The Guild of Outsider Writers

By: Fran (Guest) on 12-07-2007 10:17

[-] Collapse comment

By: Fran (Guest IP 71.54.58.82) on 12-07-2007 10:17

In my opinion, it's your living room. If someone comes into it and shits all over your couch for whatever reason, you have every right to demand that person stop shitting there, put on a diaper, or leave. Don't let your couch get all shitted up because then even YOU can't sit comfortably on it. And if you can't sit comfortably on your own furniture, you've got a real problem.

I gave your article the highest score and clicked it as a favorite--and I'm not "defending" why I like it. Give me a fucking break. But I will say that I think posting Judgment Daze at this time was nice; reading the nasty tone of comments toward here lately has been difficult for me.

I do think you shouldn't let anyone make you defend why you're supportive of each other; writers of like-goals supporting each other should be the default-normal writerly behavior. Writers have got the rest of the world--readers and critics and everyone else--to shit all over their written works. That doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't technically criticize works from other writers because writers are readers too (and, in my opinion, some writing/language repetition can be particularly psychologically harmful to society so kind of demands criticism), but I think there's a difference between constructive criticism and nasty meant-to-harm backbiting.

I think the publishing world likes keeping writers attacking each other; then writers won't have the time to focus on and ally against the real problem: publishers.

By: David Blaine (Registered) on 12-07-2007 12:44

[-] Collapse comment

By: David Blaine (Registered IP 207.69.137.13) on 12-07-2007 12:44

Thanks for the moral support, Fran. I might as well try to keep the tone upbeat, there's nothing to be gained from wrestling with anyone here.

The funny thing is we're very open about what we do here. Everyone who writes knows that shill reviews are written, both positive and negative. Everyone knows someone who has a friend who'll publish whatever in his magazine, and it's always quid pro quo.

Funny how being open, honest and above board gets you gored. No wonder I've never wanted to get involved in politics!

By: christopher cunningham (Guest) on 12-07-2007 23:20

[-] Collapse comment

By: christopher cunningham (Guest IP 72.152.116.108) on 12-07-2007 23:20

just in case anyone is wondering, I have never commented at this site, don't care who does, only come here for the information, and I always sign my name to my writing.

I don't give a fuck who cogito is, nor have any interest in his identity.

I write poems. that's it.

By: courtney (Guest) on 13-07-2007 00:24

[-] Collapse comment

By: courtney (Guest IP 67.177.201.175) on 13-07-2007 00:24

that quirky cogito!

By: David Blaine (Registered) on 13-07-2007 04:26

[-] Collapse comment

By: David Blaine (Registered IP 207.69.137.34) on 13-07-2007 04:26

I'd also like to say, since I mentioned being above board, that I didn't know any of my fellow members at Outsider Writers before this year. I've never met any of them face to face. We didn't go to school together, we don't work together, we aren't joined at the hip and we don't even all live in the same country. As far as I can tell, we don't make money from our writing, we spend money to produce it. So. If supporting each other while also supporting complete strangers is a sin, I'll see y'all in hell.

By: Mr. Cogito (Guest) on 13-07-2007 10:48

[-] Collapse comment

By: Mr. Cogito (Guest IP 66.228.106.197) on 13-07-2007 10:48

I don't understand why you guys are making PUBLISHERS out to be such an evil entity. How are publishers "the REAL problem"? There's some pervasive ideology among mediocre small press poets that PUBLISHERS are out to get 'em, that they only publish their friends, etc. In 99% of small and large press magazines, if you send a good poem that fits the rag, you will get an acceptance. If you put together a good manuscript and send it to a publisher who is currently accepting manuscripts, it will get accepted. The only people who deny this are the people who rationalize the rejections of their own mediocre work by fabricating some secret shadow editorial operative bent on suppressing The Truth. If you don't believe this, try sending off some of your work under the name of some already established small/large press mainstay. Twenty bucks says it'll still get rejected.

Fact of the matter is that guys like Christopher Cunningham are published by NYQ and sunnyoutside etc, because they're good and they deserve to be, not because they e-sucked some PUBLISHER's cock or tailored their writing toward any specific demographic or SOLD-OUT. Instead of spending so much time complaining about how little attention your work gets, why not try your hand at uh, improving the work?

By: Fran (Guest) on 13-07-2007 12:31

[-] Collapse comment

By: Fran (Guest IP 71.54.58.82) on 13-07-2007 12:31

Instead of you and the crowd like you spending so much time complaining that most of the writing here supposedly sucks, why not post WHO YOU ARE so others can criticize YOUR work? Put up your work for public perusal or shut up about easily publicly perused works from other writers.

I think some of the writing here needs more work and isn't what I like to read. But if I have nothing constructive to say, I don't comment negatively. Writers ultimately must find their own way to work--and to hopefully improve their work. That stuff probably can't be taught; it's too individual-writer-specific. And I doubt repeatedly insulting writers will make all of them produce better work.

As for your "you guys," NEWSFLASH: there ain't only MALES HERE. I'm sure your supposed magazine's a real reading dream, especially going on your sexist language and imagery usage and repeated mentioning and lauding of male writers. In my opinion and experience, this is typical literary world exclusionary shit, in the supposed aboveground and in much of the underground too unfortunately.

And I didn't mean tiny publishers necessarily; I meant publishers in general, especially the larger publishers, even some established small presses seem quite closed-door to new voices, though with them that they often don't have enough monetary resources is probably more responsible. But most tiny publishers seem to be struggling just like writers, those places are often founded by writers. To me, they're a separate species from the typical "publishers," and a species I honestly wish didn't exist in such high number. Most writers and publishers should stay separate entities; otherwise, publishers do not do their jobs, otherwise, practically everything's pushed onto writing shoulders, and then writers have much less time and energy left for crafting. At the same time, in today's shitty publishing-world climate, many writers have no choice but to publish their own works--and each other's works. Practically no one else will do so. There don't seem to be easy answers to the mess being a writer has become today....

"if you send a good poem that fits the rag, you will get an acceptance. If you put together a good manuscript and send it to a publisher who is currently accepting manuscripts, it will get accepted. The only people who deny this are the people who rationalize the rejections of their own mediocre work by fabricating some secret shadow editorial operative bent on suppressing The Truth."

--Now that's some absolutist sounding dogma, in my opinion. It sounds like you've got a crystal all-knowing ball. If you do, where'd you buy it that you can speak on those things so sure-sounding? I'd like to buy a crystal ball too. Then I can go on message boards and blowhard imply the-cream-will-always-rise-to- the-top crap with respect to publishing...NOT. I doubt a crystal ball would show that, so I wouldn't be blowharding about it. After all, shit floats too sometimes, and cream can become emulsified--virtually hidden--in some media.