Random
Why Do we Like Marie Calloway?
This is a good question to ask because: she has written only four stories and has appeared on Vice and has had requests from agents to represent her. Even though many writers in the online literary world, such as Elizabeth Ellen or Sam Pink have been writing for years before good things started to happen. And I don’t know if either of them even have agents.
So what is about Marie Calloway’s stories that make them so desired? Why would an agent assume she could write a book that would sell 100s of thousands?
To use Occam’s Razor to get to the simplest explanation, which I think explains the agent: is that Marie Calloway’s writing is about a young girl having sex. Which people love. Men love imagining a young woman having sex and young women want to read about other young women having sex. The writing is sensational, she uses famous people’s names, a young woman/girl has sex, she goes to fabulous cities like New York City or London. She mentions porn’s influence on male sexual behavior. She has sex with an older slightly famous writer who is married. She loses her virginity before marriage, has promiscuous sex. She is topical, she is sexual. She is Star/Enquirer magazine/Harlequin mixed with alt-lit.
And to define sensational literature with non-sensational literature: Hemingway’s The Old Man and The Sea would be a perfect example, The Old and The Sea is about “An old Cuban guy who goes fishing” but somehow Hemingway takes something that should be really boring and makes it into a metaphor for human existence.
Which to me is the test of a writer, can you write about something that is completely anti-topical and make a story out of it. Of course my most famous book is The Human War which is about the Iraq War. So I know all about the impact of topical writing and I am guilty of it also.
But reducing Marie Calloway’s stories to mere pornography is too simplistic; it doesn’t get to the root of it.
Marie Calloway’s stories all contain something original in them, something people don’t usually write about in great depth. She has introduced the female character that is incapable of having normal sex, incapable of love and obnoxious.
When a person reads the scene in Adrian Brody at the end when the girl starts crying to sex. You begin to realize that person is a little nuts. Because the only people that cry during sex are crazy people. The audience thinks, “This person is fucked, who behaves like this?”
Her obsession with her own looks: in Losing my Virginity she goes to the bathroom after sex and just stares at the mirror obsessing over her own looks. There is a man in the bedroom, he just had sex with you, he obviously thinks you’re attractive. He obviously finds you endearing in some way.
Then the epiphany of Losing my Virginity is the girl telling herself that she will never love anyone like that again or have as good as sex again. Which to anyone above 30, you can’t stop laughing, because you know the best sex and the best love came long after losing your virginity.
In Jeremy Lin it is even more insane, the female as creeper. Which is never written about. A creepy girl comes to New York City which is the same plot as Adrian Brody, but this time she meets an older writer that doesn’t want to have sex with her. So she gets angry and acts out and says impolite things to get revenge. The female lead character in Jeremy Lin is terribly obnoxious. The Jeremy Lin character publishes the woman’s story, then invites her to do a reading. He has been polite, even nice. But the lead female character comes to New York City and obsesses over Jeremy Lin. And she just gets creepier and creepier the whole story. Her obsession is not Jeremy Lin, but her need to be paid attention to by a particular person. You want to say to her, “You are in New York City, it is a really nice city, you are doing a reading in New York City, think about how you need to do a good reading.” But instead the character obsesses over a single human. It is anti-feminist, instead of the woman thinking about how she should be doing a good job to represent her work; she depends on a man to give her validation. It reveals an obvious contradiction in the character; she desperately wants to be a feminist but at the same time depends greatly on the approval of males.
And then at the end the epiphany is given to the female character by a male character, the epiphany comes in an email, it says, “ “I don’t think you understand him. You expect him to see you as a sex object, but he sees you as a person, and as a writer. You should stop thinking of sex as your best thing and realize, like Jeremy has, that writing is your best thing.”
The epiphany is really funny because Jeremy Lin didn’t fuck her because he was married or interested in the blond girl at the reading. And the fact that she was being so obnoxious.
But maybe you are supposed to assume that the lead character finally found a man that wouldn’t fuck her, and maybe she knows now that not every man is not out to fuck. And this creates some sort of liberation for her, that not all men are the same.
The fascinating thing about Marie Calloway’s stories are not that they are “good.” But that they are stories about a female train-wreck, a creeper, a woman that gets obsessed with boys and her looks, and who lacks any moral component. Her female characters are so fucking ugly we have to keep looking. But lest we forget Dostoevsky’s Underground Notes, a character that is putrid and pathetic excites us in that story. There is just something exciting about a pathetic person being the star of a story.
[NOAH CICERO has published some books and now lives in Korea. Google him if you want to know more.]
she’s like lester in mccarthy’s child of god
Putrid and pathetic? I think I read a different story. The girl seemed pretty realistic to me. Someone with low self esteem, aware of their own failings who is striving. Striving as a writer – that can really unsettle the body and brain, warp daily interactions with other human beings. To call it putrid seems a misreading of the creative condition as some writers experience it, at the upper reaches of their tolerance, where the air is thin.
While I get that there is a voyeuristic fascination to witnessing her foibles and, sure, sex sells (see, e.g. the more muted response to Jeremy Lin), this appraisal seems a bit harsh. The qualities you note (superficial vanity, inconsiderate behavior, obsessively seeking opposite sex approval, creeping, etc.) would be putrid and pathetic in a 35 year old, but are quite normal for someone in the 18-22 range.
Part of Calloway’s appeal for an older reader is that she reminds us of the insecurities which plagued our youth. To me. this isn’t even a gender thing as both young males and females deal with these issues. It’s just a human thing. I see my younger-self (straight, white, bro-ish, male) in Marie Calloway and I remember those heady days and how tragic they felt.
All that having been said, you make an excellent point that it IS unique to see these qualities exhibited in a female protagonist. We all know and love Holden Caufield bumbling around NYC, awkwardly soliciting sex and staring at himself in mirrors, but we rarely see a female behave so recklessly.
