Snippets
So, yeah, maybe it’s nothing new (wrong), and maybe there’s too much coverage to warrant another post (wrong), but I’m not apologizing for shit. Jesus. Over at The Atlantic‘s blog, Hua Hsu gives a quick, precise, and I think very insightful response to Tao Lin’s recent Gawker article. Insightful to the extent that Hsu articulates and interrogates what I find most compelling about Tao’s work. Hsu writes:
Why is Lin so polarizing? The comments that follow the Gawker “piece” are generally annoyed or sarcastically dismissive, which is expected given how long and gossip/link-free it is. But is Lin’s writing, as the detractors say, truly narcissistic or selfish? What does it mean to be narcissistic enough to be branded a narcissist, when we are all in the business of cultivating online followers and friends, issuing steady streams of news releases about our wavering moods? There’s something refreshing to me about Lin’s writing, the way it manages to be wholly about him, but deny our craving for interiority or motive.
Those are poignant, thoughtful and surprisingly novel questions about a writer who, by objectifying himself, becomes a cultural object in turn–and I think that’s a move whose significance we have yet to suss out. The question is obviously whether it’s worth our time, but I guess that’s up to you or whoever’s reading.
Tao Lin lost me the second he mentioned g-chat or the iphone in a novel. Or novella. Whatever. I absolutely hate it when writers mention things that are so “of the moment” in their work unless it’s something timeless like McDonald’s. Also, must you be under 30 to really appreciate his stuff? I feel like it’s one of those generational things. Where he is that one guy who “speaks to our disillusionment and boredom, man” that every generation seems to have.
what isn’t of the moment
A house, a couch, a paper cup, a pair of socks. McDonald’s. A telephone. An office building on the corner of the street. I’m talking about something like the iphone or g-chat or facebook or something screams, “This is modern.”
Screw that “of the moment” dismissal. I don’t often toss that kind of stuff into my writing but I certainly do sometimes and I certainly don’t mind it as a reader when it’s done right. Maybe a certain character in a certain piece with a certain tone does have an iphone. Maybe in a piece of a certain tone that same character will just have a phone.
I get the adverse reaction to mindless dropping of modernisms, but how many writers really just drop them mindlessly? And if we want to start policing the use of brand names or whatever, where does it stop? Historically fast food is of the moment. Cars. Computers. The internet. I remember people complaining about email appearing in fiction.
Anyway I decided to comment at all because I usually don’t love Lin’s work but I did enjoy the piece referenced here. It contains more than what you’d see if you just read the words on the screen.
seems like a weird reason to dislike tao lin. iphone and facebook are as much a part of life as mcdonalds, prob more so for a lot of people. regardless of how i feel about dude’s writing, i’d rather people write about current cultural contexts than prior ones.
I check my Gmail and Facebook ~20 times a day and haven’t been to a McDonald’s in years. I don’t have an iPhone.
It’s simply a matter of tastes. It’s one of those things that have always bugged me. It just feels cheap to me in a way. I just went back and found this interview with Gary Lutz from Bookslut (done by Justin Taylor BTW) and he sort of sums up my feelings:
-I remember you mentioning in the Believer interview about consciously avoiding brand-names and other markers of culture and era. I think a writer’s desire to be unfettered by the stuff of his day makes sense to me in an instinctual way, but I’d like to just hear your take on it.
-I would hate to know exactly where and when my stories are set, in what suburbial latitudes those dark days keep coming. My characters seem bent on piecing themselves out of any big picture, and I have to honor their wish. I don’t know which is finally sicker — specifics or engulfing abstractions.
what novel was that, that he mentioned g-chat or the iphone and he lost you.
if you say hi to him, he can find you again. ive never met him but he seems to me like he would be a friendly person in real life. g-chat him and say hi, remember me? i g-chatted him once by accident and he was nice about it.
what about the critique (from the comments) about Lin’s overuse of quotation marks? or that he was purposefully being a brat just to concoct a scenario about which to write but then went on to produce an incredibly bland piece from said concocted scenario?
well, i thought it was bland anyway. this was also the first time i’d read Lin (after being privy to so many love him/hate him conversations) and i have to ask, what do people see in his work? my impression is that, like so many “hip” bands, he’s a flavor-of-the-moment and will soon be rendered obsolete.
anyway, it seems like latching on to his use of iphones or gchat is the wrong discussion to engage…
“purposefully being a brat just to concoct a scenario about which to write”
thats actually what i find sort of fascinating about him. it feeds into the whole self-conscious thing and addiction to fame. taking promotion to extremes, etc. its all very [something]. i used to have that flavor-of-the-month suspicion years ago, but its been years now and it keeps growing so im admiring the parade now. so there.
i typed some things about tao recently. the relevant sections about why he is polarizing are below.
