EEEE EEE EEEE DAY 2, Keven Sampsell Emails
People talk about Tao's Kevin Sampsell Post a lot.
It was talked about a lot in this podcast.
I remember when Tao had the idea for this interview. I remember thinking i didn't care. It seemed like something to do.
It never occured to me so many people would care.
I think maybe it did to Tao because he lived in New York and understands those people better than I do.
And they cared.
Oh god do they care.
I read the email exchanges.
They don't seem very private to me, they seem like simple exchanges concerning books, or an exchange of products, like business emails.
Keven Sampsell doesn't describe his dick size or his relationship with his mother in the emails. And I'm sure if he did, Tao wouldn't have posted those.
If you read them they show that Kevin Sampsell was working hard to get his writers out there.
But this quote by Sampsell really got me, and I think was what really threw Tao Lin into a fit, and made me think less of Sampsell and why it was good to read the emails:
"I know you're young and raw and wanting to blaze a new literary trail for sad, depressed writers everywhere but let me give you this advice: Work with your editors. You don't want to be known as the most difficult writer to work with (especially there in New York)."
Calling Tao Lin Young was condenscending. Sampsell was saying, 'You're young, therefore a priori not as smart as me.' Which doesn't make any sense.
"to blaze a new literary trail for sad, depressed writers everywhere"
That is really condescending.
"let me give you this advice":
Which translates to, 'Let me tell you what to do"
"You don't want to be known as the most difficult writer to work with (especially there in New York)."
That is a threat. Which is ugly.
After reading that I didn't give if Sampsell's feelings were hurt.
I don't think any real writer or any true lover of literature would either.
Kevin Sampsell runs an indie press.
If the indie press has any purpose it is to be an outlet for freedom.
There are enough agents and editors who work for corporate presses that want to edit and control.
We don't need it in the indie world.
The world is a sad hard shitty place to be, can not a person just for once be allowed to let their voice be what they want it to be, cannot people constantly be in a state of someone looking over their work, critizing it, telling them it is wrong in someway.
Tonight at work I cleaned the cooler, last week the boss bitched about lettuce being under something, this week i cleaned the lettuce. Then the servers after i was done dropped lettuce there. I got bitched at again.
If people do not have freedom in art, what is left?
What is left for us humans if we cannot even write a story without the boss going, "You didn't clean up the lettuce."
posted by Noah Cicero @ 12:00 AM
26 Comments
26 Comments:
What about Tao saying, in essence, "the value other people place on privacy is stupid"?
IT's one thing to say, "I don't value my own privacy," because that's your business. But when you take the extra step of claiming that all privacy is bullshit (which is what Tao has done) then your essentially decreeing that you know better than everyone else in the world how human affairs should be managed.
talk about condescending!
Saying, "there shouldn't be any such thing as privacy" or "privacy is a bad thing" in the abstract is fine--it's purely hypothetical and interesting to think about what a world without privacy might be like. However, in the world as we know it, privacy exists and there are plenty of good reasons for that privacy to exist. When you take the extra step of instituting your abstract disregard for the concept of privacy as a sort of policy, then you've stepped into a realm of pure dictatorship: you're saying, "I'll do whatever I want and everyone else can go get fucked."
i liked that podcast.
i'm gonna start listening to that edward dude.
i don't like tao lin's writing. i know he's noah's friend and all. but i just can't get into it.
inserting a random animal into one's work doesn't strike me as the least bit humorous.
tao says he is impervious to criticism, so me typing this won't bother him.
noah and tao seem miles apart in terms of artistic direction.
i would buy any book by noah.
but i would never buy any of tao's work.
i think it was wrong of tao to post that dude's emails. he was only trying to get back at him for cancelling the book. there was no great philosophical reasons for tao doing it. just spite.
I'd disagree with that. i think the meat of the email exchange was interesting, and shone a light into a very unhealthy dynamic between this editor and his potential authors.
I would have thrown the same fit that Tao did if i had to justify every word I used in one of my pieces. I'd just think "then why do you want to publish me? Why not publish someone else who fits into this obviously very strict criteria? Or write your own stuff and publish it?"
I cant speak fort Tao, but I got the impression from the post that he published it because it made for interesting reading. kind of like Noah said: you think things are any better when youre on an indie press? well look at this!
And it was funny. There was something incredibly comical about two people arguing over wether to insert the words "hot and flat" into a sentence comparing summer to a parking lot. I mean shit, writing should be instinctual. If it isnt, why bother?
Anyway...
i spend a lot of time around visual artists, and to them, the idea of some gallery owner telling them to change a color in a painting before they show it is both horrifying and ridiculous. it never happens. most of the time, the gallery doesn't even see the all of the art it is selling until like a week before the show. why is this okay? because the gallery respects the artists ability to produce work that is consistent and thoughtful. the 'taste' of the gallery is implied when it chooses a particular artist to show work, and is not based on some subjective manipulation of content.
noah: in your anecdote have you considered changing 'lettuce' to 'tomatoes'?