So far, we’ve compared her to Salinger, Hemingway, and Dostoevsky. This can’t be real life. I need a new keyboard.
Also: “The fascinating thing about Marie Calloway’s stories are not that they are “good.”
Yeah, but Hemingway’s stories are good and unique. The OP has only argued that her stories are perversely unique. Big deal.
Read that one thing before, just realized I don’t remember anything about it. Getting a bunch of ‘cred’ from a gimmick thing you did when you are 21 could destroy actual potential, so I’d say recoil from all this, I guess.
If this is a unique story then I feel like there are still so many books about women to be written that you lot should take advantage of this moment in history and write a bit faster. If this is a unique story I’m glad she wrote it.
hi
sup omar
stephen stop talking to me
still can’t believe you posted that pop serial post on this site without my permission
sup guys
omar did u like “jeremy lin” stay on topic
hi stephen and omar
omar do u have an agent and book deal. have u been written up by the observer
Sup Dierks
stop talking to me
jesus christ
Sup Bro. Are you ‘bro-ing hard’ today?
christ on a cracker
i swear if you don’t shut your gob
Basically you’re capping on her because her female narrator is messy, and women shouldn’t be messy because if they have sex then OBVIOUSLY a guy finds them attractive so they should just shut up and not be “obnoxious”. Please. This is just sad.
beachy u wrote about “jeremy lin” didnt u
I did. You can check out what I wrote here:
http://beachsloth.blogspot.com/2012/04/jeremy-lin-by-marie-calloway.html
Link up with my life!
Wait, what book made made Hemingway famous? A roman a clef about living in a glamorous city (paris), sexual frustration (via not having balls), the attraction of youth (nineteen year old spanish guy), and the boring, everyday, entirely non-sensational sport of *bull fighting*.
ooo lookit me I’m a famous writer but I’m writing about *fishing* (twirls)
“What book made Hemingway famous”?
A book that was well-written.
I agree, Helen. Are the stories problematic? Yes, but in narrative context and content, not in the fact that they exist at all. That they exist is something I take heart in as a girl who doesn’t have shit all figured out. So sorry to exist that way, literate menfolk!
“But woman is not made for defeat,” he said. “A woman can be destroyed but not defeated. ”
―
Ernest Hemingway,
The Old Woman and the Sea
no offense, Hemingway
But it’s not solipsistic in nature or anything either, right?
It may be crazy for a man to cry during sex, which I sort of doubt too, but not for a woman. And since this is not a pipe, or a therapy session, let’s stick with the story and at least say, as you finally did, this character is fascinating.
As a female myself I find her annoying not because she’s writing about sex or insecurities or popularity (yawn yawn yawn, that is what shitty-ass TV is for) but because she’s kind of a moron. If she was intelligent, well-read, self-reflective, and had any non-selfish non-vapid ideas about anything I would like her. That is just what I like in people and especially writers, gender aside.
Up until now I didn’t realize you were a total asshole. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
ha
marie calloway gets clicks. obviously.
are u a virgin
Hi, Russ
Initially read “clicks” as something else.
There are lots of female trainwreck stories out there. Calloway’s not original in this regard and that’s fine. I just want to point out there’s a tradition of this kind of story that has long been in existence. One recent book that does this, and exceptionally, is Kate Zambreno’s Green Girl.
People crying during sex is not weird or crazy.
Hi Mason! How are you doing?
Noah, this looks like a lot for me to read. Can you sum-up your disregard for women/Marie in a few sentences so it takes less time for me to read?
thnx!
Okay. Got a little headache, worried about my cat. How are you, Russ?
hahaha i hate women too
Aw, your poor cat. I feel so bad for your cat.
She gonna be okay. At least nobody gets all up in her shit for writing about sex. She’s an independent kitty :)
What’s your point? If you eliminate aesthetic quality, then you can pretty much hold up anything.
That’s good. I bet if Vice magazine posted something your cat wrote there’d probably be bitter, jealous people writing spiteful things on htmlgiant about how the way your cat is interesting to people is a cheap, dirty way to be interesting and that we should all look down on your cat for being interesting in that way and also look down on the people who are interested in your cat.
‘Marie Calloway is the new [INSERT FAMOUS WRITER HERE]’
In your attempt to argue on the behalf of women’s writing, you insult women writers with actual talent and ambition by using Calloway to suggest some sort of double-standard. Ever heard of Mary Gaitskill, Ann Beattie, Margaret Atwood, or J. Winterson? (to name just a few).
This is ridiculous and embarrassing. Some of you need to shut off your computers for at least a year and acquire a library card.
In your attempt to argue on the behalf of women’s writing, you insult women writers with actual talent and ambition by using Calloway to suggest some sort of double-standard. Ever heard of Mary Gaitskill, Ann Beattie, Margaret Atwood, or J. Winterson? (to name just a few).
This is ridiculous and embarrassing. Some of you need to shut off your computers for at least a year and acquire a library card.
Noah, I’m so happy this has finally surfaced. Good read, bro.
Noah, I’m so happy this has finally surfaced. Good read, bro.
You mean because she likes a female writer you don’t like?
Nah, my cat would claw their fucking eyes out… in a metaphorical way… with extraordinarily honest prose that calls all other writers out for being honest in a less legitimate (see: literary) way.
But yeah she’d claw their eyes out literally too.
Nah, my cat would claw their fucking eyes out… in a metaphorical way… with extraordinarily honest prose that calls all other writers out for being honest in a less legitimate (see: literary) way.
But yeah she’d claw their eyes out literally too.
So now we’re reducing aesthetic quality to what people “like” and “dislike”? That’s the only standard? There’s really nothing in that story that a well-read person could honestly consider distinctive, original, or interesting. There’s a reason why most of the people who like this kind of work fall between the ages of 15-21.
So now we’re reducing aesthetic quality to what people “like” and “dislike”? That’s the only standard? There’s really nothing in that story that a well-read person could honestly consider distinctive, original, or interesting. There’s a reason why most of the people who like this kind of work fall between the ages of 15-21.
And aesthetic quality is obviously a concrete, objective, measurable thing. This is a ridiculous point to argue. You’re like a mean schoolteacher from a Dickens novel.
And aesthetic quality is obviously a concrete, objective, measurable thing. This is a ridiculous point to argue. You’re like a mean schoolteacher from a Dickens novel.
Yeah, dude. Art is subjective.
Yeah, dude. Art is subjective.
If we disagree on that, then I really don’t know how to talk to you about anything.
If we disagree on that, then I really don’t know how to talk to you about anything.
Haha, I do like Marie’s writing. I don’t think it really calls anybody out, though. And I am not even going to touch the idea of saying any one thing is more “literary” than another. That’s some knee-deep wank to start wading through.
Haha, I do like Marie’s writing. I don’t think it really calls anybody out, though. And I am not even going to touch the idea of saying any one thing is more “literary” than another. That’s some knee-deep wank to start wading through.
No, it’s really not, because any argument about a text’s aesthetic quality is obviously subjective–way to restate the obvious–but that doesn’t mean you get to lazily play the, “it’s-all-in the-eyes-of-the-beholder-card.” Saying such is nothing like a Victorian school teacher telling his students that imagination is bad.
No, it’s really not, because any argument about a text’s aesthetic quality is obviously subjective–way to restate the obvious–but that doesn’t mean you get to lazily play the, “it’s-all-in the-eyes-of-the-beholder-card.” Saying such is nothing like a Victorian school teacher telling his students that imagination is bad.
Chicks, right?
And dudes.
Go figure all of that out.
And putting words together well? Artfully? So you’re moved? So you sense your own insensibility? So you’re shot through, made alert, put in play?
Forget about it.
Chicks, right?
And dudes.
Go figure all of that out.
And putting words together well? Artfully? So you’re moved? So you sense your own insensibility? So you’re shot through, made alert, put in play?
Forget about it.
what Tonto said
You obviously have no clue what “subjective” means, as it applies to literary interpretation. This is the lazy layman’s understanding of the word. All literary arguments are “subjective,” yet derive their concreteness from how convincing they are (or are not). So far, your argument is: “it’s good because I ‘like’ it.” I can only imagine your thesis statements for school.
I disagree. I think the thing I said is right and the thing you said is wrong.
I thought we were talking about my cat.
Art is a lot more fun and interesting and less wanky when you use the its-all-in-the-eyes-of-the-beholder card. It’s a really good card!
I’m not in school! I don’t write papers! It’s a pretty sweet gig, not writing papers.
Oh, it’s that easy. Got it. Well, I just decided that your above post is a poem– because I feel like it–and because I like your post as a poem. Now, I’m going to write a post comparing your poem to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. After all, everything’s “subjective.”
That’s actually fine with me. You are saying that like it’s a parody of a thing, but if you did something interesting with it, I’d be on board.
I have no debt to academia or “high art” or whatever. I do creative things because I like doing creative things. I read because I enjoy reading. I enjoy new experiences. If something is interesting to me, baller. If not, oh well, maybe somebody else likes it. The end. Discussion over. This is my approach to art. I don’t really care if you don’t like it. Your worldview does not apply to everyone.
jesus why do you care so much? i saw you keyboard warroring the other post about marie calloway recently too. it’s just some little girl writing stories on the internet.
I’m gonna turn off the thing to alert me about this post. Someday I need to learn not to get in arguments on htmlgiant.
But wait: HonoredBomb isn’t (necessarily) saying that the art object is ‘objective’ in the way that, say, the sun is. She or he is saying – I think – that the Calloway stories aren’t being talked about (in the blogicle or, except in the language of ‘like’, on the thread) as art, but rather, only as sensation-generators — comparable, say, to Dostoevsky’s, Hemingway’s, or Salinger’s novels. –the quality of whose writing definitely remains contestable, but certainly richly argued ‘for’.
Not that there’s an intersubjective consensus on the quality of Calloway’s – or anybody’s – writing, but rather, that her writing can be talked about intersubjectively, about whether, for example, it’s excitingly disclosive or oppressively inept.
Well, that’s what you call damning with faint praise…
Yeah, the first time a woman cried during sex w/ me, I asked her if she was sad. She said no and told me to keep going. It has happened again since. Women mention its a good cry. I am not sure why/how. I want to think its because it feels so good, but it is difficult for me to be so egotistical even though I am pretty good in that arena. Can you shed light on the (possible) reasons why women cry during sex? I cannot think of a single instance of a man doing the same.
The literary history, as well as the ‘girl’, eh, information, is so contrary to fact that I thought the thing was a gag – zany-bro provocation, chain-pulling stuff.
Or that a soap-operatic thing is playing out, for fun or realz: Cicero is Tao Lin’s bro, Tao Lin is feeling moderate-to-high levels of hostility towards “Jeremy Lin”, etc. (I recently saw Kitano’s Outrage… )
If the blogicle is straightforward, oh dear.
Thanks, deadgod.
I hate to break this to you, but people outside academia critique art–high, low, and medium– all the time by actually, you know, discussing the text under question as a work of art, which none of you have done here. I realize this is a complicated concept for you to grasp, though–too “subjective,” right?
There are lots of reasons; it’s mostly cathartic in my experience. Sometimes it’s more than that, or less. Think of it as tear ejaculation.
i looked at this this morning. a few hours later, 73 comments. lol.
hi everyone
This is pretty reductive take, man. I’ve only read two of her ‘stories’ but I just wanted to see what would happen, so she must have a sense of plot. Unanswered questions. Maybe the agent went, “Wow, these fucking indie writers sure love lyricism and word this/that but here’s one with a sense of plot. I can sell plot.”
yeah, it’s a rich tradition in a lot of ways–good morning, midnight is fucking awesome.
Noah’s entire approach to this discussion is off from the beginning.
1. The title of this post already assumes the target audience of a group that likes Marie Calloway rather than solely considering her as a phenomenon.
2. To have the thesis that it is Calloway’s originality that justifies her popularity/notoriety is naive. She did not “introduce the female character that is incapable of having normal sex, incapable of love and obnoxious.” This statment is ignorant of feminist literature and art as to its portrayal of women and sex as well as sexist in that it precludes the notion of normal sex.
3 (or 2b). The narrow mindedness continues in the line: “Because the only people that cry during sex are crazy people. The audience thinks, “This person is fucked, who behaves like this?” Let alone the comma splice, Noah further assumes the concept of normalcy as well as assumes an understanding of an audience reaction, let alone “the” audience.
4. Noah’s sexism climaxes in his understanding of Losing my Virginity in which he states, “she goes to the bathroom after sex and just stares at the mirror obsessing […] he just had sex with you, he obviously thinks you’re attractive.” Noah exemplifies the male gaze’s attempt to not only objectify the feminine but also hold it up to them as a foundation for how they should see themselves. Further, his interpretation of the loss of virginity is only stated in relation to how laughable that moment will appear later, a reading that lacks any comprehension of reader empathy.
5. “In Jeremy Lin it is even more insane.” wow
6. Once again, Noah wants to justify Calloway as having original content, but to state that the female as creeper “is never written about” is further just an ignorance on his part.
7. Noah again judges a protagonist based on moral grounds as he criticizes the “creepy girl” for not merely enjoying NYC and the reading rather than obsessing. He then has the gall to consider this anti-feminist rather than noting that his own readings of these narratives are mysoginistic and lacking in any knowledge of the feminist movements.
8. His faulty conclusion follows from this poor approach to Calloway. Other arguments can be made that Marie Calloway’s work is not about “female characters [that] are so fucking ugly we have to keep looking.” One could parallel it to the criticism of HBO’s Girls. One could show that this is a part of postfeminist work that is interested more in the nongender, ontological issues of a contemporary life. Or one could say it is a critique/disavowal of the failed stances of third-wave feminism’s domineering “bitch” stereotype. Aside from the myriad of takes, the point is that Noah is unable to approach any of these as his poor grammar, punctuation, and lack of content reveal a knee jerk, phallocentric reaction to Calloway.
My eyes are cumming!
i read more of this than i could read of marie calloway. although this was a lil mean.
What Bart Simpson said: “You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.”
people criticize noah for being sexist. he has not done anything in the realm of the real world that i would find sexist. he does not like sexism. i think that people pick apart his essays and attack the sentences in which he displays his naivety. naivety is not sexism.
i can say from personal experience that this man doesn’t give a fuck about gender roles. he just expects everyone to at least try to be tough, or something. i think that is more a regional thing, less of a gender thing…
lol
when a person gets a book deal, some people will always think it’s deserved, and others will think it’s not deserved; this has less to do with sex, women, feminism, or misogyny than the idea of ethics in publishing (or ‘fairness,’ in general), which stems from the passive idea of objective art. that calloway has generated the response she has is indicative or her intelligence as a writer (maybe not so much in her actual work — though i found ‘adrien brody’ aesthetically adroit, and at times very compelling, and who knows how much of that was tao lin’s editing), in the sense that ‘being a writer’ is more and more inextricable with that writer’s self or agency managed persona. the question of whether or not marie is a good writer is irrelevant, archaic, and intellectually indulgent. what is relevant, perhaps critical, is that she has a fucking book deal, and everyone knows her name. her relevance, however shallow, will make money, and you act surprised that capitalism exists. how is that not extremely smart? as for her erratic yet incessant facebook updates — from hentai to cats to kale or marx to fucking yahoo (literally) articles — i believe, unhumorously, she may have a mental disorder. i do hope to make it into one of her stories though, in ways that are less ironic than merely sad, lonely, and honest. fuck life.
Not sure how to take your post–you seem to go in several directions here, esp. at the end. Anyway, I don’t think people are surprised that a writer who whores him or herself out can get a book deal, or attract cowardly agents. Equating her ability to self-promote and make money with her “intelligence” reminds me of those neo-con arguments that go something like, “well, you know, hate on Wal-Mart or Rush Limbaugh all you want, but both make money, so they’re ‘smart.'” Also, if one’s name is more important than the quality of her work, we should all just kill ourselves now. Fortunately, I don’t share your cynicism–there are plenty of writers with “book deals” who are well known for their work, not their gimmickry. Cheap, sensational stunts are not “smart,” either, because such antics can only be sustained so long, and will impact the writer’s ability to be taken seriously–by serious readers–later in life. Saying that her book deal is more relevant than her work is pretty short-sighted, assuming your ambition is to be a writer, rather than a “published author.” If you (or anyone else) merely aspire to be a “published author”–rather than a writer–ignore this post.
YES! Rhys over and over and over.
tao lin didn’t edit my writing in the slightest or even give me suggestions beyond a few aesthetic things.
I’d also venture that’s one of the reasons she’s become so popular. She actually writes a clear story. There is none of that ambiguity, nothing that makes a reader go “I don’t know what this is trying to do so I don’t feel a lot of conviction toward it” stuff, and people tend to like things that are more easily understood? Just a venture though.
This is like the literary equivalent of Zoo Kid. Four published stories. How can there be this much talk about so little. How can we try and break an individual down within the context of less than 30k words.