People don’t like having their world-views ‘fucked with,’ even indirectly
Rather than continuing to list people/entities who are pissed off by Tao, because I’m getting bored with that, I will examine one ‘overarching’ reason why people get pissed off. Indirectly, Tao Lin’s existence/behavior/writing/books/success/fame/etc. ‘fucks with’ people’s world-views. People don’t like this. Why does it fuck with their world-view. People don’t expect authors, especially indie authors, to promote themselves beyond the traditional methods. As more and more indie authors use the internet, become part of the HTMLGIANT ‘hub’, etc., the standards have changed, but Tao’s approach to promotion represents a shift toward what the kind of person who hates pop culture/’those people’/celebrities/capitalism would term ‘shameless self-promotion.’ Tao’s contests, such as the very one in which I am participating, his appearances in comments sections to take questions, his selling of shares in the stock of Richard Yates, all these kinds of stunts/gimmicks/promotions are largely unheard of, and while some authors have started emulating a few of his tactics, Tao is still more dedicated and more relentless than all the others, and thus more consistent.
If this was some big persuasive essay, I would say that consistency is a key concept for Tao Lin. I could ‘even’ relate this concept to Richard Yates, a novel in which the male character becomes disappointed in his girlfriend because she is inconsistent, she doesn’t do what she says, she lies, she doesn’t show up on time, she doesn’t act in concrete ways to deal with her problems. One could argue that Tao Lin is interested in consistency as a person and as a writer, and he is attempting to live a life of consistent productivity in which his daily life, philosophy of life, and writing are all aligned. Some of the tension in his writing and in his online activities comes from the intersection of his playfulness/his sense of fun and his deadly serious ambition to be perfectly consistent. Tao has written a poem [scroll to the last one] in which he writes, “i value a person being tactful and consistent or something like that”. He may often profess to say/think/write things idly or sarcastically, but in some ways every move, every word of Tao is deadly ‘serious.’ This irony is part of what makes Tao ‘great.’
Using quotes around words
I’m sure Tao has written comprehensively on this subject, but suffice to say, he is pointing out where language is imprecise, cliched, or problematic by putting those words in quotes. For some reason, this pisses a lot of people off. I think this is because they think Tao is putting them on, he is fucking with them, and they don’t want to be fucked with. I would say whether or not Tao is fucking with them is a question that has no answer and hasn’t even been asked very well. ;) See what I did there. Now I’M fucking with you, maybe. Hehe…
Anyways, some people are very particular about what kind of playfulness in authors they find ‘acceptable’/’appealing’/’commendable.’ For instance, David Foster Wallace has been celebrated (although, especially prior to his death, also vilified) for using endnotes and footnotes, as well as complicated sentence structures, to mimic what he saw as the overload of information in the modern age, as well as to be playful, ‘post-modern,’ etc. Some of the same people who love DFW’s endnotes get all red and sweaty with rage because Tao ‘just keeps on quoting things, what the fuuuuck?! jesus, just stop it, ahhhhh!!!!’ They seem to think Tao should throw in a couple quotation marks as a joke, if he absolutely must, and then he should ‘cut it out.’ Those people fail to see that 1) The logic behind his use of quotation marks calls for him to use them consistently and continuously, and his use of them is often thoughtful and interesting in its approach to language in a way not entirely dissimilar to that of DFW; 2) If the quotation marks are intended for humor, to some degree, the humor will only increase, for those who appreciate it, as the quotation marks proliferate, not as they diminish.
I agree with the concerns about quotation marks. But something about the piece struck me more than other of his stuff that I’ve read. I think his stiff-ish delivery in this instance is well suited to the idea of the piece, of the weird flustered formality of being first detained by retail staff and then taken away by police.
being ok with telephone but not iphone is another brand of ageism. that is, it’s not rational. not that you need to be rational or should.
i would go so far as to say that his “gift” for self-promotion far surpasses his writing “skills”. at first i thought i “didn’t get” him, but then i realized i’m just not a “fan” of what he’s “doing”. i’m not sure it’s “fair” to say that he “fucks” with “worldviews”, but i can see how folks even a couple years younger than myself (i’m 29) who have grown up more hypermediated/hyperconnected, can view boredom & laziness as a “novelty” to be “adored” in “writing”.
u mad
tell em y u mad sun
my worldview collapsed and i’m sad now. and then bored. waah
You are the “first person” to ever “make fun of” Tao Lin by “overdoing” the quote thing. “Good job.”
Tao Lin lost me the second he mentioned g-chat or the iphone in a novel. Or novella. Whatever. I absolutely hate it when writers mention things that are so “of the moment” in their work unless it’s something timeless like McDonald’s. Also, must you be under 30 to really appreciate his stuff? I feel like it’s one of those generational things. Where he is that one guy who “speaks to our disillusionment and boredom, man” that every generation seems to have.
what isn’t of the moment
A house, a couch, a paper cup, a pair of socks. McDonald’s. A telephone. An office building on the corner of the street. I’m talking about something like the iphone or g-chat or facebook or something screams, “This is modern.”
Screw that “of the moment” dismissal. I don’t often toss that kind of stuff into my writing but I certainly do sometimes and I certainly don’t mind it as a reader when it’s done right. Maybe a certain character in a certain piece with a certain tone does have an iphone. Maybe in a piece of a certain tone that same character will just have a phone.
