Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 74

Thread: "Self-Published Author" or "Independent Author"?

  1. #31
    MANICHAEAN MANICHAEAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Vietnam, Singapore, Japan, The Middle East, UK, The Philippines & Papua New Guinea.
    Posts
    2,419
    Blog Entries
    1
    In a way Wolf I agree with you. It's so long since I have read anything original, that I take refuge in the "classics."

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Here and There
    Posts
    197
    There is nothing new under the sun, there are only 7 basic plots that get told over and over since man first put pen, brush, ink to paper, scroll, parchment ... the skill of the author is in how you construct that tale which would be where things like grammar, construction, ability to tell a meaningful story that interests readers etc comes into play. And if you want to sell your masterpiece of story telling it has to be something which more than 10 people would be interested in buying. You can determine this by approaching people who do have some idea of what sells ie publishers or you can put it into the market place yourself ... ultimately the determination of good / bad / sellable / unsellable is determined by the customer who has to be willing to part with his/her hard earned cash for your writing regardless of whether you or a publishing company put it out there.
    Last edited by Pumpkin337; 07-27-2014 at 04:13 AM.

  3. #33
    Bohemian Marbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hinterland
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by illiterati View Post
    here's yr favorite author:

    Lolita, svet moej zhizni, ogon’ moih chresel. Greh moj, dusha moja. Lo-li-ta: konchik jazyka sovershaet put’ v tri shazhka vniz po nëbu, chtoby na tret’em tolknut’sja o zuby. Lo. Li. Ta.

    Ona byla Lo, prosto Lo, po utram, rostom v pjat’ futov (bez dvuh vershkov i v odnom noske). Ona byla Lola v dlinnyh shtanah. Ona byla Dolli v shkole. Ona byla Dolores na punktire blankov. No v moih ob’’jat’jah ona byla vsegda: Lolita.


    now, it might be the best piece of writing yu've ever seen, but without any russian, and without the context to guess it's the beginning of lolita, it's all gibberish.

    my point is there are grammars within a language, not just the brute things called basic competency, then standard english, then "style." style's a complex grammar within the language that comes into being over time. it has a history. it changes. now if all you want to do is reproduce that grammar, first in your head and then in your soul and then on the page--fine. but some of us want to say new things in new ways, the grammars for which haven't yet seen light of day, and writing is our way of practicing those new grammars and modes and forms of meaning making: meta-style.

    now, if i'm working in a meta-style, a crystalline abstraction of very fine and tenuous grammar, that you've never seen or thought of before, to you it will be gibberish, to one degree or another. maybe not a brute gibberish of words (although, it may be that), but a finer gibberish of style. it's true that in many cases, a writer misunderstands what is in fact a deficiency in some more or less basic capacity of that meta-grammar called literary production as something wild and innovative and new. turns out they just fell short. that's the phenomenon y're thinking of, marbles and pumpkin. but what an avant-garde writer does is attempt to develop novel grammars of meaning style and significance that can gain enough leverage to go out into the world and alter it, first through small communities (the avant-garde), then through the academies, and finally, a hundred years from now, Marbles, you are recommending Wolf Larsen's diaries on some website and getting all preachy about how cultured writers need to use the word 'penis' all the time if they want to be A students.
    Yes, Vladimir Nabokov, one of my favourite writers. And because there is so much that is wrong with what you've written [new form and style I can understand, but what does creating new grammar mean anyway?] that a quote from the very Nabokov would suffice: "My difficulty...is that not all the readers to whom I talk...are experienced. A good third...do not know the difference between real literature and pseudo-literature."

    This was in Nabokov's time. In our age, given the degeneration of good writing owing to the compulsions of profit-driven publishing industry and given the availability of wide array of mediums to blog-writers for spreading their tawdry writings masquerading as 'experimental' work in cool-looking online spaces, and given also that people's attention spans have been reduced to reading and writing only twitter-length substance, in my estimation, a good four-fifth have forgotten the difference between profound, timeless, multidimensional writing of a genius and the ramblings of a narcissistic, self-obsessed, deranged mind.
    Last edited by Marbles; 07-27-2014 at 09:32 AM. Reason: Spelling
    But you, cloudless girl, question of smoke, corn tassel
    You were what the wind was making with illuminated leaves.
    ah, I can say nothing! You were made of everything.

