For all the vocal haters, remember there are a lot of quiet fans out there. Keep aspiring to be the best. Compete with the past and not just the present.
And what part of this book did you enjoy? The egregious use of the n-word, the misogyny, or the narcissistic, pseudo philosophical, idiotic ramblings? What about this book do you find so relatable jimmy? Just curious…
Everything you've listed are extremely common things one encounters in philly very regularly (though the last item you mention is more common in west philly circles). While I'm sure you do, you sound like you don't live in the city or have a quite privileged/sheltered lifestyle to not have encountered and thus be able to relate to any of the items you state (though I'm sure you don't mean to! It's just how it comes off).
To now go back and answer your first question, as a not-very-literarily inclined layperson I found the book to be at times funny, at others sad, and and yet others weird and gross.
I didn't personally identify with the main character much except for the parts about being dead broke. I did, however, relate to the "type of guy" being depicted, the titular fuckboy. After all, who hasn't encountered one, or multiple, even if the encounter wasn't positive?
I think this touches on something I find myself curious about most in some of the online discussions I've seen about the novel: do you think the reader who enjoys the book is always completely identifying with the novel's Sean? Or that the depiction of the main character is intended to be an endorsement of championing of his thoughts and actions to the reader? I personally felt the opposite--that the reader is invited to see him at various times as pitiable, a hypocrite, humiliated, a victim of his own pompousness and ego. He is the titular fuckboy after all, it's right there on the cover of the book. What do you think?
You realize, for instance, that those traits represent a certain type of person/character that very much exists in the world and had not been represented in fiction seldom or at all in this specific voice. It sounds like you just dislike the author and so, by extension, the book, and you're letting that colour your opinion of a work of art. It just sounds like you can't separate the two (since you're so patronizing and annoying, I'll act in kind). Cheers!
You think racist people haven’t been represented in the media and in the literary world? That the stories of people who use slurs and are misogynistic have never been showcased in movies, books, and other forms of media? His book is just a blend of projected stereotypes, it offers nothing critical bout ongoing issues. All a white person has to do is intellectualize their racism and I guess they can write whatever they want. But yea, I’m just patronizing for telling non black people not to use racial slurs. Or use a blaccent. Wrap it up Awkwafina
Uh, bub, he isn't white. And there is an almost 0% chance you didn't know this, that his mom is Japanese. I am not saying this as a defence in that it is OK for someone of Japanese heritage to say it, just correcting your glaring factual error in suggesting "All a WHITE person has to do..." So I can tell immediately you are making bad-faith arguments.
I know it's hard for you to turn off your internal ChatGPT marginalization lit crit chatbot, but let's at least stick with facts.
And perhaps more importantly — and once again, once again — we are talking about the book, and a character, and if a character is getting you this upset maybe something is working.
Agree with Norm below that at the very least, Fuccboi definitely has some genuinely funny moments. It's pretty well-paced. It captures a certain kind of existence well. This doesn't have to be Nabokov (who sucks anyways, but...)...
Bub he’s literally half white… his dad is white and in the army. He also looks white so yea don’t know why you thought you head to correct me he’s still white
A character in a novel is saying in in the form of words on a page, which is not the same as the author saying it. It is an entirely different discussion, actually. And he's not. Nice erasure of mixed heritage!
After hearing a couple episodes of your pod where this came up in bits and it seemed obvious you had more to say, I'm glad you took the time to write this out. Also glad you're getting a bunch of comments in here.
This is a glaring example of performative narcissism, a long tradition in literature, and as a fellow writer who has spent countless hours in the trenches of this craft, I feel compelled to address it.
You present yourself as a trailblazer, claiming to have "changed literature" with your work. This is a sweeping assertion, one that deserves a deeper investigation. Literature is transformed not by bold proclamations or the size of an advance; it evolves through the quiet, steadfast efforts of those who devote themselves to the art, day after day, without seeking applause or grand titles.
Sam Pink, to his credit, has diligently carved out his niche through relentless effort and a keen eye for the everyday struggles of life. He toils in shit jobs and captures the essence of these experiences in poems and stories rooted in his reality. This should not be dismissed or belittled as lacking ambition or sophistication.
Your rebuttal, laced with arrogance and condescension, misses the point entirely. You dismiss Pink’s critiques as mere envy, failing to see the value in his perspective. You suggest he lacks the dedication to grow as a writer, accusing him of being repetitive and stagnant. But evolution in writing is not merely about form or length; it is about depth, authenticity, and the relentless pursuit of truth.
You boast, "You didn’t have the patience to do what I did, to write a 70K-word, 350-page novel that employs a range of forms." This statement smacks of elitism. Writing a lengthy novel does not automatically make one a superior writer. I have written a couple, but I wish I could write short. It's a gift. And it takes a different kind of patience. There is the patience to go long, and there is the patience to go short. I'd argue going short is a skill too few people practice these days, perhaps because they're too concerned with what sells and fulfilling some dictionary definition of what a novel is supposed to be. The truth is, a novel is simply a long-ish book that publishing houses can slap with a $30 price tag. This is no secret, of course. Yet, this is the part of this "beef" that is being overlooked, even if it is — at least in my mind — the most important. What truly matters is the substance within those pages, the honesty, and the willingness to reveal one's vulnerabilities.
But even this focus on self-expression can be misleading. Recently, Benjamin Labatut talked about how self-expression can be harmful. He prefers to view fiction writing as an exercise similar to walking through a field, picking up flowers, turning them in the light, and dropping them—a form of engagement with the world. You should be careful not to put too much value on digging inside yourself. Ultimately, it is unsustainable, self-indulgent, and harmful to the spirit. There's a difference between reflection and meditation. Take it from me, you want to do the latter. That's how you last. Otherwise, you're looking in the rearview. That's not how you change literature. That's how you sell books.
