|
|
Saturday, November 18th, 2006
|
11:45a - Romance novel publishing wank
Romance author Anne Stewart gives an interview with the All About Romance website. The interview is fairly standard. ( Until the last question. )
Needless to say, wank follows. First, literary agent and blogger Miss Snark posts an entry naming Stewart as the Nitwit of the day.
Here's a big hunk of clue cake for everyone at the book buffet: don't diss your publisher
in public. Not now, not ever. Not even if you think you're right, especially when
I know you're wrong.
Anne Stuart c
ouches her nitwittery behind "oh I'm always honest" and "someday I'll learn to be
discreet". Honestly Anne, do you think no one from Mira will see this? Well, ok,
maybe you think they should. Why? Do you think they will have some sort of Road to
Damascus moment and leap up to be passionate about selling your work? Been awhile
since you've worked with people if you think that's a good strategy.
Here's why dissing your publisher is stupid. It removes every desire to go the extra
mile for you. Every and any.
You don't have to be grateful for the work people do for your books. Just don't trash
them in public. People aren't doing all you hoped for to help you? Suck it up, welcome
to the real world.
And if by some chance, you DO say something you regret, you call up or email the
interviewer and say "I've been a true nitwit in that comment, please don't post it
(or please delete it)". You can recover from nitwittery if you work fast. Of course
you can compound it by saying "I was right" and "it's only the truth".
And if you want to comment or email me all atwitter about this post here's what I
have to say to you: "I'm always honest". It's not true of course. I've learned that
discretion is the better part of being a grown up.
Most of the comments to Miss Snark’s entry agree with her, but there are some wanky bits here, including my favorite.
Oh god. The snippy rules and regulations of the conglomerate publishing world. I'd
think you'd be grateful if a writer ripped you self-deluded insular overeductaed
mandarins-- if the writer were any good.
Your focus on manners instead of ethics, knowledge, and real talent is why you're
discovering no great writers. You get instead merely the apple-polishing conformists.
What writer of integrity would want anything to do with you and your endless series
of hoops to jump through?
Would a Tolstoy, a Joyce, a Hemingway?
The entire lit-world is set up to shut out the independent voice.
Who are your well-hyped authors? Clueless rich kids named Pessl and Foer?
Are they telling the real story of this nation?
Do they represent authentic American culture?
If you believe they do, it shows how completely clueless the lot of you are.
Thank you.
However, if you want a much better rebuttal to Miss Snark’s column, fellow romance writer Jennifer Crussie delivers the smackdown.
Highlights include an invocation of Snacky’s Law and accusations of sockpuppetry, although at least I think Crussie manages to be funny about it.
Note that apparently Stewart’s publishers responded to her statements, but I can no longer find their comments and will add them in as necessary.
current mood: Cliquish
current music: Judy Collins - Until a Child is Born (106 comments |comment on this)
|
4:31p - The Science Gene
Some wankery from  _scientists_:
 mindcontrol posts about "the science gene phenotype being expressed in your daily life" by which s/h/it apparently means going on about science to the annoyance of surrounding non-scientists. Various commenters express disagreement, but their comments get deleted, until rxrfrx strikes back: deleting comments in a public community is lame. Counter-counterstrike: public humiliation is lame. I guess that makes us over here the lamest?
ETA: retitled because my old title was lame. Bahleeted but I saved a copy.
(18 comments |comment on this)
|
4:32p - My pee bag is less nasty than your pee bag because mine is due to childbirth!
Oddly, despite the subject line summarizing this small but rancid little wank, it's not on a parenting community, a childfree community, or a childfree vs. parent fight.
It begins with the OP, a charming soul by name of faeryrose posting to customers_suck feeling (understandably) squicked at seeing an elderly man's urine bag when sitting down to eat at a buffet restaurant. Sympathy tends to wander away by the witty inclusion of "just fucking die". But this isn't even where the wank is.
No, it begins with vloky feeling it important to announce that SHE has a urine bag and a catheter due to doctor errors during childbirth delivery, and that makes HER urine bag A-OKAY.
She has communication issues, and makes a declaration which people point out sounds like she's saying a man has a vagina. "the old guy probably unlikely has a hole in his bladder leading to his vaginA tyhough so ew"
If it stopped there, it wouldn't be worthy of posting here. She went on to clarify what she meant, and clarified how much of an ass she is in the process:
"I am a female who just gave birth so I have a vagina. The old man doesn't. The reason i have a catheter is to relieve pressure so that the hole in my bladder caused by incompetent healthcare can heal up. A kink would build up pressure making the purpose useless. He on the otherhand is a gross old man whos pissing in a bag due to some sort of old people issue and has no pressure worries and is probably used to the catheter so has no need to have the bag hanging out..and his old flabby skin probably holds the straps up a lot better not needing constant adjustment like I do."
It seems to be still garnering comments, and it's too soon to tell if she's abandoned the thread. It might explode or it might fizzle out, but that much asshattery can stand on its own pretty well too.
Edit: Bonus PWNAGE of WIN on the OP by 67threnody here.
current mood: Gobsmacked (80 comments |comment on this)
|
7:32p - Pierogies are serious business.
No, really. They are.
(59 comments |comment on this)
|
8:07p - Buddhism wank.
I don't know why ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif) buddhists on LJ gets trolled so much, but it results in posts like this where the OP, a 21 year old living in Japan, tells everyone that they need to learn classical Chinese and move to a temple or something before they're real Buddhists, and also that there's not enough academic rigor among lay Buddhists.
As you can imagine, some members of the community find this an oddly angry post from someone who obviously views himself as so enlightened.
Choice bits include:
- someone asking Captain Academic to cite a source and being told that the OP isn't "writing a paper or a thesis" and the OP then then mangling the romanization of a well-known Japanese author on the subject.
- The OP insisting he's not really angry, he's just instigating chaos to get replies. (I'd totally call that as falling under the jurisimprudence law on "it was a sociological experiment", personally.)
- A friend of the OP coming in to tell everyone how all his Malay and Thai friends think Westerners can't be Buddhists and therefore he is right, with diversions into the Mean Kids In High School calling themselves Buddhist and how people should move somewhere else if they're not close enough to a temple.
- Dharmapunk calling the OP on sounding like a whiny teenager.
(80 comments |comment on this)
|
|
|
|