AI forgotten in books!; AI art in lit mags; viral poetry; death of the poetry critic; publishing poetry reviews; history of O'Henry stories; poet pet peeves; advice; interviews; Buellers; and more
The piece you reference was, in my opinion, an excuse for Brooks to poke at "the left" again. Also, this piece is rife with nostalgia for white male writers, while also centering novels as the only form literary fiction could possibly take. "Audacious" writing is all around, even if David Brooks doesn't think so 🙄COLSON WHITEHEAD; MIRANDA JULY; JAMES MCBRIDE; ANN LAMOTT; JILL CIMENT; ANA MENENDEZ; SUSAN ORLEAN; ZZ PACKER; ELENA FERRANTE, ETC. ETC. ETC.
Oh the horror of being outed as an AI-aided “novelist” before your self-published Amazon (perfect sales platform for a “nonbook”) creation has a chance to become a mass market success! The difficulty I have with all these accounts of AI fails is understanding the motivation. If a person couldn’t write, why would they aspire to be a novelist or any other kind of creative writer? Are they after the privilege of calling themselves writers? The “joy” of endlessly promoting their work like Amway salespeople at the risk of alienating friends and family? The nonexistent prospect of fame and fortune after they publish? I am well and truly stumped.
I notice that The Dark Horse is mentioned in this post. I've been a subscriber for years and can affirm the very high quality of the magazine. But there hasn't been a new issue in quite a while. I've written to Gerry Cambridge, the editor, to inquire, but haven't received a reply. Does anyone have information about the current status or outlook for this magazine?
Guess what? Writing is hard. It doesn't matter if you're writing poems, stories, novels, essays, epics. It's hard using your brain and mind, your heart and emotions, your knowledge and experience along with that elusive quality called inspiration and come out in the end with something more than just creditable. If you're not up to the game, take the bench. Oh, sure, give it a try, I wouldn't deny you that chance, but if you have to resort to AI to make your writing more exciting or descriptive or quotable or (god forbid) sound like your favorite author, it's time to go back to shop class and work on that birdhouse.
* * * * Question to my colleagues * * * * Certain lit-mags also helm an indie press - - some of whom "publish" chapbooks with no ISBN as a free download on their website. Without an ISBN #, your chapbook cannot be listed on GoodReads, etc. So it's a trade-off: you have a chapbook but it probably won't get reviewed. Should you go for it - - or not? OPINIONS, please!
Hi Debra. The Lit Mag Chat is July 21st. I initially wrote the 23rd in the Save the Dates announcement because I am a doofus. If you visit the Save the Dates page all the info there is now correct.
Becky, no, not a doofus! You are a literally a literary star! The 23rd conflicted with something else on my calendar. Now, I have to remember to come on the 21st! How about all those exclamation points...
"In this case, however, it seems the artwork was indeed made by an artist, simply one who works with AI." This sentence doesn't make sense for me. I think by most folks' definitions, that's AI art, and most pubs wouldn't use it - see recent situations with Clarkesworld and Cosmic Horror Monthly, for example.
It is AI art, that's a good point. I meant the artist makes a living by selling his AI artwork to Shutterstock. So in that sense it's arguably not putting an artist out of work by using this art. But I agree this could be clearer, and I understand that some might wish to not consider AI art in any form whatsoever. This is part of a bigger conversation, I think. I'll address this in a weekend discussion soon.
I hadn't seen their other posts. That said, I share content relevant to literary magazines. If an outlet has news that is relevant I share that news. Readers can decide for themselves which outlets are worthy of their support generally. That has always been my policy, and will remain so.
and man, a quick scan of "Fandom Pulse" makes it clear that these are a bunch of assholes. Recent headline: "Former Amazon And Disney Executive Affirms That Hollywood Has "Contempt For The Audience" And Hostility "Toward White People And Men"
"Marvel’s relaunch of Fantastic Four with another all-new #1 first issue is beyond just a cynical marketing ploy; it’s an attempt to push the feminism narrative that’s pervasive in the upcoming movie, where Sue Storm is now the leader of the Fantastic Four.
When Jack Kirby created the Fantastic Four, Reed Richards was the leader and patriarch, but in modern corporate entertainment, this is something that cannot be tolerated.
....This new #1 also added a sinister feminism to it."
I'm having an Alice moment here, so forgive me if I compose this in my recliner. Cover art? Really? Submitting art to a lit mag and editors designing their own cover art is confusing apple trees with iPads. But when we conclude this, the Queen, shouts "No! Sentence first--verdict afterward." My head spins.
Sorry not sorry for the F bomb, but, fuck me, really? Storm cellar? I poneyed up $15 for a contest at the end of April. Guess I'll go over to submittable and withdraw and put them on my do not submit to list and delete the book mark.
I submitted a story somewhere recently. It was via Submittable and there was NO field for a cover letter.
I thought: How great is that! Beautiful. THANK YOU! I wanted to hug whoever set that up.
Why have one? Read the work and if you like it, and want to accept it, you can get more info later.
The piece you reference was, in my opinion, an excuse for Brooks to poke at "the left" again. Also, this piece is rife with nostalgia for white male writers, while also centering novels as the only form literary fiction could possibly take. "Audacious" writing is all around, even if David Brooks doesn't think so 🙄COLSON WHITEHEAD; MIRANDA JULY; JAMES MCBRIDE; ANN LAMOTT; JILL CIMENT; ANA MENENDEZ; SUSAN ORLEAN; ZZ PACKER; ELENA FERRANTE, ETC. ETC. ETC.
