On ‘edgy fucking litzine bollocks’

There's an interesting debate on the asalted blog about 'edgy fucking litzine bollocks'. Since some of the details have been obscured it's hard to tell exactly what happened, but essentially, an editor made an unfriendly rejection of a story; in retaliation, a friend of the rejectee "went to a greeking generator and mixed up some chunks of random text with expletives, and sent it to the editor along with a preposterous bio" (I'm assuming a greeking generator is something like this). This story has now been accepted and published.

Which is a brilliant story, but makes me nervous with its echoes of the Sokal hoax.  This was when a physicist had a paper published in a (non peer reviewed) 'postmodern cultural studies journal'. This was then used as a stick with which to beat the whole of critical theory. In fact the only thing the experiment showed was that a single journal had published an article based on the writer's authority rather than their understanding of the article's content. The problem was that the simple story (physicist pulls one over on kooky postmodernists) is easier to discuss than the more complicated issues behind it, which make Sokal a less clever and heroic figure than he often appears.

I'm prepared to give the literary journal in question the benefit of the doubt. Without naming names and allowing me to read the submission in context, the story of the journal accepting a random story is simply a morality fable.

For example, a piece constructed of seemingly-random text may well have made a powerful point in context with the other pieces in the journal. One could even imagine this piece being published in an ironic attack on avant-garde writing. A good editor should not be selecting the best pieces received, rather the pieces that advance their aims and work best as a group.

There are also questions of authorship here. Just because the author claims a piece is worthless doesn't make it so – Francis Bacon was known to destroy his own priceless works because he disliked them. It is possible that this piece is in fact a radically good avant-garde piece of writing. (One of the mistakes made by the victims in the Sokal affair was changing their opinions of Sokal's work after the hoax was revealed – would the editor here stand by the work selected?) The text in question is also not entirely a stream of random words – it has been processed and had (expletive) words added. Does that not count as a work of authorship? (And what about the authorship of the person who wrote the generator?).

There's another problem here in that, as Vanessa Gebbie has pointed out in the past, different markets are often incompatible. I read a lot of avant-garde poetry during my MA and, while I didn't appreciate all of it, that didn't mean other people couldn't be excited and moved by it. A couple of the comments I've seen on 'litzine bollocks' have become general attacks on a certain style of literature.

The original post in this debate is interesting because the people involved have read the pieces and know the full story. But, without that background, just because something is easy to mock doesn't mean it deserves it.

Sara – can we name the magazine and the (fake) author?

If you want to follow what I'm up to, sign up to my mailing list

4 thoughts on “On ‘edgy fucking litzine bollocks’”

  1. Point taken entirely; without reading the piece in context it is just an anecdote. I am personally happy to let it stay that way. I have no desire to single out one magazine, one editor. (And by the way, I sometimes enjoy “edgy litzine bollocks” myself.)
    I was not so bitter about this rejection that I went on a huge rant and plotted revenge, I merely mentioned to a couple of writing colleagues that it had happened. They did not discuss with me that they would submit, I was told about it afterwards. In fact three writers I know subbed and were accepted by this editor, so clearly my writing was not a ‘fit’ with him and his ‘zine, and it may well have been “sloppy and unrefined”. I am not a spurned writer insisting that my words were good and looking to mock.
    I don’t feel that this is my hoax to expose, that is entirely up to the writer who sent the work that was published. In fact now I feel uncomfortable about the whole thing, especially as mine is the only real name attached to it. Even the editor of the magazine uses a pseudonym!

  2. I’m the “writer friend” mentioned on asalted – just thought I’d set a bit of context here, anonymously because the editor in question has actually asked for four or five more pieces for an e-book (seriously), so I’m going to string this along for a little while.
    This didn’t begin as a stunt. It became so after the event. The editor had responded so vehemently to a polished, workshopped piece, that I wanted to see how he would respond to a random collection of words (and there was no way I was going to waste any of my own work on him). I expected either a stronger rejection, or no response at all. The possibility he might publish never occurred to me. But when he replied, he was in awe of the ‘work’.
    I certainly didn’t set out to prove anything. Whether an exercise like this could ever prove anything is debatable. It began as a bit of fun to waste the time of a man who had been needlessly rude to a friend. Perhaps a childish impulse.
    You were spot on with the greeking generator you linked to – it’s the same one I used, with the Hillbilly option selected. The text generated there is pretty much identical to what was published, with a little added coarseness (certainly no added craft). It has no more intrinsic value than any other random collection of words.
    Or perhaps that last statement is open to debate. If any of your readers disagree they could likely have a novel or two completed and published on lulu.com before bedtime.

  3. @Beth – I take it that term paper would have been a psychoanalytic study of some type?
    @sara and @Hillbilly Greeker –
    Thank you both for your comments. From what you’ve said, the full story is both more subtle and more amusing than the summary. I wish I’d made it more plain in the entry above that I didn’t mean to criticise you, rather the tone of some of the comments – people seemed to be taking it as a criticism of literature in general rather than one editor. I find the full story very amusing and look forward to when the full story can be told.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *