i have made a video in defense of my choice of the winner of my short story competition. underneath the video, i have posted arguments in defense of my choice. if you are concerned with my choice, have been commenting on the previous post, or are 'merely' interested, i 'genuinely' urge you to watch this video and to read the 'arguments' that follow.
[deleted video]
'note': it may seem, in the video, that i implied that, before i picked the winner, i knew that tao wrote the story. i did not know that tao wrote the story before i picked the winner. i thought that sarah wrote it.
'another note': this video will be 'taken down' in like 4 days, or something; currently don't like having my face in a video on the internet for an extended period of time
all quotes are taken from the comment section of the post under this one:
"[i] was not aware of the information [that tao had written the story that sarah submitted to me]"
"[...] while i was unaware that tao wrote the story ('if he did'), i 'stand by' my decision on the winner, because i chose the story based on how much i enjoyed it"
"i was transparent about my reasons for choosing the winner and runner up of this contest: "stories will be judged on how much i like them."
"i also wrote, in the 'main' short story post, that i would allow anyone to enter the contest, including affiliates of muumuu house: 'i have decided to allow people affiliated with 'muumuu house' to join my contest. this will not affect, i believe, my perspective when judging your story or their story (if they choose to enter - none of them has yet). i have made this decision because i feel that there is no 'real reason' to disallow anyone on the basis of 'who they are,' since i am judging 'writing' not 'who a person is'"
"i explained why and how much i enjoyed this story in my essay [about the winning story]: 'This story felt like the 'obvious winner' to me, in terms of my experience reading it; considering my level of interest and pleasure, any other story was, I think, 'out of the question'. I have written a detailed analysis below...This excerpt is highly relevant; so high, in fact, that I may experience exactly the same sequence of events on an occasional basis, concurrently 'noting', with a sarcastic, self-deprecating 'tone of thought', the experiences as 'significant' in a 'retarded' way.'"
"in conclusion the person that wrote the story does not account for any part of my decision and i repeatedly stated that, i believe"
"[...] brandon's guidelines stated he would choose the story he liked best, not basing it on who the author was at all (and isn't that what every contestant seems to want, a contest where the story chosen is based only on the story? isn't that the least 'scamlike' contest possible?) and so in that regard, as well, i view no 'scamlike' occurrence at all"
"i entered this contest and do not have a problem with anything that occurred.
i assumed that tao would be entering under a pseudonym and considered entering under a pseudonym myself, only because it would be easier for brandon to read without having any particular feelings or thoughts initially, but then thought that it didn't really matter and that brandon would pick the story he enjoyed reading best, which he did."
"i don't feel i deceived anyone, seems like i gave sarah a story, she submitted the story that was now hers, brandon read all the entries, brandon chose a winner in a manner 100% consistent with his guidelines, seems 'far away' from anything 'scamlike,' in my view; if anyone has been damaged by this it is me, sarah, or brandon, seems like no one else was affected by this except that it provided 'another forum for shit-talking'"
"brandon's guidelines stated he would choose the story he liked best, the author doesn't seem to matter to him, in this case, therefore, if anything, me not submitting anything by 'tao lin' probably only helped everyone else, by making it 'easier' for brandon to follow his guidelines, and focus on the story (seems similar to contests where the names are 'blacked out' to avoid having the judge being influenced by the name rather than the story)"
"[if] you entered the contest; [you accepted] the terms of the contest, which were not in small print; 'rather' they were made 'extremely' visible, i feel (relative to all other short story contests)
the contest guidelines were never broken [...]
i think [people] may have a problem with the guidelines of the contest, rather than my decision, because there is (if [...] anyone has 'taken the time' to actually 'ponder' this dilemma), i think, one 'issue' with the guidelines that this contest made me realize
the issue is that, under the current guidelines, for example, ryan manning could submit a story that was actually written by richard yates, and if i liked that story the most, i would have had to choose it
this is a 'flaw' or an 'issue' in the contest guidelines, not my behavior or my decision
however, everyone that entered the contest agreed to the guidelines, and i agreed to run it by the guidelines
no one exposed to this contest 'pointed out' that possibility
'once again', everyone agreed to contest guidelines, and no one seemed to have any problem with them
therefore i uphold my decision"
"If Tao gave Sarah a scratch-off lottery ticket and she scratched it off and it was a winner, would anyone think Tao was the winner?"
