Vicarious MFA
Vicarious MFA: Note Taking
The dreaded blank page.
Discussed in Non/Fiction:
A Lie That Tells the Truth: Memoir and the Art of Memory by Joel Agee
A great essay about the memoir in the modern age that anyone working in fiction or nonfiction should read. (What are un-bendable facts? Where does lying end and art begin? Fact ≠ Truth.)
We talked about how much we liked Another Bullshit Night in Suck City * and/or what sections were brilliant and which were just myehh. Most were brilliant.
One of the assigned readings that we didn’t talk about was Jo Anne Beard’s Werner. Excellently strange essay. Would have liked to hear someone’s opinion on it. (It’s in the Best American Essay edited by DF Wallace if you’ve got that on your bookshelf and want to read it and report back to me. No pressure.)
Writing Assignment: Write a short piece (or essay or story) that responds to the title, “The Use of Nonfiction.”
Read By 2/9: Needs by George W.S. Trow, Captivity by Sherman Alexie, “…and nobody objected” by Paul Metcalf, and A Tin Butterfly by Mary McCarthy (a selection from Memories of a Catholic Girlhood.)
Lethem’s Masterclass was full of zingers. Lots of furious note taking and laughter.
Here’s an idea: What if Wikipedia means the death of post-modern uncertainness? What if Wikipedia necessitates the end of the novel of facts, the novel that is freckled with reportage? Lethem said something to the effect of “putting a fact in your novel is almost a wasted line,” considering that anyone can look up almost anything at any time on the internet.
We mostly talked about Terry Castle’s My Heroine Christmas and The White Album by Joan Didion. Both awesome.
Read by 2/9: Out of Sheer Rage by Jeff Dyer, which looks fun because I took a killer DHL survey my first semester here and I am still digesting
Tags: Essays, jo anne beard, joel agee, memoir, speculative nonfiction, terry castle
i like this post but wish some of it was available online.
i like this post but wish some of it was available online.
I like the expression “speculative nonfiction.” mayhaps be time for me to pick up a copy of the d’agata book.
I like the expression “speculative nonfiction.” mayhaps be time for me to pick up a copy of the d’agata book.
you take good notes… mine would be the first sentence and then doodles and/or my signature over and over. hi, i’m twelve.
speaking of wikipedia, somebody or somebodies were totally messing with wikipedia during the super bowl. someone changed springsteen’s year of birth to 1939. and at half-time someone had already listed a mvp for the game… the weird thing? they totally called it. nfl conspiracy?
sorry about the tangent…
you take good notes… mine would be the first sentence and then doodles and/or my signature over and over. hi, i’m twelve.
speaking of wikipedia, somebody or somebodies were totally messing with wikipedia during the super bowl. someone changed springsteen’s year of birth to 1939. and at half-time someone had already listed a mvp for the game… the weird thing? they totally called it. nfl conspiracy?
sorry about the tangent…
i think david foster wallace might disagree with lethem about facts being a waste of time. no?
i think david foster wallace might disagree with lethem about facts being a waste of time. no?
Regarding Wikipedia: In 2005 (I think?) I made up a person and a fact relating him to a significant historical figure and put up a bogus reference from a legitimate source and made-up sources and it hasn’t been fixed yet. People have formatted the pages/added them to related subjects and etc, though. It’s not hard to game successfully, except probably for those pages watched by real experts.
Regarding Wikipedia: In 2005 (I think?) I made up a person and a fact relating him to a significant historical figure and put up a bogus reference from a legitimate source and made-up sources and it hasn’t been fixed yet. People have formatted the pages/added them to related subjects and etc, though. It’s not hard to game successfully, except probably for those pages watched by real experts.
yes.
yes.
Andre- are you ashamed of this behavior? Why would you take this wonderful project born out of good will and fuck with it? I don’t understand.
Andre- are you ashamed of this behavior? Why would you take this wonderful project born out of good will and fuck with it? I don’t understand.
regarding David Foster Wallace. Well, considering that Infinite Jest came out in 1996 and his last collection of short stories was compiled in 2004, I wonder if his aesthetic relationship to the fact had changed. Somewhere out there maybe he said something in an interview about this. I don’t know.
