I am not Faust. I will not sell my soul, that is, my work, to corporations that think they can pay writers pennies for their hard work, and that we will sell it gladly, outright, with next to nothing in return. I’m sick of CEOs trying to get one over on the rest of us, making their money on the backs of desperate writers. I know I sound like a crazy conspiracy fanatic, but Prevention magazine wants to hire bloggers. That is, bloggers who are willing to give up ALL rights to their own work AND let their company use the writers as their personal PR lackeys AND use those writers’ personal MySpace and Facebook pages as billboards for said company in their “social marketing techniques.” All for “up to” $100 a month.
Speaking of selling your soul, I watched the ORIGINAL Bedazzled with Peter Cook and Dudley Moore the other day. Fabulous. Must see. Check it out.
And now your Irish curse of the day (yea):
MAY YOUR PARTNER BE AN UNFEELING BRUTE.
Yeah. That’s what I have to say to anyone who tries to take advantage of me just because I’m broke and desperate.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
ON "RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION"
I’ve been reading about this Virginia Quarterly Review scandal that was brewing online a couple of months ago. Yes, I’m always a bit behind the times. VQR published to their blog snippets of scathing comments made by the readers on their staff about submissions from their slush pile. I’m all too aware how elitist attitudes run rampant in literary circles, but it’s still a bit surprising to see it displayed so proudly. Apparently, a lot of other people felt the same way, and cyber fights broke out like the plague.
So then editor Ted Genoways wrote an “apology” that spent all of one sentence expressing something resembling remorse and the rest of the several paragraphs tooting the publication’s horn in the same self-important, aren’t-we-so-clever tone that got so many people riled up in the first place, with a lot of fighting-the-good-fight-for-literature rhetoric and blaming the blog readers for misinterpreting their intentions, saying that “some writers got the idea that VQR delights in belittling unsolicited submissions,” which, of course, is exactly what they did. But I’m sure they didn’t delight in it. I’m sure it was very painful for them.
He also says that the comments accurately depict their readers’ “righteous indignation” at the submissions they read which are inappropriate for them. What?! Did he really just say that? Righteous indignation? Is he aware that this phrase is typically not used in a particularly flattering way (see link above)? It might not have been quite what he meant to say, but it certainly does speak volumes.
Genoways tries to defend the post by saying that there is objectively good writing and objectively bad writing, and to a degree this is true. But I hope he’s not trying to pretend that he has always been a member of the former group. Who of us with any self-awareness can say we never wrote something embarrassingly inept? But hopefully, there wasn’t someone there to berate us publicly for our bumbling, sophomoric attempts, and that’s why we continued to write and to, hopefully, improve.
When I was reviewing submissions for River City (now The Pinch) did we make derisive remarks about certain submissions? Of course. Did we post the most absurd cover letters on the walls of the office? Yes. One has to keep a sense of humor in such a frustrating, often annoying, and usually thankless job. But did we keep our snickers and comments within those four cover-letter-papered walls? Most definitely.
Everybody that has ever been in the position of reading other’s work (with a publication or as a teacher) has complained about and laughed about the quality (or lack thereof) of the many, many manuscripts they have to trudge through. I think the line is crossed when you make public the responses to specific pieces, which could very well be read by that very same author. Genoways says that the criticisms did not describe the works in any recognizable way, but then no one can read the original post to decide that for themselves because it has been removed. If it was harmless and defensible, why remove it?
I’m not trying to paint the staff at VQR as bad people, but what they did was tacky and unprofessional. And instead of sincerely apologizing, they are still defending their actions, because after all the debate, they still feel justified in their “righteous indignation.” Perhaps they could use a little more tact and a lot more humility.
Now, on a lighter note, the reason you really came here... your Irish curse of the day! (yay!)--or week:
ANOTHER STONE ON YOUR GRAVE, YOU MISERABLE WRETCH.
Happy writing.
So then editor Ted Genoways wrote an “apology” that spent all of one sentence expressing something resembling remorse and the rest of the several paragraphs tooting the publication’s horn in the same self-important, aren’t-we-so-clever tone that got so many people riled up in the first place, with a lot of fighting-the-good-fight-for-literature rhetoric and blaming the blog readers for misinterpreting their intentions, saying that “some writers got the idea that VQR delights in belittling unsolicited submissions,” which, of course, is exactly what they did. But I’m sure they didn’t delight in it. I’m sure it was very painful for them.
He also says that the comments accurately depict their readers’ “righteous indignation” at the submissions they read which are inappropriate for them. What?! Did he really just say that? Righteous indignation? Is he aware that this phrase is typically not used in a particularly flattering way (see link above)? It might not have been quite what he meant to say, but it certainly does speak volumes.
