Writer Cat Fight

He said the idea of winning an award after concluding the piece was pathetic. It was.

He didn't say Jones was pathetic.

Maybe I just don't think like Chris Jones, but I have never finished something and believed it would win an award. I've submitted things and thought they might do well, but that's a whole other concept.

 

(applause)

 

Martin, I don't really know who you are, but you're obviously not someone I missed around here, so I guess I'll have to just get over your disappointment that I didn't live up to my own idyllic beliefs there when daemon called Chris a "sad case."

 

I was probably a little hard on Jones. As I said, I hope he didn't mean to come across the way he did. In fact, I'm pretty sure that he didn't. I understand the point he was trying to make. I just think he went overboard, as he does a lot on that blog. It's one thing to offer a critical deconstruction of guy like Jason Whitlock. It's another to say he has no soul. It's one thing to try to explain the philosophy behind what some viewed as a whiny, self-serving message on Twitter. It's another to say those who do not adhere to that philosophy are destined to fail. There's a difference between hyperbole as a literary device and melodrama.

 

Double Down,

I'm not the only one who used the word "sad" on this thread, but I will stand by it. I didn't mean that Jones is a sad individual. Rather, it's sad that he feels that the mainstream success he has enjoyed gives him a license to offer the definitive word on all things writing. The problem isn't the subject matter. I would have enjoyed a nuanced blog post about the insecurities a writer faces on a daily basis and the conflicted feelings he experiences about the desire for recognition. The problem is, he comes across like a college professor preaching the good word to his fawning students instead of a writer who is genuinely interested in offering his perspective on the craft. If Gary Smith had written that blog post, it would be equally sad. But Gary Smith wouldn't have written that blog post. Which, in the end, is my point.

 

Chris can write whatever he likes, even if it's all about himself getting passed over for an award. But what I don't understand is why he takes such offense to people who don't agree with his take on writing and awards. Why does he feel the need to blow up daemon on the first page of this thread and that young woman Michelle Dean on the second blog post?

That's just being a bully. It's also another example of the arrogance that leads him to believe that he's worthy of only the biggest awards. It's OK for people to disagree with you without getting all bent out of your frame. Writers should always have thick skins because every reader is a critic, whether you agree with the criticism or not.

 

Except Magic wouldn't write a blog post about the 200 jumpers he is taking. He would let his game do the talking. That's the thing that amazes me about greatness: so many of those who possess it seem to find all of their affirmation inside of themselves. I winced when I saw Jones' Tweet about his Ebert story, but it was definitely a normal human reaction. Problem is, normal humans shouldn't be drawing a line in the sand between what constitutes success and failure.

 

That's very adult of you, Chris. The old, "Your point of view means so little to me that I can't even remember what you wrote" tack. If you can find time to review the post, you might find some helpful advice from some writers who are a hell of a lot more accomplished than you. You also might find a section where I admit that only you know what is really going through your head. But the point is how you came across, and as we both know, you shape other people's perception of reality with the words you write. And that's the perception I got from your post/writing (as well as, in hindsight, since I wasn't aware you were TypeFitter at the time, your all-snot, no-substance post on the first page of this thread).

But I don't want you to lose the main point, since your memory is cluttered: whatever motivates you is fine. But just because another writer doesn't share that motivation does not make him or her a failure. I don't know if you are looking to create a blog that encourages an open discussion of the craft, or a cult in which everybody tells you how brilliant you are. But if it is the former, I'd encourage you amend your viewpoint on failure.

 

Criticizing Chris for the Whitlock stuff, as far as I'm concerned, is fine. I didn't even weigh in on that thread until it became about something else, the battle for the soul of this place, which I concede is absurd, even as I type it now. I might counter with the fact that Whitlock criticizes everyone, so it's a little strange to see people so upset that Jones sucker punched a bully in the mouth, but it's fair to say you thought it was bush league.

Criticizing the writing stuff on the blog -- the stuff that's obviously personal -- I guess I'm not really sure I get it. It's a blogspot blog about writing. It's not the voice of god. I don't think it's pretending to be. I feel a little bit like going there and reading it, and then bitching and bitching about the content, is a bit like going to someone's house and being pissed that they're playing songs you hate on their iPod. Daemon, if Chris is not, as you say, in the league of Gary Smith or Tom Junod -- again, it's all subjective, so your point there is totally fair, even if I disagree -- then maybe you'd prefer to read a blog by Tom Junod or Gary Smith where they talk about writing, and share their ambitions, their demons, their technical methods and their hopes. I'm not aware of any such blog though. Maybe you should start one. You're obviously a fine writer yourself. If Jones is full of it, as you say, then offer a respectful rebuttal. I'll bookmark it. Chris probably will too. My grandfather used to say no one has cornered the market on knowledge. Mr. Dick Whitman is always presuming that certain people here only read a handful of writers they happen to be friends with. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just end up fighting about the same writers here over and over. If anyone one wants to fight about Atul Gawande, I'm more than willing.

People seem to be under the mistaken impression that Chris has somehow anointed himself this guru of writing, and that he believes he's the gatekeeper and we should all bow to his knowledge. He's done no such thing. He started a bloody blogspot blog because he likes to talk about words, the Writing Life, and the choices we make. As far as I know, he's the only long-form writer who has a blog where this kind of stuff is talked about frequently (and personally). If S.L. Price had a blog like Chris' I'd read it every day. I'd sit there and click refresh nine times an hour. But he doesn't. And because Chris' blog is the only one out there like it, it seems to piss off plenty of people who don't like his work.

Wouldn't you like it if Gary Smith did talk about his art? I know I would. But I suspect he never will. I suspect you don't really know much about Gary Smith, because he keeps it that way, which is fine for Gary, but sucks for me. People who didn't know him probably used to think Buzz Bissinger was this quiet humble guy until he showed up on Costas Now and got on Twitter. Occasionally, in all that madness, I find some fascinating craft points. Maybe you'd prefer the mystery.

I think we need more writers talking about craft. Most people probably agree, they just hate seeing Chris Jones do it. To them, I would say, you could deal with that three ways.

1. By not reading it.
2. By starting your own craft blog.
3. By encouraging writers that you do like to start a craft blog.

Please let me know. My fingers hover over the bookmark bar in anticipation.

 

Gods do not answer letters. Or write blogs.

 

What about Murray Chass?

 

http://blog.craftzine.com/