I wish that Lethem and Wallace could have had a staged dialouge at some point.
regarding David Foster Wallace. Well, considering that Infinite Jest came out in 1996 and his last collection of short stories was compiled in 2004, I wonder if his aesthetic relationship to the fact had changed. Somewhere out there maybe he said something in an interview about this. I don’t know.
I wish that Lethem and Wallace could have had a staged dialouge at some point.
If “putting a fact in your novel is almost a wasted line,” then a writer like Chuck Palahniuk has put out a lot of wasted books. In particular that last one wasn’t so hot.
If “putting a fact in your novel is almost a wasted line,” then a writer like Chuck Palahniuk has put out a lot of wasted books. In particular that last one wasn’t so hot.
Also, re: the Suck City adaptation, I would like to nominate Nick Nolte for the role of the homeless father.
Also, re: the Suck City adaptation, I would like to nominate Nick Nolte for the role of the homeless father.
Because I think people should always consider the fact that what they are reading on Wikipedia could be completely untrue. It’s an excellent tool for getting a general idea of something but not flawless, as most people treat it. What ryan says above is a perfect example. And I’m sure there are a lot of people with “good intentions” who don’t understand what they are talking about and/or word things misleadingly. Anyway, if someone was being rigorous they could disprove my “fact” very easily (even just by looking into it further on Wikipedia).
It’s harmless. At the time I thought it could be an art project. It’s been interesting watching its dissemination, as countless encyclopedia websites copy information directly from Wikipedia without fact-checking. It’s also terrifying in a way.
I don’t understand who I’m hurting. Wikipedia itself? Ignorant people who use Wikipedia as their main source of information?
Because I think people should always consider the fact that what they are reading on Wikipedia could be completely untrue. It’s an excellent tool for getting a general idea of something but not flawless, as most people treat it. What ryan says above is a perfect example. And I’m sure there are a lot of people with “good intentions” who don’t understand what they are talking about and/or word things misleadingly. Anyway, if someone was being rigorous they could disprove my “fact” very easily (even just by looking into it further on Wikipedia).
It’s harmless. At the time I thought it could be an art project. It’s been interesting watching its dissemination, as countless encyclopedia websites copy information directly from Wikipedia without fact-checking. It’s also terrifying in a way.
I don’t understand who I’m hurting. Wikipedia itself? Ignorant people who use Wikipedia as their main source of information?
chuck p has wasted a lot of lines. and no, i don’t think dfw’s attitudes toward facts being included within a body of fiction necessarily changed during that time. also i think dfw would’ve crushed lethem in a discourse about this. and i thought ‘suck city’ was terribly boring, which was disappointing because i really liked nick flynn’s poetry.
chuck p has wasted a lot of lines. and no, i don’t think dfw’s attitudes toward facts being included within a body of fiction necessarily changed during that time. also i think dfw would’ve crushed lethem in a discourse about this. and i thought ‘suck city’ was terribly boring, which was disappointing because i really liked nick flynn’s poetry.
Who said anything about hurting anyone? Oh, you did.
It just seems like an act of malice. And one you enjoyed.
Why don’t you be the person to delete your false info?
I just don’t understand the pleasure in purposefully being misleading.
Who said anything about hurting anyone? Oh, you did.
It just seems like an act of malice. And one you enjoyed.
Why don’t you be the person to delete your false info?
I just don’t understand the pleasure in purposefully being misleading.
pr:
I don’t understand what part of what I did is malicious? It’s not malice. It’s exposing a genuine flaw in Wikipedia’s architecture. My original intentions were to test the system. I didn’t think it would take very long to come down: like you, I assumed that the vast majority of information on Wikipedia was more-or-less factual. My plan was to build a website presenting the “misleading” information, along with the length of time it spent on Wikipedia, in an effort to raise awareness. It just hasn’t come down yet. I may take it down in the future, or write an article for 2600 or whatever. I’m sure it won’t last long after that.
We all say to take the information on Wikipedia with “A grain of salt”, but what does this actually mean? Does it mean we pay lip service to the truth but ignore it completely in practice?
“Who said anything about hurting anyone? Oh, you did.” You don’t even know the specifics. I wondered aloud who it hurt because you responded so strongly to my first post. “Why would you take this wonderful project born out of good will and fuck with it?” It is a wonderful project, but that doesn’t mean it gets a “free pass”. It’s important to know its limitations.
