Comments - Is Blogging "Giving It Away For Free"? - We Make Zines 2015-07-07T17:53:45Z http://wemakezines.ning.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=2288844%3ABlogPost%3A229626&xn_auth=no Thanks for your comment; I ap… tag:wemakezines.ning.com,2011-06-10:2288844:Comment:230229 2011-06-10T17:02:35.037Z Jordan A. http://wemakezines.ning.com/profile/thecowation Thanks for your comment; I appreciate hearing you weigh in, especially since you said you’re not the biggest Internet fan!<br></br> <br></br> I agree with you on the point that many best-selling authors are basically marketable ones rather than engaging ones. Life is short and we should be able to read the materials that capture us, even if they may not be what the mainstream is consuming. Needless to say, that’s a big appeal of zines –work that is engaging, but not necessarily out there for mainstream… Thanks for your comment; I appreciate hearing you weigh in, especially since you said you’re not the biggest Internet fan!<br/> <br/> I agree with you on the point that many best-selling authors are basically marketable ones rather than engaging ones. Life is short and we should be able to read the materials that capture us, even if they may not be what the mainstream is consuming. Needless to say, that’s a big appeal of zines –work that is engaging, but not necessarily out there for mainstream consumption. I believe that’s where another divide comes in: those who want to make money with their writing and those who don’t. I may have neglected to emphasize this in the post, but a very valuable aspect of inclusive markets is that they aren’t limited by concepts either. My take on an inclusive market almost leaves out the “market” part and treats it as a sphere where people can create for themselves or for a very limited audience, even if it dissolves and is never read.<br/> <br/> I also agree that there are many other ways to be marginalized and that even broader category groups will marginalize within themselves – hierarchical structures about what is considered closer to the “ideal” set of ideas exist within all groups. But I disagree that those large groups have narrow viewpoints in principle. I think we are all affected by the status quo <i>because</i> no one can be the ideal. There may be levels on which people try to unify their cause by rallying a cry around one issue/identity, but that immediately exiles some members of that group to the fringes.<br/> <br/> The question is then whether preserving the status quo means that we always have a separation between “fringes” and “mainstream” within all groups or if those groups are working to break down a larger hegemonic value system.<br/> <br/> On another note, as a zine librarian assistant, I am fortunate enough to be able to read a sizeable collection of pre-Net media for my job. I believe that there are still places that value paper goods in a way that doesn’t tokenize them as “craft” objects, but I do agree that it is harder to find them now with the burgeoning use of the Internet. I believe, however, that it allows people who would not otherwise be connected to find a reception for their pieces, so that the zines you make are not distributed only to your own friend group. While some may say that goes against the original purpose of zine-making, I think it’s wonderful to have people link their ideas to one another in a new way.<br/> <br/> I encourage you to check out a zine library if you have one near where you live and thanks again for your comment! A fellow zinester and Interne… tag:wemakezines.ning.com,2011-06-10:2288844:Comment:230140 2011-06-10T14:57:07.237Z James N. Dawson http://wemakezines.ning.com/profile/JamesNDawson <p>A fellow zinester and Internet-skeptic once gave me a link to an article about all the thousands (or millions?) that just eventually went dead.  Nobody read them.  I read very few, and those I choose to read, I print out.  I can't see how people can read screens.  This post caught my interest enough to read, but reading it on screen would've been too much of a chore, even though it's only a little longer than a page.</p> <p>I'm a pulp fiction reader, mostly of horror.  In California, I…</p> <p>A fellow zinester and Internet-skeptic once gave me a link to an article about all the thousands (or millions?) that just eventually went dead.  Nobody read them.  I read very few, and those I choose to read, I print out.  I can't see how people can read screens.  This post caught my interest enough to read, but reading it on screen would've been too much of a chore, even though it's only a little longer than a page.</p> <p>I'm a pulp fiction reader, mostly of horror.  In California, I usually wouldn't spend more than a dime on my paperbacks, and I'd buy mostly paperbacks.  Only a fraction of those books rose above average, a few were good, fewer yet, excellent.  The best-selling authors, to me, were usually the most mediocre.  Apparently they marketed "their product" well.  There's only so much time in a life, and I'm cheap and poor, so I'm not going to risk spending very much on fiction I read for pure entertainment, diversion and relaxation, when it's very unlikely it's going to "deliver the goods". Sales pitches, hype and "marketing", turn me off very, very fast.</p> <p>There are many, many other ways of being "marginalized" other than being female, of color and queer.  There are philosophical/sub-cultural minorities that are ignored/invisible.  Big established magazines may ignore women of color and queer people, but the latter ignore anybody who doesn't parrot their narrow ideology.  That's probably par for the course.  People are tribalistic, even "progressive" and "inclusive" ones.</p> <p>The Internet may be here to stay and offer a few advantages, but I'm on the Internet not because I think it's better than zines, amateur journals, APA's, magazines, etc., but because market forces and cultural shallowness have made print and other pre-Net media rare and hard to find.  Few people seem to like paper media, except as "craft items" or vehicles of standard leftist politics.  There seems to be a steady shift toward a discussion of blogs and Kindles on WMZ.</p> <p>Not to say they don't have as much a place in the big tent of amateur publishing as anybody else, but I think there's a difference between the "entrepeneurial zinester" and the "trade/networking/communication/low-budget" zinester.  The former is more a part of the "Small Press" and "Little Magazine" wing of the self-publishing community.  They have "pro" aspirations.  Not criticizing that, but they have a whole different set of concerns that junk-zinesters.</p>
http://wemakezines.ning.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=2288844%3ABlogPost%3A229626&xn_auth=no
wemakezines.ning.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-27
9917
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:VUXXKBIK66DYYLWCPPSEJ3KDD3HHV2FS
<urn:uuid:7ff7ef0d-78da-4b97-a5f5-9582e546d096>
2015-07-07T17:53:45Z
208.82.16.68
sha1:H5UIUWKZITQWTCGQUYUE5NHJE5G3Q2OR
<urn:uuid:69a072cd-eb53-440b-a27f-5eb4eec0fd6a>
http://wemakezines.ning.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=2288844%3ABlogPost%3A229626&xn_auth=no
length
response
<urn:uuid:09c7ae23-0c14-4962-b5d0-944455a61901>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-179-60-89.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-27
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf