You are all incredibly insane. Every single last man-jack of you. And you've all taught me something very valuable. This is the very last time I post or discuss or in any way comment on any movement or pseudo-movement or whatever. I'm gonna go write some fiction for the next 10 years, and the hell with everything else.

Love,

JeffV

Hi all,

I realized that the thread of this discussion has taken a considerable turn away from discussing the Interstitial Arts Foundation and its mission and goals (both of which don't seem to be evident to the general public) and our seeming lack of inclusivity to some (but not others). I am not a writer (not seriously anyway, though I have done some). I am more a reader, and someone who has a previous employment history of many years in books and music retail. I am also a regular attendee at Wiscon, but I '"read" Endicott Studio authors before I even knew their was an Endicott Studio and even though many of the founders (Executive Board, Advisory Board, and current Working group) of the Interstital Arts Foundation overlap with the Endicott studio site writers and artists, they do not have total overlap. I think that the main difference is that Endicott Studio (the virtual part anyway) is Terri Windling's Web Site. I have immense respect for Terri Windling (both as an author and artist and as a person). It is her website and she has through the years invited a lot of talented authors and artists and folklorists under her wing, This is her community and like any other caring person with some substantial name recognition, she has lent exposure (or even more exposure) to some like-minded (and like- hearted folks). I have had some personal exposure with quite a few of the Endicott folks and they are (to me) amazingly kind and generous and deeply intelligent and talented and committed people. Now, Endicott Studio does not equal IAF in organization, mission, plans, goals, accomplishments, etc. by a longshot. They are set up differently, have different goals, different methods of organising themselves to accomplish the work at hand. Sometimes that work is easily identifiable. Sometimes it is much more fluid. I can guarantee that IAF has a mission statement, a set of concrete goals with more to come. It is going to be primarilly action oriented. A huge amount of work as gone into the website. We have a discussion forum. Those were two of our initial goals accomplished, as well as the one of becoming established as a not-for-profit organization and applying for a 501(c)3 determination from the IRS.
Despite the aparant fluidity of the topic under discussion when discusing the Interstital "movement" or whatever it seems to be, I can tell you for sure that the Interstitaal Arts Foundation is an organization that is in this for the long haul. And believe me, exclusivity is the very farthest from our aims. Our aim is just the opposite. If like minded people started it, then it was because they knew each other, they knew they could build something from the ground up, and because they honestly knew that they wanted to advance art and music and writing beyond their own. It is way way too much time and money and effort and smarts being invested for just a small closed segment. If that is what they wanted they would have just formed a marketing entity for themselves and they did not do that, nor are they doing that, with this endeavor. Like I said I am only nominally a writer and a musician. I am a reader and a lover of a lot of different types of writing, art, and music. I am an accountant wanting to specialize in not-for-profit . I am the Treasurer of the not-for-profit corporation that is the organizational basis for IAF and I am also on the Advisory Board. If any of you wants to correspond privately (off-list) with me or has any specific questions for the IAF advisory board and working group, and wants me to answer or pass those questions/comments along for an answer, then please write to me at SusanBWestbrook@att.net. One of us will try to get back to you in a timely manner, but be patient, we all have "day jobs" or something eqivalent to one or more of them. Thank you for your time, and we honestly do appreciate your interest and possible future involvement.

Susan

Well, don't feel bad, Keith. I would extend a virtual handshake, but from your comments you don't really know me yet. I suspect you'd be shaking the hand of a virtual impostor. Maybe we'll meet in real life one day and get to know the real persons.

I've been feeling bad for two days that this got so heated.

Trent, it's a shame there's no way to offer a handshake over the Internet, but if we happen to be at the same place at the same time, I owe you one.

Since we've previously established that you're insane, this doesn't surprise me.

Nice weather we're having.

Definitely! 31° and 30 m.p.h. winds.

Perfect bicycling weather.

Touché -- that was a bit snarky (I like that word -- it's almost onomatopeoic in its obnoxious, honking way) and did choose implied insult over attempted clarification.

Ah, well. Nice weather we're having.

The way I see it, when "could not understand how a linking verb works in a grammatically simple sentence" shows up on my screen, we're well into name-calling territory without any help from me. Mine just doesn't come with an innocent look afterward.

Either way, I suspect we're done.

PS Okay, so this "posting at the same time" thing happened again. I think Keith actually answered my "What does it matter?" question with his explanation of greatly valuing reason and logic and feeling a need to promulgate these values as tools for life.

I say we should now all go out for ice cream.

What did I "win," Trent? How can I possibly have "won" anything?

What? No prizes? I was told that, at the very least, the runner up would be awarded some Lovely Parting Gifts (Lee Press-On Nails! Rice-a-Roni -- the San Francisco treat!)

Okay, I'm being snarky again. Sorry. I just think that the gravest error being made here is forgetting perpective: in the long run, what does it really matter if Trent believes that Academia serves a worthy purpose that benefits mankind (which actually is quite possible -- who was it who said that a life unexamined is a life not worth living?) but can't construct a logical argument that clearly illustrates this assertion? He seems very earnest in this belief; he just needs to work on clarity of presentation.

Personally, I look at debating as a means of clarifying my own perspective. If I try to explain my beliefs to someone else and that other person questions them, it forces me to ask myself if I truly understand what I believe. Sometimes, if I'm being honest with myself, I have to alter my view to take into consideration things which I would not have realized were applicable before someone else pointed them out.

On the other side, I can understand some of Trent's frustration. You did resort to name-calling, Keith (e.g. "moron"), which wasn't necessary.

Overall, I think there could have been a lot more distillation of core concepts and assertions and a bit less in the way of inaccurate assumptions of common frames of reference (on both sides, IMHO), but that's just my take on things.

Ah, well. Apparently another potential learning experience is drawing to a close. Be nice if something other than the contents of Jason's fridge were learned, but we'll see.

:)

Jason--obviously my attacks on Trent went past the comfort level at your blog, for which I apologize.

Trent--the reason I feel free to be so blunt with you is that you take reason and logic so unseriously. For me, they aren't just toys for winning debates; they're ways to understand truth, and I am genuinely offended when someone who doesn't understand them apes those who do. The lack of actual arguments in your posts, combined with the preponderance of terms taken from logic, leads me to the conclusion that you are one of those.

If you'd like to make statements of your belief, or of your faith, I have no argument with you. I respect people with the honesty to say they believe something for which there is no proof. It's when someone with so little understanding of what constitutes a logical argument starts "putting on airs" that my claws come out. You have yet to communicate any solid reasoning at all--which is, by coincidence, your favorite thing to say about others.

So. Fruitless? Maybe for you. Not for me. For you, this is fruitless because you can't convince me of anything. For me, it's fruitful, because I get to expose bad reasoning, and because maybe a few newbie writers will be assured that the stuff you complain about writers not doing is, in fact, unnecessary.

I'll pull the claws in. Mostly.

What did I "win," Trent? How can I possibly have "won" anything?

Everything isn't a debate. But if you're going to pretend it is, at least show up with some support for your arguments.

Rachel:

I disagree that the meaning of even this simple a sentence is intuitively obvious without more meaningful context

Exactly!

Keith, you win. I'm tired of empty debate. I'll respond to your comments this time, feel free to continue ad hominems and other fallacies at will. I will read them, but unless you forward any tangible ideas, I see it as a waste of our time.

I'm sure you're a nice guy in person and I honestly wish you the best.

1. You're right. You suggest that thousands of peoples' life work is shit.

2. Explained. Circular.

3. Every game has its rules to ensure fairplay. Debate has them as well, worked out long before you or I came into being. You may want to retake your class in logic (assuming you have since you mentioned it).

4. See fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

5. See fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

6. You wrote, "then worked your way up through 'closed-minded peabrain.' Starting at the end just isn't a good move, tactically speaking." Here you state that one can work from "mildly agitated" at one end to "closed-minded peabrain" at the other. The next sentence states that I started at the wrong end. I assumed that the wrong end was CMPB. You established the end points, not I.

7. Thank you for the spelling. I'm sure you didn't think that it forwards any thought since that would be a non-sequitur.

8. Denying understanding is close kin to the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

9. See fallacy of appeal to ridicule. See also ad hominem and poisoning the well.

10. If I demonstrated I committed no ad hominem, then I demonstrated I could have said no such thing although you did (see point #6 above).

10.5 See fallacy of appeal to popularity or argument by consensus or bandwagonism.

From Trent:

I was upset by this ignorance of what academics do in uncovering meaning that some writers so carefully lay down.

Actually, I believe the core difference of opinion lies not in understanding what academics do, but in the relative value of their dissections to the writing community.

Writers often do not deliberately and consciously set out to Write An Allegory With Specific Symbolic Elements. Sometimes they do. Can these elements exist within a work without the author's conscious intent? Of course they can. Sometimes knowledge of archetypal leitmotifs (sp?) can help provide story arcs and character traits. However, when it comes right down to it, the writer's job is to write, not analyze. Too much analysis results in a story which is stilted and formulaic.


Differing Opinion From Keith:
>>Keith could not understand how a linking verb works in a grammatically simple sentence of the five words "A critic is a reader." I did not want to insult Keith with a review of grammar. <<

[...]
Any of us (even you) knows what "a critic is a reader" means.

Actually, I disagree that the meaning of even this simple a sentence is intuitively obvious without more meaningful context:

Does the "is" in the statement represent an all-inclusive "=" (i.e. All critics are readers = all readers are critics) -- ?

Does the "is" refer to a subset (All critics are readers, but not all readers are critics) -- ?

Is this a specific, esoteric use of the term "reader" (everyone who skims a book may read, but only critics are true Readers, meaning that only they delve into the deeper meaning of the work) -- ?

So, yes, clarification would be helpful.

(Well, I would have been 100, if The Management hadn't butted in. So much for breaking the double digit barrier.)

First of all, yay 100 comments!

Second of all, I'm gonna have to play referee for a moment and ask everyone to go to their corners and take a breather. Though the discussion here is interesting, it has turned into a bit of name-calling, which isn't beneficient for anyone. Please take a moment, logically construct your arguments, and come back out. As compelling as these comments are, I don't want this to devolve into a flame war.

Thank you,
The Management

Boy, can you not read, Trent.

