Singular, idiosyncratic and a little mysterious, Black Clock is one of America's leading literary journals.

Author Archive for Joe Milazzo—

Black Clock Accepting Submissions Through 10/10/11

Black Clock is accepting unsolicited fiction, poetry and creative nonfiction from September 19th, 2011 until October 10th, 2011. If you have a manuscript you would like to submit for consideration, please consult the Black Clock website for additional details.

Black Clock Now Accepting Submissions

Black Clock is accepting unsolicited fiction, poetry and creative nonfiction from January 3rd, 2011 until January 17th, 2011. If you have a manuscript you would like to submit for consideration, please consult the Black Clock website for additional details.

In This Corner: Seth Greenland In The LDM100 Ring (10/14@9PM, LA)

Seth GreenlandNovelist, playwright, screenwriter and Black Clock contributor (issues 7 and 9) Seth Greenland will don the team colors (but not, one presumes, the tools of ignorance) this Thursday, October 14th, at The Mountain Bar (473 Gin Ling Way, Los Angeles, 90012) for Opium Magazine‘s touring Literary Death Match, LDM100.  Seth will be starting for Black Clock; his competitors will be fire-baller D.R. Haney (Banned for Life), enforcer Jennine Capó Crucet (author of How to Leave Hialeah) and rebound specialist, actor and playwright Sasha Higgins.

Doors open at 7:30 pm, show starts at 9:15 (sharp).  Tickets are $7 if ordered in advance, $5 for students with a valid student ID, and $10 at the door.  Cheering is optional, but it is highly recommended that you wear gear to protect your hands, face, elbows, knees and shins. All proceeds are being directed to a good cause: the publication of the anthology Opium100: A Century of Literary Humor.

For more information about this event, and the LDM phenomenon in general, please visit: http://www.literarydeathmatch.com/.

Grace Krilanovich, One Of Five Under 35

Author Grace KrilanovichCongratulations are in order for Black Clock contributor and CalArts Writing MFA (2005) Grace Krilanovich, who yesterday was recognized by the National Book Foundation.  Named one of 5 young writers of distinction and “to watch”, Grace’s novel The Orange Eats Creeps (Two Dollar Radio), twice excerpted in the pages of Black Clock, was selected for inclusion in the “5 Under 35″ list by National Book Award-winning author Scott Spencer.

An event celebrating this year’s honorees will be held at powerHouse Arena in DUMBO, Brooklyn at the start of National Book Awards Week, Monday, November 15.  Musician and author Rosanne Cash will host, author Amanda Stern will interview the honorees, winners and finalists, and music journalist Rob Sheffield will DJ.

In the meantime, litblog HTMLGIANT will be hosting a live web interview / reading with Grace at on Monday, October 11, at 9 PM EST / 8 PM CST / 6PM PST.

Resident Anti-Hero at Pronoia (7/31)

Black Clock 12 contributor, muay thai warrior and self-described “disgruntled storyteller, professional lyricist, and literary guerrilla eco-thug” Dante Zúñiga-West will be performing as a member of Resident Anti-Hero at this year’s Pronoia Festival in Arkansas, July 30 – August 1.

Pronoia (being both the cosmological and moral opposite of paranoia) is “a litter-free weekend of great music focused on community, sustainability, art, spirituality, and education.”  Festivities will be held at Byrd’s Adventure Center in Ozark, AR.  In addition to music, workshops and consciousness-raising events, attendees will be offered all the recreational amenities of the park (zip lines, hiking, kayaking and more), which is located in the Mulberry River Valley within the Ozark National Forest.  For additional information, visit: http://www.myspace.com/pronoiafest.

Resident Anti-Hero’s music has been called “dystopic mythopoesis,” “militantly off-the-grid,” and as presenting “a model, mostly imaginary but grounded in the facts many of us dare not contemplate, for a sustainable and still uniquely American post-civilization experience.”  You can learn more about the Anti-Hero Underground at http://www.residentantihero.com/.

A Long Talk With Lewis Shiner

Lewis ShinerThe task of providing some introductory overview of author Lewis Shiner’s life and career is, while not quite Herculean, certainly daunting.  Shiner might be characterized as primarily a pop artist-cum-magical realist, or a sympathetic but sharp-eyed chronicler of American subcultures, or even a futurist (if a futurist of a somewhat grim outlook.)  His fiction, both in its form and content, is entangled in complicated relationships to music as well as comic books and graphic storytelling.  And Shiner has been cast in various roles throughout his writing career: early on, as one of the “founders” of the cyberpunk aesthetic; mid-career, as one of the first writers to embrace fully the alternative economies of the globally-networked world cyberpunk had prophesied back in the 1980s.  Perhaps Shiner is one of the last, true “working writers” in America, the kind of hammer-it-out-at-the-Selectric guy slogging down the road from small magazine to small magazine to publishing house, the landmarks that now sit scattered and largely vacant, like ghost-towns-in-waiting on America’s literary map.  Yet Shiner has clearly yet to exhaust his ambitions, and he remains just as much a pioneer as he’s always been, a model for who and what the 21st Century writer will need to be in order to survive in this new wilderness.  Let’s assume, then, that we can say that Lewis Shiner is all of these things.  Which, I would argue, and as his status as one of the earliest contributors to the magazine proposes, Lewis Shiner is a prototypical Black Clock author.  In other words, intensely independent, and in every respect.

The following interview was conducted via email over the first two weeks of June 2010.

BLACK CLOCK: What are you working on right now?

LEWIS SHINER: The first thing on my to-do list is to finish setting type for a reprint of my novel Glimpses.  What’s happening is, I’m bringing my entire backlist back into print, thanks to the good graces of my publisher, Bill Schafer at Subterranean.  He’s letting me design the covers and set the type for all the books so that I can get exactly what I want.  Black & White and Deserted Cities of the Heart came out last December, and we’ve got Frontera all set to go as well.  We were originally going to save Glimpses for last, as that’s the book that I get the most fan mail about, but then something came up.

Which was an audiobook version, done by Stefan Rudnicki of Skyboat Road Company.  Stefan is another really loyal supporter of my work, an award winning producer, director, and actor who did a wonderful job on my two previous audiobooks (Say Goodbye and an anthology called Missing Persons).  Stefan is determined to get something happening for me in the audiobook market, so we wanted to get a paperback edition out there to support what he’s doing.

So once I get the typeset and the cover finished for Glimpses, I’ll wrap up Frontera and get that off to the printer.  Then I’ll get back to finishing the final draft of a new novel called Dark Tangos.  It’s set in Buenos Aires in 2006 and 2007 and deals with the fact that Argentina has only now gotten around to putting the guys on trial who actually implemented what they called El Proceso back in the 70s—the Dirty War, where they kidnapped, tortured, and murdered an estimated 30,000 people, most of whom were never found.  The protagonist is a guy from the U.S. who gets caught up in all this political stuff because of someone he meets while dancing tango.

Once I get that done, I’ve got a new novel in the planning stages that I’m excited about.  If it works out, it’s going to be huge, like 1000 pages, covering 40 or 50 years, cast of thousands, all that kind of thing.

All of this while working my day job and taking salsa classes and trying to keep up with my friends in email.

I’d be interested to learn more about how you came to be associated with Subterranean.  When and how did that relationship begin?  It also sounds like Subterranean has granted you a level of creative control over your work rare in the publishing industry.  Is that fair to say?  And, if so, how has your experience with them in this regard been different from your past experiences with publishers?

Bill first approached me in the late nineties with the idea of doing a story collection.  It so happened that I had been holding back a batch of stories for just such an occasion, and it was clear that I wasn’t going to get a major conglomerate publisher interested in it.  But I had a very clear idea of what I wanted.  The stories were all mainstream or slipstream, and I wanted a look that reflected that.  I’d also had a number of bad experiences with covers, the most recent, with Say Goodbye, being the worst.  St. Martin’s had agreed that their first cover proof, which I called the “glowing alien hand” cover, was a complete dog, but then they came back with what I called the “Nicaraguan rape victim” cover.  This one was so bad that I threatened to pull the book and return the advance unless they dropped it.  Their third attempt, which had nothing to do with the book except that it had a woman in it, was bad, but at least it wasn’t an outright insult to the readers, so I had to go with it.

Say Goodbye was also my first experience with type design.  They sent me a proof of what their designer had come up with, and I made a counterproposal.  The designer worked up my specs, showed both designs to his boss, and his boss picked mine.

So I told Bill I would love to do a collection, but I had to have absolute control over the cover and typeset.  And, remarkably, he agreed.  He set up me with Gail Cross, his designer, and we worked really closely together.  She totally got into the project, to the extent of building this huge, beautiful sandcastle in her driveway and Photoshopping it into a beach scene that we picked together.  She consulted me on absolutely everything, a dream experience for me.  And the best part was that Bill and Gail were really happy with the results as well.  This was Love in Vain, a book I am still really proud of.  And Bill and Gail and I got to be friends in the process.

The book came out in 2000, as I was working on my next novel, Black & White.  That one took eight years to write, and I have to admit I had a bit of a chip on my shoulder when the time came to market it.  This would have been the summer of 2007.  I made a list of six top agents in New York, and I had a recommendation to each of them from either an important client or a close friend.  When I didn’t get the response I wanted, I took the book to a handful of publishers that I knew well enough to approach without an agent.  That didn’t work out either.

So I went to Bill and asked if he’d take a look, and he loved it.  Because things had turned out well with Love in Vain, I was able to push a little harder and ask to actually design the cover and set the type myself.  Bill made Gail look over my shoulder all the way, and she basically taught me how to do her job—how generous is that?  And I got what I wanted.

