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?

[Wes White]

By which you mean, Tim, you're not serious about what you do. Doesn't mean none of us are.

tim scannell said:

don't get your nickers in a twist...

you think 'zinery' is serious stuff???


hahahahahaha...GROW UP!! it's a hobby...an avocation (and that's its
ONLY manifest[OH}...................(ation)...).
tim

Tom Hendricks said:

Zacery Nova said:

Or..."Z for Zac".

"Sleeping z's = our generation" indeed, how rude!

Not true then huh?

[King Wenclas]

2.) A WARNING
(I notice that McDonald's sues anyone around the globe who uses "Mc" to promote their business. What happens when HarperCollins begins sueing zinesters for using "DIY"??)
****************************************************
Our official culture is run by very rich, powerful, ruthless people. Greedy people. I know. I've clashed with them many times. They have no talent themselves so they appropriate.
The history of culture is the history of appropriation.
Appropriation usually involves two things.
A.) Stealing a culture.
B.) Destroying the original.
I could give countless examples from history.
In the 1940's a Hollywood studio remade a British film from a few years prior named "Gaslight."
They not only remade it, they bought the negative and copies of the original and destroyed them, so they wouldn't have to compete with the original or be compared with it.
(A copy of the original luckily resurfaced decades later. It's better than the glitzy remake.)
Most examples are more subtle.
Watch the classic movie "Singing in the Rain" and try to find a hint of the black pioneers who created the style of dance Gene Kelly and friends engage in.
Or, watch the great Elvis film "Jailhouse Rock," which is about DIY. The movie pays homage to the white country side of Elvis's roots but ignores the black blues side. The Elvis character is in fact based on the blues singer Leadbelly-- but you have to really know American music history to realize this.
The history of rock is the history of appropriation; bands as diverse as Lovin Spoonful and Led Zeppelin "borrowing" licks, sounds, and even whole songs from unknown roots blues pioneers.
Zines are roots writing; as important to American culture as once was roots music. Zines are authentic DIY-- but Big Money is now taking over the DIY name.
The new issue of Poets & Writers appropriates and destroys authentic DIY. The past two decades of zine history are wiped away. Why? It's about money but also about control. The current literary system can't tolerate free writers-- anyplace.
(To be continued.)

[tim scannell]

'to be continued'....?????
????????????????????????????

gosh and gee whillikers...there are MORE
bases to cover???????????????????????????????

WOW!

'...system can't tolerate free writers -- anyplace'.

uummmm..., so nice to have a forum in.....in....NOWHERE!!!

WOW!

King Wenclas said:

2.) A WARNING
(I notice that McDonald's sues anyone around the globe who uses "Mc" to promote their business. What happens when HarperCollins begins sueing zinesters for using "DIY"??)
****************************************************
Our official culture is run by very rich, powerful, ruthless people. Greedy people. I know. I've clashed with them many times. They have no talent themselves so they appropriate.
The history of culture is the history of appropriation.
Appropriation usually involves two things.
A.) Stealing a culture.
B.) Destroying the original.
I could give countless examples from history.
In the 1940's a Hollywood studio remade a British film from a few years prior named "Gaslight."
They not only remade it, they bought the negative and copies of the original and destroyed them, so they wouldn't have to compete with the original or be compared with it.
(A copy of the original luckily resurfaced decades later. It's better than the glitzy remake.)
Most examples are more subtle.
Watch the classic movie "Singing in the Rain" and try to find a hint of the black pioneers who created the style of dance Gene Kelly and friends engage in.
Or, watch the great Elvis film "Jailhouse Rock," which is about DIY. The movie pays homage to the white country side of Elvis's roots but ignores the black blues side. The Elvis character is in fact based on the blues singer Leadbelly-- but you have to really know American music history to realize this.
The history of rock is the history of appropriation; bands as diverse as Lovin Spoonful and Led Zeppelin "borrowing" licks, sounds, and even whole songs from unknown roots blues pioneers.
Zines are roots writing; as important to American culture as once was roots music. Zines are authentic DIY-- but Big Money is now taking over the DIY name.
The new issue of Poets & Writers appropriates and destroys authentic DIY. The past two decades of zine history are wiped away. Why? It's about money but also about control. The current literary system can't tolerate free writers-- anyplace.
(To be continued.)

[Dan 10things]

Warren Piece said:

These guys need a manifesto.

Don't laugh, they have one here. That's the document I was talking about they sent out to a bunch of zinesters like 9 years ago with no mention of zines or much explanation. Just some bizarre manifesto showed up in my zine PO Box. And then they got pissed when people didn't understand it or want to join their organization. Funny rereading it now. This thread began with Tom Hendricks complaining about the mainstream press not covering his scene, type of writers, Karl and the ULA. Yet in the manifesto they state:

"We renounce the professionalization of literary craft that has
become part and parcel of the writing world, and will never ask for
a piece of paper to offer fake 'legitimacy' to our efforts;

We renounce the elitism of contemporary literature, and swear not to
ascend the steps of the ivory tower, and to live our lives among
real people;

We renounce the corruption of the literary establishment, and affirm
that we will never drink from the fountain of this putrid temple..."