I get the adverse reaction to mindless dropping of modernisms, but how many writers really just drop them mindlessly? And if we want to start policing the use of brand names or whatever, where does it stop? Historically fast food is of the moment. Cars. Computers. The internet. I remember people complaining about email appearing in fiction.
Anyway I decided to comment at all because I usually don’t love Lin’s work but I did enjoy the piece referenced here. It contains more than what you’d see if you just read the words on the screen.
i admit it, that was childish. but haterz gon’ hate
seems like a weird reason to dislike tao lin. iphone and facebook are as much a part of life as mcdonalds, prob more so for a lot of people. regardless of how i feel about dude’s writing, i’d rather people write about current cultural contexts than prior ones.
I check my Gmail and Facebook ~20 times a day and haven’t been to a McDonald’s in years. I don’t have an iPhone.
It’s simply a matter of tastes. It’s one of those things that have always bugged me. It just feels cheap to me in a way. I just went back and found this interview with Gary Lutz from Bookslut (done by Justin Taylor BTW) and he sort of sums up my feelings:
-I remember you mentioning in the Believer interview about consciously avoiding brand-names and other markers of culture and era. I think a writer’s desire to be unfettered by the stuff of his day makes sense to me in an instinctual way, but I’d like to just hear your take on it.
-I would hate to know exactly where and when my stories are set, in what suburbial latitudes those dark days keep coming. My characters seem bent on piecing themselves out of any big picture, and I have to honor their wish. I don’t know which is finally sicker — specifics or engulfing abstractions.
what novel was that, that he mentioned g-chat or the iphone and he lost you.
if you say hi to him, he can find you again. ive never met him but he seems to me like he would be a friendly person in real life. g-chat him and say hi, remember me? i g-chatted him once by accident and he was nice about it.
what about the critique (from the comments) about Lin’s overuse of quotation marks? or that he was purposefully being a brat just to concoct a scenario about which to write but then went on to produce an incredibly bland piece from said concocted scenario?
well, i thought it was bland anyway. this was also the first time i’d read Lin (after being privy to so many love him/hate him conversations) and i have to ask, what do people see in his work? my impression is that, like so many “hip” bands, he’s a flavor-of-the-moment and will soon be rendered obsolete.
anyway, it seems like latching on to his use of iphones or gchat is the wrong discussion to engage…
HTMLGiant:
Hail Tao Motherfucking Lin’s Giant (Dick in Our Mouth)
“purposefully being a brat just to concoct a scenario about which to write”
thats actually what i find sort of fascinating about him. it feeds into the whole self-conscious thing and addiction to fame. taking promotion to extremes, etc. its all very [something]. i used to have that flavor-of-the-month suspicion years ago, but its been years now and it keeps growing so im admiring the parade now. so there.
i typed some things about tao recently. the relevant sections about why he is polarizing are below.
People don’t like having their world-views ‘fucked with,’ even indirectly
Rather than continuing to list people/entities who are pissed off by Tao, because I’m getting bored with that, I will examine one ‘overarching’ reason why people get pissed off. Indirectly, Tao Lin’s existence/behavior/writing/books/success/fame/etc. ‘fucks with’ people’s world-views. People don’t like this. Why does it fuck with their world-view. People don’t expect authors, especially indie authors, to promote themselves beyond the traditional methods. As more and more indie authors use the internet, become part of the HTMLGIANT ‘hub’, etc., the standards have changed, but Tao’s approach to promotion represents a shift toward what the kind of person who hates pop culture/’those people’/celebrities/capitalism would term ‘shameless self-promotion.’ Tao’s contests, such as the very one in which I am participating, his appearances in comments sections to take questions, his selling of shares in the stock of Richard Yates, all these kinds of stunts/gimmicks/promotions are largely unheard of, and while some authors have started emulating a few of his tactics, Tao is still more dedicated and more relentless than all the others, and thus more consistent.
If this was some big persuasive essay, I would say that consistency is a key concept for Tao Lin. I could ‘even’ relate this concept to Richard Yates, a novel in which the male character becomes disappointed in his girlfriend because she is inconsistent, she doesn’t do what she says, she lies, she doesn’t show up on time, she doesn’t act in concrete ways to deal with her problems. One could argue that Tao Lin is interested in consistency as a person and as a writer, and he is attempting to live a life of consistent productivity in which his daily life, philosophy of life, and writing are all aligned. Some of the tension in his writing and in his online activities comes from the intersection of his playfulness/his sense of fun and his deadly serious ambition to be perfectly consistent. Tao has written a poem [scroll to the last one] in which he writes, “i value a person being tactful and consistent or something like that”. He may often profess to say/think/write things idly or sarcastically, but in some ways every move, every word of Tao is deadly ‘serious.’ This irony is part of what makes Tao ‘great.’
