August 11th, 2009 / 9:40 pm
Author News
Mike Young
Author News
Homemade Penguin Light Box
In the category of indie-news-as-sweet-as-white-shoes, Light Boxes by Shane Jones will be reprinted by Penguin in the Summer of 2010. According to Shane’s blog, there are also some original Publishing Genius copies that will be out soon through SPD. Get one before they’re all on EBay!
First Spike Jonze, and now Penguin. Major props to Shane for having his hard work and serious talent so richly rewarded. And kudos to Adam Robinson for knowing a good thing and helping that good thing go. Pretty exciting to imagine a bunch of new faces buried in the war against February. Honey and smoke!
Wow. Thats cool. Congrats Shane man.
I know you must be smiling inside.
A smile wrapped in a bunch of worry-lines, but still.
Wow. Thats cool. Congrats Shane man.
I know you must be smiling inside.
A smile wrapped in a bunch of worry-lines, but still.
But what about the eerie connections between ‘Light Boxes’ and ‘People of Paper’?
What about the initial connections between
Jones’ new work ‘The Failure Six’ and the basic premise to ‘The Way Through Doors.’
Can someone help me with these questions? I mean don’t get me wrong. I think the book is baller status.
But has anyone else noticed this or am I alone?
But what about the eerie connections between ‘Light Boxes’ and ‘People of Paper’?
What about the initial connections between
Jones’ new work ‘The Failure Six’ and the basic premise to ‘The Way Through Doors.’
Can someone help me with these questions? I mean don’t get me wrong. I think the book is baller status.
But has anyone else noticed this or am I alone?
With that being said. Congrats. That’s out of control. A deserving book to get such press and praise.
Tao Lin who? That’s what I say.
hi TTB (yeah, i can track your ip address).
what about the connections between any book and any other book?
With that being said. Congrats. That’s out of control. A deserving book to get such press and praise.
Tao Lin who? That’s what I say.
hi TTB (yeah, i can track your ip address).
what about the connections between any book and any other book?
i’ve noticed those connections. eerie.
i’ve noticed those connections. eerie.
haha, man, you’d think a pro wrestler wouldn’t need an anonymous name on a comment chain. eesh dude.
mad congrats shane.
haha, man, you’d think a pro wrestler wouldn’t need an anonymous name on a comment chain. eesh dude.
mad congrats shane.
just bought gold teeth. thanks blake.
just bought gold teeth. thanks blake.
!!!!!!! yes!
!!!!!!! yes!
i find this all extremely wonderful and encouraging. i remember shane writing on his blog about trying to get light boxes published, and i feel we’ve all kind of followed this lineage of shane’s success. i’m actually stunned — not because i don’t think it’s warranted, but b/c i just didn’t think it happened this way, that you could write a book and anything was possible. anyways, i feel really happy for you shane and proud.
i find this all extremely wonderful and encouraging. i remember shane writing on his blog about trying to get light boxes published, and i feel we’ve all kind of followed this lineage of shane’s success. i’m actually stunned — not because i don’t think it’s warranted, but b/c i just didn’t think it happened this way, that you could write a book and anything was possible. anyways, i feel really happy for you shane and proud.
jimmy – just dream big and reach for the stars. you are beautiful, no matter what they say, words can’t bring you down.
jimmy – just dream big and reach for the stars. you are beautiful, no matter what they say, words can’t bring you down.
What about the eerie connections between ‘Light Boxes’ and ‘People of Paper’?
What about the eerie connections between ‘Light Boxes’ and ‘People of Paper’?
Sincere Jimmy is my favorite Jimmy. And like him, I’m so happy for you, Shane. *Hug*
Sincere Jimmy is my favorite Jimmy. And like him, I’m so happy for you, Shane. *Hug*
As Shane’s fiance I can assure you that though some similarities might exist Shane Jones never, if rarely ever, but really never, finishes reading anything, so he must be making some of that shit up.
As Shane’s fiance I can assure you that though some similarities might exist Shane Jones never, if rarely ever, but really never, finishes reading anything, so he must be making some of that shit up.
Shane Jones has officially transitioned from phenom to inspiration. Congrats, Shane.
Shane Jones has officially transitioned from phenom to inspiration. Congrats, Shane.
Kudos Shane and Adam. Wonderful news.
Kudos Shane and Adam. Wonderful news.
Thanks Mike and everybody.
Thanks Mike and everybody.
A good Samaritan sent a copy of “Light Boxes” to my house, a cryptic post-it stuck to it. I read it twice, mostly in double-takes. At its most generous Jones’ novella piggybacks on _The People of Paper_.
The central conceit is the same: A man in despair leads a farming town against a mysterious force that lives up in the sky, eventually this celestial force is unveiled as a disheveled writer directing and projecting his sadness to the community below.
That’s at a macro level but there are also tons of one-on-one uncanny parallels.
1.
PoP: Saturn
LB: February
2.
PoP: Monks cry and roll down the sleeves
LB: Priest cry and roll up their sleeves
3.
Saturn attacks with mold
February attacks with moss
4.
El Monte Flores Gang
The War Effort/The Solution
5.
Froggy
Caldor Clemens
6.
Apolonio el Curandero
Professor
I could go on…I could, for pages…
If someone would sends me a PDF (or Word) file of the whole thing, I could even do text block to text block concordances.
A good Samaritan sent a copy of “Light Boxes” to my house, a cryptic post-it stuck to it. I read it twice, mostly in double-takes. At its most generous Jones’ novella piggybacks on _The People of Paper_.
The central conceit is the same: A man in despair leads a farming town against a mysterious force that lives up in the sky, eventually this celestial force is unveiled as a disheveled writer directing and projecting his sadness to the community below.
That’s at a macro level but there are also tons of one-on-one uncanny parallels.
1.
PoP: Saturn
LB: February
2.
PoP: Monks cry and roll down the sleeves
LB: Priest cry and roll up their sleeves
3.