Your reverence for Gian, while understandable, borders on idolization of gatekeepers. Gian was indeed influential, a product of Gordon Lish’s mentorship, but elevating him to a near-sacred status diminishes the contributions of many other writers who work without such validation. Literature flourishes with diversity, with voices from all walks of life, not just those endorsed by a select few.
In your response, you seem more preoccupied with defending your status and legacy than engaging in a meaningful conversation. As someone who has "made it," you should be using your platform to uplift others, to create a space where diverse voices can thrive. Instead, you attack a fellow writer for comments made three years ago. This is not the behavior of a literary revolutionary; it is the behavior of someone deeply insecure about their own place in the literary world.
When you reach the heights of Big Lit and start earning six figures, your responsibility changes. You don’t punch down. As a Big Five author, smearing a writer who is delivering water jugs to pay his rent is not only immature but harmful. I'm sure this feud helped you sell more books. This response, it seems, was written as a veiled attempt to make sure Mr. Pink sells fewer. You can't change literature by trying to exterminate another practitioner. After the first salvo from Mr. Pink's bunker, your publisher stood by you. The book came out. According to some basic research, it appears you bought a new vehicle. You got high-level assignments with some of the powerhouse magazines that pay with money and clout. You won. Yet you loaded up with a steel-tipped combat boot and thumped it into Mr. Pink's ribs. If this hasn't sunk in yet, you need to clean house and find a better circle of friends, friends who are averse to bringing gas cans whenever there's fire. That is dangerous. And people tend to get hurt that way.
Sean, you need to reassess what it truly means to be a writer. It’s not about making grandiose claims or securing your legacy. It’s about the work—the daily, grinding, often thankless work. It’s about the stories, the truths we unearth and share with the world. And it’s about humility, recognizing that we are part of a larger tapestry, and our contributions, while significant, are but one thread in the vast, intricate weave of literature.
And let’s not forget, there are bigger issues at play right now. We’re on the brink of an election that could potentially usher in a fascist regime, one that could put people of color, immigrants, and trans folks in the crosshairs of a cabinet and Supreme Court that, frankly, would rather see them hanging in trees. The world is heating up, quite literally, with climate change threatening our very existence. In the grand scheme of things, these literary spats seem embarrassingly trivial. There are far more pressing matters that deserve our attention and energy. Your time can be better spent using your platform to write about the world and your place in it. You write as if the world is all books. You're ignoring the bloodshed. There is still time to correct course. When you engage in the type of legacy-preserving writing displayed here, you're performing the equivalent of literary masturbation. You are, I'm sad to say, sleepwalking off a cliff. Wake up.
Okay, I'll bite. I followed this vaguely and I did purchase and read one of Sam Pink's books (the one set in a diner...?) and have not read Fuccboi (may add it to the queue now). Reading this, my main thought it is that it is indeed embarrassingly sour grapes that Pink seems to think that literary style/vibes can be stolen. That's just called writing and influence. This whole thing isn't remotely akin to a real stealing or plagiarism debate. Anyway, good luck to the author of this, my advice is to not give the issue much more time/energy and simply let the the work and time do the rest.
"You guys are in high school, trying to look cool, trying to be liked. I’m not trying to be liked. I’m trying to actually change the literature. To speak to those who need it, and to shock those who don’t. That’s what the vision always was. What it still is.
And you know what? I did do that.
Gian—we did it. We changed literature."
These are the words of Sean Thor Conroe, a writer who, despite his Ivy League education and six-figure book deals, still feels the need to condescend to others in the literary community. He positions himself as a revolutionary, a maverick who has single-handedly altered the course of literature. It's the kind of self-aggrandizing bullshit that makes you want to roll your eyes so hard they might get stuck.
Sam Pink is a man who sweats it out in kitchens and warehouses, carving out a living and a unique voice from the gritty reality of the Midwest. He creates art and books in his apartment, offering a sharp, observant eye that cuts through the bullshit of American life. His writing is raw and unpretentious, capturing the bleakness and beauty of the mundane with a kind of casual brilliance. Take this excerpt:
"It was something. Out of nowhere, I didn’t give a shit about anything for like a month. Like nothing. I mean yeah, there’d been plenty of times where I didn’t give a shit about something. Oh that thing? Yeah, fuck that thing. I did it all the time. Multiple things even. Had to. It was part of life, sure. But this time it transcended all things and applied to everything... The world had been on a rampage trying to get me to give a shit, too. All kinds of shit, you wouldn’t believe it. More and more. On TV, on the radio, the bench ads outside the grocery store, they all expected me to give a shit about something."
Then there's Sean Thor Conroe, whose "urgent" prose often sounds like the voice of an insecure Jason Mewes mixed with J-Roc from Trailer Park Boys. Conroe, in his rebuttal to Pink's accusations, paints himself as a martyr who overcame great odds to achieve literary success.
Conroe's response here is problematic, dripping with self-righteousness and self-pity. He criticizes Pink for his career choices, implying that his own path was the only true and righteous one. Conroe's sanctimonious attitude reeks of literary elitism, where one writer's struggle is deemed more authentic and valuable than another's. It's a classic case of a guy who can't see beyond his own inflated sense of importance. He writes, "You didn’t have the patience to do what I did, to write a 70K-word, 350-page novel that employs a range of forms." This dismisses Pink's body of work and arrogantly elevates Conroe's approach as superior.
Conroe also takes a swipe at Pink's reading habits, implying that Pink lacks the dedication to evolve as a writer. Conroe claims, "You’ve never in your life even written a novel—by definition, a collection of over 40K words; you write the same 90-page novella over and over, never pushing yourself to read and evolve." This condescending remark not only belittles Pink's work but also reveals Conroe's own insecurity, cloaked in a veneer of superiority.
And then there's Gian. Ah, Gian—the literary deity, the revered gatekeeper. Conroe refers to him as "the most valuable person in publishing" and "the most legendary editor of all time." Gian is portrayed not merely as an influential editor but as a visionary whose approval and guidance are tantamount to anointment. This near-religious reverence for Gian underscores the peculiar dynamics of the literary community, where editors and tastemakers can be elevated to near-mythical status. Gian's tragic death only amplifies this reverence, casting him as a martyr of sorts in Conroe's story, which complicates the conflict further.
Gian was a product of Gordon Lish, a legendary figure in his own right, and it’s clear that Conroe views himself as a disciple of this lineage. But this fetishization of gatekeepers and the power they wield highlights a broader issue within literary cliques. Gian is portrayed as a saintly figure, and Conroe’s alignment with him serves to validate his work and elevate his standing. Pink has always been known as a writer who paved his own way. Of course, every writer wants to be read by a wide audience. The fact that Conroe not only got the audience but the fat paycheck no doubt fueled Pink's resentment. This is a haves and have-nots story.
What makes this particularly disheartening is how this younger generation seems to waste so much time in meaningless online spats. Why don't we see writers like Scott McClanahan, Garielle Lutz, or Eugene Marten engaging in these pissing matches? Because they’re too busy. They are reading and working. And so is Sam Pink. If you've kept up with him lately, you'll see him churning out work like he always did. Pink shared his side of this story three years ago. Was it a bunker buster revelation? No. Was it a little over-the-top? Absolutely. But it was human. It was written in his voice.
Once you become part of Big Lit and start making those six figures, you don’t punch down. As the guy who’s made it, you need to do everything you can to amend the situation, not bury some guy scratching out a living for comments he made three years ago. What the hell is that? Unfortunately, Conroe seems to be focused on "changing literature," bringing gas to the masses, and making sure everyone knows it.
Conroe took three years to respond with a voice that tries so hard to be a voice it just comes off as silly. After three years, you'd think his response would be more measured. Unfortunately, what we got is the real Sean Thor Conroe, a literary darling with a book that was so "gas" it sold to Big Lit. And why now? Because someone pressured him with a Q&A comment. Why couldn't he respond with another book instead of this tiresome diatribe? Conroe's attempt to position himself as a misunderstood genius, battling against a world that doesn't appreciate his greatness, rings hollow. It's a performance, and not a particularly convincing one.
In the words of Oscar Wilde, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
Perhaps, in the end, Conroe can take solace in the fact that this feud has, at least, kept him in the spotlight. But one can’t help but wonder how much more fruitful Conroe's time could be if he instead spent it on his craft rather than this pointless public relations stunt.
How are you going to say “Conroe's sanctimonious attitude reeks of literary elitism, where one writer's struggle is deemed more authentic and valuable than another's.”
just after writing “Sam Pink is a man who sweats it out in kitchens and warehouses, carving out a living and a unique voice from the gritty reality of the Midwest.”
The “gritty reality of the Midwest” ??? really? noble savage mentality lol
I'm curious the reasoning behind this pronounced yes.
During the conversation, it seems you became defensive between the two questions posed surrounding the influence of the controversy, then proceeded to scapegoat another feud between two musical artists to draw a parallel to you and Sam Pink, I assume.
It became unclear what your actual feelings have been , surrounding the controversy, but it seems like there's been a lot that has been unspoken based on this substack that wasn't talked about at american grammar... were you uncomfortable at that time to talk to your audience (some of whom could actually be your fans?) and if so, why didn't you dive into the topic since it seemed to be on your mind after all these years?
Your book is "radical" and "soul-baring" and "urgent," you say. Well, if you love it so much, why don't you marry it? Better yet, if you believe in your work, why don't you try shutting the fuck up and letting that work speak for itself. This could have been 300 words, but you said too much. You could have hit all the notes with a simple, "waaaaah." Boo-fucking-hoo. This dude Gian must be rolling in his grave. Smoke a joint and chill out, bro. Spend your time writing the next thing. Answer the interviewer next time, instead of sinking into a hole and writing War and Peace: A Literary Soap. As a reader of "alt-lit" - which is also a dumb fucking name for what essentially amounts to an identifier for fucking nerds who like to bully each other and create division to feel something - this all comes off on both sides as petty ass privileged bullshit. Give me a fucking break. Go write something.
I was sent this substack, after attending your event and reading your book. I was unaware that you made this account and thought this was another promotional use for your book, that I originally thought was an autobiography, or even close to auto - fiction, if anything.
The reason why I also reference the auto fiction or even autobiography as the medium of “fuccboi,” is because towards the end of the book, there’s a lot of reference to how you were inspired by multiple conversations with other characters into writing “fuccboi,” despite the alleged controversy between you and artist Sam Pink is barely mentioned despite eclipsing over the conversation at the event last weekend. It should be named though, that even auto fiction can allude to be being an unreliable narrator.
An unreliable narrator, often times, can be a focal point for truth in the story, however, I was struck at the aim you took in causing so much distinction between you as the author, and this so called “narrator,” of the book. I was curious at the beginning of the event, when you read out a section of your book. After a steady beat of trying to concentrate on the right page to bring the audience into the story, you somehow reference one part of Philly when actually discussing another area altogether in the same section you read aloud (see 2:43 in podcast video.)
