fuck
1. Fuck that story by that guy. Read something else. I wanted to introduce you to this new writer anyway and this story will make you pant-pee and laugh like a photogenic butcher.
2. Has anyone seen the fucking new Hayden’s Ferry? Number 46 is re-donk. I can’t link it’s so new. What’s up with these people? In a short time, they have made their magazine crisp, beautiful, full of bad-ass writing, crazy. I mean they stepped up their Slay and are not looking back. My mind on their magazine has gone from throw-me-a-bone to ranch-style nacho pie. Fuck yes. Get it.
3. fuck you. punk.
4. Yesterday walking the hallway and I see a lady at a table and advertising a free raffle. A FREE RAFFLE. What the fuck?
5. Heroin. Sex. Scientology. What do you want? NSFW pics, so sorry if you work on Saturday. I include this because I think the guy’s write-up was CW techniques all glow (He uses Tao Lin quotes and all types of solid pacing, transitions–“This is where things get weird.”) Also I’ve been drinking fake absinthe and it fit well in my “fuck” theme I have going here.
Last Thanksgiving I was staying at a friends house for a few days before a trip to South America.
Stories that begin this way always end up with heroin and Scientology, this we know. A lot could be learned from that opening sentence. If you say friends should be friend’s I’ll punch you in the spleen. It is Saturday. relax.
6. Kristen Shaw with a great fucking flash at decomP. It includes the term fuck.
Tags: Free raffles are stupid, fuck, Heroine, John Updike, Kristen Shaw, Tao Lin, Tom Cruise can suck it
tao lin
tao lin
who?
who?
I think that was the first flash fiction I’ve ever read. ey.
I enjoyed it.
I think that was the first flash fiction I’ve ever read. ey.
I enjoyed it.
More nacho references, please.
More nacho references, please.
I hate flash fiction. I often write flash fiction because the meds disallow concentration.
I hate flash fiction. I often write flash fiction because the meds disallow concentration.
Why do you hate flash fiction?
Are you saying there is no need for concentration to write a flash? Why? Because of its brevity?
Like a poem.
Why do you hate flash fiction?
Are you saying there is no need for concentration to write a flash? Why? Because of its brevity?
Like a poem.
my lack of concentration is why i write poems instead of legimate, long short stories like updike. i can’t be bothered to spend time on my writing.
to quote lil wayne, “i don’t write shit / cuz i ain’t got time”
my lack of concentration is why i write poems instead of legimate, long short stories like updike. i can’t be bothered to spend time on my writing.
to quote lil wayne, “i don’t write shit / cuz i ain’t got time”
Surely the concentration required to write flash fiction is far greater than that required for longer stuff.
As Sean says, it’s like a poem – the density is much higher, so greater stretches of time/focus are applied in the production of considerably smaller chunks/paragraphs/lines/etc.
It would be very easy to spend 2,000 words describing what Kristen Shaw got across in a handful of paragraphs.
Incidentally, I wonder: how long do you people tend to spend on your poems? For me, a 20-line poem will sometimes take longer than a 2,000-word story. I’ve spent an entire hour on one line before. I tend to rhyme and use assonance and whatnot, though, which most people don’t, so I’m curious to know whether other people take as long as I do.
Surely the concentration required to write flash fiction is far greater than that required for longer stuff.
As Sean says, it’s like a poem – the density is much higher, so greater stretches of time/focus are applied in the production of considerably smaller chunks/paragraphs/lines/etc.
It would be very easy to spend 2,000 words describing what Kristen Shaw got across in a handful of paragraphs.
Incidentally, I wonder: how long do you people tend to spend on your poems? For me, a 20-line poem will sometimes take longer than a 2,000-word story. I’ve spent an entire hour on one line before. I tend to rhyme and use assonance and whatnot, though, which most people don’t, so I’m curious to know whether other people take as long as I do.
surely i can also write a sentence that begins with surely
if it would be very easy to write shaw’s piece in 2000 words, i dare you to
is concentration a measurable substance? (besides that which applies to orange juice) no aim is more or less, different aims require different sorts is all.
like what you do and like what you like to do and do it
surely i can also write a sentence that begins with surely
if it would be very easy to write shaw’s piece in 2000 words, i dare you to
is concentration a measurable substance? (besides that which applies to orange juice) no aim is more or less, different aims require different sorts is all.
like what you do and like what you like to do and do it
I wonder if Donald is arguing it would NOT be easy to. Maybe a skip? The rest of his post argues otherwise.
I wonder if Donald is arguing it would NOT be easy to. Maybe a skip? The rest of his post argues otherwise.
Hayden’s Ferry is a great review, it deserves attention.
Hayden’s Ferry is a great review, it deserves attention.
The longer stuff being 2,000 word stories or 50,000 word novels? I see your point, but I have to disagree. People can write shitty, careless flash pieces or they can write shitty, careless novels. Just because it’s short doesn’t mean they’re going to concentrate harder on what they’re writing.
You say description is easy to write at length but hard to do in concentration. OK. But how many novels have you written? And how many poems? It definitely takes a lot more consistent concentration to write something long. I mean, I love short things as much as the next guy, but you never get the “what the fuck have been doing for the past three years” moments when you’re just working on some 75-word piece of flash.
The longer stuff being 2,000 word stories or 50,000 word novels? I see your point, but I have to disagree. People can write shitty, careless flash pieces or they can write shitty, careless novels. Just because it’s short doesn’t mean they’re going to concentrate harder on what they’re writing.
You say description is easy to write at length but hard to do in concentration. OK. But how many novels have you written? And how many poems? It definitely takes a lot more consistent concentration to write something long. I mean, I love short things as much as the next guy, but you never get the “what the fuck have been doing for the past three years” moments when you’re just working on some 75-word piece of flash.
Hayden’s Ferry has definitely stepped its game up…riskier content, online subs, and quicker response times.
Hayden’s Ferry has definitely stepped its game up…riskier content, online subs, and quicker response times.
I like Tom Cruise. Esp. in “Jerry Maguire,” “Eyes Wide Shut,” “Magnolia,” “Tropic Thunder,” and “Vanilla Sky.” I like how he’s always running in all his movies. And his passion.
I like Tom Cruise. Esp. in “Jerry Maguire,” “Eyes Wide Shut,” “Magnolia,” “Tropic Thunder,” and “Vanilla Sky.” I like how he’s always running in all his movies. And his passion.
Good point. I was confusing concentration in terms of intensity with concentration in terms of duration. They’re very different things..
By longer stuff I meant things like 4,000-100,00+ words, I suppose.
I didn’t say that description is easy to write at length. I obviously haven’t been very articulate… I’ll try again.
The phrase “very easy to spend 2,000 words describing…” was definitely badly worded. What I meant is “very possible”, or as easy as anything ever is. My point was that the amount of key information conveyed to the reader in Shaw’s 300 words is similar to that found in many longer stories, and that that implies to me that there is more art in said 300 words.
Have you ever played those Rainbow Six games? I haven’t, but the idea is that six special operatives (whatever you’d call them) can go in somewhere and pull something off which would otherwise have taken 100 men, right? Clearly, those six are far more skilled, or far better trained and deployed, than the 100.
That doesn’t necessarily render the entire operation superior, of course; it’s simply more efficient. Depending on your stance, you might value the relative chaos and destruction wreaked by the 100 footsoldiers.
Anyway, I think I was being pretty stupid, as far as all of my ridiculous generalisations went. I was implying that longer works become more a work of endurance than of highly focused thought, which is clearly bollocks. It’s probably true of many of them, but, equally, many of them must involve a great deal of concentration (in the sense of intensity).
The Great Gatsby would be an example of an incredibly focused effort. That wasn’t very long, though…
Well, you get what I mean, anyway, hopefully.
Oh, and darby, I can only apologise if my surelies pained you. I am a wicked and amoral individual. I agree with the whole “like what you do &c.” thing but it doesn’t have any bearing on what I was saying – it’s more of a sidestep.
Good point. I was confusing concentration in terms of intensity with concentration in terms of duration. They’re very different things..
By longer stuff I meant things like 4,000-100,00+ words, I suppose.
I didn’t say that description is easy to write at length. I obviously haven’t been very articulate… I’ll try again.
