is another blogger in the making.
Bookmark Now: Blogging
I've never really been a follower of blogs. I've had a livejournal since I was a teenager and have read other people's but that's not really a blog, it's more of a journal. I don't really see the appeal of following blogs. Ones that are themed, sure they can be interesting, and even some about people's every day life, but I have so many other things going on in my life, that they just don't seem important.
In the article, it talks about how because these men are making their weblog a publication, that it has come full circle and lost some of it's appeal. I understand how a follower of weblogs would feel that way. The thing about blogs is the anonymity of it. You're on the internet and really don't know these people. You create an online community where maybe you chat back and fourth and read about either others lives. Taking it to paper does take away from the online aspect. It reminds me of how e-mail has taken away from letter writing. It's a different medium to do the same thing, but it feels different. Just like reading a book in electronic form.
Certain blogs, now that I think about it, I do enjoy. I enjoy reading blogs about some of my favorite authors, but that's about it. But it goes deeper than just the blog because I'm also reading their books. The blog is just another way to get to know the author. Those types of blogs, I think are a good thing for fans to have access to. But reading about people's lives that you don't know and don't put out anything that you read or watch, I just sort of don't see the point.
The blogs/journals that I've kept are more for me to have a place to keep my thoughts. I'm a faster typer than I am a writer, so it's easier to get all my thoughts out that way. But I could care less if other people read it.
To me, it just seems like blogs are a way of self advertisement, which I see nothing wrong with, I guess it's just not for me.
In the article, it talks about how because these men are making their weblog a publication, that it has come full circle and lost some of it's appeal. I understand how a follower of weblogs would feel that way. The thing about blogs is the anonymity of it. You're on the internet and really don't know these people. You create an online community where maybe you chat back and fourth and read about either others lives. Taking it to paper does take away from the online aspect. It reminds me of how e-mail has taken away from letter writing. It's a different medium to do the same thing, but it feels different. Just like reading a book in electronic form.
Certain blogs, now that I think about it, I do enjoy. I enjoy reading blogs about some of my favorite authors, but that's about it. But it goes deeper than just the blog because I'm also reading their books. The blog is just another way to get to know the author. Those types of blogs, I think are a good thing for fans to have access to. But reading about people's lives that you don't know and don't put out anything that you read or watch, I just sort of don't see the point.
The blogs/journals that I've kept are more for me to have a place to keep my thoughts. I'm a faster typer than I am a writer, so it's easier to get all my thoughts out that way. But I could care less if other people read it.
To me, it just seems like blogs are a way of self advertisement, which I see nothing wrong with, I guess it's just not for me.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Dear Blog:
At the end of the semester, I think maybe we should take a break. I just don’t see where this relationship is going. I didn’t always feel this way. At first, I was enticed by your mystique, seduced by your interactivity, and wooed by your vast social network. You were so easy to spend time with, Blog. You were right there on my computer whenever I had something to get off my chest. And you always made me feel like I could let my guard down and open up to you about whatever was on my mind. But the more time we’ve spent together, the more disenchanted I’ve become with the terms of our relationship.
You should know that it’s not you, it’s me. Well, maybe it’s a little bit more you than me. Lately, I just get the sense that nothing is sacred to you, Blog. There’s no sense of intimacy or boundaries. Every time I tell you what I'm thinking, you share it with the world. And I'm not sure that I'm ready for that kind of exposure. I used to think I could bounce ideas off you, but now my ideas are bouncing all over the internet. Suddenly, complete strangers are weighing in on my posts. Everyone has an opinion. I know that what I'm saying isn't always right or true or even all that enlightening. The hope is that eventually I will get to something deeper, something maybe not even I know is there, something that will allow me to open my eyes and see a situation from a new perspective. But I no longer feel that same freedom of expression and exploration. My entries aren't just for me anymore--they're open to anyone who wants to read them--and with this broad of an audience comes a certain sense of responsibility, one that I'm not prepared to commit to just yet.
From the very beginning, you’ve always been very open and honest with me about all of the people that you interact with on a regular basis, but I’ve found myself really starting to dislike sharing you with strangers. At times, it feels like some of them don’t even value you, Blog. A majority of the postings are filled with poor spelling and grammar, scattered thoughts and sentence structures, and uninformed opinions stated as fact. Some of them don't even take the time to formulate clear and concise entries or reread to make sure there is some sort of clarity in their thought process. But I know you, Blog. This probably doesn't bother you like it bothers me. Your primary concern is that these people have a forum, making sure that everyone’s voice is heard, and I respect you for it.
But be careful, Blog. The empowerment that you have given to all of these people might one day be used against you, and I would hate for that to happen. I genuinely do wish you well, so please listen to me when I tell you that there are people out there, people like Andrew Krucoff and Chris Gage, who will use you simply to get reactions out of other people. They will exploit you for their own personal motives and endgames. All you ever really wanted was to create a community where people could connect and discuss and get a conversation going. But that openness and interactivity that you love so much will soon be distorted by someone like Krucoff and his isolative ideas involving password-protected invitation only blogs or subscription paper blogs. Can you imagine someone not being allowed entry because of status or social standing? These ideas are against everything you stand for, Blog. You would never think to deny anyone a voice or an opinion. In your world, there is no such thing as the cool kids’ table. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to participate, which is something you should fight to protect.
I do hope that we can stay friends. I really do think you have a lot of tremendous qualities to offer, Blog. And I’m sure you will go on to make many people very happy. But at the end of the semester, I think it’s best if I go back to my paper journal for awhile. I can’t say that I won’t regret my decision and that one day I won’t come crawling back to you. Maybe once I get some things worked out on my own, then I’ll be ready to give it another try and we can go back to sharing my random thoughts and opinions with the whole world again. But until then, I think this time apart will be exactly what we both need.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
paper+weblog=mildly yummy
so i've blogged, who hasnt? maybe not on the internet but on paper (journals, diaries, letters) and maybe thats just my comparison but blogging just seems to be a technological brain fart. a form to express a thought, opinion, share information, idea, etc. blogging is just the latest way of connecting and sharing with others and in doing so people get to learn about others, places, events, etc. (lots of etcs, i know but i'm on a chocolate coma.)
I wouldnt blame Krucoff for killing it off, blogging became a trend and as many trends tend to do, it self imploded. remember when myspace was the shit? now they have this thing called twitter. remember when dvd players were like the must have? now they have blue ray. so thats how it goes, a trend pops up, people suck all the life out of it and it dies. then a new one comes out, people suck that up and when thats dead on arrival, the next rises, etc. vicious cycle of limited attention span.
i, personally, see nothing wrong with capitalizing on your work. if you establish a successful invention, show, blog, routine, assignment, whatever the case and you find there is an audience for it then why not sell it to those that want it? you can give it for free, sure but who would benefit from it? when something becomes so easily tangible it often falls into idle hands and you spend more to make it than you receive. but should everything that plops out of someone's ass be printed? god fucking no! we have enough of that with music, celebrity bios, and useless self-help books. but if its something constructed with time, dedication, with love, then why not?
no one person can kill a trend, trends arise. maybe bloggs where the shit at one point soon there will be a new trend and all those blogs converted to books, zines, magazines, whatever, will die along with the trend. so just let them ride the wave but realize nothing is eternal.
