Sharing and Shifting with Miracle Jones

Wrote earlier about the Texas-Brooklyn author Miracle Jones, who gets his words out there through the interwebs and despite the undeserved lack of a major publishing house (whatever those even are, anymore). Jones' e-books Sharing and Shifting (available as free downloads on Smashwords*) come highly recommended to the strong of heart and stomach. Was going to describe Sharing as "Chronicles of Narnia meets William Burroughs by way of Texas Chainsaw Massacre" but then it turns out to be laying groundwork for Shifting's urban psychic-cyberpunk thriller and by then most of the Pevensies have been killed off. There's far too much skanky and robust sex in these books for kids anyway. And "cyberpunk" doesn't quite nail it. Shifting more recalls cyberpunk forerunners such as Samuel Delany (on steroids) or Alfred Bester (on crack), or Bruce Sterling's Schismatrix yarns, with their body-mod cults in outer space.
Neither book is science fiction per se but Jones gives us plenty of genre tropes: parallel universes, mind and matter transfer, biology run amok. The narratives keep driving forward and Jones explains enough to keep you grounded. OK, we have a city in the brain folds of an enormous floating octopus, which moves from one reality to another, acquiring new immigrants and cultural minglings. In this gritty world of Blade-Runner-and-the-Star-Wars-bar shaped by unknown laws of physics, we have levels of psychic advancement called "folding": Sharing is telepathy, Shifting is telekinesis, Burning is pyrokinesis, Traveling is jumping between dimensions, and so on.
Sharing's coming of age novel centers on the character of Charlotte, who we follow from childhood to puberty through hardships that would make Job say you've got to be kidding. No plague of boils but she does have to cook several of her friends and serve them to the evil Unicorn-god-thing who is top dog in the little universe she inhabits.
Shifting's love story takes place on the aforementioned Octopus, named The General. There, Charlotte (who can Share) meets Ljubo (who can Share and Shift) and they mostly fight and bicker throughout the novel. But then the book is almost entirely fighting, as all hell breaks loose among various factions on, in, and outside of The General. We seriously need a third book, as Shifting ends in mid-war with the lovers parting but it's been almost three years since Shifting was published so we may have to write the rest in our heads.

The forward drive of the narratives stems in part from Jones' feverish imagination and sick humor. You keep reading because he keeps throwing new, disgusting creatures and situations at you, seducing you into wanting to know where this is going. In Sharing, the heroine doesn't just cook her friends for the evil unicorn but a variety of other life forms that he brings to her in bags, dead or semi-conscious, through a dimensional doorway. Was reading the following passage in a restaurant and had to look away from the e-reader momentarily because it started cracking me up:

Inside the sack was a giant maggot the size of a pony. According to Asfodel, the
maggot was only slightly psychic, and also stupid and brutal. Asfodel warned
Charlotte against Sharing with the creature, but she couldn’t help herself and as
the maggot flopped onto the kitchen floor like a gaffed fish, she eased into its
consciousness and tried to soothe it. The maggot fought harder, turning itself in
circles and banging into the cabinets, causing pots and pans to spill out all over the
floor.

Charlotte cut the connection as fast as she could, but not before the maggot
learned her name. The maggot didn’t have eyes. At one end it had a curved green
flange as sharp as a knife that groped and twisted as it searched for flesh. At the
other end, it had a tiny sphincter that bubbled and frothed like spilled beer.

“Chaaaaaaarrrrrlottttte,” the maggot whispered from the sphincter as it flopped
blindly around the kitchen, searching for her neck with the sharp flange.
“Chaaaaarrlottttte…”

Shifting is the better book but don't even try to read it without first learning the vocabulary and concepts in Sharing. Minus the first novel you wouldn't know, for example, that the "fairy" creatures Jones keeps mentioning are sentient, telepathic cockroaches, or what "shape trees" are. The opening chapters of Sharing are truly dark and unsettling, and create an emotional undertow that sloshes through both books like a bad childhood dream.

*Update: Sometime after this post Sharing and Shifting became unavailable as free e-books, and several people asked "What's up with that?" It appears Sharing, will be available again in January 2015 from Instar Books, according to this catalog. Instar also plans to e-publish the rest of the "Fold" series.

Update, 2017: Sharing and Shifting are both available from Instar Books. Instar says Burning, book 3 of The Fold series, is nearing completion.

michael manning enjoys a crit of his jpegs, i mean paintings

A one-time commenter was dissing Michael Manning's paintings over at ArtFCity and Paddy was agreeing with him so the death-paddle had to come down. The fun started with Johnson's run-down of what was selling in the online auctions (yawn). A Manning sold, and the peanut gallery weighed in:

wiki minaj • 4 days ago

I don't think it's the lack of big names that made it hard, it was the overall quality. The pieces just weren't that good, cohesive, or well curated. The market responded as it ought to, minus a couple 'gaming for reputation' pieces.

I mean, if Michael Manning's lethargic finger wiggling is the highlight of your lot then you don't have much to present. Even the recognized names' pieces weren't particularly strong.

Only a few lots were worth looking at and the lack of visual documentation makes the first impression the ONLY impression. Zooming in on a picture only to be treated by a low resolution, bilinear blur set the tone immediately. This shit doesn't matter.

Paddy Johnson • 4 days ago

I totally agree that this was a big problem. I wonder if people are distrustful of the sales format? I mean, Phillips isn't a small name—it shouldn't have been a problem to get better work.

tom moody • 3 days ago

Michael Manning's finger wiggling is anything but lethargic, wiki minaj! His muscles are toned, and so powerful he has had to register his fingers as weapons. His studio floor is littered with broken phones from his enthusiastic jabs.

Kidding aside, Manning has yet to find a Harold Rosenberg to pen the definitive "American Action Painters" essay for phone and tablet painting, ultimately rendered as printed canvas, daubed with actual physical gel. So we are having to rely on the collector's nose for quality at this moment. The paintings are good in person -- have you seen them, or are you basing your dismissal on jpegs? There is a bit of a goofing quality to them but they also have a sense of freedom and openness, owing to the large scale. They don't read like "digital art" much at all, yet have an interesting artificiality. The viewer thinks about how -- and why -- they were made.

10 years ago you could hardly give away a digital painting, collectors were so nervous about them. Manning has broken the ice for more people working this way.
But who gives a tinker's damn about the money? Let's talk about the art.

Paddy Johnson • 2 days ago

I don't think it's a good idea to rely on collector noses for quality. A lot of the time that's the last thing they are interested in.

I haven't seen Michael Manning's paintings in the flesh. I'm a little skeptical of how much they could be transformed IRL, though your vouch for it does make me question that skepticism.

From the jpegs and videos, I can see that scale helps the work, but they still still feel a little hotel-y to me. What's so unique about them. Are they really staking out a position for themselves?

tom moody • a day ago

I've seen two shows of the work in person but I was already intrigued by the way Bill Brady presented it, just from the installation shot: http://www.billbradykc.com/mic...
I know of one feted new media painter (via hearsay) who was convinced by actually seeing the work.
Hotel-y is part of the story -- in quotation marks -- but in person you are vacillating between the skepticism you would have if this work had actually been made with paint and the digital aspect, which is all about simulation and physical modeling (at the most accessible level of "consumer" tech). It's a matter of scale -- these things tower over you -- but also of presence and presentation. The gel medium is smeared on as if it were painted, yet has little actual relationship to the underlying strokes. This is funny, but is also adding a weird kind of solidity to the work.
They are pretty but not merely pretty, and certainly not cloying, in person.
By the "nose of the collector" I only meant that plunking down money will have to do until someone actually provides the critical exegesis. By then the flippers will be on to something else. I don't see any of our established NY painting critics providing this exegesis. I think they will avoid this work because it's "digital" and they still don't know how to talk about that. (Of course I'd be interested in any articles I might have missed.)

Paddy Johnson • a day ago

Where did you see the work in NYC? (Or did you see it elsewhere?)

tom moody • 20 hours ago

These were the two I saw:
American Contemporary (East Village, NYC)
http://americancontemporary.bi...
Apr - June 2014
Retrospective gallery (Hudson, NY)
http://www.retrospectivegaller...
May - June 2014