Mean
AWP Chicago: A Human Being’s Notes
Browsing through the many post-AWP posts for something that does something that I don’t know what, maybe something worth mentioning, or something else, I found this up at Agni (via the Newpages blog): ‘AWP Chicago: A Gamer’s Notes’ by JS Tunotre. I read it and tried to think of how it applied to my AWP experience. I found myself resisting it, wanting to respond. Then I told myself I wasn’t going to post about AWP, especially not one of those ‘thank-you’ posts to everyone (which are fine and fun to read, but there are just so many of them, and I can only read so much about how weird it is to meet people in real life whom you’ve only known online). But I changed my mind today when I realized that I couldn’t focus on the student papers piled on my desk. So here goes:
Before you read on, recall that we’ve already talked a little bit about the ‘submissions game’ here, so maybe this AWP post will pick up a little bit where Mike Young left off?
And if you haven’t, please read Blake Butler’s BE AN OPEN NODE post for some more thoughts that sort of go with what I’m thinking here.
So, to the essay. Give it a quick read, then come back and let’s talk. Also, you should know that I’m reading/responding to JS Tunotre’s essay honestly. I’m aware of its satirical qualities, its humor, etc, but I think Tunotre is describing a common perception about AWP, publishing, writing, and so on that I want to treat as a serious argument, despite his framing it in gamer’s language. We can also discuss how serious Tunotre is about this issue in the comments.
Okay, enough delay. My first question after you’ve read the essay is this: does Tunotre speak for you?
I am speaking here for all of us who still cannot walk into a room, a literary arena, without immediately seeing it as a complexly graded hierarchy, a scarcely disguised Hobbesian jungle, tyrannized over not by teeth and claws, but by their verbal equivalents.
Probably not, unless you are a robot, in which case you are probably small and round and vacuuming up all of the crap after everyone leaves town.
Or you are insanely intelligent, live alone in a garrett that you never leave, and write very long books, in which case you have no experience with crowds anyhow.
But seriously, does Tunotre speak for you? I’m curious to hear from people who think of AWP this way (or any other social interaction for that matter).
Here’s what I think: when I walk into a room full of tables and books and lots of people, I feel something like ‘fear’ and then ‘happiness’ and then ‘fear’ and then something else; then maybe I make fun of myself for feeling those feelings. Sure, I might tell someone, ‘Man, this is so weird,’ but I like to think I’m saying that sincerely, rather than just trying to show how aloof and hip and distant I am about this whole fucked up thing. And yeah, I do create a sort of hierarchy: these are the presses/journals I’d like to go see and here are the people I’d like to see. I want to see these over others, sure. But the hierarchy, I think anyhow, is based on what I’m most interested in looking at, in reading; to whom am I most interest in listening speak? This hierarchy is created in my head not because I think I can gain some ‘points’ as I move through the room, but because I’m genuinely interested in words, in putting them together in pleasing ways. I think of myself as someone who wants to join in, be a part of a really exciting community. I want to support these tiny worlds: did anyone go by the Cannibal Books/Projective Industries table? How about the stuff over at The Agriculture Reader/Forklift, Ohio table? Did you spend money on your favorites? I’m sad I missed William Gass and some of the other author signings.
Then I might walk up and down the aisles with my eyes on my feet or down low so I can see the labels on the tables’ edges. I am shy sometimes. I also might walk with my eyes up, though I’m rarely ‘immediately seeing [‘the literary arena’] as a complexly graded hierarchy.’ Instead, I’m looking for a water station or a bathroom or maybe a friend – and not the sterile, inhuman ‘friend’ that Tunotre describes: a ‘broker or an intermediary – some friend who has already established contact with a member of the proximate Status Caste.’ I’m probably looking for a real friend, someone with whom I talk about things other than writing: my fear of flying, how to change a car headlight, that crazy neighbor who collects all of the neighborhood packages and holds them for everyone on the block until they get home from work and everyone thinks he’s really nice but you still think he’s kind of creepy.
You know, important stuff.
This is not to say that Tunotre is way off here. Everyone laughs at the term ‘networking.’ We write it in single quotation marks. I think our discomfort with the word is because of how systematic, inorganic it sounds. CEOs network. Computer people network. Prairie dog colonies construct networks of tunnels. And so on (excuse the over generalizations). Tunotre thinks of ‘friends’ as knots on a rope. One climbs hand over hand up this hierarchy.
Can I suggest a perhaps more earnest and innocent interpretation of how this might work? Can I address you sincerely? First, try to avoid thinking of this thing as a game to be won. This will remove a lot of stress from your life. Next, think of yourself as a part of a larger world – it can be however big or small as long as you realize that you are not alone. The important thing to think is that there is some kind of context in which you are writing. There are people in this world who happen to write words that you admire. Are they ‘better’ than you? No. Have they ‘defeated’ you with their two books and neat wardrobe? No. Maybe you’ve learned that a friend of yours knows one of these people whose words you admire. Will your friend arrange an introduction? Sure, s/he will, because s/he is not threatened and feels the same way about this as you do. You want to meet this person whose words you admire not because they can ‘do something’ for you, but because you genuinely feel something for them, because the words they write have affected you in unnamable ways. Then you nervously meet them. Human contact is made. Something neat happens: you compliment his or her words. They say thanks.
If something more comes from the introduction, then the little world of which you are now a part grows a bit stronger. You’re asked to contribute something to a journal or edit an anthology. You exchange poems. You invite this person to gchat with you. Tunotre calls this ‘trading up’ or ‘advancing the avatar,’ but I like to think of it as less selfish than that, more communal, hopeful.
What is the foundational difference between my model and Tunotre’s?
A confession: my first time at AWP, I robot-ed along. I had a list of everything I wanted to see. I attended panels about publishing. I made a point of visiting certain journals to which I had work pending. It was awful. I spent most of the day frazzled, gamed-out, suffering from a combination of being drunk and being hungover at the same time. But the next year, I prepared less, and felt a little better about myself afterwards. Then in Chicago, I had five panels I wanted to see (two of which were by old instructors whom I wanted to say hi to again), and the rest of my time I spent wandering around and hanging out with friends. I hardly prepared at all. Did the lack of a plan hurt my wallet? Yes. Was it so bad to just hang out with friends? No. Was I still drunk and hungover? Yes, but it was nice.
Okay, back to Tunotre and the makings of my conclusion. In the essay, Tunotre goes on to describe a ‘level-1 interchange,’ something called ‘the constraint of gradient,’ and a caste system of authors. Comparing the activity that goes on at AWP to a game is pretty funny, in a way, and also interesting to think about in an ‘oh, that’s neat’ sort of way.’ I’m sure Tunotre really enjoyed writing the essay. But he overlooks a lot of the personal contact that goes on when a bunch of people with a common interest get together. What happens when you shrink the crowd from 8,000 to 30? 15? 10? It’s easy to generalize about 8,000 writers in a room. But as the numbers decrease and everyone breaks up into little groups, then what? The gaming-model doesn’t seem to allow for sincere, honest relating between people, and that’s my problem with it. This, I think, is the point I’m trying to make: that Tunotre’s model, however tongue-in-cheek, is descriptive (‘This is how the world works and we pretend otherwise at our peril’) and mine is prescriptive.
Change the way you think.
I’ll close with some more excerpts from the essay, which is at times pretty funny:
From the paragraph about Q&A sessions at panels:
Everyone knows that the only reason any person ever asks a question is to solicit attention, either for the quality of her opinions, the level of her engagement with the issue at hand, or her intelligence. Members of the audience, of course, resent the asker immediately, whether or not they can hear the comment or question.
So yeah. Magic bullet. Something.
The sublime irony is that you can only be declared winner, and thereby freed from the remorseless circulation of your avatar around the board, when it has become a matter of complete indifference to you whether Richard Bausch or Lorrie Moore looks up with a smile when you enter the room, when Jonathan Lethem’s shoulder pat slides off you like summer rain, when you are not even paying attention because you are thinking about what awaits you at the desk back home, that greeting line of words on the page that alone has power to grant the status—or, better, the absolution—you need. Then you have won. Though part of winning is no longer giving a damn that you have.
Game over.
So, that’s all I’ve got. Sorry if this seems like a righteous lecture.
Responses?
Tags: Agni, awp chicago, gaming, JS Tunotre, networking
good post. i couldnt read through the agni piece all the way as it made me feel disgusted, whether it was tongue in cheek or not, it still seemed funded with what seems an experience that is likely more people’s experience than i would like to believe. some people in those rooms are scary.
i don’t know what i think about the thing. i think i dont know what i think about the thing because its like a bake sale: there are people there, some of them have done some stuff, some of them have done some other stuff, usually i feel dizzy
dizzy or anxious, and the time goes quicker than it is supposed to, though it seems like it felt like it was much longer than it was even while it was feeling shorter
and so on and so on
i think even when in the joking mode, which this piece could claim to be, it is not so fun to try to parse events that could be just what they are in such a way
there are lots of qualifiers people want to touch with things, when mostly you could just be enjoying-feeling
this guy should write for pitchfork, they would be into him
good post. i couldnt read through the agni piece all the way as it made me feel disgusted, whether it was tongue in cheek or not, it still seemed funded with what seems an experience that is likely more people’s experience than i would like to believe. some people in those rooms are scary.
i don’t know what i think about the thing. i think i dont know what i think about the thing because its like a bake sale: there are people there, some of them have done some stuff, some of them have done some other stuff, usually i feel dizzy
dizzy or anxious, and the time goes quicker than it is supposed to, though it seems like it felt like it was much longer than it was even while it was feeling shorter
and so on and so on
i think even when in the joking mode, which this piece could claim to be, it is not so fun to try to parse events that could be just what they are in such a way
there are lots of qualifiers people want to touch with things, when mostly you could just be enjoying-feeling
this guy should write for pitchfork, they would be into him
oh, btw, brian oliu live blogged awp, and it is funnnny, and feels much more ‘in the spirit i like’
http://awpliveblog.blogspot.com/
oh, btw, brian oliu live blogged awp, and it is funnnny, and feels much more ‘in the spirit i like’
http://awpliveblog.blogspot.com/
Good job, Ryan. I’m glad you thought this through for me so I don’t have to. And do you really have a guy who collects your mail?
Good job, Ryan. I’m glad you thought this through for me so I don’t have to. And do you really have a guy who collects your mail?
I’m with Adam here.
His article seems very cynical and then ends on a note of “but you shouldn’t be like this even though you all are” , or ‘that is how you all are, but I am not, i am “pure”. Or something like that. But I read/skimmed it. Or “your ambition is shallow”. I don’t know.
I wrote a few more graphs and then cut them out of embarrassment and fear of sounding cynical myself. My one awp experience (I went to one party and then out afterwards)last year in NY was half good/half really bad. People suck and some don’t. Writers, drivers, plumbers, lawyers. Some good, some soulless fucks. I like the idea of being open. I think it gets harder as we get older- we get bitter. Or lazier.
it’s sort of embarrassing to admit, i will say that going to awp and not really knowing anyone made it feel like i was forced into ‘gaming’ the situation in certain ways. what i mean is that i wanted to make friends and talk to people, but didn’t know anyone well at all, so tried to find those tables/people with whom i had some reason to speak and then hoping that the tiny ‘i like your book/magazine/whatever’ conversations might lead to actual good conversations.
i think one of the key things here is awp’s size. i felt like many of the people there already had a lot of friends that they rarely got to see and so formed these natural and really fun-seeming nodes that led to legitimately meeting new people and improving relationships. i found that, lacking a critical mass of social contacts and/or the ability to integrate myself comfortably into conversations with relative strangers, i was led to trying to strategize ways of making contacts.
this isn’t to say i was gaming for social status, but that i guess i can see that i was employing strategy and tactics to ‘get the most out of the conference’ insofar as I was trying to figure out ways to talk to people I didn’t really know but knew about/admired. Because there were just so many people, i felt like i had to have a good reason to talk to someone or else i was just wasting their time.
i guess this is a rambling and self-pitying way of saying 2 things. 1)the approach to the conference probably differs radically according to how many people you are already friends with before you go. 2) the sheer size of awp makes random interaction difficult, because you don’t want to bother people that have 1000 other people to talk to. In a smaller setting, I think random and more naturally developing connections are more likely. so while not thinking explicitly in terms of things like ‘points’ or ‘character advancement’, i was trying to meet people and to figure out how to do that effectively.