Saturn attacks with mold
February attacks with moss
4.
El Monte Flores Gang
The War Effort/The Solution
5.
Froggy
Caldor Clemens
6.
Apolonio el Curandero
Professor
I could go on…I could, for pages…
If someone would sends me a PDF (or Word) file of the whole thing, I could even do text block to text block concordances.
Light Boxes started after I read a biography of Thaddeus Lowe – a balloonist during the civil war. I placed him in a town with a bunch of characters and just started throwing him into situations and thought “what would happen to a balloonist if there was no flight.”
The idea of February I just thought was funny. Living in the northeast it’s known as one of the worst months and I began writing about February waging a war against Thaddeus Lowe (partially a satire on the northeast mindset during winter that never seems to end).
February being me is something I took from Flaubert when he exclaimed that he was Madam Bovary after writing it. I get depressed during February. My closest friends know this about me. Every year (before writing the book) I always joked at the end of January that February was coming. People looked at me strange. February as a season and me — it just all came together — and that’s where the story went.
That being said, I love People of Paper. Sure, I see some of the connections, how couldn’t I. I also see connections with all of Marquez’s writing, Calvino’s Cosmicomics, Kafka’s lists and notebooks, anyting with balloonists, animals, nature, metafiction in general, the movie Adaptation, most myths/fairy tales for adults…I could go on and on. Just recently someone said the book was like The Brothers Grimm. Another said it was like The Little Prince.
I figure now that the book is “bigger” people are going to put in under a tight microscope. That’s fine. I just hope people enjoy the book.
And ff this is Salvador, you can email me at Sejones85@gmail.com if you want to talk.
Light Boxes started after I read a biography of Thaddeus Lowe – a balloonist during the civil war. I placed him in a town with a bunch of characters and just started throwing him into situations and thought “what would happen to a balloonist if there was no flight.”
The idea of February I just thought was funny. Living in the northeast it’s known as one of the worst months and I began writing about February waging a war against Thaddeus Lowe (partially a satire on the northeast mindset during winter that never seems to end).
February being me is something I took from Flaubert when he exclaimed that he was Madam Bovary after writing it. I get depressed during February. My closest friends know this about me. Every year (before writing the book) I always joked at the end of January that February was coming. People looked at me strange. February as a season and me — it just all came together — and that’s where the story went.
That being said, I love People of Paper. Sure, I see some of the connections, how couldn’t I. I also see connections with all of Marquez’s writing, Calvino’s Cosmicomics, Kafka’s lists and notebooks, anyting with balloonists, animals, nature, metafiction in general, the movie Adaptation, most myths/fairy tales for adults…I could go on and on. Just recently someone said the book was like The Brothers Grimm. Another said it was like The Little Prince.
I figure now that the book is “bigger” people are going to put in under a tight microscope. That’s fine. I just hope people enjoy the book.
And ff this is Salvador, you can email me at Sejones85@gmail.com if you want to talk.
http://www.hobartpulp.com/website/march/sal.html
Hobart: What is something that you stole blatantly outright during the process of writing your book? It could either be in your book or something you used to actually write it, anything.
Plascencia: There was a Chris Mazza story called “Is It Sexual Harassment Yet?” and it’s written in columns with a dueling narrative between the male and the female so these two columns are always battling back and forth, and I really liked that dynamic, of these two columns talking to each other. I read that story and I thought, Why don’t more people do this? So I tried it. I kept trying it and kept trying it and it wasn’t working, and suddenly (what ends up being Chapter One in the novel) I had this kind of third person voice. This little girl and a Mexican wrestler in two different columns, and I put them together and it worked. I thought that I could have these simultaneous, complimentary voices all on one page and that was the moment where I got really excited and thought I can write a whole novel this way. That was the initial plan, but that wasn’t sustainable either. So you have these nice stops. You have a three column chapter, then you take a break and go back to more traditional formatting.
Also, I would read Vonnegut and he had those pictures that he drew and to me it was so liberating and exciting. It made me want to do what he did in terms of pictures in a book. But also, having read Marquez, I thought about how I could make it about that too, so in a way the book became this compilation of all these writers I love.
http://www.hobartpulp.com/website/march/sal.html
Hobart: What is something that you stole blatantly outright during the process of writing your book? It could either be in your book or something you used to actually write it, anything.
Plascencia: There was a Chris Mazza story called “Is It Sexual Harassment Yet?” and it’s written in columns with a dueling narrative between the male and the female so these two columns are always battling back and forth, and I really liked that dynamic, of these two columns talking to each other. I read that story and I thought, Why don’t more people do this? So I tried it. I kept trying it and kept trying it and it wasn’t working, and suddenly (what ends up being Chapter One in the novel) I had this kind of third person voice. This little girl and a Mexican wrestler in two different columns, and I put them together and it worked. I thought that I could have these simultaneous, complimentary voices all on one page and that was the moment where I got really excited and thought I can write a whole novel this way. That was the initial plan, but that wasn’t sustainable either. So you have these nice stops. You have a three column chapter, then you take a break and go back to more traditional formatting.
Also, I would read Vonnegut and he had those pictures that he drew and to me it was so liberating and exciting. It made me want to do what he did in terms of pictures in a book. But also, having read Marquez, I thought about how I could make it about that too, so in a way the book became this compilation of all these writers I love.
tense
tense
I’m not sure what the _Hobart_ cut-and-paste is supposed to prove. That I volunteered, attributed, and acknowledged my influences? That I gave credit and props to the people that influences me instead of being a defensive coy piece of shit? It’s not really thievery when you quote Oscar Wilde and give a nod to Mazza. Also, I borrow and tweak a technique, not an entire universe.
“Light Boxes” reads like _The People of Paper_ disemboweled of its Mexicans and hung out to drip dry in a Sanrio store. Sure, there’s some distortions: Your February is taller than Saturn. Your farmers win the war, my farmers lose. The bee addict’s hair in _PoP_ is singed by the heat of her halo, while in “LB” there’s no justification why the girl smells like honey and smoke.
