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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

And look,I’m still checking blogs. I need a new hobby. Maybe I’ll collect trains or something.

And look,I’m still checking blogs. I need a new hobby. Maybe I’ll collect trains or something.