I wouldnt blame Krucoff for killing it off, blogging became a trend and as many trends tend to do, it self imploded. remember when myspace was the shit? now they have this thing called twitter. remember when dvd players were like the must have? now they have blue ray. so thats how it goes, a trend pops up, people suck all the life out of it and it dies. then a new one comes out, people suck that up and when thats dead on arrival, the next rises, etc. vicious cycle of limited attention span.
i, personally, see nothing wrong with capitalizing on your work. if you establish a successful invention, show, blog, routine, assignment, whatever the case and you find there is an audience for it then why not sell it to those that want it? you can give it for free, sure but who would benefit from it? when something becomes so easily tangible it often falls into idle hands and you spend more to make it than you receive. but should everything that plops out of someone's ass be printed? god fucking no! we have enough of that with music, celebrity bios, and useless self-help books. but if its something constructed with time, dedication, with love, then why not?
no one person can kill a trend, trends arise. maybe bloggs where the shit at one point soon there will be a new trend and all those blogs converted to books, zines, magazines, whatever, will die along with the trend. so just let them ride the wave but realize nothing is eternal.
eat+computer=not yummy
I'm not a fossil but I am archaic. I do own books and i dont subscribe to online mags, I borrow my dads laptop for my homework and I do own an ipod not because its uber cool but because carrying thirty to forty cds is just not convenient and I am liable to bust a gutt. So i am aware of technology and do use it on occassion, for convenience and simplifying my life, though if you left me alone with an iphone im pretty sure i would end up throwing it up against the wall and pulling my hair out.
So the Rushkoff article talks about the good and bad aspects of the internet and how it has effected books, sales, readership, etc. And I understand the convenience of reading books, articles, and mags online. I enjoy the easy accessibility. that means i dont have to lug my behind to the store to buy a book, or drive to the library to do a report, or even have to call a million bookstores to see if they carry a certain title (but i do it anyways.) Why? Because Im archaic. Because as easy as the internet has made aquiring information it has also eliminated that physical connection with words. Yes i can reach out at the computer and slide my finger down the screen but i dont get to feel the printed word. I dont get to smell the fresh or stale pages, the dents between sheets, the soft or hardness of the covers. I dont get to flip through and feel the weight and density of someone's work.
This fossil remembers when book reports were writen by hand with books from the library, when huge computers rested on 3/4ths of a school desk, when screens consisted of yellow letters and black background.
The internet does make it easy to aquire quick information without the hasstle and inconvenience of a physical and spacial search but it kind of eliminates the journey and the fun of holding a book in your hands. I enjoy the trips to the library and bookstores, i enjoy picking up the one issue of valley of the dolls sitting on the shelf. I enjoy sitting on the floor of the bookstore and reading the last page of a book before i flip to the first page, just so i know how it ends.
I know this response is all over the place but scatterbrains like mine, tend to jumble at the end of the day.
Basically, what im trying to say is that i grew up with books instead of blogs, with pens instead of keyboards, with oral storytelling instead of texting. but the advantage of internet is that ability to transfer information from one place to another without a physical journey. I'm archaic but Rushkoff reminds us all that though the internet isnt going anywhere it seems it is the responsibility of us all to maintain a balance between the old and new. So take advantage of the accessibility but dont forget a screen wont give you that stale book smell.
So the Rushkoff article talks about the good and bad aspects of the internet and how it has effected books, sales, readership, etc. And I understand the convenience of reading books, articles, and mags online. I enjoy the easy accessibility. that means i dont have to lug my behind to the store to buy a book, or drive to the library to do a report, or even have to call a million bookstores to see if they carry a certain title (but i do it anyways.) Why? Because Im archaic. Because as easy as the internet has made aquiring information it has also eliminated that physical connection with words. Yes i can reach out at the computer and slide my finger down the screen but i dont get to feel the printed word. I dont get to smell the fresh or stale pages, the dents between sheets, the soft or hardness of the covers. I dont get to flip through and feel the weight and density of someone's work.
This fossil remembers when book reports were writen by hand with books from the library, when huge computers rested on 3/4ths of a school desk, when screens consisted of yellow letters and black background.
The internet does make it easy to aquire quick information without the hasstle and inconvenience of a physical and spacial search but it kind of eliminates the journey and the fun of holding a book in your hands. I enjoy the trips to the library and bookstores, i enjoy picking up the one issue of valley of the dolls sitting on the shelf. I enjoy sitting on the floor of the bookstore and reading the last page of a book before i flip to the first page, just so i know how it ends.
I know this response is all over the place but scatterbrains like mine, tend to jumble at the end of the day.
Basically, what im trying to say is that i grew up with books instead of blogs, with pens instead of keyboards, with oral storytelling instead of texting. but the advantage of internet is that ability to transfer information from one place to another without a physical journey. I'm archaic but Rushkoff reminds us all that though the internet isnt going anywhere it seems it is the responsibility of us all to maintain a balance between the old and new. So take advantage of the accessibility but dont forget a screen wont give you that stale book smell.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
reading response: book-eating computers.
I know computers are taking over the world, or have already taken over the world. I'm not against them or even their power necessarily, and I read an essay like Douglas Rushkoff's (or any piece of writing that holds a similar opinion) with an open mind, but on some levels, I remain unconvinced.
I know Rushkoff's essay was about a lot of things, but I still felt unsure of what he was getting at sometimes. For me, the argument for the inevitable marriage of publishing and computers, even books and computers, is often written for an anti-future audience, like Rushkoff and others think they are defending the microprocessor to a group of old-timey eccentrics that still send telegrams and wear pearls and fur to the picture show. Comparing people who are against (on any level) publishing becoming more and more virtual to record executives who didn't want songs played over the radio is really going a bit far I think.
To me, there is certainly a place for publishing on the Internet and because of the way the world works now, I think it'd be hard for any writer to argue that they can't take advantage of the Internet or computers to get their work out there. It is a necessity. Reading Rushkoff's article alongside two depressing examples of a dying industry does get one thinking about how We (the royal We of writers, publishers, editors, etc.) can embrace technological advancements and save the written word, even if it's written with electronic ink.