    _Pablo Neruda

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Here and There
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by marbles View Post
    yes, vladimir nabokov, one of my favourite writers. And because there is so much that is wrong with what you've written [new form and style i can understand, but what does creating new grammar mean anyway?] that a quote from the very nabokov would suffice: "my difficulty...is that not all the readers to whom i talk...are experienced. A good third...do not know the difference between real literature and pseudo-literature."

    this was in nabokov's time. In our age, given the degeneration of good writing owing to the compulsions of profit-driven publishing industry and given the availability of wide array of mediums to blog-writers for spreading their tawdry writings masquerading as 'experimental' work in cool-looking online spaces, and given also that people's attention spans have been reduced to reading and writing only twitter-length substance, in my estimation, a good four-fifth have forgotten the difference between profound, timeless, multidimensional writing of a genius and the ramblings of a narcissistic, self-obsessed, deranged mind.
    kudos!! I agree fully. Just because it is 'new' or breaks the rules or is 'avante garde' does not make it the work of a genius. And I would remind every one that often so-called avante garde in the art world just turns out to be kitsch of the worst possible kind.

  5. #35
    The Wolf of Larsen WolfLarsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Creating a new universe
    Posts
    738
    Blog Entries
    87

    Smile What Socialist Publishing Might Look Like

    What Socialist Publishing Might Look Like
    An essay by Wolf Larsen

    What would socialist publishing look like? First of all, on this side of the Atlantic all of the publishing executives and all of the literary agents could go flip hamburgers. On the other side of the Atlantic they could fry fish and chips.

    Under socialism the writers would control the publishing process. In addition, union wages would be paid to all those working in the publishing industry, including editors. There would also be compensation for any overtime. Hence, the white-collar sweatshop conditions that exist today in the publishing industry would come to an end. (And please do not confuse socialism with Stalinism.)

    It seems to me that it would be logical to organize the publishing industry in the following manner: one division of each publishing house would be devoted to "genre literature". Under this division you would publish books that fell under the country-Western genre, the Harlequin romance genre, the spy thriller genre, etc. I think that to this could be added a puritanical genre for those who are easily upset by just about anything, including even the lightest sexuality. Better to have a Puritan genre for these people than to have censorship. Instead of trying to impose their Puritanism on everybody else, these people could just stick to the Puritan genre.

    Then there would be a "serious" literary fiction division. Most of the stuff on this site would be published in this division. These would be well-written conventional stories.

    Then there would be an experimental division. Those who hate experimental works need not read books published by this division. Seems simple enough.

    And then there would be a nonfiction division. My guess is this is where most of the editors would be employed. Not every expert on such-and-such a subject is a good writer.

    Given the technology that now exists I think it would be economical to basically publish every manuscript submitted. Yes, that's right, publish every manuscript submitted. Why not? It could be arranged so that putting out an e-book would cost virtually nothing. And with print-on-demand softcover books can be cheaply produced as well.

    An authors cooperative could take the place of Amazon.

    Basically, changes in technology have made book publishing as we know it obsolete. There is no reason to continue with the status quo.
    "...the ramblings of a narcissistic, self-obsessed, deranged mind."
    My poetry & other stuff on Amazon:
    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr...or=Wolf Larsen

  6. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Here and There
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by WolfLarsen View Post
    What Socialist Publishing Might Look Like
    An essay by Wolf Larsen

    What would socialist publishing look like? First of all, on this side of the Atlantic all of the publishing executives and all of the literary agents could go flip hamburgers. On the other side of the Atlantic they could fry fish and chips.

    Under socialism the writers would control the publishing process. In addition, union wages would be paid to all those working in the publishing industry, including editors. There would also be compensation for any overtime. Hence, the white-collar sweatshop conditions that exist today in the publishing industry would come to an end. (And please do not confuse socialism with Stalinism.)

    It seems to me that it would be logical to organize the publishing industry in the following manner: one division of each publishing house would be devoted to "genre literature". Under this division you would publish books that fell under the country-Western genre, the Harlequin romance genre, the spy thriller genre, etc. I think that to this could be added a puritanical genre for those who are easily upset by just about anything, including even the lightest sexuality. Better to have a Puritan genre for these people than to have censorship. Instead of trying to impose their Puritanism on everybody else, these people could just stick to the Puritan genre.

    Then there would be a "serious" literary fiction division. Most of the stuff on this site would be published in this division. These would be well-written conventional stories.

    Then there would be an experimental division. Those who hate experimental works need not read books published by this division. Seems simple enough.