Noah:
I think you would be more successful if you called yourself "Tao Lin," became a 5'7" Asian, moved to Brooklyn, started dating Ellen Kennedy, and made nonsensical references to hamsters and moose in your writing. Have you considered that?
You can say what you want about Tao or his writing, but whenever I feel depressed and read Tao's writing, I feel less depressed. Also, I feel sexual.
So if a gallery owner were to pass on a given artist's work because it almost but doesn't quite fit his tastes, should that artist then organize a rally outside that gallery?
By that argument, Sampsell should simply never have expressed any interest in Tao's work in the first place. He should have thought, "hmm...I kind of like it, but since it's not exactly what I want in my magazine, I should probably just ignore it completely."
You kids...
Chief,
that thing about him saying that nothing should be private.
Yeah I disagree with that.
Colin,
No it was lettuce. The damn servers throw the fucking lettuce everywhere.
SOme people seem very perturbed about EEEE EEE EEEE week.
I didn't expect this.
I like the book EEEE EEE EEEE very much and Tao Lin has been a good friend to me.
Actually, cancel that "you kids" at the end of my last comment: I don't usually mind sounding haughty or condescending, but I don't believe in doing so on the basis of age.
Whatever it is that Tao's unconditional supporters don't understand about why it's wrong to publish someone's private email is probably not age-dependent.
There's a lot of casual talk about not believing in "right and wrong" in these parts, but the bottom line is, the minute you start disregarding other people's ideas od right and wrong is the same minute that you suspend any right to be treated with that same amount of respect.
You should be loyal to your friends:
Friends and family are all any of us have.
tao did not "rally", he just showed what happened. there was no attempt to destroy or petition sampsell, or even outrage that sampsell did not like his work.
the outrage was that sampsell tried to manipulate tao's work beyond what tao was comfortable with, and then belittled him when he realized that tao would not make concessions just to have his balls licked.
it wasn't a magazine, it was a book. i have asked for books from people before, and then rejected those books, but i was honest enough not to ask the writers to change anything.
i reject a book in full, or i accept a book in full. every book i have published, i have accepted in full, even if i don't like certain parts.
allowing for an artist to have an extreme degree of freedom is being "adult." i publish things, and i understand that i am a writer's servant. it is not the other way around.
"chief said...
So if a gallery owner were to pass on a given artist's work because it almost but doesn't quite fit his tastes, should that artist then organize a rally outside that gallery?"
No, but if a gallery owner expressed an interest in an artists work, but then insisted that the artist make changes to the pieces ("no, no you definatly should have used red paint here, and I dont like this use of imagery, take it out...") the artist would be within his right to alert other artists or his fans about this. Even if it is to say "the exhibition isnt happening, and this is why" or "before you work with this gallery, maybe you should know that this is how they operate".
Just to justify, I am not an unconditional supporter of anyone, tao included. But I like his poems. I find it interesting (and a little odd) that Tao is such a controversial figure.
Laying my cards out on the table here, I'll say that I not only don't mind being edited, I actually enjoy the process.
I get it: for you guys, the rawer it is, the realer. This means that having a third party (editor) running interference between writer and reader is a terrible, even unconscienable breech of artistic integrity.
It's that whole DIY indie-punk ethos, and I can dig it.
But what if a guy came along and made a suggestion that brought a piece of your writing come alive in way that it never had before? would you stubbornly ignore that suggestion just because it didn't originate from you?
I have worked with editors. I have compromised on both the publication of my novel and once on a story that appeared on a website. I have also worked with an agent who gave me constructive advice. im cowriting a book at the moment in which I have to take into consideration the opinions of the editor, the agent and the guy i am co-authoring with. So Im not completely stubborn and resistant to editing. Far from it.
I dont know if I am really of a punk / DIY ethos. Maybe. Its more out of neccesity than anything else.
But the level of editing in those posts, and the fact that they seemed to completly disregard the sensibility of the orignal text is what made me gag when I read the email exchanges.
Anyway, goddamnit lifes too short. Im sure kevin Sampsell has forgotten about this already.
i run all of my site designs by the writers before i make the site available to people. i ask them for their help, and sometimes i make quite a few changes based on what they say.
if you want to be edited, that is fine. i don't have anything against that. but that is only if you want and ask to be edited.
if you say "i need help with this story" or "what is your opinion on the inclusion of this story?" you are opening yourself up to an editor or friend, and you want their opinion and their help. i do this all of the time.
an editor making unsolicited hard cuts based on authority or "knowing better" is what i'm against, in general.
and whatever. sampsell does a good job at what he does, it's just an older mentality that i don't really agree with, and this story is a good example of why i don't agree with it.
most people see this as a minor issue compared to the privacy thing, which i don't care about at all.
Tony & Gene,
Thanks for taking the time to give serious, thoughtful replies to my questions.
If I asked them in a grumbling, old-farty sort of way, my apologies.
I didn't expect you guys to be so gracious.
What did I miss?
