San Franciscans sure are young, well-dressed and attractive
Litquake is a week-long, fancy-pants literary extravaganza in San Francisco (Oct. 6-14). The week of readings culminates in "Litcrawl," which is basically barhopping in the Mission -- drinking and listening to readings on various themes.Last week, Joy and I went to a Litquake event that we found entertaining and interesting to us as writers. So naturally we brought our butts to the Litcrawl, which had some promising writers on the menu.
The events that transpired inspired my new slogan for the event: Litquake = Shitquake. BURN! Take that! It's funny because it rhymes, and it's true.
It was ridiculously well-attended. Standing room only ... many times on the sidewalk outside the venue.
Here are some things I've learned I don't want in a reading:
- I don't want a senior citizen to lead the room in a rousing round of vagina-strengthening exercises.
- I don't want to hear long rants about how you are discriminated against because of race, gender or sexuality when clearly people are treating you that way because you are painfully boring.
- I don't want to feel like I would rather stab my own eyes out with a spork than hear one more person drone at me in incomplete sentences and tired metaphors.
Clicky Clicky to find out these useful tips for writers ...
Tactic No. 1: Begin a majority of your sentences with a present participle verb, often resulting in fragments.
This technique provides a unique opportunity to be monotonous yet remain pretentious. Bonus: When read aloud, the contents of such a piece are irrelevant, as the point is to induce a mild coma in audience members who would be likely to boo, hiss or whisper "This is bullshit" to their neighbor. The following paragraph is an example of how to employ this technique:
This technique allows you to maintain a numbing cadence while giving the appearance of action. Bonus: Unusual character names will give the impression that your piece is unusual. The following paragraph is an example of how to employ this technique:
Tactic No. 3: Put Jesus in absurd circumstances, preferably ones involving graphic sex acts or drug abuse.
Read in a sarcastic tone, a piece employing this formula is highly political and controversial without requiring the thought, cleverness and "point" typically found in good satire. Bonus: This technique enables you to dismiss critics as repressed prudes, religious oppressors or simplistic anti-intellectuals. The following paragraph is an example of how to employ this technique:
This technique provides a unique opportunity to be monotonous yet remain pretentious. Bonus: When read aloud, the contents of such a piece are irrelevant, as the point is to induce a mild coma in audience members who would be likely to boo, hiss or whisper "This is bullshit" to their neighbor. The following paragraph is an example of how to employ this technique:
Running, she listened to strangers' shadows. Coming closer to a realization about something. Wandering, she didn't need to think about things as much as she did.Tactic No. 2: If you must include dialogue, make sure your characters speak only in simple declarative sentences followed by an attribution.
This technique allows you to maintain a numbing cadence while giving the appearance of action. Bonus: Unusual character names will give the impression that your piece is unusual. The following paragraph is an example of how to employ this technique:
"I know a secret," Salavar said.
"Secrets are unknowable," I said.
"Your dad has cancer," Salavar said.
"Cancer is overrated," I said.
NOTE: For those who wish to sound lively and appear humorous despite lack of charisma or talent, a third tactic is available.
Tactic No. 3: Put Jesus in absurd circumstances, preferably ones involving graphic sex acts or drug abuse.
Read in a sarcastic tone, a piece employing this formula is highly political and controversial without requiring the thought, cleverness and "point" typically found in good satire. Bonus: This technique enables you to dismiss critics as repressed prudes, religious oppressors or simplistic anti-intellectuals. The following paragraph is an example of how to employ this technique:
Jesus came into the stip club where I worked and offered me some crack. I said no and offered to blow him for 50 bucks. He said, "No thanks, I'm queer. Cock and smoking crack are what I like." Then he pulled out a knife and robbed the place.
I was in the Mission last night with an underage French boy looking for some play! We passed by Litquake in the form of the Elbo Room. I'm surprised we didn't bump into each other, how hi-larious would that have been?!
Posted by
Justin |
10/15/2006 7:30 PM
Your snarking is fantastic. It's so good and rich I didn't have to be there myself.
Awesome
Posted by
Jordan E. Rosenfeld |
10/15/2006 8:04 PM
First, I was all ha ha spork. Then, I was like Oh my gosh totally pretentious. Then, you were all parts of speech. And so I was like no way stupid satire device. Then Jordan was all "snarking" which is way cool. I just totally died.
Posted by
luvmunkyb |
10/16/2006 7:16 AM
Oooh! My coworkers boyfriend, Phillip T. Nails, was reading at Dalva (bar) on Saturday evening. Did you happen to attend. He writes erotic poetry. Nasty,nasty!
Posted by
Rachel |
10/16/2006 3:44 PM
Funny thing--most people this snarky about other authors are those who desperately wish they could be writers themselves. Perhaps you just need to channel your energy in a more productive direction, my dear.
Hope I haven't hit a nerve, little Kitty. Those who dish it out should be able to take it.
Posted by
Anonymous |
10/16/2006 4:39 PM
You have generated internet buzz with your spot-on dressing down of San Fran's literary poo-flingers. Kudos!
Posted by
L-ementary |
10/16/2006 4:40 PM
PS- Remember that anonymous criticism is not to be suffered. State your name or shut your trap, wuss!
Posted by
L-ementary |
10/16/2006 4:41 PM
Oh I love it. An *anonymous* commenter talking about dishing it out and taking it.
