people shit-talking miranda july
on bookslut i read a shit-talking thing about miranda july and it linked to another shit-talking thing that said rick moody wasn't objective since he knows miranda july
i have thought about it and if i am ever on the panel for a cash prize for a book i am going to award the prize to someone i like and i usually try to contact people that i like so that i can communicate with them maybe therefore the prize will most likely be awarded to someone i am 'friends' with
in terms of morals this is good i think because it means i will be better able to control where the money is spent (rather than giving it to someone i don't know which would increase the chances of them spending it on things that will cause more pain and suffering), it is like voting in an election or researching an organization before donating things to them or shopping at an organic vegan restaurant instead of a wal-mart grocery store, all things that people who talk shit about 'nepotism' probably would approve of (voting, choosing where to spend money, etc.) and probably talk shit about people who don't vote, don't research where their money goes, etc.
in an existential view this is good, if by 'good' i mean 'allows the knowledge that humans must make choices in an arbitrary universe though not necessarily choices in terms of pain and suffering (doing so would become morals; see above paragraph)' i think because it acknowledges that there is no objective good or bad in art (or anything), it acknowledges that art, if done not for business purposes, is a thing that cannot be good or bad but only liked or disliked (and therefore shit-talking from an 'existential' view can only be done with sarcasm in order to acknowledge that it is false and just done because 'humans must make choices'), and acknowledging that is the same as becoming more tolerant and you won't want to destroy things, cause pain to things, or shit-talk things as much because you will better understand that 'people are different and therefore like different things and therefore produce art with different tones including "precious," "badass," etc.' (from an existential view awarding prizes to friends makes it so there is no 'distortion' and no attempt at 'distortion' and no pressure towards 'distortion' of the universe; by 'distortion' i mean trying earnestly to impose objective 'goods' or 'bads' onto things inside the universe)
saying 'preciousness makes me gag' is the same as saying 'gay people make me gag' or something, really it is; there is a lot of shit-talking in literature and somehow it is, like, encouraged, or even said to be 'vital' to 'the discourse' or something (mostly by the same people who condemn racism, homophobia, etc.), whereas the same kind of thing (disliking something based on abstractions or generalizations; 'preciousness,' 'black person,' 'gay person') outside of literature is like the worst thing you can do in a newspaper or magazine and causes nike to stop sponsoring you, politicians to condemn your existence, and radio stations to not want you to work for them anymore, etc.
i don't understand when people say that someone is being fake in their writing; i don't think miranda july has a 'pose,' i don't think anyone has a pose; james frey, i think, is just being himself when he says he doesn't give a fuck about dave eggers or whatever it was he said (if he's doing it that is who he is, it doesn't matter what he's like with his grandma or something; people change in different situations and that is who they are, at that moment); i think when people accuse other people of having a 'pose' it means that the accuser is conveying something like 'i can't comprehend how a person can act like that, because i am not like that, therefore they must be faking it' which is like saying 'preciousness makes me gag'
saying 'preciousness makes me gag' in terms of morals i think would be okay i think if the concept of 'preciousness' really did make the person gag but i don't think jessa crispin really gags at 'preciousness'
this has been day two of 'real blogging'
i think the goal of this post was for me to type a lot of things so that i can see them in paragraph form and think about them a little better and also to fight shit-talkers a little by typing calm sentences of things that make sense to me; the views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of the author, tao lin, because he did not try to express any views but just type things and think about them
i have thought about it and if i am ever on the panel for a cash prize for a book i am going to award the prize to someone i like and i usually try to contact people that i like so that i can communicate with them maybe therefore the prize will most likely be awarded to someone i am 'friends' with
in terms of morals this is good i think because it means i will be better able to control where the money is spent (rather than giving it to someone i don't know which would increase the chances of them spending it on things that will cause more pain and suffering), it is like voting in an election or researching an organization before donating things to them or shopping at an organic vegan restaurant instead of a wal-mart grocery store, all things that people who talk shit about 'nepotism' probably would approve of (voting, choosing where to spend money, etc.) and probably talk shit about people who don't vote, don't research where their money goes, etc.
in an existential view this is good, if by 'good' i mean 'allows the knowledge that humans must make choices in an arbitrary universe though not necessarily choices in terms of pain and suffering (doing so would become morals; see above paragraph)' i think because it acknowledges that there is no objective good or bad in art (or anything), it acknowledges that art, if done not for business purposes, is a thing that cannot be good or bad but only liked or disliked (and therefore shit-talking from an 'existential' view can only be done with sarcasm in order to acknowledge that it is false and just done because 'humans must make choices'), and acknowledging that is the same as becoming more tolerant and you won't want to destroy things, cause pain to things, or shit-talk things as much because you will better understand that 'people are different and therefore like different things and therefore produce art with different tones including "precious," "badass," etc.' (from an existential view awarding prizes to friends makes it so there is no 'distortion' and no attempt at 'distortion' and no pressure towards 'distortion' of the universe; by 'distortion' i mean trying earnestly to impose objective 'goods' or 'bads' onto things inside the universe)
saying 'preciousness makes me gag' is the same as saying 'gay people make me gag' or something, really it is; there is a lot of shit-talking in literature and somehow it is, like, encouraged, or even said to be 'vital' to 'the discourse' or something (mostly by the same people who condemn racism, homophobia, etc.), whereas the same kind of thing (disliking something based on abstractions or generalizations; 'preciousness,' 'black person,' 'gay person') outside of literature is like the worst thing you can do in a newspaper or magazine and causes nike to stop sponsoring you, politicians to condemn your existence, and radio stations to not want you to work for them anymore, etc.