-Fawzy-
I love Tao Lin's books, stories. I love his moose and his dolphin. I love Noah's Books because they're like a beautiful open wound gushing with vulnerability.
Fawzy Zablah
I love Tao and Noah.
They are sweet kids.
And deserve all the best.
Fawzy again
Tony O'neill is awesome too.
I think Tao Lin made those Emails public because they were funny, and they shed light of the troubled relationships between editors and writers.
But the truth is, no matter how brilliant a writer you are, you will more than likely need an editor to help you out. And if you find that awesome editor, you have to stick with him. Because good editors usually see the things that are missing. They are a clear pair of eyes. Are there nightmare zombie editors? for sure, that's why you have to take everything is moderation. JUST BE HUMBLE CHILDREN. HUMILITY IS SAINTLINESS..
FAWZY
Kevin Sampsell is not a difficult person to work with. Far from it.
I'm younger than Kevin, less experienced than Kevin and I published Kevin. He never condescended to me. Not once. He made suggestions, I made suggestions. A wonderful book of his was brought into the world.
When you're spending your own money, energy, time, etc. to do your damn best to bring your attention to an author on the rise and you wind up with brick wall after brick wall put up in your face by said author, it can get very, very frustrating. I think the comments you see as condescending should be put into the context of said frustration.
A lot of folks who have never met/interacted/worked with Kevin Sampsell are talking a lot of smack about the dude. Look, he's a great guy and he's worked himself to near exhaustion promoting independent lit and we all owe a debt of gratitude to him.
its the 3AM camp versus the Word Riot camp for the ultimate battle to decide INTERNET LITERARY SUPREMACY! (watch out for the ULA< and Thieves Jargon boys, i know the want to join in)
Fawzy
"When you're spending your own money, energy, time, etc. to do your damn best to bring your attention to an author on the rise and you wind up with brick wall after brick wall put up in your face by said author, it can get very, very frustrating."
what brick walls?
read the emails. factually i took about 40% of his edits without questioning anything, i deleted stories from the collection that he didn't like, and for the rest of the edits i discussed it with him, calmly, rationally, and politely.
i find it dramatic when people say 'spend their own time, money, energy, etc.' in order to justify some kind of behavior. (i'm not talking about kevin sampsell, i'm talking about you; you said that it can get very, very frustrating, and you can only speak for yourself when you say that, since no two objects can occupy the same space in the same time.)
if you are doing something and you 'point out' that you are doing it with your own money, time, energy, etc. maybe you should stop doing it and do something where you can do it without stopping every once in a while (i've heard you, and others, say these kinds of things before) to 'point out' that you are using your own time, money, energy, etc.
for example gene morgan never justifies frustrating by saying he spends his own 'damn' time and money on bear parade; james chapman never justifies frustration by saying he spends his own 'damn' time on fugue state press, etc., or i have never read on a computer screen those things from them
which is okay
it is okay for you to do that
but you can also do things that you are able to do without complaining; and if you find yourself complaining stop doing what you are doing and do something else, something where you will not complain; if you still find yourself complaining stop doing that, and go somethign else, etc.
i think sampsell does do that, mostly, i think. once he thought it wasn't something he wanted to do he ended the project with me. that is good. he didn't keep doing what he didn't really want to do. i think that's good. he went on to do things that he could do without complaining (i haven't read him complaining on the internet anywhere) or pointing out how good he was to spend his private time and money on an independent press.
that is good.
my post had nothing to do with sampsell or myself. it only used sampsell and myself as an example to talk about editing. tony said it was interesting. yes, i thought it would be interesting so i posted it. but i also had other reasons. i wouldn't just beat the shit out of someone because i thought it was 'interesting.' if beating the shit out of someone would save 10000 people from having the shit beat out of them, though, i would want to do it.
tao,
i did read the emails. they didn't come off as calm or polite to me, at least by the end of it. just my opinion.
i understand your reasons for posting the emails. the action is what i strongly disagree with, no matter the intent.
the picture of kevin that's been generated as a result of your actions (though you didn't intend it) is not the person i know and respect. i want people to know the kevin i know -- the low-key, kick-ass writers/editor/publisher who always puts his writers first.
Fawzy,
3AM magazine would totally beat my ass. I'd be all drunk and cringing in a corner in wait of 3AM's giant fists of rage. I do love me some 3AM. And Thieves Jargon. And, of course, the ULA -- the craziest of the crazy motherfuckers. Long live King Wenclas.
i understand.
i think most people thought of me badly rather than sampsell, though, after reading the emails. the only people who didn't talk shit about me, call me an immature boy, or say i was a disrespectful little bitch, or something, were like noah, ellen, james chapman, gene morgan, and a few others. just look at all the shit-talking on the internet then, it was almost all against me.
I would like to mention that I was disagreed but think I did so fairly respectfully, and with minimal shit-talking. And I would also like to mention that I managed to do so even though I was absolutely drunk every time I posted.
And I would like to mention that I like to mention things about myself now and then.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home