is the name of my next collection of poetry
here are a list of my books in the order they'll come out or are out
this emotion was a little e-book
I Clean My Apple By Licking My Apple. Then I Eat My Apple Because My Apple Is Clean.
you are a little bit happier than i am
Bed
pretentious shitface blueberry hamster-head-body-paste fuckhead
i guess
action books will publish 'pretentious shitface blueberry hamster-head-body-paste fuckhead' if they like it
if they don't like it i'll have to write cover letters
in cover letters you always put the book title in all caps
so it will be like
Attached is my second collection of poetry, PRETENTIOUS SHITFACE BLUEBERRY HAMSTER-HEAD-BODY-PASTE FUCKHEAD, for your consideration.
this is a really stupid title
it's not the real title
there's a kind of writer that does not 'stand the test of time' (i have to use the cliche so that many of you can understand me) and so does not 'enter the canon'
this is pretty much the only kind of writer i am interested in reading right now
therefore i only read very contemporary writing
this kind of writer is the kind who realizes certain illusions, who writes about them, and thinks about them, and so realizes and understands them even more, and then finally doesn't care anymore about anything
some of these illusions are
the idea that success can get you things
the idea of 'good' in a meaningless universe (or, the same, a universe where everything is not known)
the same with 'bad,' 'important,' etc.
the idea that one can define the word 'meaning' without first defining the 'meaning' of some other things
the idea that you are your art, and therefore you can survive past death
the idea that people can actually say things and that those things can be somehow 'true'
once the writer realizes these things there is little motivation to 'succeed,' to 'convince others that they are good (there is no 'good'),' to 'write reviews of other people's art,' to 'talk about other people's art in a way that can be responded to without the response being very influenced by the above list,' and
other thingsother things that you need to do to be reviewed by important people, to be reviewed and known by the mainstream (and most of the independent, also) media, and to 'get your name out there'
that's one reason why this kind of writer will not 'stand the test of time'
another is that the people in power, the people who decide the canon, do not believe that the universe is stupid, meaninglessness, and a terrible place
they do not believe that their actions are stupid, pointless, and insignificant
they use words like 'good' 'bad' 'important' 'life-affirming,' etc.
their worldview is the opposite of the kind of writer i am describinga person who has been reviewing books for thirty years, gradually 'moving up' and getting promotions and whatever, winning awards, etc., at an 'important' newspaper or magazine or university (especially university, where they'll teach 'the canon') will not read and love or understand or agree-with a book about how reviewing books, getting promotions, 'getting ahead,' and winning awards is stupid, meaningless, and (a diluted version of the kind of writer i'm taling about, for the rest of this sentence) 'not at all the most efficient, compassionate, or effective way to achieve happiness for you and/or others'
an example is jean rhys
her books were out of print after
good morning, midnight for like forty years and people thought she had committed suicide; no one cared about her
until she won some award for a novel told from the perspective of a black person; her only novel not told from her own, very autobiographical point-of-view
another example is fernando pessoa
his book was not published in america until like sixty years after he died
and then not because of his philosophy (critics, essays, and introductions, and even back-covers of the books never talk about his philosophy, which is one that realizes all the illusions i listed above, and more) but because of his use of homonyms, based on what i've read about him from 'the establishment's' point-of-view
'the establishment' exists because of organization, the belief that life has value, or, among other things, that success and moreness (anything involving numbers) is 'the way to go'
but when i say 'the establishment' i don't really mean that
i mean everyone
almost all independent presses and 'cult writers,' 'cult people,' etc., anyone who wants to succeed, anyone who actually cares about life, who cares what happens to them beyond 'avoid pain and get pleasure' (though the kind of writer i'm describing will, after a while, come to not know these things (pain, pleasure), but just feel a sort of vague and bemused detachment or else bitter and hateful detachment (probably depending on if they had a happy childhood, among other things)
these are two examples of this kind of writer; jean rhys and fernando pessoa
i'm sure there are thousands of writers like these two whose work has not 'survived'
so the only way i can read them is to read them now, as they are being published
the kind of writer i'm talking about will often be extremely detached, wry, ironic, sarcastic, or meaningless; will write meaningless, pointless, unresolved stories in a 'cold' way, a sort of 'cold,' 'detached' voice
i haven't ever read, for example, the kind of tone and voice in say, matthew rohrer's poems, some of them, or in, say, lorrie moore's 'you're ugly, too,' or in the first few stories in ann beattie's distortions, in any book published before jean rhys' good morning, midnight in 1936
probably not because that tone and voice did not exist before 1936
i think there must be people in like 200 a.d. going around being sarcastic, depressed, and pointless; and writing about it
their writing just didn't 'stand the test of time'
for the reasons i listed above
okay
this has been fun
thank you for reading my essay about why this kind of writer will only ever be able to read by their contemporaries unless this kind of writer later in life writes from a different perspective or else has some 'academic' value, like pessoa, with his 'homonyms'
i didn't edit this thing
i usually do
i usually leave something like this for a few days and work on it a few days
but i've typed this same kind of argument elsewhere before
and people just called me stupid and immature
(which is probably why i will not 'stand the test of time')
so i didn't edit it this time
(and after a while i won't type these things anymore)
i didn't mean to type this essay
look at the beginning of this post; it's about those books i have
also, replace 'homonym' with 'heteronym' in this post
someone emailed me to correct that