Snippets
In light of yesterday’s “shittalking”: has Tao Lin been cannibalized by “Tao Lin”? Has he fictionalized the commonplace–in the shape of both blog and book–to such an extent that “Tao Lin” the artist has appropriated and swallowed Tao Lin the person? that “Tao Lin” has substituted art with life, or has blended the two? Will his fictions from now on only take place as extensions of the fiction, the theater piece, which he has signed “Tao”? Which Tao Lin is realer: the one who blogs, or the one “out there”? Or does any difference between the two Taos remain?
Or are these simply the demands, more or less, of writing what we might call “a singular vision” in 2010? Are there alternate paths with different demands–is such a path desirable?
Is “Tao Lin” the most quiet transgressor? Or is his style just another wave of the “meta” bullshit that’s been around forever? (I don’t think that’s true, but…)
I’m not “shittalking.” Just talking.
two things:
1) iconoclasm.
2) seriously.
two things:
1) iconoclasm.
2) seriously.
I’m sort of taking this from Brandon’s post more than yours, but you got me started on the thoughts:
In the short term, being open and honest about self-aggrandizement was sort of kitschy. That’s not to discount it. 1.) it was genius 2.) the writing was good enough that no one was bitching. The writing might still be good enough (I haven’t read SFAA), but people seem to be getting wary of the kitsch. “Tao Lin” as a headline-grabber was never going to be eternal, because he represents something very specific that everybody has in him/herself, but nothing that consumes the rest of us in the way it seems to consume him, at least as a “product” (among many things: shamelessness, brutal objectivism, existential despair, all-consuming boredom). Not to mention that “the product” was completely dependent upon pop culture which is fickle as fuck.
“Time will tell” or something.
I’m sort of taking this from Brandon’s post more than yours, but you got me started on the thoughts:
In the short term, being open and honest about self-aggrandizement was sort of kitschy. That’s not to discount it. 1.) it was genius 2.) the writing was good enough that no one was bitching. The writing might still be good enough (I haven’t read SFAA), but people seem to be getting wary of the kitsch. “Tao Lin” as a headline-grabber was never going to be eternal, because he represents something very specific that everybody has in him/herself, but nothing that consumes the rest of us in the way it seems to consume him, at least as a “product” (among many things: shamelessness, brutal objectivism, existential despair, all-consuming boredom). Not to mention that “the product” was completely dependent upon pop culture which is fickle as fuck.
“Time will tell” or something.
What does it say when an author’s gimmicks–whatever Tao has done in the past, and what you are proposing right now, and whatever’s brewing out there blah blah–gets more attention than his writing? His work gets sidelined because of all the stunts he performs that should’ve pointed to the work. Say, he walked down a hallway clothed in live pigs, giving out business cards about his upcoming book, chances are the book will be given lip service, whether or not he’s good at what he does.
Just write, dammit.
Why build up the persona? Why not write the best thing you can write at the moment, send it off, and then write some more?
And if he still gets negative reviews–and then friends step up to ward off the bullies–that focus on the gimmicks (perhaps for lack of anything to say about his work), then shouldn’t he focus more on his gahdamned books? Fine, run around and build your hipster, avant-garde (augh) image–just make sure that when people talk about your work, they have something good to say about it. Aside from, “Oh, that Tao Lin, such a character.”
Idiotic how authors have to quotation-mark themselves. As my crusty ol’ English prof said upon seeing a sign that said “NO PARKING”, “Are you quoting someone, or are you being sarcastic?”
PS — Then again, if gimmicks exist to steal attention away from terrible writing, then hurrahhurrah. Bah.
What does it say when an author’s gimmicks–whatever Tao has done in the past, and what you are proposing right now, and whatever’s brewing out there blah blah–gets more attention than his writing? His work gets sidelined because of all the stunts he performs that should’ve pointed to the work. Say, he walked down a hallway clothed in live pigs, giving out business cards about his upcoming book, chances are the book will be given lip service, whether or not he’s good at what he does.
Just write, dammit.
Why build up the persona? Why not write the best thing you can write at the moment, send it off, and then write some more?
