Features

Great American Novelist

He's not the richest or most famous. His characters don't solve mysteries, have magical powers, or live in the future. But in his new novel, Richard Yates, Tao Lin shows us the way we live now.

Great American Novelist

Noah Kalina

PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST Lin has drawn perhaps 5,000 hamsters with Photoshop, Microsoft Paint, and pen/marker since graduating from New York University in May 2005 with a degree in journalism.

A mound of hamsters are asleep in a 20-gallon fish tank at Petco in Manhattan's Union Square. There are seven of them, says a nonexistent woman in a baseball cap. She counted. They lie in an age-/gender-/relation-indiscriminate mass, purling and naked, that would seem troubling to nightmarish if they were humans. But the humans perceiving them seem unperturbed, even meditative—influenced, perhaps, by the deduction- resistant, congenitally paradoxical nature of hamsters: cute yet vaguely unsympathetic, robotlike yet almost defaultedly anthropomorphized, named and loved and fed daily yet disposable and easily replaced. One considers a hamster's future idly, without self-consciousness or emotion, calmed by one's apparent disinterest in abstracting, interpreting, or distorting what it means to be a creature utilized existentially in the appeasement of small children before being flushed down a heavily scented toilet or accidentally vacuumed alive, leaving in the cleaning maid only an indistinct sensation of disquiet.

One of the humans perceiving the hamster pile is Tao Lin, a member of another species likely to manifest mysterious discomfort in a person who is vacuuming: the American literary novelist.

"Just kidding," as Lin might say. He will never be vacuumed alive, and he prefers to view himself not as a "novelist" or a "serious novelist" or a "great American novelist" but as a "human"—or, in his stricter moments, "organism" or "thing." He's a physically tenebrous guy, 5 ft., 7 in., with straight posture and a slightly zombielike expression one imagines to be the result of an imperceptibly rapid deviation, like a wave-particle model, between "almost crying" and "almost asleep." At 27 (he turns 28 on July 2), he is unnaturally socially anxious, with permanently self-cut hair. About which someone once asked, on Gmail chat, "is your mullet on purpose, or did it just happen that way," to which Lin responded, "i think it just happened... do I really have a mullet though, i don't think i do," even though a quick search of Lin's Flickr account reveals that he does have a mullet and that he's aware of it (one photo is titled "reduced mullet" and two others are titled simply "mullet").

Lin isn't the richest or most famous living American human, but you could argue—I would argue—that he is one of the most nonjudgmental (for years he has repeatedly stated, "There is no good or bad in art" and "Everyone's actions and beliefs are based on equally arbitrary assumptions") and also one of the best. His first novel, Eeeee Eee Eeee, about an alienated Domino's Pizza employee who navigates a secret underground colony of suicidal dolphins and depressed bears, was arguably the literary phenomenon of the "fiction reviews" section of Bookslut.com's May 2007 issue. His second novel, Richard Yates, arrives this month; like his first novel, it has a richly weird title, crafted with his signature blend of austere eccentricity and powerful atonality.

I'm in Petco to talk to Lin about this second novel, previously titled Werner Herzog, Second Novel, and, briefly, Freedom in Capital Letters with 19 Exclamation Points After It, before Lin chose the "low-level non sequitur" Richard Yates. We are here because Lin "thought it would be funny" to be profiled in a pet store; his books, at the risk of near-automatic exclusion from most canons and literary considerations, repeatedly feature or mention hamsters. Eeeee Eee Eeee contains a hamster that says, "Are we friends?" to the protagonist before an owl flies away with it. Lin's 2008 poetry collection cognitive- behavioral therapy has a hamster on its cover and references them as a species whose unangry specimens appear exactly the same as their angry specimens "because the anger is within" (a description that elicits from Lin the word "Jesus," a pause, and then, again, while looking away nervously, "Jesus," when I read it verbatim from my notes). And, in a surprising, early-career culmination—or statement of long-term intent, perhaps—of hamster referencing, the first sentence of Richard Yates, whose index lists seven instances of "hamster" in its 202 pages, is: "'I've only had the opportunity to hold a hamster once,' said Dakota Fanning."

Additionally, Lin has drawn perhaps 5,000 hamsters with Photoshop, Microsoft Paint, and pen/marker since graduating from New York University in May 2005 with a degree in journalism.

When asked, "Why hamsters?" at a reading last September, Lin reportedly mumbled something like "I don't care about hamsters" before qualifying incoherently and then saying, "I don't own any hamsters" both defensively and wistfully. But a few months later, during a presentation titled "Tao Lin's Drawing Style" at Kansas City Art Institute, Lin reportedly orated at length and fluidly about how he likes hamsters "a lot" because "they're the most minimal animal, their heads are also their bodies," adding that he also likes megamouth sharks and toy poodles and, somewhat jarringly, that "ocean sunfish are like hamsters but fish and a lot bigger."

Lin's position on hamsters seems conflicted, inconsistent, ever-changing—possibly a source of long-term despair. So I wasn't surprised when, upon arriving at Petco, Lin seemed vaguely worried (murmuring words like "why," "um," and, once, the rhetorical question "Why is this my life?" enunciated in the slightly segmented manner of a person attempting to plant a quote) and later became visibly uncomfortable, at one point seeming catatonic, completely ignoring me as I related, twice, the humorous observation that we'd actually been looking at gerbils for the past 30 minutes. Gerbils. A creature referenced once in Lin's six print books and hundreds of online stories, poems, essays, blog posts, and tweets. Lin seemed to be backpedaling from "the Petco idea," perhaps fearing—or confused by—the implications of being irreversibly branded with hamsters.

