Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

I Quit Gtalk

In 2008, a study of productivity and instant messaging (IM) discovered that IM seemed to help in increasing productivity, shocking long time proponents that chat programs were detrimental to the office.

I joked at the time that this was all the reason I needed to keep chatting. The truth is, by 2008, I’d largely quit using most chat programs, except for Gtalk, which I used to talk exclusively to my friend Dean, who excels at coworking. And when I say “excels at coworking,” I mean he never makes casual conversation, largely stays on topic of whatever we’re writing at the time, and leaves long pauses between messages be. He’s busy — I’m busy. He gets it.

Time went on and, as I used that Gmail account for more interviews and personal things, a lot of people were added to my chat list. It was convenient because having them on my IM list meant that if I needed their help for something we were working on, I could reach them right away.

But then something terrible happened. People started to message me all the time. Now, I dig all of you, and I would love to talk to all of you, but the bottom line is that you’re not the only ones messaging me and I don’t have time to chat with all of you. I can’t just switch back and forth between something I’m writing and the chat window. I envy you your ability to multitask and the fact some of you have the ability to play at work – I do. If you have openings to sit around and blog and chat at your company, totally contact me.

As it is, I don’t have that luxury. The bottom average for me is six posts a day – and that doesn’t include interviews and research I am doing for future posts. I need the time I’m at my computer to focus on what I’m doing.

And apparently, no one gives a damn if someone’s status is set to Busy.

I’m tired of explaining that I’d love to talk but I can’t. I shouldn’t have to explain to every single person who messages that I can’t chat when my status has a paragraph describing that I’m not available and I’d appreciate no messages unless they’re work-related.

So last night, I quit Gtalk. And guess what happened? I got everything done that I needed to do. And I loved it.

This is what it means: if you’re a good friend and you need me for something, shoot me a text. One text, I don’t need more. I’ll get back to you when I can. If you don’t have my number, direct message me or @reply on Twitter, or send me an e-mail. If you e-mail, keep it simple. I need to be able to get the gist within the first two seconds of opening it. The inverted pyramid – you know how newspapers do it? Who, what, why, where, when, how, in 28 to 32 words. Like that.

As for calling – I hate speaking on the phone and will avoid it as much as possible unless you’re my parents or it’s business-related. So don’t be hurt if you get shot to voicemail immediately. It’s not you, it’s me.

I sincerely appreciate it.




Worth Paying For

Some food for thought on free content from Patricia Handschiegel, owner of the cross-platform advisory startup and incubator, 9:

Good things cost money to make and consumers like good things. The media/internet/etc 2.0 mindset is that everybody wants to shop at the flea market when in reality, plenty of consumers are willing to buy Christian Louboutin.

I could get all the free fashion content I want online but 98 percent of those sites don’t have access. They don’t get to pull in any sample they want, they’re not flying to Market and Fashion Week, etc. around the world to find the things I can’t find myself. So, in addition to consuming the stuff people are giving away on the internet, I pay to have greater access through other outlets because for me, that’s the value.

This is how consumers operate. It’s why despite that there are free football games all weekend long, hundreds of thousands of people pony up major cash to have subscription packages. What drives consumers to want to pay for things (including content on platforms) is value, driven by either access or quality.

Free also signals that something isn’t worth paying for, even if it is. It’s something people see all the time in service industries like consulting and PR. The second somebody says, “I won’t pay to have XYZ from a company,” it signals that the company has little true value to that person. By giving away your product for free out of the gate, you’ve trained them on this perception. The only way out is to create a second channel of value and work to migrate them over. Some will go, some won’t. That is how it goes.

Charging consumers for quality and access doesn’t mean they won’t like you. In fact, it’s likely the other way around. Getting them to adapt to paying for products that cost money is more a marketing than a business problem. Create value or the perception of value, and work to migrate those who are interested towards it. It’s a basic truism in any business on any platform, offline or not.




Business Meeting Does Not A Date Make

I know asking someone out is scary, but men really have to quit using the pretext of business to get a woman to have lunch with them.

1. You and 6,302 People

I work from home, which basically means I don’t have the luxury of leaving work at the office. The workweek for me is seven days long – the only difference is that on some days, the post office and bank don’t work. In order to ensure against having no life and dying a miserable career death due to burnout, I divide my engagements into two categories: business and social.

Because so much of my business time is devoted to content creation and managing blogs, unless what you’re doing is directly related to what I do, I’m not going to be inclined to meet you. It’s not that you’re not amazing, I’m sure you are. There are just hundreds of people doing sex research and writing books on relationships that I’m going to want to do lunch with first.