And if he still gets negative reviews–and then friends step up to ward off the bullies–that focus on the gimmicks (perhaps for lack of anything to say about his work), then shouldn’t he focus more on his gahdamned books? Fine, run around and build your hipster, avant-garde (augh) image–just make sure that when people talk about your work, they have something good to say about it. Aside from, “Oh, that Tao Lin, such a character.”
Idiotic how authors have to quotation-mark themselves. As my crusty ol’ English prof said upon seeing a sign that said “NO PARKING”, “Are you quoting someone, or are you being sarcastic?”
PS — Then again, if gimmicks exist to steal attention away from terrible writing, then hurrahhurrah. Bah.
I quote another great man in my life (the school custodian): Admitting you’re an asshole doesn’t make you less of an asshole.
But doesn’t he ride on the trend, this whole persona of his. Why is he everywhere? Because technology is everywhere? Uh, yeah. Sure.
And I want to read Tao Lin’s RICHARD YATES. Just to find out why it’s called RICHARD YATES.
I quote another great man in my life (the school custodian): Admitting you’re an asshole doesn’t make you less of an asshole.
But doesn’t he ride on the trend, this whole persona of his. Why is he everywhere? Because technology is everywhere? Uh, yeah. Sure.
And I want to read Tao Lin’s RICHARD YATES. Just to find out why it’s called RICHARD YATES.
First of all, I’ve only read the first section of Stealing and a few poems of Tao’s, so I don’t have any position of authority on his work. To me, the glaring problem with all of that complexity in the persona and its metastatic nature is that it has so little to with the writing. This is not to say what he’s doing isn’t clever, it’s just that it’s primarily responsible for this misguided reviews of his book. In inspiring the degree and intensity of attention that he has, the artistry of it, means the journalists, already impoverished critical writers, have just the identity games to write about in detail. So, I would say Tao has cannibalised himself at a feast of his own design amongst fashionable guests.
First of all, I’ve only read the first section of Stealing and a few poems of Tao’s, so I don’t have any position of authority on his work. To me, the glaring problem with all of that complexity in the persona and its metastatic nature is that it has so little to with the writing. This is not to say what he’s doing isn’t clever, it’s just that it’s primarily responsible for this misguided reviews of his book. In inspiring the degree and intensity of attention that he has, the artistry of it, means the journalists, already impoverished critical writers, have just the identity games to write about in detail. So, I would say Tao has cannibalised himself at a feast of his own design amongst fashionable guests.
To me, the one sad thing about being this kind of ‘artist’ is that you can never just do some random fun shit.
To be able to sustain the ‘act’ or ‘performance’ or whatever, Tao can never just say ‘fuck it, I’m gonna write a science fiction short story that has absolutely nothing to do with my life.’ Or ‘I’m gonna write a story about two girls being raised on a farm whose father died.”
I would just tear my own hair out in boredom not being able to just do some random shit and have some fun.
To me, the one sad thing about being this kind of ‘artist’ is that you can never just do some random fun shit.
To be able to sustain the ‘act’ or ‘performance’ or whatever, Tao can never just say ‘fuck it, I’m gonna write a science fiction short story that has absolutely nothing to do with my life.’ Or ‘I’m gonna write a story about two girls being raised on a farm whose father died.”
I would just tear my own hair out in boredom not being able to just do some random shit and have some fun.
I realized, after posting this, that there are at least several short stories in Bed that prove this point wrong as far as Tao is concerned. I think the general sentiment of the point holds true, at least, for other artists whose career path is crafted along the idea of a ‘singular vision.’
I realized, after posting this, that there are at least several short stories in Bed that prove this point wrong as far as Tao is concerned. I think the general sentiment of the point holds true, at least, for other artists whose career path is crafted along the idea of a ‘singular vision.’
I think it might have something to do with this:
http://blueberryhamster.com/bitchcrotch.jpg
(It’s a short story by him, ‘Richard Yates’ appears at one point. Wonder if this/the novel are related?)
I think it might have something to do with this:
http://blueberryhamster.com/bitchcrotch.jpg
(It’s a short story by him, ‘Richard Yates’ appears at one point. Wonder if this/the novel are related?)
