http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/14661/ the internet literature magazine blog of the future Thu, 24 May 2012 23:44:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/14661/comment-page-1/#comment-25767 Riley Michael Parker Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:21:14 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14661#comment-25767 This thread is on the heels of the towering authors conversation, but it is indeed a different conversation, one that, as Ryan mentioned, has to do with taste, which is subjective. What stuck out to me, however, was the end of Matthew's question and the word "important". Between this conversation and the previous one, I personally do not feel that a majority of the authors listed are important by any means. Like I said before, I don't think they are bad writers, and in no way do I challenge their ability, but they are not doing anything that I recognize as new or innovative, and therefore are not important to the future, or even the present, of literature. These people are simply participating. At the end of my list I mentioned Jeffrey Eugenides and Marilynne Robinson, because I like them and part of this conversation is about taste, but I would not argue that they are important living authors. Gary Lutz, on the other hand, I see as being very important. Book sales and publishing houses do not necessarily reflect a writer's importance in the long run, but I will agree with D that one book on a small press does not make someone a towering author. Personally, my taste does not include a lot of those who are known to tower, nor do I see them as important to the overall landscape of modern literature. In my opinion, all of our important living authors are still young and developing their craft, like Chelsea and Zachary, and with any luck these people might end up the towerers of tomorrow, only to be dethroned by the next group of important writers. From these conversations I have to conclude that I just have different standards for what makes a writer important, and I may look foolish for it at the moment, but oh well to that. These are my favorite writers and the ones that I feel are the most important, whether they tower or not, because they are daring to do something new. This thread is on the heels of the towering authors conversation, but it is indeed a different conversation, one that, as Ryan mentioned, has to do with taste, which is subjective. What stuck out to me, however, was the end of Matthew’s question and the word “important”. Between this conversation and the previous one, I personally do not feel that a majority of the authors listed are important by any means. Like I said before, I don’t think they are bad writers, and in no way do I challenge their ability, but they are not doing anything that I recognize as new or innovative, and therefore are not important to the future, or even the present, of literature. These people are simply participating. At the end of my list I mentioned Jeffrey Eugenides and Marilynne Robinson, because I like them and part of this conversation is about taste, but I would not argue that they are important living authors. Gary Lutz, on the other hand, I see as being very important. Book sales and publishing houses do not necessarily reflect a writer’s importance in the long run, but I will agree with D that one book on a small press does not make someone a towering author. Personally, my taste does not include a lot of those who are known to tower, nor do I see them as important to the overall landscape of modern literature. In my opinion, all of our important living authors are still young and developing their craft, like Chelsea and Zachary, and with any luck these people might end up the towerers of tomorrow, only to be dethroned by the next group of important writers. From these conversations I have to conclude that I just have different standards for what makes a writer important, and I may look foolish for it at the moment, but oh well to that. These are my favorite writers and the ones that I feel are the most important, whether they tower or not, because they are daring to do something new.

]]> http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/14661/comment-page-1/#comment-115496 Riley Michael Parker Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:21:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14661#comment-115496 This thread is on the heels of the towering authors conversation, but it is indeed a different conversation, one that, as Ryan mentioned, has to do with taste, which is subjective. What stuck out to me, however, was the end of Matthew's question and the word "important". Between this conversation and the previous one, I personally do not feel that a majority of the authors listed are important by any means. Like I said before, I don't think they are bad writers, and in no way do I challenge their ability, but they are not doing anything that I recognize as new or innovative, and therefore are not important to the future, or even the present, of literature. These people are simply participating. At the end of my list I mentioned Jeffrey Eugenides and Marilynne Robinson, because I like them and part of this conversation is about taste, but I would not argue that they are important living authors. Gary Lutz, on the other hand, I see as being very important. Book sales and publishing houses do not necessarily reflect a writer's importance in the long run, but I will agree with D that one book on a small press does not make someone a towering author. Personally, my taste does not include a lot of those who are known to tower, nor do I see them as important to the overall landscape of modern literature. In my opinion, all of our important living authors are still young and developing their craft, like Chelsea and Zachary, and with any luck these people might end up the towerers of tomorrow, only to be dethroned by the next group of important writers. From these conversations I have to conclude that I just have different standards for what makes a writer important, and I may look foolish for it at the moment, but oh well to that. These are my favorite writers and the ones that I feel are the most important, whether they tower or not, because they are daring to do something new. This thread is on the heels of the towering authors conversation, but it is indeed a different conversation, one that, as Ryan mentioned, has to do with taste, which is subjective. What stuck out to me, however, was the end of Matthew’s question and the word “important”. Between this conversation and the previous one, I personally do not feel that a majority of the authors listed are important by any means. Like I said before, I don’t think they are bad writers, and in no way do I challenge their ability, but they are not doing anything that I recognize as new or innovative, and therefore are not important to the future, or even the present, of literature. These people are simply participating. At the end of my list I mentioned Jeffrey Eugenides and Marilynne Robinson, because I like them and part of this conversation is about taste, but I would not argue that they are important living authors. Gary Lutz, on the other hand, I see as being very important. Book sales and publishing houses do not necessarily reflect a writer’s importance in the long run, but I will agree with D that one book on a small press does not make someone a towering author. Personally, my taste does not include a lot of those who are known to tower, nor do I see them as important to the overall landscape of modern literature. In my opinion, all of our important living authors are still young and developing their craft, like Chelsea and Zachary, and with any luck these people might end up the towerers of tomorrow, only to be dethroned by the next group of important writers. From these conversations I have to conclude that I just have different standards for what makes a writer important, and I may look foolish for it at the moment, but oh well to that. These are my favorite writers and the ones that I feel are the most important, whether they tower or not, because they are daring to do something new.

