March 19th, 2010 / 2:10 pm
Random
A. Pope, Tao Lin, and HTML Giant walk into a bar…
This past week, there have been several blogs (plus the mention in the New Yorker) about Tao Lin and the reviews lodged for and against him. To be fair, I haven’t read much of Tao’s work, but I am entrenched in the pure spectacle of “Tao Lin.” Mostly out of boredom but partly because I can’t get away from it, even if I wanted to.
But consider this, in his Author’s Preface, Alexander Pope argues, “Poetry and criticism [are] by no means the universal concern of the world, but only the affair of idle men who write in their closets, and of idle men who read there.” So I’m back to the question of boredom. Why do we care who says what about Tao? And here, just look back at the comment streams about Tao. People seem to do more than simply “care.” They’re invested! I barely have time to care about the reviews written about my friends, much less any other contemporary. I have no desire to be an idle man writing in my closet, nor an idle man reading there.
It doesn’t matter much to me whether or not Tao (or any other writer, for that matter) cultivates this particular brand of hype. My concern has to do with the unabashed responses that indicate how very right Pope is. Even this post reinforces Pope’s argument that I’m simply an idle man—or woman in this case—reading in a closet.
Later, Pope writes, “I was never so concerned about my works as to vindicate them in print; believing, if anything was good, it would defend itself, and what was bad could never be defended. I used no artifice to raise or continue a reputation, depreciated no dead author I was obliged to, bribed no living one with unjust praise, insulted no adversary with ill language; or, when I could not attack a rival’s works, encouraged reports against his morals.” I’ve said and written some stupid things. Let them be what they are. Stupidity should not be defended. Bad writing should not be defended. Good writing can defend itself. But what’s happened here over this past week seems to have little to do with writing and everything do with the writer, and arguably, it doesn’t even have to do with the writer but the image the writer has created for himself. This, to me, is disgusting. I could care less about what your thoughts on Tao Lin the spectacle are. If his writing is bad, let the reviews say it, but if it’s defendable, let’s not get caught in the closets of the internet.
In the end, this isn’t about Tao. I have no investment in the guy. I don’t know him. I haven’t read his books. I do, however, care about the evident boredom people display in their comments about him. Why do you care? Furthermore, why the fuck do I care that you care? Aren’t there fundamentally more interesting and worthwhile things to discuss?
So, I’ll end with Pope, once more, who says about collecting his poems for publication: “I am altogether uncertain, whether to look upon myself as a man building a monument, or burying the dead.” Rather than blast off—yet again—about Tao Lin, wouldn’t you rather talk about whether publishing is building a monument or burying the dead? To me, it’s a vastly more provocative discussion.
Tags: alexander pope, new yorker, Tao Lin
poets who are men or women in closets and not engaged in life and risk are not only bad poets but uninteresting people. Discussions about other poets are necessary to comprehend the work in general. With no one talking about the work it may as well not exist at all. I may be overstating, I may not be, but we can talk about binding, burying or building – but when you talk nothing gets accomplished in Pope’s view – (extended, as it would follow, from the quote) Let us talk of the building of monuments or even better the breaking of the US education system which teaches us to read Pope and my own work. Let us discuss these seemingly more important and provocative topics – what do we have at the end of the day? nothing. With talking about poets, like me for instance, at the end of the day you have another view of a large world only made small by a lack of understanding. I would rather my view of the worlds be discussed but since it isn’t up for debate yet, I’ll gladly weigh in on Tao – whose work I did and I don’t recall it being out and out praise.
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 2:54 pmanon—
John Cage says: “nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of music // nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music // nothing is accomplished by playing a piece of music.”
JC would probably agree: “nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of literature // nothing is accomplished by reading a piece of literature // nothing is accomplished by talking about a piece of literature.”
Anon says: “nothing is accomplished by not writing a piece of literature // nothing is accomplished by not reading a piece of literature // nothing is accomplished by not talking about a piece of literature.”
JC: “our ears are now in excellent condition.”
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 3:05 pmJimmy Chen—
nothing is accomplished by listening to nothing for 4 minutes and 33 seconds
i’m tired of existential nihilism. we are alive, there are things to do.