Ah, many thanks. I’ll be reading this when no one behind me would object to me reading Bitch-Crotch on my monitor.
Then again, I could read it against the wall.
Ah, many thanks. I’ll be reading this when no one behind me would object to me reading Bitch-Crotch on my monitor.
Then again, I could read it against the wall.
Oh man, I’d forgotten all about that story. I remember the first time I read it, and how it starts so ugly I almost didn’t read it at all, but then I stuck with it and it won me over as I figured out what it was doing. I remember coming to this line-
‘Bitch-crotch’ Bitch-crotch thinks angrily. ‘My name is Bitch-crotch.’
And just completely losing it. If I’d been eating something I’d have surely choked to death. That scratched-out Eiffel Tower should be the cover of a book. Some book…
Oh man, I’d forgotten all about that story. I remember the first time I read it, and how it starts so ugly I almost didn’t read it at all, but then I stuck with it and it won me over as I figured out what it was doing. I remember coming to this line-
‘Bitch-crotch’ Bitch-crotch thinks angrily. ‘My name is Bitch-crotch.’
And just completely losing it. If I’d been eating something I’d have surely choked to death. That scratched-out Eiffel Tower should be the cover of a book. Some book…
when certain magazines interview him, the question of whether or not tao lin represents the larger “alternative aesthetic” seems to come up often and usually he denies it
it’s easy to see where they get that perception, though, considering how much coverage his controversies generate
when certain magazines interview him, the question of whether or not tao lin represents the larger “alternative aesthetic” seems to come up often and usually he denies it
it’s easy to see where they get that perception, though, considering how much coverage his controversies generate
The real Revolutionary Road goes from a commuter train station to a Dunkin Donuts. (A couple blocks from a DD actually, but I’m trying to make this a happy ending here.)
The real Revolutionary Road goes from a commuter train station to a Dunkin Donuts. (A couple blocks from a DD actually, but I’m trying to make this a happy ending here.)
@Jordan — That’s an awesome image. Thank you.
But now I want donuts. Augh.
@Jordan — That’s an awesome image. Thank you.
But now I want donuts. Augh.
Insert the name “Neal Pollack” for “Tao Lin” and your post would have made perfect sense in 2000-2003. Or read Mark Leyner’s “Et Tu, Babe,” which came out in the mid-’90s and is all about this sort of thing. Kerouac also wrote about troubles reconciling his persona and his person.
Insert the name “Neal Pollack” for “Tao Lin” and your post would have made perfect sense in 2000-2003. Or read Mark Leyner’s “Et Tu, Babe,” which came out in the mid-’90s and is all about this sort of thing. Kerouac also wrote about troubles reconciling his persona and his person.
Flat affects and chat language were there for the taking. But they are both scary. Scary is good sometimes. I like salad.
Flat affects and chat language were there for the taking. But they are both scary. Scary is good sometimes. I like salad.
The original post seems kind of confused. . .
The original post seems kind of confused. . .
In what way, “ryan”? Enlighten me.
In what way, “ryan”? Enlighten me.
Sorry if that seemed aggressive. I thought it might seem confused (I was high and it was pretty late), so it’d be nice to know in what sense.
Sorry if that seemed aggressive. I thought it might seem confused (I was high and it was pretty late), so it’d be nice to know in what sense.
Haha, no, it wasn’t aggressive. You know, I’m not totally sure. I’ll admit that it’s possibly I simply don’t get it—that it’s beyond my intellectual mettle—but it honestly reminds me of your post on DFW. I love DFW’s stuff, so I really wanted to supply some sort of cogent response. . . but, like in this post, I come away from the necessary rereadings only scratching my head, unsure if I’m simply not picking up on something, or if your writing is somehow unclear. It could, too, be a difference of intellectual backgrounds. Most people here seem more up on the postmodern stuff than I am; the touchstones for my own thought tend to be a little outdated, maybe. Right now, the writers most compulsively mentioned in my journals are Doestovesky (sp), DFW, Emerson, Dickinson, Wittgenstein, Whitman. I am only vaguely familiar with postmodern thought, so my head-scratching very well could be due to your referring to stuff I haven’t seen.