]]> http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/14661/comment-page-1/#comment-25664 Ken Baumann Tue, 08 Sep 2009 23:28:43 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14661#comment-25664 Interesting question, Matthew. I like this probe. I'll try to wrangle a 15 and a 15 and see... Interesting question, Matthew. I like this probe. I’ll try to wrangle a 15 and a 15 and see…

]]> http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/14661/comment-page-1/#comment-115495 Ken Baumann Tue, 08 Sep 2009 23:28:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14661#comment-115495 Interesting question, Matthew. I like this probe. I'll try to wrangle a 15 and a 15 and see... Interesting question, Matthew. I like this probe. I’ll try to wrangle a 15 and a 15 and see…

]]> http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/14661/comment-page-1/#comment-25654 D Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:58:47 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14661#comment-25654 yeah hard to be a "towering" figure in literature when you have like, one book out on a small press. yeah hard to be a “towering” figure in literature when you have like, one book out on a small press.

]]> http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/14661/comment-page-1/#comment-115494 D Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:58:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14661#comment-115494 yeah hard to be a "towering" figure in literature when you have like, one book out on a small press. yeah hard to be a “towering” figure in literature when you have like, one book out on a small press.

]]> http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/14661/comment-page-1/#comment-25645 sarah m.g. Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:42:58 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14661#comment-25645 I need to add Mary Robison & Matthea Harvey to this and second the Ander Monson & Etgar Keret. I need to add Mary Robison & Matthea Harvey to this and second the Ander Monson & Etgar Keret.

]]> http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/14661/comment-page-1/#comment-115493 sarah m.g. Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:42:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14661#comment-115493 I need to add Mary Robison & Matthea Harvey to this and second the Ander Monson & Etgar Keret. I need to add Mary Robison & Matthea Harvey to this and second the Ander Monson & Etgar Keret.

]]> http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/14661/comment-page-1/#comment-25643 ryan Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:39:27 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14661#comment-25643 wasn't the question, though, to make a list of your favorite authors, on the heels of the "towering" authors conversation, and isn't that incredibly subjective? i'm not trying to start anything, more just saying that if i were to make a list of 15 authors i thought were doing the most to be innovative with literature i would probably have a somewhat different list than my 15 favorites. wasn’t the question, though, to make a list of your favorite authors, on the heels of the “towering” authors conversation, and isn’t that incredibly subjective? i’m not trying to start anything, more just saying that if i were to make a list of 15 authors i thought were doing the most to be innovative with literature i would probably have a somewhat different list than my 15 favorites.

]]> http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/14661/comment-page-1/#comment-115492 ryan Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:39:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14661#comment-115492 wasn't the question, though, to make a list of your favorite authors, on the heels of the "towering" authors conversation, and isn't that incredibly subjective? i'm not trying to start anything, more just saying that if i were to make a list of 15 authors i thought were doing the most to be innovative with literature i would probably have a somewhat different list than my 15 favorites. wasn’t the question, though, to make a list of your favorite authors, on the heels of the “towering” authors conversation, and isn’t that incredibly subjective? i’m not trying to start anything, more just saying that if i were to make a list of 15 authors i thought were doing the most to be innovative with literature i would probably have a somewhat different list than my 15 favorites.

]]>