Return-Path: From: brooklyn@netcom.com (Levi Asher) Subject: Re: Harpercollins, etc. To: xian@pobox.com (Christian Crumlish) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 11:40:52 -0700 (PDT) Cc: conway@aimnet.com > >This is probably a good time for smaller publishers with lots of guts and > >drive > >to publish great writers and build the kinds of companies that people like > >Scribner and Knopf built in the first place. Definitely! Oh, I was laughing hard when I read about the HarperCollins cancellation. Those dumb-ass writers, putting all their trust in the big-daddy big-publishing-company concept. They got what they deserved. I hereby announce the beginning of the "indie" age in fiction publishing. The mainstream is dead. ------------------------------------------------------ Levi Asher = brooklyn@netcom.com Literary Kicks: http://www.charm.net/~brooklyn/ (the beat literature web site) Queensboro Ballads: http://www.levity.com/brooklyn/ (my fantasy folk-rock album) ################################### "Tie yourself to a tree with roots" -- Bob Dylan ----------------------------------------------------- Return-Path: X-Sender: ngm@mailhost.batnet.com Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 13:03:18 -0800 To: Christian Crumlish From: ngm@batnet.com (Nicholas Meriwether) Subject: The Parable of Harpercollins Cc: brooklyn@netcom.com Great great thought-provoking post; it stirred me from my slumbers and tossed me back into the maelstrom of figuring out where publishing and literature and writers like us are, all over again ... I think the HarperCollins example is bad, by the way--I just like the topics raised by you n Levi. Bad example, I think, just because first of all, their decision is patently stupid; yes they calculated their bottom line a certain way, and came up with a rationale that justified this, but fundamentally, a stupid move, up there with fouling your own nest. But the general issue of supporting a full-time writing career outside of the majors is interesting. In a way, the point about HarperCollins is not the patent absurdity of their behavior, but the portent it sounds for how much 'the majors' have changed. I think the argument is, however, that as uncertain as they may be becoming, they are still the majors--and supporting oneself outside of those is damned difficult, if not outright impossible. Ferlinghetti did it by making money off of his fellow writers; he became a businessman. Meltzer teaches, as does DiPrima; Snyder raised frugality to a fine art. Corso simply moved to Italy, where they dig him. So how do you survive, and get your message to its audience, outside of the majors? And why did you both choose one of the majors to publish Coffeehouse? ngm _____________________________________ >>> >This is probably a good time for smaller publishers with lots of guts and >>> >drive >>> >to publish great writers and build the kinds of companies that people like >>> >Scribner and Knopf built in the first place. >> >>Definitely! >> >>Oh, I was laughing hard when I read about the HarperCollins >>cancellation. Those dumb-ass writers, putting all their trust >>in the big-daddy big-publishing-company concept. They got >>what they deserved. I hereby announce the beginning of >>the "indie" age in fiction publishing. The mainstream >>is dead. >> >>------------------------------------------------------ >> Levi Asher = brooklyn@netcom.com >> >> Literary Kicks: http://www.charm.net/~brooklyn/ >> (the beat literature web site) >> >> Queensboro Ballads: http://www.levity.com/brooklyn/ >> (my fantasy folk-rock album) >> >> ################################### >> >> "Tie yourself to a tree with roots" >> -- Bob Dylan >>----------------------------------------------------- >> > >-- >th'ezone: http://ezone.org/ez >the'mezone: http://pobox.com/~xian >th'egress: http://coffeehousebook.com > > Recognition of fortuitous accident > may be the real meaning of "talent." > > --Robert Hunter Return-Path: From: brooklyn (Levi Asher) Subject: Re: The Parable of Harpercollins To: ngm@batnet.com (Nicholas Meriwether) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 15:00:37 -0700 (PDT) Cc: xian@netcom.com > I think the HarperCollins example is bad, by the way--I just like the > topics raised by you n Levi. Bad example, I think, just because first of > all, their decision is patently stupid; yes they calculated their bottom > line a certain way, and came up with a rationale that justified this, but > fundamentally, a stupid move, up there with fouling your own nest. I think I hate the nest, though, more than I hate the fouling of it. I wonder, was any great literature lost among these 100 or so cancelled books? No. But I bet a lot of upper-class Ivy-League (oops! sorry guys) Manhattan brats and ex-brats-now-middle-aged-bores are going to need double-therapy sessions this week to deal with the blows to their self-images. > So how do you survive, and get your message to its audience, outside of the > majors? I'm trying to figure this out too. Xian's answer was very optimistic -- on the more pessimistic side, I think you have to realize that creating art has never been meant to be a job, just a hobby -- my answer is, as the dead say, "keep your day job." ------------------------------------------------------ Levi Asher = brooklyn@netcom.com Literary Kicks: http://www.charm.net/~brooklyn/ (the beat literature web site) Queensboro Ballads: http://www.levity.com/brooklyn/ (my fantasy folk-rock album) ################################### "Tie yourself to a tree with roots" -- Bob Dylan ----------------------------------------------------- Return-Path: From: Alexium@aol.com Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 10:43:15 -0400 (EDT) To: xian@pobox.com cc: Alexium@aol.com Subject: Re: Harpercollins, etc. X, >From my own experiences with that house, the announcement comes as no surprise, nor would it surprise me if the others followed suit. The field may be ripe for the indies and the Web may be the future, but should old media forms necessarily be cloned? Had print media writers organized the way screenwriters did in the '40s such wholesale slaughter would never have happened; but when they don't hang together, they often wind up hanging separately. Selah D'or, DA >> >This is probably a good time for smaller publishers with lots of guts and >> >drive >> >to publish great writers and build the kinds of companies that people like >> >Scribner and Knopf built in the first place. > >Definitely! > >Oh, I was laughing hard when I read about the HarperCollins >cancellation. Those dumb-ass writers, putting all their trust >in the big-daddy big-publishing-company concept. They got >what they deserved. I hereby announce the beginning of >the "indie" age in fiction publishing. The mainstream >is dead. > Return-Path: Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 10:41:12 -0700 To: brooklyn@netcom.com (Levi Asher), xian@pobox.com (Christian Crumlish) From: conway@aimnet.com (Martha Conway) Subject: Re: Harpercollins, etc. At 11:40 AM 7/1/97, Levi Asher wrote: > >> >This is probably a good time for smaller publishers with lots of guts and >> >drive >> >to publish great writers and build the kinds of companies that people like >> >Scribner and Knopf built in the first place. > >Definitely! > >Oh, I was laughing hard when I read about the HarperCollins >cancellation. Those dumb-ass writers, putting all their trust >in the big-daddy big-publishing-company concept. They got >what they deserved. I hereby announce the beginning of >the "indie" age in fiction publishing. The mainstream >is dead. > "Meet the new boss ..." etc. Martha conway@aimnet.com Fiction Rag and Gossip www.syx.com/pilgrim/rag/ you are the story Return-Path: Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 06:42:21 -0700 To: brooklyn@netcom.com (Levi Asher) From: conway@aimnet.com (Martha Conway) Subject: Re: Harpercollins, etc. Cc: xian@netcom.com At 8:57 PM 7/8/97, Levi Asher wrote: > >> >what they deserved. I hereby announce the beginning of >> >the "indie" age in fiction publishing. The mainstream >> >is dead. >> >> "Meet the new boss ..." etc. > >Oh, you are so mean. Couldn't resist. Here's hoping I'm one of the new ones. Mar > >------------------------------------------------------ > Levi Asher = brooklyn@netcom.com > > Literary Kicks: http://www.charm.net/~brooklyn/ > (the beat literature web site) > > Queensboro Ballads: http://www.levity.com/brooklyn/ > (my fantasy folk-rock album) > > ################################### > > "Tie yourself to a tree with roots" > -- Bob Dylan >----------------------------------------------------- conway@aimnet.com Fiction Rag and Gossip www.syx.com/pilgrim/rag/ you are the story Return-Path: X-Sender: ngm@mailhost.batnet.com Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:09:20 -0800 To: brooklyn@netcom.com From: ngm@batnet.com (Nicholas Meriwether) Subject: weird mail glitch repeat Cc: xian@netcom.com levi, apologies if this is a repeat; but it may never have made it through. ngm >Date: Sat, 12 Jul 97 11:33:29 PDT >From: Mailer-Daemon (Mail Delivery Subsystem) >Subject: Returned mail: Unable to deliver mail >To: > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > > ----- Unsent message follows ----- >Return-Path: >Received: from sfpop43.batnet.com by batnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) > id AD00269; Sat, 12 Jul 97 11:31:57 PDT >Message-Id: <9707121831.AD00269@batnet.com> >X-Sender: ngm@mailhost.batnet.com >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 11:29:12 -0800 >To: brooklyn@netcom.com (Levi Asher) >From: ngm@batnet.com (Nicholas Meriwether) >Subject: More Thoughts & Rants >Cc: xian@netcom.com > > >>>> Mostly cause I dislike the implications terribly ... >>> >>>Of course there's the saving grace that we can revert into >>>our private fantasy worlds as often as we need to. Maybe >>>that's the real answer. >>> >>>I know I'm not happy about any of this reality shit >>>either. >> >>Yeah, but that's what I'm angling at with my comment on implications. I >>would turn around your original remark about art never paying rent and say >>real artists never paid their rent; that was a big part of the definition >>of being an artist--and why a characteristic of bohemianism in the 19th >>century was a marginal existance. Art as a hobby is fine for yuppies; but >>the rest of us slaving over day-jobs is not a propsect I relish at all. >>Audubon, Poe, Whitman, Simms, Stowe--none of them made a living on their >>art; but Hawthorne and Melville did, at least towards the end of their >>life. (Yeah, H had a sinecure; dunno bout M.) And in the 20th century, >>nearly everyone we like--and certainly on literary kicks--ended up with far >>more money from their art than their day-jobs; and they quit those in the >>fifties. All of them. >> >>Maybe what we're both driving towards is that if one's art is truly the >>wellspring of one's soul, you have to honor Ferlighetti's dictum, 'the >>first responsibility of the poet is to live a life that is not >>compromised.' And what he meant was don't take on jobs to pay the bills >>that are at variance with one's artistic goals. That said, it's also true >>that kids don't eat manuscript and canvas; and lead-based paint is even >>worse for them. So how one compromises all of this with Kesey's remark, >>"you'll never be a writer until you have kids," becomes interesting indeed. >> >>Dunno dunno dunno. This is why Xian made his remark, I think--that the only >>way out is superstardom; I take that to mean, gotta try to make it pay--and >>that means involving yourself with the whole machinery of promotion and >>commercialization. >> >>So. I have already copyrighted the names, "Nick," "Xian" and "Levi." We are >>"The NeXt Generation," also copyrighted. I have made prototypes of our line >>of fully-posable action figures--though Xian's is the only one that is >>anatomically correct--and we will have a complete line of Morose Meals at >>MacDonald's. Our own temp agency will handle the inevitable flood of >>wannabe poseurs attempting to cash in, and we will take a compassionate 70% >>of their earnings, hiring them out to non-compromising day-jobs and night >>bookings; e.g. "hire a New Bohemian to rant at your next party! Thrill to >>the abuse you can receive from a disaffected artist with more education and >>fewer possessions than you and your dimwitted trophy wife!" >> >>More soon. >> >>N > > > Return-Path: X-Sender: ngm@mailhost.batnet.com Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 12:14:38 -0800 To: brooklyn@netcom.com (Levi Asher) From: ngm@batnet.com (Nicholas Meriwether) Subject: more thoughts Cc: xian@pobox.com Levi, Goodly email; and as email is so wont to encourage, here is a choppy, piece by piecemeal response ... > >> >>Yeah, but that's what I'm angling at with my comment on implications. I >> >>would turn around your original remark about art never paying rent and say >> >>real artists never paid their rent; that was a big part of the definition >> >>of being an artist--and why a characteristic of bohemianism in the 19th >> >>century was a marginal existance. Art as a hobby is fine for yuppies; but >> >>the rest of us slaving over day-jobs is not a propsect I relish at all. >> >>Audubon, Poe, Whitman, Simms, Stowe--none of them made a living on their >> >>art; but Hawthorne and Melville did, at least towards the end of their >> >>life. (Yeah, H had a sinecure; dunno bout M.) And in the 20th century, >> >>nearly everyone we like--and certainly on literary kicks--ended up with far >> >>more money from their art than their day-jobs; and they quit those in the >> >>fifties. All of them. > >But -- and this is a big But -- they were all comfortable and happy >living on very little money. Hmm. Actually, they were miserable and unhappy living on little money; read their letters, read their bitterness at Ferlinghetti making money while they starved, read Snyder telling audiences to 'learn a trade' so they wouldn't be as frustrated as they were ... what they did was make a pledge to pursue their art, regardless of financial reward; but that's very different from a vow of poverty--they wanted to get paid for their work; what they pledged to was the work. >Here's something that annoyed me recently -- I got email from >a Kerouac archivist named John Dorfner who told me about two >of his self-published books on Kerouac, which he wanted me >to write about for LitKicks. I said I'd be happy to, but it >turned out he was waiting for me to mail him ten bucks before >he sent me the books. I found this very lame on his part (and >still haven't written back). He approached me as a friend -- >no money involved -- I responded as a friend -- no money involved -- >and now suddenly I'm *obligated* to send him ten dollars? Why? >Mainly because he's a struggling near-starving hobohemian >who isn't settled with the fact that this means he'll be poor. >To me, his lot is a sorry one, and that's why I keep my day >job. I don't want to ever have to mooch off my potential >readers -- know what I mean? Sad little story; he should have budgeted for review copies. But it does raise the interesting question: so what separates boutique writers, supported by well-paying careers, from serious writers struggling and trying to make ends meet and still create? >> >>Maybe what we're both driving towards is that if one's art is truly the >> >>wellspring of one's soul, you have to honor Ferlighetti's dictum, 'the >> >>first responsibility of the poet is to live a life that is not >> >>compromised.' And what he meant was don't take on jobs to pay the bills >> >>that are at variance with one's artistic goals. That said, it's also true >> >>that kids don't eat manuscript and canvas; and lead-based paint is even >> >>worse for them. So how one compromises all of this with Kesey's remark, >> >>"you'll never be a writer until you have kids," becomes interesting indeed. >Well, as is evidenced by my 3 kids, I'm on Kesey's side. But there's >another aspect to this logic. When I was in my 20's, I used to spend >a lot of time being depressed, fearful of the future, indecisive and >self-loathing. I'd often come home from work and do nothing productive, >even though there were novels I wanted to write, etc. In a way, the >great expanse of free time intimidated and depressed me. Once I >got married and had kids this disappeared -- suddenly free time was >a rare and beautiful thing to be treasured and treated like gold. >So now I write with desparate fervor on the subway, during lunch >hour -- sometimes I'll sneak into the bathroom for a minute to >write a single good idea down so I don't forget it -- and I >*never* have to face that anxiety-producing expanse of quiet >solitude that used to make it impossible for me to be productive. And you produce good work, so it works for you; I do, of course, wonder how much of your 20's has ended up informing your later writing--meaning, time spent in reflection is a basic divide between writers and non; but I understand your point--this works better for you. But I don't think that's a universal phenomenon--for a lot of writers, give them time and they write; that's was my experience in my 20s, when I wrote more than I have ever written while working dayjobs (nightjobs, weekendjobs ...) >One more serious point: have you ever read "Self-Reliance" by >Ralph Waldo Emerson? oh yeah ... the thing about American literay history is its so short, its impossible not to collide against everyone else. And this was a perfect mention, since one of things I love about the contrast between the Transcendentalists and the Whitman/Poe axis in the 19th century is how neatly it prefigures the gulf between academic poets and the Beats in the Fifties. But Emerson was the mainstream, remember--Self Reliance is best understood in the context of a new nation, still struggling to define its culture and dominated by the war between periodicals and publishers over the question of whether American lit could ever be distinct from British, whether colonial literature could ever be distinct from colonizing, and how copyright could be implemented for the protection of both. Phrased more succinctly: Emerson is the Robert Lowell of the 19th century; Ginsberg is the Whitman. Thoughts? ngm