Genoways tries to defend the post by saying that there is objectively good writing and objectively bad writing, and to a degree this is true. But I hope he’s not trying to pretend that he has always been a member of the former group. Who of us with any self-awareness can say we never wrote something embarrassingly inept? But hopefully, there wasn’t someone there to berate us publicly for our bumbling, sophomoric attempts, and that’s why we continued to write and to, hopefully, improve.
When I was reviewing submissions for River City (now The Pinch) did we make derisive remarks about certain submissions? Of course. Did we post the most absurd cover letters on the walls of the office? Yes. One has to keep a sense of humor in such a frustrating, often annoying, and usually thankless job. But did we keep our snickers and comments within those four cover-letter-papered walls? Most definitely.
Everybody that has ever been in the position of reading other’s work (with a publication or as a teacher) has complained about and laughed about the quality (or lack thereof) of the many, many manuscripts they have to trudge through. I think the line is crossed when you make public the responses to specific pieces, which could very well be read by that very same author. Genoways says that the criticisms did not describe the works in any recognizable way, but then no one can read the original post to decide that for themselves because it has been removed. If it was harmless and defensible, why remove it?
I’m not trying to paint the staff at VQR as bad people, but what they did was tacky and unprofessional. And instead of sincerely apologizing, they are still defending their actions, because after all the debate, they still feel justified in their “righteous indignation.” Perhaps they could use a little more tact and a lot more humility.
Now, on a lighter note, the reason you really came here... your Irish curse of the day! (yay!)--or week:
ANOTHER STONE ON YOUR GRAVE, YOU MISERABLE WRETCH.
Happy writing.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
THE BITCH IS BACK
No, I’m not dead. I’ve merely been in an intellectual coma. But not to worry, I’m awake again and the doctors have given me a clean bill of health. I even took a brisk stroll around the fertile grounds of imagination today.
Aside from having a productive day creatively speaking, I also got a surprise phone call from my long lost best friend. Unlike me, she actually has a very busy life with school, and a real job, and a real boyfriend (though my imaginary boyfriend does take up quite a lot of my time). The point is that I hadn’t talked to her in weeks, and frankly, it was beginning to make me a bit, well, crazy. Literally. I began to develop some imagined falling out we must have had, some way I had slighted her without knowing. Some reason I had not heard from her in so long. Solitude can do this to a person. Especially in the absence of a person who is so essential to your life, to your sense of who you are and how the world works. Like separated identical twins.
But things now seem right in the world again. We tend to forget how much we need human connection, even writers, especially writers. Ours can be such a lonely and narcissistic existence, spending an unhealthy amount of time alone with nothing but our own thoughts. We need the touchstones in our lives to keep us sane. I do, anyway.
One last matter of business I’d like to address today. I’m introducing a new feature to the blog… (drum role)…
The Irish curse of the day! (Yea!)
I picked up a little book of Irish curses last summer while on the Emerald Isle, and it’s quite funny, so I’d like to share it, one curse at a time. How nice. That and I’m trying to come up with filler and maybe a hook to keep people coming back—or, to get them to start coming—to the blog. So without further ado, your Irish curse for Saturday, July 12, 2008!
MAY YOU HAVE TO STAND FOR A LONG TIME ON WEAK LEGS
Wow! That’s a scorcher! See you here tomorrow for another installment of…
The Irish curse of the day! (Yea!)
Aside from having a productive day creatively speaking, I also got a surprise phone call from my long lost best friend. Unlike me, she actually has a very busy life with school, and a real job, and a real boyfriend (though my imaginary boyfriend does take up quite a lot of my time). The point is that I hadn’t talked to her in weeks, and frankly, it was beginning to make me a bit, well, crazy. Literally. I began to develop some imagined falling out we must have had, some way I had slighted her without knowing. Some reason I had not heard from her in so long. Solitude can do this to a person. Especially in the absence of a person who is so essential to your life, to your sense of who you are and how the world works. Like separated identical twins.
But things now seem right in the world again. We tend to forget how much we need human connection, even writers, especially writers. Ours can be such a lonely and narcissistic existence, spending an unhealthy amount of time alone with nothing but our own thoughts. We need the touchstones in our lives to keep us sane. I do, anyway.
One last matter of business I’d like to address today. I’m introducing a new feature to the blog… (drum role)…
The Irish curse of the day! (Yea!)
I picked up a little book of Irish curses last summer while on the Emerald Isle, and it’s quite funny, so I’d like to share it, one curse at a time. How nice. That and I’m trying to come up with filler and maybe a hook to keep people coming back—or, to get them to start coming—to the blog. So without further ado, your Irish curse for Saturday, July 12, 2008!
MAY YOU HAVE TO STAND FOR A LONG TIME ON WEAK LEGS
Wow! That’s a scorcher! See you here tomorrow for another installment of…
The Irish curse of the day! (Yea!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)