Sean Lovelace—
Should a SS collection be all winners? Or is it OK to be like (most) albums. A couple hits, a few so-sos (with redeemable aspects, though), and, oh, a dud or two.
-
Archives
- January 2023
- February 2022
- September 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
-
Meta
this is a weird question, because from a fan/readers pov, we’d hope so, but i doubt many artists/writers go into the process thinking, oh i’ll bait them w/ a few strong pieces and then, fuck you, the shit. i imagine they go into it thinking they’re all winners, but we know this is rarely the case.
all duds
should be all winners, but normally has a few duds
I’m sure no writers think they are gonna bait readers, but I bet plenty of writers have assembled collections knowing a few were not up to par but put them in anyway for time constant/deadline reasons.
All winners, I believe, but I think there are potentially pieces that feel incomplete that become more “winner”-y as part of an accumulation, like they’re part of the support strucutre for the collection and become necessary and indispensable in context or something.
If some of the stories are unbelievably amazing, then others will seem like duds? Is this true? Or can we discern the quality of the individual stories in a collection without comparing them to one another?
I think collections that seem like all winners end up having stories that are mostly pretty similar, working at the same level of quality, which, hopefully, is high. Like Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned. All really good stories, but all operating in the same range. It seems like a book of all winners, but maybe if Wells T. unleashed a world-slayer, that story would call the goodness of the rest of the pieces into question?
if this were facebook, i’d like this comment, tjy. excellent points.
can we account for taste, after all? Can we truly argue about it now.
You can do it two ways. You can have a collection of stories you feel is the “strongest” work (and that’s great). Or you can have a collection that includes a few stories that might go out of the writer’s or reader’s comfort zone. In other words, writers and publishers should gamble sometimes. Those stories that seem weird or out of place might be the ones that some readers like the best (like weird songs on an album). It’s okay for a book to have some flaws or blemishes. Sometimes it makes the book more likable somehow.
ss collections are for nazis
I don’t think all writers with collections believe the stories are equally strong. But, one it is out there, the cool thing is that readers might connect with a story the writer thought was weak, or might have no connection with the author’s favorite.
(This might also be like an album. Some of this gets into the “Ice, Ice, Baby as a lost B-side” etc. urban legend territory.)
BUT
I like Kevin’s take. I think maybe that is the answer.
agreed — this is how i see most albums (Fleetwood Mac – Rumors), save for the rare ‘all winners’ LP (i immediately think OK Computer.) i think Lorrie Moore’s Like Life is a really great collection, but consider two or three stories from it ‘meh’ individually. without them though the collection wouldnt ‘work’ anymore. i’d be ok with my life if i didn’t hear ‘Don’t Stop’ ever again, but would never want it off of the record.
I think you have to include the strongest stories you can, but how readers will respond to them is impossible to tell. I’m almost always wrong about which specific stories a particular reader will like or dislike.It’s sort of like humor in a story. Stuff I think is really funny, most readers don’t. And stuff a lot of readers think is funny, I didn’t originally see as that funny.
i’m of the school that it’s best to leave filler on the cutting-room floor. i like things shorter, tighter. like with music. an EP can be great, or greater than, an LP on account of its being short. no filler. i like collections that are between 10-15 pieces, each one complimenting the other, each one being able to stand on its own.
this is a weird question, because from a fan/readers pov, we’d hope so, but i doubt many artists/writers go into the process thinking, oh i’ll bait them w/ a few strong pieces and then, fuck you, the shit. i imagine they go into it thinking they’re all winners, but we know this is rarely the case.
all duds
There are some Sgt Peppers SS collections. Another answer, I suppose.
should be all winners, but normally has a few duds
I’m sure no writers think they are gonna bait readers, but I bet plenty of writers have assembled collections knowing a few were not up to par but put them in anyway for time constant/deadline reasons.
All winners, I believe, but I think there are potentially pieces that feel incomplete that become more “winner”-y as part of an accumulation, like they’re part of the support strucutre for the collection and become necessary and indispensable in context or something.
If some of the stories are unbelievably amazing, then others will seem like duds? Is this true? Or can we discern the quality of the individual stories in a collection without comparing them to one another?