I don't think anyone is trying to argue that there aren't positive things about writing in every kind of media. It's more complicated than that. For one thing, Amazon.com might be fantastic for getting more peoples' hands on books, but what does that mean for the independent booksellers across the country that can barely stay afloat? And, aside from whether or not writers will see less profit, what does the Kindle mean for independent booksellers? We need to be figuring out how the whole community of book writing and distribution can benefit from electronic publishing, not just how it can be awesome for writers.
Well, it's sort of a specific tangent, but the Kindle is one aspect of this whole movement that I just don't understand. Probably, in the not-too-distant future, the benefits of the Kindle will seem inarguable as they become more popular. The part of Rushkoff's essay where he points out that the Internet gives everyone the power to publish independently (and using electronic books to do so) was a great reminder of the ways writers should be taking advantage of the new possibilities, that's one benefit I'm already starting to see getting past my stubborn position on electronic books.
Really, I have nothing new to say on this topic. I just like books. I mean. Real books. I'm not anti-computer, I see the benefits of a relationship between literature and the Internet, blah blah blah. But if one day, electronic books are to reading as MP3s are to listening to music, I'll be like the vinyl enthusiasts that still spend too much time and money on records, because the music just sounds better that way. I can't imagine ever being interested in reading a book on a computer.
I know Rushkoff's essay was about a lot of things, but I still felt unsure of what he was getting at sometimes. For me, the argument for the inevitable marriage of publishing and computers, even books and computers, is often written for an anti-future audience, like Rushkoff and others think they are defending the microprocessor to a group of old-timey eccentrics that still send telegrams and wear pearls and fur to the picture show. Comparing people who are against (on any level) publishing becoming more and more virtual to record executives who didn't want songs played over the radio is really going a bit far I think.
To me, there is certainly a place for publishing on the Internet and because of the way the world works now, I think it'd be hard for any writer to argue that they can't take advantage of the Internet or computers to get their work out there. It is a necessity. Reading Rushkoff's article alongside two depressing examples of a dying industry does get one thinking about how We (the royal We of writers, publishers, editors, etc.) can embrace technological advancements and save the written word, even if it's written with electronic ink.
I don't think anyone is trying to argue that there aren't positive things about writing in every kind of media. It's more complicated than that. For one thing, Amazon.com might be fantastic for getting more peoples' hands on books, but what does that mean for the independent booksellers across the country that can barely stay afloat? And, aside from whether or not writers will see less profit, what does the Kindle mean for independent booksellers? We need to be figuring out how the whole community of book writing and distribution can benefit from electronic publishing, not just how it can be awesome for writers.
Well, it's sort of a specific tangent, but the Kindle is one aspect of this whole movement that I just don't understand. Probably, in the not-too-distant future, the benefits of the Kindle will seem inarguable as they become more popular. The part of Rushkoff's essay where he points out that the Internet gives everyone the power to publish independently (and using electronic books to do so) was a great reminder of the ways writers should be taking advantage of the new possibilities, that's one benefit I'm already starting to see getting past my stubborn position on electronic books.
Really, I have nothing new to say on this topic. I just like books. I mean. Real books. I'm not anti-computer, I see the benefits of a relationship between literature and the Internet, blah blah blah. But if one day, electronic books are to reading as MP3s are to listening to music, I'll be like the vinyl enthusiasts that still spend too much time and money on records, because the music just sounds better that way. I can't imagine ever being interested in reading a book on a computer.
He's Right. Books Do Have Souls
Rushkoff brought up a point that I have yet to see in any other argument on the survival of books and literature through this media age; that, if the book business is in trouble, so are magazines, newspapers and other print.
It's true. If we were to look at this in the same frantic and frightened way the rest of the literary world was looking at it, we could be easily led to think that print journalism, fine art, photography, and basically any other print you could think of, was now in jeopardy of becoming extinct. Which- is outright ridiculous.
I don't see the thought of all physical forms of art being abolished any more ridiculous than the thought the death of book format. Literature, is, in fact art, right?
Further into the essay, Rushkoff presents several efforts publishing companies made to attract buyers to the art form: archival paper, choice typeface and design, limited editions. The thought, care and consideration going into these pieces of art are only making them more valuable to reader, right? We're just advancing the art form, right? No one is going around saying, oh well, better make these things poorer made, skim on the quality (with the exception of zines and their guerilla tactics, of course). Think about it. How cool are 8-track and record players? How many of you have splurged on these "ancient" art forms because they represented something rare and treasure-ful?
Yeah, we may not be there just yet but I see this wonderful booming technology age as being the dawning of an appreciation of simpler forms, a step closer to the day that blogs will be the commercial equivalent and society will yearn for a more tactile, personal experience.
"Computers haven't made people read less; they make us read more," Rushkoff writes. And our audience hasn't disappeared; it's expanded. And, as he argues further on, it is an avenue to reaching readers we may have otherwise not have reached.
The literary world is growing because of the recent turn of events, broadening its horizons into all probable corners of the publishing world. Books have the potential of being the hip downloadable commodity integrated in everyday life while keeping it's prestige tradition of the physically bound art piece which, suddenly, has more value.
Andi White
How Awesome...
...Was Rushkoff's "A Computer Ate My Book"? I gotta say I totally agree with everything he said here. Actually, it was really sort of a relief to read because it said a lot of things that I had sort of believed seemed logical but didn't really have the words or the full knowledge of the publishing industry to articulate. And actually, as Rushkoff does, I've usually thought about the possiblities of change with publishing concerning the internet and other newer technologies in comparison to what's been going on the last ten years or so with the music industry. It's actually only been fairly recently that I've even considered the effects of technology on book sales, pretty much when I first heard of the Kindle, which was really only maybe a year ago or so.
But, looking at the music industy I've always thought jerks like Metallica were just being, well jerks. It seems so backwards to think that these new inovations can't be used to writers and musicians and all sorts of artists' advantage. Metallica hasn't been able to hold their sales with more recent releases. But look at bands that looked at the internet as an avenue for new possibilites in advertising and distributing, Phish, Radiohead, King Crimson...
Actually, let me use Crimson as an example. They were dicked around for years by GE Records (the old, standard model that's supposed to work) and were ripped of a bunch of their copywrites and rights to do certain side projects or perform on other people's records or to even have choices in their album artwork, and man, it goes way beyond even this, but I won't get into it. Needless to say, they got screwed.
So Robert Fripp, head of the band, in the late 90's, after years of legal battles, creates Discipline Global Mobile and makes all of Crimson's albums available, remastered and the way he always wanted them to be. But he doesn't stop there. He makes everything he's ever been involved with (which is a ton of records) available online at the DGM website. Even stuff that has gone out of print on the original labels, he at least makes available as lossless Flac downloads, complete with album artwork.
