Zinesters are not the Beats generation, we are the Beat-UP generation

[Tom Hendricks]

Zinesters are the first generation that has had it's literature completely blocked from fair reviews in the mainstream media. There were the Beats writers in the 50's. Zinesters are the Beat-up writers. No other generation has had it's best contemporary writers block so completely and so unfairly.

The consolidation of the media has ruined mainstream publishing and the media that reviews it.
For some reason the media has given up all journalistic responsibility in refusing to cover zines and almost all better indie writing.

No coverage of the revolution in any art. It is just not literature.
No coverage of the new writers in new forms.
No coverage of the new writer advocacy groups and leaders such as King Wenclas, or ULA or Musea.
No coverage on why no coverage. The mainstream media can not be questioned on their almost total generational block of fair reviews for zines.

What do you think?

[Dan 10things]

I don't think most zine writers are looking for reviews or coverage in the mainstream media at all. I would doubt even 5% of zinesters submit their zines for review to any media source considered mainstream. Is anyone on We Make Zines actually seeking mainstream media coverage for their zine?

[Tom Hendricks]

what would have happened to Fitzgerald, Hemingway, or Faulkner if they had never gotten a fair mainstream review?
I think all writers including zinesters want fairness and recognition for their hard work.

[Dan 10things]

Tom Hendricks said:

what would have happened to Fitzgerald, Hemingway, or Faulkner if they had never gotten a fair mainstream review?
I think all writers including zinesters want fairness and recognition for their hard work.

The difference is Fitzgerald, Hemingway and Faulkner were writing books, not zines, and they were writing for mainstream audiences and seeking mainstream attention. I don't think most zinesters want this or are trying for this, you're comparing apples to oranges.

[Tom Hendricks]

Zinesters are writing for readers - same audience.

[Betty]

Mmmm...I disagree. History is filled with censorship and preferential treatment of literature. I feel pretty fortunate about the times I live in as far as being able to get the word out, if I really want to, about my lit/art. More to the point though, I'm not sure why this is...a surprise? I mean, zine culture/alternative press and mainstream culture/press are two different things with (generally) different goals. This kind of feels about as futile as an outcry against American Idol for not choosing or featuring artists with innovative talent and provocative songwriting skills.

Wouldn't the cycle be..."mainstream media" reviews zine, zine gets popular and becomes mainstream, zine people don't read it anymore because it has sold out and now only mainstream culture digs it?

[Betty]

p.s. I notice you only mentioned male authors. How many female authors, in comparison, got fair and balanced reviews? That aside, I think it's pointless comparing such different times in history as so much has changed overall. I still think we have many more options today in terms of reaching people we want to reach.

[Tom Hendricks]

Betty, I think it is important to note that the split you talk about is only in this time in history. That is my point. The best writing should be the writing covered. There shouldn't be a corporate side and a indie side. There never has been in the past. This dichotomy is the problem.

Yes there has been some censorship in the past - but it has never been this complete, this total, this overwhelming, this Orwellian! Except in the case of women writers which you wisely pointed out. Didn't mean to slight women writers of the 20's. So you can certainly commiserate doubly for being a woman and a zinester.

[Dan 10things]

Tom Hendricks said:

There shouldn't be a corporate side and a indie side. There never has been in the past. This dichotomy is the problem.

So you see the solution is to try to get mainstream attention and stop bothering with an indie/DIY scene? I totally disagree. I like offering an alternative to the corporate media, rather than becoming part of it. 4 or 5 companies run about 90% of the media in the US, this is reality. Seeking their attention serves a zinester what purpose?

[Erin H]

"Yes there has been some censorship in the past - but it has never been this complete, this total, this overwhelming, this Orwellian! Except in the case of women writers which you wisely pointed out. Didn't mean to slight women writers of the 20's. So you can certainly commiserate doubly for being a woman and a zinester."

It wasn't/isn't just women. Lot's of underpriviledged folk are and have been censored from mainstream media.

[Betty]

Betty, I think it is important to note that the split you talk about is only in this time in history. That is my point. The best writing should be the writing covered. There shouldn't be a corporate side and a indie side. There never has been in the past. This dichotomy is the problem.

Yes there has been some censorship in the past - but it has never been this complete, this total, this overwhelming, this Orwellian!


If I understand your argument [which I'm not sure I do], I still disagree. The only things that generally got published or printed historically were things that were paid for or supported by the wealthy. Either that, or the writings were only successful after the creator died a lonely death in squalor. All of the things which did not get published are only now coming to the surface as academic excavation and exploration are beginning produce and publish their findings - and as people find things in the attics of the deceased. I really think this notion that the past was so rosy is incredibly romantic, but ultimately false.

If you mean to say that there weren't "corporations" before this period in history, fair enough. But I think it's easy enough to see similarities between the overwhelming power of corporations and the overwhelming power of royalty. I still prefer my privilege of public education [including the ability to be able to read zines] and the bypass of the internet that allows me to easily seek the information I want and the relative speed of our current postal system, etc...that are at my disposal to really participate in the zine community [or mainstream community, if I prefer.]

Sure, "in an ideal world" we wouldn't need a corporate side and an indie side, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in this one. Besides, in all honesty, I think the universe thrives on a certain amount of push and pull. Having two or more "sides" keeps us from getting complacent. It keeps us thinking.

[NicoleIntrovert]

Not the same audience at all. AT ALL.

Tom Hendricks said:

Zinesters are writing for readers - same audience.

[Tom Hendricks]

I know I'm not either because the boycott of zinesters is too powerful to waste time trying to change it. What is amenable to change is something more flexible like possibly NPR or like Utne magazine which does cover zines.