why would anyone think “andrea is having her period” is funny? I mean, even if you excuse it as innocuous (which you probably can’t), can’t that guy at least come up with a funnier joke? there are so many things to make fun of here, and the thing mike walden chooses to latch onto is that she’s a woman. wtf.
andrea’s right that alt lit has a lesser sense of a ‘greatness’ drive than other movements, and tends to be content with capturing scenes sans commentary. but like a typical extremist, she doesn’t come to the table to talk. she doesn’t seem interested in *why* alt lit focuses often on self-exploration, besides the fact that alt lit men are ‘babies,’ or on the possible benefits of its apolitical bend – namely, that it provides a self-contained bubble of culture that justifies itself, that is its own end, and in being so is refreshingly zen, and fun. also unfortunately, she does not write interestingly, has a seemingly pamphlet-level understanding of politics, and is generally more fond of herself than seems advisable. and i’m not a fan of her shoving herself into the conversation gritty dick first. like most prophets, she seems mostly gas, no spark. oh well.
Liked this post up until Blake’s 3rd question. Yeah the capitalization quirk is extremely annoying, but to imply she’s crazy, well, I don’t think I’d hold Blake Butler up as a paragon of mental health or anything–I’m definitely not one either, by the way–and it seems hypocritical to treat the capitalization thing as any quirkier than the alt lit scare quotes, etc.
Have to be honest, it feels a relief to see a girl being rude at this extreme in a way it wouldn’t if she was male. This is just the way it makes me feel. I have to wonder sometimes if my own self hate is actually a reflection of a shitty patriarchal society (it’s hard to really know this!) especially considering i have ptsd as a result of experiences with violent men. So it makes me feel sort of unburdened to see girls not giving a fuck. Also she is funnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, which i love.
feel like everyone just wishes they were cool/ballsy enough to like andrea coates. it’s like it was really easy to like other writers when they’re talked about a lot and shoved down your throat and andrea is like this weird acquired taste you developed alone in your bedroom listening to music through headphones so no one would hear/know.
The idea that Bolano was a heroin addict was largely manufactured by the press from a piece of fiction that talked about heroin addiction, which, I assume, people thought was non-fiction (though it was ostensibly published as non-fiction, as was the wont of Bolano I’m sure (heehee)). The piece is called “The Beach” and can be found in the Between Parentheses collection. This piece of (mis)information was then spread by (I believe) Natasha Wimmer (one of his translators) and Jonathan Lethem. Both Enrique Vila-Matas (who was a close friend) and hi ex-wife have denied any veracity to the claim that Bolano was ever a ‘real ass’ drug addict/heroin-user. Now, of course, no one can ever really know, but just clarifying the sources of information, which have largely been completely fabricated/misconstrued, which I’m sure would make Bolano chuckle since he probably fabricated more about himself than anyone. CARRY ON
Yeah, I hear you. She seems to have ptsd too. But I disagree that she is “not giving a fuck” here. Just the opposite–she is very much giving a fuck. It’s so obvious that her central concern is whether or not men approve of her. If she really didn’t give a fuck she would actually write a book and not spend all her time antagonizing men online.
Funny enough, Andrea Coates is correct. Her instant battering here is interesting and seems to be indicative of her point. The way she manages her words online is exactly the same as Steve Roggenbuck. If “leif” (et al) does not bother you, then it is likely because her passion is misappropriated as aggression. Someone has mentioned that it is this misread passion/aggressive that is the problem — which seems to be a running theme in the literary community. I compare this to how a friend — or lets resize that as individual — will either coddle you by saying, “Maybe, you know, you should think about changing the way you approach things” vs. “Stop doing dumb shit and get it together”. I find the general movement toward the former to be an attempt to pacification, a trickle down from the overall governmental queues. Internalize what she is trying to say, instead of how she is saying it. Remove your own personal bias and look past the emotion of her words, the “delivery system” and look at what she is actually trying to deliver — the package.
Andrea, I think, feels so strongly about this because Blake Butler (and others in this new generation of artists we’re in) has a position to reach a good sized group of people, people who will absorb and react socio-econiomically. And instead of talking about things of… vital importance, there is a message of “Whatever”.