    And then there would be a nonfiction division. My guess is this is where most of the editors would be employed. Not every expert on such-and-such a subject is a good writer.

    Given the technology that now exists I think it would be economical to basically publish every manuscript submitted. Yes, that's right, publish every manuscript submitted. Why not? It could be arranged so that putting out an e-book would cost virtually nothing. And with print-on-demand softcover books can be cheaply produced as well.

    An authors cooperative could take the place of Amazon.

    Basically, changes in technology have made book publishing as we know it obsolete. There is no reason to continue with the status quo.
    ROFLMAO .... and.... ROFLMAO .... and .... ROLFMAO

    *pauses to wipe tears of laughter from my eyes*

    oh thank you so much for what has to be the funniest thing I have read today .... finally a piece of fantastical fiction from Wolf Larson that is not puerile, fixated on sexual organs, or vulgar and is actually genuinely funny.

    You do know that socialism is 100% guaranteed to fail? Every time. Without fail? For the very very obvious reason that why should you do jack**** if you get paid regardless of how much work you actually do? It doesn't take long for even the biggest fool to work out that his buddy who does half the work he does still gets the same share .... and it doesn't take too much longer before he thinks ... why the hell am I busting my balls? .... and soon every one thinks the same thing and no-one does any work at all and it all goes to hell in a handbasket .... just ask the Russians what happened to their marvelous social experiment.

    And who cares if EVERY book is published ... the natural selective process of just WHO will actually READ them will still ensure that the [email protected] falls to the bottom of the pile ... almost exactly how the process of publishing and sales works today. IDIOT!
    Last edited by Pumpkin337; 07-27-2014 at 02:36 PM.

  7. #37
    The Wolf of Larsen WolfLarsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Creating a new universe
    Posts
    738
    Blog Entries
    87

    Who Should Control the Publishing Industry?

    Who Should Control the Publishing Industry?
    Some thoughts by Wolf Larsen

    Who should control the publishing industry? Currently, executives like Rupert Murdoch preside over big publishing corporations. Under the status quo editors are paid stingy wages, and work in white-collar sweatshop conditions. Editors often bring work home with them, and are not compensated for this extra work. Editors deserve better working conditions and better pay. Let the publishing executives like Rupert Murdoch go get a job!

    In addition, the contention that publishing executives are concerned with the quality of the books available to the reading public is undermined by just looking at what books are being published. The publishing conglomerates favor airport novels like spy thrillers and Harlequin romances over quality fiction. That's not surprising, because the main concern of publishing conglomerates is their bottom line.

    I propose that writers should run the publishing conglomerates, and that every manuscript submitted should be published. Why not? With current technologies it is now possible to publish all manuscripts on an economical basis. It takes very little money to create an e-book, and with print-on-demand technology even less popular paperbacks need not lose money. Of course, some tweaking of the publishing system would be required.

    Since it is now affordable to publish everything why should anybody choose what's to be available to readers, and what's not to be available to readers? Why not let readers choose for themselves what they want to read? One reader may wish to purchase an action thriller, another may wish to purchase literary fiction, and still another reader may wish to purchase an experimental work. Let each reader decide for himself what is bad and good. Let each reader decide for himself what he wants to read. If all manuscripts are published are available to readers, than the readers can read whatever they want, without some middleman deciding what will be available and what will not be available.

    Of course, more traditionally minded people would argue that quality would suffer. No it wouldn't! Just look at the New York Times best-selling list, and you'll know that in terms of quality the situation couldn't possibly get any worse than it already is. The fact of the matter is, not only are publishing conglomerates not interested in quality, but apparently large numbers of the reading public are not interested in quality either.

    The economics of capitalist publishing do not favor good quality fiction. On the contrary, the economics of capitalist publishing seems to favor airport novels. And if the reading public wants to read airport novels that should be their right. But, at the same time both experimental works and quality conventional fiction should be available as well, even if it's not going to make any money.

    Before the current technologies it was impossible to publish all books. Hence, it was necessary for somebody to choose which books would become available to the reading public, and which books not. However, there's no need anymore for anyone to choose which books become available, because it's now economically feasible to make all manuscripts available.