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
$7
Hi Brandon,
I showed my girlfriend a vimeo you did reading some of your poetry. While watching it she said "what is this? This dude needs a slap." When I asked why she just said "first world bullshit."
I then showed her some stuff you'd written and she asked me why you kept on using quotation marks in a seemingly arbitrary way. I said "I don't know."
I think most people if they were running a short story contest and then happened to choose their publisher as the winner, even if they did not know that it was their publisher, would feel uncomfortable with their choice. Seems like this whole thing is just made to provoke shit-talking.
giles
why are you telling me about your girlfriend, the way i use quotation marks, and 'first world bullshit'
does those things have something to do with my video in this post or the arguments that follow it
this 'whole thing' was made not to provoke shit-talking
as i said in the short story contest guidelines, "while one of my motivations for doing this contest is to gain money, money gained will be relatively little. for example, if 10 people enter, i will make $21, minus a book (retail $12). that is a net profit of $9. that will probably equal $3 an hour or less, considering that i'll be reading submissions, tracking progress of contest, spending time in front of computer for the sole purpose of running the contest, etc. other motivations for this contest include attracting visitors to my blog, thus potentially increasing book sales, 'networking' and/or 'building relationships', and giving writers an opportunity to make money off their 'work' (rather than working for someone/something else)" (http://brandon-alien-fine.blogspot.com/2009/04/short-story-contest.html)
adam and reynard, i don't understand how your comments address the reasoning i explained in my video and paragraphs that followed
commenters seem to ignore brandon's video, brandon's post, the comments brandon has made, the comments i have made, the comments 5-10 other people have made, and the guidelines brandon wrote for his contest a few weeks ago
edit last comment, take out 'raynard'
i thought he commented on this post while i was writing it, was wrong
i'm sort of curious about the arbitrary quotes myself
im kind of butthurt
feel like this is a part of some sort of strange internet history that belongs in encyclopediadramatica
etc...
well actually, i was trying to comment on it. and i don't mean to 'spoil' this for you guys or whatever but i think maybe this is what's going on here, if you really want me to 'explain' what i actually think, more or less.
"I showed my girlfriend a vimeo you did reading some of your poetry. While watching it she said "what is this? This dude needs a slap." When I asked why she just said "first world bullshit."
I then showed her some stuff you'd written and she asked me why you kept on using quotation marks in a seemingly arbitrary way. I said "I don't know."
this is what i meant in my video about 'shit-talking'
talking about my 'arbitrary use of quotes' and someone's girlfriend's perception of my writing has does not argue for or against my decision on the winner of the contest
which is what i am trying to discuss
This is just the tip of the iceberg. It will soon be revealed that every story published within the last century was actually written by Tao Lin.
I just had another thought.
Maybe this is a double hoax. Sarah Schneider actually did write the story. Tao Lin is just claiming to have written the story as a publicity stunt to attract bloghits.
One more thought.
"Bloghits" sounds suspiciously similar to "bonghits."
I do not think this is a coincidence.
i love how folks are getting upset by the result of this contest; was it not obvious that tao lin would take the prize as soon as brandon gorrell went out of his way a few weeks back to note that writers from muumuu house could not only enter the contest but they could win it as well?
(think of it this way: when, for example, a radio station has a monetary giveaway, aren't the reasons obvious as to why the contest's disclaimer always states that no one associated with the station in any manner is eligible for the prize? didn't it raise any red flags when an announcement was made for this contest that the exact opposite rule would be in effect? people? people?)
and what does it say about gorrell and lin that out of all the explanations they've written today they've failed to acknowledge in the slightest that they could at least understand how people might think this contest was dishonest? in other words, if they were being truthful about how this contest was allegedly run, wouldn't it make sense for them to say how coincidental the outcome was? or that, given their relationship, they'd refund the money of anyone who took part in the contest who questioned the fairness of the winner being the guy who just happened to publish the other guy's poems? wouldn't that be the normal human response someone who was supposedly telling the truth would give?
