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?

[Tom Hendricks]

NicoleIntrovert said:

Tom - what is stopping you from putting your zine out there to the mainstream media if that is where you want it?

Being part of the Richmond Zine Fest i have been interviewed by our Richmond newspaper about zines and the zine fest. There is interest in the media about this sort of culture. But its like you want zines to actually BE the mainstream?

It IS the mainstream when most writers are zinesters. You already ARE the mainstream.





Then put yours there if you want it. Spend the money it takes to be part of the mainstream. Take advertisements from Budweiser or what have you or just be independently wealthy and put your own money into it.


Or why bother with zines if you just want your writing out there? Go self publish a book and get it on the shelf at Barnes & Noble if that is your goal.

[Betty]

Tom, can you be a little more condescending please? Honestly. I think I've figured out why you've had such a hard time getting published. Publishing is young in terms of history and for most of that history, "newspapers" were nothing more than gossip rags, worse than the Enquirer. I would recommend doing a little research, because your version of the history of journalism surely does not match up with mine. And 16 years of putting out zines or living through a drop in the bucket of history does not put your opinions above those of anyone else here.

[Wes White]

Actually, I agree with Tom to a point, I think there should be more coverage and it should be more about the content than about whether it was made by a big publishing house or not. I just do think that there are still some people out there doing good things... I don't think we need to have a victim mentality about it, there are people who will cover our stuff if we ask them to. It definitely isn't a case of "no coverage no coverage no coverage", here in the UK at least. I've had some of my stuff reviewed in Dazed and Confused and on Radio One, people will cover it, they just need to be convinced you've got something their audience will be interested in.

At the same time though there appears to be a huge section of the zining community who don't want coverage in mainstream media anyway... at least that leaves what room there is for the rest of us I guess. But even I don't think I'd ever want to see Attack!!!! featured in a newspaper like the Daily Mail... not unless we'd upset them in some way!! : )

[Microcosm Publishing]

There was NEVER a point in history where the best writing was what got press. that didn't happen. there was always politics and preferential treatment behind it.

[Erin H]

Microcosm Publishing said:

There was NEVER a point in history where the best writing was what got press. that didn't happen. there was always politics and preferential treatment behind it.

Yes, this.

[W. Alan Fare]

I've been publishing zines for over 25 years and I still feel like a young pup against many of my friends in the zine community. Some have gone on to do great things and some are still plugging away at 25/50 copies an issue, but they all enjoyed the process! What I learned from the older zinesters is that it's not what you take, but what you get, from writing. Personally, I love making zines. If one or a million people read it I still have the sense of satisfaction knowing I created something unique.

For the record, I've written for several local papers and magazines over the years in several places. It was always nice to see my writing published in whatever journal, but it wasn't the same as something I made at home that often went much farther across the world. If I put the stack of letters I've recveived from mainstream writing I've done against the stack of letters from zinedom you'd find a needle in a haystack!

And with that I'll agree to disagree. Not to say it's directed at you, but there was a line in the early '80s hardcore band N.O.T.A. song KEEPING YOU OUT "I'd rather play for a crowd of ten than a hundred like you". I may write for a small audience but they get what I'm saying. If someone stumbles on what I write and finds it interesting that's fine too. I just don't worry about what the next big thing is... My world goes at a slow and steady pace.

[tim scannell]

'boycott'...jeeeez!
boycott the air...there will be thousands of
wee zinesters...now and forever...what do
you think
'twittering'
is...???...texting???
jeez..................zinery will evolve w/
every tom dick and harriet!!!

utne and npr...what leftist pap
a
real sop....
how many HOURS per week are
given to 'alternate zines'???
um...2.12 seconds??

write/draw...devise.....that's what you say you want to do
zinery is an
avocation
not a vocation....even though i have been involved
with 'alternate zines' for over 20 years...as a writer
and editor and publisher and reviewer ...and reader

be happy in your work...
as s.beckett said, "The galley slave sticks to his oar."