The thing about working with Bill—aside from the fact that he’s a tremendously nice guy—is that he is very, very good at what he does.  He knows who his customers are, he knows what they want, and he can predict pretty accurately how much a book is going to sell.  As a result, he’s making a profit while the conglomerate publishers are losing their shirts.  And he’s making much nicer books than they are—sewn spines, cloth covers, beautiful painted dust jacket art.  The difference between working for a company that’s making money and one that’s scrambling in desperation is huge.

Another thing about Bill is that he trusts his own judgment.  That’s pretty rare in New York publishing, where how they feel about a book is tempered by the author’s track record and what everybody else in the company thinks.  Bill, to my everlasting gratitude, likes my work.  He doesn’t care what category it gets filed under, and he can set his print runs to accommodate the size of my audience.

Neither Bill nor I are going to get rich from this deal, but I get great looking books that I’m really proud of, and I think Bill is at least breaking even on me.

Final book design is something I think many (beginning, in particular) writers don’t give much thought to, only to learn too late and rather unpleasantly how important it actually is. The novel is more than just the words on the page, ultimately…

What was the best creative experience you ever had with a major publisher?

Purely in terms of a creative experience, I would have to mention Slam.  My editor at Doubleday was Pat LoBruto, and he and I just clicked.  He totally got the book, and had wonderful suggestions, and we spent some great hours on the phone together.  We’re still friends today.  Unfortunately he was not there during the production stages, where there were lots of problems.  Like, I had to rewrite the flap copy hours after getting out of oral surgery because what they had was unspeakable and they didn’t show it to me until the last minute.  And Chip Kidd—who is an outstanding designer—had a bad day when he did Slam and got the brilliant idea of doing ragged right margins on the right hand pages, and ragged left margins on the left hand pages.  The only problem being that ragged left destroys the paragraphing.  Fortunately one of the editorial assistants smuggled me out a preview of the typeset, and I called my new editor and showed him at least two places in the first ten pages where it was literally impossible to tell who was speaking, to the extent that the meaning of the book was changed.  And he backed down before I had to go to the wall, but it was another of those incidents that took months, if not years, off my life.

So for an overall good experience, I would have to go back to the first time.  Everything with Frontera was simple and straightforward.  It was an SF paperback original, and they had a nice piece of art lying around by Vincent DiFate, a guy who did gorgeous paintings of rockets and planets, and they tweaked the colors so it would look like Mars instead of the Moon, and there was my cover.  It was mostly red and black, which were the hot colors for paperbacks at the time, and I’d always liked DiFate’s work, so I really had nothing to complain about.  My editor was Betsy Mitchell, whom I’d worked with when she was editing at Analog, and we got along well.  She liked the book and didn’t ask for much in the way of changes.  It got good distribution—it was actually in the rack at my local grocery.  It didn’t sell very well, but I don’t think that was in any way the publisher’s fault.

Given the state of the publishing industry, i.e., crumbling (shades of that sandcastle), do you think it’s still possible for young / starting-out writers to have a comparable experience with a big house?

I think so, especially in SF.  It is much, much harder to break in than when I was starting—there are fewer magazines, fewer anthologies, lower circulations, and so on, but you can still get a buzz going as a short story writer, and that creates excitement about your first novel, and editors still love that thrill of breaking a new writer.  The truth is, it’s much easier now to sell a book as a first-timer than as somebody who’s got a bad track record.

In connection with Love in Vain, you mentioned your work in the context of slipstream.  But that is not the only genre in which you work.  How would you describe your relationship to genre?

I seem to be the only person around who doesn’t care about genre.  I know I’ve said this before—I think there’s more in common between any two of my books, regardless of genre, than there is in common between one of my novels and another novel in the same alleged genre.  Which is to say, Frontera, which is nominally “hard” science fiction, is more like Black & White, which is a literary suspense novel, than it is like some other hard SF novel.  Or to put it still another way, if you like Frontera, you’ll probably like one of my other books.

Like most writers, I write the same kind of stuff as I read, and I read Westerns, detective novels, literary novels, whatever.  And I will point out that one of my favorite writers, Jane Smiley, has published a Western (Liddie Newton), a whodunnit (Duplicate Keys), a sitcom (Moo), a couple of historical novels (Greenlanders, Private Life), a Hollywood novel (Ten Days in the Hills), etc.  Don DeLillo has written SF (Ratner’s Star), a spy novel (The Names), a sports novel (End Zone), all of them great books that played by (and with) genre conventions.  I’ll read anything Jane Smiley writes—I don’t care what it’s about.  The things that I look for in a novel—evocative prose, sympathetic characters, stimulating ideas, prickly little splinters of the real world—don’t have to do with genre.

Mr. McSweeney’s, Chip Kidd… surely Slam was one of his earliest assignments?

Kidd was already pretty famous when he did Slam.  I was a fan of his, so I was doubly disappointed by what he did on my book.  I’m not just talking about the typeset, but about the cover as well—here’s a novel about skateboarding and anarchy, with all kinds of visual potential, and he turns in art that makes it look like a postmodern novel of homoerotic love.  But book design is a creative art, and you can’t knock one out of the park every time.

I was lucky to have great cover art for Deserted Cities of the Heart by Bob Hickson—it was commissioned by the Bantam New Fiction line, back when they were going to make me a mainstream star. But the editors and I couldn’t agree on what good writing was—they literally told me that I needed to use “bigger words and longer sentences”—so I got kicked back into the SF ghetto.  I was deliberating going to another publisher entirely, but I had seen the cover art and that made me stay with Bantam, albeit in their new SF hardcover line.

And with Glimpses they got Honi Werner, one of the top cover painters/designers in the world, to do the book, and her art was gorgeous. Again, I was a big fan of hers and she would have been at the top of my list if I’d gotten to pick, and unlike Kidd, she didn’t disappoint.

Your experience seems to me to highlight one of the more fascinating consequences of publishers’ attempts make sense of a marketplace in which the book is not the primary commodity, i.e., publishers no longer rely primarily on the book, with its design, layout, blurbs, and carefully composed author photos, to communicate to the reader that not only is this a book worth reading, but here is a writer worth following.  Publishers, in effect, offer less and expect more of their authors in terms of creating a marketable “brand.”

Obviously, web presence is a major aspect of such branding.  And, like nearly every writer working today, you have a presence on the web (http://www.lewisshiner.com).  But unique on your website is the sheer amount of writing you make available to any visitor for free, via your “Fiction Liberation Front.”  Which is another way of saying that your website is less image and more substance.  What gave you the idea for this project?  How did it actually come about?

By 2007 the handwriting was on the wall—or on the web, if you will.  Print publishing was clearly in trouble, especially as far as short fiction was concerned.  And short fiction had always been a problem for me.  I could sell short SF or fantasy, but I had never cracked the serious mainstream markets.  Mainstream fiction in the U.S. is dominated by graduates of MFA writing workshops who now teach in some other MFA writing program.  You only have to look at the biographies in the back of Best American Short Stories to see what I’m talking about.  If you’re good enough, or lucky enough, or connected enough, or whatever, you might be able to overcome that, but I never did.  And I am not cut out for academia.

So if I wanted to get my stuff out there where people could see it—and I did—I needed to put it online.  The question was, how do I get paid?  I talked to a lot of people, and the only answer anybody could give me was, “get a sponsor.”  I couldn’t stand the idea of having ads for SUVs or network TV shows or Big Macs on my website—even assuming I could land a high-profile sponsor like that—so I just said “to hell with it.”  It’s not like there’s that much money to be made from short fiction anyway.  So I decided to be my own sponsor.  It’s a way of making my day job less onerous, thinking of it that way.

Did you encounter any difficulties along the way in terms of regaining the rights to your work?

There was no problem with getting the rights to my stories—generally magazines only buy first serial rights, which leaves you free to reprint once the thing has been published.  In cases like Subterranean, the online magazine that my publisher runs, where I had a new story last year, I simply link to the site from Fiction Liberation Front.

Novels are a different story, but in my case it was all part of the synergy.  As I was conceiving of FLF, I was also conceiving of bringing my backlist into print (and I had been careful to get the rights back to all my novels as soon as the contracts expired).  Bill at Subterranean had been reading the same studies I had, which all say that giving your book away online only increases sales of the print edition.  Which makes sense—most people don’t want to read an entire novel sitting at the computer, so having the book online really serves as a teaser.  Of course as the Kindle and the Nook and the iPad get more popular, that may change, but so far there is a hardcore audience that still wants a print artifact, and I am part of that audience.  So with each new Subterranean trade paperback, we put the PDF up on Fiction Liberation Front.

I picked the name as a way to grab attention—ditto labeling my introduction a “manifesto.”  And it worked—the bOING bOING website gave me a great plug, and I got a lot of favorable publicity in various blogs.  It upped my street cred with the anarchist community, and still serves as a good hook for talking about my work.

What sort of input or reaction did you receive from other writers?  Did anyone caution you against “giving your work away”?

The only real dissent was that one SF writer called me a “scab” because he thought if we all banded together and insisted that we wouldn’t put our stuff online unless we got paid well for it, we could bring publishing to its knees.  Being the lefty and unionist that I am (I’m a member of the Wobblies), that stung, but I was unable to take his argument seriously.

Probably the biggest impediment was the sheer amount of work involved—all told, 67 short stories, nearly all in both PFD and HTML format, plus nonfiction, screenplays, audio, video, and two novels (so far).  I was afraid that I would run out of steam, and there were periods of several months at a time when I didn’t post anything.  But then somebody I didn’t know would write and say, “Hey, what’s happening with FLF?” or “When are you going to put up some cyberpunk?” and I would go back to work.  Toward the end, which was January and February of this year, with the end in sight, I posted a ton of stuff, with the result that all of my short fiction (except collaborations and one story that I hate) is up there.  And the collaborations are coming.

Assuming that the FLF could be described as an “experiment,” how might you describe the results?

