V is for Vitriol*

And for the Veils


I'm probably naive about this, but I've been a bit shocked by the vitriol that sometimes exists in comment pages. I would as soon eviscerate a total stranger on a comment/ message board as I would scream filthy invective at my mail lady, which is not soon at all. Because I can't seem to forget that the person one is  venting one's spleen at is real. I think of that person as myself, on the other side of a mirror. Why would I do that to someone else when I know it can't help but hurt?


To this end, the Guardian/Observer had an innocent enough article about artists who use antiquated or analog tools as part of their art making. It's a cool article you can find here. Read it and enjoy. Then have a look at some of the comments. People are commenting on things that don't even make sense, making assumptions about the artists (nasty ones) that they couldn't possibly infer from the article. 


One of the artists profiled, poet Claire Askew, blogged about what these comments were and how they affected her personally. I think it's illuminating to see the 'result' of these virtual molotov cocktails that anonymous posters throw - to see where they land. As she says in her response, she's "never taken being picked on lying down " So instead of lying down and taking it or even taking the 'high' road of silence, she responds to some of the haters. It's interesting and kind of thrilling to see her take them all on. 


What do you think about the negative/flaming comments and posts about artists/writers? Haters gonna hate, but should there be a response? Or does that just fan the flames? And should bloggers in particular be honest (I hate this writer/book) or be discrete? Is there a way to be both?


*Yesterday, V was for Vexed, because that's how this issue made me feel. But Vitriol is much more appropriate, no?

E is for Everything OR Wednesday! 4.6.11

E is also for Echo & The Bunnymen

Starting off this week's links with Nathan Bransford's defense of the J. Howett debacle. There are some really thoughtful comments on his site about this, and I generally agree with him that there's just too much mean-spirited, mob-like bashing going on for what is, in essence a mistake anyone (any writer) can make. But it brings to mind the recent bashing of Rebecca Black's Friday song (Stephen Colbert made fun of it for charity)
and the (alleged) UCLA student's racist tirade against Asians. Despite the good/bad or unconsidered intentions of the poster (who is, in essence, the 'author' of what's put out there) the fact remains - the internet is the epitome of what it means to be public today. Even more public than going out your front door and stripping to your undies. Why? In front of your house maybe 10-15 people will see you, for a flash of time, then it's over. On the internet, it can be 10-10 million and it can go on forever. Until we learn that lesson, these examples of bad behavior, compounded by mob-mentality, anonymity-fueled tirades, will continue. And don't get me started on the 'anonymous' posters. Why isn't there a wiki-leaks for the effers who flame and humiliate on the internet, but are too cowardly to put their names to their deeds.

OK. Calmer now. Proceed.

Martin Amis is innocent?

Teen books should behave badly.

What is that thing?
It's a Book.
Can it Tweet?
No. It's a book.

Let's end on a sweet note. Cool  book trailer for Lane Smith's 'It's a Book' book

Wednesday! 3.30.11

Mixed bag of linkage today, friends:

Big Bad (and not so bad) Agents
I'm going to my first three day conference in a month so I'm trying to gather advice for conference season - here's a piece on the Philly Liar's Club site on how to pitch an agent at a conference.

And from agent Vickie Motter more tips on 'speed dating' an agent.

Continuing on the agent theme, GalleyCat has a listing of the best agents on twitter.

Contests!
Carolina Valdez-Miller has a cool contest to go along with the cool news that she got herself an agent - YEE-HA!

I know I mentioned this yesterday, but it's such a cool idea, looking at the first 101 words of your WIP closely. Hop over to Lesser Apricots and submit your first 101 for the chance to win a one page critique and lots of other goodies.

And under the topic of Authors Doing (sometimes strange) Things When Not Writing:

Laura Miller over at Salon ponders what would have become of reclusive authors of yore if they'd been compelled to do the kind of 'author platform building' and self-selling that is expected these days. As it is it's a miracle Edgar Allen Poe got published, but if he'd had to show up, sober and social, to a book signing? Nevermore.

As Nick the Stripper says, Flame ON! A tweet from Neil Gaiman shared a link to BigAl's Books and Pals and entreated all to NOT DO THIS. 'This' turned out to be a flaming war between reviewer, commenters and an author of several e-books. Salon rounds up and 'splains the shenanigans.

John Le Carre has turned down being nominated for the Man Booker International prize. Why? He doesn't compete for literary awards. Does he, perhaps, compete while playing darts or while Morris Dancing? Is this a fickle muse thing? What do you think about authors who take themselves out of the running for awards?

Lastly, but not leastly, there's an experiment on twitter. I call it an experiment because I can't figure out how it would work, but more power to them. It's a murder mystery on the Twitter. I will try to figure it out and follow. Starts tonight at 7pm EST and goes on for 3 hours.