Some things stay the same: you also put dead bees in mason jars, seek comfort in turtle shells, contemplate the same exact act of violence (knife to the throat, which then drips into the air) against the powerful entity that lives disheveled and heart-broken up in the sky. You declare war on sadness. Your sky sheds pieces of papers. On page 14, a rectangle of black even thought blocks much like Little Merced and the Baby Nostradamus do. And this is just the shit off the top of my head.
The iconic motifs of _People of Paper_ are recapitulated over and over again in “Light Boxes.” And I haven’t even talked about the similarities in the narrative progression and plot pivots…
None of these things, in it of themselves, mean anything. But a multitude of coincidences do.
Does it not strike you as peculiar that every reader that happens to have read _People of Paper_ makes the immediate connection?
Anyhow, this is the last of the steam I will pump into this thread. This is not normally my style.
I’m not sure what the _Hobart_ cut-and-paste is supposed to prove. That I volunteered, attributed, and acknowledged my influences? That I gave credit and props to the people that influences me instead of being a defensive coy piece of shit? It’s not really thievery when you quote Oscar Wilde and give a nod to Mazza. Also, I borrow and tweak a technique, not an entire universe.
“Light Boxes” reads like _The People of Paper_ disemboweled of its Mexicans and hung out to drip dry in a Sanrio store. Sure, there’s some distortions: Your February is taller than Saturn. Your farmers win the war, my farmers lose. The bee addict’s hair in _PoP_ is singed by the heat of her halo, while in “LB” there’s no justification why the girl smells like honey and smoke.
Some things stay the same: you also put dead bees in mason jars, seek comfort in turtle shells, contemplate the same exact act of violence (knife to the throat, which then drips into the air) against the powerful entity that lives disheveled and heart-broken up in the sky. You declare war on sadness. Your sky sheds pieces of papers. On page 14, a rectangle of black even thought blocks much like Little Merced and the Baby Nostradamus do. And this is just the shit off the top of my head.
The iconic motifs of _People of Paper_ are recapitulated over and over again in “Light Boxes.” And I haven’t even talked about the similarities in the narrative progression and plot pivots…
None of these things, in it of themselves, mean anything. But a multitude of coincidences do.
Does it not strike you as peculiar that every reader that happens to have read _People of Paper_ makes the immediate connection?
Anyhow, this is the last of the steam I will pump into this thread. This is not normally my style.
you could have just emailed me.
you could have just emailed me.
My intent for posting the Hobart interview was to expand the dialogue. And it seems to have done just that. Thanks.
My intent for posting the Hobart interview was to expand the dialogue. And it seems to have done just that. Thanks.
this whole conversation is weird. like we’re discussing money, or lumber, or the stock market.
this whole conversation is weird. like we’re discussing money, or lumber, or the stock market.
this conversation has only just become way more interesting and way less weird than the sweet nothings from shane’s friends as above. this is a discussion of vital issues in art making, nothing in here reads at all like money lumber stock market. ryan, you would rather a Public Discussion of “congratulations we love you” “thanks” “yeah congratulations you are the best” “thanks”? I, for one, have never enjoyed reading other people’s yearbooks. And to me, a friend is someone who will call me out and not let me off any self-made hook so easily.
congrats, shane, on your recent success. thank you, sal, for not ‘just emailing’. this is a very important conversation that happens across art forms and i am glad to have the opportunity to be a part of it.
there are massive threads happening right now in contemporary dance about appropriation and stealing that bring up similar issues. in one extreme: a true story from the mid nineties of a very celebrated european choreographer stealing the work of an equally celebrated nyc choreographer. what was stolen? more than just the body gestures but also the intricate floor patterns, which generate a very specific way of moving from moment to moment. nyc-jawn almost sued euro-jawn. i wish i knew why not. not because i believe so strictly in intellectual property rights, but because I want to be able to consider the ramifications and arguments beyond the small thoughts my own limited experience can generate.
to bring it back to here, i would like to hear more from shane and from sal. (how can i ask my questions in way that provokes open response?) this happened. so in the interest of the future…
shane, in good faith, how does it feel, what does it make you think about or question, to have invested yourself in your own artistic practice and come out with a book that is actually so very very similar to something else recently written?
sal, would an acknowledgment of a debt from shane, whether a statement of having made a conscious appropriation or acknowledging a debt of (word please, i’m not a writer), really resolve the issue for you? really?
this conversation has only just become way more interesting and way less weird than the sweet nothings from shane’s friends as above. this is a discussion of vital issues in art making, nothing in here reads at all like money lumber stock market. ryan, you would rather a Public Discussion of “congratulations we love you” “thanks” “yeah congratulations you are the best” “thanks”? I, for one, have never enjoyed reading other people’s yearbooks. And to me, a friend is someone who will call me out and not let me off any self-made hook so easily.
congrats, shane, on your recent success. thank you, sal, for not ‘just emailing’. this is a very important conversation that happens across art forms and i am glad to have the opportunity to be a part of it.
there are massive threads happening right now in contemporary dance about appropriation and stealing that bring up similar issues. in one extreme: a true story from the mid nineties of a very celebrated european choreographer stealing the work of an equally celebrated nyc choreographer. what was stolen? more than just the body gestures but also the intricate floor patterns, which generate a very specific way of moving from moment to moment. nyc-jawn almost sued euro-jawn. i wish i knew why not. not because i believe so strictly in intellectual property rights, but because I want to be able to consider the ramifications and arguments beyond the small thoughts my own limited experience can generate.
to bring it back to here, i would like to hear more from shane and from sal. (how can i ask my questions in way that provokes open response?) this happened. so in the interest of the future…
shane, in good faith, how does it feel, what does it make you think about or question, to have invested yourself in your own artistic practice and come out with a book that is actually so very very similar to something else recently written?