Now this is what I'm talking about--using the internet to get the work out there and continue to make money. Later, he opened up an additional store offering "bootlegs" of hundreds of performances he's been involved with, all downloadable as either Flacs for 12.99 or mp3 for 9.99. So not only is he beating the boots (which, for a band like Crimson, there're a lot), but he's making use of the internet so he doesn't even need to spend the money on physical production. And people are willing to pay it because most of these "bootlegs" are full performances, so, if you were to burn them, 2 discs worth of material. And where are you gonna be able to buy two CD's worth of material for 9 bucks? In addition to this, he has a page that's a store for all sorts of hard copy CD's of similar genre artists (things like prog bands and 70's bands, so like, he'll sell Pink Floyd or Yes albums) plus contemporary things he just likes. So he (or DGM) works as a distributor for those albums as additional income.
Okay, I know that sounds like a huge tangent, but what I'm saying is, Rushkoff is right--it can work. And like he says, it's new technology, so it may take a while to test out what it can or can't do, so there may be some failures. But shit, people are still to this day testing out the possibilities of what books can do as a medium (look at McSweeney's fancy dancy beautifully thematically designed books). And they're not gauranteed success either. But like Rushkoff says, it's the choices of HUMAN BEINGS that sometimes make them fail. So it's also the responsiblity of the human beings to figure out the ways to make the technology work for them.
But, looking at the music industy I've always thought jerks like Metallica were just being, well jerks. It seems so backwards to think that these new inovations can't be used to writers and musicians and all sorts of artists' advantage. Metallica hasn't been able to hold their sales with more recent releases. But look at bands that looked at the internet as an avenue for new possibilites in advertising and distributing, Phish, Radiohead, King Crimson...
Actually, let me use Crimson as an example. They were dicked around for years by GE Records (the old, standard model that's supposed to work) and were ripped of a bunch of their copywrites and rights to do certain side projects or perform on other people's records or to even have choices in their album artwork, and man, it goes way beyond even this, but I won't get into it. Needless to say, they got screwed.
So Robert Fripp, head of the band, in the late 90's, after years of legal battles, creates Discipline Global Mobile and makes all of Crimson's albums available, remastered and the way he always wanted them to be. But he doesn't stop there. He makes everything he's ever been involved with (which is a ton of records) available online at the DGM website. Even stuff that has gone out of print on the original labels, he at least makes available as lossless Flac downloads, complete with album artwork.
Now this is what I'm talking about--using the internet to get the work out there and continue to make money. Later, he opened up an additional store offering "bootlegs" of hundreds of performances he's been involved with, all downloadable as either Flacs for 12.99 or mp3 for 9.99. So not only is he beating the boots (which, for a band like Crimson, there're a lot), but he's making use of the internet so he doesn't even need to spend the money on physical production. And people are willing to pay it because most of these "bootlegs" are full performances, so, if you were to burn them, 2 discs worth of material. And where are you gonna be able to buy two CD's worth of material for 9 bucks? In addition to this, he has a page that's a store for all sorts of hard copy CD's of similar genre artists (things like prog bands and 70's bands, so like, he'll sell Pink Floyd or Yes albums) plus contemporary things he just likes. So he (or DGM) works as a distributor for those albums as additional income.
Okay, I know that sounds like a huge tangent, but what I'm saying is, Rushkoff is right--it can work. And like he says, it's new technology, so it may take a while to test out what it can or can't do, so there may be some failures. But shit, people are still to this day testing out the possibilities of what books can do as a medium (look at McSweeney's fancy dancy beautifully thematically designed books). And they're not gauranteed success either. But like Rushkoff says, it's the choices of HUMAN BEINGS that sometimes make them fail. So it's also the responsiblity of the human beings to figure out the ways to make the technology work for them.
A book ate my colloquy
All of this talk about the internet, and the debate about what is better-- a book in the hand or a book on the net-- has been bringing to mind a book I read recently called Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain by Maryanne Wolf. Wolf talks a lot about Socrates and the early advent of written language. Socrates (or, if one is to credit my philosophy friend, possibly Plato speaking through the mouthpiece of Socrates) believed that written language would be the downfall of our civilization because, as opposed to discussion and oral language, a book can answer no questions. There is nothing beyond a book, no discovery, no conversation, no transmission of ideas back and forth. A book is one dimensional: It gives us only what is on its pages and asks nothing from us. It does not ask us to respond or care if we do. It does not ask us to retain anything. Wolf posits the question, without any hope of an answer, what Socrates might think of our technology today. Would he weep that we have distanced ourselves even farther from a tradition of language that requires vastly more of the human memory? Or, would he rejoice for a medium that encourages and acts as a vehicle for discussion, explication, exploration and discovery? Or, was he wrong? Is the opportunity to disseminate our ideas, worldwide if we want, worth the sacrifice of our abilities of retention, attention and IRL exchange?
I think that the internet has often unexplored and untapped depths for the reader, and I completely support its use as a forum for the reader, the writer, the publisher, the promoter, etc. but I agree with Rushkoff when he states that "As in any industry, computers only help when they are used by people."
Anyway, that which has been learned cannot be unlearned. Because of this transition from an oral tradition to a primarily written one our brains have physically changed. That which fired once in our brain fires no more; it remains blank and inoperable. Or, perhaps, it is put in to the service of some other related but removed function. Whatever the case may be, though our brains have not become any bigger or brighter, they have changed, and all of society is forever changed because of it.
I think that the internet has often unexplored and untapped depths for the reader, and I completely support its use as a forum for the reader, the writer, the publisher, the promoter, etc. but I agree with Rushkoff when he states that "As in any industry, computers only help when they are used by people."
Anyway, that which has been learned cannot be unlearned. Because of this transition from an oral tradition to a primarily written one our brains have physically changed. That which fired once in our brain fires no more; it remains blank and inoperable. Or, perhaps, it is put in to the service of some other related but removed function. Whatever the case may be, though our brains have not become any bigger or brighter, they have changed, and all of society is forever changed because of it.
Monday, March 2, 2009
A Computer Ate My Book & Week 5 Articles
Well, that's it... I'm changing my major. Kidding... but these two articles have done very little to raise my hopes of surviving in the publishing world. When I think about the hundreds of thousands of dollars single small publishers are losing because of stupid people or selfish people... well it kind of makes me want to vomit. Groups like Publishers Group West and Independent Press Association exist to bring hope and opportunity to the small publishers of the world. And they are also here, apparently, to go bankrupt and leave you missing unimaginable amounts of money. Great. Cool. AWESOME.
Anyways, let me move on before I consider becoming a film major or something. I'd say I agree with everything Douglas Rushkoff has to say. People are ridiculous and paranoid-- and no, libraries are not going to be extinct by 2010. I mean come on. How many people do you know that want to sit down and read a novel over the computer. I love reading and when I had to do this for a school project because I couldn't order the book in time, I was very close to wanting to throw my computer out the window. I agree that computers will always be the best way to get quick information, but reading a book is another thing alltogether. Without computers, millions of books would go unread. It is our best chance as writers for promotion. The first thing I do when I hear about a good writer is go to their website and read a sample of their writing. My first thought isn't, "wow I really wish I could illegally download this book over the internet and read it right here at my desk." I mean... come on... really people? I thought the analogy of record executives rejecting to be played on the radio and the fear that videocasettes would put the movie house out of business were great analogies.