however, as opposed to doing this, as opposed to documenting how crazy it was that the connection between two internet best buds is so strong that the one can pick out the other one's story from a heap of what i can only assume were brilliant, well-thought-out stories even when he supposedly doesn't know the one guy there wrote it, gorrell and lin have instead decided to get defensive, to cling to some ambiguously worded rules that were carefully drafted at the scam's inception so as not to allow any potential hell-raisers much room to stand on if they ever discovered what went down, and to essentially call these people suckers in the process. (to paraphrase gorrell: "the rules were there, sucker, and by entering the contest you agreed to them, sucker...," etc.)
lin and gorrell are, to put it mildly, a shady pair. and to their credit, i guess, they know how to exploit certain people and that, unfortunately, no matter what stunts they pull -- even if they involve taking their followers' money while laughing right in their faces -- there will always be those ready to defend them. (as maddening as this is, i suppose when an author writes like a 14 year old he/she is going to attract 14-year-old readers, most of whom, mainly because of their young ages, can't identify very quickly when they're being bamboozled, and therefore remain loyal to people and/or ideas, no matter how bad they are.)
oh, the hilarity! oh, the hilarity of it all indeed!
Brandon
"why are you telling me about your girlfriend, the way i use quotation marks, and 'first world bullshit'"
I thought the internet would seem funnier and happier.
"talking about my 'arbitrary use of quotes' and someone's girlfriend's perception of my writing has does not argue for or against my decision on the winner of the contest. which is what i am trying to discuss."
I think it's because I don't care. Honestly. You set out the rules and have run the contest according to them. You've also gone to great lengths to fully back up your decision. If I was in your place I think I would feel an overwhelming sense of guilt, but I think that's just the kind of person I am. I often feel guilty for things I haven't done. (note: I am not saying that you should feel guilty here.)
the guidelines say you submit "your story"
whether or not that means you should have written the story is of course debatable
entered this contest. paid $7. feel good about the way everything turned out. seems legitimate. makes sense. thought 'this story seems like tao' when i read it. read all these comments and the last post's comments. feel like 'brandon followed the guidelines. obviously liked tao's story the most.' tao is the most successful author involved in the contest. 'makes sense.' um. seems like if giles 'doesn't care' he puts a lot of time into his comments. weird. overall, people enjoy shittalking too much. should just accept life. there is no blog post comments in life. 'that sounded lame.'
Brandon...you need a couple cups of coffee or three lines of crystal or something...let's say you won't have a career in radio...sorry, but that video was painful to attempt a listen...I got about 2 minutes into it before shutting off in frustration. Unfortunately, I am seeing this a lot lately (well, the past ten years), this sort of coffee-shop employee persona of "I talk like I am, like, brain dead and it's heh-heh heh-heh cool." Guess what? It ain't cool. My one suggestion is to refund the fee to those asking for it; if they don't, then it's probably okay.
David, it puzzles me how you don’t get why people are upset by this deception. There are multiple reasons why people are upset. But the primary reason is the headline on the blog reads ‘congrats sarah schneider’ whom did not write her essay but is passing off someone else’s work as hers. Tao Lin has already said he gave it to her. He did not enter it under a pen name but rather she passed it of as hers. There are many more reasons that highlight the major flaws in the result of this ‘contest’ if you want to call it that, which have already been touched on this thread and the previous one….but hey if you don’t see it then you don’t see it.
Does it really matter who won? Is it Brandon's fault? If he ran the contest with strict guidelines against Muumuu House writers entering would it really make such an entry impossible or implausible? What would stop Tao from having somebody enter his story using all of their own info only to split the rewards if the entry was the winner? Brandon would have a very hard time enforcing his rules.
I entered, I made it on the original "maybe" list and thought I "maybe" had hope of winning, But I'm not mad that I didn't and that Tao did. I enjoy Tao's writing.
"and what does it say about gorrell and lin that out of all the explanations they've written today they've failed to acknowledge in the slightest that they could at least understand how people might think this contest was dishonest?"
i have acknowledged this three times, once in video in this post, once in the arguments below this post, and once in the comments section of the previous post: "i think [people] may have a problem with the guidelines of the contest, rather than my decision, because there is (if [...] anyone has 'taken the time' to actually 'ponder' this dilemma), i think, one 'issue' with the guidelines that this contest made me realize
the issue is that, under the current guidelines, for example, ryan manning could submit a story that was actually written by richard yates, and if i liked that story the most, i would have had to choose it
this is a 'flaw' or an 'issue' in the contest guidelines, not my behavior or my decision
however, everyone that entered the contest agreed to the guidelines, and i agreed to run it by the guidelines
no one exposed to this contest 'pointed out' that possibility
'once again', everyone agreed to contest guidelines, and no one seemed to have any problem with them"
"in other words, if they were being truthful about how this contest was allegedly run, wouldn't it make sense for them to say how coincidental the outcome was?"
