/lit/ - Literature

reported
fuck off faggot stop posting about this gook

who are u

Go to bed, Tao.

>>3224914
>>3224918
>>3225001
I want to discuss his literature. Not my fault you guys made him into le funny meme.

I agree, although Richard Yates is my favorite.

>>3225021
Have you read his poetry as well? I haven't yet, I'm not much of a poetry type, but I'm still curious.

>>3225036

Yeah, it's surprisingly good

Bedtime, Tao.

>>3225050
BT: Yeah, I can recall at least a couple times where you'd have a paragraph-long sentence on occasion. I really love how you tied that book together, though. How did you decide on the theme of beds to hold that collection together?

TL: I don't think I decided on that. Almost every story just seemed to have beds in it. I was spending almost all my time alone then, and I didn't have a desk or chair in my room, so I was in bed a lot. Depressed people spend a lot of time in bed maybe. People might look at a book called Bed and think it's about sex, or something, but my Bed is more about sleeping and lying in bed alone, feeling things like loneliness and despair, which I like and think seems funny to some degree. I named it Bed after probably 8/9 of the stories were finished. I don't remember really when I first thought of Bed as the title. After I thought of it I didn't question much, it seemed “immediately satisfying,” I think.

>>3225011

There's nothing funny about Tao. He's the literary equivalent of a forced meme.

Please take conversation of him off /lit/.

>>3224914
>>3225001
>>3225115
SO FUCKING EDGY

>>3225132
because that totally means something

>>3225132
Just stop.

I don't understand the appeal of Tao Lin. Even the average hipster should know he's a fucking hack.

>>3224896
>Suburban Teenage Wasteland Blues
>Not the second worst story in the book
Have you gotten to "Nine, Ten", yet? Easily the best one, or at least that's my angle on it.

>>3225175
I don't think even hipsters really like Tao Lin. 30s and 40s bloggers and journos like him, and old people trying to "stay fresh" like him.

>>3225266
Not yet. I'm curious and will read on after I sleep.

>>3225291
>>3225175
>>3225115
>never read his works.

>>3225316
This. I've never seen one of the hateful posts about Tao Lin actually refer to his work in depth.

>>3225451

> his work
> depth

That might be the reason.

>>3225451

>>3225566
>>3226068
>haven't read Tao Lin

I've only read Eeeee Eee Eeee so far, and I loved it. What should I read next?

His poetry is awful. And all of his work is awful. And he is an indicative little flinch across the cadaver of american literature.

Self-centric and completly in tune with american exceptionalism. Nothing of value.

As a self-obsessed person I find that I can relate to Tao's work. When I saw him interviewed on that cooking the books bit it was like watching an older asian version of myself.

>inb4 faggot, as if I didn't know that

ITT:
hurr durr Tao Lin is shit, go read Game of Thrones

>>3226533
>As a self-obsessed person I find that I can relate to Tao's work.

Oh man.

>People like Tao Lin
>Everbody hates Chuck Palahniuk
At least Palahniuk had coherency. Tao Lin's stuff is like listening to two teenagers squabble about random shit, trying to one up the other on how "random" and "crazy" they are. It's annoying.

>>3226518
And anything else post-1950? What do you think of that?

I would agree, I find Bed his best work. I hope Taipei Taiwan is a shift back to that style.

>>3226544
This isn't accurate at all.

There's a quote by Tao Lin, that comes from an email he sent in trying to sell himself to the editors at gawker.com, which should help anyone who's read his works to understand why he can sometimes seem to be saying completely nothing:

>Though all meaning is arbitrary it can still be used as a tool just like arbitrary rules can be created to make life "better."

He doesn't seem to believe in truth, or consistency, or much of anything, really. The premise of nihilism, of the right being indivisible from the wrong, is, to him, a foregone conclusion, and so he deals in description and story-telling, as rhetoric and explanation are, to his take, inappropriate.

Another example, from the same email:

>I recognize both existential truths and the necessity of politics for a meaningful existence.

Given his ends, his means of conveyance - his style - is quite fitting.