After reading all of these it seems that people need to stop worrying about computers eating their books and start worrying about their publishers going bankrupt.
Anyways, let me move on before I consider becoming a film major or something. I'd say I agree with everything Douglas Rushkoff has to say. People are ridiculous and paranoid-- and no, libraries are not going to be extinct by 2010. I mean come on. How many people do you know that want to sit down and read a novel over the computer. I love reading and when I had to do this for a school project because I couldn't order the book in time, I was very close to wanting to throw my computer out the window. I agree that computers will always be the best way to get quick information, but reading a book is another thing alltogether. Without computers, millions of books would go unread. It is our best chance as writers for promotion. The first thing I do when I hear about a good writer is go to their website and read a sample of their writing. My first thought isn't, "wow I really wish I could illegally download this book over the internet and read it right here at my desk." I mean... come on... really people? I thought the analogy of record executives rejecting to be played on the radio and the fear that videocasettes would put the movie house out of business were great analogies.
After reading all of these it seems that people need to stop worrying about computers eating their books and start worrying about their publishers going bankrupt.
"Computers don't kill books--people do."
I think anyone who believes that books will die out are the equivalent of the people that ran out and bought jugs of water and canned green beans when the year 2000 hit. The Internet is just another way of distribution. It's easy and cheap and this is something that benefits both writers and readers. The critics of social networking are really just cutting off their own feet. You have to keep up with the times and no one gives a shit if you're "too old for that technology junk" or if you can't figure out how to use your email. Society (especially this one) will leave your ass in the dust and rightfully so. The only reason this debate is so heated is because of money. If publishers thought more about the art and less about the green lining of their pockets, this wouldn't be a big deal.
Personally, I will never stop buying books. Electronic things are great but sometimes they crash and sometimes you can't get back what you lost in that crash. If I had an electronic book collection like I have an actual book collection and I lost all of that...my life would surely be over. I also like to own books. I like highlighting, making notes, dog-earring and, yes, just like Kit says in her response, books just smell amazing. And I am sure there are more people out there that feel the same way about owning books. There's nothing better than having a library of hundreds of different worlds and stories right within your reach. And in this crazy world of technology, there's nothing better than knowing that you don't have to remember to plug in and charge your library or be without a book for the day.
Personally, I will never stop buying books. Electronic things are great but sometimes they crash and sometimes you can't get back what you lost in that crash. If I had an electronic book collection like I have an actual book collection and I lost all of that...my life would surely be over. I also like to own books. I like highlighting, making notes, dog-earring and, yes, just like Kit says in her response, books just smell amazing. And I am sure there are more people out there that feel the same way about owning books. There's nothing better than having a library of hundreds of different worlds and stories right within your reach. And in this crazy world of technology, there's nothing better than knowing that you don't have to remember to plug in and charge your library or be without a book for the day.
A Computer Ate My Book
I don't care about the possibilities inherent in incorporating electronic media into the publishing industry. I like books. The paper kind. With ink and bindings and no batteries. I don't care if I'm supposed to be a part of the i-pod generation or whatever we are, I'm going to stick with my extremist anti-technology grandpa on this one and say that a having a good hardcover copy of "Scaramouche" in my hands is one hundred times better than reading "Scaramouche" chapter by chapter off the internet on my laptop. And yeah, I've done both.
There are so many good reasons to keep books as they are and not bother with this electronic madness. First of all, how fucking boring would "Fahrenheit 451" have been if it were about a bunch of Geek Squad guys running round and wiping literature off of everybody's laptops? Incredibly boring is the answer to that one. Secondly, I don't care how freaking small Apple manages to make their next mac. Books have ALWAYS been portable, and unless you are toting around an unabridged copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, are still more portable AND more durable than even the sleekest of laptops. Third of all, let's not forget that reading is something that everyone should be able to do. It's easy for priveleged people like us (we may not be rich, but the fact that we all somehow scrape up the tuition to attend a private arts school definitely shows that we are priveleged) to forget that only 39% of Americans owned a laptop in 2008. I'm sure the remaining 61% like reading a good story during their lunch break just as much as we do, and they need actual books to do that. Finally, and most importantly of all, books smell good. They smell amazing. If there is a god and he has a scent, it is Old Book Smell. Even Doctor Who says it when taking his latest companion to a planet-sized library in the 51st century- " By now you've got holovids, direct to brain downloads, fiction mist, but you need the smell. The smell of books, Donna!"
Yes. I did just try to use "Doctor Who" as a valid reference in my argument. It's been a long day, ok?
Personally, and I may be a caveman for thinking this, but if I was one day blessed with the opportunity to publish a novel, I'd choose to publish it in a physical, paper-and-ink format in an instant, even if it meant losing a lot of readers who I would have been able to reach out to by publishing online.
Right. Now that I've made that clear, some of the other things that Rushkoff said make sense. Utilizing the internet as a means of promoting your book, for example, is a brilliant idea that I'm sure not everybody is taking advantage of yet. What he seems to be saying is that computers are a great resource when utilized by capable human minds, but that we have yet to see the day when their full potential will be recognized in the publishing world. I can agree with that. I just hope that their full potential isn't good enough that it wipes out printed word.
There are so many good reasons to keep books as they are and not bother with this electronic madness. First of all, how fucking boring would "Fahrenheit 451" have been if it were about a bunch of Geek Squad guys running round and wiping literature off of everybody's laptops? Incredibly boring is the answer to that one. Secondly, I don't care how freaking small Apple manages to make their next mac. Books have ALWAYS been portable, and unless you are toting around an unabridged copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, are still more portable AND more durable than even the sleekest of laptops. Third of all, let's not forget that reading is something that everyone should be able to do. It's easy for priveleged people like us (we may not be rich, but the fact that we all somehow scrape up the tuition to attend a private arts school definitely shows that we are priveleged) to forget that only 39% of Americans owned a laptop in 2008. I'm sure the remaining 61% like reading a good story during their lunch break just as much as we do, and they need actual books to do that. Finally, and most importantly of all, books smell good. They smell amazing. If there is a god and he has a scent, it is Old Book Smell. Even Doctor Who says it when taking his latest companion to a planet-sized library in the 51st century- " By now you've got holovids, direct to brain downloads, fiction mist, but you need the smell. The smell of books, Donna!"
Yes. I did just try to use "Doctor Who" as a valid reference in my argument. It's been a long day, ok?