i don't understand when people say that someone is being fake in their writing; i don't think miranda july has a 'pose,' i don't think anyone has a pose; james frey, i think, is just being himself when he says he doesn't give a fuck about dave eggers or whatever it was he said (if he's doing it that is who he is, it doesn't matter what he's like with his grandma or something; people change in different situations and that is who they are, at that moment); i think when people accuse other people of having a 'pose' it means that the accuser is conveying something like 'i can't comprehend how a person can act like that, because i am not like that, therefore they must be faking it' which is like saying 'preciousness makes me gag'
saying 'preciousness makes me gag' in terms of morals i think would be okay i think if the concept of 'preciousness' really did make the person gag but i don't think jessa crispin really gags at 'preciousness'
this has been day two of 'real blogging'
i think the goal of this post was for me to type a lot of things so that i can see them in paragraph form and think about them a little better and also to fight shit-talkers a little by typing calm sentences of things that make sense to me; the views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of the author, tao lin, because he did not try to express any views but just type things and think about them
10:24 AM
15 Comments:
gluck galluck
Saying 'preciousness makes me gag' is not at all equivalent to saying 'gay people make me gag'. It is much more analogous to saying 'sugar makes me gag' or 'opera makes me gag' or 'capers make me gag'. It's a statement of a valid personal reaction, of preference to a work of art or some other object of consumption and not necessarily a reflection of the creator.
hm, maybe you're right
but only people can be 'precious,' right? so it's not the same as sugar, since sugar doesn't have feelings or feel pain or suffering
i don't know
I think preciousness could be considered a quality of art. Care Bears? Pretty preciously rendered. Novels by Hubert Selby? Not precious.
does miranda july need that money as much as the other two writers?
wells, hm yeah
kid pretentious, i don't know
maybe someone should start the short story prize for the poorest writer alive who also 'needs' the money the most due to an inability to perceive 'good things' in not having a lot of money and other factors
This post has been removed by the author.
i looked at your blog, stop pressuring me, i want no obligations and also not to pressure anyone else
wells, you defeated this post, good job
they're discussing here
http://lime-tree.blogspot.com/2007/09/tao-lin-on-preciousness.html
"Saying 'preciousness makes me gag' is not at all equivalent to saying 'gay people make me gag'. It is much more analogous to saying 'sugar makes me gag' or 'opera makes me gag' or 'capers make me gag'. It's a statement of a valid personal reaction, of preference to a work of art or some other object of consumption and not necessarily a reflection of the creator."
wait, wells, i think 'preciousness makes me gag' is like 'homosexuality makes me gag'
you can hold a caper
you can hold sugar
they aren't abstractions
'valid' is also an abstraction
you used that to define the reaction
i wasn't attacking the reaction i was just making observations about it
i talked about things in terms of morals and in existential terms, which i defined
'valid' just means you are saying 'i approve of that,' you didn't say within what context and goal you 'approve' of it
okay
this is the last thing i'm typing here
based on what i know, and have thought about, i think pain and suffering would be reduced in the world if people were tolerant of art (of people themselves) like they are tolerant of race, sexual orientation, etc.
believing that someone's existence, their art, makes you gag, believing it in a non playful way, a non sarcastic way... etc.
i don't want to argue, just think about it yourself remembering to define abstractions within contexts and goals
If art is neither good nor bad but liked and disliked, then attributing a cash prize to the "better" artist negates the entire concept of there being no good/bad art.
Tao,
Artists are melodramatic cry babies. Who cares if some one likes or does not like your creation and shits upon it.
You should be creating for yourself foremost.
You should not feel validated because others identify with your art.
You identify with your art.
This concept should be the only one which matters.
It is all a problem of the ego.
PENIS
if you are a person who gets paid to write things and you have angry feelings towards rick moody or miranda july, you should go look for comfortable shirts at the mall, go for a walk with your dog, or play video games with your wife more.
support the people and things you know, or you are an asshole.
i am sorry. i feel like a dick for giving an opinion.
Giving money to your friends, sounds very Bush administration to me. And the award is government funded as well, right? Thus, to me, at least, it sounds tantamount to your agreeing with Bush giving contracts out to his "friends" Halliburton and Bechtel. True, billion-dollar contracts aren't the same as $40,000 awards, but in terms of percentages of MJ's income and those corporation's, it's probably about the same. I guess what I am saying is that it would be nice if there were a corner of the world that weren't totally corrupted, and that I totally disagree with the notion that tax-payer-funded awards should have judges that are partial to (e.g. friends with) contestants.
Post a Comment
<< Home