Tao Lin: Evil or genius?

Author Tao Lin (YOU ARE A LITTLE BIT HAPPIER THAN I AM, EEEEE EEE EEEE) is either bravely spoofing the "literary establishment" (quotes intended) or being a real jerk. You decide!

The facts are these: Lin sponsored a short story contest with an entry fee and a cash prize, then entered a story of his under his girlfriend's name. The story won the contest as judged by a third party whose neutrality is questionable. Lin came clean about the ruse but refused to return the money, giving eight reasons including "if [girlfriend] won the contest it would promote her blog, [redacted], and the rest of her internet presence" and "I currently have ~$1300 in my checking account." (My favorite: "The internet would seem funnier and 'happier' to me if [girlfriend] won the contest, in ways that would cause life to seem 'more amusing.'" Ah, the classic "Can't you take a joke?" defense.)

I have never read any of Tao Lin (or as he styles himself, tao lin)'s work, although I did accept his friendship on Goodreads. But from years of sleeping on copies of WRITER'S MARKET I know there is many a scam out there designed to ensnare would-be writers by promising them fame and taking their cash. I can only assume that Tao Lin was attempting to archly comment on the commercial value of art and the futility of gaining market share for print in a nonreading world with this stunt, 'cause otherwise, he'd just be an asshole, right?

ETA. A few reads from around the Internet on what Tao Lin may or may not have done:

• The author's response says "misinformation" is to blame, pointing out that the media "won't cover something that isn't 'newsworthy' because things not 'newsworthy' don't get as many hits as things that are 'newsworthy.'"
• The judge of the contest maintains his independence, says he "would not 'defraud' anyone, in this way."

Are those reads really good?

A bit of a Goodreads rant today, but first, a confession! Yesterday morning's post was not really written yesterday morning! In an act of devious timestampery, I used Blogger's new "scheduled" option to reflect a little on WINESBURG, OHIO when I had time to do so, so while I was dashing off to wherever it is I go when I'm not on the Internet, the blog auto-updated. Oh, the magic! I feel the need to protest, however, that usually I write, if not all of each post, then at least the bulk of it on the morning it goes up. Sometimes I'll scrap out a couple paragraphs right before bed if I get a good idea in the shower. (Too much info? OK.)

So I use Goodreads, and I love Goodreads, but I've been noticing a disturbing trend on it that I will call, with apologies to the site, its Myspaceization. By that I don't mean that the site has been taken over by unstoppable music players and blinky things (we all know how I feel about Flash, and I have never been a MySpace user for many reasons), but as Goodreads has gotten more and more popular authors are starting to use the site to connect with readers who may be adding their books.

In terms of book marketing, these social networking sites are a great way to cut out the middleman (or -woman). Jennifer Weiner made her own group where she has been doing a Q&A this month, where readers have been posting questions which she (or her minions) respond to when they can. That's the ultra-involved route; some authors are fine with putting up a profile, maybe a wee bio. and letting the readers add them. One of my first Goodreads friends was author Tao Lin, whose books I have not read yet (sorry, sir!) but who updates at least semi-regularly. Author Scott Douglas added me as a friend when he saw I put his library memoir QUIET, PLEASE! on my want-to-read list. Now I can see that when he comes across a positive review of his book on the site he checks that he likes it. (I find this bizarrely charming.)

A few times, though, I've been added by authors whose works have nothing to do with me or what I like. When I check their pages, they haven't updated except to connect with hundreds of friends, who they're hoping (I would assume) will go to that author's page and add, or even buy, all her or his books, presumably without bothering to find out what they're about. I'm not going to single any authors out because for all I know, this work is being done on their behalf by well-meaning PR teams or personal assistants.

But it tweaks me a little when someone who exclusively writes, say, romance novels about undead football players, will go out of his or her way to say "Hey, read this book!" to someone who cares not for romance nor football players. (Love the undead, though!) To do this is to undermine what I use Goodreads for, as a fount of recommendations and a way that friends who have read the same books as I have can compare notes. I don't need Charles Dickens* updating my page with, "Hey, you know what a great book to read after THE BRIEF WONDROUS LIFE OF OSCAR WAO would be? THE PICKWICK PAPERS! Why? I'm not going to tell you!"

They are the hot girls on MySpace who just want as many friends as possible so they can get their MTV shows. They're not adding anything; they want me for a statistic. And as much as I respect them for trying out new angles to reach readers, I wish I could tell them that what they're doing is just Spam 2.0.

*Charles Dickens does not update his Goodreads page, for he is dead.