I wonder if Rosemary Ahern knows about the new Brad Gooch biography of Flannery O'Connor? It looks good. I don't think she has a full-time gig in publishing any more. If I had her address I'd send it to her in the mail.
I wonder if Rosemary Ahern knows about the new Brad Gooch biography of Flannery O'Connor? It looks good. I don't think she has a full-time gig in publishing any more. If I had her address I'd send it to her in the mail.
22 comments:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/rosemaryahern
OMG! She's so fantastic. I could hire her to edit my novel, couldn't I? But that would make me a stalker, and no one wants that. Better yet, you guys should all hire her too edit your novels. Let's give RMA some work for her editorial consulting business. Tell her I sent you. She is supposed to be a really great editor, and she probably has a lot of connections.
"to edit," not "too edit." See how much I need an editor?
Oh, no. Rosemary's letter to your agent is a spoiler. I guess the whole third-gendered persona is out the window. I never really liked imagining what a third-gendered person looked like anyway.
And BTW, if you don't want to post this comment publicly, I understand. It's your right to be as mysterious as you want to be. I don't want to be too open about my identity here either (not that I'm anyone special to begin with).
That's why the whole question has been so funny. Most of the letters I've posted clearly identify my gender as either female or male. And yet people seem not to get too wrapped up in that. :) They want me to be one or the other.
Anyway, third-gendered people are often identified as either he or she, though I prefer ze. What can you do? Rosemary thinks I'm an uncomplicated female, I guess.
There's no such thing as an uncomplicated female, winkingface.
you have rule 3 twice. did i miss the joke? i always miss the joke.
For my money, Flanner O'Connor is, if not the best, one of the best short story writers of the 20th century. She earned her MFA from the Iowa Writers' Workshop and published in literary journals that were run by English Departments. :)
That's "Flannery O'Connor," not "Flanner O'Connor." Ooops.
Premise:
Flannery O'Connor attended a writing program.
Flannery O'Connor was a great writer.
Conclusion: Writing programs produce great writers.
You wish.
8:35
A lot of crappy writers go to writing programs, just as there are a lot of crappy unpublished (and published) writers who come to LROD and leave comments. But some great writers do come out of MFA programs, which, as you well know, the anonymi on here want to deny. And that was my only point. (But, of course, you'd rather fabricate a point to justify your own ignorance.)
This was an experiment. I wondered how long it would take for someone to go into the insult mode (which Papa Bear did, by accusing me of "ignorance").
Not long! My, you people are touchy.
Actually, we agree, Papa Bear: I believe that good or great writers can come out of MFA programs; I also believe that the vast majority of unpublished writers deserve to be unpublished (they should stop submitting).
The gripe many of us have is that:
1) The literary world is based largely on contacts, and those contacts often begin with an MFA program.
2) Most writers coming out of MFA programs -- and getting published, praised and even anthologized -- are not great. They aren't even good.
"This was an experiment. I wondered how long it would take for someone to go into the insult mode (which Papa Bear did, by accusing me of "ignorance").
Not long! My, you people are touchy."
I hate all this. I hate the trolls who are coming in to pick fights. I like you 1:49pm and the others here who want to discuss serious issues. We don't need all the fighting and name calling. Makes me ill.
I hope it quiets down here so we can get back to work.
"The gripe many of us have is that:
1) The literary world is based largely on contacts, and those contacts often begin with an MFA program.
2) Most writers coming out of MFA programs -- and getting published, praised and even anthologized -- are not great. They aren't even good."
Right on! I would edit #1 to really stress the absolute exclusionary nature of these contacts, that publication in most "tiered" journals requires MFA program participation. (At which point the Establishment says, "If it's true, test it yourself! Come join us and see!" As if that will prove anything. As if we will solve this strangehold by becoming part of the problem. Oof!)
And as we see, even by talking about it on this little blog it causes the MFAers to come out and try to bash us. They hate to see the big farce of MFA-academia being shown for what it is. They can't tolerate our viewpoint and they don't want it expressed.
"They hate to see the big farce of MFA-academia being shown for what it is. They can't tolerate our viewpoint and they don't want it expressed."
Waaaaaaaaaaa. Sniff, sniff. Waaaaaaaaaaaaa. Sniff. Waaaaaaaaaaa.
If John Bruce's work is any indication of the quality of fiction being written by non-MFAers from this blog, then it's no wonder no one here is publishing anywhere other than webzines.
Come on, peeps. There are good writers who have an MFA and good writers who don't have an MFA. That's hardly the point. It's more about whether or not a writer is penalized (or less likely to get published) depending on which category s/he falls under.
Let's say two writers (one degreed, one not) are both magnificent and accomplished due to years of hard work and study. Who is more likely to get published in a top tier journal/magazine or by a mainstream publishing house? Isn't that the question?
Yes, w/r, that's the question. Or, rather, does one category even get considered.
Here's the level of discourse coming from the pro-MFA side:
"Waaaaaaaaaaa. Sniff, sniff. Waaaaaaaaaaaaa. Sniff. Waaaaaaaaaaa."
Typical.
From what I can see, the abuse mostly comes from that faction. Sometimes it can get virulent (as in recent comments on other posts).
I've never been in an MFA program, so I don't know those people. Is it only a segment who visit this site that are so angry, defensive, abusive? What's their problem?
uh, i don't have an mfa and enjoy taunting the mfa-conspiracy theorists just as much as the other trolls (mfa and non-mfa alike) do. you're all* weird and paranoid and easy to tweak, look no further than the other threads below. sorry, i get bored at work and one can only get some much gratification needling john. (who at least has sense of humor. (once in a while))
*mfa-conspiracy theorist anonymice only. rest a yalls cool with me.
To the Taunter:
Labels. Used to categorize and then dismiss.
Tax and spend liberals.
Tree huggers.
"Conspiracy theorists" is the same type of cudgel.
"Waaaaaaaaaaa. Sniff, sniff. Waaaaaaaaaaaaa. Sniff. Waaaaaaaaaaa."
Yeah, right.
I'm not crying. I don't care about the academic journals anyway. I don't care. I don't submit to them at all.
If we are such clueless non-talents, then why do you keep coming here to bug us? Why do you keep interrupting our serious conversation with your inanities?
Oh I know, you're very much affronted by what we're saying here and you want it STOPPED.
The "uhanonymous" was likely the waaaaaaanonymous (he tried to mess up his prose style, not using capitals, doing the "yalls" bit; mentioning how he's just taking a break from his boring job to do some taunting, etc).
Bet his boring job is reading the story he (or she) is workshopping this week.
Now that must be boring!
uh, it looks like i got to you. see how easy it is? also, that was my first post on the thread, so it you have at least two taunters. one more poke if i may, equating lrod anonymice is classic conspiracy-theorist behavior. sorry for dirtying your thread wr, this is too fun.
Whatever turns you on, dude.
Post a Comment