I sure hope you're in your twenties, which gives you plenty of time to actually take a logic class and get therapy for this passive-aggressive problem.

1. suggests that academics are not only destructive in their purpose but that they are literally shit

Read it again. What I suggested is that theory is shit, not that academics are. In that analogy, academics are cats. They eat what a writer gives them and pump out something of no use.

2. Keith was upset at me for not "responding to the ideas" of his argument, and I should have explained that it did not have any ideas

Yes, you should have. Please do explain this. Please remember that explain and assert are not the same thing. This baseless stupidity of yours probably wears your family down so they'll let you think you've won, but I have more free time than they do, and I don't have to live with you. So please, Trent, do explain.

3. In debate, his retort is called the appeal to ridicule

Aha! A debate club boy! No wonder he thinks he knows how to argue! Unfortunately for you, Trent, I'm not debating with you. That changes the rules.

There was no "appeal to ridicule." There was only ridicule itself, and you continue to earn it.

4. I relabeled his assumption that literary theory is shit as prejudicial hate, which I thought might clarify that his argument was circular

Actually, relabeling it "a circular argument" would have clarified that you thought it was circular. Labeling it "prejudicial hate" just clarified that you're incapable of coherent thought.

5. He then mislabeled my calling his statement prejudicial hate as having called him "a close-minded pea-brain" which I never did

Two thoughts on this stupidity:

a. When you do it, it's "relabeling." When I do it, it's "mislabeling.

b. I didn't. Nowhere do I contend that you called me a "closed-minded peabrain."

Again, Trent. Learn to read.

6. if Keith has changed his mind that writers are and have been interested in academia, then none of this argument is necessary.

Look, dimweed. (Is that a relabeling, or a mislabeling?) OF COURSE writers have been interested in academia! Only an ignorant fool would think otherwise!

You're the one who said writers don't pay attention to other fields. I'm the one who said they do. Are you getting a little confused?

7. "I continued to give Keith lead-way

It's "leeway." (Also "non-sequitur.)

8. "If you write for [insert your literary hero here], fine," which is to imply: Please allow people write for whomever they want to write for.

Uh... that was you. It didn't mean anything when you wrote it, and it still doesn't mean anything.

9. Keith could not understand how a linking verb works in a grammatically simple sentence of the five words "A critic is a reader." I did not want to insult Keith with a review of grammar.

Trent, you're a moron.

Any of us (even you) knows what "a critic is a reader" means. What you continuously fail to do is show how the statement itself supports any of your assertions. If your behavior here is indicative of who you really are, you simply do not know how to think. You don't know how to construct an argument, you don't know how to recognize an argument, you don't know how to paint your ideas vividly in the reader's mind, you have no interest in learning anything, and you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

10. There was no intended insult to ANYone. Yet Hannah got defensive. You wholly mischaracterized me

No. She didn't. You have characterized yourself quite clearly. No one here has mischaracterized you.

Why can't we all get along?

Funny how everybody but you does get along.

As they say in AA, Trent: If five people tell you you're drunk--lie down.

Rachel,

I think I see where the misunderstanding has come in. No insult was ever intended. Let me see if I can clarify. You wrote, "You entered the discussion with a reasonable observation regarding how this "interstitial" sort of "movement" has a historical foundation."

In #19, I rather generally suggested it was okay for writers of a common interest to get together: In the genre that would include The Inklings. Earlier there were the "surrealists" or Gertrude Stein's group of the "lost generation." In the nineteenth there were the "Bohemians." I was not discussing any particular validity of interstitial itself except defending its ability to gather under whatever auspices.

However, my discussion veered completely from interstitiality in particular toward academia in general when Keith began maligning academics in #49 as if nothing academics said held any interest for writers (David Moles astutely noted Umberto Eco, for one). My mistake, as I see it now, was only implying Keith's post through the use of the common term "cross-pollination." This came back to haunt me, I guess, since you misunderstood this to be anti-all-writers. However, I clarified what aspect I was referring to, three days later in #63, when I realized that my intended specificity had been read generally. In fact, I see in that post that I was trying to be fair to Keith, acknowledging that academics aren't perfect.

Keith ignores any point I made in his favor and suggests that academics are not only destructive in their purpose but that they are literally shit: "Theorists do to fiction what my cat does to tuna. The main difference is that once in a while, somebody cleans out his litterbox."

I was upset by this ignorance of what academics do in uncovering meaning that some writers so carefully lay down. In debate, his retort is called the appeal to ridicule, which is a fallacy that breaks down to "Argument A is shitty; therefore, it's not a good argument." This is dolled-up circular reasoning: bad is bad.

Keith was upset at me for not "responding to the ideas" of his argument, and I should have explained that it did not have any ideas. Instead, I relabeled his assumption that literary theory is shit as prejudicial hate, which I thought might clarify that his argument was circular.

He then mislabeled my calling his statement prejudicial hate as having called him "a close-minded pea-brain" which I never did. I never attacked his person, but his argument. Through this mislabeling, Keith then felt justified to lay into me with the ad hominem attacks. I have still not attacked Keith as a person.

He seems to disagree with his earlier claim that writers don't pay attention to the fields of academia with "all I see are Trent making ignorant claims ("writers don't pay attention to other fields")." So if Keith has changed his mind that writers are and have been interested in academia, then none of this argument is necessary.

He also assumed that a qualified statement signifies a statement of reality, but if/then statements are inherently suppositions designed to play out scenarios. "If you write for [insert your literary hero here], fine," which is to imply: Please allow people write for whomever they want to write for.

Despite Keith's escalated vulgarity ("Trent pulling faux-logical statements out of his ass"), I continued to give Keith lead-way. I tried to grant points to his logic (you will not find that anywhere in his argument except as sarcasm) and mediate, asking for time to write up an article how academics work. There's absolutely no insult in this. As I pointed out before, it's difficult for even experts to keep up in any one field due to the speed of doubling information.

Despite Keith's continuing his plethora of colorful insults, I tried to exit the conversation feeling it unproductive. Keith could not understand how a linking verb works in a grammatically simple sentence of the five words "A critic is a reader." I did not want to insult Keith with a review of grammar.

But I was shocked by Hannah's insult of a writing style. She seemed so nice in her journal and on other threads, so I kept my reply completely innocuous, explaining that this was style, not academia. There was no intended insult to ANYone. Yet Hannah got defensive. You wholly mischaracterized me with "Since you don't agree with me, you must be stupid/biased/incapable of rational thought," which I never, never, never said. I have not yet attacked anyone's person! You may have thought I had because Keith suggested I have, but if you look over the posts, you will see that I never did.

Why can't we play nicely? Or my favorite and most apropos, "Why can't we all get along?"

I didn't ask "more what," Trent. I asked "more than what?"

You're absolutely right. Many people do not know how to read.

Trent,

1. I, personally, don't have a problem with the concept of "an idea of an idea" in that I define the phrase as similar to differentiating between the map and the territory, an often worthwhile distinction to make.

2. My comment regarding having a negative reaction to those who seem to interpret disagreement (which, for that matter, also includes observations of apparently deliberate obfuscation, i.e. using jargon and increasingly abstract language when one's meaning is unclear in what appears to be an attempt to baffle 'em with bullshit rather than clarify one's points) was, in fact, directed at you.

You entered the discussion with a reasonable observation regarding how this "interstitial" sort of "movement" has a historical foundation. Unfortunately, you later made what is, in essence, a blanket accusation of, "Writers used to be hip to what was happening in other fields--philosophy, psychology, etc.--but now they're mostly into their own field. Cross-pollination has produced some glorious results. Perhaps the dead end of post-modernism put a stop to that."

Not only was this presented as fact, not opinion, with zero substantiation, but it was very rude. Keep in mind that a good portion of this blog's audience is made up of writers, and you just personally insulted a whole bunch of people whom you don't even know. If you will note, it was at this point that people started taking exception to your comments.

Instead of acknowledging that your statement was too broad and clarifying the parameters, you seem to have tried to get all high'n'mighty with us, because obviously we aren't capable of understanding such erudite matters as occupy loftier minds. This, also, is an insult, and not helping your case.

3. In some ways, you may have a point that the distance provided by the internet may contribute towards cruelty. At the same time, the written word (especially in debates) should be held to a certain level of quality greater than that of, say, the off-the-cuff spoken word. If that quality is found lacking, then clarification should be sought and provided.

4. The Warrior's Soda comment was merely a geeky Star Trek reference.


"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
-- Jospeh Joubert (1784-1834)

PS Hey! We're approaching 100!

Rachel,

Are you characterizing Keith's arguments? someone else's? I'll let them defend themselves, but I do try to be as fair and affable as possible, yet I find there is a bit of relish here in being catty or witty at someone else's expense, without advancing the debate. For instance, I could have ridiculed Keith's ironically written "If you can't say it simple English, Trent, you don't understand it," but what advantage would that give me? I would not have advanced an argument, but merely ridiculed someone else's. Destruction is not the same construction. We realize this with physical objects, but struggle with it when it comes to arguments.

I did not elaborate upon "idea of an idea" because it seemed self-evident to me, but perhaps people are unfamiliar with the permutations of the meaning of the word "idea." "Idea" connotes and denotes not the actual but a construct, i.e. from Webster's dictionary definition: "an indefinite or unformed conception." Even in the first and primary definition, we understand that an idea exists in the mind and is, therefore, inherently falliable (unless someone here believes the human mind is unfalliable, which is an entirely different argument). It also connotes "an opinion, a thought especially one not well established by evidence" [from Century Dictionary which is similar to Webster's Unabridged: "A groundless supposition, a fantasy."] Plato picked up on "idea" as the semblance of reality (although he thought an idea to be more perfect--but still the "idea" differs from the reality). Baudrillard would think, more accurately in my mind (haha), of the idea as a copy or mutation of the original--perhaps striving to be more perfect as Plato would have it, or perhaps striving to be more falliable as an opponent to the "idea" might have it.

I take no "high road" with academia. I pointed out flaws (reading too much into circumstantial evidence), but I also pointed out strengths (being able to read depth into a text). I will try to elaborate further in an article. Reading, as defind by academia or literary writers, takes a good deal of self-training and many people could do it if they were willing to try. This intended fairness toward academia and this hope for the education of all peoples is inherently egalitarian and not the "high road."

I often wonder if internet allows us to be more cruel to one another because we don't have to see the face we're cruel to.

Hannah,

Since you're familiar with philosophy, you will recognize "I'm a philosophy major, Trent. Ideas and arguments are what I do" as a non-sequitor to my statement that what I wrote had to do with style and not academics. You may also recognize the fallacy of the appeal to authority.

So, Keith, unless you're posting those philosophy steps for Hannah, it too is a non-sequitor--apropos of nothing to my statement regarding style. Re: "more what?", more thought. Ponder is a synonym for thought--that is, as synonymous as any pair of words.

(And by the way, does anyone know what became of my copy of The Book of Imaginary Beings?)

I’m flashing on Borges’ partial translation of the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Recognitions here.

But maybe that’s because I just finished reading Umberto Eco’s Serendipities: Language and Lunacy and now every arbitrary list resembles a fly from a distance.

*cackle*

Mmm, nice and toasty brains....

Dr. Pepper: A Warrior's Soda

Oh man, the link in the seventh step made me almost fall out of my chair. I like the BWAHAHA (Brain Wrinkles And Hollows And Hilly Areas) Scale.

Rachel, I agree that Dr. Pepper tastes a lot like carbonated prune juice (though I hadn't really thought of it that way until you mentioned it), which is why I like the diet stuff, which isn't nearly as syrupy.

"Among the first steps..."

THE FIRST SEVEN STEPS OF PHILOSOPHY
for Trent

The first step of philosophy is long words of Latinate derivation.

The second step of philosophy is ash dropping from your unfiltered Gauloise into your Tim Horton's cafe mocha.

The third step of philosophy is down at the end of Lonely Street, the Heartbreak Hotel.

The fourth step of philosophy is difficult if you started on the left foot, because now you have to shift your weight while moving your partner into a reverse grapevine.

The fifth step of philosophy is crucial.

The sixth step of philosophy used to be in the living room. Your spouse might know where it is now.

The seventh step of philosophy is a double-edged squash. (c.f. Baudelaire, in re: large volumes of occluded hydrogen in palladium. See also Project Ernestine--modeled behavior in a telephone operator task; also Starch/Iron Efficacy in Brain Flattening.)

There's nothing wrong with Dr. Pepper, as long as you like carbonated prune juice. (It's my husband's beverage of choice. Me, if I do soda, it's usually a Hansens or root beer.)


>>It does take a little more to ponder when you're not used to it. <<

More than what?

Wrong question. I believe the full sentence should read, "It does take more illicit hallucinogenics to ponder when you're not used to it."

Okay, so I'm being catty. I have a negative reaction to people whose argument seems to revolve around, "Since you don't agree with me, you must be stupid/biased/incapable of rational thought." Y'know, sometimes people don't agree with you because you haven't made you point clearly, and sometimes they don't agree with you because they really do think you're mistaken. QED.

I'm a philosophy major, Trent. Ideas and arguments are what I do.

Among the first steps are making clear exactly what you're arguing and defining your terms. Not quite as much fun as the old ad hominem attack, but hey, we try our best.

It does take a little more to ponder when you're not used to it.

More than what?

Hannah,

It's less academic than literary style, ala Samuel Beckett, Donald Barthelme, Joyce Carol Oates, Wallace Stevens, Jorge Luis Borges, A. R. Ammons, etc. Philosophers, like Baudrillard who want a little more style, often employ it as well. It isn't for everybody. It does take a little more to ponder when you're not used to it.

>YOU have not responded to ideas but to your idea of an idea.

Can I just say that this is exactly the sort of academic thing that makes me twitch and shudder and cry?

I loff school very much. But idea of an idea? Gack!

That out of the way...is there anything that _doesn't_ taste better than regular Dr. Pepper? Diet Pepsi, maybe. But other than that?

A found a guy on the web who calls himself an "interstitial specialist."

Myself, I demand that I am an antimanifestoist.

I don't drink a lot of diet drinks, because aspartame (sugar substitute) is supposedly bad for you, but I sincerely believe Diet Dr. Pepper tastes better than the real thing.

"Acute Fruitlessness" sounds like a disease guide entry.

Perhaps you should see a specialist about that.


Diet. Ugh. The only "diet" drink I ingest is water.

I think Trent's taking the high road because of my acute fruitlessness.

Yeah, I'm guessing the combatants have taken the discussion elsewhere, or have decided to stop and fight another day.

And hell yeah, Diet Dr Pepper. I love that stuff; it tastes even better than the regular soda, and doesn't weigh me down with syrup. Or give me the shakes, which too much sugar causes in me. Feel free to bring your own drinks to the next BBQ.

Have fun with your socks.

And woo hoo! Eighty comments!

Uh huh. Diet Dr. Pepper?

Gee, looks like it's starting to quiet down around here. Thanks for the offer, but will you look at the time? I think I need to go reorganize my sock drawer or something.

Let me know when you're having a BBQ. I'll bring my own drinks.

Yep, got some 2-liters of Pepsi Twist and Diet Dr Pepper. Plus some coconut rum that's been in there for almost a year, and also one more bottle of Bacardi O₃. Help yourself. The snacks you'll have to provide.

This is all Rachel's fault.

Yes, sorry; I'm such a rabble rouser.

I think the "academic" part came in when we started differentiating between

1. discussions of writing with the goal of improving future writing, and

2. discussions (and meta-discussions) of writing that serve to dissect, analyze, categorize and label without necessarily bettering the writing itself (thus becoming "academic".)

Popcorn -- ? Jason, do you have any soda in the fridge?

Yeah, that's why I clarified that I meant "reviewers." I didn't see any other reason for Trent to have split "critics" out from "literary academics."

Actually, I think we're still on topic here. One of the aspects of this discussion was the role of IAF in academics and how that relates to the real world, as far as book sales, IA anthologies, etc. are concerned.

And Keith, I would make the distinction between a book reviewer and critic. You're right about the reviewer, he's there basically to help sell books, or warn people away from them, but the review only tends to skate the surface of the text being reviewed. I say this as a staff reviewer for GMR; I don't analyze the text for different themes or motifs, but mostly just say what I liked about it. I do try to offer a little insight, but I usually don't delve into the story, and I don't give away the ending.

A critic is someone who analyzes the text, not just telling what was good or interesting about the story, but why. Themes are discussed at length, as well as the many other fundamentals that we as writers usually work with on instinct. They're there to illuminate some aspect of the work, and how it might possibly apply to some bigger issue. This is what the IA discussion has been about so far, and what academics in general is about.

David,

It stopped being about interstitiality somewhere around post 58. This is all Rachel's fault.

I think I got lost somewhere along the way. How does academia figure into this? I’ve looked at the IAF “Who’s Who” page, and every name I recognize is the name of a working writer and/or editor.

If you can't say it simple English, Trent, you don't understand it. And you still haven't begun to answer what literary theory is any good for. Clever insults are fun, but they don't disguise a lack of answers.

"A critic is a reader."

That's not an argument, Trent. That's a thesis statement.

" I don't tend to repeat myself when I think an answer is self-evident although I did answer [first implicitly through questioning i.e. 'What do you think a critic is?', then explicitly] that the literary critic is a reader."

How does either of these answer my question, which was: "What recent developments in other fields do you think authors are supposed to be injecting into our work that we're not currently injecting?"

"I demonstrated that you had judged before you knew what to judge"

I think it's unlikely that you simply do not understand the words "argument" and "demonstration." My conclusion, therefore, is that you care more about trying to annoy me than about taking any kind of real stand for your beliefs or trying to understand any truth. While it is true that the world is brimming with people who would love to see me annoyed, the unfortunate upshot is that I still don't see any reason to accept anything you say, since you still have failed to support any of your statements.

You say things like "writers owe academics much." Sounds nice. What do writers owe academics? You say things like "men and women bravely battling time to let writers' texts breathe in an age distant from hence," which is both dreadful writing and entirely vague. (And also probably not true, after Project Gutenberg and whatever similar projects are out there.)

If you cannot explain it in simple English, Trent, you do not understand it. Make all the coy comments about abstraction that you want--the truth is that every person here is an intelligent, interested human being, and every person here is capable of abstraction. Even me. What you are apparently not capable of, since you've done everything but hold your breath and turn blue to avoid it, is the presentation of an argument that clearly supports these airy pronouncements of yours, without self-aggrandizing bullshit, with compelling evidence. The reason I'm not buying is that you haven't even shown me your wares yet. All I've seen is a bill of lading. So where are the goods?

I have not supported some of my own statements about academics. However, I'm also not pretending my statements of opinion are "arguments." I'm quite comfortable with them being what they are, which are statements of my hard-won beliefs. They don't need any more dolling up; unlike many of the soft-science academics I've encountered lately, I don't have hard science envy.

What are literary academics and critics good for, Trent, if I'm a fiction writer? If you can't answer this clearly, without jargon, and without catty swipes, then you do not know.

It's only fair that I answer my own question clearly and without jargon. In the context of fiction writing:

1. Literary academics are mostly good for training more literary academics. They're also good for keeping themselves employed, for screwing up impressionable writers, and, occasionally, for saying something that somebody besides another academic finds interesting.

2. Critics (which I'll take to mean reviewers) are good for selling more copies of books they like.

You are successfully dodging questions, and you are successfully coming up with pretty decent catty insults, for which I congratulate you. Unfortunately for me, you are not successfully saying anything.

Keith,

"Show me some really good literary theory that will change how I do something."

This is your best question, so far. Any disection of a good work of literature should provide this. Some academics may have a theory that they support with texts, but I believe you should come up with a theory AFTER the evidence of the texts presents itself as good scientists do in their field to remove personal bias as much as possible, which is what I try to do in my reviews. See more below astericks.



"you will do me the courtesy of showing me to an example of one of your well-supported logical arguments."

A critic is a reader.



"all I see are Trent making ignorant claims ("writers don't pay attention to other fields")"

Within the context of our argument [academics], they often don't today.



"Trent ceasing to respond when he realizes he has no support for his ignorant claims (I asked what you want to see in writers' work from other fields; you never answered)"

I don't tend to repeat myself when I think an answer is self-evident although I did answer [first implicitly through questioning i.e. "What do you think a critic is?", then explicitly] that the literary critic is a reader.


"Trent getting mad and calling names when faced with someone who doesn't bow to Trent's superior intellect ("prejudicial hate")"

That isn't calling you a name. I demonstrated that you had judged before you knew what to judge (you later thoughtfully asked about what a literary theory does (top question)). Perhaps "hate" is too harsh. Does "animosity" have less edge for you? If you are upset, I do apologize.



"Trent pulling faux-logical statements out of his ass ("which means you have no argument") when he has yet to present anything resembling an argument himself."

You may have this mixed up.


***


Allow me to write up an article on how to read. I don't mean to be in a pedantic See-Spot-Run! way, but in a deeper way. For the most part, I believe many intelligent people are semi-elitist for not explaining to a wider audience how it is done. Only one-third of human beings (possibly less in less educated countries) know how to abstract concepts. I suspect the number could be far higher if we took the time to educate people. But when many people want to feel special, they sadly tear other people down to do so.

Honestly, I don't want to do that with you, Keith. I just don't think this discussion is fruitful, which is why I may not respond in the future. I will write that article up, find an online publisher (I had intended to write this earlier for Gabe Chouinard's s1ngularity but he's had financial troubles), and then we can discuss the matter further on equal footing.

Best to you,

Trent

You know, I really hate it when conversations take this kind of turn, even if I'm helping, and even if I mean everything I say.

So here's my suggestion. If it's really that important to you that I think highly of literary theorists and academics--and I don't really know why anyone should care either way what I think of them--then give me some reason to agree with you. Show me some really good literary theory that will change how I do something.

Trent,

My sincere apologies for mistaking your solidly constructed logical arguments for vague, unsupported insistences, and therefore not feeling they were worth responding to. I can see how frustrating that must be, and how it could provoke such a logical guy as yourself to name-calling. My bad.

I hope you will do me the courtesy of showing me to an example of one of your well-supported logical arguments. Apparently, they all appear on this very page, which should make referencing them easy.

It's clearly my own shortcoming--but all I see are Trent making ignorant claims ("writers don't pay attention to other fields"), Trent ceasing to respond when he realizes he has no support for his ignorant claims (I asked what you want to see in writers' work from other fields; you never answered), Trent getting mad and calling names when faced with someone who doesn't bow to Trent's superior intellect ("prejudicial hate"), and Trent pulling faux-logical statements out of his ass ("which means you have no argument") when he has yet to present anything resembling an argument himself.

As I'm sure Trent knows, a statement, no matter how deeply believed, is not an argument. I'm sure Trent learned this in his Logic class, just like I did.

However, I only see what I want to see, so I'm almost certainly wrong about this. Please, for my own self-improvement and personal development, help me see with new eyes. Show me Trent's cohesive, supported, well-reasoned arguments, and I will respond in kind, with apologies for failing to do so previously. Please be sure to confine yourself to simply redirecting my attention to arguments that already exist on this page. Making up new ones would just confuse me.

For the moment, I'll ignore the rest of your post, in which you explain to me who I write for. We can return to that later if you'd like.

Keith,

YOU have not responded to ideas but to your idea of an idea. I responded that an academic or theorist is as much a reader as anyone else, but you slap labels on them.

I'm just defending academics, of whom you have no knowledge yet pretend as though you do. This is called prejudice.

Write as you wish. If your ideal reader is Danielle Steel or Harold Robbins, fine. But why do you foam at the mouth if mine is Tolstoy or Steinbeck? Everyone writes toward an ideal. If I write for a cat, so do you. The true difference is that my cat can be transformed into a human being while a non academic cat takes it in and lets it back out of one hole or another. If that isn't the kind of cat you write for, then you write for academics, too.

Oo! Oo! Who's got the popcorn?

[flops on the sofa, props her feet on the table and settles in to watch the slugfest]

As long as you give a shit what critics and academics think of you, Trent, you're screwed before you even pick up a pen.

I'm trying to imagine an argument in which, rather than respond to the ideas, I would call the other person prejudicial and hateful. I think it would be if they outthought me and pushed my buttons. I would be especially provoked if at some level, I thought they were right.

That being said, the problem with accusing me of "prejudicial hate" is twofold:

1. It leaves you no headroom. You can't escalate from there if I manage to brilliantly parry the awkward thrust. You should have started by calling me "mildly agitated," and then worked your way up through "closed-minded peabrain." Starting at the end just isn't a good move, tactically speaking.

2. It's a silly accusation, since nothing I've said evidences prejudice, and I feel no hatred for anyone. Exasperation, disgust, and irritation, yes. Prejudice and hate, well... let's just say you clearly have no idea what prejudice and hate really are, or you wouldn't sling the words around quite so easily.

Myself, I think you're an easily-provoked narcissist.

Which has the twin advantage of being true and leaving me plenty of headroom. Your turn.

Keith,

What do you think a critic is?

Your prejudicial hate blinds you to the obvious. Your retorts are reduced to ridicule, which means you have no argument.

Trent

Trent,

I think caring about "ages distant from hence" is just another form of wanting approval from the cool kids. It certainly doesn't help my writing as much as "always try to do my best" does.

There are two people in the writer/reader relationship. One is the writer. The other is the reader. Theorists do to fiction what my cat does to tuna. The main difference is that once in a while, somebody cleans out his litterbox.

Keith,

My aim was to defend academics. The mistake that academics do make is creating evidence of something where there is none, turning car into phallic symbol and mousehole into vagina. The author could have consciously or subconsciously put these things into the text, but everything has to point to it. Certain academics, who seek only publication or further a set of polemics that has nothing to do with the work they purport to represent with their articles, do irritate the hell out of me.

However, academics are also the monks of the middle ages. These are the men and women bravely battling time to let writers' texts breathe in an age distant from hence. Writers owe academics much. Writers tend to malign them unfairly, so I want to make sure academics are fairly represented.

Some writers write shallowly and are up to nothing and cannot be said to be said to be up to anything with texts that lie inert and flat on the page, which is fine but certainly unworthy of maintaining its permanence to a later generation who might roll their eyes at its sheer tedium.

Writers have worked with literary theorists and often become literary theorists themselves, especially the more important ones. For an academic to codify what writers are doing is way cool and flattering for any writer. I'd be tickled if some academic ever discovered what I was up to, consciously or subconsciously.

Writers should not only pay attention to academics (warily) but also petition congress for Academic day and wear pins that say, "Hug an academic!"

Trent,

Won't find much of *what* in *what* writing? This kind of conversation gets very easily stuck in the abstract.

Developments in other fields have only limited story value to anyone but science fiction writers. Most of us are trying to understand and work with the basic stuff that makes people human, which hasn't changed in thousands of years, and with the pressures created by culture. Obviously advances in science and technology go arm-in-arm with cultural changes, but an understanding of, say, string theory is not required if the goal is to write a novel about what it is to be human in 2003. I'd go so far as to say that in most cases, trying to shoehorn it in there will just mess up the story. You may end up with something that a theorist can talk about, but that's not necessarily the same thing as writing a good story.

I'm not quite understanding what, exactly, you think is missing.

I agree with you about postmodernism to a large extent. I take shots at it whenever possible, and think it's mostly crap. I think postmodern literary theory is all crap, at least what I've read of it. (But I also think most non-postmodern literary theory is crap, too. Some things transcend genre.)

However, I also think that if I were to say, for instance, that music is any organized sound, not excluding that which is organized only in the mind of a single listener, I'm making sense. If I notice three factory machines pounding metal in interesting syncopations, and I tap my foot, what could it be besides music, and what composer could possibly exist but me?

Still, that's a tangent. What recent developments in other fields do you think authors are supposed to be injecting into our work that we're not currently injecting? I've seen very few that might change anything for the non-science-fiction novelist.

Keith,

To be fair, it may have something to do with the speed of information doubling

I've got to read Vandermeer's work yet, but the main thrust of Postmodernism--in its original form--put the thought out of the art and into the reader. In other words, the art left the art and went into the critic. It was a dead end spiralling to meaninglessness. Go read Gordon Lish.

Now Gordon Lish and Postmodernism have cool effects. My aim for the anthology was to marry some PM to the high art of modernism. I'm not sure how close it will approach, but it's an experiment, so what the hell. It's actually changed focus somewhat since I originally conceived it, anyway.

The Simpsons is rather loosely slapped a PM label. Ideologically, it is not PM except as a concept and pop culture references. I hear the quality has improved lately, but for awhile it became a parody of itself. A walking, talking skeleton poster child for PM dysfunction.

In science, one of the important questions to ask before publication is "How does this affect the field? Does it say anything new?" and a lot of postmodernism was an empty Cheerios box and left the Cheerios up to you. This makes the reader the artist, in my opinion, not the creator.

Of course, not all traditionally labeled postmodernists are ideologically postmodern--Donald Barthelme, for one. This is what makes Barthelme so damn cool.

Keith,

No doubt writers are interested in many things, but you won't find much of it in the writing.

That's a good article, Rachel; I like all of Toby's "Joe Blow Neopro" topics.

My question to Trent would be: what do you consider the dead-end of postmodernism? Is it that you think postmodernism is dead? Because I can site The Simpsons and City of Saints and Madmen (and the POV shifting in Veniss Underground) as very much keeping the pomo tradition alive. Or is it that you feel postmodernism has had negative effects on other branches of literature?

Just wanted to take the opportunity to link to Tobias Buckell's bit on Original Source Inspiration:

http://tobiasbuckell.blogs.com/bibliography/2003/10/joe_blow_neopro_1.html

I have no objection to cross-pollination. My whole career is built on it.

My objection is to academic wankery.

Why do you think writers aren't "hip to what's happening in other fields?" The ones I hang out with are intensely interested in just about everything.

Keith,

Writers used to be hip to what was happening in other fields--philosophy, psychology, etc.--but now they're mostly into their own field. Cross-pollination has produced some glorious results. Perhaps the dead end of post-modernism put a stop to that.

No prob, David. Laughter heals.

And Rachel, how about webmastrex? Though that also has a tinge of the dominatrix in it.

Anything I can do, Jason. Sorry about the whiplash. :)

re: gender titles

I prefer "webmaster" over "webmistress" because the latter makes me think of either an Amish housewife or leatherclad dominatrix with a spider fetish. Not that I have anything against either of those; they just don't fit most of my clients' sites.

You got it, my liege. King Mary Anne.

And hey, Pat Wrede was one of my Clarion instructors. A bunch of us from my class got together with her at WFC and had overpriced salads at a really slow bar-and-grille. I'll have to check out that book.

For the record, I prefer King. :-) See Patricia Wrede's Dealing with Dragons for an explanation. Also for a very fun read.

Interesting theory, Keith.

And holy crap, this is the 50th comment on this topic, a new all-time record for my journal. Wow.

If the IAF was established for purely academic reasons, why promote it at WisCon and WFC, where the majority of attendents are non-academics?

I've noticed that academics often think actual practitioners will find their (the academics') ideas so fascinating that they (the practitioners) will immediately want to do actual things with them (the academics' ideas).

They usually call it something like "cross-pollination of ideas," and believe it has the power to catalyze a renaissance. A year or two later, they (the academics) give up and move on to something else after the artists fail to come up with the amazing sea change the amazing theory was destined to create.

Exactly, Mary Anne, which is why I'm waiting for the big fat website next month. Looking at the Night Shade discussion, I'm still not sure my questions will be answered, but they could surprise me. And I agree: you are king. Or queen. Whatever. Master of the space-time continuum, maybe. Or would it be mistress? My head hurts.

And David, I got Mieville-whiplash with that post. I would sue you, but I'm laughing too hard.

What David said.

(Especially the bit about the scar, erm, I meant the aquatic beast :-)

Mary Anne is king; we all know that. :)

Jason wrote: But from everything I’ve seen and heard, IA is not just about community. There's a grander ambition here, Something Big. The problem I’m seeing is, what is this Something Big?

They’re going to summon a gigantic aquatic beast from another plane, chain it to the bottom of the IAF, and use it to drag us all into a probabilistic rift in space-time, simply to further their own selfish will to power.

Seriously — I wasn’t (to my abiding regret) at WFC; I haven’t been to any of the panels; and I haven’t really paid much attention to the IAF. But if it is just a talking shop, then as long as it remains one, I can’t really see how it matters one way or the other. As you said, Jason:

I’m going to continue writing the things I write, and worry about what markets to send to later.

So unless you’re looking for a clique to join, or want your work validated by having one label or another pasted on it, who cares?

I'm not going to pretend I have an answer for that question, Jason. Perhaps they'll have one, in a little while. Not everyone's quite so...umm...goal-oriented, as I am. :-)

Welcome, Mary Anne! Just for the record, I am not against "interstitiality" per se. I think it's great that people are talking about fiction (and non-fiction and art) that falls through the cracks, stuff that doesn't fit well into one specific genre. There's nothing wrong with that. Much of my fiction could be called "interstitial".

But the creation of a foundation implies something concrete, like (to take examples from your SLF page):

• developing booklists and other materials to use in outreach efforts to schools and libraries


• raising funds for redistribution to quality work which enriches the field, by individuals and organizations


• presenting individual and organizational grants and awards -- possible grant/award areas include: novel development grants, a first novel award, small press/magazine development grants, financial assistance for writers attending workshops or writing retreats, etc.

And unless I'm totally missing something, I don't get that feeling from the IAF discussion. Discussion and awareness are good up to a point, until the concept needs to be taken further. If the IAF was established for purely academic reasons, why promote it at WisCon and WFC, where the majority of attendents are non-academics?

Mary Anne's comment reminds me of a Le Guin line I recently encountered, from _Four Ways to Forgiveness_:

"You can't change anything from outside it. Standing apart, looking down, taking the overview, you see the pattern. What's wrong, what's missing. You want to fix it. But you can't patch it. You have to be in it, weaving it. You have to be part of the weaving."

I don't know if I completely agree with that, but I do like it.

Hey, everyone. Firstly, thanks for the kind words, Jason, re: the Speculative Literature Foundation -- I'm glad our approach looks good to you, and I look forward to seeing your $30. :-) Jed pointed me to this discussion, and I wanted to just make a few quick points:

a) we actually talked with the IA people before starting work on our foundation, to make sure we weren't treading on any toes; we're all harmonious, and both we and they think that we may be able to create some good synergy with the two groups -- just wanted to say that to head off any possible us vs. them energy that might develop. No need for it.

b) we're much more of a large umbrella organization, covering as much of the genre as we possibly can justify, everything from Iain Banks to Tolkien to Salman Rushdie, etc. and so on. Rather than restricting ourselves to a particular subset, we restrict ourselves only to "good", "getting better", and "speculative/fantastic content"

c) that said, I do think there's something to be said for interstitial, what I might refer to as "borderlands" material. I do think the work which dances on the border has a different quality to that which is entrenched deeply in the heart of a genre. Undoubtedly, my post-colonial academic side has influenced me on this -- I immediately think of Homi Bhabha's concept of hybridity, and Gloria Anzaldua's ground-breaking book, Borderlands (which I recommend to you all -- the Bhabha essays are quite a bit denser and iffier, though certainly interesting).

Heck, I've written papers on hybridity and border-living, and I think there are some interesting discussions to be had about just how border-writing functions. One can argue, for example, that it tends to just drift away -- that if one is too far from the center of a culture, that one is disregarded by much of that culture, and that it's remarkably difficult to effect change (or even be noticed) from an outsider/border position. (How would that premise apply to Jonathan Carroll's writing? Or Karen Joy Fowler's? Discuss.) Or, conversely, that even though people deeply entrenched in a culture may have the most power to create change, that they rarely have the perspective to see where change is needed; that it takes the border-walker, through the fractured lens of their multiple perspectives, to envision new ways of doing things. And if you accept both those premises, then we're left with a paradox -- that those who can see the need, don't have the power to make a difference, and those with the power, can't see the need. If that were true, then it would have profound and serious implications, no?

I don't know if the IA people will end up doing anything concrete, but frankly, I find the subject interesting, even though most of my own fiction lies solidly within one genre or another. Maybe I spend so much of my own life living on cultural borders that I find comfort in solidly-genre fiction. Which might be another thing that IA-type people could talk about. :-)

Hannah, you put simply what my bumbling and blustering took paragraphs to express. Anything can be interstitial if you analyze it hard enough, just like the Bible can be used to justify things like the Holocaust and the Crusades. I totally agree, how can something being labeled intersitial be useful? If it sells more copies, I'm with Keith, and I'm all for it.

And I apologize for generalizing about New York writers. It was like saying all Southern writers behave a certain way, which is equally not true.

Marketing gimmicks only work when the product is clearly identified.

I think this is the problem I have with this idea of interstiality. Maybe I misunderstand the definition, but the term seems to describe...well, just about everything. And so I'm not sure how useful it is.

OK, this is way tangential, but since I know there are a lot of unpublished novelists hanging around, and since NY writers just came up...

S.J. Rozan, consummate NY writer and this year's Edgar winner for Best Novel, just started a new Journalscape blog in which she's going to let her readers in on the process of bringing her next book to market, as everything actually happens. www.journalscape.com/progress.

She's one of the good guys, by which I mean she knows what she's talking about and believes in sharing the knowledge. Worth checking out.

on the ny writer topic... since I don't know if these ny writers call themselves so, I'll have to say "no" to your question. I guess the people I know are the non-pretentious ones, lucky for me.

I guess I'll start calling myself a new york writer should the opportunity arise. Just to try and tip the balance of perception towards non pretenious. A fiction writer, not non-fiction. Yeah. That sounds good. But I must admit, until I saw your blog I never gave the topic any thought, or even knew the catagory existed, but as usual, I tend to be in the dark about these things, (and a writer of monster run on sentences) and I didn't know the term IA existed until WFC.

On the inclusivenes topic, It makes sense to me that an organizer of a movement, convention, website or whatever would solict content from people they feel are experts and representative of that group or movement as you logicaly pointed out. If that has an "air of excluding people" or however you put it, I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I see it as an attempt to bring some of these talents in different fields to a wider audience, rather than any attempt at exclusion or whatever, but I'm not following the ball as closely as you may be.

the same core group of people kept appearing as "experts of the interstitial"

Marketing gimmicks only work when the product is clearly identified.

In any marketing materials, first there's the hook, then there's a "call to action." Interstitial is the hook. Buy books by this core group of people is the call to action.

I think it's a great idea, marketingwise. I vote yes on selling more books--the one thing genres are good for. I also vote yes on unconventional writers getting more money. Tout it as groundbreaking artistic philosophy, however, and without way better thinking than I've seen yet, you're looking for a seatful of rock salt.

A group of mystery writers a year or two ago banded together under the banner "tart noir." Not my favorite label, and I don't think it was extremely accurate, but they were upfront about their purpose--it was a hook, and they wanted to sell more books. They were also a lot of fun at conventions, from all reports. (I didn't see their panels, as I tend to avoid organized convention activities that I'm not required at.) That's honorable, honest, and above all, self-aware: Girlfriend wants the spotlight.

Cool by me! Put on a good show, and you're welcome to my ten bucks. That's why I have ten bucks--so I can spend it on something I like. So by all means, name a genre, get the label stuck on the shelf at B&N, and sell more books! But don't try to bullshit me that there's anything new or radical about "interstitiality" in any deep or significant sense. You can't defend that--because it's not true. It's just garden-variety creativity.

Which is already the hardest thing I've ever encountered.

I'm a New York writer.

I call myself a New York writer.

I've known, liked, hated, feuded with, had sex with, wrestled, poured drinks over the heads of, lent money to, given advice to, accepted advice from, petted the cats of, split checks at the diner with, and have been tear-gassed and arrested alongside many a New York writer.

Some are pretentious. Some are not. More not than so. Oddly enough, the ration of pretentious to not pretentious is just about equal to the ratio found in the genre writers I know.

And I really like this. It answers nearly all the questions I have about why a foundation should exist in the first place. They offer a strong mission statement, a list of goals, and how they intend to acheive those goals. It's simple and plain and brilliant. This is what a foundation frontpage should look like, and as soon as I can spare the thirty bucks (grad school, ya know), I'm getting me a membership.