    This will also help to ensure that manuscripts do not wind up in the garbage once a writer dies. God knows how many masterpieces have been lost this way.
    "...the ramblings of a narcissistic, self-obsessed, deranged mind."
    My poetry & other stuff on Amazon:
    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr...or=Wolf Larsen

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    594
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by WolfLarsen View Post
    Who Should Control the Publishing Industry?
    Some thoughts by Wolf Larsen

    Who should control the publishing industry? Currently, executives like Rupert Murdoch preside over big publishing corporations. Under the status quo editors are paid stingy wages, and work in white-collar sweatshop conditions. Editors often bring work home with them, and are not compensated for this extra work. Editors deserve better working conditions and better pay. Let the publishing executives like Rupert Murdoch go get a job!

    In addition, the contention that publishing executives are concerned with the quality of the books available to the reading public is undermined by just looking at what books are being published. The publishing conglomerates favor airport novels like spy thrillers and Harlequin romances over quality fiction. That's not surprising, because the main concern of publishing conglomerates is their bottom line.

    I propose that writers should run the publishing conglomerates, and that every manuscript submitted should be published. Why not? With current technologies it is now possible to publish all manuscripts on an economical basis. It takes very little money to create an e-book, and with print-on-demand technology even less popular paperbacks need not lose money. Of course, some tweaking of the publishing system would be required.

    Since it is now affordable to publish everything why should anybody choose what's to be available to readers, and what's not to be available to readers? Why not let readers choose for themselves what they want to read? One reader may wish to purchase an action thriller, another may wish to purchase literary fiction, and still another reader may wish to purchase an experimental work. Let each reader decide for himself what is bad and good. Let each reader decide for himself what he wants to read. If all manuscripts are published are available to readers, than the readers can read whatever they want, without some middleman deciding what will be available and what will not be available.

    Of course, more traditionally minded people would argue that quality would suffer. No it wouldn't! Just look at the New York Times best-selling list, and you'll know that in terms of quality the situation couldn't possibly get any worse than it already is. The fact of the matter is, not only are publishing conglomerates not interested in quality, but apparently large numbers of the reading public are not interested in quality either.

    The economics of capitalist publishing do not favor good quality fiction. On the contrary, the economics of capitalist publishing seems to favor airport novels. And if the reading public wants to read airport novels that should be their right. But, at the same time both experimental works and quality conventional fiction should be available as well, even if it's not going to make any money.

    Before the current technologies it was impossible to publish all books. Hence, it was necessary for somebody to choose which books would become available to the reading public, and which books not. However, there's no need anymore for anyone to choose which books become available, because it's now economically feasible to make all manuscripts available.

    This will also help to ensure that manuscripts do not wind up in the garbage once a writer dies. God knows how many masterpieces have been lost this way.
    Is art derived from mass production less valid than the art derived from independent production?

    The Beatles suck because I hate parlophone. Lion King sucks because I hate Disney. Martin Creed sucks because I hate the Tate.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    594
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by WolfLarsen View Post
    Wouldn't it be nice to have something original to read?

    Why does everybody have to write the same?
    Good writers borrow, great writers steal, only god's creations are original.

  10. #40
    Registered User illiterati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    New York, New York, United States; Mind Control Poems http://mindcontrolpoems.blogspot.com/
    Posts
    67
    Blog Entries
    2

    news that stays news

    Quote Originally Posted by Marbles View Post
    Yes, Vladimir Nabokov, one of my favourite writers. And because there is so much that is wrong with what you've written [new form and style I can understand, but what does creating new grammar mean anyway?] that a quote from the very Nabokov would suffice: "My difficulty...is that not all the readers to whom I talk...are experienced. A good third...do not know the difference between real literature and pseudo-literature."

    This was in Nabokov's time. In our age, given the degeneration of good writing owing to the compulsions of profit-driven publishing industry and given the availability of wide array of mediums to blog-writers for spreading their tawdry writings masquerading as 'experimental' work in cool-looking online spaces, and given also that people's attention spans have been reduced to reading and writing only twitter-length substance, in my estimation, a good four-fifth have forgotten the difference between profound, timeless, multidimensional writing of a genius and the ramblings of a narcissistic, self-obsessed, deranged mind.
    7/27/14, 12:30 PM
    passenger seat, somewhere between MI & MS

    Dearie Mahblez,

    I’d like to think I’m making the effort to carefully read and charitably interpret yr comments. I’m not convinced the reverse is true, but I implore you to prove me wrong.

    Now see, it seems to me that one of our main sticking points in this here debate comes down to the difference between intelligibility and value, construed objectively.