Personally, and I may be a caveman for thinking this, but if I was one day blessed with the opportunity to publish a novel, I'd choose to publish it in a physical, paper-and-ink format in an instant, even if it meant losing a lot of readers who I would have been able to reach out to by publishing online.
Right. Now that I've made that clear, some of the other things that Rushkoff said make sense. Utilizing the internet as a means of promoting your book, for example, is a brilliant idea that I'm sure not everybody is taking advantage of yet. What he seems to be saying is that computers are a great resource when utilized by capable human minds, but that we have yet to see the day when their full potential will be recognized in the publishing world. I can agree with that. I just hope that their full potential isn't good enough that it wipes out printed word.
a computer ate my book
Douglas Rushkoff made me look at the possibilities of the internet in connection to writing. I’ve kind of been a dinosaur- protesting the aspects of publishing the internet is changing- and I hate to admit it but I think it comes from a really ignorant place of not wanting to accept change and also from a stubborn place of not wanting to change my ways.
Why? Because paper and books and ink and the millions of different ways to bind pages are pretty. Sometimes holding a book feels better then holding anything else. Plus computers don’t smell as good as ink.
The way technology is moving is kind of scary. Buying a book online is taking away human interaction- reading a literary journal off a web site and saving it in your favorite’s folder is taking away the kind of nostalgia having that literary journal on your bookshelf gives you.
Maybe Douglas has more faith in society then I do- because deep down I’m scared that the less writing is available in only print- the easier it will be to forget about it.
It’s true there are more outlets for writers that are unknown because of the internet and blogs- but in my opinion it is also harder to find good writing on the internet because it is bogged down in search engines full of crap.
Plus- the blue light that buzzes from my computer makes reading less romantic.
But this essay did make me realize the interaction between readers and writers on the internet- something that print can’t really offer. And it completely changed my approach to the zine I am putting together because now I want to find a way to connect the print version to the internet.
Why? Because paper and books and ink and the millions of different ways to bind pages are pretty. Sometimes holding a book feels better then holding anything else. Plus computers don’t smell as good as ink.
The way technology is moving is kind of scary. Buying a book online is taking away human interaction- reading a literary journal off a web site and saving it in your favorite’s folder is taking away the kind of nostalgia having that literary journal on your bookshelf gives you.
Maybe Douglas has more faith in society then I do- because deep down I’m scared that the less writing is available in only print- the easier it will be to forget about it.
It’s true there are more outlets for writers that are unknown because of the internet and blogs- but in my opinion it is also harder to find good writing on the internet because it is bogged down in search engines full of crap.
Plus- the blue light that buzzes from my computer makes reading less romantic.
But this essay did make me realize the interaction between readers and writers on the internet- something that print can’t really offer. And it completely changed my approach to the zine I am putting together because now I want to find a way to connect the print version to the internet.
I apologize for being nitpicky and lacking faith in humanity.
I respect Douglas Rushkoff for standing his ground on what is probably the pariah's point of view, but some of his statements bother me, and I don't think I can let them slide so easily.
Rushkoff writes, "Just as hearing a song on the radio might provoke a person to buy a CD, reading text by authors online can motivate people to buy their actual books."
Yeah… this isn't always true. I will state that everybody is or knows someone who always prefers holding a physical copy of media in their hands as they run home to displace that specific piece of shelf; they'll want the CD for the quality of sound, the album art, and the booklet; they'll want the DVD for the special features and commentary; and they'll want the book for the cover art, the design, the smell, etc. But what Rushkoff must not realize is that this is such a small percentage. It's like the percentage of people who actually vote; it's staggering to know the real number. Pirating is pretty much an epidemic, and if people have become adjusted to downloading an entire album in lossless quality or a straight DVD-rip of a movie whenever they want it, in less than two hours, for free, why wouldn't that habit progress to books? I'm not advocating piracy, or saying it's right, because yeah, in a perfect world, if you love the art, you support it, but--and Ruskoff even touches on this slightly--the new generation, growing up on the internet, is lazy. Not to mention, broke as hell.
Which makes a nice segue to my next point. Rushkoff writes: "Online interaction actually makes a person's writing better. I can tell when I've received email from people raised on the internet because their sentences are dense with innuendo... Kids online today write much better than I did at their age. Or at least with greater density of thought."
WOAH.
HOLD UP.
"Dense with innuendo"? "Greater density of thought"? "Makes writing better"?! Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a rise in illiteracy because of shorthand; I thought I went through high school proofreading peer's papers that used "U" for "you" and had no consideration of the proper form of "there", "their", or "they're" (mostly that last one). I mean, I'm not completely doubting Mr. Rushkoff's account--he does have a blog, and yeah, he probably communicates with thousands of literate youngsters. But I grew up with the internet--since second grade, thank you very much--as did everyone around me in public school, and half of them fill out their facebook profiles in alternating caps and update their statuses in full shorthand. This is how the majority of my generation has chosen to project itself, and any regard to correct grammar is not something that they feel they should concern themselves with.
What Rushkoff probably should have specified was writers that use the Internet. But he doesn't say that. He implies that everyone can benefit from the internet . And that is wrong. Very, very wrong.
I'll note that Rushkoff was born in 1961. He's less than a year older than both my parents, who both possess superior internet knowledge in comparison with the rest of their age group because it's a central part of their careers. I don't want to say that Rushkoff is out of touch because of his age, but I think his standards for those who "grow up with the internet" are a little different than what they really should be. I guess he doesn't consider that ugly side of internet breeding because nobody with terrible grammar would have any business commenting on his blog. So he just doesn't see it.
But to make this response seem a little more well-rounded, Rushkoff does raise some pretty good points. The paragraph where he talks about experimenting on his own--"canceling a contract for a novel in order to be able to post the entire thing online"--and receiving around eleven hundred responses to help the novel's development shows the best reason the publishing world should have a digital foot in the door: feedback. Instant feedback, at that.
However, Rushkoff saves himself, ultimately by stating that, "Computers don't kill books. People do." But that statement seems to justify my first argument against him. Usually, if people can get it free, they'll do it. They might pay their respects later, but it will be much later, when they just happen to catch themselves near a Borders or a Barnes and Noble and see that movie or CD they downloaded three months ago on sale, or see their new favorite novel in the bargain bin.
Week 5 Readings
These articles are more than just a little depressing. As if we haven't heard enough bad news about the stupid economy lately. I mean, publishing your work is hard enough (I already have a Plan B that involves bringing back apple selling) without small presses collapsing around you left and right. It's particularly stressful for kids in my position, who are just getting ready to leave school and have little to no published material to land them a job or a book deal with Random House or whatever, and who are counting on indie presses like these.