Yeah, but Dan, have the New York writers you've talked to called themselves "New York writers"? The ones that do, tend to be pretentious, in my experience, like it's a badge of honor.

Okay, on the whole inclusion thing, I may have not been very clear in my original gripe. It's not that I feel the IA folks (not Iowa folks, Jeremy) aren't inclusive with whom they want to talk about interstitiality. Like I said below, they've all been very friendly and welcoming at the events I've been to, and are on the whole incredibly nice people. I guess what I was reacting to was that the same core group of people kept appearing as "experts of the interstitial" (my term), and that there was no noticeable way for people outside that core group to be able to have representation. The names I see on the credits for the fiction, poetry, and articles on the Endicott Studio site are the same group of people, over and over. I'm guessing that Terri Windling solicits the content for the site, which is fine, but it lends an air of exclusiveness, that she feels only this group of people have the worthwhile things to say about IA. But as Alan has pointed out, that list has grown quite dramatically from the last time I saw it.

And I very much like what Ben Rosenbaum has to say, via the synonymous use of "interstitial" and "slipstream". He says it way better than I could.

Hi Jason,

I just learned about the "interstitial" movement at World Fantasy Con. At the party they were hosting in the con suite, or some other room.

It felt like a friendly and inclusive atmosphere to me, actually.

Plus the mythic journies con, and the advertising and outreach on that seemed even more inclusive, in fact my aunt who is a social worker, and interested in some of the psychologists invitied (ex. Jean Shimoda Bolen) saw the ad, and is now interested in some of the writers and the con...

seems pretty inclusive, buts I guess everyone sees things their own way, I'm sure your experience is based on your instincts and impressions...

I dont claim to be up on all the new and not so new fiction and genre catagories, but good fiction is good fiction, and if movements help bring in new readers to me this is a good thing.

Oh, and PS-- the New York writers I have crossed paths with are among the most "un-pretentious", down to earth, and approachable people and teachers I know.

See also Ben Rosenbaum's author topic at the Rumor Mill for another take on the everything's-interstitial idea.

i agree with a lot on both sides here - but especially by keith, and especially this:

"Actually, I take it all back. It's a good marketing angle for a small press. The "new angle" angle is bullshit, but if it brings more money to the artists, then it's a good thing."

and this:

"As a way to sell more books, I think "interstitial" is just fine."

though i apparently draw different conclusions from these points than he does.

i come at writing and "litrature" from the point of view of a grocery guy. (you wanna sell organic lychee nuts by the pound? ok, but there better be a market or you're gonna take a bath in gooey lychee juice.) if i'd been named high overlord of the interstitials, i would have released an anthology before starting a discussion board so that readers and writers had something concrete to discuss. i might have lined up a book series, a magazine, or anything that had a market reality. if you build it, they will come, and all that. like jazz in the music halls, it's better to get people dancing first and talking theory later.

but it's really a chicken and egg affair. either way, if you write weird shit and lots of other writers do, too, then you can either wallow on the fringe or create a market for yourself. and if you go that route, you need momentum to get editors, writers, and readers to believe the hype that the wierd shit is worth buying (we sell a case of lychees a day at my store - talk about weird shit). i happen to believe there IS a market, a BIG one for "interstitial" writing - whether it's new, old, different, genre-driven, or totally uncategorizeable. the label means FAR less to me (what did hugo gernsback call science fiction at first? scientification? the labels don't matter, kids, so don't ANYONE get hung up on it) than how to get good writing into the hands of readers who may not know it's even out there.

is there blatant bullshitting hucksterism at work in the interstitial litrature "movement"?

not enough for my grocery dollar.

Just a couple of quick side notes, not really addressing anyone's main points:

Jason: the Interstitial Arts people have been calling it that for a while (certainly more than a year); I think it's just that they've recently been higher-profile in talking about it. My impression (which could be way offbase) is that the genealogy goes something like this: Endicott Studios + Young Trollopes + assorted like-minded others + a couple years of discussion = Interstitial Arts. My impression of what was called the "Amorphous Blob movement" is that it was, to the extent that it existed or could be categorized at all, more focused on a loosely-connected set of mostly relatively new writers, a lot of whom were connected in some way to SH; the IA group now includes some of those writers, but was started longer ago by more established folks, including the ones you named.

I think that a lot of the impulse toward movements -- along with a lot of the other discussion that goes on in the sf community -- stems from people feeling excluded and/or attacked for liking to read and write the kinds of things they like. The most interesting aspect of that, to me, is that people on all sides of any given issue seem to feel that way. People who like traditional science fiction feel like they're under siege, bombarded with literary stuff; people who like literary stuff feel marginalized by traditionalists; people who write stuff that doesn't fit traditional genre boundaries feel excluded by people (and marketing structures) who prefer traditional genre boundaries; etc. So sometimes people in one of those categories get together and say, "Hey, there's a bunch of us who like this stuff; in order to get more respect for it, and also let like-minded people know that there's plenty of it out there, let's form some kind of organization." Unfortunately, any form of organization or categorization, by definition, excludes something or someone (even if new members are welcome), and it's easy to feel that some newish group, who've applied a newish label to themselves, are now excluding other people.

Fwiw, my impression has been (rather like Tim's) that the IA folks tend more toward inclusivity than exclusivity. They're certainly more sympathetic toward and interested in work that's at the more obviously genre-crossing end of the spectrum, and my impression has been that some of the core people are more interested in certain kinds of genre-crossing work than other kinds, but I haven't seen anything from them that suggests that they're closed to new people joining them. I think a lot of the "same old people" issue is simply that they've only fairly recently started making a lot of noise about IA stuff; I would guess that a year from now, in addition to the same old people, there'll be a lot of new people involved. (Also, I think that the fact that most of the core people are high-profile, established, respected members of the sf community tends to mean that their names are likely to be listed first when talking about who's affiliated with IA; doesn't mean they're the only ones, just that they're the most recognizable names.)

Nick: one nitpick: "slipstream" isn't a well-defined term. Some of its numerous and slippery definitions have a high degree of overlap with some definitions of "interstitial"; others don't.

Alan: I particularly liked this: "the idea that, in its way, all fiction is fabulist, that the act of writing can only be squeezed into a 'realistic' framework by sheer force of will and careful cultural management over the centuries." Well put!

Intellectual Artificiality?

Excellent conversation. I have to say I agree with Nick on the issue-- however, I'm not above manipulating this movement to identify markets for my own work, and using it to bring in quality writers to my own 'zine.

I have to say though, every time someone says the IA website, I wonder what Iowa has to do with things.

Keith,

Thanks for actually responding to the essay. It's appreciated. I'll try to respond later, or sometime this weekend -- I, too, have one of those day jobs, and it's keeping me busy at the moment.

This is great discussion here, everyone. Keep it up. I'm just enjoying watching at this point, and really don't have more to add until I see the big IA website.

If I had to give out a Furious Rant award in these comments, it would definitely go to Keith, followed closely by Nick and Vera.

Hi Alan! Weird to hear about the picketing at the Ann Arbor Borders, but after looking at their working conditions, I don't blame them.

Karlheinz Stockhausen!

Damn, that took a while to remember.

Oh boy, another big discussion. I just skimmed it really, but then saw my name, so I had to contribute.

There are theoretical and practical problems with interstitial:

1. The geography metaphor fails because only some genres are defined by content. Several major ones: horror, romance, and erotica, are defined by reader affect. Horror especially is like tobasco sauce, you can put it on anything. There's no "between" to be with many genres, just simultaneity.

2. Everything is interstitial. Seriously, name a book that is a pure mystery or pure SF. Don't forget that urban fiction and men's adventure are genres too, genres that can be found in book catalogs. The majority of SF is SF+men's adventure.

3. A lot of the people who hype the interstitial don't even read realist fiction, yet claim some superior literary street cred. This is also known as the "Niggah, please" problem.

4. They really fail when they try to bring in the visual arts. Keith has it cold here: motion pictures are interstitial by design (there must be a love interest, for example, and there must be comic relief). As far as the other visual arts, painting left behind representation itself a century ago, so it isn't surprising to me that the only visual artists that come up in IA discussions are illustrators.

Practical problems:

1. IAF is a foundation based on promoting the undefined and amorphous. That'll look great on a grant application! "What is this about?" "We don't want to talk about it!"

2. While making no explicit claims that interstitial stuff is better, implicitly, this is obviously what people involved think.

3. People can't tell the difference between slipstream (with is mainstream fiction written with unself-conscious SFnal elements), interstitial (between any set of genres), and urban fantasy (which is traditional fantasy! Fantasy has has a millenia-long history of being placed in contemporary settings!).

4. The whole thing, given the founding members, generally boils down to an apologia for writing historical romance.

If this is true, then this "theory" is nothing more than riding a wave. It's not causing anything. It's not helping to do anything. It's just sitting at the crest, pointing backwards, yelling "Look! Look! I made an ocean!"

Okay, this made me cackle out loud.

:)

This whole "movement" labeling thing has gotten out of hand. *grin*

Though I understand the friendly inclusive attempt of the Interstitial folks, I tend to agree with Keith.

In addition, I do not think any of the labels offered so far by anyone (New Weird, Interstitial, Slipstream, etc.) really convey the passion behind the generation of these labels, and the underlying reasons for the need of such.

So I went and ranted in my own journal:

http://www.sff.net/people/vera.nazarian/news.htp

Take a look.

:-)

Vera

Hey Jason,

I thought your post was valuable and thoughtful, and this is coming from someone who is on the IAF working group (as are all the Ratbastards, albeit very briefly).

In terms of the exclusivity factor, I think that might be a function of some people being too busy to post on the boards and a delay in website updates. Kelly Link and Gavin Grant, Jeff Vandermeer, Jeff Ford, and others not explicitly tied to the Endicott Studio have some involvement with IAF. I think that Delia, Ellen, and the others would like a wide swath of people to become involved, and people with interesting projects to hitch their ideas to the IA wagon.

Also, and this goes back to Barth's post, if it's to succeed it will have to bring in new voices, esp. from outside the genre (e.g., Aimee Bender-type writers). It has to be a two way street and an influx of new ideas. Which therefore requires developing some sort of intellectual and writerly common space.