I think collections that seem like all winners end up having stories that are mostly pretty similar, working at the same level of quality, which, hopefully, is high. Like Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned. All really good stories, but all operating in the same range. It seems like a book of all winners, but maybe if Wells T. unleashed a world-slayer, that story would call the goodness of the rest of the pieces into question?
if this were facebook, i’d like this comment, tjy. excellent points.
can we account for taste, after all? Can we truly argue about it now.
You can do it two ways. You can have a collection of stories you feel is the “strongest” work (and that’s great). Or you can have a collection that includes a few stories that might go out of the writer’s or reader’s comfort zone. In other words, writers and publishers should gamble sometimes. Those stories that seem weird or out of place might be the ones that some readers like the best (like weird songs on an album). It’s okay for a book to have some flaws or blemishes. Sometimes it makes the book more likable somehow.
This is how I feel too. The collections I love most really impress me in how the parts contribute to the whole.
ss collections are for nazis
I don’t think all writers with collections believe the stories are equally strong. But, one it is out there, the cool thing is that readers might connect with a story the writer thought was weak, or might have no connection with the author’s favorite.
(This might also be like an album. Some of this gets into the “Ice, Ice, Baby as a lost B-side” etc. urban legend territory.)
BUT
I like Kevin’s take. I think maybe that is the answer.
You mean all duds?
agreed — this is how i see most albums (Fleetwood Mac – Rumors), save for the rare ‘all winners’ LP (i immediately think OK Computer.) i think Lorrie Moore’s Like Life is a really great collection, but consider two or three stories from it ‘meh’ individually. without them though the collection wouldnt ‘work’ anymore. i’d be ok with my life if i didn’t hear ‘Don’t Stop’ ever again, but would never want it off of the record.
ha and ha, asshole. Yes, all duds.
I think you have to include the strongest stories you can, but how readers will respond to them is impossible to tell. I’m almost always wrong about which specific stories a particular reader will like or dislike.It’s sort of like humor in a story. Stuff I think is really funny, most readers don’t. And stuff a lot of readers think is funny, I didn’t originally see as that funny.
Not all can be winners. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be any losers. The world needs losers
Goodbye to all of that. The Beatles hate around here strikes me as poseur bullshit, frankly.
i’m of the school that it’s best to leave filler on the cutting-room floor. i like things shorter, tighter. like with music. an EP can be great, or greater than, an LP on account of its being short. no filler. i like collections that are between 10-15 pieces, each one complimenting the other, each one being able to stand on its own.
Since the pop music journalistic consensus is pretty much that the Beatles are the archetype for “good pop/rock band” (note that Pitchfork retroactively gave the debut Beatles album a perfect 10.0 score), I usually categorize Beatles-hate as simply irreverence towards the pop cultural dogmata and towards “things your parents like.” Saying that Beatles-hate is “poseur bullshit”–that it is some hipsterism, some ostentatious put-on, that it is somehow insincere–seems to be reactionary. It seems like you are saying “Beatles is obviously a good band and anyone who says otherwise is just being obstinate; they are just playing the contrarian to ‘look cool,’ even though they are well aware that the Beatles are a good band.” I think it is possible for someone to think sincerely, without ostentation, that the Beatles aren’t that impressive. I don’t understand the person who passionately defends the Beatles, a band so celebrated that they need no further defense. I would guess that you like the Beatles quite a bit, so much so that Beatles-hate bothers you? That seems weird to me. Getting mad about Beatles-hate is like getting mad at people who prefer Pepsi to Coca-Cola and calling them poseurs.
In conclusion, I think Beatles-hate is healthy. Beatles are widely considered the “best band.” I think we should problematize the idea of a “best” anything. I think we should kill our idols. I think we should kill other people’s idols, too.
Addendum: The Beatles = Coca-Cola. Really liking the Beatles is like really liking Coca-Cola. Denying the possibility of sincere dislike of the Beatles is like denying the possibility of sincere dislike of Coca-Cola. Defending the musical prowess of the Beatles is like defending the refreshing taste of Coca-Cola.
