i have been interviewed
ellen kennedy interviewed me
if anyone wants to review my chapbook please email me and i'll email you the chapbook i think
i don't know
i'm going to submit my stories and poetry from now on to as many literary magazines as i like
they can all publish it when they want if they want and i can get paid by more than one place
i can defend myself philosophically
if they get angry
they all just want to secure first serial rights so in the future they can say they published me first and are really great editors because they published me first
and are the best
and better than other editors
it's a competition to see who can publish the best things first
it's very strange that this kind of thing has happened; that magazines have done this thing about first serial rights and all these things; things like this happened in the past because corporations needed to make money and they needed to have the story exclusively so that they could get more people to buy their magazine, the reason for first serial rights and publishing things first is to make money
for non-profit magazines, which is about every literary magazine now, there is no reason for this story of thing; it has stayed because people are unable to think without preconception, which is normal and to be expected
i am also 'for' plagiarism
if you are conscious of why you are plagiarizing and able to defend it
the idea of wanting to own your ideas so no one else can get credit for them is very strange to me
the idea of needing to be approved of and needing the approval and for that approval to be attributed to you and you only is very strange to me
it is also strange to me that writers who write all the time about being fucked and how reality is an illusion and all of life is an illusion and a kind of dream, really, are then afraid to have their writings published on the internet, because it is not as legitimate and they will not get as much respect and probably won't be considered for the pulitzer prize
i also want to be accepted by a public space and then post every day on this site about how they are very strange until they reject me due to it feeling very strange
if anyone wants to review my chapbook please email me and i'll email you the chapbook i think
i don't know
i'm going to submit my stories and poetry from now on to as many literary magazines as i like
they can all publish it when they want if they want and i can get paid by more than one place
i can defend myself philosophically
if they get angry
they all just want to secure first serial rights so in the future they can say they published me first and are really great editors because they published me first
and are the best
and better than other editors
it's a competition to see who can publish the best things first
it's very strange that this kind of thing has happened; that magazines have done this thing about first serial rights and all these things; things like this happened in the past because corporations needed to make money and they needed to have the story exclusively so that they could get more people to buy their magazine, the reason for first serial rights and publishing things first is to make money
for non-profit magazines, which is about every literary magazine now, there is no reason for this story of thing; it has stayed because people are unable to think without preconception, which is normal and to be expected
i am also 'for' plagiarism
if you are conscious of why you are plagiarizing and able to defend it
the idea of wanting to own your ideas so no one else can get credit for them is very strange to me
the idea of needing to be approved of and needing the approval and for that approval to be attributed to you and you only is very strange to me
it is also strange to me that writers who write all the time about being fucked and how reality is an illusion and all of life is an illusion and a kind of dream, really, are then afraid to have their writings published on the internet, because it is not as legitimate and they will not get as much respect and probably won't be considered for the pulitzer prize
i also want to be accepted by a public space and then post every day on this site about how they are very strange until they reject me due to it feeling very strange
3:21 PM
17 Comments:
Tao, thanks for the story. I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet, probably tomorrow.
I've been reading your blog for some time and I have to admit, I don't understand a lot of what you do. Let me start with this; I found your blog, this blog, after reading "Zombies" in Kitchen Sink Mag. I'm assuming that with everything you've published, you include your blog URL.
I think it's crazy for you to say something like this, posted for anyone and everyone to read. Namely readers from lit mags or journals, or perhaps even their fiction editors.
As for the plagiarism comment, I would take that lightly, in passing, but I remember Fran saying something about your plagiarizing her. I don't know the details, but either way this seems foolish, like shooting yourself in the foot, or not shaking it quite enough and pissing a little in your pants.
I am greatly entertained by most of your posts and short fiction, and some poetry. I just think it's not in your best interest, unless this is just a facetious facade and I'm being too literal.
Regardless, it was funny, and surely you know what you're doing. I mean, surely, right?
Here is my argument for asking for the first serial rights:
If I ask for those rights, and that piece gets reprinted in an anthology, then people perhaps see the name of NOÖ and want to read it, since they liked that piece. This way NOÖ gets more readers.
I guess I can just have the request part. But you never know.
I think it's good to want more readers.
If you don't want more readers, it means you don't think everyone should read your magazine, which means you want to exclude people and possibly cancel their credit cards and replace them with caribou and refuse them flashlights in a dark room with a sword-sporting apes.
So if you don't ask for first serial rights, it means you want certain people to get hacked to death by apes.
Adorno, Derrida and the temperature of space all made this argument before me. It's their argument. I'm a messenger. I'm a flute.
Rooooooooooooooo.
if you are a small not-for-profit print journal, i offer a consulting service.
i can drop your costs by 82% (consulting fee included), while reaching 76% more people and killing 99% less trees.
my fee is $2100.
pompadour@gmail.com
good interview.
i agree with mike.
wanting people to read your journal is not a bad thing.
what do you mean when you say:
"it has stayed because people are unable to think without preconception, which is normal and to be expected"
they say on tv everything's getting thinner and recycling itself.
i have a dog, but my dog can't talk.
i say to my dog, "let's go to iraq."
We are cheating, Gene. NOÖ is free on the internet, and free as a paper journal.
