my unpublished novel (before 'eeeee eee eeee'); 'it's nice that' guest poster
just read in my 'diary' from 2004 that i emailed 'about a dozen' people my ~100,000 word unpublished novel
i don't have the novel anymore, it was on a computer that i 'threw away' in a public trash can in jersey city and i think an aol email account that i don't have access to anymore
do one of those people that i emailed the novel to exist, where are you, can you email me back my novel, if you still have it, i would like to 'regain' my unpublished novel, in order to sell it on ebay probably, and am offering a $30 'reward'
i was a guest poster on it's nice that this week, they interviewed me and posted 1 thing a day from me (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
i don't have the novel anymore, it was on a computer that i 'threw away' in a public trash can in jersey city and i think an aol email account that i don't have access to anymore
do one of those people that i emailed the novel to exist, where are you, can you email me back my novel, if you still have it, i would like to 'regain' my unpublished novel, in order to sell it on ebay probably, and am offering a $30 'reward'
i was a guest poster on it's nice that this week, they interviewed me and posted 1 thing a day from me (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
39 Comments:
WHAT THE FUCK
via the frey
Tao, I have a copy.
I'll sell it to you for five thousand dollars.
Deal?
i'm bored of life too.
if only i had your unpublished novel to read.
You're boring, you mean.
In Tao's weekly lamebrained schemes to make money, he's become the hipster version of Ralph Kramden, only a lot less entertaining.
Maybe we can send him to the moon.
You're mean, you mean!
Ralph Kramden is more of a hipster than Tao Lin.
The moon would be sweet.
Hey Barefish -
I got a math problem you can help me out with. Ya know Venn diagrams with the circles?
Imagine a really big circle with all the people who work in publishing.
Now imagine inside it is a real little circle of people who work in publishing and dont hate Tao.
Now imagine a real teeny tiny circle of people who Tao sent the manuscript of his first novel to.
What do you think are the probablities of the people in the third teeny circle intersecting with the little second circle at any point?
You have ten minutes to come up with an answer.
wtf is 'barefish', i'm 'bearfish'. get your mind out of the gutter.
I love fritos
dear asshole guy,
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
is petroleum organic?
The discovery of petroleum in source rocks of Archaean age was somewhat unexpected from the viewpoint of the classical organic theory. As per this model, petroleum is of organic origin, being the decomposed remains of plankton. Since life was not abundant in the early periods of the Earth’s history, it was thought that there was very little petroleum produced in this manner. Moreover, this petroleum was considered unlikely to have survived the thermal stress which virtually all Pre-Cambrian sediments have undergone. Hence, little prospecting was undertaken in Archaean rocks.
This view persisted despite the discovery of a few Proterozoic oil fields in Oman, China and Siberia. The situation changed when recent work3 uncovered the existence of oil in sandstone 3000 m.y. old from the Kaapvaal craton in South Africa and the Lake Superior craton in Canada. Source rocks in the form of hydrocarbon-bearing mudstones have been identified, making an organic origin possible. However, within the framework of the non-organic theory this development is entirely expected, for petroleum is seen here as primordial, representing ancient hydrocarbons incorporated into the Earth. It has thus existed since the early days of the Earth, and its occurrence in Archaean rocks is trivially expected in this model.
In recent years, evidence of hydrocarbons in asteroids and comets has continued to accumulate. In the non-organic framework, these petroliferous asteroids/comets are the progenitors of the Earths oil. Hence, the occurrence of primordial petroleum in large quantities is expected. In this light, the recent discoveries of hydrocarbon ice on objects in the Kuiper belt, a band of objects just beyond the orbit of Neptune, is an indication of the substantial amounts of extraterrestrial hydrocarbons4.
In fact, with these large quantities of hydrocarbon having been dumped on the Earth during its formation, the question is reversed. If the petroleum on the Earth is entirely of an organic origin why has all this primordial hydrocarbon only been a silent spectator?
Although all investigators1 considered these Archaean petroleum findings to be of ancient biological origin, a non-organic origin is equally plausible. Thus, the petroleum oil occurs in fluid inclusions lying within healed microfractures confined to individual quartz grains. This indicates that the oil was emplaced prior to Archaean metamorphism. This is consistent with the non-organic theory, with the oil being emplaced as a result of upwelling under pressure, with the creation of fractures and the emplacement of oil into the fractures. However, organic petroleum migrating upwards from deep source rocks also provides a plausible explanation.