>>3226627
So the point of his books is to have no sort of message, whatsoever.

That's brilliant.

>>3226646
I should have added that they aim to convey an emotional message, and to describe human behaviour via a 'lens of indifference', if you will, making them genuinely universal. There's still much that can be learned from them, but most ideological literature is more akin to persuasive instruction than raw learning: Lin's 'here are the facts' approach provides that opportunity for raw learning, rather than persuasion.

The only time I've ever seen him slip from that rule is when he made, in one sentence in Bed, the observation that sadness can be extracted from anything. It wasn't an unfitting observation, but I was a little irritated by it after having spent so long wandering through this world in which I was, despite not having created it, the arbiter of the characters', and everything else's, meaning.

The point is that that interruption showed me how unhelpful that kind of ideological hand-holding can be, after having realized that I'm in a constant state of having to wrestle with the commentary, even if subtle, of every other author and their myriad philosophies.

>>3226646
>>3226627
Tao Lin is the Seinfeld of literature.

>>3226503
Bed. It's short stories that were published at the same time as Eeeee Eee Eeee. The style is very similar. Shoplifting and Richard Yates are in a more literal, concrete minimalist style. I would just go chronologically through his work.

Roach thread.

>>3226677
>>3226688
dem driple-tubs

>>3226702

>>3226646
No books have a "message". This is pretty basic stuff here, bucko. You should study literature. "The more you know" as they say...

>>3226677
>>3226627
This is nice. I feel like most people "hating" on tao lin have yet to read any of his works or engage with them on a critical level. It is these same people who will skip your astute observations and simply go back to the same old "chink/hipster" shtick.

>>3226683
He is the father of a kind of existential sitcom. Situational Nihilism or something.

>>3226864
>No books have a "message". This is pretty basic stuff here, bucko. You should study literature. "The more you know" as they say...

Yes, they do, you fucktard.

Very, very few authors into automatic writing. The ones who are are self-published cooks with mental problems.

All the normal writers write because they have something to say, not because of 'inspiration'.

>>3226927

If something is written with the sole intent of conveying some kind of "message" then it is propaganda, not literature. Literature, in essence, is open to multiple readings and interpretation.

Also:
>cooks
>all the normal writers

what?

I honestly don't know whether these Tao Lin posts are troll posts or not.

If I'm being trolled -- well done.

This thread is making me furious.

First, I have read Tao's work. I understand why many disenfranchised 20-somethings like Tao. I don't like Tao. I don't like his lazy minimalism, I don't like his "purposeful" vacuity, I don't like his preciousness and fatalism.

He might be a good author to encourage 20-something non-readers to start exploring the world of literature (in the way that, say, the Dragonlance novels might excite a nerdy 13 year-old kid to check out more serious fiction) -- but I've met very few mature readers who like Tao, for all the reasons stated above.

If Tao were noble enough to accept his mediocrity and continue writing to the shallow fan base he's accumulated, I would have no problem with him.

Sadly, like an evangelical, he won't stop pushing his shit on people who want nothing to do with him. And he encourages his fans to evangelize for him, too.

By constantly telling me that I "don't get" Tao because I haven't read enough of Tao -- you're no better than an annoying Christians who insist I "don't get" their religion because I haven't read enough of the Bible.

I have read the Bible. I have read Tao. I don't like either.

So, please -- just stop with all this.

>>3227095
These are fair points. It is important to remember that opinions will remain opinions and enjoyment of literature is subjective. I would not say that Tao is a technically skillful writer, however I would argue that he is a unique one. I enjoy reading his books but would never criticize someone for not sharing that viewpoint.

As for the self-promotion, I can see how it could be tiresome but he is simply exploiting the internet as a tool, I'm sure if you stop looking for Tao Lin, he will magically disappear.

>>3227095
>lazy minimalism
why do you think it's lazy?

>>3227095
I actually enjoy hating Tao's writing style. Funny enough, I also enjoy hating on the Bible. I read both religiously, so that when I meet a Christian or a Taoist (yes, I'm calling them that now), I can shit inside them and make them churn my fecal matter in their upper respiratory passageways and/or digestive tract.