    If I can figure yr logic right, it seems like these two qualities (intelligibility & value) are—if not equivalent, at least coextensive. Where there’s no intelligibility, there’s no value, & that holds true as a pretty good measure of things all the way down or up.

    To take a smaller & more manageable example of the kind of logic that, correct me if I’m wrong, motivates yr position on the broader topic: What I mean is, in the comment above, the move from, “I don’t understand,” to “there is so much that is wrong with…” For you, because the idea of generating new grammars don’t make no sense, it therefore has no value; & that this bears some analogy with yr stance on experimentalism more generally: if it doesn’t fit into the established models of generating literary value & significance—intelligibility as literature—it has no value or at least a reduced & far more limited kind of value.

    Now, as I’ve made explicit more that once, I too accept this idea of things as a PARTIAL explanation of literary value—to take it back to the smaller example (which we’re using as a kind of metaphor for the bigger question), I accept the possibility that my comments on grammar or meta-style might be unintelligible to you because fundamentally or intrinsically unintelligible; or ultimately without substance, or power as ideas; or because poorly expressed; &c. &c.

    [but also the reverse possibility: that it is not intelligible for you because y’re not party to the forms of grammar that might make it intelligible AS value]

    Likewise, I accept as a valid but PARTIAL interpretation yr take on questions of literary value & experimentalism. Well geez—tired of the sound of my own voice—have made myself clear on this point (“avant-garde” often = a failure of art rather than the creation of new forms of value)—go back & read what I writ—BUT—if you care to know my point:

    It seems to me so much of what goes by the name of grammar--& that more nuanced grammar called style—isn’t about style at all, or competency or intelligibility—it’s about a gotcha game of cultural authority. In the same way that the rhetoric of style, in yr comments Marbles, has several times appeared in conjunction with a kind of infantilizing resort to pedagogy: I am the Master and you are the student—submit to me.

    So much of the actual material practice of grammar & the rhetoric of grammar is about an exercise of force, regulating who is in and who is out, who has authority to write and speak, and who does not.

    Now, if we want to play a gotcha game of cultural authority, I won’t end up the student. I mean if we’re going to play that kind of priggish game—where to even start? It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to imagine that I’ve spent a good one-third of my waking life reading & writing. That’s about ten years, clock time, spent reading. I have a genius IQ. I scored in the top percentile on my SATs—in SEVENTH GRADE. I’ve had a college reading level since I was 7—gone on to terminal degrees—better call me Dr., Mr. Marbles—have writ big tomes of scholarly research, am accounted an expert in my fields—have taught @ top ten schools—my verse’s appeared in print & electronic all over the place, reputable mags—have published articles & articles & articles—

    if we want to PLAY that kind of gotcha game—

    but I think we both see how obnoxious such displays can be—so let’s, please, approach each other as peers or not at all.

    & so much of what goes by the name of grammar boils down to exactly that kind of vulgar display—sometimes more & sometimes less subtle.

    ~

    “timeless & eternal classics”

    We all remember a first approach @ Shakespeare. We come to it knowing it’s supposed to have value—we’re told it has value—we want it to have value—to be part of the conversation—& then we get to the text itself and—that stuff is DENSE—At 12 or 13, it’s not a thing the timeless value of which is immediately apparent, or easily got at. My point is, being able to apprehend that value takes TRAINING—3 letters, now: J-O-B-S.

    Now, I don’t dismiss the fact of value, or even what you refer to as “genius”—(though there are some problems with the concept, certainly—it too has a history & context, it’s not a transcendent universal essence—see Bob Perelman’s “Trouble with Genius”)—

    Just because I acknowledge the dependence on training our ability to recognize & access the value of a Shakespeare, don’t mean I believe just any old thing could have the same effect. It’s not that I’m walking you into an empty room in the museum, to trigger the epiphany: “you are the work of art.”

    The point I am making is that new forms of value, literary or otherwise, are often unrecognizable as such. The “grammar” according to which they might be understood as value doesn’t yet exist or hasn’t yet been acquired.

    I’ve got a very flexible definition of ‘avant-garde—maybe distinguish from Berger’s definition of the historical avant-garde—Dada, Futurist, etc.—shake the words up in a hat & spit em out, there’s yr poem.

