A Response to Fun Yeah Philosophy’s Article
a Review of
Actually, I do 'get it.' And here’s the Proof, yo.
F Y P says my Dichotomies - Literary vs. Commercial Fiction, Epic vs. Intense Fiction - are Trite.
This Accusation indicates a Flawed Reading of my Work, as the Relevant Sections of the Essay contain the Phrases:
1) “Obviously, Books can be More or Less Literary vs. More or Less Commercial.”
2) “Most of the Greats have a Mixture of Both these Qualities but fall More to One Side than to the Other, for the Sake of Argument.”
I understand the Subjective Nature of my Classifications, F Y P. That they represent Poles on a Spectrum, with Most Literary Work falling Some where in between. The Quoted Phrases show I intended the Dichotomies (Literary vs. Commercial / Epic vs. Intense) to be Simplifications for the Sake of Argument, not Rigid Standards.
F Y P makes the Point that One can, inDeed, write a Literary Book about a Clueless Protagonist, and I’ll have to give it that One. You can. I think, how Ever, it would require an Xceptionally Talented Author (Bret Easton Ellis with Clueless Clay, for Xample) to pull it off without boring / annoying me, as Some One who reads for ProFunDity of inSight Primarily.
Perhaps Some of F Y P’s Problems with my Literary Classifications come from the Fact that, as is Common in Philosophy, I have defined the Word “Literary” Differently than it is used in All Cases by All People at All Times, but, just as I made Note of the Looseness of my Arguments in those Arguments, I gave my Working Definition of Literature in "Throw the Tao Lin":
“a Book’s ‘Literary’ness can be said to be Correspondent to its 'ProFunDity' of inSight into the World we live in.”
"Literature," then, is written to be ProFound, whereas "Commercial" Writing is written to entertain / make Money.
I have no Problem with Any One pegging me as a Hipster based on “Throw the Tao Lin” - if that is what they feel I am - which is to say that, though, in the Article, I criticize Many Hipsters for their Consumerism / Sheep-like Habits, I do not intend to define my Self as Other than them Xcept in these Aspects. A Hipster, in my Mind, is a Young Person who works Hard at being up to Date on Cultural Trends, and, Likely, I am this Person. I believe my Work is More Authentic than Tao Lin’s because the Structure and Content of the Essay relies Less on Popular Trends and More on what I Personally think is Cool (is being an Anarkist "Hip" these Days? is being into Classical Literature? is being a Pagan?).
While Tao Lin creates Writing that Overtly intends to appeal to a Certain Demographic (21st Century Hipsters) and therefore mimics its Attributes and Interests, I am writing for and about my Self with All my Personal Dreams and Influences displayed as I xperience them without Regard for Other People's agreeing with / also being into those Things. This is what I hope to show in my Work: not, like Tao Lin, my Generation's Common Denominators, but my Self as it is aLone and as it is influenced by the Generation, because without a Sense of how the Other has influenced you, can you have an Authentic Sense of Self? For me, that the Generation may find Some Thing Universal in my Self Xploration and Xpression is Incidental to the Act of xploring and xpressing, but I think that for Tao Lin, it's the Other Way around: he Only xpresses and xplores what he imagines is Universal, and for this Reason, his Work lacks the Unique.
In being True to my Personal Tastes Regardless of their Popularity, "Throw the Tao Lin" transcends the Boundaries of a Any Particular Cultural Identity besides my Self, which is a Composite of Many Identities, Millennial being One, Anarkist being an Other, Self Glorifying Author being an Other.
My Essay, unLike Tao Lin’s Novels, because of it is Chaotic Style, inspired by Anarkism, in Contrast to his Controlled and Conservative Style, inspired by Capitalism, will find an Audience beyond the Hipsters who will unDoubtably relate to it because it is not concerned with whether or not they relate to it 100%, making it, in its Fundamental Disregard for what is Cool or not Cool in its Honesty, a More Authentic Work of Art than Tao Lin's Novels, which are Overtly Concerned with ascribing to / creating what is Cool or not Cool for the Hipsters as an Imaginary Unit.
Tao Lin defines Hipsterdom and therefore is limited to it.
I am not "Anti Hipster" and, therefore, More of a Hipster because being against Hipsters is Hip - I am beyond Hipster and, therefore, able to swallow the Identity Whole without being consumed by it.
F Y P's Argument that I am Hypocritical is Faulty in that it states, “she barrades tao lin for his supposed manipulation of the internet public while at the same time using this as a jumping off point for her manic declaration of herself as the one whom the hipster drones should be paying more attention to.”
Did I berate Tao Lin for his Manipulation of the InterNet Public?
I don’t believe I did.
What I did say was:
“What I liked about you, Tao Lin, back in those Brooklyn Days, was Xactly what Many People didn't, and still don't, like about you: that you act, in your OnLine Persona, like a Multi Media Pop Star when you are a Writer, and a Relatively unKnown One at that.”
Tao Lin’s Manipulation of the InetNet Public is my Favorite Thing about him! It’s the Only Thing about him I would bother copying, and so I did. What I Really berate Tao Lin for, throughout my Essay, is
a) commodifying Literatue: turning Each Phrase into a Branded Sound Bite, and, thereby, erasing the Work’s Depth, and
b) not that he advertises, but that his Advertisements aren’t Accurate Representations of his Literary Talent: in his Advertisements, Tao Lin suggests he is One of the Greatest Writers of the Generation, but in "Throw the Tao Lin," I argue his Work is not ProFound Enough to warrant the Label, despite Either its Popularity or "Generational" Content. By writing the Most inDepth, Over the Top Literary Review on the InterNet, I attempted to prove that my Self Advertisements, on the Other Hand, are Accurate in their Representation of the Quality of my Work.
Also in the "Hypocrisy" Argument by F Y P:
“bad publicity may still be publicity (#marie calloway’s sex scam/gabbygabby’s nudity) but the flare falls away without something consistent behind it.”
The Offensive, Sx based Shaming of this Statement aside, I believe I have that Consistency, and have proved it with this Response, as Well as within “Throw the Tao Lin.” I think it’s Truer that F Y P Only skimmed my Article, missing Many of the Finer Points, than that "Throw the Tao Lin" suffers the Flaws described in "Why Andrea Coates Doesn't 'Get It'."
Peace & Love