it’s sort of embarrassing to admit, i will say that going to awp and not really knowing anyone made it feel like i was forced into ‘gaming’ the situation in certain ways. what i mean is that i wanted to make friends and talk to people, but didn’t know anyone well at all, so tried to find those tables/people with whom i had some reason to speak and then hoping that the tiny ‘i like your book/magazine/whatever’ conversations might lead to actual good conversations.
i think one of the key things here is awp’s size. i felt like many of the people there already had a lot of friends that they rarely got to see and so formed these natural and really fun-seeming nodes that led to legitimately meeting new people and improving relationships. i found that, lacking a critical mass of social contacts and/or the ability to integrate myself comfortably into conversations with relative strangers, i was led to trying to strategize ways of making contacts.
this isn’t to say i was gaming for social status, but that i guess i can see that i was employing strategy and tactics to ‘get the most out of the conference’ insofar as I was trying to figure out ways to talk to people I didn’t really know but knew about/admired. Because there were just so many people, i felt like i had to have a good reason to talk to someone or else i was just wasting their time.
i guess this is a rambling and self-pitying way of saying 2 things. 1)the approach to the conference probably differs radically according to how many people you are already friends with before you go. 2) the sheer size of awp makes random interaction difficult, because you don’t want to bother people that have 1000 other people to talk to. In a smaller setting, I think random and more naturally developing connections are more likely. so while not thinking explicitly in terms of things like ‘points’ or ‘character advancement’, i was trying to meet people and to figure out how to do that effectively.
ben, that is a good note, something i did not think of. i came to the conference knowing id have a core group of people to see. no doubt thats colored my experience in an optimistic, why cant we all just get along sort of hue.
but what’s heartening about your comment here is that you were ‘gaming’ from a less selfish perspective, right? you weren’t maneuvering for status or trying to sell your book. you were trying to make friends for the sake of human contact? i think thats ‘good’ even though it might have perhaps been a bit more frustrating for you.
ben, that is a good note, something i did not think of. i came to the conference knowing id have a core group of people to see. no doubt thats colored my experience in an optimistic, why cant we all just get along sort of hue.
but what’s heartening about your comment here is that you were ‘gaming’ from a less selfish perspective, right? you weren’t maneuvering for status or trying to sell your book. you were trying to make friends for the sake of human contact? i think thats ‘good’ even though it might have perhaps been a bit more frustrating for you.
Yeah, yeah exactly. This is what I was thinking too. And it even applies to “HTML GIANT”, when you don’t know anything at all about the world it describes, though you think you would like to. Well, it applies to a lot of things.
Yeah, yeah exactly. This is what I was thinking too. And it even applies to “HTML GIANT”, when you don’t know anything at all about the world it describes, though you think you would like to. Well, it applies to a lot of things.
I’ll bite:
How does it apply to HTMLGIANT?
I’ll bite:
How does it apply to HTMLGIANT?
I think there are other variables that make people be like what is being described. One is how much is a person sacrificing for their writing, or how much risk is involved if they fail. Another is how good or established of a writer are they. The extreme low, or 1st level whatever is probably someone who is diving headfirst into the game, is planning on making a real living by writing fiction, naively, and unfortunately their writing is not getting a lot of attention and sadly will probably never get a lot of attention.
Everyone who is htmlgiantish is already kind of on the game over side. You’ve already received a certain amount of accolades for your writing in the form of publication credits or something, you feel good about your writing, you feel comfortable calling yourself a ‘writer’ and have faith in yourself to write something others will probably want to read. I’ll include myself in that group also. If I went to awp or do in the future, the idea of gaining social status would be ridiculous because I have no reason to care about that. I feel confident about my writing, and, I don’t depend on it. Writing is a hobby for me, it’s not the focus of my life, it supplements it. If I were to fail at writing, whatever that means, my life wouldn’t change. It’s easy to say, be an open node, when the node that eminates from you is inherently charged magnetically to bring people to you because your writing is strong, or you are good-looking or etc. I’m not sure anyone even reading this knows what’s like to be a level 1 whatever. So I don’t know. I’m going to side more with the essay I think, even though it doesn’t apply to me, I can sympathize with who it might apply to.
I think there are other variables that make people be like what is being described. One is how much is a person sacrificing for their writing, or how much risk is involved if they fail. Another is how good or established of a writer are they. The extreme low, or 1st level whatever is probably someone who is diving headfirst into the game, is planning on making a real living by writing fiction, naively, and unfortunately their writing is not getting a lot of attention and sadly will probably never get a lot of attention.
Everyone who is htmlgiantish is already kind of on the game over side. You’ve already received a certain amount of accolades for your writing in the form of publication credits or something, you feel good about your writing, you feel comfortable calling yourself a ‘writer’ and have faith in yourself to write something others will probably want to read. I’ll include myself in that group also. If I went to awp or do in the future, the idea of gaining social status would be ridiculous because I have no reason to care about that. I feel confident about my writing, and, I don’t depend on it. Writing is a hobby for me, it’s not the focus of my life, it supplements it. If I were to fail at writing, whatever that means, my life wouldn’t change. It’s easy to say, be an open node, when the node that eminates from you is inherently charged magnetically to bring people to you because your writing is strong, or you are good-looking or etc. I’m not sure anyone even reading this knows what’s like to be a level 1 whatever. So I don’t know. I’m going to side more with the essay I think, even though it doesn’t apply to me, I can sympathize with who it might apply to.
Am I the only one who felt he was mocking “others”?
Also, I thought Ben’s point was very good.
I understand both ways of thinking and I really like Blake’s and Ryan’s approach. But some of us are social dorks. I’m always a cold elbow on boob friday, for instance. How do dorks communicate outside the stricture of their flaws and be an open node thereby working to perceive the world absent of power structures and status, especially when we’ve never been on the other side of that imaginary line?
When do you get past Level 1? I’ve been stuck there for a while.
I understand both ways of thinking and I really like Blake’s and Ryan’s approach. But some of us are social dorks. I’m always a cold elbow on boob friday, for instance. How do dorks communicate outside the stricture of their flaws and be an open node thereby working to perceive the world absent of power structures and status, especially when we’ve never been on the other side of that imaginary line?