    No—I mean as ‘avant-garde’ those new forms of writing & literary value which are difficult, in their moment, to recognize as such; but which go on to generate & proliferate the grammars by means of which we recognize their value (Dante writing in the vernacular, Shakespeare illiterate of Greek & Latin); by means of which they sometimes come to be confused with value as such, as I feel has happened in yr (& many people’s) conception of things—There has always been a cultural police force using the rhetoric of grammar to DENY new articulations of value.

    So for me, I have the very weird idea that “literary canon” and “avant-garde” are the same phenomenon viewed from different perspectives of historical distance or nearness; IMPORTANTLY:

    that it’s just as difficult to recognize the value of ‘classical’ literary texts as it is to recognize the value of those rare ‘avant-garde’ works which go on to become the future face of the canon; that many of the same people attempting to forcefully police the boundaries of literary value with recourse to the rhetoric of “timeless classics” & grammar & style, are the very same people who would have decried the vulgarity & unfitness of the classical before they were classics. These people are parasites, basically, leeching off the cultural capital of literary texts without any real understanding of what’s at stake.

    Now, do I think Wolf Larsen is our next Shakespeare? Not really. I was being a little bit facetious with the ‘cultured writers use the word penis all the time’ example—but I respect his commitment to self-determination & the integrity of his commitment to the insight that creating NEW value isn’t a question of consensus—from a popular readership or a publishing house or the guardians of culture.
    Last edited by illiterati; 07-31-2014 at 11:42 AM.

  11. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Here and There
    Posts
    197
    I mostly don't disagree in principle .. evolution is the natural process of human endeavor. We build on what came before ... sometimes we manage to improve on it (I am yet to be convinced that say modern art is an improvement on more representational works where an actual ability to draw something recognisable is a requirement) ... sometimes we don't ... but in general each generation attempts to do something 'new' and 'different' that often somehow ends up being rather similar to something done in the past (there is nothing new under the sun after all) and regardless of when it happens ultimately its the court of public opinion that determines whether or not something survives. And that you can not deny. We have Shakespeare and other classics because enough people agree that these are good enough to keep to pass on. Ultimately it is demand (or what sells) that determines what is passed on. If no one had wanted copies of Shakespeare, none would have been printed and we would go 'Shakespeare who?' if a rare copy had survived, but there was a demand and copies were made and audiences paid money to see the plays performed, still pay money to see the plays performed, so its all very well to be all idealistic or intellectual about it, but bottom line ... its the people who are prepared to part with money for the books that determine the longevity of it.

    Regardless of how you may feel about it, the market place is where goods fail or succeed. We have seen this throughout history ... why don't we have a store selling handchipped stone age axes? No demand! Why don't we have illustrated hand lettered texts any more? No demand! Why don't we have hand made parchment to write on freely available? No demand! The list of goods no longer available because there is no market for them is very long. History is littered with examples.
    Last edited by Pumpkin337; 07-31-2014 at 12:36 PM.

  12. #42
    The Wolf of Larsen WolfLarsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Creating a new universe
    Posts
    738
    Blog Entries
    87

    Exclamation Shakespeare Is Overrated. The Greatest Writing of Mankind Is in Its Future!

    Shakespeare is overrated. I decimated his sonnets with my cantos. I admit, Shakespeare's plays are much better than his sonnets. At the present moment I am vandalizing one of his plays – the one entitled "Much Ado about Nothing". My version is entitled "Much Shift on My Dick". Unfortunately, my voice recognition software will not say shift – there it goes again – because of the prudery of our society. The prudery of our society is literally programmed into my voice recognition software – I hate it. I have to train it to say bad words – the best words – in the English language.

    Anyway, you know my play "Much Shift on My Dick" is going to be waaaaaaaay more interesting than Shakespeare's! And if I can do it – if I can be better than Shakespeare – why can't others on this website be better than Shakespeare too? Challenge the assumptions of the literary establishment! Why except anything as true? Gravity is true. But let me tell you something – unless there's a nuclear war first – the greatest literature of mankind is in its future – not in its past. When literature is free of the profit motive – than literature will truly blossom into the greatness it is destined to achieve!

    This goes to what illiteratti was saying about the "guardians of culture". Let the "guardians of culture" go find some creativity!

    There are some here who contend that there are no more plots. That we must steal from each other. Then why not write books with no plots? Or invent new plots! Every single one of my creative books shows that this contention that there are only so many plots is pure nonsense! And considering that there are so many people on this website and everywhere who are smarter than I am, the possibility of endless plots not yet invented are infinite! The problem is a lack of imagination. You might be brilliant. Brilliant is not enough. You need imagination too, so that you're not redoing what a zillion people have already done. What's the point of that?

    And I like illiteratti's point about grammar too, and the way that he makes his point with the style of writing he uses in his post. I will never forget a predominantly African-American posting board, where the inventive style of the comments were far better than the conventional prose that they were commenting on. I think these were predominantly college-educated African-Americans whose prose (because of academic training) was just as boring as their white American counterparts. But they loved to have fun with each other getting the **** (oh the voice recognition software finally said it) of the English language on their Dicks or pens.

    Since I'm not African-American, they did not seem very enthusiastic about me joining them getting the **** of the English language on my Dick or pen. So, as a second-generation Québecois (& Irish & Norman) I will do it on my own. I guess we all have a role to play in getting the **** of the English language on our Dicks or pens, our pens being a phallus symbol. We will each get the **** of the English language on our Dicks or pens in our own individualistic creative manner. We will march together in the same protest against Puritanism, against censorship, against conventional mediocrity, against the corporate profit motive destroying literature. We will march together for individualism, creativity, freedom from the chains of corporate fiction, and freedom from the constraints that the "guardians of culture" seek to impose on us! But we will do so with our own individual manuscripts in our hands. Each writer will invent his own literary movement! Each writer will write completely different than all the other writers! We will march together to achieve whatever goals we have in common – but when we sit at the desk to create great innovative literature we will simultaneously be celebrating our own individualism!

    When you tell people how to write – which is what the conventionalists or the "guardians of culture" are trying to do – then you are trampling on individualism. When you whine incessantly about this or that being "vulgar" – when you are promoting censorship – then you are trampling upon the free expression of the writer.

    These "guardians of culture" along with the corporate profit motive in literature, are the biggest threats to literary culture that I could possibly imagine! Long live freedom of expression! Down with censorship! Long live creativity! And may the day arrive when we writers are finally free of the corporate structure that dominates literature, and may the day arrive when we are free of academic conservativism, and may the day arrive when we are free of censorship, and we are free of these stale "guardians of culture".
    "...the ramblings of a narcissistic, self-obsessed, deranged mind."
    My poetry & other stuff on Amazon:
    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr...or=Wolf Larsen

  13. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    594
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by WolfLarsen View Post
    Shakespeare is overrated. I decimated his sonnets with my cantos. I admit, Shakespeare's plays are much better than his sonnets. At the present moment I am vandalizing one of his plays – the one entitled "Much Ado about Nothing". My version is entitled "Much Shift on My Dick". Unfortunately, my voice recognition software will not say shift – there it goes again – because of the prudery of our society. The prudery of our society is literally programmed into my voice recognition software – I hate it. I have to train it to say bad words – the best words – in the English language.

    Anyway, you know my play "Much Shift on My Dick" is going to be waaaaaaaay more interesting than Shakespeare's! And if I can do it – if I can be better than Shakespeare – why can't others on this website be better than Shakespeare too? Challenge the assumptions of the literary establishment! Why except anything as true? Gravity is true. But let me tell you something – unless there's a nuclear war first – the greatest literature of mankind is in its future – not in its past. When literature is free of the profit motive – than literature will truly blossom into the greatness it is destined to achieve!

    This goes to what illiteratti was saying about the "guardians of culture". Let the "guardians of culture" go find some creativity!

    There are some here who contend that there are no more plots. That we must steal from each other. Then why not write books with no plots? Or invent new plots! Every single one of my creative books shows that this contention that there are only so many plots is pure nonsense! And considering that there are so many people on this website and everywhere who are smarter than I am, the possibility of endless plots not yet invented are infinite! The problem is a lack of imagination. You might be brilliant. Brilliant is not enough. You need imagination too, so that you're not redoing what a zillion people have already done. What's the point of that?

    And I like illiteratti's point about grammar too, and the way that he makes his point with the style of writing he uses in his post. I will never forget a predominantly African-American posting board, where the inventive style of the comments were far better than the conventional prose that they were commenting on. I think these were predominantly college-educated African-Americans whose prose (because of academic training) was just as boring as their white American counterparts. But they loved to have fun with each other getting the **** (oh the voice recognition software finally said it) of the English language on their Dicks or pens.