Using quotes around words
I’m sure Tao has written comprehensively on this subject, but suffice to say, he is pointing out where language is imprecise, cliched, or problematic by putting those words in quotes. For some reason, this pisses a lot of people off. I think this is because they think Tao is putting them on, he is fucking with them, and they don’t want to be fucked with. I would say whether or not Tao is fucking with them is a question that has no answer and hasn’t even been asked very well. ;) See what I did there. Now I’M fucking with you, maybe. Hehe…
Anyways, some people are very particular about what kind of playfulness in authors they find ‘acceptable’/’appealing’/’commendable.’ For instance, David Foster Wallace has been celebrated (although, especially prior to his death, also vilified) for using endnotes and footnotes, as well as complicated sentence structures, to mimic what he saw as the overload of information in the modern age, as well as to be playful, ‘post-modern,’ etc. Some of the same people who love DFW’s endnotes get all red and sweaty with rage because Tao ‘just keeps on quoting things, what the fuuuuck?! jesus, just stop it, ahhhhh!!!!’ They seem to think Tao should throw in a couple quotation marks as a joke, if he absolutely must, and then he should ‘cut it out.’ Those people fail to see that 1) The logic behind his use of quotation marks calls for him to use them consistently and continuously, and his use of them is often thoughtful and interesting in its approach to language in a way not entirely dissimilar to that of DFW; 2) If the quotation marks are intended for humor, to some degree, the humor will only increase, for those who appreciate it, as the quotation marks proliferate, not as they diminish.
I agree with the concerns about quotation marks. But something about the piece struck me more than other of his stuff that I’ve read. I think his stiff-ish delivery in this instance is well suited to the idea of the piece, of the weird flustered formality of being first detained by retail staff and then taken away by police.
being ok with telephone but not iphone is another brand of ageism. that is, it’s not rational. not that you need to be rational or should.
Terminal Boredom
i would go so far as to say that his “gift” for self-promotion far surpasses his writing “skills”. at first i thought i “didn’t get” him, but then i realized i’m just not a “fan” of what he’s “doing”. i’m not sure it’s “fair” to say that he “fucks” with “worldviews”, but i can see how folks even a couple years younger than myself (i’m 29) who have grown up more hypermediated/hyperconnected, can view boredom & laziness as a “novelty” to be “adored” in “writing”.
u mad
tell em y u mad sun
my worldview collapsed and i’m sad now. and then bored. waah
You are the “first person” to ever “make fun of” Tao Lin by “overdoing” the quote thing. “Good job.”
sure. ok. We all get that. But what i think is failing, for the most part, for most of us, is that this ironic stance as an artist dealing with consumerism, capitalism and pop culture, by smattering it ironically all over your work is TIRED. It is old. It is nothing new.
Lin’s stunts are nothing countless visual artists have not been doing since the early dada movement. There is a reason he is compared, regularly and with great vigor, to Andy Warhol. An artist who’s prime was almost 50 years ago.
Read White Noise. It came out in 1982.
Now sure, im not arguing that if its not new its not good. At the same time, these tricks and quirks of Lin should not be praised for their originality. Thats just crazy talk.
Furthermore, why the fuck are we still getting turned on by irony? What is so hard about doing things sincerely, with passion and fervor? Why are we settling for the ironic atmospheres and flavors of real things? Why are we getting our news from The Daily Show?
Irony cannot be the only way to deal with the stresses of living in po-mo America. I don’t buy that.
We do it because its easy. It’s easier to make a joke or give a wink than to address the matters, especially in art, headlong.
I sense that these artist are afraid of that sincerity. Afraid of making a claim and being wrong. Worried there are no truths. Existentially fucked.
I dont think this means you then have to embrace the opposition ironically. I think that just makes you a wuss.
i admit it, that was childish. but haterz gon’ hate
I think you are right in isolating the two things I don’t like: the self-promotion and the quotes. I can dismiss the self-promotion part because even if his books were published by a huge press this economy sucks and blah blah blah.
But the quotes make reading his work super-obnoxious, and it’s not because of any “worldview.” I get it–I read his justification for the quotes–I know that it’s a system he’s following. But for me it is impossible to read it without hearing a different “scare quotes” tone of condescending voice/etc for every quoted word, so the flow of the sentence is constantly disrupted.
Also, I think there’s something to be said for making a point once, very well, and then not having to make it over and over and over and over in exactly the same way. If he is so interested in the fallibility of language, why not explore it with the quotes gimmick in one work, and then pick another way in another work?
The thing that’s so frustrating about disliking this kind of stuff is that people assume you don’t “get it.” I get it, I just don’t want to read it.
I think that what you’re saying about irony is another example of why DFW and TL are apples and oranges. Especially what I got from his interviews/the Lipsky book is that DFW’s “tricks” were all about living in a postmodern world unironically and trying to be sincere and good. I feel like Tao Lin is “worried there are no truths” like you say–we all are–but acknowledging that worry only by calling it “worry” doesn’t get as anywhere at all.
Tao Lin doesn’t fuck with my worldview – some people like his writing, and some people don’t. Luckily there are plenty of writers to go around. I like to read about him. I’m not sure why, but I think it has to do with how emotionally charged people get on both sides.
Regarding the quotes – I get your defense, even though I’m not sure I actually buy that that’s what he’s doing. They feel more like a sneer to me, a sort of lazy shorthand for something. I’m not sure, but I’ll go along with your explanation – his use of quotes don’t appeal to me for a few reasons – one, they’re fatiguing because cliches are fatiguing and he’s made unnecessary quotes his own personal cliche. Maybe he should put quotes around the quotes? How subversive would it be for him to, in his next book, not use any quotes?
Also: All language is imprecise and problematic – maybe he feels like he needs to point this out to his readers? I would rather read something exploring the problematics of imprecise language in a more interesting way than simply acknowledging that his language is cliched, imprecise, and problematic, but that’s just me! It’s okay if other people don’t feel the same way.
“All language is imprecise and problematic – maybe he feels like he needs to point this out to his readers? I would rather read something exploring the problematics of imprecise language in a more interesting way than simply acknowledging that his language is cliched, imprecise, and problematic, but that’s just me! ”
That’s what I was trying to say above, and you said it better. You took an imprecise concept and made it clear through language. That’s one of the main points of writing/communicating to me. There’d be no point if both of us just said something like: I have “issues” with his “use” of “quotes.”
Thanks
HTMLGiant:
Hail Tao Motherfucking Lin’s Giant (Dick in Our Mouth)
hey matt, fyi, in “shoplifting,” “richard yates” and in many of his other prose and poetry works, there is little or no use of scare quotes. he has used those moreso in his blogging and article writing.
Thanks for the clarification – my exposure to his writing has mainly been riddled with quotes, so assumed this was the case in the novels. I have tried to read Eeeee… and have read parts of Shoplifting and will admit they are not my cup of tea. If I could, I would edit the above to applaud Lin for only being completely irritating with the quotes in his online prose.
sure. ok. We all get that. But what i think is failing, for the most part, for most of us, is that this ironic stance as an artist dealing with consumerism, capitalism and pop culture, by smattering it ironically all over your work is TIRED. It is old. It is nothing new.
Lin’s stunts are nothing countless visual artists have not been doing since the early dada movement. There is a reason he is compared, regularly and with great vigor, to Andy Warhol. An artist who’s prime was almost 50 years ago.
Read White Noise. It came out in 1982.
Now sure, im not arguing that if its not new its not good. At the same time, these tricks and quirks of Lin should not be praised for their originality. Thats just crazy talk.
Furthermore, why the fuck are we still getting turned on by irony? What is so hard about doing things sincerely, with passion and fervor? Why are we settling for the ironic atmospheres and flavors of real things? Why are we getting our news from The Daily Show?
Irony cannot be the only way to deal with the stresses of living in po-mo America. I don’t buy that.
We do it because its easy. It’s easier to make a joke or give a wink than to address the matters, especially in art, headlong.
I sense that these artist are afraid of that sincerity. Afraid of making a claim and being wrong. Worried there are no truths. Existentially fucked.
I dont think this means you then have to embrace the opposition ironically. I think that just makes you a wuss.
I think you are right in isolating the two things I don’t like: the self-promotion and the quotes. I can dismiss the self-promotion part because even if his books were published by a huge press this economy sucks and blah blah blah.
But the quotes make reading his work super-obnoxious, and it’s not because of any “worldview.” I get it–I read his justification for the quotes–I know that it’s a system he’s following. But for me it is impossible to read it without hearing a different “scare quotes” tone of condescending voice/etc for every quoted word, so the flow of the sentence is constantly disrupted.
Also, I think there’s something to be said for making a point once, very well, and then not having to make it over and over and over and over in exactly the same way. If he is so interested in the fallibility of language, why not explore it with the quotes gimmick in one work, and then pick another way in another work?
The thing that’s so frustrating about disliking this kind of stuff is that people assume you don’t “get it.” I get it, I just don’t want to read it.
I think that what you’re saying about irony is another example of why DFW and TL are apples and oranges. Especially what I got from his interviews/the Lipsky book is that DFW’s “tricks” were all about living in a postmodern world unironically and trying to be sincere and good. I feel like Tao Lin is “worried there are no truths” like you say–we all are–but acknowledging that worry only by calling it “worry” doesn’t get as anywhere at all.
Tao Lin doesn’t fuck with my worldview – some people like his writing, and some people don’t. Luckily there are plenty of writers to go around. I like to read about him. I’m not sure why, but I think it has to do with how emotionally charged people get on both sides.
Regarding the quotes – I get your defense, even though I’m not sure I actually buy that that’s what he’s doing. They feel more like a sneer to me, a sort of lazy shorthand for something. I’m not sure, but I’ll go along with your explanation – his use of quotes don’t appeal to me for a few reasons – one, they’re fatiguing because cliches are fatiguing and he’s made unnecessary quotes his own personal cliche. Maybe he should put quotes around the quotes? How subversive would it be for him to, in his next book, not use any quotes?