I consider Black Butler to be the Rick Ross of literature. I really dislike the message of Rick Ross’ music, save for minute pieces (such as entrepreneurialism). But I respect his lyricism. I listen to his music, like all other good artists, to hear new technical attempts/feats.
Indifference is death.
But, you know, what Andrea is stating is a real thing. The majority of people work and are taxed. Those taxes are then spent by the government to provide enough services to the poor to satiate enough of the middle class as to not appear uncaring. A lot of those taxes are then spent on wars, which is then funneled into privately held companies that work on infrastructure or individually owned bonds, which are either owned or invested in by the same members of government advocating these wars. These companies are taxed less than individuals, with government approved tax loopholes that are usually only used by companies/individuals with enough money to pay tax lawyers to spend time finding and abusing them. Those loopholes are also government approved. (GE, in 1984, I believe it was, was tried and convicted of 1.2 million or so in tax evasion and paid 84,000 in fines). The individual is more likely to be wage garnished by the IRS for tax evasion than corporations. There are schools, public schools, that do not have libraries — they do not have books! What is going on here?
Indifference is death.
I do not think asking “why” the alt-lit movement (to enter specificity, as this is beyond whatever the “alt-lit” movement is) is the best place to start. A better why should be: why are artists, or maybe, the people in this generation of artistic community, more apt to relate to existentialism or provide it relevance, than that we’re all connected and there are tools in the world that provide proof/explanation of this fact. Such as e=mc2 or quantum entanglement. C.A. Conrad notices this. He is making an active attempt to reach a new section of literature that waves such things off. His poetry is not filed under “spiritualism” or “religious texts”, which are labels that carry stigmas which, sadly, devalue the potent message.
A better why: Why, for example, is Africa #1 in death from hunger, lack of water, when it is the richest continent on earth for natural resources. Why has it been divided and its people subjugated as it is raped of its resources? Why has Americans bought land in Africa to raise crops which it will then sell at a premium, when the people around that lie die in poverty?
Why did/do Americans get angry at ‘foreigners’ for taking their jobs, when it was the American government who approved outsourcing because the companies which pay taxes will make more money doing so and in turn, pay the government more. The reason why the anger is mis-directed is due to the government’s purposed campaign to mis-direct.
There are individuals and groups that have ideas. And their motto or state of mind, is not indifference. They are the ones who are happy that our generation is so indifferent.
I have heard the argument that this is a literature website, which is why it would not feature articles on such things. Isn’t there a wonderful (read: fantastic) article on The Dark Knight Rises here? Haven’t there been countless articles on things that have absolutely nothing to do with literature?
This site will post a missive about Howard Zinn’s death, but nothing of what his books discussed. It was Joseph Campbell who discussed the habit of the human mind to work in dualities, and the power of the human mind which is able to hold multiple opposing viewpoints in mind. This is the natural skeptic mind, and the natural mind of the artist. But
I only personally know a few revolutionaries from my generation and they are all in the music industry — Legendary Icons/Andre Auram (rappers), Magen Melancholy (rapper/singer), MC Pierre. Where are the writers? We use words, language, the most powerful tool on the planet.
It is one thing to have revolutionary thoughts, yes. It is another to speak about them in an open forum, consistently, and allow those thoughts to influence your work. It is frightening, due to the stigmas attached to this. These sentences aren’t meant to say you must saturate your work with these concepts. But being artists, it only makes sense to recontextualize and reimage these ideas into edible bits.
It is possible to change things. The feeling that it is not possible, that capitalism is the only way (when, technically, other economic forms have existed as capitalism is the youngest of them all), has been engrained in us to keep the capitalistic regime alive. This is truth.
I’ll leave with this. I met a young woman in my late 20s, and the first time I saw her it seemed like a light was glowing out from beneath her skin. The second time I saw her, the same deal. We started dating. One time, while standing in line for lunch, I suddenly fell in love with her and felt it in my chest, a strong heat. She stopped mid-sentence (talking about her new cell phone or something) and looked straight at my chest and said, “I can feel all your love right now”. There were times I would get incredibly angry and not know why. She would storm in later pissed the hell off. Then I got it. I could not know where she was on campus, start walking, and just follow the energy I felt or where she was…. and I would find her. This is a reference back to C.A. Conrad — quantum entanglement — we are all connected. E=mc2 — Einstein felt energy can be turned into matter, matter into energy, neither destroyed only redestributed. Atoms do not move from Point A to B like a car does a city block. Atoms pop out of existence, and hit their destination. They teleport. The universe is a well.
If you look at her blog you notice almost all of her rantings are directed towards men. I can’t tell that she has ptsd/been abused, but this is certainly a common symptom of that. She only reads male writers and seems obsessed with getting attention from successful male writers like Tao and Blake. She seems to want their power, and it’s kind of sad. I don’t see it as extreme self-promotion because she hasn’t actually made anything yet to promote.
ok i guess you have some reasoning. I don’t really know much about her, thought she must have written something since i’ve heard her name before. But she is funny and her straightforward/ upfront lust for power is funny. Regardless of her true reasons for doing this, the feeling it gives me remains the same.
I don’t think i want to continue too much on the ptsd thing but it seems harsh to make that assumption/judgement based on the authors she likes etc…. idk maybe it isn’t… i know you didnt mean any offense. no worries :)
No you’re totally right, it’s not good or useful to speculate on who or who hasn’t got a serious & intimate personal problem. It just sucks to see this random person picking on Blake or Tao–they both work really hard and write a lot and obviously didn’t do anything to her…it just seems like she’s taking out her anger/feelings of male rejection/hatred on them when there are much more important things to go after. There are much more productive things to do with jealousy, like write books.
i didn’t say it was terrible, but it can be terrifying. a young person is sincere when they say everyone should eat cookies for breakfast every day. they have reasons to support their claims and their method of delivery can be unique and charming. they truly believe what they say and their intent is well-meaning. but their ideas are not necessarily informed. or good. or even healthy. /childish metaphor.
if we’re talking about the New Sincerity (and my comprehension of those articles was iffy) then I think andrea’s an example of how the writerly premise of “i believe in what i’m feeling and it’s true and real and here’s how it is” is a very dangerous path if someone takes it to the point that it becomes self indulgence or whatever to the nth degree.
this woman has called people she’s never met her enemies, complete with accusations and name calling and a list and pages of rant. and she believes it. and she’s using it to fuel a large portion of her writing. maybe that’s nothing new but to me that is terrifying.
Long week at work. Anyway — curious about the ‘down arrows’ here. All of this is positive. The only possible negative being the Blake Butler/Rick Ross comparison, but even that is a positive note. Super curious as to what negativity others see here…
What is interesting to note is
that noun capitalization was not around since the birth of the English
language. In fact, the seventeenth and early seventeenth centuries did
not capitalize every noun. It seems to be a trend in the late
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. And even in the eighteenth
century, no rigid mechanical system for capitalization was ever
Even without a rigid system, the eighteenth century had a generalized
method for the capitalization of words. Generally, the most prominent
words–or more specifically, nouns–in the sentence were capitalized.
This seems like a fairly vague methodology because these “prominent”
words were largely subjective. Noun capitalization was based primarily
on the writer’s choice. It is likely that when writing, pupils were
taught to capitalize nouns that they would stress in the sentence. If
this is the case, then we also get an idea of how certain works would
generally be read aloud in the eighteenth century.
Kerouac’s On the Road is boring boring boring. He keeps getting into interesting situations and moving on, and on, and on, with very little reflection or sizzling intelligence. It’s a mood, and once you get it, it’s never builds. It’s not bad, but lacks goodness. It should have been titled the On the Unbearable Boredom of Book.
The caps thing, I don’t know, were you impressed with written German or something? That method’s another loser. There is a person for you, you could hang with, he also thinks they are the best writer in the world. Go here: http://everyonewhosanyone.com/
His name is Gerald, I think, and he’s the biggest doof ever. Send him some fan mail, you and him can have dual solipsism, or whatever.
Tried to send you a direct message on twitter, no go you gotta follow me. Unable to find your email. Hoping you see this. Why do you believe it to be “new age-y paranoid anarchist bs”. would really like to discuss this, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org , thanks