i chose the story i liked best. i explained why i liked the story best in my essay on the winning prize. i had no knowledge that tao wrote the story when i chose the story as the winner (all of these things have been repeatedly stated). i also said (as stated before), in comments section of contest guidelines: "stories will be judged on how much i like them. if stories appear similar in tone to stories of mine, or of writers who's 'work' i enjoy, i predict liking those stories
i often enjoy 'work' by contemporary writers such as richard yates, charles bukowski, raymond carver, lydia davis, lorrie moore, jean rhys, frederick barthelme, jean-paul sartre
i often enjoy 'work' by 'internet writers' such as chelsea martin, blake butler, sam pink, tao lin, jimmy chen, zachary german, ellen kennedy, daniel bailey, matthew savoca, jillian clark, victoria trott, matthew simmons, justin dobbs, chris killen, noah cicero, colin bassett, and maybe some others associated with that group of people"
"or that, given their relationship, they'd refund the money of anyone who took part in the contest who questioned the fairness of the winner being the guy who just happened to publish the other guy's poems? wouldn't that be the normal human response someone who was supposedly telling the truth would give?"
i am as yet unsure about refunding money. so far 1 person has asked for a refund and will not give me their email address (after i asked them three times). it seems a refund isn't 'warranted' - there were no contest guidelines broken. no one has explained to me how the contest guidelines were broken. i see, often, in these comments, the word 'fair', and i believe i was being 'fair', as i wrote a set of guidelines and followed them. i also said that i would choose the story i liked best (not the person i liked best) (even though i thought sarah schneider wrote it) (who i have never met or gmail chatted with), and i did. i am unsure how this is unfair.
"gorrell and lin have instead decided to get defensive, to cling to some ambiguously worded rules that were carefully drafted at the scam's inception so as not to allow any potential hell-raisers much room to stand on if they ever discovered what went down"
i don't think anyone would not respond to arguments that people put forth about something like this, seems irresponsible.
the guidelines, which, i feel, were not ambiguous, but stated very clearly, and repeatedly, in large font on my blog, in multiple places on my blog, also in comments sections on other blogs, as well as html giant, The Stranger, Silliman's blog, were not 'carefully drafted'; i wrote them one day after 'twittering' 'should i run a short story conetest? one person replied saying it sounded like a good idea. i gmail chatted with chelsea martin and she said it was a bad idea. tao lin didn't know i was doing the contest and was not a part of the creation of the guidelines. the guidelines, again, were not ambiguous, but, i think, clear and direct
"and to essentially call these people suckers in the process. (to paraphrase gorrell: "the rules were there, sucker, and by entering the contest you agreed to them, sucker...," etc.)"
i did not essentially call anyone a sucker; i do not believe anyone is a sucker here
"lin and gorrell are, to put it mildly, a shady pair. and to their credit, i guess, they know how to exploit certain people and that, unfortunately, no matter what stunts they pull -- even if they involve taking their followers' money while laughing right in their faces -- there will always be those ready to defend them."
i don't see how this was exploitation. can you explain that? are you saying that everyone that entered this contest is 'retarded', that they are all 'easily taken advantage of' and were 'easily taken advantage of'? how was anyone exploited? refer to all of my other arguments that i've typed out repeatedly in the short story comment section, my contest guidelines, this post, and in the video in this post
"Brandon...you need a couple cups of coffee or three lines of crystal or something...let's say you won't have a career in radio...sorry, but that video was painful to attempt a listen...I got about 2 minutes into it before shutting off in frustration. Unfortunately, I am seeing this a lot lately (well, the past ten years), this sort of coffee-shop employee persona of "I talk like I am, like, brain dead and it's heh-heh heh-heh cool." Guess what? It ain't cool. My one suggestion is to refund the fee to those asking for it; if they don't, then it's probably okay."
'exactly' what i meant by 'shit talking' in video
I tried to watch that video also. Seems like the "corpse-like aspect" is a front put on to make the video unwatchable. If it isn't I feel sorry for you, because you are lying to yourself and it might be years before you realise that, Brandon.