Eventually, we leave Petco and walk south in the gentle early-September breeze, passing the Whole Foods where, in Richard Yates, Dakota Fanning is apprehended for shoplifting, toward NYU's Bobst Library, ostensibly so Lin can show me where he "works on things" 4 to 12 hours a day 96 to 99 percent of days. Crossing 12th Street, I look over at him and he's grinning nervously for "no concrete reason," as he might say.

It's hard to say exactly what makes Lin so uncomfortable. It could be me, or it could be the prospect of being on the cover of The Stranger (a legitimately unsettling prospect that puts him in the company of three-eyed kittens, promotional photos of breakfast sandwiches, a woman in a bikini holding a river bass, and, twice each, scaffolding and Dumpsters). It could be the much fretted-over standing of hamsters in America's cultural-entertainment complex, or it could be the temporarily unsettling nature of The Human Centipede, a movie that made Lin feel scared for around two days, including today. I e-mail Lin later, asking what it could be, and he says it's probably that I'm only focusing on certain aspects of him because otherwise this profile would be "500,000 to 10,000,000,000 words."

At Bobst Library, in a room of 24 Macintosh computers, I observe Lin's style of navigating the internet to be vastly inefficient, centered around the nearly indiscriminate and seemingly purposeless refreshing of websites. When I tell him he is rapidly clicking things in an arbitrary manner, he says, "I'm in control; I'm definitely in control, I think," in a way that seems both machinelike and uncertain.

I ride an elevator to the eighth floor, where Lin discovered Jean Rhys by Googling variations of "depressing lonely novel" and read her first four novels, and then other books, in cubicle-like wooden seats, sometimes on Friday and Saturday nights, lonely and friendless but mutedly excited about autobiographical narratives featuring characters with low serotonin. "I stayed until 3:00 a.m. many nights," Lin says by e-mail. "I would leave around midnight to go home but then think that I could buy coffee and work more instead." It was during these nights, as a junior and senior, 2003 to 2005, that Lin wrote eight of the nine stories in Bed, which was published in 2007 to zero coverage from most mainstream venues, despite featuring two 9/11 stories, an ethnic story, and a character named Mattie who sometimes believes that she lives five minutes ahead of herself, in the future.

Besides reading and writing at Bobst Library, Lin was also employed there beginning in his first semester at NYU, 20 to 35 hours a week in the reserve department, where many days he searched LexisNexis for authors he liked and read nearly every archived article about Lorrie Moore, Frederick Barthelme, Ann Beattie, Joy Williams, Lydia Davis, and Bobbie Ann Mason. But employment was officially only for students, and six months after graduation, Lin had no job. He searched Craigslist and found a "personal assistant" listing, responded, and was hired by an actor who'd founded a luxury charter-jet company called Paramount Business Jets.

The executive assistant job was not the kind of great American job that Lin's literary predecessors had—not the kind Rhys and Beattie and Barthelme had. For 8 to 10 hours a day, Lin and the actor sat in the actor's bedroom, where they listened to the soundtrack to Troy on repeat while the actor, who had a bit part in Spike Lee's Inside Man, stared at the company's website, making small changes, and Lin typed hundreds of elegantly generic descriptions of jets ("Featuring a spacious baggage area with more than enough space for each passenger to carry on golf clubs, skis, and several large bags, the Israel Aircraft Westwind I is also notable for its surprisingly long range—able to fly nonstop to and from almost anywhere in the continental U.S., including New York to Miami and Seattle to Austin") and occasionally updated the actor's IMDb page, between long hours of color balancing and resizing jet- relevant photos in Photoshop.

After that, Lin worked at the New York Society Library; then as a shoplifter, selling stolen batteries and Moleskine journals on eBay; and finally at Angelica Kitchen, an organic vegan restaurant, where his position, known colloquially as "phone person," required him not to back down from complexity. Not simply a phone-answering job or a sandwich-making job or a vegetable-juicing job, it also required the chopping of uncut rolls of sushi into eight equal-sized pieces and pears into neat, aesthetically pleasing slices. But Lin doesn't chop pears up that way. His learned and ancestral pear-chopping technique began with his birth in a Virginia hospital, which was the product of a mysteriously convoluted notion of what constitutes a pear that at some point took hold of his parents, causing them to move the Lin family to Orlando, Florida, and one night at Angelica Kitchen, Lin accidentally chopped off a small piece of his forefinger, walked calmly to the back area, put on a "finger condom," and returned to the food station, where he put on gloves, tried again with another pear, and so on.

It was his last "real job." In August 2008, Lin netted $12,000 in a few days by selling 60 percent of the future royalties of Richard Yates—a move that garnered coverage from a New York Times blog, BBC Radio 2, and a Telegraph article syndicated by at least one Indian newspaper, according to a Google alert Lin received—and stopped working.