When do you get past Level 1? I’ve been stuck there for a while.
i dont know, darby. i think that makes a little bit of an unfair assumption about htmlgiantish people. i have confidence in my writing at times. other times i struggle. it is up and down. maybe thats not exactly what youre saying. it will be unique from person to person maybe. i do know that because how i think of writing now, certain aspects of the ‘game’ dont bother me as much: rejection, for example.
i do agree that other variables fit in. commitment, etc, will determine how people think about awp. i just also thought of the assumption im making about those who follow the gaming model: is it fair of me to assume that their actions are strictly selfish? probably not. in which case i can understand the frustration someone might feel, especially if they are trying to be their own open node, but no one’s sending nodes their way.
but if we follow this gaming model, everyone was at stage 1 or another, right? maybe not. for me, at some point my thinking about everything changed. when i was stage1, i was scrambling. i know what that was like, and now that i think about it, it was not fun. did my thinking change with publication credits? probably, but i dont know if that was the sole cause of my new approach. i think what im suggesting is that i could have saved myself a lot of stress/heartache had i not thought of this whole thing in a ‘must do X to get Y’ sort of way. this is something i still worry about – am i being truthful? am i being too serious? not serious enough?
i can sympathize with who it might apply to too, but also i hope people will try to think about it in a new ways. there needs to be some sort of change in how people think about publication? why do we want to publish?
It’s like any internet community. I guess it doesn’t apply if you’re only reading. But when you first jump in (to the comments section especially) you get the sense that everyone knows or at least knows of everyone else, and so socially you are kind of at a “disadvantage”. It’s not a real disadvantage and it’s not like it actually matters, or is even true… and it’s fundamentally different because very little is on the line as opposed to face-to-face interaction.
I guess what I’m saying is that it takes a great deal of time to just kind of parse that new information and organise this “world” into something you understand organically, and blog posts and social relationships are all mixed up into that understanding. “Gaming”, if you’re doing it sincerely, can also be a way of collecting more information to facilitate this understanding. Hopefully you get my meaning.
i dont know, darby. i think that makes a little bit of an unfair assumption about htmlgiantish people. i have confidence in my writing at times. other times i struggle. it is up and down. maybe thats not exactly what youre saying. it will be unique from person to person maybe. i do know that because how i think of writing now, certain aspects of the ‘game’ dont bother me as much: rejection, for example.
i do agree that other variables fit in. commitment, etc, will determine how people think about awp. i just also thought of the assumption im making about those who follow the gaming model: is it fair of me to assume that their actions are strictly selfish? probably not. in which case i can understand the frustration someone might feel, especially if they are trying to be their own open node, but no one’s sending nodes their way.
but if we follow this gaming model, everyone was at stage 1 or another, right? maybe not. for me, at some point my thinking about everything changed. when i was stage1, i was scrambling. i know what that was like, and now that i think about it, it was not fun. did my thinking change with publication credits? probably, but i dont know if that was the sole cause of my new approach. i think what im suggesting is that i could have saved myself a lot of stress/heartache had i not thought of this whole thing in a ‘must do X to get Y’ sort of way. this is something i still worry about – am i being truthful? am i being too serious? not serious enough?
i can sympathize with who it might apply to too, but also i hope people will try to think about it in a new ways. there needs to be some sort of change in how people think about publication? why do we want to publish?
It’s like any internet community. I guess it doesn’t apply if you’re only reading. But when you first jump in (to the comments section especially) you get the sense that everyone knows or at least knows of everyone else, and so socially you are kind of at a “disadvantage”. It’s not a real disadvantage and it’s not like it actually matters, or is even true… and it’s fundamentally different because very little is on the line as opposed to face-to-face interaction.
I guess what I’m saying is that it takes a great deal of time to just kind of parse that new information and organise this “world” into something you understand organically, and blog posts and social relationships are all mixed up into that understanding. “Gaming”, if you’re doing it sincerely, can also be a way of collecting more information to facilitate this understanding. Hopefully you get my meaning.
yeah, i mean, i think my post was a response to the model. there is cycnism to his essay.
yeah, i mean, i think my post was a response to the model. there is cycnism to his essay.
I could just be a dork like Brad Green describes below. Maybe this is how dorks see things.
I could just be a dork like Brad Green describes below. Maybe this is how dorks see things.
brad, i think your blog is already nodish. the threads ive read on it seem to be doing things that otherwise would not be possible if you were just sitting somewhere passively.
brad, i think your blog is already nodish. the threads ive read on it seem to be doing things that otherwise would not be possible if you were just sitting somewhere passively.
think about paper less
more think about how dogs spend a day
think about paper less
more think about how dogs spend a day
The dogs around my house spend most of their day licking their own balls. If I could that, I wouldn’t be compelled to write.
The dogs around my house spend most of their day licking their own balls. If I could that, I wouldn’t be compelled to write.
referring to the first sentence of your comment only: exactly.
Exactly. Cynicsm is a choice. And it always seems a way of elevating oneself. Like I said, I too can be cynical. That is why I had to delete a few graphs. But, thanks Ryan, for responding to my question.
referring to the first sentence of your comment only: exactly.
I shouldn’t have said htmlgiantish people, I’m not sure what that means either and isn’t all in/exclusive, but for lack of an all inclusive term.
why do we want to publish, exactly.
yes, now i understand. i think maybe whats important is that sincerity.
i think another thing to add here is that just as it takes new commenters time to parse this information, know/know of people socially, etc, it also takes contributors time to accomplish those same tasks. the various lit blogs that spring up, htmlgiant included, luna park, etc, arent usually overnight projects, but instead slowly grow out of collaboration, introductions, ‘networking’ and so on. so while you might be at a disadvantage, having come late or whatever, in my mind, at least, you’re still here and a part of it, making an effort to do whatever it is we’re doing. i like to think about that idea.