And people wonder why people use pseudonyms. IT’S BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL JUDGE YOUR ENTIRE BEING BASED ON ONE MEDIUM OF EXPRESSION, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE FUCKING LAZY.
I don’t use a pseudonym. I’m really a sloth.
Let the record show I never accused Mr. Sloth of not being an actual sloth.
Also: the raptor is the sloth’s most feared predator in nature! So be careful! Look it up!
I know you don’t doubt me. You are a real raptor. I believe it. We need to grab a couple of beers with some dinosaurs to munch on sometime soon.
It seems to me that “Jeremy Lin” is ABOUT, among other things, the relation of the narrator/author’s personal qualities to the appeal of her work. The story thus preempts the concerns of this post, and addresses them both more richly and less moralistically.
At the same time it’s always nice to hear from Noah Cicero.
How do you/we know Tao is upset about ‘Jeremy Lin?’ Haven’t seen anything along those lines in Tao’s usual channels.
To clarify things concerning the word “sexism.”
Sexism implies that a male, views women all in the same way. He expects women to behave all in the manner. It is the same with racism. A racist assumes that all black eat watermelon. A racist assumes that all Muslims are terrorists or that all asians are good at math. Racism and sexism are extremely generalized assumption or expectations.
A sexist against females would assume, that all women should stay at home and not work, or that women are inferior in some way.
Anti-sexism, would then be to single out a female and describe a single female and what she does that is particular to her personality. Therefore showing, that not all females are the same. That everyone is slightly unique, but we all as humans kind of fit into personality types. And these personality types are the same for male and female and for every race.
This was the method applied when writing this blogpost, it was to single out a female, and to try to understand what made it unique and to try to find the nuances. Then to describe what the female lead characters did and what made those female characters different and even surprising/interesting to people.
Sexism would be, if I stated that all females behaved in this manner. Which I obviously didn’t, it was made clear, that some PEOPLE do but only a small population.
I have written about Ofelia Hunt, Ellen Kennedy,XTX, Kendra Grant Malone and Elizabeth Ellen and several other female writers, they can all be found on the Internet with a simple googling. The same method was applied to them.
But I do admit, that if someone read this blogpost, and have not read the previous ones. Then they might assume something odd about my character.
thank you,
Noah Cicero
oic
reading this & some of the comments reminds me of this awful american literature class i took ten years ago at austin community college but the professor was talking about emerson & i was nodding out on heroin, i had to withdraw from that class
OP? This ain’t Reddit son.
Wait… is Jeremy Lin supposed to be Tao Lin?
Yikes.
I don’t know: just a guess at a reason for the hostility the blogicle sure seems to vent at Calloway.
Women crying during/after sex is “crazy”? “Creeper” women is new in literature?? Sexual self-determination – to the extent that such a thing is possible for any social animal – and emotional aggression in women are signs of them being “creepers”???
What’s the effect on you of these points of view in Cicero’s piece?
i was all excited because i thought this was about marie callender. i really love the spaghetti w/ garlic bread.
Well not just that she’s pathetic, but also that bieng pathetic allows the writer to explore some ‘ideas’. My favorite part of AB was when she says he’s a bit creepy for still wanting to sleep with her though he has a girlfriend. And this guy, this jerk, says, Yeah that’s a VALID question, like whether I am morally in the wrong. I think Jeremy Lin was crappy though, and the excellent Adrien Brody had more pathetic intellectualizing.
hahaha! come on, guys and gals, write and let write. Respect ppl’s stories and respect ppl’s reviews of stories.
Tao Lin said he “liked” “Jeremy Lin” and I got his permission as did Vice before publishing it. He linked to it on the Muumuu House tumblr after it came out.
Marie Calloway is a genius
I am waiting for a thoughtful followup: “Why Do We Like Marie Callender’s?”
What I like about Calloway’s writing is that it’s like an inverted mirror of Lin’s. She uses a similar “objective” style (I don’t think it’s actually objective at all in either case) to the opposite effect, to probe into everything that Lin’s writing seals out.
I don’t know what the author intended, but this piece comes across as a personal attack on Calloway much more strongly than it does as any kind of criticism or as a response to her writing.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ba132721d0/white-man-s-d-k-with-susan-sarandon
Noah’s definition of sexism mistakes generalizing as a foundation rather than a symptom of the concept. In his post, his interpretation of the female characters is done so in relation to their gender (stating Marie Calloway has unique female characters) and then accuses these characters as being abnormal and creepy due to their actions as women, not as unique individuals.
Consider the line, “[Calloway] has introduced the female character that is incapable of having normal sex.” This statement assumes lines of normal/abnormal and positions Calloway’s protagonists on the latter. This alone would be a naive reading but what makes it hostile/sexist is that it is done so insofar as these protagonists are women.
The most mysoginistic line I pointed out in my earlier post that exemplifies this sexism is, “there is a man in the bedroom.” We see that generalizing is not the only form of sexism. Rather, sexism can also come in the form of placing the man at the center of a narrative that even Noah notes is more so about the female protagonist. Unable to read the story from the female’s perspective, Noah suggests that the female character should be comforted/normalized in her self esteem since a man is there/has been there to appreciate her. Here, sexism comes in the form of understanding the female identity solely in relation to the male gaze (which is a generalization).
Noah’s latter defense that his post was not sexist states that he has written about other female writers and that his reading would be misunderstood if interpreted without having read these other posts. Let alone that this admits a faulty style that requires further reading to comprehend what should be a stand alone post, it fallaciously escapes into the notion that we simple did not ‘get’ what he meant because we have not read more of his work. Aside from how this is wrong on methodological grounds, it’s simply not true.
The Ofelia Hunt piece on his blog is a reader response that has no relation to gender. (http://noah-cicero.blogspot.com/2007/05/ofelia-hunt.html)
The Ellen Kennedy pieces are sentence poems along the lines of “I like Ellen Kennedy. I’ve met Ellen twice I think.” (http://noah-cicero.blogspot.com/2009/03/ellen-kennedy-week.html, http://noah-cicero.blogspot.com/2009/03/ellen-kennedy-week.html, http://noah-cicero.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-ellen-kennedy-does-to-me.html)
The xtx post is just an interview. (http://htmlgiant.com/author-spotlight/a-lot-of-them-ugly-a-lot-of-them-dark-an-interview-with-xtx/)
With the Kendra Grant Malone interview at least, Noah brings up the angel/monster distinction of female identity, but under the guise of this being an “American or Christian mythos” and not global. (http://www.bookslut.com/features/2011_01_017032.php)
Again an interview, Noah first introduces the interview with a take on her work, only verging on gender issues when he makes the odd comment, “As a man with no kids, that’s not my problem.” (http://htmlgiant.com/author-spotlight/noah-cicero-interviews-elizabeth-ellen/)
So these supposed references that allow a more indepth understanding of what Noah meant do not, in fact, have the same method. If anything, this is Noah’s first non-reader response take on an author.
The importance of this post and thread is to realize that sexism/racism is not solely prejudice of “All black people eat watermelons,” or “All asians are good at math.” Instead, we have to be more self aware as to how we constitute the meaning of a particular gender, race, or creed and how we can do so from the least amount of centric thinking.
wait. you mean “Noah Cicero” isn’t a pseudonym for a female writer? i’ll be damned. charging someone with sexism/misogyny is the lamest/laziest/easiest way to make an argument. a couple people told me they thought noah was misogynistic in his intro to the interview he did with me or in asking particular questions. i don’t see it. maybe i’m naive. who cares. i also don’t see it in this intro. if anything, he seems to be making an argument for reading marie’s work. maybe i’m naive. who cares.
i’m the informer
shut up
Looks like we got another 130 lb hipster badass here.
Aren’t all arguments subjective? Aside from those made in maybe math and science?
Also, for conceding that there is no real truth, and for not being a lawyer getting paid to advocate for or against an argument, you sure are taking this seriously/personally!
You sure do spend a lot of time “not being serious” on this website, huh? Do you get paid for spending so much time here “not being serious”? And I wasn’t the one who stated the obvious–that arguments about texts are subjective. Someone else did, even though he/she doesn’t understand what subjective actually means when applied to arguments.
aw man i missed out before you shifted into blatant trolling. better luck next time eh
You know what my favorite part of comment threads is? The part where a person doesn’t answer the question they are asked. Do you want me to repeat it, or do you think you can find it in my prior post and actually answer it?
Actually, just to be safe, let me repeat it:
Aren’t all arguments subjective? Aside from those made in maybe math and science?
You know what my favorite part of comment threads is? The part where a person asks a question that’s already been answered in the thread. I’m not your personal secretary–find it yourself.
Ha, that’s fair. I’ll take your word that it’s in there somewhere.
I guess the main reason I decided to dive in to this is because you are acting like a dick. That was the point I was planning on reaching in a roundabout way: you are being a dick to people when it’s not neccesary to be a dick in an argument about petty inconsequential things. I don’t know why you’re being a dick, I won’t jump to shitty conclusions about who you are like you are so apt to do with others, but maybe, just maybe, don’t be a dick?
Hard not to be a dick when arguing with idiots. Best advice to those people: don’t be idiots.
Hey HonoredGuest, why are you such a coward? Which is to say, who are you? Why can’t we know who you are? You’ve got a lot of convictions and you wear them on your sleeve in an extremely pugilistic way. I say this from having observed your part in a lot of threads of late.
For the most part, seems to be there is such a thing as “good” art and “bad” art. I think the way you think is extremely limiting, creatively. I don’t mind disagreeing with the merits of writing by Marie Calloway, but I do get annoyed when you attack it with the full force of a battleship commander (WHO ELSE CAN’T WAIT FOR THAT MOVIE? M-I-RITE?). So what’s the deal? Why so mercurial, Dude? Why such an absolutist? And why can’t you defend your stance out in the open? Is your genius too much for us all, that you’ll die dreaming of your posthumous fame?
Good Lord, more stupidity. The expected, “show-us-your-paperwork” post.
No it isn’t?
Did you know that emotional self-control is reflective of one’s intelligence? It shows that a person THINKS before STUPID USELESS AND OFTEN NEGATIVE shit shoots out their mouth. You know you can do that, right? You know what “communicating effectively” is, right? I know the GRE doesn’t have a section that tests that, but I also know that education is flawed and pretty much a hustle after high school graduation, depending on where you go and how much you pay.
Or are you associating intelligence with pedantry, as in knowing the definition of “subjective” in an argument? Did you know that gets you nowhere in a world where all those stupid rules can be looked up online at any time?
Here’s what I see: You calling a bunch of other people idiots suggests an inflated ego, and an inflated ego is pretty self-absorbed/idiotic/Lyndon LaRouche, so get off your fucking high horse.
No. I’m associating intelligence here with people who write posts, like, “all art is subjective, bro dude,” or, “can u please answer this question for me [that was answered right above my post]?”
Geez man, all right. I’ll apologize for phrasing it in terms of your being a “coward.” But I do feel like it’s not unreasonable to expect someone who has such strongly felt opinions to make it clear whence those opinions are derived. Perhaps you keep a blog or another such place where you express your vitriol for certain aspects of culture? But you could be less of a jerk about it here. Just because people don’t agree with you doesn’t mean you need diminish them. You know who you sound a lot like, though? Given your curmudgeonly, seething manner of commenting? Dan Schnieder over at Cosmoetica. I’m probably the only one who has ever heard of that ass, though, so I don’t even know why I mention him. You might like him, though.