I am really proud of the fact that if somebody wants to read one of my stories, it’s out there.  So the work can stand or fall on its own merits.  It would be nice to be able to make a living writing fiction, but given that that’s not happening, at least my work is available.  There are so many writers who can’t say that.

Despite your association with the science-fiction, slipstream, cyberpunk etc. genres, and aside from forward-looking projects like the FLF, one theme that threads through nearly all your work is history, or, better yet, the present’s compulsion or need to intervene in the past (and vice-versa.)  The plots of both  Glimpses and Deserted Cities Cities of the Heart orbit around characters who can become unanchored in time (Eddie Yates in the latter, Ray Shackleford in the former) and your most recent novel, Black & White, links genealogy to larger patterns in America’s collective life in ways that recall both Faulkner and the Chandler-esque detective novel.  What about history fascinates you? Has your own work as a fiction-writer—someone who “merely” makes up stories—altered your understanding of or attitude towards history? If so, how?

The present is always intervening in the past, isn’t it?  That’s what memory does.  On a personal level, the level of nostalgia, you get a book like Glimpses, in which one character accuses the protagonist of trying to have sex with his own past.  On a cultural level, the level, say, of modern Mayans preserving the myths and cultures of their ancestors, you get a book like Deserted Cities of the Heart.

When I was a kid, history was the art of memorizing dates—which I was lousy at.  So I thought I hated history.  I was in my 30s before I understood that the French Revolution, which had always been in one compartment, happened in the same half-century as the American Revolution, which had always been in this other compartment.  And that the American Revolution had actually helped inspire the French.  And how very similar ideas about democracy had gone down two wildly divergent paths.

It turned out that I loved history when it dealt with connections and characters and concepts, and I ended up learning about history by writing about it.

At one very basic level, history is important to my writing because I don’t have a lot of imagination.  When you steal from history, you get some really fascinating characters, and you get lots of background and plot and scenery.  It’s your job to make these people convincing, but you get a leg up—at least in confidence—because you know they did exist, and there must have been reasons they did what they did.

Plus, you can find the seeds of everything in the modern world by looking at the past.  You can really see this in some of the short stories—”Gold,” which is about Jean Lafitte, and “White City,” about Nikola Tesla, come to mind.  Lafitte was actually an early, self-taught socialist, and Tesla was the prototype for the scientists who think technology can solve everything.  They provide a great armature for talking about greed, or science, or any other facet of the modern world, because once you put those ideas in a different context, like the past, it lets you see them differently.  This decontextualizing is what the best SF does, but I never had the patience or the skills to do that kind of world building.

Your quoting Glimpses reminds me again what a complex relationship that novel has to the American nostalgic mode.  Shackleford’s initial ventures into the past are escapist, in one sense, but, ultimately, he cannot avoid taking responsibility for what he hears on his journeys into the past.  Were these complications ones you set out to explore in writing the novel, or did they only begin to emerge as you began writing and—to use that language again—began to learn about these people and this world?

Glimpses had kind of a funny history.  I started out to write a mainstream novel about a guy whose father died in a diving “accident” in Mexico, basically what is now the “In Transit” chapter of Glimpses.  I worked on it for a year, but I wasn’t getting much of anywhere—there was something missing.  There wasn’t enough story, or enough weirdness, or something, and I was not excited by it.

So I took a break and started writing a quickie short story about a stereo repairman who could conjure up lost albums.  This I was excited about, and I kept backing up and adding more to the beginning of the story, and it kept getting bigger and bigger, and finally I realized I was going to have to account for why this guy needed to do this so bad, and who he was, etc.  I’m not too bright sometimes and it took like two or three days for me to realize, “Hey, what if his father died in a diving ‘accident’ in Mexico?”

At that point it really took off, and when I caught up to the Cozumel section, it was now interesting to me again.

But yeah, from the start of the short story version I knew it was going to end with Ray not getting what he wanted in terms of finding the music.  I knew that it was totally unhealthy to be that obsessed with the past.  On the other hand, I was being obsessive myself, so part of the reason for writing the short story was to talk myself out of my own obsession.

I’m curious: how did you feel about Shackleford, the character, while you were writing Glimpses?  Now that 15 (give or take) years have passed since the novel’s initial publication, and since we have now cycled through revivals of both the ‘70s and the ‘80s*, do you view Shackleford or that novel any differently?

*What is it Pynchon writes in V?  That, as Americans, we seem particularly susceptible to “a great temporal homesickness for the decade we were born in”?

“A great temporal homesickness for the decade we were born in”… I have that too, but in this case it’s a homesickness for the years you were in high school, which I think is even stronger.  And there was, in fact, something really special about the sixties.  It was one of the only moments in history where the most powerful nations on earth were so prosperous that the national zeitgeist could turn to issues other than basic survival—issues like civil rights and spirituality and art.  Where so many kids had so much money that thousands of bands could spring up across the country.

At the time, I was daring myself to go places I had never been in my fiction before.  I was inspired by a writer named Jonathan Carroll, author of amazing novels like Land of Laughs and After Silence.  There were lots of moments in Carroll’s novels that made me squirm with discomfort—it was the same effect as watching someone break down emotionally in front of a huge crowd of people.  I admired his courage for being able to sacrifice his dignity in the name of honesty, and wondered if I could do that.

To that end I came up with a verbal style for the book that verged on the inarticulate.  I was really going after the cadence of spoken rather than written English.  And I put a lot of intensely personal stuff in there.  I would think of putting something in the book and I would recoil in shame and fear and think, “Oh no, I couldn’t put that in there.”  And I took the very fact that I felt that way as a sign that it had to go in.

There are certainly a lot of differences between Ray and myself—for one thing, Ray is not an artist and not a verbal person.  We have (slightly) different musical tastes.  I was always more of a cynic.  But still, it was very autobiographical, painfully so.

In fact, Glimpses is now my least favorite of my books.  There are a million reasons for that, including the fact that it evokes all these bad memories of my parents.  It evokes my first marriage, which was pretty unhappy at the end.  Lori is largely based on a couple of women, one of whom I had a disastrous love affair with, the other of whom I married and had a disastrous marriage with.  I read the scenes between Ray and Lori now and think, “My god, you idiot, run away.”

And the very things I was trying to achieve now bother me.  I don’t like the style, which seems very obtrusive.  I don’t like the sentimentality.  And while, ultimately, the book makes a point about the dangers of nostalgia, there’s a certain contradiction there, because it makes the point by wallowing in it.  It’s like making a pornographically violent movie to advocate pacifism.  It’s very clear that Ray’s uncontrollable nostalgia is literally killing him by the end of the novel, but I think most readers—and I myself—read those scenes and say, “Okay, let it kill me, I don’t care!  I’m eating soul food with Jimi Hendrix in Harlem!”

Let’s talk a bit more about Black & White, your most recent novel and one for which (I’d wager) you feel a bit more authorial affection.  (Though I feel that Glimpses is also, in part, about the virtues of fandom.)  What motivated you to write Black & White?

I moved to North Carolina in 1996. Within a few weeks of moving here, I got to be friends with the receptionist at the place I was working, Pam Footman.  She was the one who first told me about Hayti.  I immediately recognized that this was a book that needed to be written, and, as usual, I went around looking to see if somebody else had done it so I wouldn’t have to.  No such luck.

The initial stage of a book is like setting up a piece of screen wire in my brain and seeing what gets caught in it.  The story of Hayti is the story of a highway, and that made me think of my Uncle Bob, and his quote about concrete highway embankments being full of dead bodies.  Which led me to a protagonist who was a highway engineer, which led me to memories of my days as an architectural and engineering draftsman, back around 1970.

I get annoyed by some of the books and movies that deal with racism purely as a historical issue.  “Gosh, things sure were nasty back then.  Glad that’s over.”  So it was important to me that the novel not end in the sixties, but show the same racism still going on, just in different ways.  So that meant there had to be a second generation protagonist in the present day.  And that led to the usual father and son issues, but it’s a little different here because Robert, the father, is only ten years older than me.  Michael, the son, is much younger than me.  So that changed the dynamics a good deal.

Anyway, it didn’t take long before the screen wire had enough junk in it that it started looking like a novel.

Could you talk a little more about what was happening / what you were doing / where you were in the decade or so between the publication of Say Goodbye and Black & White?

Mostly I was working on Black & White.  I did a huge amount of research, including skimming through every issue of the Carolina Times, the newspaper that was published in Hayti, between 1964 and 1970.  And I was struggling with the form of the book, and with personal issues, like an ugly divorce.

Plus, I was suffering an attack of this delusion I used to get from time to time that there was some way I could still make a living from writing.  I took time off to write a thriller screenplay called The Next that’s about—wait for it—vampire lawyers.  A natural, right?  Not according to Hollywood.  My protagonist didn’t pack enough fire power and kill enough people to be a real “hero.”

And I went through a phase where I thought I could make Black & White into the first novel of a police procedural series.  I spent a couple of years on that.  But in the end, I don’t like cops, and that proved to be a fatal handicap.

Finally, in 2004, I got laid off from my job at the same time that the screenplay washed out in Hollywood.  I sat down and thought, what would I write if I knew absolutely that it would not get published?  What would I want to write just for its own sake?  And the answer was Black & White, but in its original incarnation, as a literary suspense novel.  It took me five months to find another job, and in that period I got a good running start on a draft of the book that was close to the final form.

There was this perception that Black & White was some sort of “return,” but really, I never left.  I’m just slow.

I want to go back to something you mentioned in your last response, which I think is superb advice for all writers, published and unpublished, seasoned as well as aspiring, traditional, experimental and “popular”: “what would I write if I knew absolutely that it would not get published?  What would I want to write just for its own sake?”  Yes, write that.

If you could unmoor yourself in time and deliver some advice to the young author you were, what might it be?