    Since I'm not African-American, they did not seem very enthusiastic about me joining them getting the **** of the English language on my Dick or pen. So, as a second-generation Québecois (& Irish & Norman) I will do it on my own. I guess we all have a role to play in getting the **** of the English language on our Dicks or pens, our pens being a phallus symbol. We will each get the **** of the English language on our Dicks or pens in our own individualistic creative manner. We will march together in the same protest against Puritanism, against censorship, against conventional mediocrity, against the corporate profit motive destroying literature. We will march together for individualism, creativity, freedom from the chains of corporate fiction, and freedom from the constraints that the "guardians of culture" seek to impose on us! But we will do so with our own individual manuscripts in our hands. Each writer will invent his own literary movement! Each writer will write completely different than all the other writers! We will march together to achieve whatever goals we have in common – but when we sit at the desk to create great innovative literature we will simultaneously be celebrating our own individualism!

    When you tell people how to write – which is what the conventionalists or the "guardians of culture" are trying to do – then you are trampling on individualism. When you whine incessantly about this or that being "vulgar" – when you are promoting censorship – then you are trampling upon the free expression of the writer.

    These "guardians of culture" along with the corporate profit motive in literature, are the biggest threats to literary culture that I could possibly imagine! Long live freedom of expression! Down with censorship! Long live creativity! And may the day arrive when we writers are finally free of the corporate structure that dominates literature, and may the day arrive when we are free of academic conservativism, and may the day arrive when we are free of censorship, and we are free of these stale "guardians of culture".
    Hamlet does the horny teenage boy routine better and Othello does melanin better. Is the space bar also a phallic symbol?

  14. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    594
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by WolfLarsen View Post
    What Socialist Publishing Might Look Like
    An essay by Wolf Larsen

    What would socialist publishing look like? First of all, on this side of the Atlantic all of the publishing executives and all of the literary agents could go flip hamburgers. On the other side of the Atlantic they could fry fish and chips.

    Under socialism the writers would control the publishing process. In addition, union wages would be paid to all those working in the publishing industry, including editors. There would also be compensation for any overtime. Hence, the white-collar sweatshop conditions that exist today in the publishing industry would come to an end. (And please do not confuse socialism with Stalinism.)

    It seems to me that it would be logical to organize the publishing industry in the following manner: one division of each publishing house would be devoted to "genre literature". Under this division you would publish books that fell under the country-Western genre, the Harlequin romance genre, the spy thriller genre, etc. I think that to this could be added a puritanical genre for those who are easily upset by just about anything, including even the lightest sexuality. Better to have a Puritan genre for these people than to have censorship. Instead of trying to impose their Puritanism on everybody else, these people could just stick to the Puritan genre.

    Then there would be a "serious" literary fiction division. Most of the stuff on this site would be published in this division. These would be well-written conventional stories.

    Then there would be an experimental division. Those who hate experimental works need not read books published by this division. Seems simple enough.

    And then there would be a nonfiction division. My guess is this is where most of the editors would be employed. Not every expert on such-and-such a subject is a good writer.

    Given the technology that now exists I think it would be economical to basically publish every manuscript submitted. Yes, that's right, publish every manuscript submitted. Why not? It could be arranged so that putting out an e-book would cost virtually nothing. And with print-on-demand softcover books can be cheaply produced as well.

    An authors cooperative could take the place of Amazon.

    Basically, changes in technology have made book publishing as we know it obsolete. There is no reason to continue with the status quo.
    Do mean "socialism" more in vein of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Roseanne Barr?

  15. #45
    Bohemian Marbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hinterland
    Posts
    258
    @ illiterati

    My apologies if I appeared to be some stuck up proponent of classics and a dismisser of new forms, new style and new language (I'm not). This was not the intention. I agree with the main thrust of your argument, about the classics and avant-garde, and about the need to practice new approaches to literature. My point is only that one needs to cast a cautious look at what's being produced and sold as 'avant-garde'. Sadly, in our digital age, everyone who can spell and scores good CGPA in their BAs thinks she's some born artist incarnate whose genius is overlooked.
    But you, cloudless girl, question of smoke, corn tassel
    You were what the wind was making with illuminated leaves.
    ah, I can say nothing! You were made of everything.

    _Pablo Neruda

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 102
    Last Post: 12-26-2010, 03:09 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-11-2010, 06:59 PM
  3. "Noting is random in the world created by the author" HELP
    By Domino in forum Great Expectations
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 10:00 PM
  4. Author of "The Graduate" fallen on hard times
    By Harry RC in forum General Literature
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-22-2006, 05:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •