The LotFP Collection... need advice...

[Jim LotFP]

... so I've gotten all gung-ho about this idea of compiling all of the old LotFP interviews and editorials into one big book. (Reviews were never considered for inclusion due to their 'here and now' nature I'd always used in writing them) I've gotten about half of everything together (the other half still needs to be scanned, *sigh*) and it's over 500 pages so far.

The problem is I've been *reading* the old stuff. My god. The complete lack of proofreading is going to be fixed, that's no so much of a hassle. The moronic "HAILS!" and calling people and albums "mighty" and other such garbage found in all those early email interviews I can grit my teeth and forgive as inexperience.

But there's so much ignorance, stupidity, and downright duuuuurrrrr moments that just seem... unforgiveable, makes me almost feel like quitting NOW, looking back at what I was doing in 1998 and trying to push myself as a credible source to discover new music.

"Wasn't Ronnie James Dio in Rainbow?" is the best quote ever, that from my 1998 interview with Ian Parry. Fuckin HELL.

How about skipping half of Chuck Schuldiner's final live performance EVER (December 13, 1998, exactly three years before his death) because I'm backstage for the first time after going to shows for five years, interviewing goddamn HammerFall? That seems like an executable offense now.

... and of course, plenty of thinking which is 100% contradictory to where I am now. I believed that the industry was metal's savior, and it was just that the *wrong bands* got pushed through the machine causing the problem. mmaaannnnn...

I know when I got help and listened to it. I'm sure I'd be ashamed if I could remember when people tried to talk to me about certain issues and I *didn't* listen. I'm sure I'd be even more pissed if the reason I can't remember such things is because nobody sat me down and went through things with me.

I have been talking to other writers, artists, even pro wrestlers about their first works and it seems to be unanimous: The early stuff people do always sucks and is embarrassing and most wish they could bury it. So I feel a little better about that, it's not just me.

The question is, for the book, what do I do about all of this? Here's how I see my choices:

A- It is what it is, leave it in as it was written at the time. I'm uncomfortable with this option as it makes me look REALLY STUPID.

B- Don't include the articles with the offending material, just include the decent-or-better stuff. I'm uncomfortable with this option as I feel the collection should be complete, and not a 'greatest hits you will see what I want you to see'.

C- Edit the interviews to remove my dumbfuckery, while retaining what the artists said, because the interviews were suppoed to be about them... and along with this, for the editorials (I'm thinking the opening of magazine #4 and the $ issue from the weeklies) add explanatory notes and such going into why I felt as I did at the time. I'm uncomfortable with doing this because for the interviews I'm worried about altering the context and meaning of what the artist says by altering what I allow my voice to be, and it's not fair to update myself to 2006 standards while they are still talking in 1998, 2000, whatever... and I'm uncomfortable about annotating editorials because it would clutter them up and seem wimpy and wishy-washy.

... I like the idea of the project and want to do it, but I don't seem to have any comfortable options in handling it.

So, advice please.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Highlights from what I remember are all those Opeth and Sawnö-marathon-interviews. They are really valuable sources of info - I have never read so thorough stories about Swanö especially. Great talk as well with Martin Walkyier (go see what's up with him: he has entirely done with music!), Slough Feg/HoM, Tuomas from Nightwish (showing that he is not metal at all), Warrel Dane,...you were not bas at all.

I am glad my first steps in writing are only available in German, ha...

 

[BenMech]

Proofread the mechanical errors, but DO NOT edit the content.

Your current opinions hold water when compared to your previous history.

Wasn't there an editorial somewhere about Ozzy and Sharon's bad decision to rerecord the rhythm section of their first albums? They wanted to erase that which they alone could only deny, and so their standing holds no ground to their fans.

Same idea.

 

[Jim LotFP]

Wasn't there an editorial somewhere about Ozzy and Sharon's bad decision to rerecord the rhythm section of their first albums? They wanted to erase that which they alone could only deny, and so their standing holds no ground to their fans.

Wow. When you put it like that, it becomes pretty obvious what to do, eh?

 

[horggard]

Jim, what about just including a brief bit in your Foreword/Preface about how the best way to learn is by doing (which is exactly what you did and how you've accumulated all of your experience), or something to that effect whereby you can include everything wince-free...? I look at some of my old stuff and wonder "What the fuck?!" but I know for sure I wouldn't be the writer I am today had I not allowed myself to make those mistakes.