I wish you weren’t anon, because you are obviously smart and interesting. It’s not dislike of the Beatles that I react to. In fact (although I love the later albums, I have little respect for the early pop albums) many people I respect dislike them. It’s the knee-jerk, auto hate that pops up here so often that I despise. The people I see hating on them here either focus on the early years (think Twist and Shout, which I frankly dismiss out of hand as juvenile music) ignoring the genius of the eponymous album or Sgt Pepper’s, or they demand that the music lacked political bite (despite Blackbird, etc (not to mention Lennon’s highly political and biting solo career). It seems like somehow it has become hip to hate the beatles for no other reason than that it is hip to hate the beatles.
They are not my favorite band. But, their influence is unquestionable.
Anyway, don’t be anonymous when you are making cogent points. I’d like to talk to you.
If I may:
Early Beatles = Coca Cola
Late Beatles = laphroaig
Early is a taste everyone can get because it’s bland.
Late is a taste that requires a special palette and needs some learning
Yes and yes and yes. Yes. Thank you. Also agree with your below comment about later vs. early Beatles.
I feel exactly the same way. I don’t want to listen to filler, don’t want to read it. Overload my brain for fifty minutes rather than massaging it gently for two hours.
I think attacking Beatles for music is like attacking Chekhov for story. Just funny.
Nicely played
OK Computer, yes.
And Hello Nasty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHRWi6vSV-E
Stevie twirlin’. Magic.
Grey Trees.
I am going to go read “Like Life” again RIGHT NOW.
weird or out of place, sure
flaws or blemishes. huh? sure, I guess, what is an example of a blemish in a short story?
(or ask me, I’ll tell you what I think are the blemishes I have come across – they are in red pencil in the stacks of books next to my bed.) (OK. A blemish I’ve come across: The “going to St. Ives” “riddle” in “The Mezzanine” by Baker that was totally botched.) (Don’t even get me on the serious blemish of “The Lovely Bones”, or others that I can’t think of right now B-cuz I’m drunk.)
but nothing weak, please
I think “Ice Ice Baby” goes in the So-Bad-It’s-Good category.
“maybe” is always a good go-to
Tomorrow I will make a list of my favorite Beatles songs and post them here.
Because I know a lot of them will come to me mid-sleep tonight, now that I’ve said that.
But here’s a start:
Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite (hee hee)
Baby You’re a Rich Man
And You’re Bird Can Sing
or not
shit
I love George Martin
I’m sorry, I’m distracted, I’m listening to the Correspondent’s Dinner Obama monologue whatever…..
There are some Sgt Peppers SS collections. Another answer, I suppose.
This is how I feel too. The collections I love most really impress me in how the parts contribute to the whole.
You mean all duds?
ha and ha, asshole. Yes, all duds.
I LOVE Baby You’re a Rich Man.
Not all can be winners. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be any losers. The world needs losers
Goodbye to all of that. The Beatles hate around here strikes me as poseur bullshit, frankly.
Since the pop music journalistic consensus is pretty much that the Beatles are the archetype for “good pop/rock band” (note that Pitchfork retroactively gave the debut Beatles album a perfect 10.0 score), I usually categorize Beatles-hate as simply irreverence towards the pop cultural dogmata and towards “things your parents like.” Saying that Beatles-hate is “poseur bullshit”–that it is some hipsterism, some ostentatious put-on, that it is somehow insincere–seems to be reactionary. It seems like you are saying “Beatles is obviously a good band and anyone who says otherwise is just being obstinate; they are just playing the contrarian to ‘look cool,’ even though they are well aware that the Beatles are a good band.” I think it is possible for someone to think sincerely, without ostentation, that the Beatles aren’t that impressive. I don’t understand the person who passionately defends the Beatles, a band so celebrated that they need no further defense. I would guess that you like the Beatles quite a bit, so much so that Beatles-hate bothers you? That seems weird to me. Getting mad about Beatles-hate is like getting mad at people who prefer Pepsi to Coca-Cola and calling them poseurs.
In conclusion, I think Beatles-hate is healthy. Beatles are widely considered the “best band.” I think we should problematize the idea of a “best” anything. I think we should kill our idols. I think we should kill other people’s idols, too.