The next few months, Lin edited Richard Yates 8 to 12 hours a day. He e-mailed a tentative final draft to his publisher in November 2008. Then he completed the novella Shoplifting from American Apparel, which was sold at Urban Outfitters; started a press, Muumuu House, which has since published debut poetry collections by Ellen Kennedy and Brandon Scott Gorrell and 57 works online by writers ranging from James Purdy (deceased) to Megan Boyle (from Baltimore) to Audun Mortensen (Norwegian); and edited Richard Yates four to six more times, each time for 15 to 25 consecutive days of 6 to 12 hours a day, completing the final draft—after four years and roughly 2,500 hours of work—on July 6, 2010.

Early readers of Richard Yates, including this one, have found that the book has a narcotic quality, the kind one usually associates with oxycodone or sleeping hamsters. This isn't by accident. Lin is very conscious that, as carbohydrate intake increases, people are sleepier than ever. In the novel, Haley Joel Osment (22/m) and Dakota Fanning (16/f) repeatedly visit each other, after meeting on the internet, by two-hour train ride, in secret from Dakota Fanning's mother, who eventually discovers Haley Joel Osment and aggressively confronts him by phone, believing him to be a rapist, before inviting him to live with her and Dakota Fanning in rural New Jersey. By the last third of the book, Dakota Fanning is bulimic and chronically lying and Haley Joel Osment is constantly upset and increasingly distrustful and confused; on page 166, Dakota Fanning's mother is seen openly crying while eating an entire pizza in a dark room.

The novel ends, arguably, with the characters firmly in the difficult, bleakly J-curve-like beginnings of long-term change: Dakota Fanning seems to have stopped lying and is eating healthier, exercising regularly, on her way to defeating bulimia, and closer to habitually matching her actions and words; Haley Joel Osment has vowed to himself to help Dakota Fanning recover, perhaps viewing himself as the cause, to some degree, of her bulimia and lies (though also her raised expectations of herself), and is actively training himself, within the goal of a long-term relationship, to not become upset or complain about Dakota Fanning's behavior or the setbacks she faces, which he views as unavoidable within a process of change; even Dakota Fanning's father, previously absent, attends a Thanksgiving dinner with the entire Fanning family (except Dakota Fanning's brother, who seems to be missing, having never arrived home from college).

Conveyed linearly with two main prose styles—the toneless, concrete, literal, idiom-less style of the narrator and the hyperbolic, multitoned, often excruciatingly emotional style of the characters' spoken and typed dialogues—the narrative, which Lin earnestly refers to as a "page turner," contains such socially relevant topics as the aforementioned bulimia and rape and dysfunctional family, as well as mental disorders, psychotherapy, and "cutting," but within a context of characters who are atypically alienated and therefore speak and think largely outside the influence of societal norms, allowing phrases like "hamster ass" and "ass and crotch rape" to echo down the corridors of their lives in a nonchalant, at times lyrical manner.

As a result, Richard Yates is probably both Lin's most mainstream and least mainstream book. Within the overall bleakness of situation and the brief but earnest moments of nihilism, there is playfulness and intimacy, unself- conscious excitement and gratitude, and, for the last two-thirds of the book, an insistence on not giving up—on remaining focused on long-term, conventionally positive, group-orientated goals, which Haley Joel Osment and Dakota Fanning seem to view as alongside, rather than in opposition to, the goals of everyone: Their superficially derogatory terms ("cheese beast," "party girl") for certain other people seem, in their sympathetic and sometimes self-directed usage, less to promote an "us versus them" mentality than to underscore the idea proposed by Schopenhauer that there would be less suffering in the world if people greeted each other with "fellow sufferer" instead of "sir" or "monsieur."

When I return to the computer lab, I watch Lin from a distance, with binoculars. "Just kidding." I'm 10 feet away, and Lin seems to be staring at his Twitter feed, hands clasped tenderly in his lap—around his iPhone.

He says, "Hi," then waves, though we could hug at this distance. I hesitate, then wave back, careful not to strike him, and ask what he was thinking about before I returned.

Lin stares up and to the left without moving his head: the classic expression of memory access. He maintains this position for perhaps 80 seconds. This is not the kind of great American behavior that his literary predecessors displayed—or maybe it is, one surmises, thinking of Jean Rhys's heavy drinking and Knut Hamsun's psychological inscrutability, though of course Knut Hamsun was not American.

"I used to eat oranges a lot... sometimes... but I still do sometimes," Lin finally says, cryptically, and then proposes a walk to LifeThyme, the organic grocery store he has mentioned in online interviews.

At LifeThyme, we walk toward a refrigerated wall of pies, puddings, and salads. "Here are the raw treats," Lin says.

"Raw treats," he says again. Then he says it a third time, quieter and slower—"Raw treats..."—in what I interpret as a deliberately histrionic manner, while walking sort of away from me. In a convex surveillance mirror, I see him grinning mischievously and salivating, reminding me that since the onset of consciousness, through the stoics and pre-Taoists of B.C.—like Marcus Aurelius and Chuang Zhu—up to the humans of A.D., continuing with Fernando Pessoa and Michael Pollan and Oprah, the trend in human concern for food has remained unchanged.

A few minutes later, we're standing before a structure sheltering dried sea vegetables. I ask Lin if he likes hijiki, wakame, or nori more.

"Um," he says. "I'm... I'm honestly not sure."

I ask a question using the words "generation," "internet," and "disconnection."

"No... yeah... I mean... I... I don't know," Lin says, after silently staring at roasted nori sheets for perhaps 20 seconds. His incoherent, noncommittal answer seems to convey that he is focused—when not worried about his sleeping schedule, next social situation, if he e-mailed something to the wrong person, or if his checking account balance will be drastically lower than expected—on the cross-cultural, nongeographical, nongenerational concerns of human beings. That he doesn't want to ignore, complicate, or simplify the commonalities of all humans and literal uniqueness of each human. Richard Yates, to Lin, is not about a subculture within a culture, a culture within a species, or even a species within a universe; it's about what its 55,500 or so words convey, uniquely, to each human who reads it.

But his brand's main component is indisputably hamsters. And I think at some point he senses this, because he requests, somewhat surprisingly, that we return to Petco. But not even Lin can talk hamsters all the time. "There was a time when I never talked about hamsters," he mumbles in a near- inaudible drone. "In middle school, I think my friends mostly, like, associated me with being an expert on GemStone III... the online text-based MUD, or 'multi-user-dungeon,' I think. They would ask me for tips on where to place their skills or if they should be, like, hunting kobolds at their level. I didn't think about hamsters at all... and in high school, I mostly just played drums and, um, Diablo II."

Hamsters are supposed to be pets for small children and alienated adults, or at least that's why many believe they exist, but when Lin looks at them, that's not what he sees. No one knows what he sees. Perhaps he sees, as he stated in cognitive-behavioral therapy, "heads with little characteristics on the head." Perhaps he sees himself, but himself at his ideal, as a "thing" emanating nonjudgmental energy in front of a computer screen while categorically maintaining a neutral expression and sometimes typing. Hamsters don't have messages or take vacations or believe there is good or bad in art, and neither does Lin.

"Hamsters just seem... funny," Lin says, back in Petco, "and so does locking myself inside a big hamster suit." recommended

Tao Lin reads from Richard Yates on Sun Sept 26 at 5 pm at Elliott Bay Book Company (1521 10th Ave, 624-6600, free).

 

Comments (73) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
gloomy gus 1
I am not confident of the byline here, my dears. Plus, heavy hand with the Photoshop.
Posted by gloomy gus on September 22, 2010 at 11:33 AM · Report
gloomy gus 2
Oh. now I get it. Especially with the Photoshop. Sorry to clutter it up here.
Posted by gloomy gus on September 22, 2010 at 12:29 PM · Report
Fnarf 3
I'm confused. Is this parody? I can't read it. I mean I literally can't force my way through the sentences past the third paragraph. All I really know is that it makes me want to push Lin into the path of a train, which makes me think it's authentic.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM · Report
elenchos 4
Tao Lin's genius is that he has invented being obnoxious. Before him nobody ever did that. Or something.
Posted by elenchos on September 22, 2010 at 1:10 PM · Report
5
did no one read the Time magazine article on Jonathan Franzen? Great job on the cover parody!
Posted by not a great american novelist on September 22, 2010 at 1:12 PM · Report
Greenwood 6
I'd even prefer Joaquin Phoenix to this. Is there someone writing for the Sranger who actually believes this is, what, funny? Clever? Anything? All I am able to see is an empty void. And not in a good way.
Posted by Greenwood on September 22, 2010 at 1:28 PM · Report
Fnarf 7
They still print Time Magazine? I had no idea.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM · Report
8
Not getting on the Tao Lin bandwagon. "Shoplifting from American Apparel" read like a Dick and Jane story for third graders. I'm pretty sure I had to work harder to read it than Lin did to write it. I had already forgotten it by the time I read the last page.
Posted by JoeSnow on September 22, 2010 at 1:46 PM · Report
skweetis 9
Ugh. This is the funniest thing I have read in a while. I wish I didn't want to know what, if any, of this person/profile/novel is real. But I do.
Posted by skweetis on September 22, 2010 at 1:47 PM · Report
10
Google "TIME Franzen great american novelist."

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,…

Its clearly a parody. First sentence in TIME:

A raft of sea otters are at play in a narrow estuary at Moss Landing, near Santa Cruz, Calif. There are 41 of them, says a guy in a baseball cap. He counted.

First sentence in stranger:

A mound of hamsters are asleep in a 20-gallon fish tank at Petco in Manhattan's Union Square. There are seven of them, says a nonexistent woman in a baseball cap. She counted.
Posted by UES reader on September 22, 2010 at 2:02 PM · Report
11
@ 10 is onto something.
Posted by Christopher Frizzelle on September 22, 2010 at 2:52 PM · Report
TheFang 12
As someone who many a year ago did work in a petco taking care of the "small animals", the one in USQ and a few others, the hamsters, gerbils, mice, rats, etc. are all separated by gender. It always sucked when we missed one and were stuck with little hairless baby hamsters to take care of.

Just sayin'...
Posted by TheFang on September 22, 2010 at 3:01 PM · Report
13
There's 2.5 minutes I'll never get back. Someone in the world thought it was clever, but that person is nonexistent and unavailable fro comment.
Posted by wWf on September 22, 2010 at 3:02 PM · Report
14
Yawn. Put it on your facebook Lin, that's where this crap belongs.
Posted by WwfW on September 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM · Report
15
I wrote an essay on my blog called ESSAY ON TAO LIN RE “NEUTRAL FACIAL EXPRESSION” AND HAMSTERS [http://youtubedotcom.tumblr.com/post/998…]. It seems like I've been "plagiarized." Here's a passage from my essay.