This will have some interesting wrinkles, though, in terms of the differences between academic vs. writerly concerns within a central group. It's less of a matter of differences in deciding what is good or bad writing, but having entirely different ideas of what the purpose of writing is altogether. Particularly in terms of the larger culture. The tension that might be created between these differences aren't necessarily bad, and might lead to a healthy exchange, as long as there's an open, nonjudgmental framework for this kind of dialogue to occur. Which includes an elasticity of what interstitiality means in the first place.

In that sense, speaking personally, my take on Interstitiality is a little different from some others within the group. I try not to look at myself as a science fiction writer, or interstitial writer, but just as a writer. I differ a little from some of the other people who have theorized on IA in that I don't think that categories in literature are inherently useful or part of the natural order. (You need the categories themselves to exist in order to theorize that work is slipping between categories!) This is kind along the same lines of the idea that, in its way, all fiction is fabulist, that the act of writing can only be squeezed into a "realistic" framework by sheer force of will and careful cultural management over the centuries. I don't know how useful that is in terms of a working definition, but anyway, I usually try not to let that impede in the actual creative process. Where, more often then not, I have no idea what the hell I'm doing in the moment (and like it that way). God knows that I'm an armchair theorist, but I like essays not to be wedded to any one outcome, or essays that don't even read like essays. Anyhow, all of this is to say that an Interstitial Arts Foundation can be a tool (certainly not the only one) to explore some fascinating concepts and how they affect the world, particularly with the writing process itself. The IAF is still a work in progress, but it has the potential to do some good things, as long as there's no central ideology. I don't think there is. If there was, I wouldn't want any part of it.

(btw, you mentioned picketing Borders--actually, workers are indeed striking at the Ann Arbor Borders store. I talked about it on my blog, if people want more info about it. But those kinds of issues--political with a lowercase p, regarding the polis--are ones that I hope are entertained by IA).

(PPS, this type of group identity is much easier in regard to Ratbastardism, which was a half-joke to begin with, and it's not as if we don't really make any claims as to what it means exactly, except in some loose consensual reality sense. And liking to dance.).

Tim, when you don't bother to respond to my points, I don't accuse you of not reading them. I never deride anything I haven't read.

The "theory" is a crock, from beginning to end. The beginning is a naive and self-absorbed writer putting a good spin on his own ignorance of why publishers and booksellers attach various labels to things. It's not because of "the power of binary oppositions." It's because there's not a shelf labeled "autoethnography" (the author's own term for his work) at Barnes & Noble. Genre labels tell the high school students who work at bookstores where to put the books.

They also give fans something to bicker about.

Any writer who takes them seriously in any but a business sense just doesn't think well.

The author's bald statement that "the move from the Theory of Relativity to Quantum Theory prefaces nearly all of the theoretical innovations in the social sciences and the arts, which take another half-century or more to catch up" is just stupid. The arts have not "caught up to" Quantum Theory. They weren't dependent on Classical Theory to start with, so the big revolution in physics had very little impact on literature and music. With the exception of a few artists who found new shiny things in it to play with and new mumbo-jumbo to dress up magical plots in, Quantum Theory had less effect than World War II, which gave us the two-octave diatonic steel drum. What EXACTLY did Quantum Theory (and why on EARTH are we capitalizing this?) give us?

Near as I can tell, very little--except those shiny parts. The octave is still an even multiple of frequencies; that didn't suddenly become indeterminate just because we now use probability amplitudes to determine electron behavior.

Then he cites Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as a quantum idea, when (a) I think it's really a classical way of trying to grope toward quantum theory, (b) it's way outdated, and (c) far as I know, it was never useful in actually getting anything done. But okay, he's both an academic and a writer, and both of those camps LOVE the Uncertainty Principle. It's just so COOL. It just changes EVERYTHING.

"Extrapolations of the Uncertainty Principle also problematize the idea of literary intention," says the author. Gee, ya think? Extrapolating the US Postal Code also problematizes the idea of spaghetti cooking.

And isn't that interesting?

An interstice is not an intersection. (That is why a concept like hybridity, by itself, is not adequate to the idea of the Interstitial.) says the author.

Nice sentence. Does it translate into anything real? No, because as pretty as it is to believe that we're not combining things, no, we're between them, in the everyday, practical, how-things-are sense, the two ways of thinking about work are functionally identical. Not just equivalent--identical. There is NO way for a reader to know whether a writer reached a certain point by thinking of herself as combining genres oravoiding genres. The exact same result can be reached either way. It is a difference that makes no difference. That being the case, the entire concept of "interstitiality," while pretty, doesn't do anything useful. Which makes it academic wankery.

Shall I continue?

Great.

And yet we are clearly in one of those "moments of historical transformation." says the author.

If this is true, then this "theory" is nothing more than riding a wave. It's not causing anything. It's not helping to do anything. It's just sitting at the crest, pointing backwards, yelling "Look! Look! I made an ocean!"

But that's what theory does. Literary theory isn't about writing; it's about literary theory. All it can do is take apart stuff that was made by means other than theorizing. You can't build a house with a pair of calipers; all you can do is measure it afterward.

But then, oh! You can impress your girlfriend, because you can tell her the studs are eight feet on center, and the two-by-fours are only nominal.

Your second point:

I'd think that the fact that some of these people are producing such outstanding work should serve to give one pause before dismissing their points out of hand.

Do you think artists can't create art if they don't have viable theories first? Do you really think their points about writing are what make great writers great? If you don't believe this (and you shouldn't), then your above point makes no sense. Many of the most ridiculous ideas about art come from really good artists.

It's making me a little nuts, trying to remember the name of the great composer who believed he would be given a solar system to compose with when he died. I'll post it if I remember.

OK, back to this "theory..."

our agreements about the "real" world, which is actually determined by cultural consensus

Only academics believe this. Everyone else realizes that the mayor of New York, the Forest Hills Post Office, and fart gas are physical objects that exist independently of cultural consensus.

interstitial works have a special relationship with the reader because they have a higher degree of indeterminacy (or one could say a greater range of potentialities) than a typical work

Close, actually. Very close--almost there. But no. It gets contradicted in the very next sentence:

For instance, if an interstitial novel is unfortunately determined to be Fantasy by its publisher, a reader, having the parameters of initial engagement with the text predetermined, might experience it as a Fantasy novel exhibiting odd dissonances or interesting novelties in relation to that genre

How is that a LESSER degree of indeterminacy or a REDUCED range of possibility?

The thing all these people just aren't understanding is that if you define yourself by what genre you're NOT, you are still defining yourself by genre. As long as you use genre as ANY kind of basic touchstone (which this "theory" does), your work is ONLY interesting insofar as how creatively you use the dissonances between what's expected and what's delivered. If your whole point is that you're not X, and you're not Y, then how-you're-not-X-or-Y is the entirety of your art form.

So far so good, yes? Great theories. Interesting thoughts. Forgot one thing: We haven't mentioned good writing yet. Good writing exists independently of this gobbledegook. If it's great, it's great because IT'S GREAT. Not because of some ill-reasoned nonsense about "interstitiality" that fails before it begins by not understanding what a "genre" is, in the real world, in the first place.

I could probably rant for another hour, but I have to get to the day job. I have one so that I never need to write to anyone else's specifications. It works.

I see nothing wrong with giving a group of writers a label and/or writers with similar interests getting together. They've been doing it for centuries. It doesn't seem to have worried them about movements or restrictions.

Jason,

The way I see it, IA is less a new movement than an establishment that dates through the history of literature itself. I'd be surprised if you couldn't find an example in every epoch. The distinction becomes important now that the pulps which created new boundaries over the old territories have disappeared--kind of like the people living in Eastern Europe who've had the name of their country changed so many times.

Rather than simply deriding the aforementioned theory of the interstitial, Keith, you might actually read it -- and then, if so moved, argue a position based on the theory's actual merits or lack thereof, rather than taking its simple existence as an affront. I think it's an interesting piece, and the author, Heinz Fenkl, has certainly proven that he can "do"; his book Memories of My Ghost Brother is a fascinating work, combining memoir and fantasy in quite compelling ways.

And, yes, there are many academics involved in the current conversations about interstitiality. I'm not sure why that would be a bad thing. People who make their livings by thinking, writing, and learning about a given subject often have quite interesting things to say on that subject. Fenkl, for instance, applies some of his anthropological skills to the problem of literature, a technique which yields some interesting insights.

>Having grand ideas is easier and more immediately rewarding than writing.

Possibly. But talking theoretically about writing, and actually writing, are not mutually exclusive, which is proven by the number of quite accomplished writers taking part in these discussions (and discussions about the New Weird, New Space Opera, etc.). I'd think that the fact that some of these people are producing such outstanding work should serve to give one pause before dismissing their points out of hand.

I didn't realize there was Something Big afoot, Jason. There may be. I've just been enjoying the chance to talk, exchange book recommendations, and get excited about ideas. I thought that was the point. I know it is, for me. Others may have other goals. I mean, what did the movements based on Surrealism accomplish, ultimately? Well, they made the word "surreal" part of the common lexicon, and many of the ideas put forth by the surrealists are now quite commonly known. Maybe in time "interstitiality" will become similarly well-known as a set of ideas, and readers will become more willing to take chances on things that aren't clearly identified. Currently, many writers are encouraged by their agents and publishers to write within the same narrow genre guidelines, or else publish their work in different genres under different names, which strikes me as a sad state of affairs. If some of the Interstitial Arts folks can make progress, however incremental, toward changing that, great.

I don't identify strongly as an "interstitial" writer (much of my work is fairly straightforward fantasy), but I think a lot of these discussions are really cool, and interesting, and exciting, and they're leading me to writers and stories and books that divert and engage me. What's bad about that?

Why bother?

The three things that come to mind are:

1. Having grand ideas is easier and more immediately rewarding than writing.

2. Books sell better with genre labels.

3. People love to hear themselves talk. As witness my last three posts.

Jason - isn't there an essay on the IAF website right now that answers that question? or maybe it was something someone said in a panel. I think that part of the answer has to do with giving readers, reviewers, audiences, and etc a better dialogue (language? I don't have the right word) to work with when dealing with interstitial works. but this is just from memory, and I could be completely wrong and mis-representing. So maybe you shoudlw ait for the new, 95 page site :)

Wow, look at the discussion I started.

