January 12th, 2010 / 2:14 pm
Snippets

Mississippi Review flash fiction issue, guest edited by Kim Chinquee, includes some wonderful writers.

26 Comments

  1. darby

      sorry, i’m going to play asshole a bit here, but i’m wondering what it is that made you word it this way, ‘wonderful writers’ instead of ‘wonderful writing.’

  2. darby

      sorry, i’m going to play asshole a bit here, but i’m wondering what it is that made you word it this way, ‘wonderful writers’ instead of ‘wonderful writing.’

  3. darby

      i mean am i the only one that gets bothered by that? i’m coming off as mean here but i dont mean to be accusatory. obviously this post was meant to just make people aware of this issue and to go read it and that’s great. i’m just always hyperaware of the distinction and how people treat it, when the wonderfulness of a writer seems to matter more than the wonderfulness of the writing or vice versa. or is it like writer and writing are interchangeable in our minds, we dont set importance to one or the other.

  4. darby

      i mean am i the only one that gets bothered by that? i’m coming off as mean here but i dont mean to be accusatory. obviously this post was meant to just make people aware of this issue and to go read it and that’s great. i’m just always hyperaware of the distinction and how people treat it, when the wonderfulness of a writer seems to matter more than the wonderfulness of the writing or vice versa. or is it like writer and writing are interchangeable in our minds, we dont set importance to one or the other.

  5. Jimmy Chen

      nice catch darby. i didn’t read the pieces, in observance of trying to get ‘fresh links’ to our readership, thus could not actually say ‘wonderful writing,’ though i’m sure it is. you, and other stoics, will suggest this the problem: that the personality is valued over the production. but i will ask, does not a person who writes wonderfully, consistently over time, become, semantically, a wonderful writer? is not a woman who is lovely a lovely woman? can words not be used irresponsibly on a tuesday?

  6. Jimmy Chen

      nice catch darby. i didn’t read the pieces, in observance of trying to get ‘fresh links’ to our readership, thus could not actually say ‘wonderful writing,’ though i’m sure it is. you, and other stoics, will suggest this the problem: that the personality is valued over the production. but i will ask, does not a person who writes wonderfully, consistently over time, become, semantically, a wonderful writer? is not a woman who is lovely a lovely woman? can words not be used irresponsibly on a tuesday?

  7. darby

      oh, i am not questioning the truthfulness of what you are saying, whether they are or are not wonderful writers, although wonderful attached to a person is a bit more general than when attached to an art, so it makes sense to revert to ‘wonderful writer’ in order to keep the fact that you hadn’t read the issue hidden while remaining truthful and still saying something about the wonderfulness of something. does not a person who writes wonderfully, consistently over time, become, semantically, a wonderful writer? sure, but no writer is absolutely consistent. but a piece of wonderful writing is consistently wonderful.

  8. darby

      oh, i am not questioning the truthfulness of what you are saying, whether they are or are not wonderful writers, although wonderful attached to a person is a bit more general than when attached to an art, so it makes sense to revert to ‘wonderful writer’ in order to keep the fact that you hadn’t read the issue hidden while remaining truthful and still saying something about the wonderfulness of something. does not a person who writes wonderfully, consistently over time, become, semantically, a wonderful writer? sure, but no writer is absolutely consistent. but a piece of wonderful writing is consistently wonderful.

  9. mts

      This is a “fresh link” to the same old shit.

  10. mts

      This is a “fresh link” to the same old shit.

  11. Jimmy Chen

      well said. i hope to never get audited by you.

  12. Jimmy Chen

      well said. i hope to never get audited by you.

  13. Jimmy Chen

      speaking of same old shit: anonymous snarky comments

  14. Jimmy Chen

      speaking of same old shit: anonymous snarky comments

  15. mts

      I would use my real name but it will get caught in the spam filter which is located where Blake Butler’s balls should be. Darby, you make perfect sense and raise a good question, but snobs like Chen will never see that. These writers are wonderful, whatever they have ever done and whatever they will ever do is wonderful. You go read these people right now (I did) and you will see (admit) how wonderful they are.

  16. mts

      I would use my real name but it will get caught in the spam filter which is located where Blake Butler’s balls should be. Darby, you make perfect sense and raise a good question, but snobs like Chen will never see that. These writers are wonderful, whatever they have ever done and whatever they will ever do is wonderful. You go read these people right now (I did) and you will see (admit) how wonderful they are.

  17. Richard

      That Kathy Fish is really growing on me. Good stuff.

  18. Richard

      That Kathy Fish is really growing on me. Good stuff.

  19. Sean

      What is the same old shit? These Miss Review works? I disagree.

  20. Sean

      What is the same old shit? These Miss Review works? I disagree.

  21. david erlewine

      did you read garson’s piece? fish’s rodney and chelsea? what the fuck are you talking about, mts?

  22. david erlewine

      did you read garson’s piece? fish’s rodney and chelsea? what the fuck are you talking about, mts?

  23. david erlewine

      sorry this place is so boring and obvious. go read deadspin or sherdog or hell a book

  24. david erlewine

      sorry this place is so boring and obvious. go read deadspin or sherdog or hell a book

  25. david erlewine

      JC, I’m not gay either but love ya man

  26. david erlewine

      JC, I’m not gay either but love ya man