The Australian occurrence in the Macarthur basin dates to 1400–1700 m.y.5 coinciding with the appearance of the unicellular organisms called eukaryotes that, as per the organic
theory, constitute the major source of oil. However, the discovery of petroleum much older, that is 3.0–2.75 b.y. old3 pre-dates the origin of such organisms.
The discovery of deep bacteria at depths heretofore unsuspected6 has come at the same time as the discovery of ancient petroleum. The organic theory views these as representing survivals of organisms entombed since Archaean times. In the non-organic theory, these bacteria were incorporated into the forming Earth, and are ascendng from the depths to the surface. Hence, the non-organic theory can explain most aspects of the recently-discovered Archaean petroleum as well as the deep bacteria as consistently as the organic theory can.
No wonder the non-organic theory is slowly gaining wider acceptance as an alternative to the organic theory. Robert O. Russell, a wellsite geologist at the first well in North America (at Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada) drilled into crystalline basement granitic shield rocks for the express purpose of commercial hydrocarbon exploration, has pointed out that there are more than 400 wells and fields worldwide, both off-shore and on-shore that produce or have recently produced oil from igneous rocks7. This fact alone indicates that many aspects relating to the origin of petroleum need to be revised. Thomas Gold8, a distinguished proponent of the non-organic theory, has expanded the application of the non-organic theory to all hydrocarbons, including coal.
In this connection, an international conference on ‘Oil in Granite’ was held recently in Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia9. One of the papers by Kosachev et al.10 from the Institute of Organic Physics and Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kazan, concluded that much evidence existed in favour of the theory, and that viable mechanisms for the creation of migration pathways existed.
Recently, C. Warren Hunt, a geologist of the Anhydride Oil Corporation, Calgary, Canada, has proposed a variant of the non-organic theory11. This novel theory sets forth the notion that up-welling deep non-organic methane is bacterially modified into petroleum at shallow depths.
In conclusion, although an organic origin of primordial Archaean petroleum is possible, it is far more natural within the non-organic framework. In recent years, the non-organic theory has been gaining wider acceptance. The discovery of the ‘Deep Biosphere’, the new world of underground bacteria, is another interesting development which may help to shed more light on the origin of petroleum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sankaran, A., Curr. Sci., 1999, 76, 868–870.
Abbas, S., Curr. Sci., 1996, 71, 677–684.
Dutkiewicz, A., Rasmussen, B. and Buick, R., Nature, 1998, 395, 885–
888.
Brown, R. H., Dale, P. C., Pendleton, Y. and Veeder, G. J., Science, 1997, 276, 937–939.
Jackson, M. J., Powell, T. G., Summons, R. E. and Sweet, I. P., Nature, 1986, 322, 727–729.
Sankaran, A., Curr. Sci., 1997, 73, 495–497.
Russell, R. O., Oil Gas J., 1995, p. 34.
Gold, T., Am. Sci., 1997, 85, 408–411.
Proceedings of the Conference on Oil in Granite, Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia,
17–19 December 1997, Polar Publishing, Calgary, Canada, 1998.
Kosachev, I. P., Romanova, U. G. and Romanov, G. V., in Conference on Oil in Granite, Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia, 17–19 December 1997, Polar Publishing, Calgary, Canada 1998, paper no. 23.
Hunt, C. Warren, Expanding Geo-
spheres: Energy and Mass Transfers from Earth’s Interior. Polar Publishing, Calgary, Canada, 1992.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMAR ABBAS
Department of Physics,
Utkal University,
Bhubaneswar 751 004, India
ive herd abt that unpulbished novel
ive herd it 'runs the gamutt of emotions from A 2 B'
apathy 2 bordom
that wuz the reaction of ppl who read it, 2
Uh. I am 100 percent sure that this was not the thing you were looking for, but...
Did you work at Bobst library sometime? I found some work of yours snuggled into a shelf in the 7th floor staff lounge. Did you write something called "Richard Lean"? Your Chinese textbooks are there too, bro.
This whole idea of a transcript on a publicly-chucked-in-jersey computer and also-possibly-some-other-"places" is very intriguing. Hope you find it. In my opinion, it will be found. 2004 was not that long ago.
And who cares if you want to sell it on ebay. You have every right.
Mr. Anonymous is boring.
GO, Tao, GO!
Keep writing!
Hilarity ensues.