sal, would an acknowledgment of a debt from shane, whether a statement of having made a conscious appropriation or acknowledging a debt of (word please, i’m not a writer), really resolve the issue for you? really?
hi kathryn,
a public yearbook frenzy of ‘congratulations’ etc is really no different to me than public accusations (implied) of how one writer stole (again, implied) an ‘entire universe’ from another. sal has twice presented an itemized receipt of things that are too similar to be mere coicidence (and he says he could go on). shane acknowledged PoP’s influence on lightboxes. the discussion has yet to move beyond any sort of titfortat. so, i observed that i thought this was akin to discussing merchandise, objects, etc. thats all i guess is what i was getting at. sorry if my observation didnt add anything.
the questions youve asked are a good shift in the thread. maybe an actual discussion will begin.
hi kathryn,
a public yearbook frenzy of ‘congratulations’ etc is really no different to me than public accusations (implied) of how one writer stole (again, implied) an ‘entire universe’ from another. sal has twice presented an itemized receipt of things that are too similar to be mere coicidence (and he says he could go on). shane acknowledged PoP’s influence on lightboxes. the discussion has yet to move beyond any sort of titfortat. so, i observed that i thought this was akin to discussing merchandise, objects, etc. thats all i guess is what i was getting at. sorry if my observation didnt add anything.
the questions youve asked are a good shift in the thread. maybe an actual discussion will begin.
I’ve been talking to sal one on one. I admit that images and ideas I had in my head from reading POP made it into LB. I didn’t do this on purpose or with malice or conciously. It was a big influence, yes, and I feel completely sick that sal was angered.we are talking and things are good. I think that is it.
I’ve been talking to sal one on one. I admit that images and ideas I had in my head from reading POP made it into LB. I didn’t do this on purpose or with malice or conciously. It was a big influence, yes, and I feel completely sick that sal was angered.we are talking and things are good. I think that is it.
I’m not saying I will beat Salvador Plascencia’s ass if anything bad comes out of his assholery here, but I’m going to beat Salvador Plascencia’s ass if anything bad comes out his assholery here.
Imagine if every rapper who gets ripped off by ever new hot-as-shit rapper sued over it. They quote each other constantly in their lyrics. Each new rap superhit is a spin-off of the one before it.
What I’m saying is, so what? How does this harm the author of People of Paper?
In another example, nobody has jumped down the leadsinger of the Gaslight Anthem for nodding to multiple other artists in his songs, to include Counting Crows and Bruce Springsteen. He actually says in a song “and Maria came from nashville with a suitcase in her hands, I always kinda sorta wished I looked like Elvis.” In no way does this harm the future of the Counting Crows. If anything it reignited my interest in the lyrics of that band and had me listening to them for a few days.
And all the bands who bogart Animal Collective’s style, everything ever produced under the heavy metal genre?
I’m not saying I will beat Salvador Plascencia’s ass if anything bad comes out of his assholery here, but I’m going to beat Salvador Plascencia’s ass if anything bad comes out his assholery here.
I’m not saying I will beat Salvador Plascencia’s ass if anything bad comes out of his assholery here, but I’m going to beat Salvador Plascencia’s ass if anything bad comes out his assholery here.
Imagine if every rapper who gets ripped off by ever new hot-as-shit rapper sued over it. They quote each other constantly in their lyrics. Each new rap superhit is a spin-off of the one before it.
What I’m saying is, so what? How does this harm the author of People of Paper?
In another example, nobody has jumped down the leadsinger of the Gaslight Anthem for nodding to multiple other artists in his songs, to include Counting Crows and Bruce Springsteen. He actually says in a song “and Maria came from nashville with a suitcase in her hands, I always kinda sorta wished I looked like Elvis.” In no way does this harm the future of the Counting Crows. If anything it reignited my interest in the lyrics of that band and had me listening to them for a few days.
And all the bands who bogart Animal Collective’s style, everything ever produced under the heavy metal genre?
I’m not saying I will beat Salvador Plascencia’s ass if anything bad comes out of his assholery here, but I’m going to beat Salvador Plascencia’s ass if anything bad comes out his assholery here.
the rap comparison is actually interesting, but it’s pretty much completely the opposite of what you’re claiming —
firstly, plascencia never threatened to sue in this thread or anywhere that i’m aware of. secondly, he did do what in rap is called “calling someone out” for what’s called “biting” and in a very intricate manner (which is common, both in live battles and mixtapes). so plascencia, who has never claimed to be a rapper as far as i’m aware, behaved exactly as you would expect a rapper to.
shane jones asked plascencia to email him. i haven’t heard that rap before. he let his friends defend him, but his friends didn’t come up with any good lines. usually a rapper who is called out is expected to answer the accusations himself and maybe come up with some counter-claims.
and you are aware that when rappers sample other rappers or musicians they pay for it, right? i mean, it’s behind the scenes, but that’s why the best records are always being delayed by legal issues. this is all basic stuff.
i haven’t yet mastered the basics of counting crows. probably won’t. but i do know that, for example, the verve never made a dime off bittersweet symphony, because of the rolling stones sample.
you ask, “how does this harm the author of people of paper?” obviously, there’s no direct harm — plascencia is fine as far as i know and will remain that way as long as you don’t try to beat his ass. but you do know that there are rights beyond the rights to the edition you hold in your hands when you read, right? like the movie rights shane jones sold?
as far as i know, plascencia’s film rights never sold. i think it might have been the best novel published in 2005. it was pretty successful. it had an audience. but it was grittier than the reviews let on, and it was about mexican gangsters. they don’t make that movie yet. and don’t bring up edward james olmos to me. what i mean is, have you ever noticed the differences in jazz between black people and white people in the 20s. and also, have you read the people of paper? it would make a great movie. but the world apparently isn’t ready.