I don’t suffer fools very well–I’ll admit that.
Oh! I get it. You make assumptions about people based on 10-20 word statements. That’s not idiotic at all!
Neither does Dan, if I recall correctly. You’re not as verbose as he is, though. He’s a real clown. Now I’m being petty with respect to him and his work. Still, he’s a kind of petty guy himself. Writes about things in very categoric terms. Things are good or bad, and they are clearly delineated. I’ve learned from time and experience that’s a futile tack, but you take it if that’s where your hearts really at. I think there are people who could probably run circles around the import of what you consider high culture, and while it might not convince you, it will convince others and that will probably annoy you. It really depends how much of a fascist you can be about art and that sort of thing. In my younger years I was pretty sure I was right about everything I liked being the only great thing, and that being a quantifiable thing, as well. It didn’t work out, thinking like that.
You seem to be arguing against some imaginary, highfalutin bogeyman, because other than calling Calloway’s work “bad” and Hemingway’s work “good” in response to a post that compared both writers—wow, big reach there!–I haven’t gone on a soapbox about high art. It’s really annoying when people write posts like yours without taking the time to read the thread and glean its context.
I’m hardly on a soapbox about this, which I find the term ironic coming from you. I think it’s objectively true at this point that you have gone to great pains to describe the badness of Marie Calloway and, calling a spade a spade, the canon is by and large, in your opinion, the good. If you don’t see it that way, that’s fine. You’re wrong. You’re incapable of being objective, says I. I am, too. Argue forever. Be a malcontent. There’s a Nietzsche aphorism in this somewhere that would no doubt express the wrongheadedness of being quick with “good” and “bad” labels. Something about being human, all too human, which we all are, right?
I think you might want to consider who the “we” in your title is.
You like arguing with yourself, huh? You seem young, bright-eyed, and doggedly self-righteous to the point where you can’t see the forest for the trees, or get out of your own way. Basically, you’re assuming I’m Harold Bloom because I called Calloway’s work “bad”–nevermind the fact that I recommended four non-canonical, feminist contemporary writers on this thread. You should see a psychiatrist about your penchant for arguing with yourself. The self-righteousness–I can’t help you much there.
What’s the foundation for the ‘centering’ you note, if not the (perhaps unaware) imposition of a generalization on intractably multifarious, polyvalent experience?
I think that ‘generalization’ is exactly what’s inaccurate about seeing the two Calloway stories as representative of “female train-wreck”, both in the sense that they represent this (identifying this particular as this kind of particular), and in the sense that this kind of particular is really such a kind.
For example, crying during or immediately after sex: that’s “crazy”; only “crazy” women do that; it’s an example of “female” craziness. That is a reckless imposition of universality on particulars that operate in accordance with a cross-purposed plurality of universals.
For me, anyway, it’s impositive and inaccurate generalization that does characterize the picture of Calloway in Cicero’s discussion.
I think the protagonist of “Adrien Brody” is trying to get revenge against the character Adrien Brody (by telling the story in the way she does), and the protagonist of “Jeremy Lin” is competing against Jeremy Lin for power (by telling the story the way she does).
Speculating about the writer’s mental health? reading the stories – and the attention they’ve received – back through that lens? I think the accuracy of the generalizations imposed in doing these things is the – or an – issue with respect to Cicero’s piece.
I know you are but what am I!
Wonder what people think misogyny is. I wonder if calling a woman hot as hell is misogynistic. I wonder if enjoying her physical appearance is misogynistic. I wonder if becoming less attracted to a woman because she was hot until you realized she is not a bright bulb, is misogynistic. Wonder if becoming more attracted to a woman who is creative and intelligent, is misogynistic. Wonder if holding my junk in one hand and saying “Wuddup baby!” to one one in particular, is misogynistic. Wonder if shyly approaching a woman with the intent of sleeping with her but being awkward and submissive about it thus giving them the impression they’re in control, is misogynistic. Wonder if non-acted lustful thoughts in combination with an intense respect with women is misogynistic. Wonder if you can have respect for women and be a slut is misogynistic. Wonder if feeling as if you need to differentiate by adding a hyphenated man- before the word slut as to not seem like you’re being misogynistic, is misogynistic. Noah liked my comment in his interview for EE and KGM which doted on their physical appearance to balance the heavy doting on their creative faculties. I wonder if that is misogynistic.
gerfftuug alwlow frentdiczkshur
It’s true that “misogyny” is a lamely/lazily/easily gone-to “argument”, that identity politics is only usefully a beginning, and not the begged premise, of a point of view. (It’s also true that characterizing loyalty as “naive” is cruel and, by itself, irrational.)
But is Cicero reading stories by the writer Marie Calloway as having been produced by a female train-wreck only lamely/lazily/easily seen as misogynistic?
Is there no discussion of, say, a female writer that you’d argue is ‘misogynistic’?
Hurry and answer, Liz. You don’t want to miss out on ~20 more of deadgod’s well thought out and insightful replies.
I am a person so I’m going to answer! Most of these are not misogynistic in my opinion. Especially being aware of the shitty perspectives of society in regards to sluts and not catering to them.
“Wonder if holding my junk in one hand and saying “Wuddup baby!” to one one in particular, is misogynistic.” that would feel like an attack so I would assume he likes asserting some kind of dominance over women. Though I notice you deliberately added ‘one in particular’ as if it is something romantic by someone with absolutely no sense of how to talk to women hahaha. But yeah surely anyone can see that it’s like an attack so it feels misogynistic to me.
The physical appearance doting also feels kind of misogynistic in the context of comments about writing. It’s as if you are mocking that she can’t write for shit but hey, she still has her looks. How exhausting would that be for a writer?