Honestly, I don’t think there’s anything I could say that would help.  I already understood that I would probably need some skills that I could parlay into a day job.  I could tell myself to give up, that it wasn’t going to work out, but I wouldn’t have listened.  I can’t think of anything I could say that would lead me to anyplace but where I am.

As a kind of belated follow-up to the genre question… and prompted by your mention that Black & White at one time led the life of a police procedural… one of the aspects of your work that has always impressed me is that, while you are definitely a novelist of ideas, you are also not afraid to be a novelist of action as well.  (I’m thinking particularly here of Deserted Cities of the Heart.)  Things happen, there is real, external conflict, there may even be gunfire and explosions, but these elements are just meant to divert the reader until the next “meaningful” (i.e., “literary”) passage.

I don’t think of the action sequences in my books as diversions so much as physical manifestations of the ideas that are in conflict.  In Deserted Cities of the Heart, for example, you’ve got the Fighting 666th, this rogue offshoot of the US Army, you’ve got the Marxist rebels, and you’ve got Eddie as some kind of new age messiah.  How are these ideas going to work themselves out in the real world?  Not by a televised debate, that’s for sure.  If you don’t put Eddie’s ideas to the test in front of live ammo, you’re not being intellectually honest.

Likewise in Black & White, it’s well and good to talk about racism, but it says so much more to be staring down a couple of hundred guys with white hoods and axe handles.  It’s the same debate, but now we’re playing for keeps.  Now you can feel what I’m talking about, not just understand it conceptually.

In that sense, your novels feel very cinematic to me.  Have you been particularly influenced by film?

To me there’s a big difference between the kind of confrontation I was just talking about and your typical car chase in a Hollywood movie, which resolves nothing, reveals nothing, just wastes your time and leaves you right where you were before you started.

I don’t think I’m an especially visual writer.  I try to put myself in the scene, but the details I come away with are as likely to be smells or sounds or physical sensations as they are visual images.

I am probably less of a film fan than anyone I know.  I haven’t been in a movie theater in seven years, go months at a time without even watching a DVD, don’t have cable. On the whole, I’d rather read.  These days my girlfriend and I like to watch movies in Spanish to practice the language, and we’ve seen some great ones, especially from Argentina—El secreto de sus ojos, Hombre mirando al sudeste.  But I hate pretty much everything from Hollywood because it’s so violent and so loud and so predictable.  And that’s just the comedies. [apes Rodney Dangerfield, tugging on his tie]

Back in the early ‘90s I watched some movies with a friend who’s a film student, and he showed me how absolutely everything is telegraphed in advance in a Hollywood movie, by the music, by the characters’ reaction shots, even by the cinematography.  My favorite example is from James Cameron’s Abyss—Cameron is just so Hollywood.  There’s this big moment where the flying saucer is going to come up out of the Abyss.  The camera suddenly pulls back, and here is this tiny guy standing on the edge of the cliff, and you know, beyond any question, that a) the ship is about a second and a half from appearing, and b) it will exactly fit the dimensions of the frame.  No surprises here, everything by the numbers.

Is screenwriting anything you’d be interested in getting into again?

Despite everything I just said, I like writing screenplays.  I like the rigid structure, love that moment when the course of the movie changes at the end of first act.  At one point, when I was still trying to do Black & White as a cop novel, I worked on a screenplay version for a while, just to tighten the structure and figure out the ending.  And it really helped.

So yeah, I’d write a screenplay again, but only if somebody paid me to.  And that’s not likely to happen.  Hollywood and I just don’t see eye to eye.

It’s amazing to me how many aspiring fiction writers seem to give little consideration, as you say, to how ideas will play out in actual interactions and circumstances. Everything is internal to the characters, and, even if the world around them is vivid, it is usually only so in that that world is a reflection of their internal states.

But to turn some attention to states of another sort: of all your novels, Slam seems to me the most grounded in Texas and quintessentially Texan experiences.  Though not a “native Texan,” how important, if at all, was your experience growing up in Dallas in your growth as a writer?

I think it would be hard to find a city with less personality than Dallas.  It was settled in the first place because it was a convenient location to put up a few banks—there’s no natural beauty, and no particular geographic advantage like the port in Houston or the river in Austin.  It’s just a bunch of suburbs, with an architectural style so dull that a friend of mine used to call it “Texas Borax.”  So my stories set in Dallas tend to be about traffic jams and urban sprawl.

I totally agree with you about Slam.  Even though there are regional writers that I love, like Thomas McGuane and Frederick Barthelme, and even though I have dear friends who write books that are very Texan—Joe Lansdale and Neal Barrett and Marshall Terry are obvious examples—Slam was the closest I ever got to a real Texas novel.

If the setting is vivid in Slam, it may be because, unlike Dallas, the Texas coast has so much personality. It muscled its way into the book, like it or not.  But you have to remember that I moved constantly as a kid, an average of once a year.  I was 13 when we first moved to Texas, so even though I “identify as a Texan” for want of any other designation, I’m not a “real” Texan.  Whereas somebody like Joe Lansdale is Texas through and through.  I think he takes a coffin full of Texas dirt with him when he travels so he can sleep in his native soil.

Even though I lived in Dallas for 15 years, it was never home.  When you ask me what the word “home” conjures for me, nothing comes to mind.

The ‘80s and early ‘90s seem, in retrospect, to have been a time during which “regionalism” had some literary cachet.  Like, it might actually have been to a writer’s advantage to be from or based in a place neglected or overlooked or dismissed by a good chunk of the rest of the country.  True, this aesthetic could lead writers into a desperate preciousness, but—and Joe R. Lansdale strikes me as a great example—it could also inspire writers to be much less beholden to any of the rules and pieties associated with “literary fiction.”  Has that been lost as literary culture has continued to be more and more concentrated in large, NY-based publishing houses?  I don’t know.  But it does seem more and more difficult for authors to make a case for certain coordinates having a literary presence, Dallas being one of them.  Yet Dallas is wrapped up, and in complicated ways, with Texas and all its mythos.  Go figure.

I am a native Dallasite, and I’ve set multiple pieces of fiction “here,” but I have no illusions about the place.  Though it has its hidden pockets of weirdness, it can never be as fringe as another place also characterized as plastic, vapid and crawling with those people Dr. Thompson dubbed “greedheads”: Los Angeles.  Which leads me to my next question: could you talk a little about your association with Black Clock—which is both very much connected to the L.A. literary community and national in its ambition / scope—and what your experience has been as a contributor to the magazine?  How did you come to be associated?  What is it like to write for the magazine?

Steve Erickson is the reason I’m involved with Black Clock, plain and simple.  He contacted me when he was planning the second issue, the “lost music” issue, and asked for a story because of Glimpses.  I’d been following his work since Days Between Stations made such a huge impact back in the mid-eighties, so I was really flattered that he knew and liked what I was doing.  I pitched him an idea off the top of my head, about the mysteries around Glenn Miller’s death, and he told me to go for it.  I sent him an email when I started to actually write it and realized that it was going to be really long, like 15,000 words (which is what it turned out to be).  He just said, “No problem.  Write it.”  He had a couple of minor suggestions when I turned it in, which were quite sensible, and didn’t freak out about the length, which is way in excess of what the magazine usually publishes.  I got to read proofs, which is important to me, and the magazine itself looked great, so all in all it was pretty much a perfect experience.  You don’t get a lot of those as a writer.

So when I finished Black & White, I wanted to get some literary credibility for it.  Steve offered to print an excerpt in Black Clock (which he did, as “Wonderland” in issue #8), and it was again a really happy experience.  If I wrote more short fiction, I’d be knocking on the door more often, but my ideas tend to be novel-length these days.

For somebody in my situation, to get the support and encouragement of somebody like Steve is huge, and I can’t thank him enough for the help he’s given me.

As a novelist, how would you describe the health of the novel (as a form) right now?  Where do you see the novel going in the next decade?  And where do you expect to be then?

I expect to be sitting here at this desk, writing away—when I’m not at my day job, which I hope I’ve still got.  My books will all be available through Amazon and through Fiction Liberation Front, and if my body’s willing I’ll still go out dancing once or twice a week. It’s not the future of riches and fame I originally saw for myself, but it’s a future I can live with.  And that’s nothing to sneeze at.

I am so out of touch with any kind of literary establishment, I can’t tell you how healthy the novel is right now, let alone what it’s going to be like in ten years.  Certainly memoirs are all the rage right now, though their appeal is lost on me.  People surf the net and watch TV instead of reading. Critics in the New York Times Book Review regularly trot out all the old postmodern clichés about fiction being irrelevant.

But I believe we need narratives to make sense of our lives and our world.  I know I personally start pining for a good novel if I spend too much of my reading-time on research or other non-fiction.  In the last few weeks I’ve bought brand-new novels from Jane Smiley and Lionel Shriver and Ted Mooney (in hardback, from my neighborhood indie bookstore), so that reassures me that at least for now there’s enough supply to meet my demand.

Ten years from now?  I don’t know what form it’ll be delivered in, but yeah, I think the novel will outlive the people who keep eulogizing it.  I know a good number of people in their 20s and 30s who are passionate about literature, and, even if they have to circulate PDFs in email, or whatever the equivalent is in ten years, they will still want it.

As will I.

Lewis Shiner is the author of six novels, including Glimpses, Black & White, and Deserted Cities of the Heart.  His shorter work has appeared in Black Clock, The Mississippi Review, Southwest Review, The New York Times, and many other publications, and was recently gathered in Collected Stories from Subterranean Press.

by Joe Milazzo
an Assistant Managing Editor of
Black Clock and Director of Community Education and Outreach at The Writer’s Garret in Dallas, whose writing has appeared in Electronic Book Review, Tea Party, In Posse Review, Drunken Boat, Antennae and Black Clock

Literally Rankling

A PUBLIC SERVICE?