Seems like the comments that repeat themselves endlessly and don't really engage objections is a way to "destroy reasonableness", "cripple debate" and "create as large a shit-storm as possible". This seems consistent with the muumuu house ethos. You guys are good at creating controversy. Maybe that is a good way to spend your twenties, and when you are thirty or something you will "snap out of it" and write something "lasting and worthwhile" or maybe you will suddenly "become the good person you think you really are"?
"I tried to watch that video also. Seems like the "corpse-like aspect" is a front put on to make the video unwatchable. If it isn't I feel sorry for you, because you are lying to yourself and it might be years before you realise that, Brandon.
Seems like the comments that repeat themselves endlessly and don't really engage objections is a way to "destroy reasonableness", "cripple debate" and "create as large a shit-storm as possible". This seems consistent with the muumuu house ethos. You guys are good at creating controversy. Maybe that is a good way to spend your twenties, and when you are thirty or something you will "snap out of it" and write something "lasting and worthwhile" or maybe you will suddenly "become the good person you think you really are"?"
'exactly' what i meant by 'shit-talking' in video
i have no interest in reasoning or shit talking but brandon, i think you look kind of 'cute' in the video posted
sorry for not staying on topic
am i shallow
my name is on the list of 'internet writers' work-brandon-often-enjoys list, and my story made it to the second round, the 'contest: maybe' round.
i feel that this proves an important point:
brandon predicted liking and enjoying stories by people that write in styles similar to his or of a list of authors that he often likes and enjoys. my story making it to the round of 'maybe' seems to fit exactly with this clearly pre-stated prediction.
i considered both not entering and entering under a pseudonym because of being on the 'internet writers' list, but entered under my real name because of something like "whatever" or "who really cares".
i have had stuff published alongside brandon in a chapbook and various other places, brandon and i have done interviews, emailed, etc
if my story had won, how would brandon's actions be any different in hindsight than what they are now?
if brandon had chosen any story submitted by a person he knew, how would his actions be viewed differently in hindsight?
everything was clear from the beginning, i don't understand why people are upset, seems completely irrational to want your money back, seems like it'd be funny if someone tried to prove to paypal that they'd been a victim of fraud, seems funny if someone calls nyu
also, i was 14 in 1996
this is all so retarded.
Shit has gotten heated. I don't know why people are always getting heated. Like when I told my girlfriend I might dump her if she didn't grow to be seven feet tall. I told her this after reading the runner up story. She flipped and kicked me in the knee. Now whenever we pass by a tall girl she always says, "Why don't you go ask her out?"
Yyou chose your publisher as the winner! you're a cheap hound and a crooked-shoulder. I am ashamed.
Furthermore, the story is mediocre at best and the use of language is poor. There are typos, incorrect use of parenthetical commas, and overall poorly stated and composed sentences. I felt scammed yesterday. But now that "sarah" didn't even write it... this feels more and more like a charade.
i don't know why you're working so hard to tell people their concerns are invalid. do you think this is going to make their concerns go away? you just logically annihilate them and then they disappear like power ranger villains? sure, the guidelines were followed, but there was a serious breach of etiquette here, a violation of the unwritten guidelines we all operate by. 1. established writers shouldn't enter contests below their level which they will probably win; philip roth would never enter the tickled by thunder fiction contest for $150 canadian, even if he needed the money, because he doesn't need that prestige and others do. prestige is generally more important than money to starting writers. when it's wasted on philip roth, a lot of the value of the contest disappears. 2. contest entrants shouldn't have a monetary relationship with contest judges (i.e. publisher/author) when a cash prize is involved. or an aesthetic relationship, for that matter (mentor/student, bro/bro). this applies even if the submission is anonymous, which in this case it basically was due to the name-switch--style still comes through. 3. submission should be under one's own name (this is probably the most minor issue here, basically irrelevant). and so, yeah, people are going to be pissed. their complaints about violation of unwritten etiquette can't be dismissed as irrelevant or lamely humorless because there's money involved--their money, which you've now given to your bro and publisher. if your goal is to make people unpissed, you're going about it in exactly the wrong way (aggressive logical annihilation instead of a sympathetic response). and i have no idea what other goal you might have. it sucks seeing this go down, all this antagonism building toward you guys. make it stop!