Hi Tao, my colleague just passed me your link because we share the same name. I am Tao Lin as well but a girl and work in London. haha....what a coincidence it is. Good luck for everything...
weird
thank you, other anonymous person for clarification on the organic/non-organic issue. i knew tao lin would not respond personally in such an erudite manner, i was counting on an outside source.
a lot of people bang the organic drum, like they think they're special, but then it occurred to me that it is merely a marketing ploy, a huge con, because the word "organic" is so broad, and it merely serves an a implication. in other words, you could serve somebody a hot bowl of mercury, and truthfully call it organic.
there is a certification process for organic food
Tao, you sent me that novel manuscript years ago. I can remember getting it because I wasted no time in reading it.
anonymous, thank you for commenting, can you email me at binky.tabby [at] gmail.com? we can 'work something out'
thank you
I don't think we can work things out. Oil is not organic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMAR ABBAS
Department of Physics,
Utkal University,
Bhubaneswar 751 004, India
To me "organic" will always mean "carbon-based". Can't escape it.
Perhaps "organic" as an adjective applied to "food" should be replaced by ""moby" - that is, from "my own back yard", which is the type of food we should all try to be moving towards. And the word "moby" has such meaningful associations (singer, the whale).
This is presuming that one's back yard endeavors would eschew the use of pesticides and herbicides, hormones and antibiotics.
Of course, if one's beloved egg-laying chicken got a sore foot or an infected feather follicle (or, god forbid, something worse) one would take the chicken to the vet for treatment. It would be the right thing to do.
can't you just write it again?
i would like to change "singer" to "musician" in my previous comment
thank you
@ anonymous # 4
"Ralph Kramden"
very interesting.
tao, i feel like you have achieved a new 'rank'; almost roughly 90% shit talking on this comment thread.
congrats bro.
Tao, please refrain from commenting on this blog unless you are being asked for a request or asked a direct question.
You get your say in the main post. This is for the rest of us.
Thank you for your cooperation and for being a good boy so we don't have to send you to bed without your organic tofu.
Dear Tao,
Please keep commenting. It is an overt sign that you are here with us lowly commentators (anonymous commentators being the lowest of the low), reading our widely-varying comments. Perhaps some of them you scan with a heavy sigh. Perhaps you moan. Hopefully, more often you smile or chuckle, or blow soda out of your nose because you're drinking a soda and something random appears "out of the blue" and makes you laugh. Whatever. Unless you tell us, we don't know. (i.e. "dear redpencil: i read your comment about XYZ while i was drinking a soda and i laughed so hard that i blew soda out of my nose") (Not that I think any of my comments make you laugh.) It doesn't matter, really.
Your "comments" are usually minimalist, often requests for elaboration, and sometimes continuation of a "dialogue" about a specific thread. And you are always polite and you often say "thank you". This counts in my book.
I think you have every right to comment on your own blog comment threads. And I for one appreciate having a safe, warm place to "speak my mind".
Sincerely yours,
redpencil
Dear Tao,
Please keep commenting. It is an overt sign that you are here with us lowly commentators (anonymous commentators being the lowest of the low), reading our widely-varying comments. Perhaps some of them you scan with a heavy sigh. Perhaps you moan. Hopefully, more often you smile or chuckle, or blow soda out of your nose because you're drinking a soda and something random appears "out of the blue" and makes you laugh. Whatever. Unless you tell us, we don't know. (i.e. "dear redpencil: i read your comment about XYZ while i was drinking a soda and i laughed so hard that i blew soda out of my nose") (Not that I think any of my comments make you laugh.) It doesn't matter, really.
Your "comments" are usually minimalist, often requests for elaboration, and sometimes continuation of a "dialogue" about a specific thread. And you are always polite and you often say "thank you". This counts in my book.
I think you have every right to comment on your own blog comment threads. And I for one appreciate having a safe, warm place to "speak my mind".
Sincerely yours,
redpencil
oops
thinking about how i wish i knew someone i could tell that i don't like people.
this all seems excruciatingly fucked
going to promote my poetry i think
http://noonponygiantsycamore.blogspot.com
tao, i will bid on your novel if you acquire it/sell it on ebay
i am having a severe 'anxiety attack' right now
don't know why
could also be a minor stroke i feel
tao, i feel neutral re your commenting on your own posts
i feel that maybe there are hazy arguments each way
feel like in a world of existential horror/potential death everywhere/is this a legitimate description, these things don't matter as much as cumming with like a thousand chicks
Anonymous is extremely annoying and not funny.
jesus
what is going on here
'lol'
Post a Comment
<< Home