I shouldn’t have said htmlgiantish people, I’m not sure what that means either and isn’t all in/exclusive, but for lack of an all inclusive term.
why do we want to publish, exactly.
yes, now i understand. i think maybe whats important is that sincerity.
i think another thing to add here is that just as it takes new commenters time to parse this information, know/know of people socially, etc, it also takes contributors time to accomplish those same tasks. the various lit blogs that spring up, htmlgiant included, luna park, etc, arent usually overnight projects, but instead slowly grow out of collaboration, introductions, ‘networking’ and so on. so while you might be at a disadvantage, having come late or whatever, in my mind, at least, you’re still here and a part of it, making an effort to do whatever it is we’re doing. i like to think about that idea.
i didn’t think it was cynical. just satirical. I didn’t think he was mocking people, more like he was mocking the model.
i didn’t think it was cynical. just satirical. I didn’t think he was mocking people, more like he was mocking the model.
yes, that. i confuse cynical with satirical.
yes, that. i confuse cynical with satirical.
although I’m not very good at recognizing cynicism. probably because I am innately cynical.
me too
although I’m not very good at recognizing cynicism. probably because I am innately cynical.
me too
you are innately good at thinking about this stuff, is what i think.
I think the efforts of people to comment and be an open node is easily corrupted by greed and expectation. One can expend an enormous amount of time commenting, reviewing, participating and receive nothing in return. This would mean the actions were performed in the wrong frame of mind.
It’s hard to act, however, in a purely unselfish manner.
I have problems with this. It’s one of the primary causes of my dismay and hair-pulling lamentations. When I focus just on my words, however, and getting them onto the paper without regard to publication, exposure, or attention then I am my most productive and happy. So the task is to convince one’s self that the sentence is enough. Nothing else is necessary. I’m working on believing that.
Thanks for the therapy. Can I pay the receptionist on my way out?
you are innately good at thinking about this stuff, is what i think.
I think the efforts of people to comment and be an open node is easily corrupted by greed and expectation. One can expend an enormous amount of time commenting, reviewing, participating and receive nothing in return. This would mean the actions were performed in the wrong frame of mind.
It’s hard to act, however, in a purely unselfish manner.
I have problems with this. It’s one of the primary causes of my dismay and hair-pulling lamentations. When I focus just on my words, however, and getting them onto the paper without regard to publication, exposure, or attention then I am my most productive and happy. So the task is to convince one’s self that the sentence is enough. Nothing else is necessary. I’m working on believing that.
Thanks for the therapy. Can I pay the receptionist on my way out?
I feel he was mocking others. And elevating himself above the model. I also think he was cynical.
Def of cynical-
believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others
but how does any model get described without looking at it from a distance? I think I am very much a describer of models. I could have easily written a similar essay, or at least from a similar point of view. Truth only comes into focus for me if I step back and see more of everything and then consider it holistically. At that level, humans are just moving around like pawns, he’s not considering their motives. He’s just saying, look at this system, it’s kind of like a video game.
Def of cynical-
putting the truth of human nature above whatever might be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ about human nature.
but how does any model get described without looking at it from a distance? I think I am very much a describer of models. I could have easily written a similar essay, or at least from a similar point of view. Truth only comes into focus for me if I step back and see more of everything and then consider it holistically. At that level, humans are just moving around like pawns, he’s not considering their motives. He’s just saying, look at this system, it’s kind of like a video game.
Def of cynical-
putting the truth of human nature above whatever might be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ about human nature.
yeah, and im not saying im good at being unselfish either. ive been most happy when reminding myself that i am just one of many owkring towards something. in a way, this original post was another reminder, something i wanted to share.
yeah, and im not saying im good at being unselfish either. ive been most happy when reminding myself that i am just one of many owkring towards something. in a way, this original post was another reminder, something i wanted to share.
yes, his essay is definitely descriptive.
i think thats why i wanted to respond with a suggestion as to how we (i?) avoid that model.
yes, his essay is definitely descriptive.
i think thats why i wanted to respond with a suggestion as to how we (i?) avoid that model.
Hey, Ryan, I really dug this post. I’m always a little bummed when someone says to me, “I would never go to AWP. I can’t stand all that networking.” I can totally understand why someone would not want to go to AWP and why the conference would be a nightmare for certain personality types, but I just don’t agree with this notion of networking as always being such a self-serving and sleazy thing. It might be for people who move through places like AWP consumed with “scoring points” and “advancing their status,” but for me it’s always felt like something kinder, more communal, and more about connecting.
Hey, Ryan, I really dug this post. I’m always a little bummed when someone says to me, “I would never go to AWP. I can’t stand all that networking.” I can totally understand why someone would not want to go to AWP and why the conference would be a nightmare for certain personality types, but I just don’t agree with this notion of networking as always being such a self-serving and sleazy thing. It might be for people who move through places like AWP consumed with “scoring points” and “advancing their status,” but for me it’s always felt like something kinder, more communal, and more about connecting.
this is the most ridiculous discussion of awp ever. really? analyzing whys and why nots. social structures and nodes and exposure and variables and such. fuck. just being in a place where 10,000 other people get off on words and books. the energy, the madness, the nonsense. the beer. for god sake, the beer. thats enough for me. fucking fuk sdhewuwfsn xabqdjhqegw qaujdwqdg. see you fuckers in denver.
this is the most ridiculous discussion of awp ever. really? analyzing whys and why nots. social structures and nodes and exposure and variables and such. fuck. just being in a place where 10,000 other people get off on words and books. the energy, the madness, the nonsense. the beer. for god sake, the beer. thats enough for me. fucking fuk sdhewuwfsn xabqdjhqegw qaujdwqdg. see you fuckers in denver.
That was my point exactly Laura. Everyone is different in what they want, what they bring- to anywhere, not just awp. I didn’t go, because I am painfully shy. But I don’t like the tone that everyone is there to get ahead in some soulless way (too cynical). Many go because they love their life, they love what they do and want to commune with others who share that love.
hi barry.
hi sweets.
hi sweets.
haha
haha
prbg
forever
the voice of reason….
Sorry I’m coming late to the game, but here’s one small part of Tuntore’s essay that jumped out at me, and I don’t think it’s gotten a comment yet-
>>. For as everyone knows, being seen from a higher position only happens when there is something to be seen, <<
This is so absolutely key and right. Speaking as a member of the “tiny world” of the Forklift/Agriculture table, it boggled my mind how many people came up to our booth over the course of the weekend and opened with “What are your submission guidelines?” They had never heard of my magazine before–they had no idea who was in it, they didn’t want to buy it or even browse the sample copy on the table. They didn’t tell me their names, engage me in conversation, or give me the opportunity to query politely about their work. I didn’t know if they were poets or fiction writers or essayists. They never said.