finally, i appreciate the blatant aggression, but only insofar as it’s opposed to the passive aggression that informs most of the rest of these responses to plascencia’s claims, on a primal level at least. it let’s me know where you stand. but where you stand is wrong. i’ve enjoyed your contrarian take on things on this site, but what you’re trying to stifle is a writer with beef. stifling his beef — especially when his claims make it look legitimate — makes it seem like someone’s trying to hide something. this should be an open conversation. i guarantee shane jones will come out of it looking better, too.
anyway, i suggest you don’t threaten plascencia again. at least until you can demonstrate some awareness of what the fuck you’re talking about.
the rap comparison is actually interesting, but it’s pretty much completely the opposite of what you’re claiming —
firstly, plascencia never threatened to sue in this thread or anywhere that i’m aware of. secondly, he did do what in rap is called “calling someone out” for what’s called “biting” and in a very intricate manner (which is common, both in live battles and mixtapes). so plascencia, who has never claimed to be a rapper as far as i’m aware, behaved exactly as you would expect a rapper to.
shane jones asked plascencia to email him. i haven’t heard that rap before. he let his friends defend him, but his friends didn’t come up with any good lines. usually a rapper who is called out is expected to answer the accusations himself and maybe come up with some counter-claims.
and you are aware that when rappers sample other rappers or musicians they pay for it, right? i mean, it’s behind the scenes, but that’s why the best records are always being delayed by legal issues. this is all basic stuff.
i haven’t yet mastered the basics of counting crows. probably won’t. but i do know that, for example, the verve never made a dime off bittersweet symphony, because of the rolling stones sample.
you ask, “how does this harm the author of people of paper?” obviously, there’s no direct harm — plascencia is fine as far as i know and will remain that way as long as you don’t try to beat his ass. but you do know that there are rights beyond the rights to the edition you hold in your hands when you read, right? like the movie rights shane jones sold?
as far as i know, plascencia’s film rights never sold. i think it might have been the best novel published in 2005. it was pretty successful. it had an audience. but it was grittier than the reviews let on, and it was about mexican gangsters. they don’t make that movie yet. and don’t bring up edward james olmos to me. what i mean is, have you ever noticed the differences in jazz between black people and white people in the 20s. and also, have you read the people of paper? it would make a great movie. but the world apparently isn’t ready.
finally, i appreciate the blatant aggression, but only insofar as it’s opposed to the passive aggression that informs most of the rest of these responses to plascencia’s claims, on a primal level at least. it let’s me know where you stand. but where you stand is wrong. i’ve enjoyed your contrarian take on things on this site, but what you’re trying to stifle is a writer with beef. stifling his beef — especially when his claims make it look legitimate — makes it seem like someone’s trying to hide something. this should be an open conversation. i guarantee shane jones will come out of it looking better, too.
anyway, i suggest you don’t threaten plascencia again. at least until you can demonstrate some awareness of what the fuck you’re talking about.
[…] this is the best i can do at formulating my thoughts on this. yes, sal plascencia is a friend, but i’m really not at all worked up about any situation between him and shane jones. i am, however, worked up about the range of responses to sal’s accusations, if that’s what you want to call them. i don’t want to summarize them — they’re all right there. all i want to say is: […]
Hmm, I do think this is an interesting discussion and worthwhile. As someone who doesn’t know either Sal or Shane personally (but read People of Paper and quite enjoyed it and whose magazine published a few stories of Shane’s) I think the language from some of the friends of both could cool a bit. No neat to talk about beating people up or calling everyone sycophants.
I would also say that there is nothing contradictory about wanting an open dialogue AND a closed one. ie, I don’t think there is anything sketchy about Shane asking Sal to email him personally. I would expect all of us in a community like this to want to have some personal discussion. That doesn’t mean a public dialogue can’t go on.
Plagiarism is a tricky thing. I haven’t read LIght Boxes yet, though it has been on my to read shelf, so I can’t really comment there.
We’ve been talking about rap music but while it is true that concrete samples are paid for, it is also true that rappers will quote other rappers lines without payment often as sort of an homage (maybe there is some Tarantino reference to be brought up here.) Maybe Shane saw it this way? I’ve concieved of projects along those lines, and the space between acceptable homage and rip-off is never very defined.
And of course, rappers will also bite styles and images from each other all the time.
But again, I haven’t read LB so can’t compare. Just sayin’, no reason not to keep it civil which it mostly has been.
Hmm, I do think this is an interesting discussion and worthwhile. As someone who doesn’t know either Sal or Shane personally (but read People of Paper and quite enjoyed it and whose magazine published a few stories of Shane’s) I think the language from some of the friends of both could cool a bit. No neat to talk about beating people up or calling everyone sycophants.
I would also say that there is nothing contradictory about wanting an open dialogue AND a closed one. ie, I don’t think there is anything sketchy about Shane asking Sal to email him personally. I would expect all of us in a community like this to want to have some personal discussion. That doesn’t mean a public dialogue can’t go on.
Plagiarism is a tricky thing. I haven’t read LIght Boxes yet, though it has been on my to read shelf, so I can’t really comment there.
We’ve been talking about rap music but while it is true that concrete samples are paid for, it is also true that rappers will quote other rappers lines without payment often as sort of an homage (maybe there is some Tarantino reference to be brought up here.) Maybe Shane saw it this way? I’ve concieved of projects along those lines, and the space between acceptable homage and rip-off is never very defined.
And of course, rappers will also bite styles and images from each other all the time.