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 3:15 pmanon—
I agree. I don’t see how ‘writing poetry in the closet’ is not ‘engaging in life,’ though. ‘Intellectual pursuits’ vs. ‘real life’ is a false dichotomy.
March 19th, 2010 / 3:43 pmNathan Tyree—
existential nihilism is a thing to do
March 19th, 2010 / 3:49 pmryan—
everything is accomplished by listening to nothing.
March 19th, 2010 / 6:35 pmMatthew Simmons—
“who you calling an existential nihilist,” asks john cage. there are few more life affirming figures in the history of art. “we are alive, listen!” is the whole point of 4′ 33″.
March 20th, 2010 / 8:32 amTim Horvath—
There is, of course, a lot more to Cage than that piece. For instance, on a whim I downloaded “Variations IV” recently….it’s closer to trying to encompass or imply everything rather than nothing. If you graft his nothing onto his plenitude you get more affirmation than many a 12 step program.
reply
March 20th, 2010 / 11:40 amsteve ro—
i agree with anon: “I don’t see how ‘writing poetry in the closet’ is not ‘engaging in life’ . . . ‘Intellectual pursuits’ vs. ‘real life’ is a false dichotomy.”
i’ve never been convinced by the teachers who constantly refer to hemingway driving an ambulance in europe or going to africa on a safari or whatever. i think i’m more interested in writers describing stuff that i will actually do, too, like sitting in my room, or walking outside, on the sidewalk
March 20th, 2010 / 12:19 pmmimi—
And let’s not forget dear Emily Dickinson, who longed to retreat (and eventually did) to her room to write, but instead was burdened (thus engaged) by the real-life, every-day responsibilities imposed upon her by her family and society (her father in particular, and his standing in the local community; her ailing mother). Oh the “stuff” she describes!
wonder why these posts don’t link tao’s blog with his name
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 2:48 pmLily Hoang—
I’ve linked him. Thank you.
reply
The stench of fame calls out to the jackals.
less talk more work, less talk more work…
Boredom is a central element of living today, I want to discuss that and it seems, from the little I read, Tao Lin does wade in on this mood (unmood?).
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 2:42 pmstephen—
The mildew of pretentious, holier-than-thou sanctimony beckons to the joyless underground artiste.
no offense, just thought it’d be fun to try and play with your phrase.
reply
Would you still hold this position if it was Lily Hoang everyone was talking about instead of Tao Lin?
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 2:38 pmLily Hoang—
Yes. There’s no need for personal attacks, on Tao or otherwise. If you dislike the writing, fine. Criticize it. If you dislike the person, that’s a whole different story.
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 2:44 pmstephen—
Oh, OK. Maybe i read your post wrong.
reply
what if you replaced the word spectacle with performance?
reply
March 20th, 2010 / 3:57 amNate Z—
Yes, this is, in part, performance art. Poetry is looking beyond the type and including multiple mediums in its presentation.
reply
I am okay with idleness.
reply
this post is meta
reply
March 23rd, 2010 / 7:16 amzusya—
no, this one is.
reply
About 172,000 books are published each year in the US. More English-language books were published in 2009 than in the entire 18th century. A writer today that doesn’t promote herself and doesn’t have a team of people promoting her will not be read. Tao Lin wants people to read his books.
reply
I wouldn’t say building a monument, exactly, but maybe creating something that will live on after death? It’s not the only, or even the greatest reason for publication, but I’d like something of mine to live on after I’m gone, and since I may not have kids I guess that’s my writing. I don’t need to be famous, though. Just not existing in a void. Just not disappeared after death. (I’m also an agnostic and I don’t believe in an afterlife, so for me it’s sort of more important than maybe for other people to have some bit of me lingering on here in the world after I die.)
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 4:40 pm(Ass-Brackets)—
No one is going to know who Tao Lin is in a hundred years. No one is going to know who 99.9999% of the people alive today are in a hundred years. Artistic immortality is for the select few, and it is usually reserved for those who never knew that that’s what was in store for them. Kafka died unknown and wanted all of work destroyed. Melville was persona non grata when he died. Write because you can’t not write. Your life means nothing in the long run. People who write because they want to leave something behind are engaged in a fool’s errand. You want to pin your name to the jacket of history? Kill a president or a pop star, and save the rest of us your “monuments.”