>>3227151
This. He labours for years on his prose. People who can't appreciate deliberate minimalism are disgusting.

>>3227095
This is not an evangelical thread, just one where discussion is provoked. No need to feel like a victim. Maybe it's just not for you.

>>3224896

i want to pour a carton of orange juice onto my face and body
when i am lying on my bed, in the morning
and i want it to be sunday and i want to go back to sleep
and when i fall back asleep i want the orange juice to quickly evaporate
and take me with it

>concrete minmalist
>people actually say this

I like Tao Lin because I am a boring person and he writes about boring people like me

>>3227514
I had a premonition at that instant that all my feeling of subjective time, or timelessness, might one day gush forth from within me and flood into the mold of that scene, to become an exact imitation of its people and movements and sounds; that simultaneous with the completion of this copy, the original might melt away into the distant perspectives of real and objective time; and that I might be left with nothing more than the mere imitation or, to say it another way, with nothing more than an accurately stuffed specimen of my childhood.

Tao who?

>>3227654
>he doesn't know who Tao Lin is

>>3227705
He probably does. Not many people would be willing to admit that they do.

>>3226533
You can't be a faggot, becaue he definitely boned Emily Gould after that.

>>3227620
>"Is my own experience being reflected back at me?"

This kind of catering in contemporary fiction is getting pretty tiresome.

itt: a bunch of people are jealous of Tao Lin's success as an author

>>3228505
>Stallman thinking the picture is about him

lel

Be sure to check out my poem dedicated to Tao Lin:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?a7vhsauinbxstzb

>>3227151
>>3227489

not OP, but "lazy minimalism" describes his style pretty accurately. "lazy" doesn't describe the effort he puts into crafting it (which seems minimal, especially considering that his style has barely changed since he started publishing). rather, it describes the effort needed to read it.

lazy minimalism is the minimalism of an Ikea catalog: no big words, simple sentences, simple ideas. it's prose accessible to readers who get bored reading texts that require even a minimal amount of effort. it's the prose of text messages and facebook posts.

i think this explains a lot of tl's popularity. he's the creator of "american lit-lite" -- books and stories that mimic the poise and scope of literature, and that deliver doses of emotion, but lack the weight to tear through the onionskin of their own pop superficiality.

his apologists will argue that "this is the point." that he's making a big comment on our generation. this is the same tactic used by idiots who come online, say something stupid, get called on it, and then try to cover their idiocy by typing "LOL I TROLL U." if you don't believe me, just pay close attention to what he says in interviews and essays. he never clarifies; he always obscures. Like all phonies, he "muddles his water so it may seem deep."

If you're a fan of tl, keep reading. One day you'll realize why most people grow out of him.

>>3228571

another classic comeback from the pleb circus of tao fans. add it to:

- "go back to reading game of thrones"
- "you've never really read his work"
- "his badness is ironic and intentional"

>>3228732
Life affirming Nietzschean goat reporting in. I only learned to appreciate Lin after I grew out of serious literature. It can be the other way around, like Picasso getting into shitpainting after tiresomely being a glorious realist.

>>3227501
Good point, bro.

>>3227095
but people attacking or defending the work is what happens in any other thread. joyce, nabakov, hemingway, gaiman, etc

for some reason everyone takes it personally when its about tao lin though

no one is trying to convert you, and i dont see the harm in continuing to have threads discussing his writing

>>3228843
yes, yes, you get it

once "life lessons", essayism, political suasion, existential ponderings and moral lectures are stripped away from literature, you get descriptions of bare living

>>3228843
Tao lin is an avant-gardist?

>>3229809

No, he's a terrible author

>>3229724

Do you even know what sensation is?

>>3229826
no

it sounds like you understand it as a particular philosophical term

elaborate

>>3229708

if people do "take it personally" -- which i think is an exaggeration, but whatever -- it's almost always for the same reason they get angry over posts about Ayn Rand or Stephenie Meyer.

there's no question that both are popular writers, and both command large and loyal fan bases.

yet many people here justifiably dismiss these authors -- and tao lin -- because they recognize these author's shit-tier status. by attempting to constantly bring them into the conversation, their fans only annoy people.

you and other tao lin fans are like teenagers who visit your older siblings at college, and embarrass yourselves by arguing that Skrillex is an INCREDIBLY AWESOME and PROFOUNDLY UNIQUE musician, and totally worth discussion.

at which point the college kids chuckle and shake their heads.

but you won't let up. you won't listen to the older kids -- kids who tell you that there are much, much better musicians out there. you keep mentioning Skrillex.

then something awful happens: a few of the lamest college kids start agreeing with you. they really love skrillex, too, and think their peers are being elitist for not loving the fuck out of skrillex.

soon trolls, witnessing how furious these idiots are making their friends, start saying how much they love skrillex.

the only person left with any sense starts pleadings: "for the love of god, just listen to more music. don't insist that this WUBWUBWUB asshole is anything special!"

and they're like, "bro, you're just jealous of his success."

and he's like, "holy fuck, NO NO NO."

tl;dr Tao Lin is the Skrillex of literature

>>3229842

It's an experiential term -

the locus of what art means and why it's important

>>3229872

tao lin: eee eeee eee eeeee
skrillex: WUB WUB WUB WUB

Checks out.

>>3229708
>everyone takes it personally when its about tao lin though

because when Tao Lin isn't writing he's using /lit/ for his v1ral marketing campaigns.

and Tao Lin never fucking writes.

Who's similar to Tao Lin's style but "better"?

>>3229891

Joan Didion.

>>3229872
look, i've read everything from bolano to kafka, and i still think theres stuff worth discussing from tao

i don't think anyone here believes what he writes is comparable to "the greats", but it has a relevance, especially to the /lit/ audience, in terms of subject matter and voice.

and no, "relevance" is not "merit"; i realize this. however, it sounds like you're bringing the same set of expectations to every book. or putting them along some contiuum where authors who have "nothing to say" go into the dustbin of history, while others who have profound meaningful commentaries about fascism/existentialism/slavery get a slot in the canon.

>>3229926

Would you recommend Fight Club to angsty teens? Does that say anything about the worth of Fight Club?

>>3229891
what is Tao Lin's "style"?

>>3229930
i'm not sure what you're getting at but fight club has a place in the overall landscape of reading. as does high fantasy, thrillers, and romance novels.

i would put fight club a cut above the usual mass-market chatter, but below foer, if you are thinking of "literary worth". my point overlal though is not all authors attempt to engage the literary tradition, and people who expect them to are mistaken

>>3229955

Sure, but there can be lines drawn as to what is worth your time and what's not - as far as appreciation of art goes.

>>3229954
minimalism, simple, direct, etc

>>3229825
well I'm speaking as a scholar of art history.. None of Picasso's painting was ever "shitpainting." Only the Nazi's and buttfrustrated german art students called it that. So I thought you were conflating being aesthetically challenging and avant-garde with being "shit."

And I am actually still inclined to believe that, despite never having read any of mr Lin's books, his writing is avant-gardist... It seems to me that it is being critiqued with the same sort of polemics used to critique avant garde art of the early 20th century. Either that, or the comparison with Picasso is entirely spurious.

>>3229959
He has three styles actually not just one. It would be nice if people actually read something by Tao before posting.

>>3229954
Minimalistic...I guess?
I guess I want to know his influences

>>3229960

I'm not the dude that made the comparison.

Lin isn't doing anything remotely as interesting as Picasso, to be sure

>>3229961
Which are?