tim

[Tom Hendricks]

jeffrey bennington grindley said:

i will concede i am 28. my re-education regarding media/mass culture was the dead kennedys at 14. by then its already 1993 and i'm just realizing that there is life outside of radio. Yeah i cant imagine at this point a reshaping of corporate culture as i can a tear down rebuilding of culture. I do think that if people thought locally a lot could be done to change perceptions and "coverage" of all things community oriented. One problem is the perception that we CANT change ANYTHING. That we're helpless. That things arent THAT bad. I know i've felt like that. Its something i have to fight from time to time ESPECIALLY in Las Vegas. This place is ALL about corporate culture. I'm afraid that vegas is what the vision of Corp america is. a place where people feel helpless to do anything BUT go along with big money interests and opinions. where after years of trying to nurture the local community and convince people to care they just give up and move. Nothing has staying power here.

Ouch! I keep thinking Dallas is the most corporate city on earth - maybe LV is on the list too.

[Tom Hendricks]

Microcosm Publishing said:

There was NEVER a point in history where the best writing was what got press. that didn't happen. there was always politics and preferential treatment behind it.

Nothing like today IMO

[Tom Hendricks]

Holden W. Attradies said:

Tom Hendricks said:

If the bulk of publishing in the us is zines - and it is, then the bulk of the NYT book reviews should be on zines -

Holly hell there is so much wrong with this statement. I wokred in the book/publishing industry for most of the last decade and although there are a lot of zines I can safely say the bulk of publications are NOT zines. How in the world you can think that is mind blowing, is there anyone else on here that thinks that?
And why the hell should something that is expressivly a BOOK review bother reviewing something that is not a book? making the demand for the NYT book reiew to review zines would be like demanding they review cd's or cell phones becasue golly, there are just so many of them made now. It's not what that forum is made for. The zine community has had and will always continue to have it's own zine review forums.

I've published 170 issues of my zine Musea - and that's more than the number of novels most big publishing companies have published in the same time. Now instead of a single zinester add every other zinester on the planet and you have a lot of publishing - much more than corporate novels.

The NYT should reflect the publishing world - It calls itself book review, because it refuses to acknowledge zines. Zines have ushered in a golden age of literature. And the NYT missed it.
That's like refusing to talk about rock and roll till 1970.
If you were running a publishing review service would you block out zines and the golden age of literature they ushered in? No of course not. They are not covering the publishing industry.

[CocoaPuss Zine]

i would love to have more mainstream coverage of my zine. mostly because i am obsessed with myself and being famous and want people to know who i am. slightly narcissistic but i love my zine and think everyone should read it. put me in vogue and cosmo, that would make my motherfuckin day.

so far i have had coverage on the venus zine website but my #3 issue i'm going to push really hard at distros and such. maybe even bust and ms. magazine. why the hell not?

Dan 10things said:

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?

[NicoleIntrovert]

you are SADLY mistaken about the number of books published... even per year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_published_per_country_per_year

Tom Hendricks said:

Holden W. Attradies said:

Tom Hendricks said:

If the bulk of publishing in the us is zines - and it is, then the bulk of the NYT book reviews should be on zines -

Holly hell there is so much wrong with this statement. I wokred in the book/publishing industry for most of the last decade and although there are a lot of zines I can safely say the bulk of publications are NOT zines. How in the world you can think that is mind blowing, is there anyone else on here that thinks that?
And why the hell should something that is expressivly a BOOK review bother reviewing something that is not a book? making the demand for the NYT book reiew to review zines would be like demanding they review cd's or cell phones becasue golly, there are just so many of them made now. It's not what that forum is made for. The zine community has had and will always continue to have it's own zine review forums.

I've published 170 issues of my zine Musea - and that's more than the number of novels most big publishing companies have published in the same time. Now instead of a single zinester add every other zinester on the planet and you have a lot of publishing - much more than corporate novels.

The NYT should reflect the publishing world - It calls itself book review, because it refuses to acknowledge zines. Zines have ushered in a golden age of literature. And the NYT missed it.
That's like refusing to talk about rock and roll till 1970.
If you were running a publishing review service would you block out zines and the golden age of literature they ushered in? No of course not. They are not covering the publishing industry.