I'd have to agree with Patty (at least, I think it was Patty) in that I definitely noticed how greed seemed to act as a catalyst in both of these collapses. That was the most upsetting part of all, really. I mean, you'd think that once you were out of middle school- high school at the very latest- you'd have reached a point in life where you'd be able to interact with people who have learned how to behave like decent, goodhearted folk. Seriously, how much moral grounding does it really take to realize that it is unethical to falsify information that hundreds of publishers and organizations depend on? Many of those publishers were doing good things with that revenue, too. I mean, lying to nonprofit Buddhists? For chrissakes!
Sad as it is that this is the reality writers and publishers must face when trying to make a name for themselves, I can't actually say that I'm intimidated by these events. Call me a hopeless optimist, but I think it's times and situations like these that force people to rise to the occasion and, in doing so, to become a lot better for it. Trying to publish your work as an emerging writer will always be hard. If you can do it while facing the adversity of economical circumstances such as these, anything that comes afterwards will seem like smooth sailing. I mean, whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right? Just look at cockroaches. Those bastards have built up immunities to almost every household poison in existence.
I'd have to agree with Patty (at least, I think it was Patty) in that I definitely noticed how greed seemed to act as a catalyst in both of these collapses. That was the most upsetting part of all, really. I mean, you'd think that once you were out of middle school- high school at the very latest- you'd have reached a point in life where you'd be able to interact with people who have learned how to behave like decent, goodhearted folk. Seriously, how much moral grounding does it really take to realize that it is unethical to falsify information that hundreds of publishers and organizations depend on? Many of those publishers were doing good things with that revenue, too. I mean, lying to nonprofit Buddhists? For chrissakes!
Sad as it is that this is the reality writers and publishers must face when trying to make a name for themselves, I can't actually say that I'm intimidated by these events. Call me a hopeless optimist, but I think it's times and situations like these that force people to rise to the occasion and, in doing so, to become a lot better for it. Trying to publish your work as an emerging writer will always be hard. If you can do it while facing the adversity of economical circumstances such as these, anything that comes afterwards will seem like smooth sailing. I mean, whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right? Just look at cockroaches. Those bastards have built up immunities to almost every household poison in existence.
An Opportunity for Change
There’s this looming idea, or fear rather, in the publishing industry and writing community that electronic media will one day eliminate the buying and selling of books in the traditional form. Similar to Douglas Rushkoff in his essay “A Computer Ate my Book,” I just don’t understand what all the panic is about. He writes, “Media don’t actually steal from each other. They feed each other.” And I think he’s right.
There have always been places and mediums where people can go to get books for free, ranging anywhere from the library to the internet. Yet, people still continue to buy books. They cart them around from location to location. They create entire rooms of shelves just to display and house them. There are some people who are even willing to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for a rare first edition. So there must be something about books that causes us not only to want them, but to keep going back to them.
Industries change over time. It’s absolutely essential. So why does this particular industry seem to want to be the exception to the rule? If anything, now more than ever, I think that publishers have a great opportunity to change the way they do business. Rushkoff explains, “Computers have reminded us of the special ability of books to provide a kind of experience you can’t get anywhere else.” This statement really speaks to the importance of creativity to the book making process. Publishers now have the chance to really differentiate the book experience from the internet experience. They just have to seize it.
When I first heard about electronic books (Kindles, Sony Book Reader, etc), I think I was one of the few writers to become excited about the concept. It sounded like a great way to make novels more accessible to a generation that rarely goes anywhere without an i-pod. Let's face it: None of us are in it for the money. It's about connecting with readers, which is what this new world of publishing and the internet allows us to do on a much larger scale. Whether we like it or not, we live in a technology-based society, and I think we need to find ways to both embrace and add to it. The fact that people are reading, whether it’s on a computer screen or in a book, is what should matter the most, because without readers, then we're really lost.
There have always been places and mediums where people can go to get books for free, ranging anywhere from the library to the internet. Yet, people still continue to buy books. They cart them around from location to location. They create entire rooms of shelves just to display and house them. There are some people who are even willing to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for a rare first edition. So there must be something about books that causes us not only to want them, but to keep going back to them.
Industries change over time. It’s absolutely essential. So why does this particular industry seem to want to be the exception to the rule? If anything, now more than ever, I think that publishers have a great opportunity to change the way they do business. Rushkoff explains, “Computers have reminded us of the special ability of books to provide a kind of experience you can’t get anywhere else.” This statement really speaks to the importance of creativity to the book making process. Publishers now have the chance to really differentiate the book experience from the internet experience. They just have to seize it.
When I first heard about electronic books (Kindles, Sony Book Reader, etc), I think I was one of the few writers to become excited about the concept. It sounded like a great way to make novels more accessible to a generation that rarely goes anywhere without an i-pod. Let's face it: None of us are in it for the money. It's about connecting with readers, which is what this new world of publishing and the internet allows us to do on a much larger scale. Whether we like it or not, we live in a technology-based society, and I think we need to find ways to both embrace and add to it. The fact that people are reading, whether it’s on a computer screen or in a book, is what should matter the most, because without readers, then we're really lost.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
A Computer Ate My Book
This essay by Douglas Rushkoff really got me thinking about the difference between physical books and reading books on the internet. Personally, I have never read a book on the internet, and I probably never will. I don't even like reading articles or short stories on the internet. It isn't the same as holding the piece of paper with the text in my hand. More often than not, I always print what I want to read--meaning stories and articles and things like that (unless it's on a blog or just simple information). There is just something about holding a book in my hands that does something for me. Maybe its the way it smells or the physicality of it, I'm not sure. I just can't bring myself to read something on the computer like that. For one, it hurts my eyes, and two, its so much more convenient to hold the book in my hands, to crawl into bed with a book and shut it and put it on the table next to me when I'm done instead of having to get up and plug my lap top in.
The other day on the train, I saw someone with this thing the size of a book, but it was digital (I'd never seen this before) and it got me thinking. If it's the same size as the book, why would you not just carry the book? It really doesn't make any sense for me.
There's something about being able to say that you own the book and get to read it that means something to me. It shows effort and how much the reader cares. They went to the store to purchase it and display it proudly on their bookshelf. You can't do that with the internet.
I completely understand the concept of using the internet to promote your book. For example, like posting chapters and having a website or a blog. This makes sense to me. But for me, it is something completely different than reading the actual book. One of my favorite authors will post a decent chunk of her next novel on her website long before it comes out and I always read it, but for whatever reason, when I finally get the book and reread the same thing, I feels so different. I absorb it more. It means more. Its means the author has made it and you can hold the book in your hand. Anyone can publish anything on the internet and I think it takes away from the excitement of actually being published.
I will step off my soapbox now.
But I really did enjoy this essay and if it's like any of the other essay in the book, then I am glad to own it. (and yes i bought it for a penny on amazon.)
The other day on the train, I saw someone with this thing the size of a book, but it was digital (I'd never seen this before) and it got me thinking. If it's the same size as the book, why would you not just carry the book? It really doesn't make any sense for me.
There's something about being able to say that you own the book and get to read it that means something to me. It shows effort and how much the reader cares. They went to the store to purchase it and display it proudly on their bookshelf. You can't do that with the internet.
I completely understand the concept of using the internet to promote your book. For example, like posting chapters and having a website or a blog. This makes sense to me. But for me, it is something completely different than reading the actual book. One of my favorite authors will post a decent chunk of her next novel on her website long before it comes out and I always read it, but for whatever reason, when I finally get the book and reread the same thing, I feels so different. I absorb it more. It means more. Its means the author has made it and you can hold the book in your hand. Anyone can publish anything on the internet and I think it takes away from the excitement of actually being published.
I will step off my soapbox now.
But I really did enjoy this essay and if it's like any of the other essay in the book, then I am glad to own it. (and yes i bought it for a penny on amazon.)
Week 5 Readings
Just so this is clear (I just figured out how to fix it) the posts made under Art Is Words have been from me.
Now onto the reading.
After reading both articles about the collapse of the independent publishing world , I'm sort of freaked out. It's amazing how easy it is in this industry to lose money. Bankruptcy is a scary thing, and this article just proved how much it can affect things. I mean, all those books and publishers that were affected, that's crazy! Lucky for them they are hopefully going to be bailed out. I wonder what would happen if they weren't. This all just reminds me of how much small press publishing relies on other companies, like their distributors to make them money which they need not only to run their press but pay there authors. It seems like there are a lot of middle men involved. Myself, personally, I've never really been interested in publishing with a small press, and after reading this, it's sort of solidified my original opinion. It's scary. You never know whether you'll make it or not, or if you'll get the money you've earned or if the company with fall through. It's weird. The new system of them collecting weekly instead of every 90 days seems like a good plan. I can't imagine having to wait 90 days for something that important, but then again, if you get published in a big press, you're waiting even longer for royalties! the more and more and I think about it, publishing scares me. But its still what I want to do. It's what I've always wanted to do and the only thing I really want to do.
It's just so awful thinking of how many publications are going under and all because of money. Money controls everything in the world and I really hate that fact. It's ridiculous to think that a green piece of paper can have such an impact on everything that goes on. It's really unfortunate to me honest.
This all just reminds me of how you really have to want to be published to deal with all you have to to get where you want to be. It really is a gamble and nothing is certain, ever. It takes a certain type of person to be willing to put themselves through something like that. And I just happen to be one of those people.
Now onto the reading.
After reading both articles about the collapse of the independent publishing world , I'm sort of freaked out. It's amazing how easy it is in this industry to lose money. Bankruptcy is a scary thing, and this article just proved how much it can affect things. I mean, all those books and publishers that were affected, that's crazy! Lucky for them they are hopefully going to be bailed out. I wonder what would happen if they weren't. This all just reminds me of how much small press publishing relies on other companies, like their distributors to make them money which they need not only to run their press but pay there authors. It seems like there are a lot of middle men involved. Myself, personally, I've never really been interested in publishing with a small press, and after reading this, it's sort of solidified my original opinion. It's scary. You never know whether you'll make it or not, or if you'll get the money you've earned or if the company with fall through. It's weird. The new system of them collecting weekly instead of every 90 days seems like a good plan. I can't imagine having to wait 90 days for something that important, but then again, if you get published in a big press, you're waiting even longer for royalties! the more and more and I think about it, publishing scares me. But its still what I want to do. It's what I've always wanted to do and the only thing I really want to do.
It's just so awful thinking of how many publications are going under and all because of money. Money controls everything in the world and I really hate that fact. It's ridiculous to think that a green piece of paper can have such an impact on everything that goes on. It's really unfortunate to me honest.
This all just reminds me of how you really have to want to be published to deal with all you have to to get where you want to be. It really is a gamble and nothing is certain, ever. It takes a certain type of person to be willing to put themselves through something like that. And I just happen to be one of those people.
Week5 Readings
What struck me was the constant pattern of greed, grant it, money makes the world go round but how to people have yet to understand the reprocussions of greed? im probably going to go on a rant as i am listening to britney spears right now and that girl's got me dancing out to circus but thats besides the point.
the san francisco chronicle article just reminds me of how people are too concerned with personal gain that they completely disregard how much they are affecting others, not only the publishers, the employees, the writers, the readers, etc. domino effect people. money does not just disappear, some one takes a little here, someone takes a little there and before you know it you are being offered money to stay afloat, though youre probably the reason youre on a sinking ship to begin with. I picture a warehouse full of books unable to be distributed because of mismanagement and too much self interest.
Reading the ChiReader article made me think how in love you have to be with wanting to publish or be published. It just seems you have to be aware of the obstacles and have the determination to follow through regardless of the dire economic situation and depressingly low success rate. you really need to want to do it to pursue something so difficult. you should have a plan, funds or source of funds, connections, and balls of steel to withstand those groin kicks.
But its good to hear that even with all that people continue to publish and be published, through the self, indie, corporate publishers, etc. The more people do not let this deter them, the more society as a whole seems to gain from the hard work, the art, the examples set before them. is it too cliche to compare it to the glass ceiling? wow, i really need to stop listening to womanizer. but it is the preceeding that makes it a little easier for those who follow, because they get to see what worked, what didnt, and how to improve on the ideas. maybe i will never get published, maybe i dont want to get published but im at least trying to grow an invisible set of steel balls.
the san francisco chronicle article just reminds me of how people are too concerned with personal gain that they completely disregard how much they are affecting others, not only the publishers, the employees, the writers, the readers, etc. domino effect people. money does not just disappear, some one takes a little here, someone takes a little there and before you know it you are being offered money to stay afloat, though youre probably the reason youre on a sinking ship to begin with. I picture a warehouse full of books unable to be distributed because of mismanagement and too much self interest.
Reading the ChiReader article made me think how in love you have to be with wanting to publish or be published. It just seems you have to be aware of the obstacles and have the determination to follow through regardless of the dire economic situation and depressingly low success rate. you really need to want to do it to pursue something so difficult. you should have a plan, funds or source of funds, connections, and balls of steel to withstand those groin kicks.
But its good to hear that even with all that people continue to publish and be published, through the self, indie, corporate publishers, etc. The more people do not let this deter them, the more society as a whole seems to gain from the hard work, the art, the examples set before them. is it too cliche to compare it to the glass ceiling? wow, i really need to stop listening to womanizer. but it is the preceeding that makes it a little easier for those who follow, because they get to see what worked, what didnt, and how to improve on the ideas. maybe i will never get published, maybe i dont want to get published but im at least trying to grow an invisible set of steel balls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)