Oh the horror of being outed as an AI-aided “novelist” before your self-published Amazon (perfect sales platform for a “nonbook”) creation has a chance to become a mass market success! The difficulty I have with all these accounts of AI fails is understanding the motivation. If a person couldn’t write, why would they aspire to be a novelist or any other kind of creative writer? Are they after the privilege of calling themselves writers? The “joy” of endlessly promoting their work like Amway salespeople at the risk of alienating friends and family? The nonexistent prospect of fame and fortune after they publish? I am well and truly stumped.
I notice that The Dark Horse is mentioned in this post. I've been a subscriber for years and can affirm the very high quality of the magazine. But there hasn't been a new issue in quite a while. I've written to Gerry Cambridge, the editor, to inquire, but haven't received a reply. Does anyone have information about the current status or outlook for this magazine?
Thanks, Thomas, for raising this. I wondered, too. Seems too quiet at The Dark Horse.
Here’s something I wrote a while back in response to learning people use AI to “write” poetry… still shaking my head!!
Win loss…
It’s like all things in life…
you cannot win by cheating…
you always know you cheated…
you always know you didn’t win!
It beggars belief, you’d cheat with AI,
in an art where there are only winners!
if you read poetry; you win!!
if you write poetry; you win!!!
Unless, of course, you cheat…
‘cause cheaters never win,
even when there are only winners…
you found a way to lose!!!
John Alley
29/4/24
Guess what? Writing is hard. It doesn't matter if you're writing poems, stories, novels, essays, epics. It's hard using your brain and mind, your heart and emotions, your knowledge and experience along with that elusive quality called inspiration and come out in the end with something more than just creditable. If you're not up to the game, take the bench. Oh, sure, give it a try, I wouldn't deny you that chance, but if you have to resort to AI to make your writing more exciting or descriptive or quotable or (god forbid) sound like your favorite author, it's time to go back to shop class and work on that birdhouse.
* * * * Question to my colleagues * * * * Certain lit-mags also helm an indie press - - some of whom "publish" chapbooks with no ISBN as a free download on their website. Without an ISBN #, your chapbook cannot be listed on GoodReads, etc. So it's a trade-off: you have a chapbook but it probably won't get reviewed. Should you go for it - - or not? OPINIONS, please!
Becky. Is the Lit Mag Chat M 7/21 or W 7/23? Thanks. Debra
Hi Debra. The Lit Mag Chat is July 21st. I initially wrote the 23rd in the Save the Dates announcement because I am a doofus. If you visit the Save the Dates page all the info there is now correct.
POO. How rude of my job that pays the rent to have me working on the 21st. I was expecting the 23rd. oh well. next month then maybe!
(Silly Cubs games getting in the way)
Becky, no, not a doofus! You are a literally a literary star! The 23rd conflicted with something else on my calendar. Now, I have to remember to come on the 21st! How about all those exclamation points...
Leaving an AI chat in the published work? How did that happen? No editor? Or was it self-published. That’s definitely cringe. Oof.
"In this case, however, it seems the artwork was indeed made by an artist, simply one who works with AI." This sentence doesn't make sense for me. I think by most folks' definitions, that's AI art, and most pubs wouldn't use it - see recent situations with Clarkesworld and Cosmic Horror Monthly, for example.
It is AI art, that's a good point. I meant the artist makes a living by selling his AI artwork to Shutterstock. So in that sense it's arguably not putting an artist out of work by using this art. But I agree this could be clearer, and I understand that some might wish to not consider AI art in any form whatsoever. This is part of a bigger conversation, I think. I'll address this in a weekend discussion soon.
Yes, your point is definitely arguable. To me, if someone's cheating at art, they're harming artists.
What about Fandom Pulse? Just at a quick scan, the site's clearly run by bigots; why'd you choose to boost it?
I hadn't seen their other posts. That said, I share content relevant to literary magazines. If an outlet has news that is relevant I share that news. Readers can decide for themselves which outlets are worthy of their support generally. That has always been my policy, and will remain so.
and man, a quick scan of "Fandom Pulse" makes it clear that these are a bunch of assholes. Recent headline: "Former Amazon And Disney Executive Affirms That Hollywood Has "Contempt For The Audience" And Hostility "Toward White People And Men"
This definitely the pub you want to quote?
oh man
"Marvel’s relaunch of Fantastic Four with another all-new #1 first issue is beyond just a cynical marketing ploy; it’s an attempt to push the feminism narrative that’s pervasive in the upcoming movie, where Sue Storm is now the leader of the Fantastic Four.
When Jack Kirby created the Fantastic Four, Reed Richards was the leader and patriarch, but in modern corporate entertainment, this is something that cannot be tolerated.
....This new #1 also added a sinister feminism to it."
this shit is wild
I'm having an Alice moment here, so forgive me if I compose this in my recliner. Cover art? Really? Submitting art to a lit mag and editors designing their own cover art is confusing apple trees with iPads. But when we conclude this, the Queen, shouts "No! Sentence first--verdict afterward." My head spins.
Sorry not sorry for the F bomb, but, fuck me, really? Storm cellar? I poneyed up $15 for a contest at the end of April. Guess I'll go over to submittable and withdraw and put them on my do not submit to list and delete the book mark.
UGH.