I'll say this then shut up about it. If Interstitial Arts was just meant as a way of gathering a community, or saying, "C'mon in, you're welcome here in the borderless lands," I'd have no problem with it. It's fun to belong to something bigger than yourself, and Tim and Tempest are right in that the IA folks are very warm and welcoming. They want people who don't have a definite market for their fiction or artwork to feel like they belong in a group of like minds.

But from everything I've seen and heard, IA is not just about community. There's a grander ambition here, Something Big. The problem I'm seeing is, what is this Something Big? Awareness is fine if you have an issue or cause that you want people to pay attention to, but I'm just not sure what that is here, and I'm not sure the IA people do either. Awareness for its own sake is pointless.

Is it to get people who read only mainstream to pick up an interstitial book? Is it to get validation in academia from those who sneer at sf and fantasy? Is it to affect the publishing industry? These are questions I would like answered, and if they aren't answered in the giant 95-or-some page website that's coming out soon, the IA folks need to tell us why.

They're investing time and money in awareness through panel discussions and web design, and they clearly take their views seriously. My ultimate question is why? Why do all this unless you can affect change? Why bother? Ideals without actions to back them up just don't amount to much.

"What's behind that" is the easiest question there is. SALES are behind that. The ability to put a book on a clearly labeled shelf so consumers can find exactly what they want is behind that. Do you go to the SCIENCE FICTION shelf and buy a book, and expect it not to be a Harlequin Romance? THAT is what's behind that. That's what a genre IS! The fact that a lot of confused people think otherwise just shows that they're confused.

My experience, in the mystery field, is that the only people who give any real thought to "what am I" are unpublished writers or marketing people. The rest of us are just writers.

I mean, how anal-retentive does someone really have to be if he can't rest until he's got a neat white label on his forehead?

Furthermore, there's already a term that "describes everything, or most things, or whatever, and yet doesn't confine." That term is "art." Anything smaller, including interstitial, is just another genre.

As for readers who "attempt to restrict the authors who create," that's complete crap. Readers have NO power over what an author writes. None. Any writer can write WHATEVER THE HELL HE WANTS, as long as he's willing to see it not get sold. It's a confused person who tries to tell me what to write, unless a nice big check comes along with the request. I have complete artistic freedom.

Love or money. Choose one and shut up.

So we're a little confused here. Artistic freedom exists IMMEDIATELY for ANY writer who chooses to take it. Period. No exceptions. The only power a reader has over a writer is monetary--and that's only if the writer holds out his wrists and asks for those handcuffs.

So enough with the "limiting the writer" nonsense. All the limits are self-imposed. Writing is the least expensive art that exists. A piece of 100% conformity-free prose costs the writer one dollar for a pen and two dollars for a notepad. It's the least fettered-by-overhead of all the arts.

No, wait. I'm wrong. Humming is cheaper.

As a way to sell more books, I think "interstitial" is just fine. But as a banner word for artistic freedom? Please. All obstacles to artistic freedom are self-imposed.

As you can probably tell, I'm on a deadline.

oh, and a small PS - I don't buy that all artists push borders as a matter of course. Just in looking at some of the discussions in places like the Tangent newsgroup, where Karen Joy Fowler's What I Didn't See was being pointed at as "not SF" and someone who recently was all over GVG for publishing things that were "too mainstream" and suchlike. It may be true that in mainstream fiction there is more boundary pushing, or more tolerance for it, but within the genre, I see a lot of people trying to hold those boundaries firm. THIS over here is SF and THIS over here is Fantasy. Never the twain shall meet! And so on. In the process, it seems, they attempt to restrict the authors who create. Why? Why bother?

Nick Mamatas keeps telling me that everything is interstitial. And he may be right. But then somehow it still gets labeled SF or Fantasy or Horror or Romance or just Fiction. So what's behind all that? That's the most interesting question that I've come up with out of the discussion.

Okay, so that was a large post script....

This may already have been covered, so forgive me if so. (My browser is doing weird things) I'm with Tim on this one. I think the whole point of using the term interstitial is to stop the endless "what am I"ing that seems to happen a lot in the SF writing community. It's like, everyone has to have a name for what they do. Some even going so far as to make one up. "I'm Eco-Goth!" "I'm Rentboy SF!" "I'm a genre pirate!" but in reality, those people are one of a tiny gropup doing it, thus it's not really a movement and not worth labeling to anyone but yourself. but people LOVE labels, and they like to have a name for what they're doing. It also doesn't help when one writer is doing all kinds of different things. So along comes Interstitial and it's just perfect, cuz it describes everything, or most things, or whatever, and yet doesn't confine. That's how I see it, anyway. No matter if I'm writing SFy sort of stuff or Fantasy story of stuff. It's all interstitial except for the stuff that's not.

And the IAF folks have been incredibly welcoming of me, even though I'm nobody. Perhaps just because the people on the board or whatever are the ones most visibly involved doesn't mean there aren't others who are down with the IAF but are, like me, just riding along. That was one of the reasons they started the discussion board so that they could get more of the people who are not them to come and talk about interstitiality. In fact, I'm really supposed to be posting over there and not here! :)

Sure, always. No matter what the genre, somebody will do good work in it. "Interstitial arts" is no different. However, would you care to take a guess as to the ratio of can and do to eminently defensible but essentially nonsensical academic wankery?

Beyond that, though, what possible goal, besides self-aggrandization, could even "those who do" have for making up a new name for something that ANY HALFWAY INTERESTING ARTIST DOES AS A MATTER OF COURSE!? Artists push boundaries. That's what they do! "Interstitial Arts?" It reeks of academia, where no concept is so obvious that misunderstanding it can't be the basis of a profitable career.

Let's all join the American Association of Non-Joiners while we're at it. We could give out awards every year for Worst Attendance.

This is clearly a rant factory for me, but considering I've spent the last 20 years doing exactly what they call "interstitial arts" and managing to avoid getting labeled, I reserve the right to object when somebody makes up a cute name and starts a foundation for people who think there's something special about basic, run-of-the-mill CREATIVITY!

"Push boundaries" is the job description for the job "artist!" End of terminology! No additional puffery required!

A foundation!

For the like-minded!

Forget what I said about the American Association of Non-Joiners--this is the Foundation for the Abolishment of Foundations!

Wait, would FAF membership get me book and CD discounts? I'd join then.

Actually, I take it all back. It's a good marketing angle for a small press. The "new angle" angle is bullshit, but if it brings more money to the artists, then it's a good thing.

Okay, I'm fine. Carry on.

Keith, regardless of what you think about the Interstitial whatever (and I have no horse in this race), many of those involved in the discussion definitely can and do.

Oh, Jesus Christ, they've even got a "Theory of the Interstitial" up there.

Oh well. Those who can, do. Those who can't, make up snazzy theories about it and mess up other people's thinking.

the whole point of the broad umbrella-term "Interstitial" is that it doesn't shut people out -- anyone interested in borderline, mixed-genre, cross-genre, mixed-media work is included

That's not exclusive!? That shuts out 92% of everyone working in any medium today!

The nice thing about having no critical mechanism or education is how easy it is to do something really new and important. Maybe when these "interstitial artists" have spent a few decades on this new idea, they can achieve something that begins to approach the cross-genre integration in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN.

Tim, I haven't really been privy to exchanges you haven't, but this is just a general feeling I get. Yes, they're raising awareness of Interstitial Art, but to what end? That's what I don't get. I like the fact that they want to umbrella lots of different authors, but right now, it only seems for philosophical reasons. If their plan was to hold events where people who normally read only mainstream would gather and enlighten them that reading such and such a book really is okay and you won't be considered a freak, that would be one thing, but I don't see that. I don't see an Interstitial Literature Month happening in public schools like Black History Month.

Plus, whenever I go to one of these things, whether it's a panel at ICFA or a party at WFC, it's the same people talking about it, and answers about the nature of the foundation still sound fuzzy. The same names appear on the Endicott Studio site, and you'll never see a story or poem by you or me there. (Well, maybe you, but definitely not me.) I think that's part of what Barth Anderson was talking about, the need to stop being so insular.

Huh. I see it quite differently. I've found it to be a very inclusive "movement," (if it can be called such) and the people at the heart of it are quite approachable. And the whole point of the broad umbrella-term "Interstitial" is that it doesn't shut people out -- anyone interested in borderline, mixed-genre, cross-genre, mixed-media work is included. I don't see anyone sneering, saying "X author isn't interstitial." I see some authors excluding themselves, which is fine, but that's about it. You may be privvy to exchanges I'm not, though. Mostly I see the whole concept of Interstitialism as an excuse to talk about the things we're passionate about. The Interstitial Arts Foundation may not have practical plans in terms of marketing -- I think many of them would shudder at the notion of an Interstitial shelf in a bookstore -- but they're interested in raising awareness and increasing dialogue about the subject. In that, they seem to be succeeding so far.

Right. Plus, categories imply worth, whether we want them to or not. "This is interstitial, that is not," implies that one thing is better than the other, valued more.

A lot of this might be cleared up once the big fat 95 page IA website goes up, but by that point, I may just not have the patience to read it. Until it becomes practical for me, it'll just feel like people patting themselves on the back and congratulating each other on being so clever.

Or I could just be tired from studying and papers and work, and talking out of my ass.

I've seen a few posts on the subject here an about.

It sounds like a lot of movements i've seen in the past, especially the cliquish part. Oh. [insert writer, artist, or musician of choice] they're really not goth, cyberpunk, interstitial, etc.

To be honest, i'm prolly going to ignore most of it. I figure i'll just write what i'm going to write and not worry too much what category it falls into.

I'll leave the philosophy to the message boards and con panels, for now.

I guess I'm a bit cranky myself (though for opposite reasons), and I was going to join in on all the discussion at Night Shade, but saw how much I'd have to slog through. But yes, it is another form of categorization, another box, though they claim it is a large one.

"But isn't being called 'interstitial' another type of categorization?"

No, it's not another type. Far as I can tell, it's the same type.

---

Made a cranky post there, though. Slow day at the day job. Thanks for the pointer!