But again, I haven’t read LB so can’t compare. Just sayin’, no reason not to keep it civil which it mostly has been.
christian,
just read your ‘fuckit’ post. i followed the link to jen’s blog post.
hers i think is more interesting than the current direction of this thread at htlmgiant:
“the thing is, this is all based on a model of literature that might be sort of “wrong,” a way of looking at literature as a product, rather than some kind of codependent organism that evolves like everything else on this planet. if you’re making a “product” of course you can’t rip off anyone else, because there are copyright issues; but obviously art should not be a product in this sense. so why are we – or why am I, I guess – going around seeing if people are ripping off other artists all the time?
because, really, when I read shane jones’ book and got over the similarities to POP, I thought it was extremely genuine and sincere, which is a quality I require in art. and if it was building on another book so what? like I said before, you can’t have a totally original idea in your head, just new combinations. light boxes has some new combinations that POP didn’t have, so really, it is a new part of the growing organism that is art.
at the same time I am anxious that I’m just changing my view so that I can justify ripping off DFW, so that it isn’t so much “ripping him off” as it is carrying on a tradition that he articulated and that I totally, completely agree with. I’m still putting my own life into it, my own thoughts, the things I want to get across, but I so agree with DFW’s goals as far as fiction goes that I feel it would go against myself to just decide not to emulate them because they’re not totally original.”
while i think its not useful to speak of plagiarism in this case, i do like thinking about what jen said in the above quoted paragraphs.
christian,
just read your ‘fuckit’ post. i followed the link to jen’s blog post.
hers i think is more interesting than the current direction of this thread at htlmgiant:
“the thing is, this is all based on a model of literature that might be sort of “wrong,” a way of looking at literature as a product, rather than some kind of codependent organism that evolves like everything else on this planet. if you’re making a “product” of course you can’t rip off anyone else, because there are copyright issues; but obviously art should not be a product in this sense. so why are we – or why am I, I guess – going around seeing if people are ripping off other artists all the time?
because, really, when I read shane jones’ book and got over the similarities to POP, I thought it was extremely genuine and sincere, which is a quality I require in art. and if it was building on another book so what? like I said before, you can’t have a totally original idea in your head, just new combinations. light boxes has some new combinations that POP didn’t have, so really, it is a new part of the growing organism that is art.
at the same time I am anxious that I’m just changing my view so that I can justify ripping off DFW, so that it isn’t so much “ripping him off” as it is carrying on a tradition that he articulated and that I totally, completely agree with. I’m still putting my own life into it, my own thoughts, the things I want to get across, but I so agree with DFW’s goals as far as fiction goes that I feel it would go against myself to just decide not to emulate them because they’re not totally original.”
while i think its not useful to speak of plagiarism in this case, i do like thinking about what jen said in the above quoted paragraphs.
whoa whoa, hold up here a second: that comment was really actually salvador plascencia?? i felt sure at first on reading that it was just a commenter trying to be funny in commenting under that name, to add some potential hysteria to the otherwise strange act of an author publicly dissecting his work again another in an online forum in trying to bruise another, similar book.
but really? that was truly the author? i feel honestly repulsed. i feel honestly like someone has just a bit too much of a sense of entitlement to their ‘creation,’ that they think they have the rights to the ideas of a book clearly also influenced by several specific sources therein reworked into one’s own voice, in the same way most any other book does, consciously or unconsciously, with very few exceptions.
i am saying this w/o regard to the idea of ‘protecting shane’. shane is a big boy, and can clearly handle his own slander. i just find it absolutely wild that an author of a book would come to the table with a checkpoint laundry list of his ‘owned creation’s’ attributes, and therein pimp them like his was the solely gleaming and never-before-conceived contribution to the world of letters.
i dont care how many implicit similarities there are to the books. what do you want, a stamp on Light Boxes that says ‘Warning: Heavily Influenced by Sal Plascencia’? shouldn’t then your book, Mr. Plascencia, if that truly is indeed you, (which i honestly pray is not, as i’d like to not associate such a prideful and strange trait to the author of such a brilliant book), shouldn’t then the ‘People of Paper’ come with a set of stickers that says Warning: Heavily Influenced by Calvino, Borges, Coover, shit man, years and years worth of inherited writing?
I am not being disingenuous in saying that I believe an?p=13296#comment-23213y book could be understood as connected to any other book, ever, and that nobody owns shit when it comes to literary dramatic and functional strategies. to act like the implicit owner of a language’s idea or a series of ideas makes me fear for the consistency of wishful importance in that person.
make.
whoa whoa, hold up here a second: that comment was really actually salvador plascencia?? i felt sure at first on reading that it was just a commenter trying to be funny in commenting under that name, to add some potential hysteria to the otherwise strange act of an author publicly dissecting his work again another in an online forum in trying to bruise another, similar book.
but really? that was truly the author? i feel honestly repulsed. i feel honestly like someone has just a bit too much of a sense of entitlement to their ‘creation,’ that they think they have the rights to the ideas of a book clearly also influenced by several specific sources therein reworked into one’s own voice, in the same way most any other book does, consciously or unconsciously, with very few exceptions.
i am saying this w/o regard to the idea of ‘protecting shane’. shane is a big boy, and can clearly handle his own slander. i just find it absolutely wild that an author of a book would come to the table with a checkpoint laundry list of his ‘owned creation’s’ attributes, and therein pimp them like his was the solely gleaming and never-before-conceived contribution to the world of letters.
i dont care how many implicit similarities there are to the books. what do you want, a stamp on Light Boxes that says ‘Warning: Heavily Influenced by Sal Plascencia’? shouldn’t then your book, Mr. Plascencia, if that truly is indeed you, (which i honestly pray is not, as i’d like to not associate such a prideful and strange trait to the author of such a brilliant book), shouldn’t then the ‘People of Paper’ come with a set of stickers that says Warning: Heavily Influenced by Calvino, Borges, Coover, shit man, years and years worth of inherited writing?