I’m sure there are much worse “untruths” on Wikipedia, and after this experiment I can say that with at least a little bit of authority. Isn’t that realisation worth something?
pr:
I don’t understand what part of what I did is malicious? It’s not malice. It’s exposing a genuine flaw in Wikipedia’s architecture. My original intentions were to test the system. I didn’t think it would take very long to come down: like you, I assumed that the vast majority of information on Wikipedia was more-or-less factual. My plan was to build a website presenting the “misleading” information, along with the length of time it spent on Wikipedia, in an effort to raise awareness. It just hasn’t come down yet. I may take it down in the future, or write an article for 2600 or whatever. I’m sure it won’t last long after that.
We all say to take the information on Wikipedia with “A grain of salt”, but what does this actually mean? Does it mean we pay lip service to the truth but ignore it completely in practice?
“Who said anything about hurting anyone? Oh, you did.” You don’t even know the specifics. I wondered aloud who it hurt because you responded so strongly to my first post. “Why would you take this wonderful project born out of good will and fuck with it?” It is a wonderful project, but that doesn’t mean it gets a “free pass”. It’s important to know its limitations.
I’m sure there are much worse “untruths” on Wikipedia, and after this experiment I can say that with at least a little bit of authority. Isn’t that realisation worth something?
If it was an experiment to prove a point and one that you thought you might write about, why have you kept the misinformation up there for 4 years? I think you would have proved your point already. I just get the feeling your pleasure of fucking with wikipedia is just that. Otherwise, mightn’t you have already written that article by now, too? Anyway, you seem pleased and justified so there you have it. Who cares what I think.
It seems weird to me that you are reacting to this so violently! This discussion has helped me realise I need to check some bad habits regarding Wikipedia. Maybe it has to do with your perception of me as feeling “justified”? Maybe I’m a monster, I don’t know, but I don’t think so. I think you are putting more smugness into my comments than is really there, I’m just trying to explain things simply. What I am doing is probably saying too much, I have a tendency to do that when I feel I’m not understood.
I only brought it up as an example that the information on Wikipedia is flawed. What I added amounts to nothing more than trivia. I’m not messing with someone’s thesis, and if I am, shame on them for not checking it out themselves. There are countless ways they could do this.
Michael Crichton liked to talk about how if you’re reading a newspaper article and you aren’t an expert on that subject you tend to accept everything they tell you– but if you are an expert, there are usually many things you can point out as wrong… this is because of a general culture of inadequate fact-checking and research. In my opinion Wikipedia is worse. How is this not dangerous? Shouldn’t we try and foster a culture that doesn’t accept things right away without checking them? The information I put on Wikipedia is self-correcting. It contains a link which will take you directly to a page which will tell you what I wrote was wrong.
The reason I’ve left it up for so long has more to do with forgetfulness, curiosity, and laziness rather than “pleasure”, at least in the way you seem to mean it. Obviously there is a different kind of pleasure associated with curiosity.
It seems weird to me that you are reacting to this so violently! This discussion has helped me realise I need to check some bad habits regarding Wikipedia. Maybe it has to do with your perception of me as feeling “justified”? Maybe I’m a monster, I don’t know, but I don’t think so. I think you are putting more smugness into my comments than is really there, I’m just trying to explain things simply. What I am doing is probably saying too much, I have a tendency to do that when I feel I’m not understood.
I only brought it up as an example that the information on Wikipedia is flawed. What I added amounts to nothing more than trivia. I’m not messing with someone’s thesis, and if I am, shame on them for not checking it out themselves. There are countless ways they could do this.
Michael Crichton liked to talk about how if you’re reading a newspaper article and you aren’t an expert on that subject you tend to accept everything they tell you– but if you are an expert, there are usually many things you can point out as wrong… this is because of a general culture of inadequate fact-checking and research. In my opinion Wikipedia is worse. How is this not dangerous? Shouldn’t we try and foster a culture that doesn’t accept things right away without checking them? The information I put on Wikipedia is self-correcting. It contains a link which will take you directly to a page which will tell you what I wrote was wrong.
The reason I’ve left it up for so long has more to do with forgetfulness, curiosity, and laziness rather than “pleasure”, at least in the way you seem to mean it. Obviously there is a different kind of pleasure associated with curiosity.
I don’t think I am reacting violently. I did find your comments smug. Maybe I misread them. Like I said, I think if you wanted to write an article about you would have already. Four years is a long time for an experiment of this variety. I guess I felt some pleasure in your hoax, or smugness, that doesn’t actually exist. My bad.
I don’t think I am reacting violently. I did find your comments smug. Maybe I misread them. Like I said, I think if you wanted to write an article about you would have already. Four years is a long time for an experiment of this variety. I guess I felt some pleasure in your hoax, or smugness, that doesn’t actually exist. My bad.
That’s true, but those four years also happen to be when I was 19-23. I don’t think I was ready, or even able, to write something about it until very recently. I thought about it as a vague possibility, maybe something I could use to get into art school (which I was considering at the time), but it wasn’t something I was “focusing” on. I don’t know, I wasn’t exactly stable all throughout those four years. It would be different if I started an experiment like that now, definitely. I would put a lot more thought into that aspect. Anyway, sorry if I seemed smug and sorry for typing too much in general.
That’s true, but those four years also happen to be when I was 19-23. I don’t think I was ready, or even able, to write something about it until very recently. I thought about it as a vague possibility, maybe something I could use to get into art school (which I was considering at the time), but it wasn’t something I was “focusing” on. I don’t know, I wasn’t exactly stable all throughout those four years. It would be different if I started an experiment like that now, definitely. I would put a lot more thought into that aspect. Anyway, sorry if I seemed smug and sorry for typing too much in general.
I love this. I know some folks who have done similar. I have this dream project where a large team sets out to create a large amount of false information in wikipedia complete with websites, etc as sources. I don’t see this as malicious or defacing – how do you know that half of wikipedia isn’t made up? Does that make it any less true? Once something is in wikipedia, it is the truth.
I love this. I know some folks who have done similar. I have this dream project where a large team sets out to create a large amount of false information in wikipedia complete with websites, etc as sources. I don’t see this as malicious or defacing – how do you know that half of wikipedia isn’t made up? Does that make it any less true? Once something is in wikipedia, it is the truth.
when did wikipedia become the record of source? i don’t understand. it’s just a fucking website that pays to have its name listed first on web searches.
maybe the real issue is not with facts/truths being available on the internet or anywhere else. maybe the issue is people are fucking dumb and lazy.
wikipedia and/or the internet isn’t going to change that. why can’t you put facts in your novel? who cares what is available on the internet?
every family had a fucking encyclopedia collection 20 years ago. it was chock full of facts and bullshit. i don’t remember any one bitching about the availability of it.
you people over think shit way too much. that’s what i think.
isn’t the point to write? not to get so down into the fucking weeds you spend weeks arguing who has a bigger dick?
what happened to story telling.
i don’t know.
when did wikipedia become the record of source? i don’t understand. it’s just a fucking website that pays to have its name listed first on web searches.
maybe the real issue is not with facts/truths being available on the internet or anywhere else. maybe the issue is people are fucking dumb and lazy.
wikipedia and/or the internet isn’t going to change that. why can’t you put facts in your novel? who cares what is available on the internet?
every family had a fucking encyclopedia collection 20 years ago. it was chock full of facts and bullshit. i don’t remember any one bitching about the availability of it.
you people over think shit way too much. that’s what i think.
isn’t the point to write? not to get so down into the fucking weeds you spend weeks arguing who has a bigger dick?
what happened to story telling.
i don’t know.
andre:
this is a fascinating reality check. i always use wikipedia, always. most recently learning about beetles and mojo. not the mojo of beetles, mind you, rather the two topics separately. although… never mind. what i’m trying to say is that my professor always used to say to cross-reference wiki info, and over the years i’ve finally grasped the significance of that, but now… it ain’t that simple as you’ve pointed out! constructing bogus sources reveals an inherent flaw, which is very scary. but also, now i’m curious to know what a bogus reference from a legitimate source is? does that mean if you click on the reference you are redirected to the source, and that the source will in fact disclaim the reference made to it? regardless, these issues take the naivete out of even cross-referencing: having to further legitimize the sources. knowledge is messy business.
and re: crichton, yeah this shit happens all the time. classic example is new age or spiritual folks appropriating the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to prove the existence of free-will and shit, which couldn’t be more ironic when the copenhagen interpretation is based on logical positivism which denies the existence any thing that can not be experienced via the senses. but they all present the copenhagen interpretation as *the truth* even when there are about a dozen competing theories out there. but how the hell are you supposed to know that there are other theories when that shit is usually relegated to the esoteria of physics departments, unless… you get on wikipedia to get a general overview of quantum. so it ain’t that simple as dismissing it as “a general culture of inadequate fact-checking”. people leading half-normal lives generally don’t have the time to ceaselessly check the verity of all the facts and info they’re being bombarded with, or the time to become specialists and thereby be able to distinguish between true and false information. cross-referencing indeed, indubitably, undeniably. but again, knowledge is messy business.
thanks for pointing out some pitfalls to be aware of in the land of wikiworld. most grateful.
andre:
this is a fascinating reality check. i always use wikipedia, always. most recently learning about beetles and mojo. not the mojo of beetles, mind you, rather the two topics separately. although… never mind. what i’m trying to say is that my professor always used to say to cross-reference wiki info, and over the years i’ve finally grasped the significance of that, but now… it ain’t that simple as you’ve pointed out! constructing bogus sources reveals an inherent flaw, which is very scary. but also, now i’m curious to know what a bogus reference from a legitimate source is? does that mean if you click on the reference you are redirected to the source, and that the source will in fact disclaim the reference made to it? regardless, these issues take the naivete out of even cross-referencing: having to further legitimize the sources. knowledge is messy business.
and re: crichton, yeah this shit happens all the time. classic example is new age or spiritual folks appropriating the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to prove the existence of free-will and shit, which couldn’t be more ironic when the copenhagen interpretation is based on logical positivism which denies the existence any thing that can not be experienced via the senses. but they all present the copenhagen interpretation as *the truth* even when there are about a dozen competing theories out there. but how the hell are you supposed to know that there are other theories when that shit is usually relegated to the esoteria of physics departments, unless… you get on wikipedia to get a general overview of quantum. so it ain’t that simple as dismissing it as “a general culture of inadequate fact-checking”. people leading half-normal lives generally don’t have the time to ceaselessly check the verity of all the facts and info they’re being bombarded with, or the time to become specialists and thereby be able to distinguish between true and false information. cross-referencing indeed, indubitably, undeniably. but again, knowledge is messy business.
thanks for pointing out some pitfalls to be aware of in the land of wikiworld. most grateful.
matt k:
It’s interesting because I wasn’t thinking about that when I started commenting here, but that was part of my initial justification for doing it (maybe the most important part). The fact came out of an aborted historical novel, and I wondered if I could alter “reality” enough to make everything I wrote about “true”. I like your dream project idea. Have you read this story by Borges? It concerns the same thing.
keith:
That’s exactly what I meant about bogus sources. It’s a legitimate, scholarly source but if you went to the page cited you find that there is no mention of the reference at all. You’re right too, about people leading half-normal lives not having the time to check information. It’s an interesting problem. Does this mean we should be more careful about what we take in? Maybe it’s not a good idea to take in so much that we can’t adequately process or consider it. Or, as you said, knowledge is a messy business. Maybe it should remain so? I just wonder what the limit on efficiency should be in this situation, as knowledge represents a large percentage of what we consider to be “ourselves”.
matt k:
It’s interesting because I wasn’t thinking about that when I started commenting here, but that was part of my initial justification for doing it (maybe the most important part). The fact came out of an aborted historical novel, and I wondered if I could alter “reality” enough to make everything I wrote about “true”. I like your dream project idea. Have you read this story by Borges? It concerns the same thing.
keith:
That’s exactly what I meant about bogus sources. It’s a legitimate, scholarly source but if you went to the page cited you find that there is no mention of the reference at all. You’re right too, about people leading half-normal lives not having the time to check information. It’s an interesting problem. Does this mean we should be more careful about what we take in? Maybe it’s not a good idea to take in so much that we can’t adequately process or consider it. Or, as you said, knowledge is a messy business. Maybe it should remain so? I just wonder what the limit on efficiency should be in this situation, as knowledge represents a large percentage of what we consider to be “ourselves”.