Perhaps all literary controversies are minor controversies, but, even on the Lilliputian isle of letters, there are scales and differences in degree to consider.  An excellent case in point: the recent back-and-forth that erupted around author and Gigantic editor Lincoln Michel’s “A New Literary Magazine Ranking” (headline since revised to “A Guide To Literary Magazines”), published at The Faster Times.

Before its subsequent transformation, “A New Literary Magazine Ranking” took the form of a “tiered” guide of serial markets for fiction, with journals taxonomized based on a formula measuring: Pushcarts and other prizes won; circulation figures; whether or not the market actually pays (and if so, how much); and reputation, which Michel tried valiantly but unsuccessfully to subsume under the heading of “buzz.” Why undertake such an effort? To help writers, particularly aspiring writers, increase their chances of getting published.

This is nothing but laudable, and Michel’s piece initially held much promise. Practical applications aside, a coherent, as opposed to vehement, scrupulous and transparent rendering of the Baroque economies of regard, patronage and potlatch and on which literary publishing depends is desperately needed, if “only” for ethical reasons. (Let’s indulge quickly in a bit of early 21st Century nostalgia, before Mo Rocca can start delivering “Foetry” one-liners on VH1’s I Love The Naughties) Unfortunately, via the alchemy of reader feedback, Michel’s piece instead deteriorated, perhaps inevitably, into a soggy morass of injured pride, hurt feelings, and offended palates. “Ranking elimae as high as The American Scholar is pretty funny, and probably a result of the fact that our trusty list-maker has contributed to the former. I declare this list suspect!” Net result: a largely abandoned project.

This is not to say that Michel’s rankings were not without their conceptual flaws.

THERE IS NO ORDER TO THE UNIVERSE

1) Michel’s list was far too indebted to previously assembled rankings (such as John Fox’s), with all the built-in prejudices (prizes as a measure of quality) and limitations (highly localized sense of what qualifies as “recognized”) of the same .

2) Specific weightings for each factor, if employed, were not provided or adequately explained by Michel.  For example, if a journal  showing off multiple Pushcarts and respectable circulation figures nevertheless pays very little, did Michel place that title above a less anthologized publication with a larger subscriber base and a reputation for generous compensation?

3) As several comments on Michel’s original piece point out, not all fiction markets are apples.  Some are oranges, some lemons, some clusters of grapes, some tomatoes (technically fruits, but commonly classified as vegetables) and some creatures as exotic and hothouse-y as the mangosteen.  While from one perspective, it just feels “right” to place The New Yorker at the top of the food chain — for reasons of pay, because the magazine reaches a national audience, and because history has lodged its hefty thumb on the scale — it is not primarily a publisher of literature. Bemoaning the fact that your prose poems based on a critical reading of Whole Foods Market product descriptions weren’t picked up by Esquire is a bit like feeling defeated because your in-depth profile of January Jones wasn’t selected by Ander Monson for the latest issue of Diagram.  The whole notion of “market” seems to be compromised by the presence of established, almost pre-fetishized commodities like The New Yorker, Playboy and The Atlantic alongside sweat equity overachievers such as Fence, N+1 and No Colony.  Michel tries hard in his introduction to prepare readers to be ready to exercise reservations (“Consider first of all your work and where it will fit.”), but a ranking folding in upon itself with as many exceptions and caveats as are opened up in that advice is only offering excuses for its own collapse. The fact that Michel confined his rankings to markets for fiction — traditionally viewed as a more mainstream and ”conservative” form than poetry — can be offered as one excuse for construing kind as degree, but that leads us to…

4) Poetry, anyone? More to the point, creative nonfiction? Hybrid forms?

5) Although Michel does make brief mention of duotrope’s digest, I find it disappointing that he did not make a greater effort towards incorporating the vast amount of information duotrope collects about rejection versus acceptance rates, response times, genres and subgenres, etc. into his own rubric.  With the proper funding — surely there’s a research grant out there for this — Michel could even have augmented duotrope‘s data with information regarding the educational background of journal editors, editorial turnover (especially a factor for journals associated with MFA Writing Programs, which draw much of their staff from student populations who are only affiliated with the publication for 2 to 3 years at a time), appearances by individual authors in multiple issues of each periodical, and so on. This is the kind of information that could be very useful to writers hoping to use Michel’s list to identify likely outlets for their work.  Not to mention that such an aggregation would go a long way towards a presenting a much more comprehensive picture than we’ve ever had of precisely with how much calculated casualness and through such tortured causality literary magazine publishing actually operates.

PUT THAT IN YOUR SPREADSHEET AND SMOKE IT

Ultimately, however, the issue becomes: how much does information like this really inform, and, given the context, how much more valuable is subjective opinion?  On the one hand, the inherently subjective nature of Michel’s exercise does damn it as just that.  On the other hand, literature, like all the arts, thrives on word-of-mouth, shared passions, and, increasingly, a sense of what is hip and what is not.  It is also worth remembering that literature has a contemporary cultural existence not unlike that of endangered species: for its own good, it is restricted to a protected habitat — academia — and is subject to a scrutiny attentive less to the intangible benefits of ensuring its survival and much more interested in recording behaviors… before there are no more behaviors to observe. For good or ill, literary studies are “trending” more and more toward scientific models of scholarship (cf. Franco Moretti; Jonathan Gottschall; Brian Boyd.) Consequently, something like an algebra of submissions feels right, and, if not almost like a corrective, then at least genuinely au courant. Yet there is no comparable calculus of publication.  Each journal has its own bent, and each journal, at least in my experience, approaches each issue as a gestalt, an object to be carefully designed, a form with its own expressions.  The editor’s challenge is not just to pluck the “good” writing out of the slush pile, but to recalibrate what “good” writing is within the aesthetic parameters of the publication itself, which is bigger than any one individual set of proclivities or choices. If you’ve ever been on the wrong end of a rejection letter, you may scoff, but it is true: “no”s can be labored over much more so than “yes”es, which are often caught in the first sort and do not demand to be read again and again until it is time to begin thinking “between the covers.”

But how can one most effectively quantify something that is as inherently qualitative and experiential as publishing? As Michel notes, the oldest advice in this regard is perhaps still the most applicable:

“As always, it is essential to read the journals you are considering submitting to.  Not only to keep abreast of current work, but to understand where your work fits and to support the literary world you want to be a part of.  Really, if you are submitting you should be subscribing to at least one or two journals.”

I don’t believe there is any accident accountable for why this knowledge owes its shape and its sound to the anecdotal.  For isn’t that what knowledge is: the product of living with information, the actual handling and processing of it.  In a similiar fashion, no writing “of publishable quality” can be understood as possessing literary quality based on a word by word analysis.  Michel could just have easily have said, “Look, you have to be more than someone who just writes.”  To which I would add: you have to have done more than purchase all the accessories required for a “literary lifestyle.”  Rather, you must give yourself over to the care and tending of a literary ecology, stooping and shouldering, wasting resources now in order to conserve them later, rotating your crops, learning to recognize the beneficial effects of “pests,” and reconciling yourself to the tragedies associated with the intellectual commons.  In other words: always, you just have to keep on toughing it out.

by Joe Milazzo
an Associate Editor of Black Clock and Director of Community Education and Outreach at The Writer’s Garret in Dallas, whose writing has appeared in Electronic Book Review, Chronometry, Tea Party, In Posse Review, Antennae and Black Clock

Twitterature: When Moby Dick Became The Fail Whale

The microblogging service Twitter has, from it launch in 2006, been a case study in the ability of certain “products” in our new global digital economy have to fascinate with a potent and broad (or wide) allure (and one that cannot be reduced to mere novelty.) In the aftermath of two very different but equally historic elections — one in the United States, the other in Iran — Twitter has been studied and celebrated as a force for social transformation. But the literati, historians in their own right, have been paying attention to what Twitter might mean to their own concerns and pursuits, and in increasing numbers. But Twitter does not resemble conventional publishing in any way other than: 1) it is text-based; 2) it allows for the dissemination of said text to a (presumably) mass audience (latest estimates: 75 million users); 3) all tweets (even those generated by spambots and virtual porn-stars) now have a permanent residence in cultural institutions, thanks to the Library of Congress’s recently announced “Twitter archive.” From another perspective, however, Twitter is a reminder of how strangely mediated and encrusted with ritual and industrial vestige conventional publishing is. Further, Twitter has very little in common with traditional mass media, the scope and frequency of its use aside… but would one really compare the ball-point pen to television? Twitter is a communications technology that is being used by certain media companies and players, but it has much more in common with the postcard, telegraphy, and telephony than it does the newspaper, the novel, the glossy magazine or the independent film. So, perhaps it is that Twitter shapes an experience of language that for certain writers and readers captures better than any book where literature comes from, as well as to which events, subjects and themes literature should lend its voice.

To gain a better sense of how something so simple as a new way of sending short messages might be transforming literature, on March 6, 2010, Black Clock invited 4 individuals well-known for their creative use of Twitter’s mere 140 characters to participate in an e-roundtable on this phenomenon.

The participants:

Phil Gyford (@philgyford): UK-based web-designer; prime mover behind the re-publication of Samuel Pepys’ Diary of 1667 via Twitter, @samuelpepys

Andy Hunter (@ElectricLit): editor of Electric Literature and sponsor / publisher / prime mover behind the Twitter publication of Rick Moody’s short story “Some Contemporary Characters”

Collin Kelley (@CollinKelley): novelist, poet, blogger and co-editor (with Didi Menendez) of the “Twitter Poets” issue of Ocho (#24)

Joe Milazzo (@slowstudies ): author, Associate Editor of Black Clock; editor of the online journal [out of nothing]

Kevin Thom (@kevinthom): Ontario-based photographer and publisher of Twitter-fiction @microprose

1:05 PM

Joe Milazzo: The four of you are all engaged in rather different literary projects involving Twitter. But in the interests of identifying some common ground, could each of you speak to what drew you to want to experiment with Twitter in the first place?