>>3229963
>wikipedia
>Tao Lin
>influences
>Joy Williams, David Foster Wallace, Lorrie Moore, Frederick Barthelme, Jean Rhys, Ann Beattie, Richard Yates, Matthew Rohrer, Lydia Davis, Noah Cicero, Fernando Pessoa, Don DeLillo[1]

funny, the names I recognize are certainly not minimalist writers

>>3229958
but worth WHO's time? and how much? not everyone is looking to slog through ulysses, as much as i like it and think it a pleasure to read.

it took me an afternoon to read eee eeeee eeee, and i got a lot out of it. and there was art in it, in the voice/style he writes with. people become alienated because of the subject matter; he'd be hailed as the next coming of hemingway if he had gone to war and wrote about afghanistan.

>>3229982

The Hemingway comparison is hilarious. I doubt you've read the guy

>>3229987
i've read him. they are similar. and i doubt you've read tao. you are comparing their lives, not their writing.

>>3229980
just because you're influenced/inspired by certain writers doesn't mean you end up writing exactly as they do

>>3229998

I'm comparing their writing. There's only a very, very loose connection stylistically. And as far as talent or intrigue goes, neither are all that extraordinary

>>3229973
He has his essay style, his style used in Eeee and his concrete literal style seen in Richard Yates

>>3230009
Hemingway > Ann Beattie > Tao

but really, tao is not much like Hway

>>3229980
>funny, the names I recognize are certainly not minimalist writers

>Lorrie Moore, Barthelme, Ann Beattie

you better reconize

>>3230014
>>3230003
explain briefly how they differ

not about the content/subject matter, that's obviously 180 degrees of difference, but the style

>>3230020

For starters, Hemingway's writing is much more punchy and evocative than Tao's.

>>3230027
>and
tao's language, even his grammar, doesn't have a center, whereas hemingway's does

The very fact that /lit/ has such a hardon for Tao Lin (whether trolling or not) demonstrates his success as a writer.

>>3230051
>success as a writer.
you live in an insulated world where attention from 4chan translates to literary success

>>3230060
but Tao Lin has literary success.

And thanks for telling me what I know about the literary world LOL

>>3229960
>Only the Nazi's and buttfrustrated german art students called it that.

>Nazis didn't like it
>Nazis are bad

>thus picasso's painting is good


Picasso's work is fucking garbage.

>HURDUR SO D333P
>2DERP4U
>EVEN THOUGH HE PAINTS LIKE A CHILD, IT'S OKAY BECAUSE ITS DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP


Filthy pleb.

>>3230091
muh avunt gerd

>>3230091
Picasso didn't just paint in the cubist style. He even rejected it when people started copying him.

>>3230091
No, troll-kun, the reason Nazi's aesthetic and 'cultural' mandate is to be doubted is because it was directly in the service of a form of fascist social control. Okay, nyaa~?

>>3230130
weaboos plz go

>>3230146
nuuuuu! :c

>>3229883
>Doesn't know that Eeeee Eee Eeee is an onomatopoeia for the dolphin call
Yet another one who hasn't read his work.

>>3229960
As the person who made the Picasso/shitpainting comparison, I of course I wasn't actually calling Picasso shit. There's a crudeness and simplicity sometimes that throws off people that expect something "conventionally good". The same goes for Lin. Not to put Lin necessarily on Picasso's level, but I made the comparison since both offer a return to simplicty in someway that can easily be mistaken for incompetence by less observant critics.

>>3230521
Your second comment feels sincere, but your first give me the impression that you're trolling, so, instead of actually replying, I'll just give you this description of my confusion and wait for somebody else to reply.

>>3230521

>Eeeee Eee Eeee is an onomatopoeia for the dolphin call

This is meant to impress people into reading him? ... What?

>>3230521
I think Banksy would have been a better comparison than Picasso. Most people recognise the genius of Picasso, and he has painted a lot of realism besides the abstract he became famous for, so it is obvious he can paint classically. Banksy is ridiculed for being a talentless hack who produces mediocre work that practically anyone could do, yet, for some reason, a few people are drawn to it.

>>3230524
The second comment was sincere and serious. The first comment was sincere, but less serious.

>>3230540
>Banksy is ridiculed for being a talentless hack who produces mediocre work that practically anyone could do
[citation needed]

>>3230540

>>3230540
Banksy isn't criticized because anyone could do it, some of his work is quite difficult, he's criticized for being eye-rollingly didactic.