Though, for the record, allow me to say that it’s far more likely that I’ll interview these people over the phone or e-mail than actually meet them in person.

Oh, I don’t think I need to mention this, but “let’s meet to talk about sex,” is not a loophole into my day-planner. If I had a penny for every time a man said that to me, I’d be able to fish this country out of debt, buy it, and then have you removed to Guantanamo for immediate waterboaring. I am so serious, that I’d go as far as to strongly recommend you don’t even joke about this to me. Unless you want to elicit an eyeroll and my immediate disdain, of course, in which case, by all means feel free.

2. Bait Me

My experience in a corporate environment has taught me that nine times out of 10, meetings are totally pointless. I must be baited, and since this is not a social situation, your winning personality won’t register as bait. Incentivize me.

And by that I don’t mean some nebulous “let’s meet to talk about how maybe we can [insert idea you can't or aren't really willing to make happen].” I mean “let’s meet and talk about [thing] so I can get started on [concrete things to mobilize aforementioned thing].” If that statement implies we’ve already spoken before, you’re half right.

Due to time constraints, I probably won’t be doing much (or, more likely, any) talking with you on the phone. A successful business meeting will come to pass after we’ve exchanged a few e-mails. These e-mails will not be “hi, how are you? My name is so and so and [insert entire CV] and I was thinking we could maybe talk about some opportunities together.” They will be relevant and concise: “You: sex blogger. Me: [profession]. I am working on [project] and I think it would be mutually beneficial if you participated by [activity].”

That’s all you need. Amazing, isn’t it? You don’t even have to tell me why it’s beneficial! Like obscenity, I will know beneficial when I see it.

3. It’s Money, Honey

If there is no relevance and no real incentive and especially if you have the audacity to use the words “pick your brain,” you better be willing to pay me.

I know you’re sitting there thinking “who the hell does she think she is”? I’ll help you out. I’m AV Flox and if you want to meet with me to pick my brain, it must be because you find my ideas valuable. Guess what valuable means? That’s right. That it has worth. And guess what? You’re paying. And when I say you’re paying, I don’t mean for dinner (though if you asked, you will be paying for that, too). I mean you’re paying for the value of my brain, which I have set at a starting rate of $2,000, in full and up front.

Nothing personal, baby. Business is business.




The Things We Leave Behind

Andy Warhol once said, “Dying is the most embarrassing thing that can ever happen to you, because someone’s got to take care of all your details.”

I don’t recall where I first read it, but the notion has troubled me since I did. Death never was again a question of assets so much as one of liabilities. If I were to die tomorrow, just what would I leave behind?

I’m a wanderer, traveling the world on gypsy feet. I’d rather buy a new wardrobe than carry what I own—fashion’s the fastest expiring art anyway. One should never become attached to more than she could pack in the dead of night and carry under the cover of darkness. (With comments like these, why am I so surprised when people write me asking if I’m a spy?)

Seriously, though, nothing is irreplaceable. Except the mementos. Pictures and diaries and letters and lists and notes have followed me around the world in boxes. They’re still making their way to me now. Some from as far south as Peru and others as far out as Micronesia.

Imagine I died. What would people find?


THE MARILYN FILES

“You can tell a lot about a woman from the things she left behind,” opens the Vanity Fair piece about Marilyn Monroe. The magazine has dedicated much of its 25th anniversary issue to the gorgeous and tragic starlet.

The main feature, written by Sam Kashner, is the story of two filing cabinets filled with Monroe’s personal effects, which until this year had been in possession of Marilyn Monroe’s (ready for this brainful?) business manager’s sister-in-law’s son, Millington Conroy.

At Frank Sinatra’s suggestion, Marilyn Monroe kept her life inside two filing cabinets—letters, invoices, financial records, and the mementos that meant the most to her. After her tragic death, in 1962, at the age of 36, the cabinets, together with an assortment of jewels, fur coats, and other personal belongings, were stashed away by the actress’s business manager, Inez Melson. This secret trove would remain virtually unknown to the world for more than four decades, until photographer Mark Anderson began an epic two-year project of documenting it. His photographs, made public for the first time, offer new insights into the life of Hollywood’s most iconic figure.


LOCKING EMPTY BOXES

How we are perceived to be isn’t really who we are. To a large extent, we can control the kind of information we release about ourselves and the kind of impression we make on others, both online and offline.

I don’t have secrets, really, but I’m an insanely secretive person anyway. My sister does a mean impression of me at thirteen, letting her come into my room after having sworn she would keep her hands in her lap and not look at anything but my face. Nothing has changed: when she came to visit me in Peru in 2006, she saw first hand how rarely I let even my dearest friends into my apartment.

