tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8678192831302904632024-02-20T21:42:33.699-05:00Not a Review Blog<i>in which gabriel fitzpatrick does not at all review books</i>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-40282509602106007032013-07-09T09:58:00.000-04:002013-07-09T10:09:50.034-04:00Ender's Game and Gay Marriage; Or, You Hurt the Ones You Love Because You're an Asshole<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/blog_post_349_width/2013/02/enders_game_book_cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/blog_post_349_width/2013/02/enders_game_book_cover.jpg" width="239" /></a></div>
<i>This is an unusual Not Review of Orson Scott Card's <a href="http://amzn.to/18KCHjZ">Ender's Game</a> which will on the boycott controversy concerning his new film. </i><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was going to open this with a little disclaimer, but I
decided not to. If dissenting opinions are enough to get me labeled, I intend
to ignore that label with the steadfast resolution for which I am so renowned.
Get out your big label machine, because this is about to get intense.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For
a little background, some of the whinier members of the gay geek and
pro-gay marriage movement have declared a boycott on the new Ender's
Game film
on the grounds that Orson Scott Card disagrees with their political
views. It
will be the rousing success that every boycott is, and I look forward to
seeing
the shining utopia it brings about. Nonetheless, while we wait for their
crushing victory over the entire film industry, we may as well address
this at
a more philosophical level.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is, of course, their right to boycott. They can spend
their money or not spend their money on whatever they like, for whatever reason
they like. I support them in that 100%, just as I would anyone else. The
beautiful symmetry of that reality, however, is that it’s also my right to call
them mean names and eviscerate their arguments with clockwork precision. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So here’s the thing.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A book is a projection of the author, his blood the ink and
his flesh the paper. It may not be the summation of him as a person, there may
be parts of him you like that aren’t in the book or parts you don’t that don’t
make the cut, but it is some portion of his soul you’re reading. To love a book
is to love the mind that created it. To feel moved by a book is to have your
heart changed by another, to be touched at a deep level by part of another
person’s mind and soul. It’s like falling in love, like a deep conversation
tucked away in a dark corner after a party is long gone, like a moment where
you meet someone’s gaze and you realize you both feel exactly the same way in
that moment. It’s nothing more or less than a fleeting moment of real,
unshakeable human contact with someone you’ve never met but whom you suddenly
know better than your own friends and family. And then it’s gone. But it
changed you, and you fell in love with him for that brief, shining moment.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And then there’s this.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://skipendersgame.com/">“However much you may have admired his books, keep your
money out of Orson Scottt Card’s pockets.”</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What that means is, they (or their intended audience) like
Ender’s Game, and they like what it stands for, and they like the mind that
created it, and they almost certainly felt that deep connection which is at the
core o<span id="goog_1533806300"></span><span id="goog_1533806301"></span>f what great literature (and Ender’s Game is most definitely great
literature), but they just disagree with him in some ways. In turn, that means
that they want to punish someone they feel a deep connection to for disagreeing
with them on one specific issue, and they're more than willing to throw away a part of themselves to do it. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, those of you who have had that big talk with your
family at Thanksgiving probably recognize this attitude. Stop and think.
Remember? Yes, you do. You remember exactly what it’s like to have people who
love you in every way but one cast you aside to punish you for the one part of
you they can’t accept. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So now your idea is to pay that forward onto everyone who
has the nerve, the gall, the unbridled arrogance to disagree with <i>you?</i> <i>The almighty <b>you</b></i><b>? </b></div>
<b>
</b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sounds like a plan. Good luck with your boycott.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-41695079268301496772013-03-21T09:09:00.004-04:002013-04-03T15:44:59.071-04:00Pizza Isn't An Icecream Topping; Or, Why The Fuck Is There So Much Bullshit In Your Stupid Book<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxiXz3wtrHF5dPBCC2E8xLCBKUnxrwwAI33EstibdjRi5f7y2Uc0AFaRbCgkTfXDscCWA3mfIPxv0OyuFUf4uyOP8gAizg5gPt287zUY1iGrwDH1trGEAu9rBkRhCfd3KHdBBWQM505Ffr/s1600/a+princess+of+mars.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxiXz3wtrHF5dPBCC2E8xLCBKUnxrwwAI33EstibdjRi5f7y2Uc0AFaRbCgkTfXDscCWA3mfIPxv0OyuFUf4uyOP8gAizg5gPt287zUY1iGrwDH1trGEAu9rBkRhCfd3KHdBBWQM505Ffr/s320/a+princess+of+mars.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
I’ve spoken a great deal about genre bending, here and there. One could be forgiven for thinking of this as perhaps my literary <i>raison d’etre</i>, perhaps along with contriving excuses to employ French phrases purely to flatter my ego. Yet at the same time, simply not writing in a specific genre will not achieve the goal to which I attribute efforts of genre-defiance.<br />
<br />
This is a Not Review of <a href="http://amzn.to/WMD2Nh">Princess of Mars</a> by Edgar Rice Boroughs, which I’ve only just read, its having slipped through the coarse filter of my youthful sci-fi period. It is a book which jumps around between genres, its beginning being a traditional western, followed by science fiction so soft one could almost call it fantasy, or else simply use it as one would brie, spreading it effortlessly on a bit of lightly-toasted rye, and finally incorporating a swashbuckling romance just for good measure.<br />
<br />
Yet, at the same time, it has a whiff of the conventional about it, a sense that it is not so much a unique work of fiction refusing classification to generate an artistic statement as a composition of action-adventure bits and pieces. There are, I almost hope, those of you who are leaping to Wikipedia check your facts in preparation for telling me that it is old enough that it seems derivative only because it was the seminal work in those genres, as is so often the case with these things.<br />
<br />
This is, perhaps, true in places; I truly don’t know whether it was the first to write a romance between aliens and humans, the first to introduce sword combat to science fiction, or the originator of something that suspiciously resembles steampunk, and I’m not quite interested enough to go check. What I do know is that without artistic intent, the rejection of genre, like any other literary choice whatsoever, holds no more meaning than the embracing of it, the choice to write your book in 4 different languages, changing from sentence to the next, or embracing bardic verse to create performance art.<br />
<br />
Change for its own sake is no less inartistic than change for the sake of sales or ego or whatever else stands constantly on the shores tempting authors to their generic doom with sweet, siren song.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-60867198286880070882013-03-13T18:00:00.000-04:002013-03-14T11:18:41.923-04:00Love Thy Plot as You Love Thyself; Or, How Focus is Only a Good Thing in Real Jobs<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDiMaiPY8jjpARxSmBgMuy1F8xe4U87R2cZykstRxrG4XICdVM48-mgCDHW6aa2lpUf5SDayxL1SQ5GX0nACS3VWObe7fb_cgCdKMTeNMWAbYmcTImanWPlgEw4KMQtd33xTG0hLoSijzZ/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDiMaiPY8jjpARxSmBgMuy1F8xe4U87R2cZykstRxrG4XICdVM48-mgCDHW6aa2lpUf5SDayxL1SQ5GX0nACS3VWObe7fb_cgCdKMTeNMWAbYmcTImanWPlgEw4KMQtd33xTG0hLoSijzZ/s320/images.jpg" width="209" /></a>Today we'll be covering a book called <i><a href="http://amzn.to/Z0tp8R">Zoo</a> <a href="http://amzn.to/YsvlqK">City</a></i> by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_beukes">Lauren Beukes</a>, which
I picked up as part of the recent(ish) <a href="http://humblebundle.com/">Humble Indie Ebook Bundle,</a> and through it discuss the topic
of plot and concept. <i>Zoo City</i> is an <i>en medias
res </i>exploration of a world in which people are given superpower-granting spirit animals as
evidence of their misdeeds in life which begrudgingly contains a gumshoe-style
murder mystery plot. I know that description of the world makes it sound kind of silly, but it's actually a very coherent and serious one which deserves a lot of attention<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therein, however, lies the problem. The concept behind the
book is fascinating, a deep world which demands to be plumbed, and the glimpses
of it we find were enough to get me to finish the book (and get it a couple
respectable awards, to boot), but exposition seemed to be the entire point of
the book. The author was so in love with her concept that she forgot to
actually write a story taking place in it, instead tying together a string of
expositional points with a half-hearted story arch.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are those who would distinguish between stories ‘of
ideas’ and other kinds of stories, and the former category tends to suffer much
the same issue, from another perspective. By creating a novel ‘of ideas’ one
must necessarily take a larger point, usually philosophical, and weave it into
a narrative. The narrative often suffers from this, as in the case of <a href="http://amzn.to/UooLUh"><i>The Fountainhead</i></a> or <a href="http://gabrielfitzpatrick.blogspot.com/2012/03/lockpick-pornography.html"><i>Lockpick Pornography</i></a>, to pick a couple I’ve touched on in the
past. A story which leans too heavily on its concept and its universe is in
danger of the same thing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem with complaining about this is that it’s
necessarily a problem that will be experienced by the reader rather than the
writer. The writer’s bliss very likely comes in the explication of their
vision, their world, and the plot is a secondary sensation for them. Can we
really say that the author owes us anything beyond what their own artistic
vision surmises?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I would say not. If you want a book your way, do it your-fucking-self.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nonetheless, the universe seems to be crying out for a
larger story, and it’s my sincere hope that it will get it.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-81423538613629253012013-03-08T22:02:00.002-05:002013-03-09T06:17:15.570-05:00The Mores Cover Analysis; Or, Why the Fuck Am I the Only One Doing This<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSW-noi-oILI6SBWofddzUXht03cKd689PeeilUdY22aMYu45jLeGiiEtAh0O8Mk0txLdpQREhD2BdBG3IuuyN515w0zkhDTPHlhdblL5DlA8SffAfU26vswU1Lg-fbNTY0aK0Nlvs_fOh/s1600/Jon+Ballard+Mores+Cover+Contest.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSW-noi-oILI6SBWofddzUXht03cKd689PeeilUdY22aMYu45jLeGiiEtAh0O8Mk0txLdpQREhD2BdBG3IuuyN515w0zkhDTPHlhdblL5DlA8SffAfU26vswU1Lg-fbNTY0aK0Nlvs_fOh/s320/Jon+Ballard+Mores+Cover+Contest.jpg" width="199" /></a></div>
The <i>Mores </i>cover contest winner shown at right was a shock to me in many ways. At first glance I didn't fully grasp the meaning behind it, the depth of it, but it caught my eye and made me do a double take. When I examined it further, I found what can only be called a work of art. It has a depth to it, a meaning, a sort of vital spirit that a cover just has no right to. I said in my award post that it makes me want to see the story behind it, and the fact that <i><a href="http://gabrielfitzpatrick.blogspot.com/p/gabriels-work.html">Mores </a></i>is that story, that the idea of it was the inspiration for another work of art, is amazing to me.<br />
<br />
If ever there were an argument to be made in favor of the cover contest model, for letting people’s minds run wild rather than contracting with a designer to do a specific model drawn from my utterly unqualified mind, his would make it. The <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Rmnce-The-Series-ebook/dp/B009JT9ZT0/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349110931&sr=1-5">Rmnce</a></i> cover, as well, would make the point beautifully<br />
<br />
In the end, that’s the real reason I risk (and indeed incur) the wrath of the touchier professionals; my work is meant to be art above all else, to convey meaning, and <i>Mores </i>in particular is near and dear to my heart. It carried itself away and in doing so it carried my message and my meaning in a way my planning and plotting and essaying could never have hoped to. To then attempt to plan a cover is contrary to the nature of the thing, and since I can’t do it on my own, letting the community do it is the next best thing.<br />
<br />
Maybe <i><b>the </b></i>best thing.<br />
<br />
The beauty of this lays in the pairing. By taking a cover which flirts with ancient and modern themes without explicitly depicting the story, one allows the story of <i>Mores </i>to be accented by the cover rather than imitated by it. The central theme is kept constant, the trick of <i>Mores </i>being in the dualistic nature of having one story set in ancient times and another in modern, but the distinct realities and execution of the two deemphasize the specifics in favor of the underlying concept. With it, the artistic expression inherent to both pieces becomes mutually complementary, a duality in itself.<br />
<br />
All in all, perfection could demand little more. Look for <i>Mores </i>on March 29th!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-63289931306734696272013-01-19T15:00:00.001-05:002013-02-25T13:44:48.495-05:00Mores Cover Contest<a href="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=531525fd12&view=att&th=13c76db916aa7896&attid=0.1&disp=thd&realattid=f_hceqtn050&zw" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Question.jpg" border="0" height="320" src="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=531525fd12&view=att&th=13c76db916aa7896&attid=0.1&disp=thd&realattid=f_hceqtn050&zw" width="240" /></a><b>It's time for another cover, and another cover contest! <i>Mores </i>is in need of your help, and I have 150 reasons for you to come to its aid...</b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b>
<i>Mores </i>is going to be released in March, and that means its time for the final capstone to be added: The cover. With my <i><a href="http://amzn.to/103iN00">Rmnce</a></i> cover contest having been such an astounding success, it would be foolish to go another direction, now wouldn't it?<br />
<br />
That in mind, I'm offering $150, all of my published works, a selection of other books that have served as an inspiration over the years, and of course <i>Mores </i>itself, to whomever can create a cover that embodies what <i>Mores </i>is about and gives it that little push to succeed.<br />
<br />
What <i>Mores </i>is, is a pair of tales running in parallel. One is set in prehistoric Ireland, the other in modern New York, two women seeking identity and bliss in wildly different circumstances. A cover should convey this chronological dichotomy and humanistic emphasis. How it does that is up to you. More general information on <i>Mores </i>can be found <a href="http://gabrielfitzpatrick.blogspot.com/p/gabriels-work.html">here.</a><br />
<br />
If you have any questions at all about the book, the contest, the artistic purpose of my existence, or anything else, don't hesitate to <a href="mailto:gfitzgfitz@gmail.com" target="_blank">email me.</a> The most important thing is that the artistic purpose of your work mirrors or compliments the artistic purpose of mine, so lean towards more questions rather than fewer.<br />
<br />
The contest ends March 1st.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>General Requirements are as follows:</b><br />
Digital Format<br />
No Porn (Yes, I know, I’m sorry; I love you, my dear pornographers, but you can’t fight city hall)<br />
Legally yours to sell<br />
Contains the book title and my name<br />
<br />
<b>Size requirements are as follows:</b><br />
>2,500 pixels tall (greater than)<br />
Height 1.6x greater than width<br />
Total file size <5 mb (less than)<br />
<br />
Apart from that, let your mind wander. I have utmost faith.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Legal stuff: artists retain full and unconditional rights to any work not chosen; the one I do choose will become my sole property with no expectation of payment or royalty over and above contest prizes. Submitting gives me right of refusal at the prize amount for the duration of the contest + 1 month, or until the contest ends, whichever comes first. I reserve the right to reject all offered covers and select no winner, in which case I will terminate all right of refusal. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-17866594067987918002012-12-15T02:43:00.002-05:002012-12-15T02:43:25.355-05:00Dialects of Modernity<br />
<i>I'm going to be reblogging the posts from my blog tour earlier this past October, just in case anyone missed them in their original locations. They discuss writing generally, but are all tied back into <a href="http://amzn.to/TnEyj0">Rmnce</a>, my most recent release which tells a story of new love through the text messages and letters between characters.</i><br />
<br />
The third post of the Rmnce blog tour was <a href="http://brooke-johnson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/dialects-of-modernity-guest-post.html">hosted </a>by the delightful Brooke Johnson. Brooke wrote the steampunk novel <a href="http://amzn.to/Uo1guv">The Clockwork Giant</a>.<br />
<br />
I have been on both sides of the prescriptionist/descriptionist divide over the years. On the one hand, its undeniably maddening to see things that were patently wrong when you learned the language embraced as the new normal. That being said, in my experience changes to the language tend to be for the better, at least insofar as better is defined as more usable, convenient, and relevant.<br />
<br />
The extreme of this, of course, lies in full-fledged dialects. Perhaps 15 years ago America saw a brief push to have Ebonics declared a legal dialect, with the potential for school curriculum to be altered commensurately to both teach it and teach <i>in</i> it. This movement was, as one might imagine, roundly defeated, but it brought up the issue of whether dialects can be considered valid evolutions of the language. Certainly Ebonics has a number of expressions which serve purposes traditional English needs served; this in itself gives validity to the existence and perpetuation of it, no matter what opinion one may have of its general appeal.<br />
<br />
By the same token, text speak, the other principle American dialect of our time, also adds to the English language, albeit in a very different way. By taking words and sentences and hyper-simplifying them, condensing them into an utterly optimized form, it sacrifices the structural beauty, and a degree of the expressiveness, in favor of efficiency. The irony, of course, is that the very people for whom efficiency is a nearly overriding concern are those who dismiss text speak as the domain of children and imbeciles.<br />
<br />
In evaluating a dialect’s usefulness and hence broad value, one must ask oneself if it adds to the language as it stands, and in most cases dialects which do not simply die out. Any which has stood the test of time must be looked at closely in terms of applicability. Rmnce demonstrates that art and meaning can be carried by this strange new configuration; beyond that threshold nothing more ought be required.<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-43558741483404089802012-12-06T11:25:00.001-05:002012-12-06T11:46:33.248-05:00Composite Characters<br />
<i>I'm going to be reblogging the posts from my blog tour earlier this past October, just in case anyone missed them in their original locations. They discuss writing generally, but are all tied back into <a href="http://amzn.to/TnEyj0">Rmnce</a>, my most recent release which tells a story of new love through the text messages and letters between characters.</i><br />
<br />
A.M Jenner is the author of the Sci-Fi book <a href="http://amzn.to/Vz8HBN">Assignment to Earth</a>, and <a href="http://amjenner.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/composite-characters.html">hosted </a>my post on composite characters. If you didn't catch it there, here it is!<br />
<br />
<br />
They say that creating characters from real people lies at the vertex of laziness and subliteracy. And when I say “they,” I mean the Bitchy Goblins That Live in my Head. Yet at the same time, a composite of a dozen people becomes more than the sum of its parts, or else <i>less</i> than the sum of its parts. In either case, there is art in it, beauty of an open and apparent kind. More over, in an attempt to capture the mind of a generation, it pays to take a few pieces from the <a href="http://amzn.to/XuKuN2">individual</a>, as well as from the <a href="http://amzn.to/Ykttp5">collective</a>.<br />
<br />
Britney Morgan, the female lead of Rmnce, is one of those characters. She combines a sequence of men and women whose mannerisms were unique enough to remain steadfastly in my mind, some of them for years past our parting, whose tendencies and paradigms were both a product and a mockery of those people. The irony in this is that the character came out decidedly unlikable. She demonstrates the point of the work as well as I could ever hope for, serving her purpose flawlessly and without alteration.<br />
<br />
Yet she exists in my mind, a personality which I could almost put in place of my own were I to choose, and perhaps part of the reason she eats at me like a Herculean poison is that she exists as an unnatural aberration, a creature of a certain sort of beauty which nonetheless simply ought not be.<br />
<br />
Beauty in all things. So chew on that, Bitch-Goblins.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-57095326454691654582012-11-29T08:51:00.000-05:002012-11-29T08:51:36.062-05:00Art is Pain<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><i>I'm going to be reblogging the posts from my blog tour earlier this past October, just in case anyone missed them in their original locations. They discuss writing generally, but are all tied back into <a href="http://amzn.to/TnEyj0">Rmnce</a>, my most recent release which tells a story of new love through the text messages and letters between characters.</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">The
opening post of my blog tour for Rmnce was hosted by the sci-fi author Len
Berry, who published the dystopian novel <a href="http://amzn.to/QOzgl1">Vitamin F</a> this summer. The tour begins with an age old question.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Georgia;">29<sup>th</sup> September – What is Art. Hosted
by Len Berry.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://lentberry.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/guest-post-what-is-art/"><span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">http://lentberry.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/guest-post-what-is-art/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span lang="EN-GB">Art is Pain<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">They say art is pain. They say the same
thing of love and beauty, and while these sorts of platitudes are the written
equivalent of drunken regret the parallel has a bit of validity. Art IS pain,
it is very much the emptying of a tortured soul onto a page, a canvass, or a
stage. And what more ubiquitous and artful agony is there than that of romantic
love? It is the defining pain of human existence, a fragile and tempestuous
emotion; it builds on itself exponentially until it either reaches a sort of
Singularity, a critical mass which alters its form subtly into a force harder
than steel, or else collapses under its own weight like a star with the tiniest
bit too much mass.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">Thus, one will often find that a great
writer (painter, actor, musician) will have behind them a tumultuous and nearly
self-destructive romantic history. After all, if art is pain, more pain would,
it stands to reason, tend to produce more art, whether in the sense of pure
mass of production or greater concentration. However, what one has to ask
oneself is, do artists become artists because their history of disfiguring
romantic entanglements gives them the inspiration to do so, or is the artistic
temperament simply prone to the sort of emotional extremes which produce the
romances which burn twice as hot and half as long?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";"><br /></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-13132924887861313272012-08-10T14:09:00.001-04:002012-11-26T17:16:28.007-05:00Fuck Your Ending; Or, Why You Musn’t Ever Matter Except if There's a Lot of You and Even Then Only Sort Of<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img2.imagesbn.com/images/175140000/175149962.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img2.imagesbn.com/images/175140000/175149962.JPG" /></a></div>
What I want to talk about today is the cultural background,
the cultural context of written work, and by extension all art. I'm going to do that through the lens of <a href="http://amzn.to/Ykttp5" target="_blank">99 Brief Scenes From the End of the World</a>, by a man who might just make himself the voice of a
generation his bio insists he isn't even part of, one <a href="http://goo.gl/rczE9" target="_blank">T. W. Grim</a>. (Yes, I'm aware Usenet came about in 1980, Fact Checking Reader Who Lives in my Head. The point stands.)<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
First, though, I want to do a brief review of the book, because it's my party and I'll review if I want to. Review if I want to. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
99 Brief Scenes From the End of the World (henceforth 99S) is,
and believe me when I say that I don’t use this term lightly or regularly,
absolutely brilliant. It combines a technique which I've never seen before,
writing 99 stories each several pages in length, with a nearly breathless but
nonetheless well-paced tone. I know I’m
supposed to be in superlative rehab, but I'm jumping off the wagon with both feet because it really is the best thriller I’ve
ever read and in my top 5 books written within my
lifetime. It is also very possibly the most blatant and uncompromising look at
the beauty which lies in ignoring the reader. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Read it, and if you don’t love it quit reading and take up
another hobby because you are clearly just plain not fucking cut out for it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As for the cultural context, the Not Review portion of this
post, 99S was originally written as a serial on <a href="http://www.reddit.com/" target="_blank">Reddit</a>, a site which is
something like a sequel to that far more famous, or perhaps infamous, hive of
scum and villainy, fiction and falsehood from the olden days of the web. What
that means, for Reddit that is, is that despite its toothless debility it is still in many ways a microcosm of internet culture, a mirror of
the inherent nature of a people which hide at the bedrock center of hundreds of
web communities, providing us with everything from lolcats and trollception to unbounded intellectual inquiry and sociopolitical activism.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
99S embodies that same mindset: Digressive, irreverent,
almost combatively uninterested in the comfort of anyone, anywhere; in short, all
that the web is at its best and its worst, with nothing in between. It is a
book which could not exist without untold millions of 1’s and 0’s and the
culture they spawned. The beauty in this is that, unless I miss my guess, the occurrence is entirely unintentional. The book isn’t <i>about</i> the internet, doesn’t say a single word directly about
internet culture; it was simply birthed by a creator possessed
of, or perhaps possessed by, a cultural phenomenon beyond his control. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As writers we are in no way immune to the influences of
culture. Those of us whose egotism is exceeded only by our single-minded
dedication to a goal very nearly unattainable often like to pretend that we
exist in a world unto ourselves, somewhere between a fantasy and a vacuum, but at the risk of disabusing some pleasant notions, no man is island. I would go so far as
to say that we who fancy ourselves artists are <i>more so </i>mirrors of the time and place in which we live,
inadvertently exposing our cultural heritage for the viewing public in a way
which is inextricable not just from the self but also from the collective. From
what some might call the collective unconscious, the <i>zeit</i>- or <i>volksgeist</i>, or if they're dumb and whining at me (as is the wont of so many), the <i>esprit d'corps</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The question, then, is how much is a work truly <i>ours, </i>as writers? Does the fact that we are often
channeling some unseen force, drawing our story not entirely from ourselves but
from the world we live in mean that in some way the work is the property of that collective unconscious? <i>This is not a
rhetorical question. </i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As an extension of all this, we must face the topic which has occupied my mind for what would be fairly described as an <i>embarrassing </i>amount of time if I was capable of embarrassment; I am consumed by curiosity as to what the literary analysts will (or would...) find in
my work, what voices enter unbidden...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, I’ll issue this challenge, through not a spirit of
generosity I’ve never possessed but rather in pursuit of what only you may give
me, my dear readers:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you fancy yourself a literary sort, the sort of person
who finds things the author cannot, email me and I’ll have a PDF of
<a href="http://gabrielfitzpatrick.blogspot.com/p/gabriels-work.html" target="_blank">anything published</a> in your hands in hours, God willing, with the sincere
hope that you will return to me a work of sublime insight somewhere between 1
sentence and a graduate thesis.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the meantime, abandon your thoughts of my work, and bury
yourself in Mr. Grim’s. It is, in a word, unapologetic, reveling carelessly in a
quagmire of the sort of guiltless imperfection which stands in stark contrast
to self-conscious literary vanity,<i> </i>a
paragon of the nearly imperceptible.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I didn’t care for the ending, but you know what? Fuck my
ending. And fuck yours, too. Genius answers to no one, or in failing to abandons
itself to the mob.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-55387134475813211172012-08-03T12:05:00.000-04:002012-11-26T17:18:03.886-05:00Seek Bliss You Self-Important Tit; Or, Popcorn is Good, Too.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
<img height="320" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B008FRCI8W.01._AA250_SH20_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg" width="320" />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This Not Review is about a freebie I stumbled across on
Amazon, a book called <a href="http://amzn.to/SlYLIo" target="_blank">Clockwork Blue</a> that if I’m being honest I wouldn’t
have picked up if it hadn’t been free. It’s an alternate history fantasy romance
about the intervention of pixies in the Napoleonic Wars, or more accurately in
the time leading up to the Napoleonic Wars. Or not leading up to them, if the fairies win. I don't know. Didn't finish it. Sorry dearest Gloria... you're in the 99%.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Think of this post as the inversion of <a href="http://gabrielfitzpatrick.blogspot.cz/2012/04/derivative-bullshit-emphasis-on.html" target="_blank">my Pride and Prejudice and Zombies post</a>; that is to say, a post about how things that aren't art can still be good.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What I want to write about today, if you haven't picked up on it, perhaps because you were distracted by the brilliance of that Not Review I linked above, is this: that of shallow, mindless storytelling. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, reading that, you are probably becoming whiney and
outraged, if you’re the sort of reader who should really sort themselves the
fuck out like seriously, complaining that it’s unfair for me to look down on a
work simply because it doesn’t adhere to my standard of what a book ought to
be. Perhaps you’re even attempting to draw a parallel to the ‘artificial’
standards of beauty, if that happens to be your cause (as it seems to be for an
anomalous number of my readers). However, this is not the case. Or at least,
not entirely.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some of you may recall, a while ago I wrote a brief treatise on <a href="https://plus.google.com/115645093395056483635/posts/HdpKwUCfRKd" target="_blank">G+</a> about the popularity of meaningless pop music. My approach to it was
deemed artistic elitism and inspired a bit of ire, and if you were the sort who
had that impression of it, prepare for a sense of déjà vu.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That question with regard to music, the question of why
meaningless, musically questionable pop music continues to top the charts as it
has for as long as charts have been a thing, has long been, and perhaps still
is, a source of no minor bafflement in many of my correspondents. It is my
suspicion that the same question may arise with regard to literature, so I’m
going to address it. To summarize my previous work, what one must keep in mind
is that not everyone goes to music in order to be altered as a person. Often
they go to it to be entertained. This is also true of literature, perhaps even
more so since ‘deep’ literature tends to be a little tiny bit </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Clockwork Blue is what <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation" target="_blank">Yahtzee Croshaw</a> might call a popcorn book; a
little bit of fluff which serves to distract us from the mind-numbing tedium
which makes up the average human lifespan (not mine, of course, because I’m an
international man of mystery, but work with me here). It isn’t very
substantial, and I can almost guarantee it won’t change your perspectives on a
goddamn thing, but it nonetheless serves a purpose, perhaps an important
purpose, in the lives of its readers, and indeed in the world of literature as
a whole.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While it’s important to continue to expand our minds and
seek experiences which shake the foundations of our identity, it’s also
important to embrace bliss, and bliss comes in many forms, not the least of
which is the simplistic, the subliterate, the quietly pleasant and unassumingly
enjoyable. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The moral of this story is that you musn't allow your pretention to override your pursuit of
pleasure. <o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-57788074613184384002012-07-12T16:53:00.000-04:002012-07-12T16:53:05.764-04:00Guest Post by JD Savage: Writing for the Market, or Just for You<i>Today we have a guest post from fantasy writer JD Savage, one of my fellow Literary+ luminaries whose new book "<a href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-seeds-jeff-davis/1111399177?ean=2940033234189" target="_blank">The Seeds</a>" has just been released. He's talking about something many authors face; the question of whether writing, which like so many forms of expression is both an art and (for a lucky few) an industry, should be a product not only of inspiration but also capitalist necessity.</i><br />
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<b><br /></b><br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLlMilCno8VN_Yv_QG5ukaRCbQHLrlrs9BXaxTzQICBQtBfZSGBx9BXU7sYTkxvZ534reL_XveeVxvoV8FRpdgKCbVdTcg1Ew_YXGrKmV2hy0R-yuIqsb-V6ThdYjyZAxCb5cZUjuku-0o/s1600/savage1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLlMilCno8VN_Yv_QG5ukaRCbQHLrlrs9BXaxTzQICBQtBfZSGBx9BXU7sYTkxvZ534reL_XveeVxvoV8FRpdgKCbVdTcg1Ew_YXGrKmV2hy0R-yuIqsb-V6ThdYjyZAxCb5cZUjuku-0o/s1600/savage1.jpg" /></a><b>Writing for the Market</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
-<i>Or Just for You?</i></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Some of the authors that will be published in the wake of such a juggernaut have been writing and seeking a publishing home for years before such a thing happens. They find themselves in the right place at the right time, and <em>boom</em>! They get their sparkly vampire love triangle story published. Good on them. Others see the trend coming, craft a story that fits the genre, work really hard to polish it and make it a good book, and they get published, as well. Then they are doomed to an endless sea of comparisons to a book or series that may be less polished but more accepted by the reading public.<br />
<br />
We should all be so lucky.<br />
<br />
In the midst of this, writers are faced with choices. If they have a relationship with a publishing house, they may be under pressure to follow the latest trend. Or, they may be feeling the pressure from their own fans, clamoring for a similar story written in their style. What trends are coming, ready to be seized?<br />
<br />
There are plenty of blogs out there that track these sorts of things. <a href="http://bit.ly/LCUxe9" style="color: #666666;">The Hub</a>, has a list of trending topics that are beginning to emerge in YA literature, (my personal favorite, young girls that know how to kill). I have no personal connection to this site, I just thought they provided a pretty balanced list. If you are looking to make a living as an author, it may be that capitalizing on an upcoming trend is the way to go.<br />
<br />
But, before you go and write the next happy-go-lucky dystopian shoot-em-up, consider this. Somebody started those trends. Some author wrote something that was still done in a unique way. Maybe it wasn’t wholly original, (is there such a thing?), but eye-opening, nonetheless. It was cool enough to garner a bunch of readers, get people talking about it, and be interesting enough to <em>start</em> a trend.<br />
<br />
When you first sat down to write, is that what you wanted? Did you want to take the world by storm with your unique viewpoint? Or, did you hope to be the voice in the crowd who rises above the din, doing what everyone else is doing, only doing it better?<br />
<br />
There’s no right and wrong here. Oh, to be sure, some will sniff haughtily at the trends and think themselves too artistic for all of that. But writers, in general, are not wickedly interested in seeing you fail. Success is hard to come by, and whether you walk the well-worn path or blaze your own, most writers, (avid readers, all), will applaud your efforts.<br />
<br />
So, the choice is yours. Read up on the trends, pick one, (or two or three…), and make it your own. Or, tell that unique story you want to tell, make it great and keep at it. The really prolific might even try to do both. Whichever path you choose, remember that you can do it. You can be the one that tells that story in the way that the public needs to hear it. You can write just for you, and people may fall in love with your voice, your style - whether you writing a time-honored tale or something totally personal.<br />
<br />
I plan to keep writing books I want to read. If I like it, that’s a success for me. That’s the choice I’m making. Although a story about young female assassins may not be so far out of my comfort zone…<br />
What do you think of Katniss as a character name? … Too soon?</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<b><i>About </i>The Seeds <i>and its author:</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcA_KINAJvObr2Ce_45AMK_dbmNxQThNlxNB6-U5c_QRPLnYfuiC2nDXnOsGol_0H622uYsGukANmYigiDAGs12P3aNetiq1BXnsNdJpaEGuh5V-IYVZliVrQp0ih77ayLaahWhuK7C63S/s1600/savage+2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcA_KINAJvObr2Ce_45AMK_dbmNxQThNlxNB6-U5c_QRPLnYfuiC2nDXnOsGol_0H622uYsGukANmYigiDAGs12P3aNetiq1BXnsNdJpaEGuh5V-IYVZliVrQp0ih77ayLaahWhuK7C63S/s1600/savage+2.png" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This is not your grandmother's fairy tale. A fantasy novel that turns the genre on its head, "The Seeds" follows Trooper Angus Mayweather as he is thrust into the conflict faced by twin sisters Dartura & Varia, Generals of the Tarol Nation. As the sisters uncover a new threat from an old enemy, Angus must do what he can to help as the Tarol Nation faces all-out war.<br />
<br />
<br />
Links:<br />
Where to buy: <a href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-seeds-jeff-davis/1111399177?ean=2940033234189" style="color: #666666;">"The Seeds"</a><br />Website: <a href="http://www.jdsavage.com/" style="color: #666666;">www.jdsavage.com</a><br />Writer's Blog: <a href="http://jd-savage.blogspot.com/" style="color: #666666;">Tarol Nation</a><br />G+ profile: <a href="http://plus.google.com/103546981939364425829/posts" style="color: #666666;">JD Savage</a><br />
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-25824375956091237322012-04-13T05:42:00.000-04:002012-04-13T05:42:23.088-04:00A Fresh Assault on Literature: Mastercard Steps into PayPal's ShoesAs you (almost certainly don’t) know, I have a strange love of patterns. Not the sort of patterns which are stable and predictable, patterns which leap around while maintaining a central theme, graffiti-esque amalgamations of ideas and emotions tied together only in the abstract. This post will break a pattern of beautiful and artistic narcissism on my part, but it will do it because I must once again make a stand in hopes of breaking a very different sort of pattern.<br />
<br />
Over the past several months, we’ve had one attack on our freedom of expression after another, a string of violations as gratuitous as they are invasive. Some, like SOPA, are governmental in nature, broad stroke assaults under the guise of piracy or something equally hot button and gimmicky. These have received attention on a large scale, so we shall move briskly past them. What hasn’t, and what is worse in its way, is the economic strangulation of ‘objectionable’ writing.<br />
<br />
I’ve spoken vehemently and repeatedly of this on <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/115645093395056483635" target="_blank">G+</a>, many comment sections, and of course the inimitable meatspace, but apart from my <a href="http://gabrielfitzpatrick.blogspot.com/2012/03/lockpick-pornography.html" target="_blank">Lockpick Pornography</a> post have not done so here. A new instance of it has sprung up, though, giving me both an opportunity and an obligation to do so.<br />
<br />
Mastercard has in the past few days decided that they wish to strangle erotic content which covers ground they do not wish to see explored. They are doing so by refusing to process payments for any online outlet which allows content they dislike, and their position in the market allows them to make great strides in assaulting our freedom.<br />
<br />
This is not the first time, but it is my hope that a show of grassroots force will mean it is the last, or at least the last for a while. PayPal, as many of you know, did something similar in the past, a policy activists like me fought back against and saw overturned. However, where PayPal did it through the banning of broad themes, Mastercard has taken a rather more Orwellian approach by banning specific words outright. Below appears the list:<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Alcohol, drink, liquor etc.</i><br />
<i>Asphyxia, asphyxiate, asphyxiation etc.</i><br />
<i>Beastiality</i><br />
<i>Bestiality</i><br />
<i>Bled, Bleed, Bleeding etc</i><br />
<i>Blood</i><br />
<i>Brutality</i><br />
<i>Brutalization</i><br />
<i>Child</i><br />
<i>Chloroform</i><br />
<i>Drugged, Drug</i><br />
<i>Drunk</i><br />
<i>Force, Forcing etc</i><br />
<i>Hypnosis</i><br />
<i>Hypnotize, hypnotise etc</i><br />
<i>Incapacitate, Incapacitation etc</i><br />
<i>Incest</i><br />
<i>Infant</i><br />
<i>Intoxicate, intoxication etc</i><br />
<i>Kidnap</i><br />
<i>Lactate and variants</i><br />
<i>Menstrual, menstruate etc</i><br />
<i>Molest, molestation, molested etc</i><br />
<i>Murder (and variations)</i><br />
<i>Mutlilate, Mutilation etc</i><br />
<i>Necrophilia</i><br />
<i>Passed out</i><br />
<i>Pedophilia (and various alternate spellings)</i><br />
<i>Piss</i><br />
<i>Rape, raping, rapist etc</i><br />
<i>Scat, shit, fecal, bukake etc</i><br />
<i>Fetal, foetal etc</i><br />
<i>Sedate, sedative sedation etc</i><br />
<i>Sleep, slumber</i><br />
<i>Smother, snuff</i><br />
<i>Tentacle</i><br />
<i>Torture</i><br />
<i>Unconscious</i><br />
<i>Underage</i><br />
<i>Unwilling</i><br />
<i>Violate, violating etc</i><br />
<br />
<br />
Now, what many of you are thinking is, “That stuff sounds fucking terrible… maybe Mastercard is doing the world a favor.” Now, yes, much of it sounds terrible (though, menstruate?), but the thing about it is that this is art. Erotica is art, and as art it must of necessity be unrestrained, must be able to deal with themes which are unpleasant, even sickening, in order to do it’s job.<br />
<br />
If you doubt that, look to the <a href="http://edenconnorwrites.blogspot.com/search?q=dirty+minds+vs.+debit+cards#.T4frQ6uZ198" target="_blank">Dirty Minds vs. Debit Cards</a> series which Eden Connor curated on her blog during the PayPal incident. It shows that the writing and reading of such material has tremendous potential to aid in healing for those who have experienced these things in the worst possible way. The stories you find there are those of people whose lives have been directly and measurably improved by this material – for someone like Mastercard to deny that to the web is repugnant in the extreme.<br />
<br />
Yet this is not truly relevant. Even if this material had no potential to heal, no artistic merit, no reason to exist whatsoever, the fact of the matter is that this work harms no one, indeed effectively does not exist for anyone who does not actively choose to seek it out and engage with it. There is no reason for Mastercard, PayPal, or anyone else whatsoever to be indulging their own narrow morality by attacking it.<br />
<br />
Now, those of you who have read <a href="http://gabrielfitzpatrick.blogspot.com/p/gabriels-work.html" target="_blank">my work</a> are perhaps wondering why I feel this is my fight. After all, my content is not erotic in nature, and while some of these words do appear in my work, the fact that it is not erotica will likely spare me Mastercard’s wrath. In short, you are noting that I have no immediate dog in this fight.<br />
<br />
In answer to that unspoken question, I’m here because we as writers have a transcendent right to sell our work, to share it with those who want it or need it, to bring light to the abysmal darkness which is the human experience with the products of our minds. With that right comes an overriding responsibility to defend that right not only for ourselves and our readers but for all artists, all consumers, all mankind everywhere. It is my sincere hope that this message will inspire you to act, to spread this message and those like it to all those lovers of art in its myriad forms such that we may continue to show the corporate puppeteers who dream themselves our overlords that we will not and cannot stand idly by while they enforce themselves on those who seek freedom.<br />
<br />
<br />
The contact information for Mastercard may be found on their website below:<br />
<a href="https://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/general/contact-us.html">https://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/general/contact-us.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>If you have any more information on this issue, better contact information for Mastercard, petitions or open letters to sign, or even if you just want someone to rant to about all of this, by all means <a href="mailto:gfitzgfitz@gmail.com" target="_blank">email me</a>.</i><br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-7980545122158493842012-04-03T11:28:00.000-04:002012-11-26T17:21:20.087-05:00Derivative Bullshit, Emphasis on the Bullshit; Or, Why Horrible Things Can Still Be Art<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDKe-CIUDLZglNFshyMkvQhBnc_1oXQ5xWiIHj0mXp09zARWFitt_T_H_Q8SoQbD04CXn_RcqtXelOPBEnT6XRQ0cUz0Se3soAvVnmL-qkisk0TN8-OTtxMWEB86qT5PHo9LiS0On0wbPW/s1600/pride_and_prejudice_and_zombies_book_cover_01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDKe-CIUDLZglNFshyMkvQhBnc_1oXQ5xWiIHj0mXp09zARWFitt_T_H_Q8SoQbD04CXn_RcqtXelOPBEnT6XRQ0cUz0Se3soAvVnmL-qkisk0TN8-OTtxMWEB86qT5PHo9LiS0On0wbPW/s320/pride_and_prejudice_and_zombies_book_cover_01.jpg" width="210" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image Source: <a href="http://www.collider.com/">www.collider.com</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is Not a Review… mostly. But in order to make my point I’m
going to have to do a little reviewing. If you are a NaRB purist, I will
understand if you choose to wait until next Tuesday to find another Not Review.
Today’s book is not a good book. It’s barely a decent book. In fact, it
perpetuates the single worst trend in the modern era. I’m talking about <i><a href="http://amzn.to/10K0N8s" target="_blank">Pride and Prejudice and Zombies</a> </i>by Seth
Grahame-Smith. What it is, however, apart from a shit Popsicle, is an object
lesson in the power of derivative works.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For those of you who don’t read things written in the past
50 years, and who could blame you, <i>Pride
and Prejudice and Zombies</i> is Austen’s <i>Pride
and Prejudice </i>except with… zombies. Now, those of you who have followed my
work closely already know that I consider zombies the single worst
fantasy/sci-fi monster in the entire world. In fact, I’m going to go on record,
at hazard of reputation, as saying that never at any time in the past, present,
or future has there been or will there be a worse monster than the zombie, or
indeed a worse character of any kind. They’re boring, pointless, not scary in
any way, and have no legitimate message to convey whatsoever. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, they are emblematic of all that’s wrong with modern
fiction; to wit, idiotic pandering to a demographic which, in a just world,
wouldn’t exist in the first place, a demographic which a cursory genealogical
study would demonstrate serves only to drag down the human race into a
festering cesspool of incest and genetic degredation, a demographic which is so
utterly without merit that its survival instinct has been subverted by the
perverse desire to be cannibalized by the resurrected corpses of its betters,
nature having turned against her own in sheer madness at the consistent failure
of evolution which marks their reproduction. Yet the fact remains that in doing
so it accomplishes something that very little else has. By juxtaposing the
Victorian culture espoused so beautifully (if interminably) by Miss Austen with
the far more modern (Don’t link me to zombie texts from the 1800s that wasn’t
the same and you fucking know it) concept of zombies and pseudo-Eastern martial
arts, and continuing to explore the themes of womanhood and feminism as Austen
herself did only taken much further in accordance with modern concepts of them,
Grahame-Smith created a true work of art. It demonstrates the shifts in
society, both positive and negative, setting the beauty of history alongside
the freedom of modernity and standing back with its arms crossed daring anyone
to see past its façade of childishness to the artistic core within.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This teaches us two things. The first is that allowing
derivative works has a tremendous potential to advance art without undermining
the original (after all, I seriously doubt people have quit buying <i>Pride and Prejudice </i>in favor of Seth
Grahame-Smith’s fetid tome). This leads us to a copyright debate which I won’t
launch into except to say that there is a difference between allowing someone
else to create something new from the work of a dead author and allowing anyone
to publish the work of whomever because fuck people who want to make money off
their work. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The second is that a book doesn’t have to be <i>good</i> to be art. It doesn’t have to be
enjoyable or well-written, it merely has to convey a message beyond the
obvious, and <i>Pride and Prejudice and
Zombies</i> does so in stunning(ly shitty) fashion.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-71523135210485426552012-03-27T12:07:00.001-04:002012-11-26T17:22:51.620-05:00The Only Way to be Remembered is to Piss Off Everyone; Or, How to Win Fame and Alienate People<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
This week’s book is <i><a href="http://amzn.to/UooLUh" target="_blank">The Fountainhead</a></i> by Ayn Rand. The same Ayn Rand who is so well-known in the US
that I’d rather assumed the rest of the English-speaking world would be aware
of her as well, but whose work seems not to have made the jump into the
socialistic murder-pit that is Peninsula of Peninsulas. Even the Czechs I
asked, largely literary and capitally capitalist, were unaware. I have never
felt so ethnocentric in my entire life. The sensation was so overpowering, so
all-encompassing that I came dangerously close to experiencing an emotion. For
those of you who are not familiar with the book, it is best known for two
things. The one we’re going to talk about is the philosophy of Objectivism,
essentially the idea that the market will handle all needs whatsoever provided
that there is an incorruptible government which can enforce contracts, protect
IP, and so forth. And no, I’m not going to talk about the other thing it’s
known for. You know… <i>that </i>scene. Feel
free to argue it in the comments, if you like, but I’m here for something else.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You will note, no doubt with an overwhelming mixture of
shock, anger, and betrayal, that it is not an eBook. Apparently I’m not even
trying to stick to the flimsy pretense of promoting my fellow Kindle and Nook guttersnipes
and am just writing about whatever I read like the objectivist asshole Ayn has
made of me. That (if I may say so) brilliant segue brings us to the thrust of
the post, which is to talk about fiction, specifically novels, as a vehicle for
the propagation of ideas or philosophies. This is a technique which was more
common in centuries past, with things like <i>Philosophy
in the Bedroom</i> and <i>Candide </i>taking
up special places in our hearts (and, in the former case, often in that secret
place near our beds where we put all the things we’re “not” getting off on).
However, despite their taking rather controversial views, even (or perhaps
especially) by modern standards, they raise none of the ire that Ayn Rand has
managed to.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’ve contemplated
this for a number of years, having read her other major Objectivist tome, <i>Atlas Shrugged,</i> in what ought to have
been my formative years. Obviously my first thought was that the concept of a
selfishness as a virtue was simply not something people could accept even as a
possibility. This is reinforced by the fact that owning a copy of <i><a href="http://amzn.to/Spn4nv">Atlas Shrugged</a></i> was sufficient justification for being exiled from the dating world,
as <a 07="" 2011="" favorite-books-of-the-secretly-jerky="favorite-books-of-the-secretly-jerky" href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9D" http:="" thehairpin.com="">The
Hairpin</a> reminded us in a half-joking article (which is worth a read for
the humor if not the insight). And yes, I do read The Hairpin. No, I don’t
think that calls my masculinity into question. Well, you know what, I don’t
need to justify myself to you with all that weird porn you keep in your bedside
table <i>and yes I saw it! </i>Ahem. Anyway.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My point is, <i>Philosophy in
the Bedroom </i>is usually (and wrongly, in my opinion) interpreted as a guide
to committing dire sins against nature purely for the sake of taking mirthful
glee in perversity; surely the idea that capitalism will cure what ails us is
not a more repugnant concept than that for a society so obsessed with sexual
restraint that at time of writing there are a dozen states with signs that say
“good girls don’t” hung in the halls of their public schools? I think not. So I
locked this particular line of
questioning up in my head, taking it out every so often to roll it over before
getting bored and putting it back again. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I began to study the history of philosophy after
realizing I knew literally everything else in the universe that didn’t involve
math, I found that Voltaire’s work with <i>Candide</i>, even more so than his more
straightforward philosophy which was or ought to have been more controversial
in itself, was not taken well by the body politic. It was, in fact, met with a
notable degree of ire. What this tells us, apart from the fact that I am
apparently content to draw conclusions from only a couple data points so long
as the alternative involves some form of work, is that we must, perhaps, look to the format. My
suspicion is this: People get upset when they go into a book expecting a
narrative and instead get philosophy, especially philosophy which disagrees
with their sensibilities (which all good philosophy must, not just because its
job is inherently to challenge the status quo but because the average person is
so overwhelmingly wrong on virtually every subject that writing in agreement
with them must of necessity involve monkeys and typewriters, or else the fetid
Bard himself), they become rather outraged. This outrage lasts a few
generations as one teaches the next to hate the things they hate, and then dies
out because who actually gives a fuck?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The moral of the story is this: If you want to be
remembered, piss off a lot of people. If you want to piss off a lot of people,
write a philosophical fiction piece. If you want to write a philosophical
fiction piece, get in fucking line because mine’s getting published first and
there’s nothing you can do about it.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-11242164289969367822012-03-20T13:35:00.003-04:002012-11-26T17:23:56.425-05:00People Will Accept Whatever Stupid Shit You Give Them; Or, Don't Prey on the Shittiness of Others<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’m probably not going to touch on a lot of non-fiction, but
this time I am because it serves to teach a lesson. <i><a href="http://amzn.to/WskInA">Great Captains Unveiled</a> </i>by <span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">B. H. Liddell Hart</span><i> </i>is ostensibly a work of military science
meant to teach lessons through the lens of historical fact. I’m not going to
say it doesn’t do that, necessarily, but in doing so it bestows a nearly deific
status on the leaders it touches on. It’s simply bad history.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“But Gabriel,” you say, a sense of indignant disinterest
rising in your breast, “who gives a fuck?” That’s an excellent question Reader
Who Lives in my Head! To my eye, this should stick out as a very, very bad idea
that will take your reader out of the work. However, my eye is clearly <i>wrong </i>because some of the most popular
works of fiction do precisely this: See Dune, which did this at least once per
book, creating the sort of epic power creep normally associated with horribly-run
tabletop gaming, or the vast majority of anime (Yes I’ve been known to partake.
Don’t judge.). Even something like Bones or Rambo has this same sort of
inhumanly capable character that makes any real, plausible character seem
quaint and tawdry. Truth be told, a really solid portion of Hollywood films,
all the way from The One and The Matrix to A Beautiful Mind and Good Will Hunting
employ this exact same trope of the impossibly awesome character. (No, don’t
link me to the TVTropes name for that. Don’t do it. TVTropes is made by the
devil to undermine all that’s enjoyable in the world.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What does this demonstrate? It demonstrates that there is a
willingness in the reader/viewer to accept characters which verge on deus ex
machina personified, provided they can put themselves into the shoes of the
character, or at least into the shoes of the character’s love interest or bff.
Ask yourself why there is a pseudo-‘normal’ opposite-sex companion to every
Dune Ubermensch. It’s not because there needs to be a crowbarred-in romance
subplot, though that doesn’t hurt; it’s because people are willing to accept any
level of absurdity so long as it’s <i>their </i>absurdity,
an absurdity they feel some ownership in.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To be clear, this is not a license to write terrible
characters. This is an observation on human nature. Don’t take advantage of
this any more than you would take candy from a baby simply because the baby
can’t fight back. Write good characters who aren’t irrationally capable, and
allow people to experience them at a level deeper than “I wish *I* could kill
everyone in the world with a single thought!”</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-42347728117798103532012-03-06T13:24:00.000-05:002012-11-26T17:24:58.637-05:00Art Requires Gay Sex; Or, Fuck Censorship in the Ass But Not in a Homophobic Way, Seriously<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
This post is going to focus on <a href="http://amzn.to/S8KnC7">Lockpick Pornography</a> by <a href="http://www.asofterworld.com/">Joey Comeau</a>, who happens to be my own personal Jesus
Fucking Christ. It will also directly relate to the PayPal debacle which I
haven’t taken a day off from yelling about in weeks. Normally I would link to the text, but it seems to have been pulled from absolutely everywhere so I'm linking to the Mr. Comeau's webcomic, which is also wonderful.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you haven’t read it, Lockpick Pornography is an allegory on
gender issues and civil rights. It’s also very gay and highly erotic in places. What this gives
me a chance to touch on is the concept of explicit, titillating erotic material
which is integral to the plot and the message of the work, but which
nonetheless is not something many are going to ‘get off’ on and some will find
outright off-putting. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You see, lately PayPal or possibly the credit card companies
or the Illuminati or who-the-fuck-ever it is that actually pulls the strings on
this sort of idiocy has been trying to force out 'erotic' material which
relates to 'objectionable' topics. I will state unequivocally that there is no
argument whatsoever that can be made to justify this, but that fact hasn’t
stopped people from trying. The argument, as best I can suss it out, is that
material which is objectionable has no place in artistic expression if it is
titillating or explicit.<br />
<br />
However, Lockpick Pornography teaches us the object
lesson in that. I didn’t really get off on it, and if I’m being honest was a
little disgusted in at least one place. I expect I'm far from alone on that, yet without the erotic content it
absolutely could not have been as effective an allegory as it was. There's one scene in particular that was a MMF threesome with two biological men and a biological woman all struggling with their concepts of gender constructions in some form or fashion. It leaves nothing to the imagination, but the details of their coupling (tripling?) are absolutely necessary to illuminate the internal struggles they're all facing. Would the book have worked without it? Sure. it would have worked without proper nouns, too, if we're being hypothetical.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now obviously gay material isn’t ‘objectionable’ anymore by the standards of the body politic or any of the more mainstream corporate overlords, but it was once, and may well be again if certain factions have their way. What
it is, is unpleasant to certain sensibilities, in which way it is quite
identical to bestiality or incest. If we begin to censor things because they
are titillating to some and offensive to others we <i>will</i> destroy
significant works of art, or else prevent them from being created in the first
place. I was truly edified by this book, and yet if the standard of PayPal and
co. was applied it would be forbidden to purchase on the internet, and indeed if I allowed my own distastes free rein I would have been deprived of the experience regardless.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are lots of kinds of sex that lots of people don’t
like, and limiting literature, erotic or otherwise, on that basis is an unforgiveable assault on the
artistic community, and moreover one that is non-directional and unlimited. <b>Everything</b> worth writing is going to ruffle feathers. That’s what we do.<br />
<br />
ed; Apparently Lockpick Pornography went out of print in preparation for <a href="http://amzn.to/S8KnC7" target="_blank">The Complete Lockpick Pornography</a> which appears to include a second story which may or may not be related.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-56163704866001331492012-02-27T14:06:00.000-05:002012-03-30T21:07:06.841-04:00Why Everyone But Me Is Wrong; Or, Why Professors Shouildn't Be Allowed in Public<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
This one is <i>not </i>directly
book-related because I, like most writers, hate reading. This is a story about
two English professors who hate each other. The first English professor is a
writer with the sort of passion for grammar usually reserved for librarians and
characters with an IQ above 110 in every single Hollywood movie ever made. The
second English professor is a reader with the sort of disdain for grammar
usually reserved for 7<sup>th</sup>-grade gangstas and characters the audience
is meant to relate to in every single Hollywood movie ever made and isn’t that
just about the biggest implied insult to the cinema-going population that could
ever be?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These two professors work together at one of the (5)
universities I attended, and being the sort of petted anthrophobes that make up
the vast majority of university faculties take every opportunity to make little
jabs at one another. I had the singular pleasure of taking classes from both
simultaneously (Classic lit and the mandatory comp class which was to writing
what the robots in a GM factory are to painting) and hearing both sides of the
story.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On the one hand was the (less insufferable, but no less
wrong) latter professor, the one for whom grammar was, on alternating days, a
benighted relic of the dark ages or an active enemy attempting to tear down the
edifice of modern expression. In either case, he took every opportunity to
point out that anyone who had a firm dedication to grammar was no more capable
of writing a work of literature than a robot was of writing a symphony (no,
stop, do not link me to the robot who wrote a symphony; applying a formula to
music is not art, it’s math, and we don’t like math at Not a Review Blog). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is partly true, in that an unwillingness to deviate
from the established rules is at the very least a significant limitation on
your ability to be expressive (which is to say, stop emailing me about Enki I’m
well aware it’s missing commas and has sentence fragments WORKING AS INTENDED I
HATE YOU) and perhaps just as likely indicative of a mindset not conducive to
art. After all, ‘rules people’ and ‘art people’ are two sets with an absolute
minimum of overlap. Show me a writer who has never been detained by the
authorities and I’ll show you a writer who… well, who grew up in the Czech Republic,
land of freedom and abject lack of police presence. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anyway, where he went wrong (why yes, I do feel comfortable
correcting a man twice my age with a PhD, 40 years teaching experience, and
numerous non-fiction publications, thanks for asking) is that he assumed that <i>using</i> grammar and <i>knowing</i> grammar were the same, and that by simply not knowing it
one’s writing would be better.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, as you recall, there is a second professor in this
story, one who fancied himself a writer but whose writing was, I understand,
abysmal. I didn’t read it personally because <i>fuck books</i> but I take the word of the people I strongly hesitate to
call my peers. Actually, as I think of it, that might not be a great idea.
Still, we’re here now. Now, I know what you’re (probably not) thinking.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Gabriel, what made it so bad? He was an English professor;
surely he knew how to write? I’ve never met an English professor so I’m just
acting on blind assumptions!!”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, Uneducated Reader Who Lives in My Head, his writing
was terrible because it rigidly adhered to the precise rules of grammar and
rectitude and thus had no verve, no spirit. It was also terrible because he was
a painfully dull man whose capacity for creativity stretched no further than a
slightly more inspiring version of the MLA handbook, which was rejected,
incidentally, for being ‘too spicy.’ Thus, the idea that people who know too
much grammar are shit as writers is not necessarily true, but the idea that
knowing grammar will make you good at writing is at least as untrue. Knowing
how the language is supposed to work and choosing not to do it properly is art,
and allows for nuanced, expressive writing. Not knowing how it works in the
first place is how we got the internet (HAHA internet joke straight off the
cuff bitches). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here’s the lesson section, children, so those of you who
have been reading the last 700+ words on autopilot may want to begin paying
attention now. Actually, you may want to look into how you’re spending your
time because not reading things is apparently rather time consuming for you.
Anyway, it’s important to differentiate there, because at the very least
knowing <i>most </i>of grammar is, if not
necessary, at very least quite helpful in writing. After all, much of grammar
was added in not “to give halfwits like Dr. Bumblefuck something to ‘teach’ so
they don’t go out and inflict themselves on the literary world” but rather to
make things more expressive. If you grasp what it was <i>trying </i>to do, and decide you don’t want to do that, you can always “say
to hell with it and just write whatever you feel like a real artist,” but if
you don’t know why it exists in the first place you’re not so much writing as
stringing words together because you like the sound of them (you know who you
are with your ‘overcoming miasmatic vagina vapors’).</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-5271588083598315102012-02-24T14:59:00.004-05:002012-11-26T17:25:41.116-05:00Fuck Originality; Or, Why Being a Pretentiously Judgmental Fuckwit Ruins Your Reading Experience<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
First up is the book I just finished, <a href="http://amzn.to/SlZvNW">Shotgun Gravy</a> by Chuck Wendig. I linked to it on G+ on the
23rd with a relatively positive note, which you could take as a sort of
recommendation. It didn’t change my life, but then neither do most books.
However, this is Not a Review Blog, so if you’ve been paying attention you’re
now asking yourself where I’m going with this. If you haven’t, this is the time
to start.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What I mentioned, and what may or may not have been taken as
a positive, is that it reminds me greatly of the work of Stephen King, who is a
rather subliterate sort of man but nonetheless quite brilliant at what he does.
Relevant to that, the thing that I wanted to touch on was the overwhelming
sense of King–ness that pervades it. It is impossible to miss, that sort of Kingian echo, and whiile one would perhaps not mistake it for King's work outright, it's still hard to deny the parallel. That established, we have to ask
ourselves a question. Can a work of literature
borrow so heavily from its contemporaries and still be art?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I would tend to say yes, and while your mileage may vary
(though if it does you are <i>wrong</i>) I’m
going to tell you why. At the end of the day, what are we really doing here?
We’re expressing. We’re taking people to emotional places that they wouldn’t go
otherwise, whether remembered or imagined, and that fundament is not undermined
by borrowed voices. Yes it would be better and more engaging if it had a more
unique voice, and yes we could ask ourselves what impact it has on the blah
blah blah, but that’s not the point. The point is that the book has something of its own to say, and the way in which it says it is not enough to overrule that. It can, perhaps, be distracting, at least
for those of us who obsess over such things,but that's a problem which largely lays at the feet of the reader. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Meeting a work halfway, accepting it for what it is rather
than what it could be, is the responsibility of all readers, and if we refuse
to do that our experience will never be complete.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-867819283130290463.post-79869618036079496392012-02-24T02:10:00.001-05:002012-03-30T21:07:31.579-04:00Introduction; Or, Actually Let's Stick With Introduction<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I first considered starting this blog I envisioned it
as a review blog with an emphasis on constructive lessons to be gained
from each work, and perhaps periodic updates on my own work. I realized, though, that my relentlessly critical approach to
reviews was rather unpleasant to read and not all that constructive. That in
mind, this is Not a Review Blog, and it will Not tell you whether to buy a book.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Instead, it will focus on the intellectual and artistic
edification which I see in books, whether through their flaws or their
strengths or just the subject matter they cover. It will be, in a very real
sense, the philosophy of literature.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02467739612562967581noreply@blogger.com1