We are cheating, and we are probably stupid.
you are smart, mike young. putting it on the internet for free = more concern about people actually reading the work, which is what i think all not-for-profits should do. it should be required. not stupid.
trevor:
i've never plagiarized anyone, i have not plagiarized fran
also, if you define my 'best interests' (to be loved by all editors and magazines, get good reviews, and win the pulitzer prize?) and i defined my 'best interests' it would be two different, probably opposite definitions; i don't think i have 'best interests'
if you read this site you know i think everyone is stupid and life is stupid
mike:
why do you want more readers for NOO journal rather than for the works you publish?
if my poem you accepted (and everything else you accepted) was published on twenty different sites then 'NOO journal' (which is, really, the works that are on your site, and not something called 'NOO journal) would have twenty times more readers, or something like that
also, why would authors want so many people to read their work?
i'm saying why does everyone want everyone to read what they publish or what they write?
this goes against maybe 90% of what many writers actually write about, including oprah writers, which are things like acceptance of failure, acceptance of mortality, finding acceptance within, or something, the illusion of reality, the illusion of identity, etc.
bryan:
"it has stayed because people are unable to think without preconception, which is normal and to be expected"
means people accept first serial rights because first serial rights was an idea that was there when the people got there; it's like accepting an asshole for a mother or something; if the mother turns into an asshole half-way through your life you will not accept it, if the mother is already an asshole, then you will know nothing else and accept it, unless you can use your brain
it's very normal and to me that accepted ideas are constantly defended yet when you look at history almost every accepted idea is now unacceptable, and this is taught in school, yet when ever i say something is stupid everyone says i am the one who is stupid
In the last few weeks, I have had the same 2 poems accepted by 34 journals.
When I write the poem accepted by all journals everywhere, I will go into the heaven and lock the door.
I see what you're saying, Tao. I do want as many people as possible to read the works we publish, and I'm happy if it gets published in twenty places. Because I like it and want people to read it.
But I also figure that if they like one thing we published -- if it makes happy that space of day in which they read it -- they may like something else we published/will publish. So that's why I also want lots of people to read the journal.
I don't think the two desires (#1: to have lots of readers for specific works, and #2: more readers for the magazine in general) need to compete.
And yeah, by the 'magazine in general' I of course mean the collection of stuff we publish. I'm not claiming that 'NOÖ Journal' has some specific flavor that it imparts on the pieces it publishes; the pieces published make it.
mike, you're so wholesome.
that's why we're such good friends.
because i'm so wholesome too.
not caring about first serial rights will get more readers for works
everyone can then publish everything they really like
as well as other things
not caring about first serial rights will get more readers for the works and more readers for the magazine probably
i don't know
i disown this post
it's just that it's an honor for an editor to introduce a writer to new readers. that is why we are editors. we get a kick out of showing off work by others we like.
there wouldn't be much of a point in publishing a piece in a print mag (for instance) that is already available online (tho the reverse might be a different story since online mags have greater potential reach). the redundancy does nothing to help the story or poem, & it is difficult to convince people to spend money on something they can get for free elsewhere, & selling a print journal is necessary if you want to keep being able to afford to print it.
when i edited LIT we reprinted things that appeared first or simultaneously on blogs and also things that simultaneously or previously appeared books and chapboooks, but not things that previously or simultaneously appeared in other mags, because we think the magazine might have a different audience than those things. first serial doesn't prevent a writer from publishing her work anywhere she likes...afterward.
the idea is always for the magazine to point to the writer as a locus of interesting work. like each page is a sign, saying "tao lin is so interesting. go read more tao lin after you read this page." i think most editors consider their work a service to writers (& also that most are writers themselves).
shanna,
yes i guess print magazines would need to avoid redundancy in order to make money to continue printing itself
but still
if you take away the idea of first serial rights and exclusivity as to publishing a work
every editor will be able to publish what they love most and there would probably be less of the thing where every magazine is telling you to buy their magazine because they get 'the best' writing 'first' and they published so-and-so 'first' and 'find the best writers first,' etc.
it'll become less like a contest maybe to see who can get the largest readership and publish the 'best' writers
it'll become more of a contest to see who can present the work in the most accessible, beautifully-designed way
because then that'll become the only way to get more readers, since the same work, if a lot of editors like it, will be published in more than one magazine if the author chooses that
i disowned this post earlier because of peer pressure
i no longer disown this post
if you take away first serial rights print magazines might not have enough money
people will have to do online and everything will become free and the following words will have less importance: 'respect' 'legitimacy' 'first' 'best' 'resume' 'publications'
If first serial rights are pointless, then why don't journals just stop bothering with trying to publish self-righteous, aspiring writers and just resolve to publish Hemingway and Carver over and over again?
The kind of nihilism you're preaching could just as easily be turned against you. If securing the rights to publish work is dumb, then why should journals waste their time with new work, when they could just reprint older, better, more memorable work they don't have the rights for.
Also, in terms of magazines securing first serial rights, it's not an issue of magazines taking advantage of you or your work for profit. Most lit mags don't make money. Publishing a beginner's work is a crime of passion for even the most established journals.
All your ideas about publishing seem to be the result of apparent immaturity, a sense of self worth which is completely unrelated to anything you've actually accomplished with your writing, and an all around lack of knowledge concerning the industry which you're attempting to interact with.
this was all very beautiful. :)
tao, at first i thought you were a little crazy towards the pboz-whatever publication, but now i see there was a lot more to your choice. i think you envision a very similar world to mine: one completely free. money. what a fucking ridiculous concept. created by the powerful to get more powerful. clearly, it worked. now we're blessed with self-righteous editors. fuck self-righteousness. that shit is meaningless. hold your role, but hold it kindly. why would you ever do anything else?
Post a Comment
<< Home