The phrase “very easy to spend 2,000 words describing…” was definitely badly worded. What I meant is “very possible”, or as easy as anything ever is. My point was that the amount of key information conveyed to the reader in Shaw’s 300 words is similar to that found in many longer stories, and that that implies to me that there is more art in said 300 words.
Have you ever played those Rainbow Six games? I haven’t, but the idea is that six special operatives (whatever you’d call them) can go in somewhere and pull something off which would otherwise have taken 100 men, right? Clearly, those six are far more skilled, or far better trained and deployed, than the 100.
That doesn’t necessarily render the entire operation superior, of course; it’s simply more efficient. Depending on your stance, you might value the relative chaos and destruction wreaked by the 100 footsoldiers.
Anyway, I think I was being pretty stupid, as far as all of my ridiculous generalisations went. I was implying that longer works become more a work of endurance than of highly focused thought, which is clearly bollocks. It’s probably true of many of them, but, equally, many of them must involve a great deal of concentration (in the sense of intensity).
The Great Gatsby would be an example of an incredibly focused effort. That wasn’t very long, though…
Well, you get what I mean, anyway, hopefully.
Oh, and darby, I can only apologise if my surelies pained you. I am a wicked and amoral individual. I agree with the whole “like what you do &c.” thing but it doesn’t have any bearing on what I was saying – it’s more of a sidestep.
Oh I Iike his passion too. I wish he would passionately fall into a crevasse or off a couch.
You could spend three years writing flash. Writing a collection of flash and writing a novel. What’s the difference?
I’ve read Oh Baby by Chinquee more than once. Same with some novels.
I’ve read Trout Fishing in American maybe 8 times. It’s a flash collection, isn’t it?
Oh I Iike his passion too. I wish he would passionately fall into a crevasse or off a couch.
You could spend three years writing flash. Writing a collection of flash and writing a novel. What’s the difference?
I’ve read Oh Baby by Chinquee more than once. Same with some novels.
I’ve read Trout Fishing in American maybe 8 times. It’s a flash collection, isn’t it?
“A & P” does ‘blow,’ in my opinion. Why do writing students get assigned this story so much? Or English students of any stripe? Seems like a disservice, or highly illogical, or something.
“A & P” does ‘blow,’ in my opinion. Why do writing students get assigned this story so much? Or English students of any stripe? Seems like a disservice, or highly illogical, or something.
a dude and i fucked for like an hour
when we were done i was like, “you know, there would’ve been way more art in that fuck if we had brought it down to five minutes”
he looked at me weird
a dude and i fucked for like an hour
when we were done i was like, “you know, there would’ve been way more art in that fuck if we had brought it down to five minutes”
he looked at me weird
I think we need to make a distinction between the “amount of art” and the “density of art.” If there was an equal “amount of art” in a 100-word text and a 10,000-word text, the “density of art” would be greater in the 100-word text than the 10,000-word text.
Which is more desirable, a text with a greater “density of art” and lesser “amount of art,” or a text with lesser “density of art” and greater “amount of art”? I suggest that we take a weighted average of the “density of art” of the text and the “amount of art” contained in the text. This would give us a one-dimensional value that we could define as “quality.” We then could order texts by their level of “quality.”
Higher “quality” is better than lower “quality,” naturally.
I think we need to make a distinction between the “amount of art” and the “density of art.” If there was an equal “amount of art” in a 100-word text and a 10,000-word text, the “density of art” would be greater in the 100-word text than the 10,000-word text.
Which is more desirable, a text with a greater “density of art” and lesser “amount of art,” or a text with lesser “density of art” and greater “amount of art”? I suggest that we take a weighted average of the “density of art” of the text and the “amount of art” contained in the text. This would give us a one-dimensional value that we could define as “quality.” We then could order texts by their level of “quality.”
Higher “quality” is better than lower “quality,” naturally.