Addendum: The Beatles = Coca-Cola. Really liking the Beatles is like really liking Coca-Cola. Denying the possibility of sincere dislike of the Beatles is like denying the possibility of sincere dislike of Coca-Cola. Defending the musical prowess of the Beatles is like defending the refreshing taste of Coca-Cola.
I wish you weren’t anon, because you are obviously smart and interesting. It’s not dislike of the Beatles that I react to. In fact (although I love the later albums, I have little respect for the early pop albums) many people I respect dislike them. It’s the knee-jerk, auto hate that pops up here so often that I despise. The people I see hating on them here either focus on the early years (think Twist and Shout, which I frankly dismiss out of hand as juvenile music) ignoring the genius of the eponymous album or Sgt Pepper’s, or they demand that the music lacked political bite (despite Blackbird, etc (not to mention Lennon’s highly political and biting solo career). It seems like somehow it has become hip to hate the beatles for no other reason than that it is hip to hate the beatles.
They are not my favorite band. But, their influence is unquestionable.
Anyway, don’t be anonymous when you are making cogent points. I’d like to talk to you.
If I may:
Early Beatles = Coca Cola
Late Beatles = laphroaig
Early is a taste everyone can get because it’s bland.
Late is a taste that requires a special palette and needs some learning
Yes and yes and yes. Yes. Thank you. Also agree with your below comment about later vs. early Beatles.
I feel exactly the same way. I don’t want to listen to filler, don’t want to read it. Overload my brain for fifty minutes rather than massaging it gently for two hours.
I think attacking Beatles for music is like attacking Chekhov for story. Just funny.
Nicely played
OK Computer, yes.
And Hello Nasty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHRWi6vSV-E
Stevie twirlin’. Magic.
Grey Trees.
I am going to go read “Like Life” again RIGHT NOW.
weird or out of place, sure
flaws or blemishes. huh? sure, I guess, what is an example of a blemish in a short story?
(or ask me, I’ll tell you what I think are the blemishes I have come across – they are in red pencil in the stacks of books next to my bed.) (OK. A blemish I’ve come across: The “going to St. Ives” “riddle” in “The Mezzanine” by Baker that was totally botched.) (Don’t even get me on the serious blemish of “The Lovely Bones”, or others that I can’t think of right now B-cuz I’m drunk.)
but nothing weak, please
I think “Ice Ice Baby” goes in the So-Bad-It’s-Good category.
“maybe” is always a good go-to
Tomorrow I will make a list of my favorite Beatles songs and post them here.
Because I know a lot of them will come to me mid-sleep tonight, now that I’ve said that.
But here’s a start:
Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite (hee hee)
Baby You’re a Rich Man
And You’re Bird Can Sing
or not
shit
I love George Martin
I’m sorry, I’m distracted, I’m listening to the Correspondent’s Dinner Obama monologue whatever…..
I LOVE Baby You’re a Rich Man.
people who truly hate The Beatles strike me as reactionary cause clearly they are a good pop group. The Beatles obsessive love strikes me as pretty silly too though as such a media creation and completely a carry-over from their boy band phase.
Don’t get me wrong, I really like a lot of late beatels material, but if they hadn’t been The Fab Four they wouldn’t be so highly regarded. I don’t think you can compare the Beatles to their contemporaries like Bob Dylan, The Velvet Underground, Gram Parsons, Frank Zappa, The Kinks, and so on and really think they were some radical otherwordly amazing band. ESPECIALLY if you double check the dates on when these various bands released their albums, as The Beatles tend to be a year or so behind their contemporaries on the trends.
Like, how are late The Beatles, the most famous pop group in the world (their early stuff is mostly forgotten these days), the equivalent of Laphroaig? How do they require a special palette when the entire world likes them?
Laphroaig is like Captain Beefheart or something, a group that does require a special palette and only a small percentage of the population will enjoy.
If Early Beatles are Coca Cola late Beatles are still just like… Heineken or something else widely consumed that everyone can at least enjoy.
And I think the fact that the beatles had (by and large) such uninteresting lyrics, neither deeply poetic nor politically relevant (“blackbird” and the reactionary “revolution” are exceptions that prove the rule), despite so many of their contemporaries having such killer lyrics is a fair criticism… at least in a discussion of what 60s pop/rock acts were the best.
George Martin was the best Beatle for sure.
Good question that’s difficult to answer. One thing I’ve noticed lately is that too many collections feel bound to their unity, if that makes sense. You can tell the writer decided ahead of time to write a “linked” collection, even though the collection isn’t considered a book of “linked” stories. The stories are often winners individually, but there’s not much range across the book. I’d like to see more collections that achieve unity through voice, language, and humor, rather than relying so heavily on carbon copy characters and settings.
people who truly hate The Beatles strike me as reactionary cause clearly they are a good pop group. The Beatles obsessive love strikes me as pretty silly too though as such a media creation and completely a carry-over from their boy band phase.
Don’t get me wrong, I really like a lot of late beatels material, but if they hadn’t been The Fab Four they wouldn’t be so highly regarded. I don’t think you can compare the Beatles to their contemporaries like Bob Dylan, The Velvet Underground, Gram Parsons, Frank Zappa, The Kinks, and so on and really think they were some radical otherwordly amazing band. ESPECIALLY if you double check the dates on when these various bands released their albums, as The Beatles tend to be a year or so behind their contemporaries on the trends.
Like, how are late The Beatles, the most famous pop group in the world (their early stuff is mostly forgotten these days), the equivalent of Laphroaig? How do they require a special palette when the entire world likes them?
Laphroaig is like Captain Beefheart or something, a group that does require a special palette and only a small percentage of the population will enjoy.
If Early Beatles are Coca Cola late Beatles are still just like… Heineken or something else widely consumed that everyone can at least enjoy.
And I think the fact that the beatles had (by and large) such uninteresting lyrics, neither deeply poetic nor politically relevant (“blackbird” and the reactionary “revolution” are exceptions that prove the rule), despite so many of their contemporaries having such killer lyrics is a fair criticism… at least in a discussion of what 60s pop/rock acts were the best.
George Martin was the best Beatle for sure.
I like the thought of a collection being linked in some subtle way, like through place or, like you said, voice, but each story unique unto itself. Those sorts of collections create an interesting cosmos where each story is a galaxy in the greater universe of the collection. Never shall two touch on one another. When the writer gets heavy handed with those links, it either feels forced or that the writer is continuously going to the same well for lack of other creative options. Your post made me thing about Carver’s Cathedral: the vast majority of that collection is made up of characters who are drunk and in the midst of the lives they’ve destroyed contemplating or confronting that self-destruction. Over time it gets tedious, even though each story on its own is wonderfully wrought. Then I think of the stories that diverge from that tedium, and their comparison to the rest of the collection makes them shine all the more. So that gets me thinking about the conscious decision to intentionally sabotage some of the stories in one’s collection in order to shine a light on those few truly exceptional pieces. I’m not saying this was Carver’s intent, I just like the idea of a writer being that conscious of the reader’s experience in his own body of work, and the potential to strategize, as if the relationship between reader and writer is a game to be won.
Also, who the fuck is George Martin??
Good question that’s difficult to answer. One thing I’ve noticed lately is that too many collections feel bound to their unity, if that makes sense. You can tell the writer decided ahead of time to write a “linked” collection, even though the collection isn’t considered a book of “linked” stories. The stories are often winners individually, but there’s not much range across the book. I’d like to see more collections that achieve unity through voice, language, and humor, rather than relying so heavily on carbon copy characters and settings.
I like the thought of a collection being linked in some subtle way, like through place or, like you said, voice, but each story unique unto itself. Those sorts of collections create an interesting cosmos where each story is a galaxy in the greater universe of the collection. Never shall two touch on one another. When the writer gets heavy handed with those links, it either feels forced or that the writer is continuously going to the same well for lack of other creative options. Your post made me thing about Carver’s Cathedral: the vast majority of that collection is made up of characters who are drunk and in the midst of the lives they’ve destroyed contemplating or confronting that self-destruction. Over time it gets tedious, even though each story on its own is wonderfully wrought. Then I think of the stories that diverge from that tedium, and their comparison to the rest of the collection makes them shine all the more. So that gets me thinking about the conscious decision to intentionally sabotage some of the stories in one’s collection in order to shine a light on those few truly exceptional pieces. I’m not saying this was Carver’s intent, I just like the idea of a writer being that conscious of the reader’s experience in his own body of work, and the potential to strategize, as if the relationship between reader and writer is a game to be won.
Also, who the fuck is George Martin??
George Martin is commonly referred to as the “Fifth Beatle” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Martin
You can’t hate on the Beatles. Sure some songs, but really, the White Album? Come on, brilliant. Sgt Peppers? If you can’t find at least one Beatle song to sing along to you’re probably dead right now.
As for SSC – there will most likely be 1-2 that really vibrate for you the reader. There will be many that are good. And there will be some that are just okay. It’s nearly impossible to have 10-15 stories and have then all be different and also fucking home runs.
I though Ron Rash’s CHEMISTRY was great, as was Holly Goddard Jones’ GIRL TROUBLE, also really loved BIG WORLD, solid. The complete Flannery O’Connor was pretty tight.
You’ll never please everyone, and as somebody said earlier, what may seem like the BEST collection by the author or editor or press may not be the ones that resonate with the majority (or anyone). I’ve sent out stories that I thought were “okay” and they got snatched up. And I’ve sent out stories that were just my babies, all diamonds and glitter and fucking brilliant, only to get rejected 10, 15, 25 times. And then accepted.
It’s one thing to say “i don’t know if this story is good or not, let’s put it out there as an experiment,” but quite another to say “i really don’t like this and neither do my editor or my trusted friends, but i’m going to foist it on the public anyway ’cause i don’t give a fuck.”
I mean, seriously: I can’t believe we’re having this conversation. This is one of those “i’ll ask a really easy question to generate site traffic” kinds of questions, isn’t it?
My first collection had a few stories that probably should have been pruned, just ’cause i was gung-ho to have it subtitled “forty stories,” because one my favorite books was called Forty Stories.
As soon as I get this time machine working, I intend to travel back in time ten years and talk myself out of that retarded reasoning. Like, I even had other stories lying around at the time that would have been better filler than the filler I used. But you know, you get too deep into the editing and selection process and after a while your judgement is shot. That is why people need editors.
George Martin is commonly referred to as the “Fifth Beatle” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Martin
You can’t hate on the Beatles. Sure some songs, but really, the White Album? Come on, brilliant. Sgt Peppers? If you can’t find at least one Beatle song to sing along to you’re probably dead right now.
As for SSC – there will most likely be 1-2 that really vibrate for you the reader. There will be many that are good. And there will be some that are just okay. It’s nearly impossible to have 10-15 stories and have then all be different and also fucking home runs.
I though Ron Rash’s CHEMISTRY was great, as was Holly Goddard Jones’ GIRL TROUBLE, also really loved BIG WORLD, solid. The complete Flannery O’Connor was pretty tight.
You’ll never please everyone, and as somebody said earlier, what may seem like the BEST collection by the author or editor or press may not be the ones that resonate with the majority (or anyone). I’ve sent out stories that I thought were “okay” and they got snatched up. And I’ve sent out stories that were just my babies, all diamonds and glitter and fucking brilliant, only to get rejected 10, 15, 25 times. And then accepted.
It’s one thing to say “i don’t know if this story is good or not, let’s put it out there as an experiment,” but quite another to say “i really don’t like this and neither do my editor or my trusted friends, but i’m going to foist it on the public anyway ’cause i don’t give a fuck.”
I mean, seriously: I can’t believe we’re having this conversation. This is one of those “i’ll ask a really easy question to generate site traffic” kinds of questions, isn’t it?
My first collection had a few stories that probably should have been pruned, just ’cause i was gung-ho to have it subtitled “forty stories,” because one my favorite books was called Forty Stories.
As soon as I get this time machine working, I intend to travel back in time ten years and talk myself out of that retarded reasoning. Like, I even had other stories lying around at the time that would have been better filler than the filler I used. But you know, you get too deep into the editing and selection process and after a while your judgement is shot. That is why people need editors.
“You’re only good by comparison.”
“You’re only good by comparison.”