>>3230562
>he's criticized for being eye-rollingly didactic

How dare he!

>>3224896

>>3230556
I shouldn't have to provide citations for easy to google things that everybody is already aware of, cocksniff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/22/arts.visualarts
"Here's a mystery for you. Renegade urban graffiti artist Banksy is clearly a guffhead of massive proportions, yet he's often feted as a genius straddling the bleeding edge of now. Why? Because his work looks dazzlingly clever to idiots. And apparently that'll do.[...]

Take his political stuff. One featured that Vietnamese girl who had her clothes napalmed off. Ho-hum, a familiar image, you think. I'll just be on my way to my 9 to 5 desk job, mindless drone that I am. Then, with an astonished lurch, you notice sly, subversive genius Banksy has stencilled Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald either side of her. Wham! The message hits you like a lead bus: America ... um ... war ... er ... Disney ... and stuff. Wow. In an instant, your worldview changes forever. Your eyes are opened. Staggering away, mind blown, you flick v-signs at a Burger King on the way home. Nice one Banksy! You've shown us the truth, yeah?"

>>3230566
ya dude this is the 21st century, you're supposed to be morally neutral and ironic.

>>3230574

That article's hilarious:

>One of the most imbecilic daubings depicts a monkey wearing a sandwich board with "lying to the police is never wrong" written on it. So presumably Ian Huntley was right then, Banksy? You absolute thundering backside.

>Recently, our hero's made headlines by sneaking a dummy dressed in Guantánamo rags into Disneyland (once again fearlessly exposing Mickey Mouse's disgusting war criminal past)"

>As if that wasn't irritating enough, Banksy's vague, pseudo-subversive preaching is often accompanied by a downright embarrassing hardnut swagger. His website is full of advice to other would-be graffiti bores, like: "be aware that going on a mission drunk out of your head will result in some truly spectacular artwork and at least one night in the cells". Woah, man - the cells!

>>3230592
It's written by Charlie Brooker - a British journalist with a brilliant cynical dry humour. He used to have a few TV shows in which he would attack as much cultural stupidity as he could. They're definitely worth checking out if you enjoy his style. Here's a clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b7mwTK564o

>>3230592
Have you watched Black Mirror and Dead Set? They are written by the guy who wrote the article.

I don't typically like his work, but "Love is a thing on sale for more money than there exists" is a fantastic little short story.

>>3230609
Black Mirror was great. A deadpan ironic poke at disposable entertainment, cult of celebrity, and media culture, made even more hilarious, if somewhat poignant, by the high viewing figures of people who's television-addicted heads it smoothly sailed over. Even the name Black Mirror -a literal name for the rectangular device in the corner of every lounge- is brilliant, despite the fact that it was missed by most.

If I recall correctly, the one about the talent show was aired live, directly after the x-factor finale; genius.

>>3227095
>>3228732
>>3229872

Love how none of Tao's white knights can persuasively respond to the criticism brought up in these well-written and thoughtful posts.

Come on, Taoists. Defend your wittle big-eyed dolphin-noise making author. Tell us why your Skrillex is worthy of discussion day after day on this board.

Then explain to us how his evangelical, slavish fan base is any better than Stephanie Meyer's carnival of 13 year old girls and 54 year-old housewives.

PS. Don't forget to tell me "I hate him because I'm not as successful," or "It's clear he's good, because people think he's bad," or -- my absolute favorite -- "I just haven't read enough of him."

>>3230780
I don't see any criticism in those posts except "I don't like minimalism" and "I think it is too easy to read".

>>3230780
>implying that wasn't all you

I'll never buy one of his books myself. Which one should I ask for from Santa?

>>3230925
Bed is probably the best place to start. It deals with similar themes as his other books, but it's written in a less minimal style, so it might not bore you as much

>>3230925

everything this god has written is divine. you cannot go wrong.

>>3230952
Oh, we were just talking about you.

>>3230925
Bed.