blackfashion:

Author Zadie Smith’s Rules for Writers

1) When still a child, make sure you read a lot of books. Spend more time doing this than anything else.

2) When an adult, try to read your own work as a stranger would read it, or even better, as an enemy would.

3) Don’t romanticise your “vocation”. You can either write good sentences or you can’t. There is no “writer’s lifestyle”. All that matters is what you leave on the page.

4) Avoid your weaknesses. But do this without telling yourself that the things you can’t do aren’t worth doing. Don’t mask self-doubt with contempt.

5) Leave a decent space of time between writing something and editing it.

6) Avoid cliques, gangs, groups. The presence of a crowd won’t make your writing any better than it is.

7) Work on a computer that is disconnected from the ­internet.

8) Protect the time and space in which you write. Keep everybody away from it, even the people who are most important to you.

9) Don’t confuse honours with achievement.

10) Tell the truth through whichever veil comes to hand – but tell it. Resign yourself to the lifelong sadness that comes from never ­being satisfied.

Love Zadie.

annearchal:

I’m trying to figure out what this popular style of art is called, besides “bad” or “hipster.”

It’s not really folk, because it doesn’t borrow overtly from any specific traditions. It’s not outsider art because despite the prevalence of self-publishing it’s been recognized by the institution (for example, Julia Wertz is nominated for an Eisner Award this year). It’s not quite naïve either, because despite the fact that Kate Beaton and very likely at least some of the others have no formal arts training, they are part of the art world and art practices. I guess you could call it ‘pseudo naïve’ or ‘faux naïve’—although that implies the ability to draw in a naturalistic style (in the manner of Picasso) which I seriously doubt these artists have.*shrug*

I guess I have a sort of ambivalent relationship to this style of comic-ing that has grown significantly in popularity as of late. On the one hand, the form does serve its function—that is to say, telling a story and/or getting laughs. It makes sense for Kate Beaton’s drawing style to be totally unrealistic and break all the laws of perspective and anatomy, because she tells silly jokes. Wertz’ comics also have a sense of humour and tell the story of a young adult situated in that stage of life between the irresponsibility of being a teenager and the maturity and responsibility that comes with being an adult. In this way, the naïve style of her comics make sense. However, because we associate the naïve style with such things as innocence, childhood, madness and humour, it often (for me at least) clashes with the sometimes serious nature of her writing. It also doesn’t help that Wertz’ drawing style looks like it reached our era from a time machine that took off from some teenager’s desk in 1984.

In my opinion, art is most successful when rendering style and content match. I love ancient art, medieval art, indigenous art, folk art and outsider art (all of which tend not to be naturalistic) for this very reason. However, I do scratch my head a bit when I see intelligent and highly educated people (by comparison) who are a part of the institution, who may or may not have studied art at the post-secondary level or on the side, who simply cannot work in a naturalistic mode. This doesn’t relate simply to comics, but to the most erudite gallery art as well. Why? Because I see naturalistic representation as ART 101—the stepping stone for institutionalized artistic expression. You gotta know the rules to break ‘em.

Now I am a fan of the Underground Comix scene that flourished in the 60’s and 70’s, and which persisted into the 1980’s (Robert Crumb, the Hernandez Brothers, Art Spiegelman, among others). However, compared to the new crop of comic artists, the aforementioned draughtsmen are the equivalent of Rembrandt. This raises a red flag for me, because there is an important distinction between adopting a naïve or faux naïve style because it fits your objective, and adopting a naïve style because you don’t have the skills necessary to work in a more appropriate mode—to the detriment of the work. This is the point where charming naïvette begins to cross over into just plain bad (and potentially insulting, to people in the industry that have put in many years of studying and perfecting their art).

What are you thoughts?

_____….____________..____……………__________..___………______……_…
I don’t really have a comment as I think this was an interesting read despite me being mildly obsessed with Kate Beaton. You would think I’d be offended but I liked this. The other artists of Pizza Island I’m not as familiar with, but I enjoy the project of female cartoonists getting together. I think it really helps them to edify one another and supports a comfortable environment.

But as far as Kate Beaton goes, I feel like she’s a historian/comedian. It’s really graphic storytelling, which is what most comics are defined as. She reminds me of Sarah Vowell only she brings her historical humor in snippets and bad doodles rather than a full on book. I happen to enjoy that and also wouldn’t know what to classify her art as. But I love it. I have to say that although I don’t think Kate Beaton is a trained artist, there is something special about how she presents facial expressions even if the rest of her panels are a bit of a mess. I’m not very good at art criticism, never have been. But I appreciate those who can even look at throw-away comics and have something to say. Does this kind of art threaten “real” art? Does it really have to be defined? I’m not sure but I do enjoy it. Well, then I guess I did have a comment.

Kaimal Mark II Lens, Blanko Film, Dreampop Flash, Taken with Hipstamatic

So I’ve started reading poetry again. Haven’t done that in quite awhile. I thought about where I should start and then I remembered how much I liked John Keats’ Ode to a Grecian Urn in middle school. Well, I didn’t like it at first. But that was only because I couldn’t understand it. Our teacher sort of made it like a puzzle you had to solve and I found the fun in that. After that, I tried a little harder going after poetry and even writing it myself. Unsuccessful on the writing part but that just made me appreciate lyricists even more.

So lucky me!, while at one of my favorite bookstores, Cheever Books, I found a pocket sized John Keats with 14 of his poems. Cheever Books by the way has the most amazing selection and even though the books are used, they’re in amazing shape. I purchased 6 books from them one time and spent $30 while I’ve spent $30 at Borders and got 2 books. Just goes to show that supporting local businesses isn’t always as expensive as most people think.

Anyway, what a fantastic way to start off this cute little book was with his poem On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer. I didn’t know who Chapman was at the time and I had to familiarize myself with Homer before I completely dived in. I do believe in titles and it’s funny when you hear what a title of a song is and you think it has nothing to do with it at all. But I think there’s always background to that and it can be important when you’re tackling a song, novel, or a poem. This must be why it’s been difficult to name some of my short stories. But Keats here shows that sometimes it’s just easier to get straight to the point.
I say it’s a good start to the rest of his poems because it’s a poem about discovery. He starts out talking about all the places he’s gone (…many goodly states…western islands have I been) and it makes him somewhat of a stranger in these places. At least, that’s what I always take travel to be. You’re a foreigner even outside your own neighborhood and nothing is yours. Keats description of his travel seems far off. Beautiful but not his own. But once he hears and understands Homer’s “demesne” (domain) from Chapman, it’s as though he takes possession of this new land that Homer has laid out. I look at the title again: Chapman’s Homer, Chapman’s Homer. In being the translator or having knowledge of Homer, it first belonged to him. Figuratively speaking of course. What I’m saying is I suppose that when you know something, it can never be taken away from you. And in sharing that knowledge, you give other people that power. Chapman was an educator in my eyes before I knew anything about him. He helped Keats to see, to understand. And what a great thing to possess and then share!
Once Chapman spoke “out loud and bold”, Keats became like an astronomer who has captured a new planet (like some watcher of the skies When a new planet swims into his ken). He becomes like the explorer Hernán Cortés while he stands on a peak in Darien (Panama). Astronomers, conquistadors: they are more than just travelers. They are explorers. Discovery is then theirs, never to be taken away. Chapman allowed Keats to understand and Homer, with all his adventures and all of his empire, can now be his.

It’s such a good poem to start with, especially if you haven’t dived into poetry, because this poem is about so much understanding and discovery. And it’s definitely about how literature or poetry can really take you places. It’s interesting because I’ve never been out of the country except to Mexico. And when you live in Texas, especially San Antonio, the feeling is we belong to Mexico and Mexico belong to us. I feel like I haven’t traveled that far at all then. But if I never leave this country, I’m grateful for books. I’m grateful for all that I see with the help of authors and poets. Of course photographers and film directors can help too but with books, it’s about what you see; not what someone is letting you see. Then it can’t be yours to have. You’re just borrowing it. Let someone truly bestow a knowledge on you and it yours to run away with and have forever.

The picture above is the next poem I’ve read by Keats, from Sleep and Poetry. I’ve already deciphered it and jotted down notes in between stanzas. I’m still going over it a few more times. I won’t write about it here but maybe another time. This has been an excellent exercise for my mind and I hope I can keep it up.

Before I head off to the march, I just wanted to say, thanks Nastia for the new letter! I figured you were busy for school so CONGRATS!

Anyway, so far I have two pen pals and it’s awesome. I find it very inspiring and who doesn’t like to get letters? Amirite? So I’ll just leave this here and if you want to also be my pen pal, send me some info and I’ll get to licking some stamps. Don’t worry, I’m not a crazy stalker. That sounds like too much work. It must be exhausting to be a stalker and I already have two jobs. No time. But I do have time to sit and write letters. So yeah. If you don’t feel safe using tumblr to send info, my email is here!

Alright then, bye.