Here’s an outline of the head-scratchers, for me—
“fictionalized the commonplace” – I’m trying to figure out what this means w/in the context of Tao being cannibalized by his literary persona. I don’t get it. Is it a reference to his self-promotion? (Of course I am only familiar w/ Tao through his here, sooo. . .. )
what would it mean for tao the artist to swallow tao the person? I’m not sure what you’re asking. Is this w/in the context of his reviews, or . . .? Wouldn’t we have to know tao to answer this? Even then, when do you look at him and say “aha! – see? the artist has swallowed the person”?
“substituted art with life” – so instead of making art, he makes. . . life? What does this mean? That he banally reports the minutiae of his day, and passes it off as art? or. . .?
And what is Tao quietly transgressing? What do you mean by asking which is ‘more real’?
Again, maybe this is all part of a discussion I haven’t sat in on long enough, yet.
Haha, no, it wasn’t aggressive. You know, I’m not totally sure. I’ll admit that it’s possibly I simply don’t get it—that it’s beyond my intellectual mettle—but it honestly reminds me of your post on DFW. I love DFW’s stuff, so I really wanted to supply some sort of cogent response. . . but, like in this post, I come away from the necessary rereadings only scratching my head, unsure if I’m simply not picking up on something, or if your writing is somehow unclear. It could, too, be a difference of intellectual backgrounds. Most people here seem more up on the postmodern stuff than I am; the touchstones for my own thought tend to be a little outdated, maybe. Right now, the writers most compulsively mentioned in my journals are Doestovesky (sp), DFW, Emerson, Dickinson, Wittgenstein, Whitman. I am only vaguely familiar with postmodern thought, so my head-scratching very well could be due to your referring to stuff I haven’t seen.
Here’s an outline of the head-scratchers, for me—
“fictionalized the commonplace” – I’m trying to figure out what this means w/in the context of Tao being cannibalized by his literary persona. I don’t get it. Is it a reference to his self-promotion? (Of course I am only familiar w/ Tao through his here, sooo. . .. )
what would it mean for tao the artist to swallow tao the person? I’m not sure what you’re asking. Is this w/in the context of his reviews, or . . .? Wouldn’t we have to know tao to answer this? Even then, when do you look at him and say “aha! – see? the artist has swallowed the person”?
“substituted art with life” – so instead of making art, he makes. . . life? What does this mean? That he banally reports the minutiae of his day, and passes it off as art? or. . .?
And what is Tao quietly transgressing? What do you mean by asking which is ‘more real’?
Again, maybe this is all part of a discussion I haven’t sat in on long enough, yet.
Word, yeah, it’s my fault for being too wrapped up in rhetoric. Basically, I was asking: has Tao transfigured his life with art (books, blogs etc.), by dissolving the gap between life and art? And has Tao’s as Tao (the “person” Tao) been veiled (if a veil metaphor works) to such an extent by art that “Tao” the theater piece has displaced Tao the everyday human being as the real Tao–or, more accurately, proved them to be ultimately the same? Does that make any more sense?
Word, yeah, it’s my fault for being too wrapped up in rhetoric. Basically, I was asking: has Tao transfigured his life with art (books, blogs etc.), by dissolving the gap between life and art? And has Tao’s as Tao (the “person” Tao) been veiled (if a veil metaphor works) to such an extent by art that “Tao” the theater piece has displaced Tao the everyday human being as the real Tao–or, more accurately, proved them to be ultimately the same? Does that make any more sense?
Tao Lin’s work is always interesting.
Tao Lin’s stunts are almost always interesting.
Conversations about Tao Lin’s stunts are almost never interesting.
Although this post is a pretty good exception to that last rule. Mainly because it gets away from the question of legitimacy and moves toward talking about what the stunts mean/do — how they relate to the work, why they draw such strong reactions.
Tao Lin’s work is always interesting.
Tao Lin’s stunts are almost always interesting.
Conversations about Tao Lin’s stunts are almost never interesting.
