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]

Tom Hendricks said:

Karl and Yul are good people and don't deserve this.
This has nothing to do with this thread. I'm stepping out of it.
Thanks to all for their fun responses.

Ha ha ha. Uh Tom, you brought them into this thread with your very first post. You said "No coverage of the new writer advocacy groups and leaders such as King Wenclas, or ULA or Musea."

[Ericfishlegs]

Hey, I've been acknowledged by the mainstream media! Look-

http://www.weeklydig.com/arts-entertainment/200809/boston-zine-fair

and it has affected my life and my zine exactly 0%.

To tell the truth the only literature of any kind I see acknowledged by the mainstream media are reviews of maybe .001% of all books published. The maninstream media is bad enough that their coverage of literature is the least of anyone's problems.

[Ericfishlegs]

Hey, I've been acknowledged by the mainstream media! Look-

http://www.weeklydig.com/arts-entertainment/200809/boston-zine-fair

and it has affected my life and my zine exactly 0%.

To tell the truth the only literature of any kind I see acknowledged by the mainstream media are reviews of maybe .001% of all books published. The mainstream media is bad enough that their coverage of literature is the least of anyone's problems.

[tim scannell]

absolutely...hendricks is just
masterba...
yes, mainstream media covers
nothing
important...well, the stock page is useful
and i like dennis and family circus


Ericfishlegs said:

Hey, I've been acknowledged by the mainstream media! Look-

http://www.weeklydig.com/arts-entertainment/200809/boston-zine-fair

and it has affected my life and my zine exactly 0%.

To tell the truth the only literature of any kind I see acknowledged by the mainstream media are reviews of maybe .001% of all books published. The mainstream media is bad enough that their coverage of literature is the least of anyone's problems.

[tim scannell]

certainly...toot your own horn
hendricks and yul are just
maste...no, yes-ter..,.day...baaaaaing

Zacery said:

I've found with zines that you have to do your own "acknowledging".

Tell people! All the time, never stop talking about it.....it works for me.

[King Wenclas]

Whoa! Why all the hostility? What did I ever do to you people???
On the one hand Joe Biel states that media attention for zines is provided through those who work toward it, then knocks me for doing exactly that! Which is a big part of what the protests I've engaged in were about.
By the way, I haven't been active in the ULA since Dec '07, though they continue to list me as a supporter, which is fine.\
(More later.)

[King Wenclas]

Follow-up #1.
I can't say I understand all the arguments presented here. Are some of you saying that you don't WANT more readers and attention for your publications?
I don't think Mr. Biel believes this, and I'm sure Dan didn't believe it when he was cranking out and distributing many copies of his publication.
I helped start the ULA in 2000 because I knew there were many great zine writers as good as any in the mainstream, who deserved more attention for their writing.
There was never an idea of going corporate or becoming the mainstream-- instead, of finding our place in the accepted literary spectrum. The ULA was designed to be NOT hierarchical, but a cooperative in which everyone had say-- in which the writers weren't supplicants as in mainstream lit, but in charge of their own writings. When I was running it, it was open to any and all zinesters who cared to join. That the organization stepped away from the original ideals of consensus decisionmaking is why I halted my active participation.
(More later.)

[King Wenclas]

Follow-up #2.
There seems to be an inclination among many in the zine scene to totally reject society and live in a cave. Which is fine, if that's your choice-- but it's a road toward obscurity and destruction, and further, toward having the DIY movement co-opted and displaced, which is happening right now as I type this.
The fact is that Tom Hendricks is right in his arguments about the authentic DIY movement, and our history the past two decades, being put down an Orwellian memory hole.
The mainstream is taking over the DIY term through fake DIY writers like Miranda July and fake DIY publishing outfits like the Rupert Murdoch-owned HarperStudio. Just when DIY is on the verge of exploding on a larger societal scale, the establishment is moving quickly to gain control of it-- to take over the DIY brand and DIY territory.
I urge everyone who reads this to look at the new issue of Poets & Writers magazine (Sept/Oct), which is devoted to "Indy" and DIY publishing. Read the articles. Scan Insider Kimiko Hahn's overview of DIY history. THEN tell me, what's missing in this coverage, this history, and tell me what you think.
I am not your enemy!
Thanks.

King Wenclas said:

Follow-up #1.
I can't say I understand all the arguments presented here. Are some of you saying that you don't WANT more readers and attention for your publications?
I don't think Mr. Biel believes this, and I'm sure Dan didn't believe it when he was cranking out and distributing many copies of his publication.
I helped start the ULA in 2000 because I knew there were many great zine writers as good as any in the mainstream, who deserved more attention for their writing.
There was never an idea of going corporate or becoming the mainstream-- instead, of finding our place in the accepted literary spectrum. The ULA was designed to be NOT hierarchical, but a cooperative in which everyone had say-- in which the writers weren't supplicants as in mainstream lit, but in charge of their own writings. When I was running it, it was open to any and all zinesters who cared to join. That the organization stepped away from the original ideals of consensus decisionmaking is why I halted my active participation.
(More later.)

[Dan 10things]

King Wenclas said:

The fact is that Tom Hendricks is right in his arguments about the authentic DIY movement, and our history the past two decades, being put down an Orwellian memory hole.

Seriously? I tend to find most of Tom's arguments bizarre, wrong and usually not logical at all. There's always this assumption that what he wants from zine publishing is what we all want. That he feels the man is keeping him down, so we must all feel that way. There's this feeling of entitlement and a complete lack of understanding for others feelings and opinions even when they state them much clearer than he does. It's a Tom-centric world for him.

In this case, the reality is most zinesters don't want or seek mainstream press, so they don't feel shut out in that regards. And fringe writers haven't historically gotten mainstream press, I don't buy that argument at all. And he zinesters that do want mainstream press, most don't have a problem getting it (see Dishwasher). Ultimately, those zine writers that want to be covered in the mainstream but aren't getting coverage are really a very small percentage of zinesters. And maybe they aren't getting mainstream press despite trying so hard because they really aren't that good of writers. That seems to be an idea Tom doesn't want to explore.

[Tiara Shafiq]

Some of us don't care about numbers.

And there are a number of zinesters who would consider people like you The Man. hello us-centrism!

King Wenclas said:

Follow-up #1.
I can't say I understand all the arguments presented here. Are some of you saying that you don't WANT more readers and attention for your publications?
I don't think Mr. Biel believes this, and I'm sure Dan didn't believe it when he was cranking out and distributing many copies of his publication.
I helped start the ULA in 2000 because I knew there were many great zine writers as good as any in the mainstream, who deserved more attention for their writing.
There was never an idea of going corporate or becoming the mainstream-- instead, of finding our place in the accepted literary spectrum. The ULA was designed to be NOT hierarchical, but a cooperative in which everyone had say-- in which the writers weren't supplicants as in mainstream lit, but in charge of their own writings. When I was running it, it was open to any and all zinesters who cared to join. That the organization stepped away from the original ideals of consensus decisionmaking is why I halted my active participation.
(More later.)

[King Wenclas]

I invite everyone, Dan in particular, to read the new issue of Poets & Writers.
If the mainstream is going to cover DIY, shouldn't they get the subject right??
Dan has been very vociferous over the years in correcting (or castigating) me for my failings and misdeeds.
I'd love to see him do the same to these people.
Or does he only speak truth to NON-power?
Believe me, I'd love to have strong voices like his on my side.
Do we wait until a conglomerate copyrights the term "DIY"?
Nature abhors a vacuum. The media conglomerates expand to fill every available space. Just because they're more powerful now than they've ever been, doesn't mean they can't become more powerful still.
They'll expand right to your doorstep-- right to the mouth of your cave.

[King Wenclas]

p.s. here's a hint about the new issue. Try to find the word "zine" anyplace. There's even an article on how to make a zine, without calling it a zine. (They substitute "chapbook" for zine.) Their historical overview eliminates 30 years of DIY history. Writer Kimiko Hahn admits she once scorned Do-It-Yourselfers. (Last week?) Suddenly she's on our side.
(By contrast, the ULA was founded by long-time zinesters who always affirmed that's what we were.)
In the issue, no mention of: Wemakezines; zinewiki; the ULA; Outsider Writers; Zine World or a Reader's Guide; Stolen Sharpie Revolution; zine fairs and shows and readings; Factsheet % (either version); etc etc etc.
What's really happening? Why should we care?
What can be done?