I am not being disingenuous in saying that I believe an?p=13296#comment-23213y book could be understood as connected to any other book, ever, and that nobody owns shit when it comes to literary dramatic and functional strategies. to act like the implicit owner of a language’s idea or a series of ideas makes me fear for the consistency of wishful importance in that person.
make.
here is a post i just left at Christians blog:
hey christian,
this post is smart and insightful and I agree with you. i think the post by PH (someone i’ve never met and don’t consider a friend) took things in a really wrong direction. i can’t control what people say on that blog. i wish he wouldn’t have acted that way, and in a way, i wish i would have acted differently.
i see what you mean by perception. my reaction to sal’s post was “whoa, here is a writer that i love really angered by me and that hurts me why don’t i offer a one on one with him?” that was just my gut reaction and at the time it felt honest and i did it. i also sent sal my personal phone number if he wanted to call me. i just wanted a chance to talk with him and not have the usual blog post banter and nonsene that usually takes place. maybe it wasn’t the right thing to do or way to react, but i did it and take responsibility for it.
anyways, i feel completely sick about the whole situation. i haven’t been sleeping or eating. just the idea that I have unintentionally hurt another writer, and one that i hold in very high esteem, makes my stomach turn. you’re right, i’ve never denied being influenced by people of paper. i love that book. it makes my book possible in many ways. people have compared the two and that’s fine. i believe they are both solid works of art that deserve to be read and from what i do know, both have been enjoyed by many people and will continue to do so, i hope.
i really don’t know what else to say. i’ve been talking to sal and he seems to be a very cool and smart guy and i wish i had talked to him before and been more up-front about the connections between the two books and my respect and the many ways i’m indebted to his work.
anyways, thanks for interjecting your intellect on HTMLGIANT and here. kind of refreshing.
i’ts currently 4am. i feel like a zombie.
yup, now rambling. hopefully i’ve made some sense on this post. maybe i’ll see you in albany again?
also, i may take a break from checking blogs so don’t take it personally if i don’t respond to another comment here. i just need a break.
here is a post i just left at Christians blog:
hey christian,
this post is smart and insightful and I agree with you. i think the post by PH (someone i’ve never met and don’t consider a friend) took things in a really wrong direction. i can’t control what people say on that blog. i wish he wouldn’t have acted that way, and in a way, i wish i would have acted differently.
i see what you mean by perception. my reaction to sal’s post was “whoa, here is a writer that i love really angered by me and that hurts me why don’t i offer a one on one with him?” that was just my gut reaction and at the time it felt honest and i did it. i also sent sal my personal phone number if he wanted to call me. i just wanted a chance to talk with him and not have the usual blog post banter and nonsene that usually takes place. maybe it wasn’t the right thing to do or way to react, but i did it and take responsibility for it.
anyways, i feel completely sick about the whole situation. i haven’t been sleeping or eating. just the idea that I have unintentionally hurt another writer, and one that i hold in very high esteem, makes my stomach turn. you’re right, i’ve never denied being influenced by people of paper. i love that book. it makes my book possible in many ways. people have compared the two and that’s fine. i believe they are both solid works of art that deserve to be read and from what i do know, both have been enjoyed by many people and will continue to do so, i hope.
i really don’t know what else to say. i’ve been talking to sal and he seems to be a very cool and smart guy and i wish i had talked to him before and been more up-front about the connections between the two books and my respect and the many ways i’m indebted to his work.
anyways, thanks for interjecting your intellect on HTMLGIANT and here. kind of refreshing.
i’ts currently 4am. i feel like a zombie.
yup, now rambling. hopefully i’ve made some sense on this post. maybe i’ll see you in albany again?
also, i may take a break from checking blogs so don’t take it personally if i don’t respond to another comment here. i just need a break.
Yeah well my apologies for acting that way, Shane. Only because it gave the haters more to hate on. Yeah, if I were in your shoes I’d just be totally away from the internet for awhile, since I wouldn’t have any projects that demand it at that point.
Yeah well my apologies for acting that way, Shane. Only because it gave the haters more to hate on. Yeah, if I were in your shoes I’d just be totally away from the internet for awhile, since I wouldn’t have any projects that demand it at that point.
Its all good. I’m getting married in four weeks, my job is insane, book stuff…just adds up.
And look,I’m still checking blogs. I need a new hobby. Maybe I’ll collect trains or something.
Its all good. I’m getting married in four weeks, my job is insane, book stuff…just adds up.
And look,I’m still checking blogs. I need a new hobby. Maybe I’ll collect trains or something.
I have been following this exchange for a while now and as the waves seemed to have stopped crashing for the moment I cant quite get out of my head what you wrote the other day, to wit:
What I’m saying is, so what? How does this harm the author of People of Paper?
I could write a book – ha – in answer to your question. Let me state simply this, the creative process begins with the individual, begins with the integrity of the author and his/her ability to put pen to paper and create their own work. Influence is not only alright, it is all but essential. But influence is quite different from stealing someone else’s work. What harm you ask? The damage is so fundamental, so extreme, that the mere asking of the question insults the entire arena in which art is born. You may say ‘Come on Gillis, get off your high horse,’ and that is your right. For me though, as a writer, and publisher, the very idea of taking someone else’s work and adopting it as my own is so antithetical to why I write and publish as to make your question shocking. What harm to the author of People of Paper? The harm is that this author sweated and sacrificed and put his heart and soul into a book and then someone came along and lifted his work product, his effort and integrity, and took a short cut to creating a second book based on POP’s sweat and blood. The harm is immeasurable. It undermines everything that we as artists and writers are supposed to be about and speaks all too clearly to the ‘me first’ and shortcut and soundbite society that we have unfortunately come to live. The harm is off the charts. The harm is already done when the very question can even be asked.
I have been following this exchange for a while now and as the waves seemed to have stopped crashing for the moment I cant quite get out of my head what you wrote the other day, to wit:
What I’m saying is, so what? How does this harm the author of People of Paper?