"Yyou chose your publisher as the winner! you're a cheap hound and a crooked-shoulder. I am ashamed. "
i chose the story i enjoyed the most as winner, as i repeatedly stated i would do, between may 1 and may 15, in the comments section of the last post, the comments section of this post, the video in this post, and the paragraphs under the video in this post. i chose a story by sarah schneider. i was not aware that tao had written it when i chose the winner. however, sarah did not break any contest guidelines, as i have repeatedly stated as i repeatedly stated in the comments section of the last post, the comments section of this post, the video in this post, and the paragraphs under the video in this post
brandon chose the story he liked best as the winner, as he stated in his guidelines
seems like brandon is 'the kind of person' who writes in a similar way to the writing that he likes, and who reads books that he likes, and who knows what he likes
also, seems like everyone is ignoring 'basic facts' that 'render their comments obviously into "blind shit-talking" ' such as that brandon did not know who wrote the story, that who wrote the story (in this case) is irrelevant, that brandon followed his guidelines 100%, etc.
will, one person has asked for a refund, i asked that person three times for his email address, he never gave me his email address; this occurred in the comments section of the post under this one
don't know about 'unwritten etiquitte'
if i 'adhered' to unwritten etiquitte i would have 'no idea' what i was doing, what i was allowed to do, what would be 'right' and 'wrong' and what context i was operating in;
furthermore anyone could say anything for or against my competition and 'justify' it by saying 'its a part of unwritten etiquitte'
it makes more sense, to me, to write out a clear set of rules and follow them
i am feeling increasingly unclear why i am defending myself so hard, and will stop soon, i believe
i thought the story was only okay but seriously,people needs to get over this "plagiarism" and "scam" stuff. i'm sure if brandon had actually known it was "Tao Lin's story" then he probably wouldn't have chosen it as the winner because it would look "bad." he probably realizes this looks "bad." i thought it was an okay/pretty good story.
@will
to me brandon's contest seemed non-conventionally in that it stated its guidelines very comprehensively and was transparent in its entire operation, i feel
brandon stated that he would allow submissions from muumuu house writers, that he would 'simply' choose which story he enjoyed the most
the three items you listed as 'etiquette' were addressed in the contest's guidelines
the contest seemed to be a different kind of contest, to some degree, than maybe some other contests
why would a person read the guidelines and disagree with it and then join the contest and then complain about the guidelines
also it seems the shit-talking against brandon, sarah, and i was immediately abstract, not logical, and containing 'name-calling' elements
whereas brandon and my responses seem to have completely refrained from name-calling but focused on looking at information in a logical manner
i feel i am responding to no more comments
even though many commenters, i have observed, seem to not read or acknowledge comments i or brandon have made while they repeatedly type more comments, i encourage commenters to read previous comments i or brandon have made to know my thoughts, which i feel have been made available comprehensively, at this point
i will reiterate that brandon followed his guidelines 100%, and if someone feels 'wronged' it can only be at my behavior, which does not have anything to do with brandon or his contest, in terms of who to direct shit-talking toward
I think most people are pissed they didn't win. I was pissed I didn't win. That's a natural emotion after losing a contest. When I was in third grade we had to draw busses for bus safety week. The winning bus, as judged by someone who I can't remember, received free movie passes. I remember thinking for days I would win. I didn't. I was really pissed. It's a little funny because one, my bus probably wasn't the best. Two, if I asked my parents they would have taken me to the movies anytime. And three, there's a Calvin and Hobbes comic very similar to this.
The fact that the winner turned out to be Tao Lin gives people added reason to be pissed they didn't win. This is neither right nor wrong.
I am not pissed Tao Lin won. I am actually less pissed knowing Tao Lin wrote the story. When I first read the contest winner my thoughts were along the lines of, "Holy shit, this person blatantly ripped off Tao Lin's/BSG's style." It would be like if there was an art contest and the winning piece of artwork was a tracing of a famous person's artwork. In a way, I almost believe BSG's credibility was saved when it was revealed that it was Tao Lin who actually wrote the story. If the winner hadn't been Tao I would have been pissed at BSG for rewarding someone obviously copying Tao/himself. I guess the argument could be made that we are all copying someone else, but this story had 'quotes', baby whales, and the phrase 'seems sweet'. If I wrote a story like that and then submitted it and won I would feel dirty and fake and a little bit rich. If I could only write stories like that and then started a contest and chose a winning story that had 'quotes', baby whales, and 'seems sweet' phrases I would feel a little strange. Then again, if all the other stories were either shit or were maybe written in a style similar to 18th century romanticism then it would be hard not to choose the story with 'quotes', baby whales, and 'seems sweet' phrases.
I don't think there is a point to this other than, I didn't win I was pissed and I don't care that Tao Lin won.
my point is that no matter what you put in your guidelines, the unwritten rules i described are deep expectations people bring to these things. when they are violated, there's a strong emotional response that simply has nothing to do with the guidelines. the phrase "conflict of interest" makes people feel things when they think it. the guidelines for the tickled by thunder fiction contest don't forbid philip roth or the publisher's son from entering, but people would still be pissed if they did. and instead of addressing that emotional response, you guys are attacking people logically. since, as i mentioned, the only conceivable reason for you to respond to people's concerns is to make them feel better (what else do you want? to prove you're "right" or something? the goal is for your fans to continue to like you and want to participate in future contests or whatever), i think you're going about it in the wrong way. of course you have the logical high ground, but so what? people don't stay interested in you and follow your blog and love your writing and buy your books via logic. ok. done. out. sorry to have lengthened this already stupid long debate.
i think the last two comments were really "on point": people are angry because they didnt win and there is a fundamental discrepancy between the "logical" and "rational" approaches of Brandon, Tao, Matthew etc. and the more "emotional" response of some of the contest participants. i think both "sides" "need" to understand that a.) the "emotionals" are never going to be satisfied by reasoning, no matter how solid, because of the qualitative nature of their reaction and b.) not everyone, especially "logicals", possesses the same basic precepts and cultural assumptions that "emotionals" take for granted. just because you come to the contest with certain assumptions does not mean that everyone does.
as krammer said, i think a lot of people are just mad they didnt win and "displacing" their anger. i pretty much "knew" tao was going to win, or at least another muumuu house "dude". i was a little disappointed that there was one one runner up and no honorable mentions or anything since i sort of felt like first place was being "wasted" on the "obvious" choice of tao.
i think you guys are missing the point. i think the story is maybe bad on purpose and that is maybe part of 'this,' as in the link i posted earlier, where tao is clearly lampooning john updike and also not being totally transparent about the fact that john updike wrote that story, unless you know updike's work you probably wouldn't know, but the story A&P, compared to the rest of the ebook, is totally out of place, making updike's writing seem very frivolous, which, you know, it is.
i feel like no one really responded to my comments or thought about them in a meaningful way. so i am going to explain what i think in a lame way.
brandon's essay is, i think, incredibly vague. almost more vague than the story itself, and that makes me think it is part of 'this.' i don't think the story fits in with tao's 'oeuvre,' except as self-parody maybe, because i feel like it uses the things that make up his style in a way that is, like updike's story, frivolous. maybe i'm wrong, but that's what i think. i am not bitter about not winning, i didn't expect brandon to like my story; i don't even like it that much.
anyway, this is what i meant before, on the other thread, when i said, 'this is like looking at a car wreck: no one wants to say, "hey, that guy's head is no longer connected to his body."' and when i first said it was a 'good story' i was being sarcastic to the extent that i think the story was sarcastic.
all of you are bitching about this legitimacy issue, which is really meaningless and beside the point. anyway, i think this will definitely be my last comment about this. if you want to respond, brandon or tao, you can email me.
is what another poster wrote true? is the winner of this thing tao lin's girlfriend? if she is, then let's just say for the sake of argument that the courses brandon gorrell took in community college didn't prepare him enough to come up with what numerous people believe to have been a scam. okay. given this, how can he say with a straight face that he was entirely objective when it came to picking the winning story when he knew he was choosing the one submitted by his publisher's girlfriend? i mean, golly. or even yowza.
for obvious reasons gorrell and lin pretend they can't figure out how anyone with even a modicum of common sense would call into question the lack of ethics in this contest; keeping this in mind, simply put here's what happened: person 1 held a story contest to which entrants paid a fee in order to take part. a story written by person 2, who happens to be person 1's publisher, took home the money.
that's it. that's what occurred. period.
(when you boil it down like that and if you ignore the ambiguous rule cited in most of gorrell's and lin's explanations, i don't see how every single one of you doesn't think this was rigged. every last one of you, i say.)
yo, o -- of course it was rigged from the get-go. the point was to 'choose' the worst story, or tao lin to write an awful parody of his own work, and that would be the winner to infuriate people and get publicity...if so, it may have backfired because two days ago I was going to order Brandon's book and if I liked it (like I do with all books I like) buy one for the Hoboken Library, but now I won't, why do I want to read a book by someone who didn't even write it but is Tao Lin's actual writing? I'd rather by a Lin book, not his throwaway work he 'gives' to friends.
What if Poets and Writers gets a hold of this scam? Or The Believer? Would it be good publicity or just ruin their careers? No one will take them seriously anymore, if anyone ever did.
Krammer, what is wrong with the style of 18th century romanticism--if anything, the winning story in this contest is way more overblown/melodramatic/ridiculous than any Goethe or Rousseau.
Although, you're right, for real tales of alienated, disaffected and sarcastic youth, you'd have to go all the way to 19th century romanticism. Check out Adolphe by Benjamin Constant, the story of a man who becomes bored even though he is in a relationship. Wikipedia says: "The book eschews all conventional descriptions of exteriors for the sake of detailed accounts of feelings and states of mind." Now that's authentic.
Anna -- If y'all wanna get real 18th Cent lit on this, consider the fact that when Frankenstein was first published, it was done so with an Anonymous byline because the publisher did not feel the public would accept such a story written by a woman. But many critics assumed Piercy Shelly wrote the novel because it resembled his style; in fact, Mr. Shelly did write or re-write much of the book to ensure his publisher would buy it. Some critics to this day contend Selly wrote the book in full, since Mary Shelly's later work was in different style and obscure...Mr. Shelly wrote a novel and "gave" it to his wife so she would have a literary career and not feel left out in his crowd...thus, Tao Lin is Sarah's Piercy Shelly, although that story was not what I'd call a work of "art."
Sheesh...Brandon and Tao, you guys just keep repeating the same thing over and over again, no matter what new argument is presented before you. You guys must really think we're stupid and didn't read a word of the explanations you guys made...well we did and after the 20th time, it got extremely stale.
How funny is it that the guy who donated part of the prize(a lifetime subscription to BooBoo house), had his story winning the competition. Come on boys, this is seriously messed up, How fucked in the head can you get?!?
Yeah you're right up to now only Jonathan has asked for a refund. I feel that legally we don't have much grounds to ask for a refund due to your 'guidelines' (which coincidentally your hands are tied to alter, regardless of you having ownership over it). Brandon I would like a refund too.
Brandon you wrote on your blog
- i will send your money back to you and YOUR STORY will not be eligible for this contest
I capped the words YOUR STORY, what does YOUR STORY mean to you Brandon? Does it mean just because you bought a Charles Dicken's book, mean you can go around celebrating and busking in the glory of having written Oliver Twist? Cause by your guidelines it seems that you can.
My email is herman_singh@hotmail.com and you have pissed me off.
@anna
goethe had one novella that was romanticism thats it pretty much. sorrows of young werther is good but its a very small part of his entire work. so how you cited him as 18 cent romantic pretty much makes no sense.
all these comments are too long for me to read everything and to figure out what context you were even saying that in. i dont really care.
Andrew, Sorrows of Young Werther is the book most people associate with early (18th century) Romanticism, both now and at the time, thus I wrote Goethe. You are right, Goethe mostly wrote Romantic plays and poems, rather than novels.
Worfpoe, I didn't know that. I only brought up the 18th century because krammer abrahams maybe jokingly suggested that the story "Seven-Day Caribbean Cruise" was stylistically better than 18th century Romanticism. I was saying that his statement was unfair, and plus the two are not really so different.
Andrew Worthington's inability to comprehend anything beyond 140 characters is endemic to people today, the ADD Generation -- impatient, fragmented, limited intelligence.
how does an author not matter? this is upsetting. i know your guidelines didnt say anything about it - - but still you'd think it'd be kind of a 'given'
i guess it's whatever now though..
i like the pdf idea
best things on this page (other than important communications about contest rules - very sarcastic):
"bonghits" = "bloghits"
heart u Janus
Post a Comment