People who know me think it’s endearing. “She locks empty boxes!” my aunt told my husband before we got married. “Don’t try to open them and she’ll show you the world.” They think it’s endearing. And I’m glad because looking at it objectively, I think it’s downright neurotic. Well, thank god I’m a writer: to a certain extent this kind of eccentricity is expected.


WHO AM I?

On impulse shortly after reading the Kashner piece in Vanity Fair, I pulled out a desk drawer and spilled all the contents on my coffee table and began to look through the contents objectively, as through a stranger’s eyes.

Who am I?

A woman who receives thank you notes and postcards and keeps them, though she doesn’t keep a single bank statement. A woman who travels a lot by plane and occasionally by train and who scribbles on maps when she travels by road. A woman who is photographed a lot (who took these photos?) and who keeps photos of other people with no indication of who they are (lovers? Friends?). A lot of pictures of places, the sort a tourist would take, except with no people in them (why? Did she actually go there or did people send them to her? Or does she travel alone and therefore have no one to take photos of her in these wondrous places?).

She gets a lot of letters that begin with, “I’ve never met you, but…” What does she do? Why do people send her things–letters mention art, perfumes, chocolates, books, clothes, shoes, flowers, manuscripts? Why?

“How does it feel being the one person in the world I can send this to?” a letter asks. “Everyone who reads these pages comes away with a loathing for their author. That is how I measure their worth.”

The postmark shows this letter came from a prison.

Why her?

I couldn’t answer that now even if I wanted to.


COUNTING PI

We were driving back from Arizona when we got the call.

I had my head out the window, enjoying the sun and wind as we cruised 80MPH across the border into California. I turned to look at my husband, who looked at me briefly before saying, plainly, “Henry died.”

Henry was eighty, but age didn’t really matter. He was a mathematician and even though I can’t do math to save my life, I still love it. We connected through this appreciation and a mutual love of horse races.

My clearest memory of him is sitting before him as he sat in for dialysis. He was wearing a shirt that said, “you’re young and stupid, I’m old and treacherous. You don’t stand a chance.”

He seemed ashamed of being there and needing that machine. I took his hand and smiled.

“How many decimals of pi do you know off the top of your head?”

Oh, he went on forever.


THE WARHOL DIARIES

One of the first gifts I got from someone who read my blog, someone I’d never met, was at the age of seventeen or eighteen. He bought me over a hundred dollars worth of Andy Warhol books for no reason other than that I loved Warhol and he, the reader, loved my writing. (To date, I’ve not met him.)

It’s possible that I read the quote I mentioned earlier among these, though I don’t think so. What sticks most in my mind from these books is how in Pat Hackett’s Warhol Diaries, Warhol mentioned the cost of everything, so cabbing uptown with Bianca Jagger always something like, “split a cab with Bianca ($4).” There is a weird magic in seeing how human the people you adore are. Andy Warhol, one of the few examples of an artist who was successful in his own time, was insanely frugal? He fussed about sharing cabs? Really?

Hackett’s dedication to Warhol is admirable and that’s not hard to miss, especially when you compare her comments to those of, say, Mary Woronov, author of Swimming Underground.

Just as you can’t separate the scientist from the experiment, you can’t separate the person doing the remembering from the memory of you. The amount of regard with which you are remembered is what spells the difference between a prurient exploitation of your memory and a tribute.


A LITTLE IN LOVE

“Much of the ‘side of Marilyn that no one has ever seen before’ includes ordinary things like receipts, telegrams, bottles of Chanel No. 5, and checkbooks,” writes Dodai Stewart, senior editor at Jezebel. “Does this stuff just seem mundane in this day and age, because we live in a celebrity culture where we know all about Britney’s meds, Lindsay’s post-rehab life and Paris Hilton’s Valtrex prescription?”

It’s the typical vulture culture reaction. But there is something different in the way that the Monroe items are presented. This isn’t a spread in a gossip rag or a vulgar shot offered at PerezHilton.com. The pictures of Monroe’s effects are taken against a backdrop of rose petals and flowers.

Kashner writes:

By the time I first spoke with [Mark Anderson], he had been photographing Monroe’s personal correspondence, her jewelry, her furs, and her handbags for almost two years, and he admitted he had fallen a little bit in love with her, just as all her photographers had… Anderson was haunted by the ghost of Marilyn. He was having trouble sleeping at night, at one point he was drinking too much, and on occasion he called Marietta, his wife, “Marilyn.” He had decided that the best way to photograph the items in the archive—the 400 canceled checks, the ledgers and memos and letters—was to place them against a backdrop of rose petals. So he was spending his mornings at the Los Angeles Flower Market buying roses, like a hopeful suitor. “Imagine the power of this woman who has been dead for 45 years,” Marietta observed, “that I was becoming jealous.”