One of the reasons “A&P” gets taught so often to beginner writers is because it all takes place in one scene. When students take their first workshop class, I’ve found they’re often pretty intimidated, especially by the idea of stringing together multiple scenes, dropping in exposition, and sounding what they think good writing sounds like, i.e. complex and obtuse. “A&P” gives them a simple example to follow. It’s all one scene, and it’s about a subject most teenagers can relate to on some level: work. And the voice doesn’t sound writerly like some of the books they probably read in high school like Fitzgerald or Austen.
After reading “A&P”, students will often begin to think that writing is simple and that all they have to do is tell us a scene in an engaging voice. The problem with giving out “A&P” is what happens next. Teachers who follow it up with another realistic story and another and another are doing a disservice to their students. Good teachers allow their students to get a handle on short, scenic realism and then hit them with Barthelme, Bolano, Kincaid and so on and so forth. Aesthetic diversity is key.
One of the reasons “A&P” gets taught so often to beginner writers is because it all takes place in one scene. When students take their first workshop class, I’ve found they’re often pretty intimidated, especially by the idea of stringing together multiple scenes, dropping in exposition, and sounding what they think good writing sounds like, i.e. complex and obtuse. “A&P” gives them a simple example to follow. It’s all one scene, and it’s about a subject most teenagers can relate to on some level: work. And the voice doesn’t sound writerly like some of the books they probably read in high school like Fitzgerald or Austen.
After reading “A&P”, students will often begin to think that writing is simple and that all they have to do is tell us a scene in an engaging voice. The problem with giving out “A&P” is what happens next. Teachers who follow it up with another realistic story and another and another are doing a disservice to their students. Good teachers allow their students to get a handle on short, scenic realism and then hit them with Barthelme, Bolano, Kincaid and so on and so forth. Aesthetic diversity is key.
I just re-read “A&P.” I still like it.
I just re-read “A&P.” I still like it.
[amusing but unnecessarily facetious and ironic response to an argument nobody made]
[amusing but unnecessarily facetious and ironic response to an argument nobody made]
I thought it was funny that you said “more art” and then rachel also said “more art,” so I wanted to talk about “amount(s) of art.”
How do those bracket-phrases work?
[missing argument that corresponds to Donald’s amusing response]
I think “facetiousness” and “irony” were necessary characteristics of my response.
I thought it was funny that you said “more art” and then rachel also said “more art,” so I wanted to talk about “amount(s) of art.”
How do those bracket-phrases work?
[missing argument that corresponds to Donald’s amusing response]
I think “facetiousness” and “irony” were necessary characteristics of my response.
Kyle. Bring your discs to denver. I will spleen you.
Kyle. Bring your discs to denver. I will spleen you.
I packed ’em today. Spleen me how to throw a 300 ft. drive while you’re at it, because I’m topping out at 150.
I packed ’em today. Spleen me how to throw a 300 ft. drive while you’re at it, because I’m topping out at 150.
What IS it about Tom Cruise that gets people so riled up? I have long wondered what it is about him that makes ME love AND hate him. Is it narcissism (his, not mine, hee hee), conceit, balls? Megalomania? Is he delusional?
His is such an interesting career arc.
“Born on the Fourth of July” seems a pivotal performance.
I first loved him in “Interview with the Vampire”.
Then in “Eyes Wide Shut”, “Magnolia” and “Vanilla Sky”, love-love-loved him.
(I like Minority Report but not so much because of TC.)
“Tropic Thunder”, “dang” in a good way.
And let’s not forget his funny cameo in “Austin Powers in Goldmember”.
I love the Pathos he brings to his acting. Seriously. It is fascinating. His boundaries seem so blurry, or so warped. What IS it about….
I do have a problem with his public persona.
Would I get along with him if we were neighbors? Yeah, sure.
Would I “like him as a person”? Probably not.
You know who creeps me out? Rosie O’Donnell. Remember how she had some weird “thing” for “Tommy”?
Don’t nobody try to get in a shitstorm with me about Tom right now because I’m going to bed.
What IS it about Tom Cruise that gets people so riled up? I have long wondered what it is about him that makes ME love AND hate him. Is it narcissism (his, not mine, hee hee), conceit, balls? Megalomania? Is he delusional?
His is such an interesting career arc.
“Born on the Fourth of July” seems a pivotal performance.
I first loved him in “Interview with the Vampire”.
Then in “Eyes Wide Shut”, “Magnolia” and “Vanilla Sky”, love-love-loved him.
(I like Minority Report but not so much because of TC.)
“Tropic Thunder”, “dang” in a good way.
And let’s not forget his funny cameo in “Austin Powers in Goldmember”.
I love the Pathos he brings to his acting. Seriously. It is fascinating. His boundaries seem so blurry, or so warped. What IS it about….
I do have a problem with his public persona.
Would I get along with him if we were neighbors? Yeah, sure.
Would I “like him as a person”? Probably not.
You know who creeps me out? Rosie O’Donnell. Remember how she had some weird “thing” for “Tommy”?
Don’t nobody try to get in a shitstorm with me about Tom right now because I’m going to bed.
original comment: that story seriously lost me at “took a shit”
paranoid-y musing: was my previous comment deleted?
original comment: that story seriously lost me at “took a shit”
paranoid-y musing: was my previous comment deleted?
if i’m wrong: excuse me. i didn’t mean to imply anything.
if i’m not: dude. if you want me to give you a more ‘thorough critique’, just ask.
if i’m wrong: excuse me. i didn’t mean to imply anything.
if i’m not: dude. if you want me to give you a more ‘thorough critique’, just ask.
I meant both yours and Rachel’s. They were pretty funny! I just felt like they were responding to things I hadn’t said (if they were intended as responses to anything I’d said).
I meant both yours and Rachel’s. They were pretty funny! I just felt like they were responding to things I hadn’t said (if they were intended as responses to anything I’d said).
this was pretty drug-induced. but i tend to think of actors
that are successful
as having everything to do
with the make-up
of their map [see #4]
more so than any of the
words
put into their mouths
or how they’re edited together
in post-production, and
the like.
Eyes Wide Shut is
B.O.S.S.
that’s about all i have to
say.
/hi.
this was pretty drug-induced. but i tend to think of actors
that are successful
as having everything to do
with the make-up
of their map [see #4]
more so than any of the
words
put into their mouths
or how they’re edited together
in post-production, and
the like.
Eyes Wide Shut is
B.O.S.S.
that’s about all i have to
say.
/hi.
thanks, mimi. Pathos seems like a great, apt word to use to describe what he brings to the table. i think it’s not irrelevant that he was considering going into the seminary to be a priest before changing his mind and going into acting. he has something bordering on ‘religious fervor.’ which of course doesn’t sit well with some people.
thanks, mimi. Pathos seems like a great, apt word to use to describe what he brings to the table. i think it’s not irrelevant that he was considering going into the seminary to be a priest before changing his mind and going into acting. he has something bordering on ‘religious fervor.’ which of course doesn’t sit well with some people.
@zusya: i assume it’s just a happy accident that tom cruise’s given name is Mapother.
@zusya: i assume it’s just a happy accident that tom cruise’s given name is Mapother.
Map.
Other.
Map.
Other.
@mimi: mind=exploded. heheheh….
@mimi: mind=exploded. heheheh….
@u: hehz right back at y’all.
what’s left t’say?
somepeople
go cruising
for bruisings
while the
restofus
do stuff like this.
/or listen to rote music… good luck figuring that one out.
@u: hehz right back at y’all.
what’s left t’say?
somepeople
go cruising
for bruisings
while the
restofus
do stuff like this.
/or listen to rote music… good luck figuring that one out.
yez zir
yez zir
Hell yes. That story was absolutely hilarious and crafty, and I’m not a big Tao fan. But this, this was fantastic (no “Tao” “quotes” “necessary,” because I’m serious-asaurus.)
Hell yes. That story was absolutely hilarious and crafty, and I’m not a big Tao fan. But this, this was fantastic (no “Tao” “quotes” “necessary,” because I’m serious-asaurus.)
I think A & P is fine. Fuck you.
And whatever, cole trickle? Really? Amazing.
Minority Report? Awesome.
I even like war of the worlds. Whatever, I know your not supposed to like it.
I think A & P is fine. Fuck you.
And whatever, cole trickle? Really? Amazing.
Minority Report? Awesome.
I even like war of the worlds. Whatever, I know your not supposed to like it.