Besides, I think that you're taking a different approach from what others do in that you're showing--via your style and content--that your beliefs age well because you're willing to admit when you've been lacking, or when you're just plain wrong. This is not only a sign of intelligence, but also lends a certain uniqueness to your LotFP tomes, which become snapshots not only of the "era," but also of your tastes, opinions, likes, and dislikes. I think this makes for more exciting, engaging, and authentic writing because not only might you have readers nodding or shaking their heads in places, but the very writer possibly disagreeing with himself.

Again, this is just my opinion, but different is good, so long as it doesn't involve a Wesley Willis kind of "different." So you're safe.

garth

P.S.- thanks for the heads up on lulu.com!

... so I've gotten all gung-ho about this idea of compiling all of the old LotFP interviews and editorials into one big book. (Reviews were never considered for inclusion due to their 'here and now' nature I'd always used in writing them) I've gotten about half of everything together (the other half still needs to be scanned, *sigh*) and it's over 500 pages so far.

The problem is I've been *reading* the old stuff. My god. The complete lack of proofreading is going to be fixed, that's no so much of a hassle. The moronic "HAILS!" and calling people and albums "mighty" and other such garbage found in all those early email interviews I can grit my teeth and forgive as inexperience.

But there's so much ignorance, stupidity, and downright duuuuurrrrr moments that just seem... unforgiveable, makes me almost feel like quitting NOW, looking back at what I was doing in 1998 and trying to push myself as a credible source to discover new music.

"Wasn't Ronnie James Dio in Rainbow?" is the best quote ever, that from my 1998 interview with Ian Parry. Fuckin HELL.

How about skipping half of Chuck Schuldiner's final live performance EVER (December 13, 1998, exactly three years before his death) because I'm backstage for the first time after going to shows for five years, interviewing goddamn HammerFall? That seems like an executable offense now.

... and of course, plenty of thinking which is 100% contradictory to where I am now. I believed that the industry was metal's savior, and it was just that the *wrong bands* got pushed through the machine causing the problem. mmaaannnnn...

I know when I got help and listened to it. I'm sure I'd be ashamed if I could remember when people tried to talk to me about certain issues and I *didn't* listen. I'm sure I'd be even more pissed if the reason I can't remember such things is because nobody sat me down and went through things with me.

I have been talking to other writers, artists, even pro wrestlers about their first works and it seems to be unanimous: The early stuff people do always sucks and is embarrassing and most wish they could bury it. So I feel a little better about that, it's not just me.

The question is, for the book, what do I do about all of this? Here's how I see my choices:

A- It is what it is, leave it in as it was written at the time. I'm uncomfortable with this option as it makes me look REALLY STUPID.

B- Don't include the articles with the offending material, just include the decent-or-better stuff. I'm uncomfortable with this option as I feel the collection should be complete, and not a 'greatest hits you will see what I want you to see'.

C- Edit the interviews to remove my dumbfuckery, while retaining what the artists said, because the interviews were suppoed to be about them... and along with this, for the editorials (I'm thinking the opening of magazine #4 and the $ issue from the weeklies) add explanatory notes and such going into why I felt as I did at the time. I'm uncomfortable with doing this because for the interviews I'm worried about altering the context and meaning of what the artist says by altering what I allow my voice to be, and it's not fair to update myself to 2006 standards while they are still talking in 1998, 2000, whatever... and I'm uncomfortable about annotating editorials because it would clutter them up and seem wimpy and wishy-washy.

... I like the idea of the project and want to do it, but I don't seem to have any comfortable options in handling it.

So, advice please.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Jim, what about just including a brief bit in your Foreword/Preface about how the best way to learn is by doing (which is exactly what you did and how you've accumulated all of your experience), or something to that effect whereby you can include everything wince-free...? I look at some of my old stuff and wonder "What the fuck?!" but I know for sure I wouldn't be the writer I am today had I not allowed myself to make those mistakes.

This is actually a good point. Rock Hard Germany - think of it what you want - but they have issued a history book with "classic" articles of theirs and commented them without embellishing things and often looking critically at the past...not the worst idea.