Also: All language is imprecise and problematic – maybe he feels like he needs to point this out to his readers? I would rather read something exploring the problematics of imprecise language in a more interesting way than simply acknowledging that his language is cliched, imprecise, and problematic, but that’s just me! It’s okay if other people don’t feel the same way.
“All language is imprecise and problematic – maybe he feels like he needs to point this out to his readers? I would rather read something exploring the problematics of imprecise language in a more interesting way than simply acknowledging that his language is cliched, imprecise, and problematic, but that’s just me! ”
That’s what I was trying to say above, and you said it better. You took an imprecise concept and made it clear through language. That’s one of the main points of writing/communicating to me. There’d be no point if both of us just said something like: I have “issues” with his “use” of “quotes.”
Thanks
i don’t think these questions about narcissism or the artist-as-object are particularly novel. they’ve been rehashed quite a bit in debates about feminist art, particularly 70s performance art. if tao lin’s strength is his strategic exploration of self-objectification and narcissism, i would say that it’s already been sussed out.
hey matt, fyi, in “shoplifting,” “richard yates” and in many of his other prose and poetry works, there is little or no use of scare quotes. he has used those moreso in his blogging and article writing.
Thanks for the clarification – my exposure to his writing has mainly been riddled with quotes, so assumed this was the case in the novels. I have tried to read Eeeee… and have read parts of Shoplifting and will admit they are not my cup of tea. If I could, I would edit the above to applaud Lin for only being completely irritating with the quotes in his online prose.
@stephen it seems irrational to expect consistency from oneself and others. life is complex and contradictory and imperfect. if, as i assume from your description of his latest novel, this ‘obsession’ has lead to broken relationships, why does Tao do it. Why doesnt he just enjoy his life instead of turning it into work?
i don’t think these questions about narcissism or the artist-as-object are particularly novel. they’ve been rehashed quite a bit in debates about feminist art, particularly 70s performance art. if tao lin’s strength is his strategic exploration of self-objectification and narcissism, i would say that it’s already been sussed out.
ah, yes, this is much more intellligently articulated than what i was lazily insinuating
@stephen it seems irrational to expect consistency from oneself and others. life is complex and contradictory and imperfect. if, as i assume from your description of his latest novel, this ‘obsession’ has lead to broken relationships, why does Tao do it. Why doesnt he just enjoy his life instead of turning it into work?
…since the 70’s? Jesus. Google Alfred Jarry. It was old when that midget did it.
I never got into the Lin’s work for the same reason as most readers who aren’t indie writer-bloggers: I just don’t find it that compelling. Lazy, hasty, adolescent, etc. Like bad college workshop writing, except the sentences are shorter (and unvaried). Never occurred to me that it would upset anyone’s world view, or that PEEPS JUST CAN’T HANDLE IT, MAN!
He seems like a swell, guy, but c’mon…
damn
Ubu Roi!
questioneer, i was pointing out the desire for consistency as part of a tension i saw in tao’s work/life that i find interesting and compelling, rather than as a distinct cause with direct negative effects.
Re consistency/productivity, and re tensions/contradictions/”confusions,” Tao said it himself best at the end of his interview with Rozalia Jovanovic at <a href="http://therumpus.net/2009/09/the-surface-of-things-the-rumpus-interview-with-tao-lin/"the Rumpus, when she floated him the lovely phrase “nostalgie de la boue,” which means “a longing for sexual or social degradation; a desire to regress to more primitive social conditions or behaviour than those to which a person is accustomed.” Rozalia asked Tao if he ever felt this, to which he replied, and I think this might help explain the tension and the perhaps contradictions that we’re discussing here, Tao said:
“I think I do constantly. But I also feel a constant longing for the opposite, I think, to ‘make progress’ or be productive. And I also feel a constant longing to accept what I have, to ‘remain’ where I am physically/metaphysically, in a kind of acceptance or Zen. The combination of those three longings, as applied to all aspects of my life, within a context of unidirectional time ending in ‘death,’ might be the ‘central confusion’ of my life.”
Rumpus interview link is here, my bad.
Pemulis, I am already aware of Alfred Jarry. I read him in college. I think what he did wasn’t “old,” as you put it, rather it was what it was. And to me, it was very amusing and clever. Don’t know what he has to do with Lin.
Your comment seems to be a series of presumptions. I think many indie writer-bloggers have a problem with Lin, perhaps that would describe the make-up of his most vocal detractors, because they are the most aware of him and they “have to deal with” posts about him in venues such as this. I’m not sure what his fan base is, but it seems to include older professional authors, younger professional authors, teenagers, professors, and many other types of people.
I would say the word “compelling” is indicative of a subjectivity, nothing more or less, and even that subjectivity is one that is fluid over time and depending on events, so what you find compelling is a tiny chestnut floating in an enormous ocean, and the wind or [some other force] may move it any which way at any moment.
I don’t agree with your three adjectives for describing his writing: “lazy, hasty, adolescent.” If I were a cheekier person, I would reply that your critique is “lazy, dismissive, narrow-minded.” I don’t agree with “lazy” because pretty much all of Tao’s writing is painstakingly edited, to my knowledge. The style you are witnessing is not “tossed-off” or “simply the easiest thing I could think of to do.” It is very deliberate writing. Similarly, it is not “hasty.”
“Adolescent” indicates that you have presumptions about what is mature or not mature, what is adolescent or grown-up. “Finnegans Wake” is a book made up of puns, some of them very silly. Puns are encountered most frequently today in the jokes one finds on popsicle sticks. Beckett has titled one of his works, if one were to translate literally from the French, “Wet Farts.” Different artists have different objectives and different personalities. A smart person can find many different ways to communicate or to create art. Part of it depends on who you want to read your book, and what your intentions or pretensions are for art. Tao may want just about anyone to be able to read his book.
I have been to a college writing workshop. None of the writing was one iota as compelling to me or as impressive to me as Tao’s writing.
It is likely a matter of taste and a matter of how one thinks about writing/life.
ah, yes, this is much more intellligently articulated than what i was lazily insinuating
…since the 70’s? Jesus. Google Alfred Jarry. It was old when that midget did it.
I never got into the Lin’s work for the same reason as most readers who aren’t indie writer-bloggers: I just don’t find it that compelling. Lazy, hasty, adolescent, etc. Like bad college workshop writing, except the sentences are shorter (and unvaried). Never occurred to me that it would upset anyone’s world view, or that PEEPS JUST CAN’T HANDLE IT, MAN!
He seems like a swell, guy, but c’mon…
damn
Ubu Roi!
i like tao, by the way. hes a writers writer. you get the impression he really gets into literature by the way he can reproduce what he likes from his favourite writers, while making it his own. i also had/have social anxiety disorder so the content of his books works well for me. plus hes funny and he seems to like original, gimmicky, nonsequitor things the same way i like those things. additionally, the dude is a source of inspiration to young writers. at least to me. hes done a lot for his age and it was only through working really hard. that said, the consistency thing and the priviledged, bored, disillusioned and snarky side of him can make him come across as an asshole – a judemental dude who sometimes treats people badly in order to keep to his philosophy. or because he can later defend that behaviour with his philosophy – ive read where hes done this, in that interview, and the dude is relentless. can shut down anything if you give him a keyboard. anyway i dont like that part of his character. its probably because of my personality, i dont know. i just dont relate to that, and not sit on a high chair i dont own, but its kind of disappointing for such a talented, sensitive and insightful dude who spends so much of his time thinking about pain and suffering.
questioneer, i was pointing out the desire for consistency as part of a tension i saw in tao’s work/life that i find interesting and compelling, rather than as a distinct cause with direct negative effects.
Re consistency/productivity, and re tensions/contradictions/”confusions,” Tao said it himself best at the end of his interview with Rozalia Jovanovic at <a href="http://therumpus.net/2009/09/the-surface-of-things-the-rumpus-interview-with-tao-lin/"the Rumpus, when she floated him the lovely phrase “nostalgie de la boue,” which means “a longing for sexual or social degradation; a desire to regress to more primitive social conditions or behaviour than those to which a person is accustomed.” Rozalia asked Tao if he ever felt this, to which he replied, and I think this might help explain the tension and the perhaps contradictions that we’re discussing here, Tao said:
“I think I do constantly. But I also feel a constant longing for the opposite, I think, to ‘make progress’ or be productive. And I also feel a constant longing to accept what I have, to ‘remain’ where I am physically/metaphysically, in a kind of acceptance or Zen. The combination of those three longings, as applied to all aspects of my life, within a context of unidirectional time ending in ‘death,’ might be the ‘central confusion’ of my life.”
Rumpus interview link is here, my bad.
What would you think of a novel from the 1920’s that mentions radio?
“narcissist” is used incorrectly in that quote.
Toothpaste.
Pemulis, I am already aware of Alfred Jarry. I read him in college. I think what he did wasn’t “old,” as you put it, rather it was what it was. And to me, it was very amusing and clever. Don’t know what he has to do with Lin.
Your comment seems to be a series of presumptions. I think many indie writer-bloggers have a problem with Lin, perhaps that would describe the make-up of his most vocal detractors, because they are the most aware of him and they “have to deal with” posts about him in venues such as this. I’m not sure what his fan base is, but it seems to include older professional authors, younger professional authors, teenagers, professors, and many other types of people.
I would say the word “compelling” is indicative of a subjectivity, nothing more or less, and even that subjectivity is one that is fluid over time and depending on events, so what you find compelling is a tiny chestnut floating in an enormous ocean, and the wind or [some other force] may move it any which way at any moment.
I don’t agree with your three adjectives for describing his writing: “lazy, hasty, adolescent.” If I were a cheekier person, I would reply that your critique is “lazy, dismissive, narrow-minded.” I don’t agree with “lazy” because pretty much all of Tao’s writing is painstakingly edited, to my knowledge. The style you are witnessing is not “tossed-off” or “simply the easiest thing I could think of to do.” It is very deliberate writing. Similarly, it is not “hasty.”
“Adolescent” indicates that you have presumptions about what is mature or not mature, what is adolescent or grown-up. “Finnegans Wake” is a book made up of puns, some of them very silly. Puns are encountered most frequently today in the jokes one finds on popsicle sticks. Beckett has titled one of his works, if one were to translate literally from the French, “Wet Farts.” Different artists have different objectives and different personalities. A smart person can find many different ways to communicate or to create art. Part of it depends on who you want to read your book, and what your intentions or pretensions are for art. Tao may want just about anyone to be able to read his book.
I have been to a college writing workshop. None of the writing was one iota as compelling to me or as impressive to me as Tao’s writing.
It is likely a matter of taste and a matter of how one thinks about writing/life.
i like tao, by the way. hes a writers writer. you get the impression he really gets into literature by the way he can reproduce what he likes from his favourite writers, while making it his own. i also had/have social anxiety disorder so the content of his books works well for me. plus hes funny and he seems to like original, gimmicky, nonsequitor things the same way i like those things. additionally, the dude is a source of inspiration to young writers. at least to me. hes done a lot for his age and it was only through working really hard. that said, the consistency thing and the priviledged, bored, disillusioned and snarky side of him can make him come across as an asshole – a judemental dude who sometimes treats people badly in order to keep to his philosophy. or because he can later defend that behaviour with his philosophy – ive read where hes done this, in that interview, and the dude is relentless. can shut down anything if you give him a keyboard. anyway i dont like that part of his character. its probably because of my personality, i dont know. i just dont relate to that, and not sit on a high chair i dont own, but its kind of disappointing for such a talented, sensitive and insightful dude who spends so much of his time thinking about pain and suffering.
What would you think of a novel from the 1920’s that mentions radio?
“narcissist” is used incorrectly in that quote.
Toothpaste.
one time i texted him to see if it was raining and he answered me
do you really think the iphone, more than just a cell phone, is going to become as synonymous as the phone? perhaps the smart phone will presage the cell phone as a “thing” in the way the cellphone took over “the telephone,” but i kind of agree, super specific brand names (outside of like, “kleenex” instead of “facial tissues” or “coke” instead of “cola” or something) is pretty irritating to me. i have never owned a mac product and i never plan on owning one (actually that’s a lie, i have an ipod shuffle i got for free), so saying that saying it’s annoying to have to read about an iphone is ageism doesn’t make sense to me. like, seriously, i don’t know, who cares though. none of us know if tao lin will be read 100 years from now, and if he is maybe the abundance of facebook and gchat and iphones will be really hilarious and entertaining to kids the way sci-fi is to the irony-set today.
a radio is not a brand name. an iphone is a product. he didn’t say he hates seeing smartphones mentioned, he said the mention of a iphone is stupid.
i think he’s doing a lot of things on a “hipster” level without actually putting any theory behind it, therefore it’s easier to consume, therefore people can argue about it without citations, therefore nobody is going to argue that it’s old hat (i agree with that. i was actually sort of ‘defending’ tao lin to my roommate, when i realized, ‘yeah wait a minute all this shit was important like 40 years ago why is it still relevant’ and then i realized it was a commercial appropriation, but i don’t know i guess i just don’t care all that much. i mean, like either way).
one time i texted him to see if it was raining and he answered me
do you really think the iphone, more than just a cell phone, is going to become as synonymous as the phone? perhaps the smart phone will presage the cell phone as a “thing” in the way the cellphone took over “the telephone,” but i kind of agree, super specific brand names (outside of like, “kleenex” instead of “facial tissues” or “coke” instead of “cola” or something) is pretty irritating to me. i have never owned a mac product and i never plan on owning one (actually that’s a lie, i have an ipod shuffle i got for free), so saying that saying it’s annoying to have to read about an iphone is ageism doesn’t make sense to me. like, seriously, i don’t know, who cares though. none of us know if tao lin will be read 100 years from now, and if he is maybe the abundance of facebook and gchat and iphones will be really hilarious and entertaining to kids the way sci-fi is to the irony-set today.
a radio is not a brand name. an iphone is a product. he didn’t say he hates seeing smartphones mentioned, he said the mention of a iphone is stupid.
i think he’s doing a lot of things on a “hipster” level without actually putting any theory behind it, therefore it’s easier to consume, therefore people can argue about it without citations, therefore nobody is going to argue that it’s old hat (i agree with that. i was actually sort of ‘defending’ tao lin to my roommate, when i realized, ‘yeah wait a minute all this shit was important like 40 years ago why is it still relevant’ and then i realized it was a commercial appropriation, but i don’t know i guess i just don’t care all that much. i mean, like either way).
agreed
agreed
[…] funny. At the very least he’s a contemporary author worthy of attention for his peculiar, polarizing […]