Posted by
Joy |
10/16/2006 4:58 PM
awe, kitty, kitty, me thinks you got some writerly green-eyed monster roaming around them halls in yer haid.
personally, i had a bang up time out there. i just think it's cool that writers can attract crowds of folks enough that they make it a night on the town. when was the last fookin' time you saw people out the door to get into a place to listen to someone read?
anyone catch Tara Jepson or Matt aka Mattilda Bernstein?
f-u-n-n-y. a friend described Matt as a punk Paul Lynde.
Posted by
Anonymous |
10/16/2006 5:00 PM
I am a member of the public stating my opinion about a public performance. Public performances invite praise as well as criticism. Am I thrilled that a literary event could attract that kind of crowd? You bet. However, not everything with good intentions deserves to be lauded.
The writers that I was able to see (and there were many I did not get to see) were disappointing. Yes, I am a writer and editor. However, were a plumber or a school teacher, I would still have been disappointed by the readings. I found their work boring and cliched. And I said so publicly, so I too happily open myself to criticism.
But I didn't get criticism. I got "you're just jealous." If Roger Ebert disses a movie, do people claim he is just jealous and wishes HE could be Scarlett Johansson?
I can dish it out and take it. But so far there's been nothing to take.
PS - Thanks for reading. Pass it on ;)
Posted by
smart kitty |
10/16/2006 5:32 PM
The last comment by smart kitty is utter elitist snobbery. "A plumber or a schoolteacher"...as if working class people can't appreciate writing. Your so called "writer/editor" status is nothing but fakery. Get a job.
Posted by
Anonymous |
10/16/2006 6:11 PM
I think you are jealous, Mr. Kitty. You are obviously a man who hates life and his mother, and I suspect that you DO with you were Scarlett Johannsen. Get a penis, Mr. Kitty, and stop barking up my tree.
Posted by
Anonymous |
10/16/2006 7:09 PM
smart kitty,
As a published author and experienced Internet debater, I have a few points I would like to share with you:
1. It is a psychological fact that whenever a person criticizes someone else, they are motivated purely by jealousy.
2. Your post likely contains grammatical and/or spelling errors, and is therefore completely wrong.
Yours truly,
Kyle Rankin
Published Author
Internet Debater
PS. Whatever writing you do like, sucks.
Posted by
Kyle Rankin |
10/16/2006 7:35 PM
teacher is a working class job?? someone who wouldn't appreciate writing? your really stretching it, anonymous. i dont think anyone (including smartkitty) made that leap in assumpion but you.
-bonnie
Posted by
Anonymous |
10/16/2006 8:34 PM
Ha Ha, SK, you have trolls. TROLLS! You've seriously hit the big-time, you eye-poker-outer-via- spork-er, you. Impressive, indeed.
Also, Mr. Kyle Rankin, who claims to know psychological fact, I think you should check your references. I can say that because I AM a psychologist and know my literature, dude.
Finally, SK, I didn't know you had a penis! You certainly pull off boobs well. You had me fooled, you fooler. Just when you think you KNOW someone. GOSH. Don't do that again, k? It makes me sad.
P.S. Now that I know you have a penis, can we date? I have a serious need to get porked by your spork.
Posted by
The Muser |
10/16/2006 9:42 PM
the muser,
It is obvious that you are jealous of me.
Posted by
Kyle Rankin |
10/16/2006 10:09 PM
First!
Erm.
"This technique enables you to dismiss critics as repressed prudes, religious oppressors or simplistic anti-intellectuals."
I hear ya, sister. Unfortunately this technique is not confined to talentless San Francisco scenesters, but seems to be a dominant trend in mainstream literature and theater because of its built-in critic retardant. Paging Augusten Burroughs and Martin McDonagh! What is one to do?
dc
Posted by
Anonymous |
10/16/2006 10:56 PM
Thank god a few of us have a sense of humor. Hint: the ones who use our actual names.
J
PS, Smart Kitty, if you get a penis, you'll have your halloween costume all tied up.
Posted by
Jordan E. Rosenfeld |
10/17/2006 8:20 AM
Thank God for the internet, really. I mean, where else would millions of people who all have something (often vapid) to say be able to do so completely anonymously? It's great! I mean, that way if all the other Anonymous Fucktards agree with you, you can step up to the plate and claim the comment. If the Internet Denizens calls you names, then you can reply again (anonymously, of course) deriding your previous comment as "<big fancy word for 'fucktard'> and <big fancy word for 'childish'>." It's important to remember that large vocabulary = intelligent and capable of writing the Great American Novel (if you weren't so damn busy making sure everyone knew you anonymously through your witty comments).
The best part? Few will even understand why this is ironic.
Posted by
Not Justin |
10/17/2006 10:28 AM
^5, Justin.
And Kyle Rankin, you're absolutely right. I'm full of jealousy, right down to my greenie-green envious bones. I mean, seriously, I wish I was a published author. Oh wait, nevermind. I am. It must be the "internet debater" part that I'm jealous of. Except.. oh wait. I was on my debate teams both in high school and college. Oh, hold on! I've got it! I know what I'm jealous of! Oh. Well... once again, nevermind. I already have a vagina.
Posted by
The Muser |
10/17/2006 8:48 PM
Post a Comment