----------------------------------------

In one segment of Tao Lin’s lecture at the Kansas City Art Institute given on April 2, 2010, he instructed his students in how to draw in his drawing style. He focused on how to draw hamsters in particular. During the workshop period, he demonstrated how to draw hamsters in the way he draws hamsters and critiqued students’ hamster drawings. During this period, he was asked “Why hamsters?” In response, he said “Because they are the most minimal animal.”
[...]
In an interview [http://www.redividerjournal.org/intervie…], Tao Lin observed that “[Hamsters’] heads are their bodies.”

-----------------------------------------

Here's a passage from this profile appearing in The Stranger.

-----------------------------------------

When asked, "Why hamsters?" at a reading last September, Lin reportedly mumbled something like "I don't care about hamsters" before qualifying incoherently and then saying, "I don't own any hamsters" both defensively and wistfully. But a few months later, during a presentation titled "Tao Lin's Drawing Style" at Kansas City Art Institute, Lin reportedly orated at length and fluidly about how he likes hamsters "a lot" because "they're the most minimal animal, their heads are also their bodies," adding that he also likes megamouth sharks and toy poodles and, somewhat jarringly, that "ocean sunfish are like hamsters but fish and a lot bigger."

------------------------------------------------

I attended Tao Lin's lecture at the Kansas City Art Institute. He did not say that "their heads are also their bodies" at that lecture. (A video of the lecture exists, but is not "available to the public.") This quote is from the interview linked in my essay. He also did not mention sunfish, toy poodles, or megamouth sharks at his lecture. It seems that the author of this profile was not in attendance. Having done a few google searches, these details seem to have been "fabricated," though clearly "fabricated" by someone who has googled Tao Lin more than a few times.

What should I do. Should I email the editor of the Stranger. Should I take "legal recourse." How do I take "legal recourse." What is "legal recourse." Is there anything I can do.

More...
Posted by marshall mallicoat on September 22, 2010 at 3:20 PM · Report
16
I wrote an essay on my blog called ESSAY ON TAO LIN RE “NEUTRAL FACIAL EXPRESSION” AND HAMSTERS [http://youtubedotcom.tumblr.com/post/998…]. It seems like I've been "plagiarized." Here's a passage from my essay.

----------------------------------------

In one segment of Tao Lin’s lecture at the Kansas City Art Institute given on April 2, 2010, he instructed his students in how to draw in his drawing style. He focused on how to draw hamsters in particular. During the workshop period, he demonstrated how to draw hamsters in the way he draws hamsters and critiqued students’ hamster drawings. During this period, he was asked “Why hamsters?” In response, he said “Because they are the most minimal animal.”
[...]
In an interview [http://www.redividerjournal.org/intervie…], Tao Lin observed that “[Hamsters’] heads are their bodies.”

-----------------------------------------

Here's a passage from this profile appearing in The Stranger.

-----------------------------------------

When asked, "Why hamsters?" at a reading last September, Lin reportedly mumbled something like "I don't care about hamsters" before qualifying incoherently and then saying, "I don't own any hamsters" both defensively and wistfully. But a few months later, during a presentation titled "Tao Lin's Drawing Style" at Kansas City Art Institute, Lin reportedly orated at length and fluidly about how he likes hamsters "a lot" because "they're the most minimal animal, their heads are also their bodies," adding that he also likes megamouth sharks and toy poodles and, somewhat jarringly, that "ocean sunfish are like hamsters but fish and a lot bigger."

------------------------------------------------

I attended Tao Lin's lecture at the Kansas City Art Institute. He did not say that "their heads are also their bodies" at that lecture. (A video of the lecture exists, but is not "available to the public.") This quote is from the interview linked in my essay. He also did not mention sunfish, toy poodles, or megamouth sharks at his lecture. It seems that the author of this profile was not in attendance. Having done a few google searches, these details seem to have been "fabricated," though clearly "fabricated" by someone who has googled Tao Lin more than a few times.

What should I do. Should I email the editor of the Stranger. Should I take "legal recourse." How do I take "legal recourse." What is "legal recourse." Is there anything I can do.
More...
Posted by marshall mallicoat on September 22, 2010 at 3:22 PM · Report
scary tyler moore 17
agreed, fnarf.
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on September 22, 2010 at 3:25 PM · Report
18
This is fucking hilarious! Some people don't understand, or like, but that's ok. Don't hate the writer, hate the game. That's nonsense. I look at it this way. Some great books, some people don't like. It took me 5 times to get past the first 50 pages of "Love in the Time of Cholera," but once I did, I fucking loved it. And Moby Dick, I never made it past page 100, but I loved much of it, and plan to try again. The explanation of the ship lost me, as maybe the parody and hamsters and lack of opinions/neutral facial expressions lost you. Maybe we need to try and read the metaphorical "Moby Dick" again. That's where I go to find solace. The sea. I find my Mody Dick.
Posted by Brian McElmurry on September 22, 2010 at 3:29 PM · Report
19
i don't give a fuck, tao lin rules
Posted by fresno on September 22, 2010 at 4:10 PM · Report
20
I wrote an essay on my blog called ESSAY ON TAO LIN RE “NEUTRAL FACIAL EXPRESSION” AND HAMSTERS [http://youtubedotcom.tumblr.com/post/998…]. It seems like I've been "plagiarized." Here's a passage from my essay.

----------------------------------------

In one segment of Tao Lin’s lecture at the Kansas City Art Institute given on April 2, 2010, he instructed his students in how to draw in his drawing style. He focused on how to draw hamsters in particular. During the workshop period, he demonstrated how to draw hamsters in the way he draws hamsters and critiqued students’ hamster drawings. During this period, he was asked “Why hamsters?” In response, he said “Because they are the most minimal animal.”
[...]
In an interview [http://www.redividerjournal.org/intervie…], Tao Lin observed that “[Hamsters’] heads are their bodies.”

-----------------------------------------

Here's a passage from this profile appearing in The Stranger.

-----------------------------------------

When asked, "Why hamsters?" at a reading last September, Lin reportedly mumbled something like "I don't care about hamsters" before qualifying incoherently and then saying, "I don't own any hamsters" both defensively and wistfully. But a few months later, during a presentation titled "Tao Lin's Drawing Style" at Kansas City Art Institute, Lin reportedly orated at length and fluidly about how he likes hamsters "a lot" because "they're the most minimal animal, their heads are also their bodies," adding that he also likes megamouth sharks and toy poodles and, somewhat jarringly, that "ocean sunfish are like hamsters but fish and a lot bigger."

------------------------------------------------

I attended Tao Lin's lecture at the Kansas City Art Institute. He did not say that "their heads are also their bodies" at that lecture. (A video of the lecture exists, but is not "available to the public.") This quote is from the interview linked in my essay. He also did not mention sunfish, toy poodles, or megamouth sharks at his lecture. It seems that the author of this profile was not in attendance. Having done a few google searches, these details seem to have been "fabricated," though clearly "fabricated" by someone who has googled Tao Lin more than a few times.

What should I do. Should I email the editor of the Stranger. Should I take "legal recourse." How do I take "legal recourse." What is "legal recourse." Is there anything I can do.

:/
:/
:/
:/
More...
Posted by marshall mallicoat on September 22, 2010 at 4:18 PM · Report
21
I wish Paul and Lindy would go write for something that doesn't suck. Kisses.
Posted by oh, seattle... on September 22, 2010 at 4:32 PM · Report
Paul Constant 22
@15, @16, and @20: You write, "It seems that the author of this profile was not in attendance" at a speech given by Tao Lin that you quote on your blog. You do realize that Tao Lin is the author of this profile of Tao Lin, right?
Posted by Paul Constant http://https://twitter.com/paulconstant on September 22, 2010 at 5:45 PM · Report
DeaconBlues 23
That man has a tiny, tiny mouth.

He also has some habits which are uncomfortably similar to my own.
Posted by DeaconBlues http://radzillas.blogspot.com/ on September 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM · Report
Free Lunch 24
"Defaultedly?" Is that really the word you wanted, or did you just run out of time?
Posted by Free Lunch on September 22, 2010 at 6:38 PM · Report
25
I can not fathom a universe where Moby Dick and anything by Tao Lin can remotely be compared next to each other. I'm not sure Tao could muster up a metaphor or even an "anti-metaphor" for nothing.

He, perhaps jokingly, states that there is no good and bad in art, and that all belief systems are created on equally arbitrary assumptions. I disagree - there might not be a right and wrong but there is certainly a good and bad in art. And the belief system part sounds like an niave and confused teenager rebelling against something one knows not what. Rather than something transcendent or revealing of some great truth about the human condition, feels more like a conversation I had with a 15 year old in 1992.

At least with Moby dick I learned a lot about 19th century whaling
Posted by Adrian Mercer on September 22, 2010 at 6:52 PM · Report
26
Marcus Aurelius B.C.? Chuang Zhu? ("Zhuangzi" or "Chuang Tsu" I presume.) But what a style - hamster-like, indeed.
Posted by jmkoet on September 22, 2010 at 9:20 PM · Report
27
The faux time cover needs to be put on a t-shirt.
Posted by Mandy http://www.wellreadwife.com on September 22, 2010 at 9:37 PM · Report
28
The faux time cover needs to be put on a t-shirt.
Posted by Mandy http://www.wellreadwife.com on September 22, 2010 at 9:41 PM · Report
29
WHAT IS GOING ON
Posted by thrashoil on September 22, 2010 at 9:53 PM · Report
30
dear tao lin. you're better than this! I hope so.
Posted by b. marcus on September 22, 2010 at 11:06 PM · Report
31
I loved this. I was really surprised by the style of this piece - it's vastly different from Lin's usual writing style. I love the analogy between Lin and hamsters. A lot of people call Lin obnoxious and pretentious, but I can't blame him for trying to make money off of his art, and I think he sincerely cares about the plight of human suffering in the world. I think he has genuine compassion for other beings. This piece was well written and fascainting, giving me insight on such a strange person full of paradoxes. I also applaud Lin for taking a risk by writing in a style so different from his usual one.
Posted by vicvicvictoria on September 23, 2010 at 7:25 AM · Report
Fnarf 32
OK, the confusion of @15, @16, @20 about whether Lin plagiarized his blog, which quoted Lin, by saying some of those same things that he quoted again, is officially the funniest thing I've ever seen in the Stranger. Yes, dude, you should TOTALLY sue. Yourself.

In the future we are all Tao Lin.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 23, 2010 at 11:48 AM · Report
Will in Seattle 33
Tao Lin should never write stuff about himself.