I could write a book – ha – in answer to your question. Let me state simply this, the creative process begins with the individual, begins with the integrity of the author and his/her ability to put pen to paper and create their own work. Influence is not only alright, it is all but essential. But influence is quite different from stealing someone else’s work. What harm you ask? The damage is so fundamental, so extreme, that the mere asking of the question insults the entire arena in which art is born. You may say ‘Come on Gillis, get off your high horse,’ and that is your right. For me though, as a writer, and publisher, the very idea of taking someone else’s work and adopting it as my own is so antithetical to why I write and publish as to make your question shocking. What harm to the author of People of Paper? The harm is that this author sweated and sacrificed and put his heart and soul into a book and then someone came along and lifted his work product, his effort and integrity, and took a short cut to creating a second book based on POP’s sweat and blood. The harm is immeasurable. It undermines everything that we as artists and writers are supposed to be about and speaks all too clearly to the ‘me first’ and shortcut and soundbite society that we have unfortunately come to live. The harm is off the charts. The harm is already done when the very question can even be asked.
I have been following this exchange for a while now and as the waves seemed to have stopped crashing for the moment I cant quite get out of my head what PHM wrote the other day, to wit:
What I’m saying is, so what? How does this harm the author of People of Paper?
I could write a book – ha – in answer to your question. Let me state simply this, the creative process begins with the individual, begins with the integrity of the author and his/her ability to put pen to paper and create their own work. Influence is not only alright, it is all but essential. But influence is quite different from stealing someone else’s work. What harm you ask? The damage is so fundamental, so extreme, that the mere asking of the question insults the entire arena in which art is born. You may say ‘Come on Gillis, get off your high horse,’ and that is your right. For me though, as a writer, and publisher, the very idea of taking someone else’s work and adopting it as my own is so antithetical to why I write and publish as to make your question shocking. What harm to the author of People of Paper? The harm is that this author sweated and sacrificed and put his heart and soul into a book and then someone came along and lifted his work product, his effort and integrity, and took a short cut to creating a second book based on POP’s sweat and blood. The harm is immeasurable. It undermines everything that we as artists and writers are supposed to be about and speaks all too clearly to the ‘me first’ and shortcut and soundbite society that we have unfortunately come to live. The harm is off the charts. The harm is already done when the very question can even be asked.
I have been following this exchange for a while now and as the waves seemed to have stopped crashing for the moment I cant quite get out of my head what PHM wrote the other day, to wit:
What I’m saying is, so what? How does this harm the author of People of Paper?
I could write a book – ha – in answer to your question. Let me state simply this, the creative process begins with the individual, begins with the integrity of the author and his/her ability to put pen to paper and create their own work. Influence is not only alright, it is all but essential. But influence is quite different from stealing someone else’s work. What harm you ask? The damage is so fundamental, so extreme, that the mere asking of the question insults the entire arena in which art is born. You may say ‘Come on Gillis, get off your high horse,’ and that is your right. For me though, as a writer, and publisher, the very idea of taking someone else’s work and adopting it as my own is so antithetical to why I write and publish as to make your question shocking. What harm to the author of People of Paper? The harm is that this author sweated and sacrificed and put his heart and soul into a book and then someone came along and lifted his work product, his effort and integrity, and took a short cut to creating a second book based on POP’s sweat and blood. The harm is immeasurable. It undermines everything that we as artists and writers are supposed to be about and speaks all too clearly to the ‘me first’ and shortcut and soundbite society that we have unfortunately come to live. The harm is off the charts. The harm is already done when the very question can even be asked.
[…] Recently he leveled charges of plagarism against Shane Jones and his book Light Boxes. […]
[…] “Homemade Penguin Light Box,” by Mike Young & “Books? Fall Apart,” by Shya Scanlon […]
I wondered what came of this. Strangely, and by pure serendipity, it took a trip to Korea and rooming with a guy who is a childhood friend of Placencia to satisfy my curiosity. Anyhow, this Mexican dude who wears USC gear and is always talking about Vegas sports odds– a nice dude but not exactly the kind of guy you would expect to be reading a Publishing Genius copy of “Light Boxes” AND a galley of the yet to be issued Penguin edition.
Well, he had them both. And they were flagged by post-its and notes made by Plascencia. He told me Plascencia (he called him “Chubby.” Some Junior High nickname, he said) sent him the books and a monster twenty page essay about “Light Boxes” and “People of Paper” to look over. I didn’t get a look at the essay but I did manage to page through the two copies of “Light Boxes” and the notes.
One, Plascecia’s handwriting is shit. Two, I haven’t read “PoP” in years, so I wasn’t able to really make sense of the pencil underlines. Three, Jones is a way faster read than Plascencia; I read the book Indian-style on a berber dorm carpet without getting up once. Four, some pink post-its cross-referenced the two “LB” editions and I noticed three things: 1) Jones has taken out the priests sleeve scene mentioned in Plascencia’s post. 2) The “Baby Nostradamus” box is also gone in the new edition. 3) Jones has inserted Plascencia’s name into one of his lists.
Does this mean some sort of truce happened?
I wondered what came of this. Strangely, and by pure serendipity, it took a trip to Korea and rooming with a guy who is a childhood friend of Placencia to satisfy my curiosity. Anyhow, this Mexican dude who wears USC gear and is always talking about Vegas sports odds– a nice dude but not exactly the kind of guy you would expect to be reading a Publishing Genius copy of “Light Boxes” AND a galley of the yet to be issued Penguin edition.
Well, he had them both. And they were flagged by post-its and notes made by Plascencia. He told me Plascencia (he called him “Chubby.” Some Junior High nickname, he said) sent him the books and a monster twenty page essay about “Light Boxes” and “People of Paper” to look over. I didn’t get a look at the essay but I did manage to page through the two copies of “Light Boxes” and the notes.
One, Plascecia’s handwriting is shit. Two, I haven’t read “PoP” in years, so I wasn’t able to really make sense of the pencil underlines. Three, Jones is a way faster read than Plascencia; I read the book Indian-style on a berber dorm carpet without getting up once. Four, some pink post-its cross-referenced the two “LB” editions and I noticed three things: 1) Jones has taken out the priests sleeve scene mentioned in Plascencia’s post. 2) The “Baby Nostradamus” box is also gone in the new edition. 3) Jones has inserted Plascencia’s name into one of his lists.
Does this mean some sort of truce happened?