All they wanted to know was what I was willing to do for them, and how soon. The lack of decorum was astonishing, but the naked desperation it belied made me feel embarrassed–for them as well as for me.
On the other hand, I also made a lot of new friends at AWP. These were the people who came up to our booth, entered our “tiny world” and made nice there. They flipped through the magazines- they mentioned if they recognized a name. They introduced themselves–big smile, hand out, the way you do it–and then they chatted. “Gee, your booth says Ohio. Are you from Ohio?” “No, we’re from Brooklyn, but Forklift publishes out of Cincinnati.” OR “Oh wow, you’ve got poems by Anthony McCann in here.” “Yeah, he’s been in a few of our issues. Me and Jeremy are both huge McCann fans. Have you been by the Wave table?” “Yeah, I just did the three books for twenty-four bucks thing.” ETC.
Maybe these people bought something, or traded their goods for ours, and maybe not. Doesn’t really matter. Maybe some will prove to be “contacts.” Will they ask me for work? Will I give it to them? Will they send me work? Will the Ag Reader publish it? If it does, do they get a “writer point”? Do I get an “editor point” for having made the personal connection that led to the literary acquisition that made my magazine better? This is like when Everquest wanted to add the new Kunark continent and they had to retro-fit the Iksar Empire of lizard people into their already-existing mythos and history.
Anyway, I chose to read Tuntore’s entire essay as a satire, written from the perspective of a vaguely indistinct lyric “I” whose relationship to the person J.S. Tuntore I cannot possibly know, since I don’t know Tuntore at all, though the author and the narrator do seem to share a passion for game design.
And I agree wholeheartedly with the consensus here, which seems to be that whether satire or not, there is something deeply off-putting about the organizing metaphor of his piece, but for me that feeling derives from how recognizable it is, and how real it feels to me. Tuntore’s “I” is nobody I want to be, and it certainly doesn’t represent my own experience at AWP, but I don’t think Tuntore’s “I” is a mythical creature either. Indeed, I met this person, at least two dozen times over the course of the weekend.
Sorry I’m coming late to the game, but here’s one small part of Tuntore’s essay that jumped out at me, and I don’t think it’s gotten a comment yet-
>>. For as everyone knows, being seen from a higher position only happens when there is something to be seen, <<
This is so absolutely key and right. Speaking as a member of the “tiny world” of the Forklift/Agriculture table, it boggled my mind how many people came up to our booth over the course of the weekend and opened with “What are your submission guidelines?” They had never heard of my magazine before–they had no idea who was in it, they didn’t want to buy it or even browse the sample copy on the table. They didn’t tell me their names, engage me in conversation, or give me the opportunity to query politely about their work. I didn’t know if they were poets or fiction writers or essayists. They never said.
All they wanted to know was what I was willing to do for them, and how soon. The lack of decorum was astonishing, but the naked desperation it belied made me feel embarrassed–for them as well as for me.
On the other hand, I also made a lot of new friends at AWP. These were the people who came up to our booth, entered our “tiny world” and made nice there. They flipped through the magazines- they mentioned if they recognized a name. They introduced themselves–big smile, hand out, the way you do it–and then they chatted. “Gee, your booth says Ohio. Are you from Ohio?” “No, we’re from Brooklyn, but Forklift publishes out of Cincinnati.” OR “Oh wow, you’ve got poems by Anthony McCann in here.” “Yeah, he’s been in a few of our issues. Me and Jeremy are both huge McCann fans. Have you been by the Wave table?” “Yeah, I just did the three books for twenty-four bucks thing.” ETC.
Maybe these people bought something, or traded their goods for ours, and maybe not. Doesn’t really matter. Maybe some will prove to be “contacts.” Will they ask me for work? Will I give it to them? Will they send me work? Will the Ag Reader publish it? If it does, do they get a “writer point”? Do I get an “editor point” for having made the personal connection that led to the literary acquisition that made my magazine better? This is like when Everquest wanted to add the new Kunark continent and they had to retro-fit the Iksar Empire of lizard people into their already-existing mythos and history.
Anyway, I chose to read Tuntore’s entire essay as a satire, written from the perspective of a vaguely indistinct lyric “I” whose relationship to the person J.S. Tuntore I cannot possibly know, since I don’t know Tuntore at all, though the author and the narrator do seem to share a passion for game design.
And I agree wholeheartedly with the consensus here, which seems to be that whether satire or not, there is something deeply off-putting about the organizing metaphor of his piece, but for me that feeling derives from how recognizable it is, and how real it feels to me. Tuntore’s “I” is nobody I want to be, and it certainly doesn’t represent my own experience at AWP, but I don’t think Tuntore’s “I” is a mythical creature either. Indeed, I met this person, at least two dozen times over the course of the weekend.
see comment 5 posts up
Aaaahhhh…Justin. Nicely done.
see comment 5 posts up
why is it a ridiculous discussion? It’s exploring facets of human nature.
why is it a ridiculous discussion? It’s exploring facets of human nature.
it’s an engaging read for a couple minutes, but really, okay whatever. as someone said above, pr i think, some people play games and some people like what they are doing. like what you are doing, find people who like what they are doing, have a nice time.
oh wait, there’s more ryan up there i didn’t read yet. i was whatever to Tunotre.
it’s an engaging read for a couple minutes, but really, okay whatever. as someone said above, pr i think, some people play games and some people like what they are doing. like what you are doing, find people who like what they are doing, have a nice time.
oh wait, there’s more ryan up there i didn’t read yet. i was whatever to Tunotre.
Thanks Joseph.
darby man, come on. i like discussing human nature too. but in the context of awp? its like discussing basic physiological needs in the context of a mcdonalds playland.
darby man, come on. i like discussing human nature too. but in the context of awp? its like discussing basic physiological needs in the context of a mcdonalds playland.
justin im glad you talked about js tunotre and the ‘i’ of the narrator. i hadnt thought of mentioning that in my response, and i dont even know if i was fully aware of that distance as i read. so i should clarify that mine is more of a response to the model, right, the game, than to js tunotre as a person.
justin im glad you talked about js tunotre and the ‘i’ of the narrator. i hadnt thought of mentioning that in my response, and i dont even know if i was fully aware of that distance as i read. so i should clarify that mine is more of a response to the model, right, the game, than to js tunotre as a person.
that was one of my points. that he distances himself from “the model’ and therefore thinks “everyone” is “other” than him. And that to me is himself elevating himself. And I didn’t like that.
but…
nevermind.
but…
nevermind.
i’ve never been to awp so I have no way of knowing if an analogy is accurate or not, though this seems honest enough for certain kinds of people. is awp basically a mcdonalds playground? I don’t think I will make it to denver. I think I am going to be getting a lobotomy that week.
i’ve never been to awp so I have no way of knowing if an analogy is accurate or not, though this seems honest enough for certain kinds of people. is awp basically a mcdonalds playground? I don’t think I will make it to denver. I think I am going to be getting a lobotomy that week.