As an audience member, I remember one of the questions raised, which I though was fairly light was about media that was consumed at the time, which became vague and alarming to how unconvincing terms like “nutty,” or “jawn” seemed too dated. It struck me when the dichotomy of that was hearing and reading a member of the non Black community say the N word over six times..
Fuccboi can remind you of the Dear White People-ification that happened in 2017 when Trump was elected, but fails to engage media and only selects with mediums to show his “hardness” or lack thereof. I’m not sure how stylistic it was for you to try to romanticize a majority Black working class city like Philadelphia in this way, but it certainly was… a choice…
I would also like to take the time to say that even this entire substack commentary also is on the backdrop of *yet* ANOTHER Trump era incident, and instead of choosing to make political commentary, we end up going on this excavation into a three-year long drawn out feud… choices have been made.
How do you find the use of the term n*gga serving as meaningful rhetoric to push your story forward
Directly from your voice, do you find your audio book voice differs? Do you find that as a form of racebaiting ?
These were questions that I wanted to ask, and still do because unlike the outlandish claims that other arguments don’t help with supporting the text ,I think they do. The truth about being a writer, is that all of our work, as we cease to know it, will always be work in progress.
What impact do you believe your use of the word “n*gga” has on readers, particularly Black readers, and how do you respond to those who find it hurtful or offensive?
It is worrying when most of the femme women of color audience members at last weekend’s event, which were a handful (I might add) are trying to engage with your work, are asked if they even read or engage with said kind of work. It’s insulting to anyone’s intelligence to be diminished in a public space like that, let alone to not even be given a full answer when being asked what media was consumed at such a politically and racially charged time in America, but still claiming this fetishized wokeness.. crazy innit?
Your book is interesting, Sean, I will give you that, but what I won’t say is that it’s original. I am not referencing to you stealing a style, but at american grammar, couldn’t really stick to your question or even the story at hand… wild innit?
In “FuccBoi,” you reference “EditorBae.” Have you ever questioned whether they were truthful about the quality of your book?
And now that we are here, grappling with the feud, the book, who you are Sean, what do you have to say to us, now, really?
Sean cool substack it’s almost like you wrote a book…
But anyways… I recently attended your talk about "Fuccboi," hoping to gain a deeper understanding of your book and its themes. Unfortunately, I left feeling extremely underwhelmed. Throughout the discussion, you failed to answer numerous questions about your work in a meaningful or definitive manner. When asked about American identity, the media that influenced your writing, and what makes your book "universal," your responses were vague and unconvincing.
Your lack of depth in addressing these important aspects of your book was disappointing. These are fundamental questions that any author should be able to discuss with confidence, especially if they claim their work tackles significant contemporary issues. Instead, your responses felt evasive and lacked the insight one would expect from the creator of a supposedly groundbreaking novel.
What struck me most was your stark contrast in demeanor when the topic of the Sam Pink controversy was raised. Suddenly, you became defensive and verbose, aggressively defending yourself against accusations of stylistic appropriation. This was the only moment during the entire talk when you seemed animated and capable of forming coherent, complete sentences.
This defensiveness only adds to the skepticism surrounding your work's authenticity. If "Fuccboi" is truly an original and authentic piece, why is it that the only time you can speak passionately is when your integrity is questioned? The way you fixated on defending yourself against Sam Pink's accusations, while failing to provide substantial answers to other questions, suggests that the controversy strikes too close to home. It casts a long shadow over your claims of originality and undermines your credibility as an author.
Your behavior at the talk made it difficult to take your claims of authenticity seriously. Instead of getting defensive, you should focus on proving through your words and actions that "Fuccboi" stands on its own merits, beyond the shadow of another writer's influence. Until you can address the broader themes of your work with the same energy and clarity, it's hard to believe that "Fuccboi" is anything more than a derivative piece riding on controversy.
In the video, you also responded to the “young woman’s” question by inquiring whether or not she reads. Is that what you do when you are unable to coherently answer a question? You belittle those asking it by insinuating that they must not read, and if they do, that they must not have the ability to comprehend your writing. What a chauvinistic, insecure, and lazy response to important questions and commentary surrounding your book. Also what, exactly, am I suppose to find insightful or revolutionary about your grammatically incorrect use of aave, your constant use of the n-word as a white man, your blaccent in the audiobook, and your overall appropriation and mockery of black Philadelphian culture? The fact that you claim to have created your own idiom language when it’s just an egregious amount of appropriation is insane. Not to mention the absolutely concerning and vile way you describe the women in your life. Then after all of that you claim that the people who are triggered by your book, minorities and women, are simply not smart enough to understand the “deeper meaning”. Like, bffr. You utilize these things to give yourself a sense of street cred that rings so false that it’s laughable. (Ex. 41 hunnit, gang)🙄.
Overall your book is inauthentic which is why you have to lash out every time someone questions it. you being mixed with Japanese and having a “hard life” does not excuse your appropriation or the use of slurs. You literally have colonizer on both sides of the genome and wanna act like you’re oppressed… sounds about white. Next time you go to a Q&A, try having coherent answers to the interviewers questions instead of doing your best impression of Biden at the presidential debates. You may have won the book deal, but you have no one’s respect, least of all from the people who are actually from Philly. You’re not a colleague, you’re a f*ckin colonizer lol
Sorry the author's experience wasn't marginalized enough for him to have written this book, in your view. What an absolute plummet to the bottom this type of "criticism" is. Nice, "young woman" in quotes, as if that's fucking problematic? Oh my god, you're a narc... gonna stop engaging before I hemorrhage from your willfully illiterate tirades.
I remember having a bigger issue with him using the n-word lol. I quoted young woman to show that I was quoting his post… so anyways why don’t you seem to have an issue with white men using derogatory slurs against the black community to be edgy? And are you one of those white men that think they’re superior to minorities when they bring up valid issues that are genuinely offensive? Since you, as a white man, can’t relate to getting triggered by something offensive and could never hope to understand. Just something to ponder on. It also seems that you like to call people illiterate when they make comments on a book they literally read. Hmmmmm interesting. It’s ironic that the people who enjoys a book written for people who don’t read like to throw around accusations of illiteracy. And go ahead hemmorage… make my day 😘
Your entire comment is based on unfounded and moronic assumptions, and you only feel enabled because there are a bunch of other likeminded dummies in the comments.
I am not a white man. I'm Jewish and Italian.
This is so painfully boring, I have to find another way to amuse myself. I'm out.
And you see, Sean, the thing about writing books is that you should be able to answer questions about your work. Maybe if your book were truly original, you could discuss its themes and influences with the confidence of Prometheus handing down fire, instead of just getting defensive. ❤️🔥❤️🩹
considering this is the same writer in the book that also tries to make nods to "ex" and "editor bae" through a rap and saying, "but they can both get fucked…" is... a choice and it seems that *several* choices are still being made...
What a weird critique. Have you ever been to an author Q & A before? Or, like, listened to an author interview? All of the answers are going to be vague on such big questions. That's like, for you to wrestle with as a reader. This is such a bizarre take that I wonder if it is in bad faith or simply reveals a lack of familiarity with how people talk about writing and books.
There’s a difference between leaving things open to interpretation and being unable to coherently answer questions about something you wrote. And to insinuate that aminata has never been to an author Q&A is weird considering you don’t know them?? Sean contradicted himself multiple times in the interview and constantly evaded questions, constantly stopping and pivoting mid sentence making what he was saying hard to follow and leaving listeners unsatisfied to say the least. He uses buzz words and niche references but is never really able to tie his writing to them in a meaningful way. You can’t just say Dante’s inferno 5 times and expect me to be impressed that you read it, say that your work is allegorical, but then not be able to tell me how it’s allegorical. He’s a bullsh*tter lol
"When asked about American identity, the media that influenced your writing, and what makes your book "universal," your responses were vague and unconvincing."
I feel like the book itself should be the first port of call in answering these questions - why is it important for the author (or EVERY author) to be some insightful or profound orator on the spot. Is this a criticism of the book/writing/themes or the way the author speaks in Q and As? Seems irrelevant to me. More than many other books, Fuccboi was very transparent about its "media influences".
I agree that the author speaks passionately and defensively when the topic of Sam Pink is raised, but to me it feels like the only time OTHER people speak passionately about the book is when questioning its integrity, bringing up Sam Pink, or squirming at the language. Who wouldn't be frustrated when this cloud seems to loom over all discussion of the book. Idk the dude or what a satisfactory level of passion from answers to questions in a public setting is for you, but as someone who listens to his podcast, he isn't short in passion about his book or literature.
"Until you can address the broader themes of your work with the same energy and clarity, it's hard to believe that "Fuccboi" is anything more than a derivative piece riding on controversy."
Seems like thats a decision for you to make after reading the book? I thought it was earnest and vulnerable and don't think anyone else apart from the author could've written it.
I see your point, but let’s be realistic here. When an author can’t even provide coherent answers about their own work, it raises significant red flags. Sure, the book itself might be transparent about its media influences, but that doesn’t excuse the author from being able to discuss these influences intelligently. It’s not too much to expect an author to be insightful or at least articulate about their own creation, especially in a public forum.
And let’s talk about passion. If the only time Sean can muster any real energy is when he’s defending himself against accusations related to Sam Pink, that’s pretty telling. Passion should extend beyond defensiveness. It should permeate discussions about the book’s themes, its inspirations, and its relevance. If he’s unable to engage in those conversations with any depth, it makes one question the substance behind the work.
You might find his podcast engaging, but in person, his defensiveness and lack of depth were glaringly obvious. It’s frustrating when the integrity of the book dominates the discussion, overshadowing other important aspects. If he can’t discuss broader themes with clarity and confidence, it makes it hard to take the book seriously as anything more than a derivative piece riding on controversy.
And yes, I’ve read the book. For me, it didn’t rise above being a derivative piece overshadowed by controversy. Maybe you see earnestness and vulnerability; I see a missed opportunity for originality. If “Fuccboi” were truly as groundbreaking and significant as some claim, it would stand on its own without the need for such aggressive defense. So, while you might find his work and his podcast full of passion, my experience has led me to a different conclusion.
The reason he seemed to speak about it with more “passion” is that the experience was incredibly traumatic for him, and he has clearly gone over it in his head and with others a million times. He talks about it in literally every podcast he does. (I’m not criticizing him for that at all—his girlfriend and friend/editor died in shocking ways just as he was celebrating a big accomplishment, and then this Pink accusation made him the punching bag of the entire internet.) Obviously because it’s something he’s been thinking about for literal years he’s going to be a little more prepared to talk about it versus the other, mostly super general/vague questions.
Show him some grace. If you’ve ever been blindsided by something you will know it can make you question everything—when it’s a very public and personal attack on your character I can’t even imagine what that’s like. Thankfully he is someone who is capable of transforming painful searching into moving art (fuccboi was fire).
Good to see the other side of the story and he definitely should not have to defend grinding to get a massive book deal.. honestly good for him.
That being said his book was fuckin awful. Changing literature? I feel secondhand embarrassment reading that.
Or "unique lexicon that I came up with"... the lexicon in question is the same forced bullshit that every white kid from the suburbs hears in an XXL interview and just overuses to death to try and sound cool. If it's not just performative how come he doesn't talk like that in any interview or on any podcast? Another cringeworthy aspect of this "revolutionary" piece of literature.