As creepy as it may sound, Anderson’s love for the icon shows. I’m no Marilyn Monroe junkie and even I was moved looking over some of those letters and receipts, presented with the care and attention to detail that only someone who loved you could exercise.


EULOGY

It’s with this love that I look over pictures of Henry and his notebooks where he played with numbers day after day.

For the first time since I became obsessed with the notion of what people would see of me were I to suddenly die, I smile and hope that one day, someone will care enough to go through my stuff and remember who I was with love.

I’m going to miss you, Henry. You genius, you darling, you cranky eccentric.

I can hear you now, telling me to quit with the emo shit and get back to work. All right, all right! But only because I know that you know that I mean every word.




The Lolita Issue

I had hardly been up an hour when a frantic e-mail tumbled into my inbox. I say frantic because Gmail allows you to read the first line right from the inbox and this one, from my Black Heart Magazine editor Laura Roberts, very clearly displayed the words “HOLY SHIT!”

———- Original message ———-
From: Laura Roberts
To: AV Flox
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008
Subject: Fwd: Lolita issues …

HOLY SHIT! We’re creating controversy with the Lolita issue already and it’s not even officially launched! I just got an e-mail, apparently, from Nabokov’s son, Dmitri.

Roberts had just introduced the Black Heart Lolita issue in “V for Vixen” a column she writes for hour.ca. Before I could continue to the alleged Nabokov response, I clicked through to her article on my RSS feed and began reading.

The “Lolita issue” of Black Heart Magazine, my online magazine, will be released this Friday at blackheartmagazine.com. It was originally conceived as a celebration of Vladimir Nabokov’s seminal novel, as well as an exploration of many other kinds of forbidden love. So perhaps it should have been anticipated, but I was still surprised when some submissions took the theme as a license to defend pedophiles and to question the condemnation of child molestation.

While I can certainly appreciate the questioning of society’s supposedly logical rules, and applaud writers who are brave enough to probe our most cherished taboos, I absolutely cannot agree with those who seek to do violence to others. Rape is rape, no means no, and Lolitas will always be off-limits.

I stopped, getting a sudden inkling about what Nabokov’s issue was.

———- Original message ———-
From: Dmitri Nabokov
To: Laura Roberts
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008
Subject: Re: Lolita issues …

Laura Roberts,

You are the archetype of hypocrites. How many copies of your backwards arse do you plan to peddle? Read about yourself in the imminent Original of Laura.

The “arse” my editor is peddling to which Nabokov referred is the image on the cover of the issue of Black Heart, which hour.ca ran alongside Roberts’ column. Meanwhile, The Original of Laura, for those of you who have been living under a rock, is the unfinished book Vladimir Nabokov left, which is to be published despite his dying wishes.

Roberts responded to Nabokov’s e-mail:

———- Original message ———-
From: Laura Roberts
To: Dmitri Nabokov
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008
Subject: Re: Lolita issues …

Mr. Nabokov,

To respond to your recent email, that is not “[my] backwards arse” on the cover of Black Heart Magazine, nor have I ever claimed to be a cover model. The buttocks in question belong to a model in Toronto, I believe, but I can ask my photographer for more details and contact information, if you’d like them.

As far as being the “archetype of hypocrites,” I would like to understand your point fully. What, exactly, do you object to as hypocritical in my piece?

As for reading The Original of Laura, I look forward to its publication, as do many other members of the literary community.

Best,
Laura Roberts

“I’m not even sure I understand his concerns beyond being a knee-jerk response to anything with the name Nabokov attached without his consent,” Roberts confided to me. “And I didn’t think that publishing an issue of a magazine with a Lolita theme was cause for controversy. It’s not like I need permission to say the book’s name, to discuss its literary merits or potential controversy, or otherwise bring forward topics that relate, such as pedophilia and the over-sexualization of children.”

Roberts was missing the point. Nabokov’s concern isn’t so much with the issue, which he has not even read, but with the content of her column, which expressed her surprise that a Lolita-themed issue would invite pieces that question the legal age of consent.

“The novel Lolita, in its most literal reading, is the story of a pedophile seeking to defend his crimes,” Roberts writes in her column.

Though one might have expected a public outcry against its shocking subject matter at the time of its publication, Lolita was met with neither an outraged public nor any demands that it be banned. Indeed, it would appear that art excuses everything, as the fictional protagonist Humbert Humbert’s defence “She seduced me!” has been taken at face value by readers ever since the book’s release in 1955.