I recommend he write stuff about Fnarf, cause he needs the egoboo.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 23, 2010 at 12:09 PM · Report
Will in Seattle 34
Hamsters ftw, by the way.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM · Report
35
I saw the Stranger cover (online) yesterday and mistook it for the cover of Time. I thought, great, here's another "important" novelist I'll never get around to reading.

Yesterday evening, I went to help my mother-in-law. Among other chores, I took out her recycling. That's when I noticed the Franzen issue of Time and thought, what the hell is some other guy doing on the cover of Time? Did Time do that thing that TV Guide did a few years ago and run different covers for the same issue?

Am I ever glad to clear this up.
Posted by midwaypete on September 23, 2010 at 12:22 PM · Report
Fried Worms 36
@15, @16, and @20. What can you do, you want to know. Here’s what you do:

#1: Stop double posting.
#2: Look at the biline for the feature on Tao Lin. (hint: It's Tao Lin!)
#3: Learn what plagarism means. (hint: it doesn’t mean covering the same topic or quoting the same person.)
#4: Something far away and quiet. (hint: very very far away and very very quiet.)
Posted by Fried Worms on September 23, 2010 at 12:37 PM · Report
More, I Say! 37
BUT WILL! You never told us! What *IS* the egoboo? I MUST KNOW.
Posted by More, I Say! on September 23, 2010 at 12:51 PM · Report
Canadian Nurse 38
I'm kinda surprised at how many people didn't get the joke. I'd expect more out of the Stranger's readers.
Posted by Canadian Nurse on September 23, 2010 at 12:54 PM · Report
39
the joke woulda been funnier (if indeed it was funny) in about 4 thousand less words.

Posted by hahathat was stupid on September 23, 2010 at 1:11 PM · Report
Fnarf 40
@38, the joke is only funny if you read "Time". I guess I should stop heading straight for "Hello!" when I'm in line at the supermarket; I never saw it.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 23, 2010 at 1:32 PM · Report
Will in Seattle 41
@37 I thot u had your wiki for that?

Time went out with the 80s.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 23, 2010 at 1:52 PM · Report
Fenrox 42
marshall mallicoat seems to be some kind of shill
Posted by Fenrox on September 23, 2010 at 2:50 PM · Report
josh 43
eh. I guess I agree with @38. I don't "read" TIME, but the Franzen cover story was circulated so far and wide (linked on Slog, rehashed and considered all over the web, even in an iPhone television commercial) that I was surprised that there was anyone who wouldn't understand that what the cover was parodying, let alone that it was a parody at all.
Posted by josh http://www.sciencevsromance.net on September 23, 2010 at 5:40 PM · Report
Jigae 44
@38: yeah, jokes are supposed to be funny, not just twee and self-referential. The jokes I like anyway.
Posted by Jigae on September 23, 2010 at 5:49 PM · Report
45
this article is hilarious
this is the thing i have enjoyed reading most in the last 4-12 days.
i feel like the commenters here should 'calm down', forget what they know or think about Lin or The Stranger or 'serious literature' or [something] and just appreciate this article's existence not in the context of any of those things
maybe the 'key to reading Tao Lin' is to momentarily consider oneself as a hamster, having no preconceptions relating to any abstractions.
Posted by I <3 'RY' on September 23, 2010 at 7:40 PM · Report
46
Thank you Stranger and Tao Lin-this has made my week.

The writing is genius.
Messaged to a friend:

"Writers crushhh!!! Exactly what I was going to write about! The dual parody within a parody layered over the revelation of the individual is an astounding literary achievement in my opinion. The patent obnoxiousness that people often get at him with was always absent from my own reading of Lin's works. His writing is so truthful and accepts the 'paradoxical nature' of living and perceiving. It is also observedly unannounced, as if you could feel that each thought is latent. But then I am amazed at the delivery of the wit, of the rapacity of how clever the groggy writing is.

Definitely suggest reading this article from Thought Catalog. It's a great analysis of Tao Lin's genius. I use this word sparingly. But when it is proven, I spread it liberally.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/2010/taolin-jo…
Posted by bluewriter on September 23, 2010 at 7:47 PM · Report
47
fnarf, you are a troll. and i'm assuming a couple of generations too old for tao lin to be relevant to you. you didn't get it. your bad.
Posted by armagerwien on September 23, 2010 at 10:29 PM · Report
48
@ 38. . . noooo kidding.

this was some of the funniest shit ever.
Posted by gi on September 24, 2010 at 11:19 AM · Report
Mischa Vainburg 49
You're hot.
Posted by Mischa Vainburg http://squidbasedink.wordpress.com on September 24, 2010 at 1:26 PM · Report
Rich Jensen 50
Didn't read the Franzen profile, just T. Lin's. Laughed heartily about 67 times. Pretty good average. If people don't know what a funny sentence looks like then I guess people don't know what a funny sentence looks like.

"The way we live now."
Posted by Rich Jensen http://www.souciant.com on September 24, 2010 at 4:27 PM · Report
DeaconBlues 51
Should it concern me that the main character of a parody piece acts just like I do?