1:07 PM

Phil Gyford: I’d been running http://www.pepysdiary.com/ (the daily entries of a diary from 17th century London) for a few years and was going to start a Twitter feed linking to each day’s entry.

Collin Kelley: I’m a poet, and I wanted to meet other poets on Twitter. I soon realized poets were all trying to find each other, so I started creating a directory of poets using Twitter. I posted that directory on my blog and thousands of people came to my blog to see it.

Phil Gyford: Then I realized it made more sense to post quotes from each diary entry during the relevant day, as if he was Twittering the day’s events in real time.

1:08 PM

Kevin Thom: I was looking to enjoy Twitter in way that was more personal to me than just the average “I’m having breakfast” kind of updates I was seeing. I was inspired by some of the brief and beautiful Tweets I’d seen from friends, and soon found an entire community of microfiction writers. Andy Hunter: We are always looking for ways that literary content can have more reach. Twitter seemed a natural. Rick Moody was interested in how limitations can influence the form of a work. As an author of long sentences, he was interested in the brevity and haiku-like nature of the Tweet.

1:09 PM

Joe Milazzo: Quite a range of interests here… from community building to audience building (which can often be one and the same thing) to pure experimentation to using Twitter as a kind of performance platform.

1:10 PM

Kevin Thom: It was also a way for me to try to translate my photographic style into other media. (Since photography is my day job.)

Collin Kelley: It was a community builder for me. I wanted to help other poets build their following and reach a larger audience. Out of creating the directory, I was asked to co-edit the issue of Ocho (a literary magazine) featuring some of the Twitter poets.

Joe Milazzo: Kevin — so, is it fair to say that Twitter has helped you expand your artistic practice?

1:11 PM

Andy Hunter: I imagine there’s common ground in the form: the limitations of Twitter require an attention to detail, and exactness of language, that suits poets and careful writers of prose, the sentence-obsessed.

Kevin Thom: Yes, definitely. I think all creative outlets can expand each other.

Joe Milazzo: Yes, Twitter seems to me to be, in part, a kind of Oulipian dream-machine

Kevin Thom: I also do long form improvisational comedy in Toronto, and that helps both my writing and my photography.

Phil Gyford: I find it quite satisfying to trim Pepys’ quite verbose sentences down to 140 characters without changing the essential nature of them.

1:12 PM

Joe Milazzo: Or: when inspiration fails, there are always rules, constraints, and conceptual “games” to “play”

Kevin Thom: Phil, it’s fun to edit things to get to their essence. That appeals to me too.

Andy Hunter: I’m not sure what an Oulipian dream-machine is, but I want one.

Kevin Thom: I think Sony makes it.

Collin Kelley: I’m always looking for useful links to news and info. That’s what one of the reasons I use Twitter.

Joe Milazzo: Maybe if Brion Gysin had been hanging out with Raymond Queneau rather than Burroughs…

1:13 PM

Collin Kelley: And most writers I know — poets, fiction, non-fiction — are using Twitter to promote their work and build a network and fan-base.

1:14 PM

Andy Hunter: We mostly use Twitter to distribute links, in our day-to-day use of it. Perhaps because there’s no one auteur, we’re a publisher, not an artist, although of course we are all writers. But I envy you who use it as a creative outlet. For us, it’s a conduit.

Joe Milazzo: The promotional and community-building aspects interest me as well, in the sense that writers in this day and age seem more and more comfortable doing a lot of, for lack of a better term, “public relations” work for themselves. More so than in the past, during which the writer’s reclusiveness and public silence could be inversely proportionate to his / her fame. And there are a lot of eyes on Twitter.

1:15 PM

Kevin Thom: I think that to succeed, all artists need to learn to be comfortable promoting themselves, and get over the concept that it’s somebody else’s job.

1:16 PM

Collin Kelley: Many writers are turned off by “self-promotion,” but we’re at a time now where the only promotion is self-promotion, especially if you self-publish or work with an indie / micro press

Andy Hunter: There are a lot of eyes, but it’s also ephemeral. If someone isn’t logged on, they can easily miss something.

Joe Milazzo: Or perhaps Twitter and other forms of interactive media are profoundly changing what the writing profession is, what it involves… or reminding us that writing has a history as a profession (and not just a craft.)

Kevin Thom: Twitter and Facebook and all other social media make it easier.

1:17 PM

Andy Hunter: Writers who are best at it, like Colson Whitehead (@colsonwhitehead), are not just self-promoting but are creating unique, vital content for the medium.

Joe Milazzo: Maybe Twitter is the 18th Century coffeehouse of the present day… do you all see / notice quite a bit of artistic exchange via Twitter, etc.? Or: how does being on Twitter, as opposed to just Twitter, the interface itself, effect your work?

1:18 PM

Kevin Thom: Twitter, with all its rigidity, imposes a useful framework and structure that ends up creating a form of art all its own.

Phil Gyford: I’m not sure that I have any “artistic exchange”, on Twitter or otherwise :)

Collin Kelley: I interviewed Margaret Atwood a few weeks ago and she likened Twitter to the telegraph. It’s a way to send out vital info and notes. At least it is for her.

Kevin Thom: I liken it to the frame of a photograph, which also imposes a limitation of the entire world in front of the lens.

Andy Hunter: I fear that writers are great procrastinators, so to some extent I am afraid it takes away from their work. Also, all these micro-rewards alter our brain structure and make it harder to think meditatively.

1:20 PM

Collin Kelley: I talked about this on Melissa Broder’s blog last week. http://www.melissabroder.com/2010/richard-hugo-didnt-Twitter/

Joe Milazzo: Well, traditionally, writing has been seen as this solitary activity… but there is also a long tradition of writing that emerges from social — by which I do not mean overly political; rather, something more akin to “literary hanging out” — engagement

Collin Kelley: I think it has much to do with time management

Joe Milazzo: Collin — the responses Melissa received were pretty wide-ranging as well.

1:21 PM

Collin Kelley: Any kind of social networking can be a time-sucker, but you have to be able to turn it off in your brain and get back to the real work.

Andy Hunter: It’s wonderful that it can be an art form. And as such, it has more in common with poetry. As communication, it can be wonderful. But the time spent ruminating on any one Tweet is significantly less than a great line in a printed poem, I think.

Kevin Thom: I don’t consider my own Twitter fiction to be social at all. I write and I put it out there, without any expectation that anyone else will read it. I do interact with other microfiction authors, but it seems separate from the act of writing.

Joe Milazzo: It seems like most writers feel they have to “deal,” cope or otherwise investigate this thing, Twitter, that is happening outside of yet parallel to their interests, but embracing it… that is a whole other matter —

1:22 PM

Joe Milazzo: Kevin, your response prompts me to ask all: how do you expect readers to interact with your various Twitter initiatives? Assuming you have any expectations

Collin Kelley: I think more writers are coming around to social networking. It reminds me of all the literary magazines who said they would never have an online edition or accept work via email. Now they all do.

1:23 PM

Kevin Thom: I don’t really have any expectations about that. I do it because I want to and I can. I get a lot of satisfaction from paring down a feeling or a relationship or a thought to the 140 character limit. If others want to read it, or if they comment, it’s flattering, but not necessary for me.

1:25 PM

Andy Hunter: Kevin, do you worry that these Tweets are lost in time, like tears in the rain (Blade Runner)? When we re-printed the Moody story in our journal, many people responded positively to both their ability to more meaningfully engage with content, and the sense of permanence it has..

Collin Kelley: I don’t have any expectations either. I just try to make the Tweet useful in some way. I like to share links and promote other writers. I can’t stand the whole “I just ate breakfast,” “i just got up,” “i just took a crap.”

Joe Milazzo: Kevin, it seems as if, in some sense, Twitter itself helps to give form to what otherwise might lack shapeliness. That seems consistent with principles very familiar to anyone who works in non-linguistic media, but writers, other than poets, seem less inclined (or perhaps have not been trained so much) to give the power of form to create meaning much consideration.

1:26 PM

Kevin Thom: Andy, they may be lost in time, or in the flood of new content, but I know where to find them again if I want to. Also, they do seem to be a bit ephemeral. The good news is I can make more 😛

Joe Milazzo: Collin — so, Twitter as conventionally used is of little interest to you? How do others feel?

1:27 PM

Collin Kelley: Now that Google is streaming Twitter and making it searchable, I don’t think it’s lost.

Kevin Thom: Joe, definitely to me I enjoy using Twitter to bring form to the formless.

Collin Kelley: I’d like to think that the way I use Twitter is the conventional way.

Phil Gyford: The mundane Tweets are interesting to me if they’re written by people I’m interested in – my friends. Kevin Thom: Sometimes I get a thought while I’m driving or while I’m cooking, and can’t wait to push it into e-reality in a microfiction Tweet.

1:28 PM

Collin Kelley: I don’t even want the mundane from my friends.

Andy Hunter: Who here would want a book published of their best Tweets, and why or why not?

Joe Milazzo: Phil, if Pepys were alive today, do you think he’d be using Twitter? Or would he need, as Andy suggests, a more reflective form (still)?

Kevin Thom: I also have a separate Twitter account I use “traditionally” to promote or socialize.
Joe Milazzo: And, apropos Andy’s question: http://www.Tweetbookz.com/

1:29 PM

Kevin Thom: Andy, I like the concept of a book, but I feel like I need to focus my main creative output on photography, while still enjoying dabbling in things like microfiction.

Phil Gyford: I have no idea. Pepys is only as likely to use it as any top civil servant is. And if he did, it would be very different to the Tweets I’m sending from his secret, personal diary.

Joe Milazzo: Andy, it would have to be a very special kind of book that somehow made a commentary on the Twitter experience itself, and by formal means

Collin Kelley: A book of Tweets — unless it’s flash fiction or haiku — might be boring.

1:30 PM

Collin Kelley: Without the links and interaction, it would just be flat on the page. Literally.

Joe Milazzo: Phil, that is what so interests me about your project, how it seems engaged with all these issues regarding how we now construe what is public and what is private… and those “mundane” Tweets we are all sort of grimacing at here are examples of otherwise private thoughts, sensations, expressions, etc. made public.

Kevin Thom: Collin, there could be a snail-mail address in the book for writing to the author.

1:31 PM

Collin Kelley: LOL, not quite the same

Kevin Thom: Or a carrier pigeon.

Andy Hunter: Certain lines, from certain authors or poems, achieve a life of their own due to some insight, cleverness, or linguistic perfection. Could that happen via Twitter? If a beautiful Tweet happens past, is it remembered a day later?

1:32 PM

Kevin Thom: Certainly!

Collin Kelley: When I co-edited the issue of Ocho, it was about promoting the idea of Twitter. Some of the poems we used were assembled lines. One poet even created a sonnet out of Tweets.

Joe Milazzo: Myself, I think it is important to keep certain writing “native” to Twitter. Rick Moody’s “Some Contemporary Characters” was, for me, about the experience of reading Twitter and trying to keep the thread of the story alive even as one managed other Tweets in one’s queue, etc.

1:33 PM

Joe Milazzo: Twitter, to me, gets increasingly interesting as it ages… I mean, in the context of what Twitter is and how it is all about the present, a Tweet from as recent as October 2009 feels incredibly old to me… it is the archaeological repository (the midden?) of the recent past.

1:34 PM

Collin Kelley: A couple of writers I know have tried to Tweet sections of their book. …entire chapters. It’s a bit hard to follow, but an interesting an idea.

Phil Gyford: I haven’t read much fiction on Twitter to be honest, but when I have it felt like it got in the way of my main use — keeping in touch with friends. So, because the fragments of Twitter fiction are so intermingled with other texts, the contexts different readers bring vary much more than with other forms.

1:35 PM

Collin Kelley: Twitter is entering a new phase. When they start putting up the advertising, I’ll be interested to see how many people it drives away.

Joe Milazzo: Well, Twitter this week just reached its ten billionth Tweet “milestone”… though said Tweet was private / protected and no one really knows what was said… a sign of things to come?

Phil Gyford: If I followed a more varied selection of people – more famous people, more bots, more people writing fiction – Twitter fiction would probably fit in better with my use of it.

Andy Hunter: I think writing has to fit the form. I’m against using Twitter to publish work that was written for a different format. But I’m completely for work that is written for the medium, and especially if it somehow incorporates the social nature of the service as well as its limitations.

1:36 PM

Joe Milazzo: Ten Billionth Tweet source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/Twitter/7375442/Twitter-hits-10-billionth-Tweet.html

Kevin Thom: I think Twitter fiction should be designed and written to match the limitations and advantages of Twitter.

Joe Milazzo: So, when you move expression into and out of Twitter, what transformations — if any — does it undergo? Is something always lost?

Andy Hunter: But Phil, what you are publishing is not “keeping in touch with friends.”

Kevin Thom: To serialize a book through Twitter seems a bit cumbersome.

1:37 PM

Collin Kelley: Kevin, I agree.

Phil Gyford: Andy, yes, I know, and it’s possible I wouldn’t read Pepys if I wasn’t publishing it myself :)

Joe Milazzo: What if — and I believe some writers are doing this — as an author, you Tweeted as one of the characters you had invented?

Joe Milazzo: And, Phil… so is it fair to say your project is as much about your reading experience of Pepys as it is about “sharing” him?

1:38 PM

Phil Gyford: Joe — I’m not sure I understand

Kevin Thom: Joe, I don’t like to put a judgment of “gained” or “lost” on it, because it is just what it is. When it’s done right, it could not be done any other way and still be the same thing.

Collin Kelley: I like what Phil has done with Pepys. It brings new readers to SP’s work and hopefully a reader will want to explore more deeply.

1:39 PM

Andy Hunter: I think Tweeting in-character is a great idea and we’ve been trying to find someone to do it. And I think John Wray (@john_wray) does it, after a fashion, consistently.

Joe Milazzo: Phil — I guess it is a question of how you chose what and when to pull from Pepys’ work for publishing on Twitter. To me, that is as much a record of your reading him as it is anything else.

Kevin Thom: Collin — that’s interesting to me from an improvisational comedy point of view. I used to write the occasional blog entry as a stream of consciousness from a character I’d invented on the spot. It was my way of doing improv online.

1:40 PM

Phil Gyford: Joe — I guess so. But I’m also trying to give a balanced view of Pepys’ life that day. So, a mixture of mundane and more outlandish events.

Joe Milazzo: Andy, I was thinking of John Wray. But I wonder if such a project makes more sense for novelists, who are used to characters taking on lives of their own (after a fashion) than writers in other genres. Phil — so, your project is a kind of digest?

Collin Kelley: There are a couple of people who Tweet in character and do it well: There’s a guy who Tweets as the Gene Hunt character from [the television series] Ashes To Ashes (@genehunt) who is brilliant. And another who Tweets at Carlotta Valdes, the painting from Hitchcock’s Vertigo (@carlotta_valdes).

1:41 PM

Phil Gyford: Joe — Yes, I suppose it is. A “lite” version of the diary entries, but also more real time, so it feels more like he’s living his life alongside your own.

Joe Milazzo: Collin — how do you see poets best taking advantage of the artistic potential of Twitter?

Phil Gyford: Last year I worked on a website for a UK TV drama about teenagers in which the main characters all had active Twitter accounts, e.g.: http://Twitter.com/SimonMisfits.

1:42 PM

Kevin Thom: Phil — that’s cool.

Joe Milazzo: Phil — does Pepys feel more contemporary to you as a consequence of your work on this project?

Phil Gyford: Whoever wrote the Twitters did a good job of keeping in character and expanding them beyond the weekly TV show: http://Twitter.com/nathanmisfits.

Kevin Thom: Phil — it’s a great way to keep the show relevant while it’s between episodes.

1:43 PM

Collin Kelley: Most of the poets I know are looking for opportunities. They want links to submit work, share their upcoming readings. Others are Tweeting haiku and lines of their work. I think it has many potential uses for poets.

Andy Hunter: I hope Twitter might improve writing. I’m a big fan of the ol’ Strunk & White “Omit unnecessary words.” In our slush pile, it seems many still believe adding words (fancy ones, typically) makes you an official writer. Twitter could help people get in the habit of pruning.

Phil Gyford: Joe, I’m not sure about “contemporary”, although some people assume it’s all made-up as they draw very direct parallels between his Tweets and modern-day events!

1:44 PM

Joe Milazzo: Phil, that’s interesting, especially for s a project that also feels to me to be related to augmented reality games and other forms of (unbounded or strictly “unstaged”) performance. And I suppose what you describe is inevitable given the platform itself.

1:45 PM

Phil Gyford: Andy, Interesting that you think Twitter’s brevity could improve writing, and I know what you mean, but in contrast many people have been concerned about teenagers writing in “TXT-speak” because they use it all the time in SMS messages — I’m not sure Twitter will help that!

1:46 PM

Kevin Thom: People complaining about TXT-speak seems as ridiculous to me as people complaining that handwriting doesn’t look like typing. Each way of communicating eventually evolves to fit its medium.

1:47 PM

Collin Kelley: I think you can make a perfectly coherent sentence in a Tweet without resorting to TXT-speak. It’s like poetry — using the least amount of words for maximum effect.

Kevin Thom: That being said, I won’t use TXT-speak, even when sending SMS.

Joe Milazzo: But our language is always changing and adjusting to the realities we create for ourselves… surely the rise of the newspaper, for example, altered the way language was used, and in ways that felt like a diminution or degrading of discourse to those alive at the time.

Andy Hunter: OMG, TXT-speak is like, WTF is happening to the English Language? Last time I spoke with Gary Shteyngart he was writing his next novel in txt speak (not sure if he stuck with it.) He said, “text communication destroying the written word is the ultimate irony.”

Phil Gyford: Of course you can, and you can punctuate and spell properly in texts. But many people, teenagers and older, don’t bother and it’s normal not to. So I’m not sure there’s a case for it helping what we think of as conventional literacy.

1:48 PM

Andy Hunter: I think most serious writers using Twitter won’t use TXT-speak, and I guess that’s who I was thinking of when I spoke of limitations helping people analyze and refine their writing.

Joe Milazzo: TXT-speak communication is “the written word” for many these days.

1:49 PM

Collin Kelley: Tao Lin (@tao_lin) has made a career out of it. He uses it abundantly in his novel

1:51 PM

Andy Hunter: The problem with TXT-speak is it aint pretty. I have no problem with the evolution of language, but loving writing includes fetishization of words. It’s hard to feel that way about acronyms.

1:52 PM

Kevin Thom: I think it’s just a fetishization that is incompatible with the fetishization of regular words.

Joe Milazzo: Well, you could also use Twitter to compose an incredibly long sentence, 140 characters at a time…

Kevin Thom: Like the incompatibility between soft candlelight romance and hard leather and chains.

1:54 PM

Joe Milazzo: Re: the long sentence proposal: my point being, Twitter only “imposes” so much… it is like any constraint; part of the pleasure lies in finding innovative ways to solve or work around it… which leads to my next question… Andy, Collin and Kevin, too, going back to your initial comments about hat you like about Twitter: ee like to say, or pretend, that with respect to a phenomenon as new or unprecedented as Twitter, that “there are no rules” for how it may be used and what significance it may ultimately have. But Twitter has been around for 4 years now, an eternity in online time, and it has a history. Do you feel there any rules in place, really, especially when it comes to Twitter literature?

1:55 PM

Andy Hunter: Rules for Twitter fiction: 1. Write for the medium, don’t just break up a story into 140 character increments.