I liked the part where I made up my own spelling of poor Tunotre’s name and then stuck to it throughout the whole of my comment. Somebody stop me before I kill again.
I liked the part where I made up my own spelling of poor Tunotre’s name and then stuck to it throughout the whole of my comment. Somebody stop me before I kill again.
no, im not saying awp is a mickey d’s playland. im saying discussing human nature in this context is like discussing human hunger in the playland context.
and really, i think what im saying makes sense, but only to me. let awp or the lackthereof mean whatever the hell anybody wants it to me.
i know nothing.
no, im not saying awp is a mickey d’s playland. im saying discussing human nature in this context is like discussing human hunger in the playland context.
and really, i think what im saying makes sense, but only to me. let awp or the lackthereof mean whatever the hell anybody wants it to me.
i know nothing.
i think i undrestoof your point pr a little differently than i understood justins point…
i dont know if i can explain it though.
i dont know if it matters that i cannot explain it
i think i undrestoof your point pr a little differently than i understood justins point…
i dont know if i can explain it though.
i dont know if it matters that i cannot explain it
i think what youre saying makes sense, i guess, if we think this discussion wont make a difference in anything, which it wont.
but i guess i still like thinking/talking about it.
i think what youre saying makes sense, i guess, if we think this discussion wont make a difference in anything, which it wont.
but i guess i still like thinking/talking about it.
if i had a choice, i’d be a jazz musician (sax or piano) and i’d chain-smoke and drink endless bourbon-on-the-rocks and spend most of my time in after-hours jam sessions, waiting for my guts to dissolve or liver to implode.
unfortunately this will never happen (except for the latter, which already has), but i’d like to think that being published might feel like being part of a literary jam session, being a part of the living matrix of music or lit. ofcourse, it’ll be daylight, and i’ll be sober and alone.
if i had a choice, i’d be a jazz musician (sax or piano) and i’d chain-smoke and drink endless bourbon-on-the-rocks and spend most of my time in after-hours jam sessions, waiting for my guts to dissolve or liver to implode.
unfortunately this will never happen (except for the latter, which already has), but i’d like to think that being published might feel like being part of a literary jam session, being a part of the living matrix of music or lit. ofcourse, it’ll be daylight, and i’ll be sober and alone.
Don’t be so hard on yourself. Its a blog. It’s the comment section in a blog. Your post was great- it was about bothness. I love bothness. And everything in between.
thinking/talking is good.
and you’re wrong: discussions like these will and do make a difference, although their effects often manifest themselves indirectly, unless it’s directly as in this comment, which probably won’t make a difference in anything, this comment that is, not the discussion, unless it’s indirectly (by changing the number of comments in this post).
thinking/talking is good.
and you’re wrong: discussions like these will and do make a difference, although their effects often manifest themselves indirectly, unless it’s directly as in this comment, which probably won’t make a difference in anything, this comment that is, not the discussion, unless it’s indirectly (by changing the number of comments in this post).
keith man, im feeling your optimism and your “change” happens in small steps, one conversation at a time. but i think the only way to change the powers that be are to become the powers that be. awp will continue on as is. with or without htmlgiant comment parties. again, your optimism is refreshing, commendable even. but in this instance specifically, naive, i think.
keith man, im feeling your optimism and your “change” happens in small steps, one conversation at a time. but i think the only way to change the powers that be are to become the powers that be. awp will continue on as is. with or without htmlgiant comment parties. again, your optimism is refreshing, commendable even. but in this instance specifically, naive, i think.
mean monday
mean monday
to think that conversations are only worth having if there is a forseeable difference to be made is naive.
to think that conversations are only worth having if there is a forseeable difference to be made is naive.
actually its not naive, its just stubborn
actually its not naive, its just stubborn
im not saying conversations that dont cause change arent worth having. im just referring to this comment:
“and you’re wrong: discussions like these will and do make a difference,”
in this context it isnt true.
im not saying conversations arent worth having, thats absurd. im saying that this particular conversation is not gonna change awp. thats all i said, nothing more.
htmlgawpt: the literary conference blog of the future
im not saying conversations that dont cause change arent worth having. im just referring to this comment:
“and you’re wrong: discussions like these will and do make a difference,”
in this context it isnt true.
im not saying conversations arent worth having, thats absurd. im saying that this particular conversation is not gonna change awp. thats all i said, nothing more.
htmlgawpt: the literary conference blog of the future
the powers that be are beyond me, in that sense i am naive, yes. but i have been changed by posts and comment parties like these, this local insignificant event called ‘me’. switching between large and small frames of reference gives different results.
party on! …until this post starts throwing-up. then put it to bed.
the powers that be are beyond me, in that sense i am naive, yes. but i have been changed by posts and comment parties like these, this local insignificant event called ‘me’. switching between large and small frames of reference gives different results.
party on! …until this post starts throwing-up. then put it to bed.
barry, you’re right. my logic was off there.
barry, you’re right. my logic was off there.
i think there is a Mean Week 2009 coming soon.
i think there is a Mean Week 2009 coming soon.
i think i just need a sleep week
i think i just need a sleep week
i already started mean week 2009
i already started mean week 2009
This is especially interesting to me because at this small press thing I went to last year (my first time ‘table-ing’) I kind of was that guy who was awkwardly asking people if they wanted to trade… I mean, I tried to have conversations when I could but I was sort of paralysed by my nervousness and most of the time that was all I could blurt out.
I think next time now that I have a little more “experience” I will try to work on that because I will feel a bit more comfortable and I realise that presentation is half of the “game” (and I don’t mean “game” as in the essay, I just mean that people don’t like you if they think you are a douchebag).
Anyway. Just wanted to say that I guess. Not everyone being short with you is looking to get something, probably a fair amount of them are scared out of their heads and even coming up to your booth is a fairly big deal and represents them doing something brave and different, so keep that in mind. They are good people just trying to understand the situation.
This is especially interesting to me because at this small press thing I went to last year (my first time ‘table-ing’) I kind of was that guy who was awkwardly asking people if they wanted to trade… I mean, I tried to have conversations when I could but I was sort of paralysed by my nervousness and most of the time that was all I could blurt out.
I think next time now that I have a little more “experience” I will try to work on that because I will feel a bit more comfortable and I realise that presentation is half of the “game” (and I don’t mean “game” as in the essay, I just mean that people don’t like you if they think you are a douchebag).
Anyway. Just wanted to say that I guess. Not everyone being short with you is looking to get something, probably a fair amount of them are scared out of their heads and even coming up to your booth is a fairly big deal and represents them doing something brave and different, so keep that in mind. They are good people just trying to understand the situation.
Yeah I agree with you totally. The important thing is what you’re doing. And just to be clear I really don’t consider “coming late” a disadvantage any more than being born in 1982 is a “disadvantage” compared to being born in 1986 or whatever, it means nothing.
Yeah I agree with you totally. The important thing is what you’re doing. And just to be clear I really don’t consider “coming late” a disadvantage any more than being born in 1982 is a “disadvantage” compared to being born in 1986 or whatever, it means nothing.
Keith I think you are right. To say that something will directly lead to change is different, but who are we to say this won’t change anything? And encouraging this kind of dialogue definitely leads to some kind of change.
Keith I think you are right. To say that something will directly lead to change is different, but who are we to say this won’t change anything? And encouraging this kind of dialogue definitely leads to some kind of change.
Also late to the game, but I’ll just say this exactly is the one depressing thing about AWP each year. In Chicago I sat at a table for a Big Historical Literary Journal Everyone Knows But Doesn’t Necessarily Read and I sat at a table to talk to people about The Cupboard. It happened a little bit less at the latter than at the former, but several times an hour we’d get people who were looking to grab submission guidelines, and that’s it.
As Justin says, they’re looking only for what a journal is willing to do for them. But more so it becomes this really depressing way to look at journals. The Cupboard doesn’t publish verse poetry, and so certain poets simply took it off their radar. The idea is: why read something I can’t publish my work in? And then the logical question that follows is, Why read anything?
I’ve been to AWP five times now, and it (and HTMLGIANT, and just generally talking and thinking about writing with people) became a lot more fun after I began actually picking up journals and reading them.
So: there’s one easy way to play (and win) the game: Use your “writer” avatar in the panels if you want, but in the bookfair, switch over to your “reader” one. If, that is, you bothered to design it in the, like, preparatory stages of game play?
Also late to the game, but I’ll just say this exactly is the one depressing thing about AWP each year. In Chicago I sat at a table for a Big Historical Literary Journal Everyone Knows But Doesn’t Necessarily Read and I sat at a table to talk to people about The Cupboard. It happened a little bit less at the latter than at the former, but several times an hour we’d get people who were looking to grab submission guidelines, and that’s it.
As Justin says, they’re looking only for what a journal is willing to do for them. But more so it becomes this really depressing way to look at journals. The Cupboard doesn’t publish verse poetry, and so certain poets simply took it off their radar. The idea is: why read something I can’t publish my work in? And then the logical question that follows is, Why read anything?
I’ve been to AWP five times now, and it (and HTMLGIANT, and just generally talking and thinking about writing with people) became a lot more fun after I began actually picking up journals and reading them.
So: there’s one easy way to play (and win) the game: Use your “writer” avatar in the panels if you want, but in the bookfair, switch over to your “reader” one. If, that is, you bothered to design it in the, like, preparatory stages of game play?
barf
barf
thanks for this comment, andre.
thanks for this comment, andre.
i know who you’re talking about – they have stacks of sheets of papers in their arms from all of the different tables theyve been to, they grab the paper and say hello, and then they go to the next table.
i always wonder how much of that was shyness and how much was lack of curiousity. not that i can tell really. but something i thought about when i sat the table and said hi.
maybe its not ocmpletel lack of curiousity, because they are doing, as andre said, a courageous thing just approaching the table. and some people at tables arent the nicest hosts (myself included sometimes).
i know who you’re talking about – they have stacks of sheets of papers in their arms from all of the different tables theyve been to, they grab the paper and say hello, and then they go to the next table.
i always wonder how much of that was shyness and how much was lack of curiousity. not that i can tell really. but something i thought about when i sat the table and said hi.
maybe its not ocmpletel lack of curiousity, because they are doing, as andre said, a courageous thing just approaching the table. and some people at tables arent the nicest hosts (myself included sometimes).
As a first time attendee at AWP, I found the experience… interesting. I was mostly working my magazine’s table, answering the same old questions from people who weren’t going to buy the journal and that’s fine, I get it, but what struck me is how many assholes were in attendance working very hard at looking like Writers and playing silly little games with one another. This is not to say that I, myself, am not an asshole. I do have those moments. But, for example, at one journal’s table, they sat there, wearing sunglasses indoors, doing their best to channel Joaquim Phoenix on Letterman, completely ignoring me while I tried to BUY their journal. I had to exert effort to give them money. It was surreal. Maybe I’m just a country girl who isn’t well-adapted to the big city but the majority of the people I saw buzzing around seemed to be genuine adherents of what Tunotre describes. I can’t wait for Denver.
As a first time attendee at AWP, I found the experience… interesting. I was mostly working my magazine’s table, answering the same old questions from people who weren’t going to buy the journal and that’s fine, I get it, but what struck me is how many assholes were in attendance working very hard at looking like Writers and playing silly little games with one another. This is not to say that I, myself, am not an asshole. I do have those moments. But, for example, at one journal’s table, they sat there, wearing sunglasses indoors, doing their best to channel Joaquim Phoenix on Letterman, completely ignoring me while I tried to BUY their journal. I had to exert effort to give them money. It was surreal. Maybe I’m just a country girl who isn’t well-adapted to the big city but the majority of the people I saw buzzing around seemed to be genuine adherents of what Tunotre describes. I can’t wait for Denver.