Should we be shocked by Lolita? It’s just fiction, after all, yet it holds many truths about the workings of the predatory mind. Funny how it’s never described as a penetrating insight into the warped mind of a child molester, potentially raising questions about its author’s inspiration. Instead Nabokov’s masterpiece is always excused on the grounds of its artistic merit, and we cannot censor art. But is Lolita really art, or merely smut in art’s clothing?

It’s a loaded gun to play with for the editor of a ‘zine that touts itself as containing the “dirtiest minds in literature.”Black Heart is, after all, a publication that prides itself in running the raunchiest smut that contemporary writers have to offer. This publication is Roberts’ brainchild and to suddenly go from a laissez-faire attitude about exploring all sexual taboos to questioning the fascination of some with school girl uniforms was, at the very least, contradictory.

If anything, the editor of such a publication should be reinforcing the notion that what we create doesn’t necessarily have to reflect who we are. Does Chuck Palahniuk go around killing people? Does Quentin Tarantino? David Lynch? No. There is an immense difference between writing about a crime committed against others and actually committing a crime against others.

The last thing we need is a freak frenzy of censorship across creative writing classrooms and I would like to think that Black Heart would be the champion of this notion instead of sitting, years after the fact, questioning whether Nabokov was a closeted child molester.

It makes me think of all the instances that writing has been brought to the public’s attention as depicting clear intent of harm.

I will never forget, for example, how following the horrors of the Virginia Tech massacre, the media jumped on Cho Seung-hui’s plays. FOX News ran pictures of the killer, with the words, “KILLER WROTE VIOLENT PLAYS,” across them. They weren’t the only ones.

After hearing from multiple news sources how obvious this man’s mental instability was in his disturbing writing, I caved and read “Richard McBeef,” one of his so-called tell-tale plays.

McBeef is about a former football player who gets trapped in a series of odd jobs and never amounts to much anything. Somehow, he gets involved with a woman whose husband dies; they marry a month later. She has a 13-year-old son, who hates his new step-father.

The ten page play occurs over the course of a few hours–the step-father tries to confront the miscreant in an effort to get closer to him and receives only verbal abuse. The teen accuses him of trying to molest him and tells his mother, who becomes angry and violent toward the father. The father escapes the blows and hides in a car outside, where his teen step-son joins him. The teen shoves a cereal bar into his step-father’s mouth. Choking, the frustrated man tries to push him away, he “lifts his large arms and swings a deadly blow at the thirteen-year-old.”

It’s an extremely bad play. In a Newsweek article titled “He Was Just Off,” Pat Wingert, Lynn Waddell and Arian Campo-Flores report a professor saying Cho’s writing was silly and “very adolescent.” That’s exactly what it was. It’s so easy to say in retrospect, “oh! They should have known! He was writing about people being killed!” But give me a break. We can’t jump so easily to those conclusions.

What happened was horrific and gruesome, yes. But there are a million people who write disturbing things and never harm anyone.

So is it fair to question whether Nabokov was a predator? Shouldn’t we be glad his book, which Roberts readily admits has literary merit, was well-received by the public? Shouldn’t that make smut writers like the ones who seek shelter at Black Heart Magazine, often under the guise of pen names for fear of what their creative pursuit could do to their careers, feel like we do have a chance in this world to continue writing what we like, no matter how far we push the boundaries?

Nabokov’s final response to Roberts was far more collected than his initial reply and closed with a clincher that I’m sure my editor is not likely to forget for a long time.

———- Original message ———-
From: Dmitri Nabokov
To: Laura Roberts
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008
Subject: Re: Lolita issues …

Dear Laura Roberts,

First of all, I regret any possible incomprehension on my part. Secondly, thanks for your kind offer, but I was referring to the context, not the model’s actual assets. As for hypocrisy, I had the distinct impression that you were buttressing your argument with an ambiguous visual plug. I do not object to a glimpse of the female anatomy. I do question trotting out that image in bad faith. It is the nature of some humans to find titillating on the sexual playground anything considered deviant on the sexual battleground. I trust you found better things to do as a teen than the bored adolescents who signed a pact to become pregnant. Enjoy Laura, unless you find its heart too black for your tastes.

DN

Having said all this, one has to give Roberts credit for being open enough to bring to light her own reservations about the topic. It’s true—even the wildest deviants and staunchest supporters of a sex-positive world have their boundaries. This is hers. And if this isn’t the best way to send off an issue on taboos, I don’t know what is.




  • AV Flox writes about web culture; new media’s gradual overthrow of old media; trends in social media; and the complicated entanglements people get themselves into as we venture forth into this new world where, more and more, the analog is colliding with the digital.

  • Hosted by: