November 23rd, 2009 / 12:43 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Blake Butler—
Lee Klein’s Eyeshot’s REJECTION LETTERS FROM THE EYESHOT OUTBOX v.9, which for me have always been an instructive and hilarious example of internet tone, and ‘real talk.’ Hopefully it is not truly the last.
“1. There’s a reason that Eyeshot’s sub guidelines say no “write” or “writer” e-mail addresses unless you’re very young. It suggests an aesthetic, a “writer” type who owns a Moleskine journal, whose work mostly disrespects the maturity, patience, and literary knowledge/expectations of readers, and who refers to journals and sites as “markets.” These writers live for those glorious days when Duotrope posts “congratulations, writer name!” next to the silly name of some obscure lit site that’ll be abandoned by 2010. 2012 the latest. “
hey…. my sister bought me my first moleskine for christmas when I was 16. Had never heard of it before. And I’ve kept buying them since. So… you know, what the fuck?
hey…. my sister bought me my first moleskine for christmas when I was 16. Had never heard of it before. And I’ve kept buying them since. So… you know, what the fuck?
I don’t even know what a moleskin is…skin of a mole? How many moles do you need to make a bag?
I don’t even know what a moleskin is…skin of a mole? How many moles do you need to make a bag?
or a journal?
or a journal?
hmm. i used to feel lee’s responses ranged from indulgent to rude, to unhelpful, to totally out of line.
apparently, i used to be idiot.
because these are fucking golden.
these should be some kind of standard, or at least ideal. not necessarily the execution — which, in lee’s case, i enjoy; however, not everyone writes like this and/or thinks like this — but certainly the verve.
*used to be AN idiot
hmm. i used to feel lee’s responses ranged from indulgent to rude, to unhelpful, to totally out of line.
apparently, i used to be idiot.
because these are fucking golden.
these should be some kind of standard, or at least ideal. not necessarily the execution — which, in lee’s case, i enjoy; however, not everyone writes like this and/or thinks like this — but certainly the verve.
*used to be AN idiot
whatever, blake
whatever, blake
I really enjoyed these actually – funny most of the times, a bit cruel now and then, but generally smart and on the money. Can’t believe he called out Erlewine though, harsh.
I really enjoyed these actually – funny most of the times, a bit cruel now and then, but generally smart and on the money. Can’t believe he called out Erlewine though, harsh.
“…silly name of some obscure lit site that’ll be abandoned by 2010. 2012 the latest.” Isn’t Eyeshot defunct?
“…silly name of some obscure lit site that’ll be abandoned by 2010. 2012 the latest.” Isn’t Eyeshot defunct?
http://eyeshot.net/submit.html
stop asking so many questions and do a little research.
http://eyeshot.net/submit.html
stop asking so many questions and do a little research.
Well, I was at this site and then I thought I read somewhere that they were done…sorry…
Well, I was at this site and then I thought I read somewhere that they were done…sorry…
I started skimming about halfway through because it didn’t engage me at all. The only vaguely interesting image involves the simile about the cat’s tail, which seems sort of self-consciously like a nice simile and doesn’t really do much else. I don’t think the use of the second person is really necessary here: I think it works best when “you” are in a situation you don’t really have access to (like Roderic Crooks’ story on Eyeshot) or to distance the narrator from serious trauma. Anyway – thanks again for sending for the second time after saying you’d never send again. And I look forward to seeing your “Congratulations, David Erlewine” on Duotrope, even if doubt it’ll ever appear next to the word “Eyeshot.” I remain, however, dumbly amazed at your persistence. Maybe if you worked twice as hard and produced 80 times fewer stories than you do, you’d have a shot at Eyeshot one day.
Ha ha, nice reminder
I started skimming about halfway through because it didn’t engage me at all. The only vaguely interesting image involves the simile about the cat’s tail, which seems sort of self-consciously like a nice simile and doesn’t really do much else. I don’t think the use of the second person is really necessary here: I think it works best when “you” are in a situation you don’t really have access to (like Roderic Crooks’ story on Eyeshot) or to distance the narrator from serious trauma. Anyway – thanks again for sending for the second time after saying you’d never send again. And I look forward to seeing your “Congratulations, David Erlewine” on Duotrope, even if doubt it’ll ever appear next to the word “Eyeshot.” I remain, however, dumbly amazed at your persistence. Maybe if you worked twice as hard and produced 80 times fewer stories than you do, you’d have a shot at Eyeshot one day.