“What We Eat When We Eat Marie Callender’s”
It kind of bugs me that people keep calling the ending an epiphany when it’s not. Maybe it’s the best line or the line with the most resonance, but an epiphany is a pretty particular device, and this ending is not an epiphany. Yes, an epiphany comes at the end. Yes, it signals a shift, a realization. But generally the shift occurs in the character, coupled by a shift in the mode of telling. Most often the passage / epiphany will be lyrical, with word repetition, rambling sentences, alliteration, even rhyming. There’s a piece of dialogue that could possibly signal an epiphany in a different kind of story, but it’s not very MuuMuu to have language effects for the sake of an ending.
Last night I had a long conversation with my girlfriend about the post. We were drinking and having a good time trying to figure this out. I think I am phallocentric because I grew up with two older brothers and a father, and my mother is a six foot tall factory worker, a very rough and tumble kind of woman, and wasn’t very motherly at all. I was raised in a house where crying and showing weakness would get you beat and screamed at. The phrase commonly used when showing emotion was, “Do you want something to cry about?” And my neighbors had a family of six boys and one girl. And they were raised the same way I was, get tough or get tortured. My childhood had really no females in it. Keep in mind I am writing from this perspective.
I’m pressing bootleg copies of her stories and selling them in strip clubs.
hi broah
ay deadgod
http://nickytiso.blogspot.com/2012/04/sexual-politics-of-marie-calloway.html
Do you see now that centric thinking necessarily entails ‘generalization’, both instrumentally and excessively/misdirectionally?
So basically, this is Noah Cicero asking, “Which Internet celebrities do I have to fuck to get a write-up in the New York Observer?”, with a side of “Cute girls get all the breaks; it just ain’t fair!”, eh?
Well put, ladies.
idk i guess not
I was impressed. I’ve only heard of her in passing until I
read this essay. I decided to read her story. It didn’t seem that long and it
didn’t seem like non-fiction. She does seem to draw from the reality of life’s
torments, which brings her comparisons to authors who have done this
masterfully in the past. Who remembers
everything that happens in a couple of days? When she wrote the blog, which I
have never seen or heard of, until now, it is easier to believe that was closer
to fiction than non-fiction. I have written stories, most authors who write
stories base it on people they know and events from their life.
But for an example of why it is fiction is because the character you write
about takes on not one, but several people you may personally know. The hate
I’ve seen posted about her will propel her upward if she so desires, because
only that amount of hate is given to someone another is really, really envious
of. Last thing, The Adrian Brody story was written by someone who is obviously
well read and works continuously on their writing. If it makes you haters feel
better, I would have to believe the author of Adrian Brody writes a lot and
makes extreme sacrifices to have you hate her as much.
lol
[…] upon Marie Calloway, but I think it may have been here. After reading it, I followed comment links here and here. Last night, it was near 1AM when I decided to table further reading until tonight. You […]
I said to EE that a portion of Noah’s intro to her interview was misogynistic, but that I thought you couldn’t really call someone a misogynist from words alone.
Still think it, too.
He calls her crazy and questions her sexual practices from the lens of a white male. I’d say that’s pretty sexist, sorry about it. Did we read the same article?
Marie Calloway is Tao Lin’s Watereddown Version of me : a HyperSxualized Feminist Author unAfraid to call out the Passive Patriarchy of Alt Lit : http://andreacoates.blogspot.ca/2011/05/molly-young.html
“When a person reads the scene in Adrian Brody at the end when the girl starts crying to sex. You begin to realize that person is a little nuts. Because the only people that cry during sex are crazy people. The audience thinks, “This person is fucked, who behaves like this?”Her obsession with her own looks: in Losing my Virginity she goes to the bathroom after sex and just stares at the mirror obsessing over her own looks. There is a man in the bedroom, he just had sex with you, he obviously thinks you’re attractive. He obviously finds you endearing in some way.”MC’s ‘characters’ may be obnoxious, but I don’t think you understand how women function. I liked it a lot better when Roxane Gay approached this and didn’t succumb to the whole “bitches be crazy” write-off.
naivety/ignorance absolutely breeds sexism
http://www.corpse.org/archives/issue_10/ficciones/soloway.html
^ Courtney Cox’s Asshole by Jill Soloway
Not sure if/how MC is doing anything new.
[…] considered dehumanizing and anti-feminist or equally, to some, pro-feminist and life-afirming–detractors and supporters entrenched their […]
maybe you read it that way. i see your point – she is a very real character, with real humanness – striving for validation, using sexuality for self-medication, self-doubt re: self-worth & skill, etc. But the moral turpitude, the vacuousness of this woman must burn your eye out like a green laser pen or else you aren’t looking hard. She is needy, selfish, seems to eschew normal social interaction for ‘what can i get out of this person’ interaction, can’t deal with rejection, doesn’t seem to like people at all, etc – borderline personality disorder or the like. she’s a total creep, as noah noted.
1. Think of the times someone has cried during sex with you present
2. Think of how you reacted to said action
3. Remember that you stopped and asked what the hell was wrong with them
It’s not sexism to say that someone is pitiful, even if they are a woman. If you reduce a person’s being mostly to their gender, that is sexism. That’s essentially what you’re doing when you criticize someone for calling Marie Calloway pitiful. You’re reducing her to a gender construct (which I think the blogosphere has already done and she herself has already done). Calling her pitiful is inherent to who she presents in her stories, not the fact that she is a woman.
Marie Calloway is another product of the self-congratulatory alt-lit community that celebrates the medium rather than any actual writing or content. Her work is important only because of the way it was communicated and its broader connection to the alt-lit community in subject matter (i.e. Mr “Adrien Brody). If she’d fucked Paul Krugman would we give a shit? How about Leonard Maltin? (Alright, even I confess that would be noteworthy if only for the references to pubic hairs in his moustache)