1:56 PM

Collin Kelley: I don’t think there are any rules, at least none that have become set rules. If there are, someone please share them.

Andy Hunter: 2. Don’t tell anyone it’s fiction.

Kevin Thom: I don’t think there are any rules, like anyone is going to come out of your computer and ban you from Twitter for breaking them, but I think that there are things that could make writing effective for the medium. Andy’s “Rule 1” is one of those things.

1:57 PM

Andy Hunter: 3. End each story with “ROFL”

Collin Kelley: I agree Kevin.

Joe Milazzo: What about LMAO?

Kevin Thom: Those both use valuable letters!

Andy Hunter: 4. Ending a story with ROFLMAO is acceptable but self-aggrandizing.

1:58 PM

Kevin Thom: You may use OMGWTFBBQ! only once in your career.

Andy Hunter: I’m sorry you just used up yours. Or does it occurring in Gchat exempt you?

Joe Milazzo: Seems like overt self-aggrandizement could be interpreted as a commentary on Twitter itself… but who wants to get all meta- at this point?

Kevin Thom: Dammit. There are no exemptions.

1:59 PM

Andy Hunter: I’m going to save mine for a special occasion. I can’t wait.

Joe Milazzo: BBQ is always a special occasion.

Kevin Thom: It’s hard to aggrandize yourself too much in 140 characters, but you could always link to a blog post.

Collin Kelley: Slightly off topic, but does anyone have an opinion about Google’s new Buzz feature?

Kevin Thom: Collin–I don’t know if I’ll ever use it, but it’s cool that it’s there.

2:00 PM

Joe Milazzo: Collin–I’ve not tried it… though the little rainbow speech balloon doo-hickey keeps staring balefully at me as I try desperately to stay current on my correspondence

Kevin Thom: Google needs to find ways to spend all these dollars they’re making! Might as well be developing social media of limited usefulness.

Joe Milazzo: Staring, that is, as if to say: “Don’t you know email is obsolete?”

Phil Gyford: I felt I have enough ways to keep in touch with people for the moment, and didn’t want to spend time figuring another one out and then having to use it.

Andy Hunter: I’m frightened of anything new, at this point. I don’t have any time left for anything new. Leave me alone, Google Buzz! The worst is that if you don’t participate, people think you’re blowing them off.

2:01 PM

Collin Kelley: I’m on it, but not actively using it. I linked my blog to it, so when I post there it updates Buzz.

Joe Milazzo: Collin — you find it useful?

Collin Kelley: Not really. Since half of my email contacts are on Yahoo. LOL.

Kevin Thom: Ha!

Collin Kelley: And some are still on AOL.

Kevin Thom: Wow. I didn’t know there still was an AOL.

2:02 PM

Joe Milazzo: Sarah Silverman (@sarahksilverman) had a pretty funny riff on AOL after the CEO [?] gave her recent TED Talk a less than stellar review.

Collin Kelley: Shockingly, there is.

Kevin Thom: I haven’t received a CD in the mail lately.

Joe Milazzo: Phil’s response prompts me to recall that, well, yes, there are hidden costs in all this. Time is incredibly scarce in the Twitter era, as is attention. It is easier, in some ways, to waste money that either time or attention.

2:03 PM

Kevin Thom: Multitasking is key. Currently, I’m writing microfiction, doing a swimsuit model photo shoot, playing Nintendo DS, cooking a turkey, and participating in this chat. Hook your finger in the bikini waistband and pop the hip out. Oops wrong window.

2:04 PM

Joe Milazzo: Kevin — which to me proposes that human beings are becoming something they’ve never quite been before in their long and very infrequently illustrious history. But at least Twitter adds to that historical record

Collin Kelley: As soon as we’re done with this chat, I’m signing off to work on my book. I’m done with Twitter for today.

Andy Hunter: OMFG MY AOL CD IS FUBAR, WTF? IS THE CEO ON TED? DS? You guys and your acronyms. You’re ruining beautiful language.

Kevin Thom: Yep. We’re different creatures than we were even a few years ago.

Joe Milazzo: Collin — you find it helps to set such rules for yourself?

Andy Hunter: I LOLed at Kevin’s joke.

Collin Kelley: It’s a must.

2:06 PM

Collin Kelley: I could sit on Twitter or Facebook all day. I’m still an Internet junkie, so I have to turn off the Wi-Fi and get my head back into creating.

Joe Milazzo: OK, allow me one last question, please… What next for you all, in terms of your literary work with / within Twitter and / or social media in general?

Andy Hunter: Joe, I think my question is how that will change our brain structures – the brain being plastic, it surely will – and how that will in turn affect our ability to engage with literature.

Kevin Thom: Good point Collin. It’s easy to get sidetracked when there’s an infinite universe of distraction only seconds away.

2:07 PM

Collin Kelley: For National Poetry Month in April, I’m going to publish a new list of Poets on Twitter.

Kevin Thom: Joe, for me, it’s life as usual. I’m going to flow with what makes me feel good and engages my creativity in a way that supports me and my career as a photographer. If it’s Twitter, that’s great. If it’s the next great thing, then I’m on to that.

Phil Gyford: I have a couple more years of Pepys’s Twitters to go.

Collin Kelley: I get emails and DMs on Twitter wanting to know when I’m going to create a new list.

2:08 PM

Joe Milazzo: Andy, I agree, and I think there’s a great, non-science fiction novel yet to be written about how the internet as it came to be and is has changed human subjectivity.

Joe Milazzo: Phil — did you set out on this project with an end date in mind?

2:09 PM

Phil Gyford: I also think there’s some more Twitter scope in a shared fictional workplace I’m involved in http://Twitter.com/pretendoffice (see also its list of “Colleagues”, each by a different real person). And, Joe, there are nearly 9.5 years of Pepys’ daily diary, so that’s the time limit. Nearly there!

Joe Milazzo: Wow.

Phil Gyford: Sadly, Twitter wasn’t around for most of that time.

Joe Milazzo: I’ll be interested to hear your take on it all once its completed.

by Joe Milazzo
an Associate Editor of Black Clock and Director of Community Education and Outreach at The Writer’s Garret in Dallas, whose writing has appeared in Electronic Book Review, Chronometry, Tea Party, In Posse Review, Antennae and Black Clock

Honors For Steve Erickson

Black Clock editor Steve Erickson is one of seven writers to receive an Academy Award in Literature from The American Academy Of Arts And Letters. Additionally, Steve has been named a finalist for an American Society Of Magazine Editors National Magazine Award in Criticism.

In 1941 The American Academy Of Arts And Letters established awards to encourage creative work in the American arts. Now $7500 each, Academy Awards are given annually to artists, writers, composers, and architects. The Awards in Literature are given in recognition of “exceptional accomplishment in any genre.” Past recipients of this honor include David Mamet, William S. Burroughs, David Markson, Rikki Ducornet, Lorrie Moore, and Black Clock contributors William T. Vollmann and Don DeLillo.

The awards will be presented in New York in May at the Academy’s annual Ceremonial. The Academy’s 250 members nominate candidates, and a rotating committee of writers selects winners. This year’s committee members were Philip Levine, Romulus Linney, Rosanna Warren, and Joy Williams.

Co-sponsored by the American Society Of Magazine Editors and the Columbia University Graduate School In Journalism, the National Magazine Award is generally recognized to be the highest (or Pulitzer-like) honor accorded to writers in the magazine industry. Steve has been nominated for three reviews which originally appeared in the Los Angeles Magazine:

“The Next Frontier” [essay on the revived science fiction television serial Battlestar Galactica] (January 2009)

“War Games” [essay on Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker and Armando Iannucci’s In The Loop] (July 2009)

“No Ordinary Fad” [essay on the enduring popularity of The Beatles in the digital age] (September 2009)

Past recipients of the Award in Criticism include James Wood, Adam Gopnik, James Wolcott, Anthony Lane, and Black Clock contributor Tom Carson. Winners of the “Ellie” (named for the the Alexander Calder stabile “Elephant” awarded each winner) will be feted at a gala to be held at Alice Tully Hall in New York on April 22nd.

For a complete listing of this year’s nominee’s, please visit the Magazine Publishers Of America‘s website.

Congratulations Steve.

Black Clock To Tweet New Fiction From Rick Moody

Black Clock will be joining Electric Literature in publishing a major new work of fiction by Rick Moody via Twitter.

The microserialization of Moody’s story will take place on every co-publisher’s Twitter feed from Monday, November 30th through Wednesday, December 2nd.  Tweets will appear every ten minutes from 10 AM until 6:30 PM.

The first story written expressly for Twitter by a major literary author, Rick Moody’s “Some Contemporary Characters” will be tweeted over the course of three days on Black Clock‘s Twitter channel, @BlackClockmag, beginning Monday, November 30th at 10 AM.  Utilizing social media, followers of the story will re-tweet it in real-time, creating a community-based event that promises to break down the conventional barriers separating readers and publishers.

Moody’s story is broken into 153 bursts of 140 characters or less, each clearly labored over with a precision and lyricism that reveals the surprising literary potential of the tweet.  “It really was like writing Haiku,” says Moody, who went head-to-head with the character limitation of Twitter and used it as a source of inspiration.  “Moody has taken something that could be seen as gimmicky– ‘Twitter-fiction’–and created something transcendent,” says Electric Literature‘s Editor, Scott Lindenbaum.

Electric Literature has extended the invitation to co-publish the piece throughout the literary community, framing the event as “A Grassroots Exercise in Participatory ePublishing.”  We are very excited to partner with Electric Literature–themselves publishers of authors (such as Diana Wagman) who have appeared in the pages of Black Clock 10 in this venture.

If you, your publication, or your organization would like to be part of this project, please email editors_at_electricliterature.com.

For more information, please consult this press release.