The big turn off to me was they were more interested in a lit movement than a zine movement. I just never cared much for poetry and litmags. But it's funny now how they want legitimization from the mainstream by getting covered in their publications, where they once scoffed at and opposed it.

[Ericfishlegs]

"Don't laugh, they have one here. That's the document I was talking about they sent out to a bunch of zinesters like 9 years ago with no mention of zines or much explanation. Just some bizarre manifesto showed up in my zine PO Box. And then they got pissed when people didn't understand it or want to join their organization. Funny rereading it now. This thread began with Tom Hendricks complaining about the mainstream press not covering his scene, type of writers, Karl and the ULA."

I remember that. Weren't they all hot and bothered because David Eggers or someone of his ilk got some kind of a grant? Matter of fact I think that incident may mark one of my only posts on alt.zines because I didn't know what the Hell was going on and at the time alt.zines was the only place I knew of on the internet where I might be able to find out.

[Dan 10things]

Ericfishlegs said:

I remember that. Weren't they all hot and bothered because David Eggers or someone of his ilk got some kind of a grant? Matter of fact I think that incident may mark one of my only posts on alt.zines because I didn't know what the Hell was going on and at the time alt.zines was the only place I knew of on the internet where I might be able to find out.

Yeah, only it was Rick Moody, who'd written "The Ice Storm," and received a Guggenheim grant for writing. Karl and Co gave him endless shit for it because Moody's parents were wealthy and demanded he give it up for a writer with less money. The Guggenheim Foundation clearly said it's grants were merit-based and have nothing to do with the finances of an author. The ULA sorta formed around this issue. They tried to get a bunch of famous authors to sign their petition and none would, then turned to the zine community and no one really cared since it had nothing to do with zine publishing. And then they got pissed at zinesters for not understanding what their protest had to do with zines. Good times. I can't remember why they started hating Eggers and McSweeny's, but that was another protest they tried to get zinesters behind that just didn't seem to have much to do with the zine community.

Personally, I thought all those protests were publicity stunts, attacking somewhat successful writers in an attempt to get their names into the mainstream press so they'd get noticed as writers. Apparently it didn't work and they are still looking for mainstream media attention and whining about it to zinesters.

[King Wenclas]

The curious thing to me is why someone would take the ULA to task for perceived minor faults, yet come out in support of enterprises backed by media monopolies.
One of our many protests was one against McSweeney's for winning an alternative press award for "Best Zine." This, for a publication selling for $27 or so a copy, slickly produced by a full-time PAID editorial staff, and created with Simon & Schuster money-- S&S being a book conglomerate owned by an even larger conglomerate. To boot, McS's published mainly already established, and quite affluent, New York writers. Establishment all the way. Eggers merely co-opted the cred of DIY.
You backed these guys against the ULA???????????????????????
But it's ancient history. I'm no longer active in the ULA. The last email I received from current head guy Jeff Potter was quite hostile!
The ULA, howver, did some amazing things-- it shook the established lit-world to its very foundations-- and received attention for some very good zine writers. Nothing to apologize for. And, we NEVER sold out, even when we were being written up in famed "Page Six" every other week and easily could have. Check the history. Or throw stones. Your choice.

[King Wenclas]

Here's the text of an email I sent Poets & Writers, who are at [e-mail]

To the Editor:
When I saw your new "Indy" issue I was ready to applaud your coverage of a literary movement long on the scene. However, your presentation of DIY is curiously truncated.
Where is mention of the major players of the Do-It-Yourself literary movement today? No Zine World, no Underground Literary Alliance, no Outsider Writers, no ZineWiki, no WeMakeZines. The historical overview Kimiko Hahn gives in her article has thrown the past 20 years of exciting DIY activity down an Orwellian memory hole. Where is mention of Factsheet 5 (either incarnation)? Or of unique DIY writing talents like Aaron Cometbus, Jen Gogglebox, Doug Holland, the Urban Hermitt, Bill Blackolive, Ann Sterzinger, and many others? Ms. Hahn hasn't done her homework. She mentions a "Chapbook" show-- apparently unaware of the hundreds of zine fairs, shows, and readings which have taken place, and continue to take place, this decade across the country.
Most mysterious of all, I can't find the word "zine" anywhere. (How-to-Make-a . . . Chapbook??)
Most of those involved in DIY see themselves as making ZINES, which encompass a range of talents-- art, graphics, DIY marketing and selling-- that tradition chapbooks only scantly embodied.
Real DIY is rooted in the punk happenings of the 70's and 80's. It carries forth that philosophy-- creating art apart from badges, institutions, gatekeepers, bureaucrats, and controllers. ("We don't need no stinkin' badges.")
Culture from the ground up. To paraphrase Zine World's motto, American literature belongs to everyone.
Sincerely,
Karl Wenclas

[Dan 10things]

I actually like that letter. But if this magazine you're sending it to is really a mainstream literature industry magazine, I think it will probably fall on deaf ears. I'm not sure I see the value in fighting against those that will never listen to you and never change. I see much more value in creating our own publications and community. Creating and offering people an alternative to the mainstream media, rather than struggling for decades to change a system that seems to only get worse each and every day. Today's biggest media names are Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for christsake, the mainstream media industry just might not be worth trying to change or save.

[Betty]

I don't think squatting on corporate forum space to chat with other zinesters in a casual way is the same as seeking corporate approval for one's independent creations in order to sell more zines.

Also, KW didn't lay out the punk origins and "We don't need no stinkin' badges" as a philosophy that all zinesters should follow, he referenced it as a historical context. That's not an assumption about zinesters, that is an observation about what has led up to the present.

Zacery Nova said:

It's quite funny that Karl Wenclas is using "Ning" to make these proclamations because (According to Wikipedia), "Ning" was set up by "Marc Andreessen" (who is now on a Board of Directors for eBay, a multi-million-dollar company and married to the daughter of a real estate billionaire) as well as Gine Bianchini (who sold her communications company to one of the largest advertising brands in the world - Dentsu), and "Ning" was paid for by "angel investors" (whose money comes from all kinds of mainstream-styled things, I'm sure), doesn't this go against your "DIY=best" ethic?

Oh, and I reject your "real DIY is, like, so punk duuuuudes from, like, the 70s maaan. Fuck institution, badges and bureaucrats" philosophy, I wasn't even born in the 70s nor do I have any interest in the past. As far as I'm concerned, my zining is looking toward the future and I think you'll find that we do need "stinkin' badges".

I hate to have a go at you, but your assumptions about zinesters are ridiculous, at best.

[Microcosm Publishing]

Karl + Tom (if desired, others may continue for the sake of entertainment)

Getting press in the way you do with the most mainstream of magazines does not SELL ZINES. it simply portrays you as a marginal, desperate force. Because you are defining your position in oppositional reactionism, you are not creating culture. You are defining yourself by what you oppose, what means that you are always responding to your enemies, rather than getting attention or credit on the merit of your own work.

What you are failing to realize, in your marketing, is that the underground is much bigger than the mainstream and has a much longer attention span. In the mainstream, most book purchases are gift items. The major retailers are going out of business. These economies of scale do not affect zines and people are naturally avid readers do not frequent the Barnes & Nobles or read The New York Times BOOK Review.

Whereas, getting a solid plug on a blog can literally sell thousands of zines in a week. Because those people read and aren't afraid to drop a couple bucks. I think this is the path to getting your work read and it's not easy work necessarily, but it develops a bigger audience than any piece of mainstream press and is not a "path to obscurity".

And the more I think about it, the ill logic here is that people aren't going to read your work that aren't inclined toward it; no matter how hard you try. So first, your work would have to appeal to your audience and second, you would need to be good to bringing that to them. I think the mainstream fails both of these tests - especially with most any zine!

"The curious thing to me is why someone would take the ULA to task for perceived minor faults, yet come out in support of enterprises backed by media monopolies."

This comment is hilarious! Did anyone (let alone everyone here) side with McSweeney's over the ULA? Because I think the general vibe is that everyone can think that both sides are quite preposterous. This is a prime example of speaking FOR US. It's funnier when Tom Hendricks does it but this instance is fairly priceless.

But the funniest thing was when we published THE FLOW CHRONICLES and Karl was upset that we wouldn't immediately pay to fly the author to Philly for one reading event. There were a series of insults directed our way afterwards, as if the event would have sold hundreds of books and we were selfish capitalists. We had published the book after a year of fundraising.

The people who read Writers & Poets are aspiring writers who want to get published. I suspect the reason the article in question refers to chapbooks instead of zines is because they are comprised of POETRY.

You are very good at bringing attention to yourselves but haven't done much to promote your own works as a result, which I guess is more fodder for saying "the real writers never get any attention" in the same reactionary way. Where would the ULA be when there's no mainstream press left to be angry at? Perhaps it would have to go back to insulting and speaking for people on We Make Zines.

But like Karl said, I'm one of those zinesters who lives in a trailer on a piece of land. I don't own a TV or read mainstream press. I ride my bike to work and do carpentry projects. I'm not trying to make a living from writing. I'm happy with "scraping by". Despite this, thanks for making me look relatively sane ULA.

[ciaraxyerra]

...i read the "new york times book review". & obvs i also read tons of zines. i mean, maybe i'm a weirdo, but the two are not actually mutually exclusive. i like to keep up with zines, i like to keep up with what's new in independent publishing, & i like to keep up with what's new in the world of mainstream publishing because my interests are more varied than just what can be satisfied through AK press & south end press, as much as i love them.

anyway, carry on with the incoherent & irrelevant-to-actual-zine-culture squabbling. cheers!