Ha ha, nice reminder
i mean really
i mean really
i am the prince of making absurd statements about never writing/subbing again.
and the roderic crooks story remains one of my eyeshot faves
i am the prince of making absurd statements about never writing/subbing again.
and the roderic crooks story remains one of my eyeshot faves
He’s “dumbly amazed at your persistence” because you submitted…twice?
He’s “dumbly amazed at your persistence” because you submitted…twice?
ha ha, add about another 23 or so subs, man, but thanks for having my back
my rejections litter this volume
imagine if i hadn’t taken off five years from writing
ha ha, add about another 23 or so subs, man, but thanks for having my back
my rejections litter this volume
imagine if i hadn’t taken off five years from writing
Oh, he says “thanks for submitting for the second time”, that’s why I assumed.
Oh, he says “thanks for submitting for the second time”, that’s why I assumed.
“Anyway – thanks again for sending for the second time after saying you’d never send again” is the full and complete sentence.
“Anyway – thanks again for sending for the second time after saying you’d never send again” is the full and complete sentence.
Oh, yeah…sue me sasha…
Oh, yeah…sue me sasha…
http://eyeshot.net/zadiesmith.html
gag your “opinions” with a shitspoon.
http://eyeshot.net/zadiesmith.html
gag your “opinions” with a shitspoon.
Namedrop Nausea?
i’m sorry i insulted ‘your author’
lee klein
Namedrop Nausea?
i’m sorry i insulted ‘your author’
lee klein
your completely immature lack of humility — calling her novels “shitty” — got me steamed this morning
dennis cooper
brian evenson
gordon lish
ad infinitum ad nauseum
your completely immature lack of humility — calling her novels “shitty” — got me steamed this morning
dennis cooper
brian evenson
gordon lish
ad infinitum ad nauseum
what does my taste have to do with humility?
i know i repeat myself sometimes, but i read pretty widely. i’ve tried ms. smith’s first two novels. i should retract that i think they are ‘shitty,’ more so just not for me. what is shitty is her tone in that article, and i was trying to make a point by overstating in reaction to that.
there seems ‘something else’ bothering you here my friend
what does my taste have to do with humility?
i know i repeat myself sometimes, but i read pretty widely. i’ve tried ms. smith’s first two novels. i should retract that i think they are ‘shitty,’ more so just not for me. what is shitty is her tone in that article, and i was trying to make a point by overstating in reaction to that.
there seems ‘something else’ bothering you here my friend
good luck with your writing, blake
good luck with your writing, blake
lee, i apologize, honestly.
lee, i apologize, honestly.
(you should give everyone the ability to edit their posts)
(you should give everyone the ability to edit their posts)
They rejected me like 27 times. Now I finally now why.
They rejected me like 27 times. Now I finally now why.
One of those is mine. Mine, David Erlewine, not yours. You can’t have all of them.
One of those is mine. Mine, David Erlewine, not yours. You can’t have all of them.
i never understand why people associate great journals with longetivity. there are plenty of shitty journals that have been around for 20 plus years, likewise, there are plenty of great journals that havent been around 3 years. i dont understand what difference it makes. if something is superfucking great for one year and then they stop, does that mean they were never great? 2010 or 2012… what difference does it make, does that take away from the greatness?
i never understand why people associate great journals with longetivity. there are plenty of shitty journals that have been around for 20 plus years, likewise, there are plenty of great journals that havent been around 3 years. i dont understand what difference it makes. if something is superfucking great for one year and then they stop, does that mean they were never great? 2010 or 2012… what difference does it make, does that take away from the greatness?
ha, good point barry. it’s probably b/c people are often very myopic and think that hey longevity is appreciated in baseball (some people claim Cal is the best player ever b/c of this ha ha) so why not apply that principle to journals.
ha ha, my bad Ben.
ha, good point barry. it’s probably b/c people are often very myopic and think that hey longevity is appreciated in baseball (some people claim Cal is the best player ever b/c of this ha ha) so why not apply that principle to journals.
ha ha, my bad Ben.
also many people claim internet journals are only going to be open for a short time and only operate out of folks’ basements so when a journal like eyeshot “perseveres” people jump on it to say SEE! SEE! ONLINE JOURNALS CAN LAST! THEY’RE JUST AS GOOD AS PRINT JOURNALS!
also many people claim internet journals are only going to be open for a short time and only operate out of folks’ basements so when a journal like eyeshot “perseveres” people jump on it to say SEE! SEE! ONLINE JOURNALS CAN LAST! THEY’RE JUST AS GOOD AS PRINT JOURNALS!