It seems like that should concern me.
Posted by DeaconBlues http://radzillas.blogspot.com/ on September 24, 2010 at 11:25 PM · Report
nickmagoo 52
If by "genius" one means "utterly insufferable" and duller "than" dishwater, then "yes," Tao Lin is "a" genius.
Posted by nickmagoo on September 25, 2010 at 6:20 PM · Report
53
Must admit I didn't get it, and still don't. What Times article is this a parody of?
Posted by Tomahawk on September 25, 2010 at 7:35 PM · Report
54
I find it funny that in the sub-title of this article, it says his characters "don't live in the future" and then it goes on to say that one of his stories has a character who lives five minutes in the future.
Posted by Slab64 on September 25, 2010 at 11:48 PM · Report
55
the character only believes that she lives in the future
Posted by jssj on September 25, 2010 at 11:51 PM · Report
56
Check the thought catalog piece, which is really worth the read.
Posted by jmkoet on September 26, 2010 at 5:15 AM · Report
57
The article is fine, humorous bits and not so humorous bits, a fine parody... but did it have to be Tao Lin on Tao Lin, with him laboring to show off his Superior prose, and the Photo Shopped picture? The whole thing seemed a bit masturbatory.
Posted by TaoLinJerkingOffTaoLin on September 26, 2010 at 9:28 PM · Report
58
It's a self profile...you're calling a self profile masturbatory. That's like calling a mountain climber adventurous.
Posted by AmyHhhh on September 27, 2010 at 1:24 AM · Report
59
I remember a few years ago when The Stranger regularly took pot shots at the The Seattle Weekly, and a long-time SW writer finally responded by writing that someday The Stranger would age, too, and some cheeky new-comer would be eating their lunch. But he was wrong. The Stranger is more like the guy in "Dazed and Confused" who says "what I like about high school girls is that I keep getting older but they just stay the same age." The Stranger just stays the mind-numbing same.

The Stranger is written by upper middle class white kids who never had real jobs in their life, including Charles Muede, with his silly article a few months ago about living the "authentic" hard life here in Seattle until his upper middle class parents bailed him out.
Posted by brionrockwell on September 28, 2010 at 1:25 PM · Report
60
I remember a few years ago when The Stranger regularly took pot shots at the The Seattle Weekly, and a long-time SW writer finally responded by writing that someday The Stranger would age, too, and some cheeky new-comer would be eating their lunch. But he was wrong. The Stranger is more like the guy in "Dazed and Confused" who says "what I like about high school girls is that I keep getting older but they just stay the same age." The Stranger gets older but just stays the mind-numbing same, counting on new readers pouring into who think they are fresh.

The Stranger is written by upper middle class white kids who never had real jobs in their lives, including Charles Muede, with his silly article a few months ago about living the "authentic" hard life here in Seattle until his upper middle class parents bailed him out like every other tourist living in the slums.

If The Stranger charged 25 cents they would quickly be out of business. No one would read them.
Posted by brionrockwell on September 28, 2010 at 1:32 PM · Report
61
It had me laughing. Fuckin hamsters with their head bodies
Posted by 50backflips on September 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM · Report
62
Bright Eyes, anyone?
Posted by Crepusculo on September 28, 2010 at 9:21 PM · Report
63
very interesting.Especially with the Photoshop.
Posted by glj http://www.crystalmade4u.com on September 28, 2010 at 11:52 PM · Report
64
The big idea here is that Franzen's writing is just as ridiculous as this, except that Lin is actually entertaining and doesn't suffer from that "I'm middle-class and white and a male, therefore I am a literary genius" syndrome that Franzen and so many other poor writers suffer from nowadays. I wish some more talented writers would come along and dissuade all these silly white kids from becoming "artists" or whatever it is they think they are!
Posted by Benny Profane on September 29, 2010 at 8:28 PM · Report
65
The original article is written by Lev Grossman not Franzen, Betty.
Posted by GaryHhh on September 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM · Report
fluteprof 66
I get the parody. I get the joke. Tao Lin is still a shitty writer.
Posted by fluteprof on October 2, 2010 at 9:17 AM · Report
67
I can't think of a Tao Lin piece of writing that isn't a parody of something. Have you read Bed? It's a parody of Lorrie Moore. Eeeee Eee Eeee. That parodies Ann Beattie.
Posted by eeef on October 3, 2010 at 4:33 PM · Report
Caleb Powell 68
Really. 2,500 hours? What an inefficient use of time, Richard Yates is theeeeeee most boring book ever.
Posted by Caleb Powell http://calebpowell.wordpress.com/ on October 29, 2010 at 8:03 AM · Report
Caleb Powell 69
2,500 hours on Richard Yates? Why? It is theeeeeeeeeeeee most boring book ever. Maybe he had to think real hard to excise the interesting parts.
Posted by Caleb Powell http://calebpowell.wordpress.com/ on October 29, 2010 at 8:34 AM · Report
70
@caleb because different people think different things are boring, obviously, do you think everyone in the world is the exact same person as you?
Posted by obviously on October 31, 2010 at 12:14 AM · Report
71
I know this is a bit late, but I just have to say that the first sentence is definitely the clunkiest phrase I've read in a long long time, and the rest of the article isn't a lot better. It's obvious the author sees no need for an editor.
Posted by dotmatrix on August 31, 2011 at 9:24 AM · Report
72
it's a parody...
Posted by jkkhhhhhhhhh on September 6, 2011 at 1:30 AM · Report
73
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ah. Ah. Ha. *copy and paste into harddrive*

Posted by fufufish on March 9, 2013 at 10:04 PM · Report

Add a comment

Most Commented in Features