Although this post is a pretty good exception to that last rule. Mainly because it gets away from the question of legitimacy and moves toward talking about what the stunts mean/do — how they relate to the work, why they draw such strong reactions.
pretty good at ping pong, but i guess my dad is better cause we played tonight
pretty good at ping pong, but i guess my dad is better cause we played tonight
i willbeat you at pingpong
i willbeat you at pingpong
I feel this was kind of addressed in the PopMatters article — “Tao Lin has a neutral facial expression,” I think it was called. If I remember correctly, I think it pointed at an ‘inextricable link’ between Tao’s writing and his ‘internet gimmickry’– as in, one could not successfully exist without the other. Whether it named this or called it a new form of art/identity I can’t recall — I think Tao deleted the link from his Twitter. Did anybody else read this or have any thoughts on it?
I feel this was kind of addressed in the PopMatters article — “Tao Lin has a neutral facial expression,” I think it was called. If I remember correctly, I think it pointed at an ‘inextricable link’ between Tao’s writing and his ‘internet gimmickry’– as in, one could not successfully exist without the other. Whether it named this or called it a new form of art/identity I can’t recall — I think Tao deleted the link from his Twitter. Did anybody else read this or have any thoughts on it?
An interesting facet of this confrontation or coincidence of the life and art of Tao Lin is that many of the details one gets of his daily life (emo music, lying in bed, severely depressed) don’t add up to give the impression of the sort of person who would be capable of pulling off these aggressive marketing strategies. He’s not only writing (great) books, but also hatching (ingenious) marketing maneuvers, all from what one imagines to be a position of total coma isolation (haha, obviously not true).
I “believe” in both the severely-depressed and the highly-self-promoting Tao Lins and together they form for me a kind of vision of success and overcoming.
An interesting facet of this confrontation or coincidence of the life and art of Tao Lin is that many of the details one gets of his daily life (emo music, lying in bed, severely depressed) don’t add up to give the impression of the sort of person who would be capable of pulling off these aggressive marketing strategies. He’s not only writing (great) books, but also hatching (ingenious) marketing maneuvers, all from what one imagines to be a position of total coma isolation (haha, obviously not true).
I “believe” in both the severely-depressed and the highly-self-promoting Tao Lins and together they form for me a kind of vision of success and overcoming.
quoting phrases in one’s own writing has become somewhat branded as tao lin-esque in a certain circle, but in general i think it is useful, and i think it makes sense given the cultural climate now.. it is like an acknowledgment that everything is cliched now and that being serious, literal, and direct about things in 2010 just makes you feel like a dork
it is like an acknowledgment of postmodern irony–and a way to laugh about it–but, ‘at the same time’ (see what i mean), it is an effort to still communicate ‘somehow’ (in that sense it seems ‘post-postmodern’ i guess)
quoting phrases in one’s own writing has become somewhat branded as tao lin-esque in a certain circle, but in general i think it is useful, and i think it makes sense given the cultural climate now.. it is like an acknowledgment that everything is cliched now and that being serious, literal, and direct about things in 2010 just makes you feel like a dork
it is like an acknowledgment of postmodern irony–and a way to laugh about it–but, ‘at the same time’ (see what i mean), it is an effort to still communicate ‘somehow’ (in that sense it seems ‘post-postmodern’ i guess)
i think if the same author is doing the work, it will probably make sense in some oblique way or something no matter what they do.. when i look at my own writings, i feel like my old work is ‘100% different’ than my new stuff.. but there are still continuities that other people can point out to me.. i think an artist’s aesthetic preferences are pretty deeply ingrained or something, and they only change gradually, so doing something ‘random’ like a sci-fi story would still bear some resemblance in terms of the aesthetic choices made
i think if the same author is doing the work, it will probably make sense in some oblique way or something no matter what they do.. when i look at my own writings, i feel like my old work is ‘100% different’ than my new stuff.. but there are still continuities that other people can point out to me.. i think an artist’s aesthetic preferences are pretty deeply ingrained or something, and they only change gradually, so doing something ‘random’ like a sci-fi story would still bear some resemblance in terms of the aesthetic choices made
i like tao lin’s supereveryday
i like tao lin’s supereveryday