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 5:14 pmVaughan Simons—
“No one is going to know who Tao Lin is in a hundred years.”
Erm, I hate to point this out, but most *average* people don’t know who Tao Lin is now. His fame definitely resides within a very selective niche. I’m guessing that more people have heard of Kafka.
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 5:39 pm(Ass-Brackets)—
His fame resides within your circle. Which is a real shame. This website has the potential to be really great. Everyone here is very passionate about writing and has interesting tastes in books and music and movies, yet there is a tone of smugness that hovers over this site that makes it hard to root for either anyone associated with it or the friends they pimp for.
March 19th, 2010 / 5:42 pmZZZZIPP—
SOMETIMES IT IS LIKE THAT, BUT I HAVE ALSO READ SO MUCH GREAT STUFF BECAUSE OF THIS WEBSITE
March 19th, 2010 / 5:59 pmAmber—
Two things, anon with the oh-so-clever name. First–did you read what I said? Because I specifically said I *didn’t* need to have monuments, nor fame. Just a little piece of something left behind. I don’t care if nobody knows who I am. Like having a kid, you know? Second–did I say anything about Tao Lin? No. I did not. I was talking about me. Following Lily’s suggestion to have a productive discussion about publishing and not about Tao Lin. But since you appear to have not read the post or my comments closely, you immediately jumped to Tao Lin. (Obsessed much?)
You know, I don’t mind arguing with Anons. But when they don’t even bother to read or have a cohesive argument or basic level of respect, I fail to see the point. I’m only responding to you to clarify my point for others on here who are not trolls.
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 6:43 pmJimmy Chen—
shouldn’t you be “[Ass-Brackets]“?
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 8:33 pmStu—
Jimmy, I was thinking the same thing.
March 20th, 2010 / 12:02 pmmimi—
No, because these:
)(
look like ass cheeks.
March 22nd, 2010 / 1:13 pmZZZZIPP—
THAT’S TRUE MIMI BUT JUSTIN NAMED ASS-BRACKETS I THINK
BEFORE HE WAS JUST NOTHING “( )”
Pope was a vicious and persistent literary street fighter. He was perfectly willing to go after his critics, and did so.
I think you probably ought to read more Tao Lin before you insist that there is a vast amount of daylight between his promotional self and his work. Not to say either is bad, just that there is an important and self-imposed relationship between the two.
I adore the fact that you were asked to link to his blog.
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 4:41 pm(Ass-Brackets)—
Tao is a Flavor of the Month. If he was smart he would start branding his own line of frozen confections and do something with that marketing ability of his.
reply
I think every fucking post on this site should include Lao Tin.
reply
March 22nd, 2010 / 12:02 pmrion—
Uh…every fucking post on this site does mention Tao Lin.
reply
March 22nd, 2010 / 12:38 pmstephen—
i like the name “rion.” seems like a nice name.
reply
March 23rd, 2010 / 12:47 pmrion—
Thanks….you can license it for use as a first or middle name for your son or daughter.
You say interesting things here, Lily. Very interesting.
reply
March 19th, 2010 / 7:39 pmMatty Byloos—
Back to Lily, wise choice. Sometimes it’s interesting when the tangents pop up in the comments, but most times not — especially when the post itself is worthy of the direct attention.
reply
I think anyone who wants to understand why people are so fascinated with Tao Lin would do well to read Blake’s essay yesterday about bluffing.
reply
this post is trying to piggy-back off of bsg’s post’s populairty
reply
March 20th, 2010 / 1:39 pmanon—
BSG = BATTLE STAR GALACTICA
reply
March 22nd, 2010 / 12:39 pmstephen—
The Notorious B.S.G.
reply
March 23rd, 2010 / 7:18 amzusya—
http://www.bsg.org.uk/
[...] Hoang at HTMLGIANT wonders about the discussion surrounding Tao Lin: “I do, however, care about the evident boredom people display in their comments about him. [...]
This post should time travel to the amazing year 2007.
reply
If Tao Lin does not write a poem, then his critics will fail to envy him.
reply
I wonder if anyone here is aware of the Tao Lin of Comix . . . BLAISE LARMEE.
Here’s an example. http://cometscomets.blogspot.com/2010/04/on-tabling.html
reply