All in all I'm happy he wrote something he wanted to write, and made a bunch of money off of it and can hopefully keep pursuing his dream, but the hubris is off the charts and the book is fuckin shit.
Enjoyed this. The three years of consideration before responding is impressive/inspiring.
Tao Lin recommends reading things that are impressive and/or inspiring.
For all the vocal haters, remember there are a lot of quiet fans out there. Keep aspiring to be the best. Compete with the past and not just the present.
You wrote a really good book, I loved reading it, and I’m glad it’s out in the world. Much love always.
And what part of this book did you enjoy? The egregious use of the n-word, the misogyny, or the narcissistic, pseudo philosophical, idiotic ramblings? What about this book do you find so relatable jimmy? Just curious…
Everything you've listed are extremely common things one encounters in philly very regularly (though the last item you mention is more common in west philly circles). While I'm sure you do, you sound like you don't live in the city or have a quite privileged/sheltered lifestyle to not have encountered and thus be able to relate to any of the items you state (though I'm sure you don't mean to! It's just how it comes off).
To now go back and answer your first question, as a not-very-literarily inclined layperson I found the book to be at times funny, at others sad, and and yet others weird and gross.
I didn't personally identify with the main character much except for the parts about being dead broke. I did, however, relate to the "type of guy" being depicted, the titular fuckboy. After all, who hasn't encountered one, or multiple, even if the encounter wasn't positive?
I think this touches on something I find myself curious about most in some of the online discussions I've seen about the novel: do you think the reader who enjoys the book is always completely identifying with the novel's Sean? Or that the depiction of the main character is intended to be an endorsement of championing of his thoughts and actions to the reader? I personally felt the opposite--that the reader is invited to see him at various times as pitiable, a hypocrite, humiliated, a victim of his own pompousness and ego. He is the titular fuckboy after all, it's right there on the cover of the book. What do you think?
Is narrator in the room with us??? 👀
wait, is your name actually pronounced normal guy??
Yea ok, dickhead lol…
What’s up Sean 🙄
You realize, for instance, that those traits represent a certain type of person/character that very much exists in the world and had not been represented in fiction seldom or at all in this specific voice. It sounds like you just dislike the author and so, by extension, the book, and you're letting that colour your opinion of a work of art. It just sounds like you can't separate the two (since you're so patronizing and annoying, I'll act in kind). Cheers!
You think racist people haven’t been represented in the media and in the literary world? That the stories of people who use slurs and are misogynistic have never been showcased in movies, books, and other forms of media? His book is just a blend of projected stereotypes, it offers nothing critical bout ongoing issues. All a white person has to do is intellectualize their racism and I guess they can write whatever they want. But yea, I’m just patronizing for telling non black people not to use racial slurs. Or use a blaccent. Wrap it up Awkwafina
Uh, bub, he isn't white. And there is an almost 0% chance you didn't know this, that his mom is Japanese. I am not saying this as a defence in that it is OK for someone of Japanese heritage to say it, just correcting your glaring factual error in suggesting "All a WHITE person has to do..." So I can tell immediately you are making bad-faith arguments.
I know it's hard for you to turn off your internal ChatGPT marginalization lit crit chatbot, but let's at least stick with facts.
And perhaps more importantly — and once again, once again — we are talking about the book, and a character, and if a character is getting you this upset maybe something is working.
Agree with Norm below that at the very least, Fuccboi definitely has some genuinely funny moments. It's pretty well-paced. It captures a certain kind of existence well. This doesn't have to be Nabokov (who sucks anyways, but...)...
Bub he’s literally half white… his dad is white and in the army. He also looks white so yea don’t know why you thought you head to correct me he’s still white
A character in a novel is saying in in the form of words on a page, which is not the same as the author saying it. It is an entirely different discussion, actually. And he's not. Nice erasure of mixed heritage!
After hearing a couple episodes of your pod where this came up in bits and it seemed obvious you had more to say, I'm glad you took the time to write this out. Also glad you're getting a bunch of comments in here.
Thank you bro, me too.
This is a glaring example of performative narcissism, a long tradition in literature, and as a fellow writer who has spent countless hours in the trenches of this craft, I feel compelled to address it.
You present yourself as a trailblazer, claiming to have "changed literature" with your work. This is a sweeping assertion, one that deserves a deeper investigation. Literature is transformed not by bold proclamations or the size of an advance; it evolves through the quiet, steadfast efforts of those who devote themselves to the art, day after day, without seeking applause or grand titles.
Sam Pink, to his credit, has diligently carved out his niche through relentless effort and a keen eye for the everyday struggles of life. He toils in shit jobs and captures the essence of these experiences in poems and stories rooted in his reality. This should not be dismissed or belittled as lacking ambition or sophistication.
Your rebuttal, laced with arrogance and condescension, misses the point entirely. You dismiss Pink’s critiques as mere envy, failing to see the value in his perspective. You suggest he lacks the dedication to grow as a writer, accusing him of being repetitive and stagnant. But evolution in writing is not merely about form or length; it is about depth, authenticity, and the relentless pursuit of truth.
You boast, "You didn’t have the patience to do what I did, to write a 70K-word, 350-page novel that employs a range of forms." This statement smacks of elitism. Writing a lengthy novel does not automatically make one a superior writer. I have written a couple, but I wish I could write short. It's a gift. And it takes a different kind of patience. There is the patience to go long, and there is the patience to go short. I'd argue going short is a skill too few people practice these days, perhaps because they're too concerned with what sells and fulfilling some dictionary definition of what a novel is supposed to be. The truth is, a novel is simply a long-ish book that publishing houses can slap with a $30 price tag. This is no secret, of course. Yet, this is the part of this "beef" that is being overlooked, even if it is — at least in my mind — the most important. What truly matters is the substance within those pages, the honesty, and the willingness to reveal one's vulnerabilities.
But even this focus on self-expression can be misleading. Recently, Benjamin Labatut talked about how self-expression can be harmful. He prefers to view fiction writing as an exercise similar to walking through a field, picking up flowers, turning them in the light, and dropping them—a form of engagement with the world. You should be careful not to put too much value on digging inside yourself. Ultimately, it is unsustainable, self-indulgent, and harmful to the spirit. There's a difference between reflection and meditation. Take it from me, you want to do the latter. That's how you last. Otherwise, you're looking in the rearview. That's not how you change literature. That's how you sell books.
Your reverence for Gian, while understandable, borders on idolization of gatekeepers. Gian was indeed influential, a product of Gordon Lish’s mentorship, but elevating him to a near-sacred status diminishes the contributions of many other writers who work without such validation. Literature flourishes with diversity, with voices from all walks of life, not just those endorsed by a select few.
In your response, you seem more preoccupied with defending your status and legacy than engaging in a meaningful conversation. As someone who has "made it," you should be using your platform to uplift others, to create a space where diverse voices can thrive. Instead, you attack a fellow writer for comments made three years ago. This is not the behavior of a literary revolutionary; it is the behavior of someone deeply insecure about their own place in the literary world.
When you reach the heights of Big Lit and start earning six figures, your responsibility changes. You don’t punch down. As a Big Five author, smearing a writer who is delivering water jugs to pay his rent is not only immature but harmful. I'm sure this feud helped you sell more books. This response, it seems, was written as a veiled attempt to make sure Mr. Pink sells fewer. You can't change literature by trying to exterminate another practitioner. After the first salvo from Mr. Pink's bunker, your publisher stood by you. The book came out. According to some basic research, it appears you bought a new vehicle. You got high-level assignments with some of the powerhouse magazines that pay with money and clout. You won. Yet you loaded up with a steel-tipped combat boot and thumped it into Mr. Pink's ribs. If this hasn't sunk in yet, you need to clean house and find a better circle of friends, friends who are averse to bringing gas cans whenever there's fire. That is dangerous. And people tend to get hurt that way.
Sean, you need to reassess what it truly means to be a writer. It’s not about making grandiose claims or securing your legacy. It’s about the work—the daily, grinding, often thankless work. It’s about the stories, the truths we unearth and share with the world. And it’s about humility, recognizing that we are part of a larger tapestry, and our contributions, while significant, are but one thread in the vast, intricate weave of literature.
And let’s not forget, there are bigger issues at play right now. We’re on the brink of an election that could potentially usher in a fascist regime, one that could put people of color, immigrants, and trans folks in the crosshairs of a cabinet and Supreme Court that, frankly, would rather see them hanging in trees. The world is heating up, quite literally, with climate change threatening our very existence. In the grand scheme of things, these literary spats seem embarrassingly trivial. There are far more pressing matters that deserve our attention and energy. Your time can be better spent using your platform to write about the world and your place in it. You write as if the world is all books. You're ignoring the bloodshed. There is still time to correct course. When you engage in the type of legacy-preserving writing displayed here, you're performing the equivalent of literary masturbation. You are, I'm sad to say, sleepwalking off a cliff. Wake up.
what’s with these massive gpt-ass replies?
Foh
Okay, I'll bite. I followed this vaguely and I did purchase and read one of Sam Pink's books (the one set in a diner...?) and have not read Fuccboi (may add it to the queue now). Reading this, my main thought it is that it is indeed embarrassingly sour grapes that Pink seems to think that literary style/vibes can be stolen. That's just called writing and influence. This whole thing isn't remotely akin to a real stealing or plagiarism debate. Anyway, good luck to the author of this, my advice is to not give the issue much more time/energy and simply let the the work and time do the rest.
"My advice is to not give the issue much more time/energy and simply let the the work and time do the rest."
Bravo.
Get a load of this shit.
"You guys are in high school, trying to look cool, trying to be liked. I’m not trying to be liked. I’m trying to actually change the literature. To speak to those who need it, and to shock those who don’t. That’s what the vision always was. What it still is.
And you know what? I did do that.
Gian—we did it. We changed literature."
These are the words of Sean Thor Conroe, a writer who, despite his Ivy League education and six-figure book deals, still feels the need to condescend to others in the literary community. He positions himself as a revolutionary, a maverick who has single-handedly altered the course of literature. It's the kind of self-aggrandizing bullshit that makes you want to roll your eyes so hard they might get stuck.
Sam Pink is a man who sweats it out in kitchens and warehouses, carving out a living and a unique voice from the gritty reality of the Midwest. He creates art and books in his apartment, offering a sharp, observant eye that cuts through the bullshit of American life. His writing is raw and unpretentious, capturing the bleakness and beauty of the mundane with a kind of casual brilliance. Take this excerpt:
"It was something. Out of nowhere, I didn’t give a shit about anything for like a month. Like nothing. I mean yeah, there’d been plenty of times where I didn’t give a shit about something. Oh that thing? Yeah, fuck that thing. I did it all the time. Multiple things even. Had to. It was part of life, sure. But this time it transcended all things and applied to everything... The world had been on a rampage trying to get me to give a shit, too. All kinds of shit, you wouldn’t believe it. More and more. On TV, on the radio, the bench ads outside the grocery store, they all expected me to give a shit about something."
Then there's Sean Thor Conroe, whose "urgent" prose often sounds like the voice of an insecure Jason Mewes mixed with J-Roc from Trailer Park Boys. Conroe, in his rebuttal to Pink's accusations, paints himself as a martyr who overcame great odds to achieve literary success.
Conroe's response here is problematic, dripping with self-righteousness and self-pity. He criticizes Pink for his career choices, implying that his own path was the only true and righteous one. Conroe's sanctimonious attitude reeks of literary elitism, where one writer's struggle is deemed more authentic and valuable than another's. It's a classic case of a guy who can't see beyond his own inflated sense of importance. He writes, "You didn’t have the patience to do what I did, to write a 70K-word, 350-page novel that employs a range of forms." This dismisses Pink's body of work and arrogantly elevates Conroe's approach as superior.
Conroe also takes a swipe at Pink's reading habits, implying that Pink lacks the dedication to evolve as a writer. Conroe claims, "You’ve never in your life even written a novel—by definition, a collection of over 40K words; you write the same 90-page novella over and over, never pushing yourself to read and evolve." This condescending remark not only belittles Pink's work but also reveals Conroe's own insecurity, cloaked in a veneer of superiority.
And then there's Gian. Ah, Gian—the literary deity, the revered gatekeeper. Conroe refers to him as "the most valuable person in publishing" and "the most legendary editor of all time." Gian is portrayed not merely as an influential editor but as a visionary whose approval and guidance are tantamount to anointment. This near-religious reverence for Gian underscores the peculiar dynamics of the literary community, where editors and tastemakers can be elevated to near-mythical status. Gian's tragic death only amplifies this reverence, casting him as a martyr of sorts in Conroe's story, which complicates the conflict further.
Gian was a product of Gordon Lish, a legendary figure in his own right, and it’s clear that Conroe views himself as a disciple of this lineage. But this fetishization of gatekeepers and the power they wield highlights a broader issue within literary cliques. Gian is portrayed as a saintly figure, and Conroe’s alignment with him serves to validate his work and elevate his standing. Pink has always been known as a writer who paved his own way. Of course, every writer wants to be read by a wide audience. The fact that Conroe not only got the audience but the fat paycheck no doubt fueled Pink's resentment. This is a haves and have-nots story.
What makes this particularly disheartening is how this younger generation seems to waste so much time in meaningless online spats. Why don't we see writers like Scott McClanahan, Garielle Lutz, or Eugene Marten engaging in these pissing matches? Because they’re too busy. They are reading and working. And so is Sam Pink. If you've kept up with him lately, you'll see him churning out work like he always did. Pink shared his side of this story three years ago. Was it a bunker buster revelation? No. Was it a little over-the-top? Absolutely. But it was human. It was written in his voice.
Once you become part of Big Lit and start making those six figures, you don’t punch down. As the guy who’s made it, you need to do everything you can to amend the situation, not bury some guy scratching out a living for comments he made three years ago. What the hell is that? Unfortunately, Conroe seems to be focused on "changing literature," bringing gas to the masses, and making sure everyone knows it.
Conroe took three years to respond with a voice that tries so hard to be a voice it just comes off as silly. After three years, you'd think his response would be more measured. Unfortunately, what we got is the real Sean Thor Conroe, a literary darling with a book that was so "gas" it sold to Big Lit. And why now? Because someone pressured him with a Q&A comment. Why couldn't he respond with another book instead of this tiresome diatribe? Conroe's attempt to position himself as a misunderstood genius, battling against a world that doesn't appreciate his greatness, rings hollow. It's a performance, and not a particularly convincing one.
In the words of Oscar Wilde, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
Perhaps, in the end, Conroe can take solace in the fact that this feud has, at least, kept him in the spotlight. But one can’t help but wonder how much more fruitful Conroe's time could be if he instead spent it on his craft rather than this pointless public relations stunt.
How are you going to say “Conroe's sanctimonious attitude reeks of literary elitism, where one writer's struggle is deemed more authentic and valuable than another's.”
just after writing “Sam Pink is a man who sweats it out in kitchens and warehouses, carving out a living and a unique voice from the gritty reality of the Midwest.”
The “gritty reality of the Midwest” ??? really? noble savage mentality lol
Justice for Sam Pink.
Yes.
I'm curious the reasoning behind this pronounced yes.
During the conversation, it seems you became defensive between the two questions posed surrounding the influence of the controversy, then proceeded to scapegoat another feud between two musical artists to draw a parallel to you and Sam Pink, I assume.
It became unclear what your actual feelings have been , surrounding the controversy, but it seems like there's been a lot that has been unspoken based on this substack that wasn't talked about at american grammar... were you uncomfortable at that time to talk to your audience (some of whom could actually be your fans?) and if so, why didn't you dive into the topic since it seemed to be on your mind after all these years?
Your book is "radical" and "soul-baring" and "urgent," you say. Well, if you love it so much, why don't you marry it? Better yet, if you believe in your work, why don't you try shutting the fuck up and letting that work speak for itself. This could have been 300 words, but you said too much. You could have hit all the notes with a simple, "waaaaah." Boo-fucking-hoo. This dude Gian must be rolling in his grave. Smoke a joint and chill out, bro. Spend your time writing the next thing. Answer the interviewer next time, instead of sinking into a hole and writing War and Peace: A Literary Soap. As a reader of "alt-lit" - which is also a dumb fucking name for what essentially amounts to an identifier for fucking nerds who like to bully each other and create division to feel something - this all comes off on both sides as petty ass privileged bullshit. Give me a fucking break. Go write something.
this could have been three words but you wrote too much
I've never been trolled by an erotic novelist before. That's kinda cool.
Oh shit. Upon further research, it appears you have a tattoo that says "unlikable female narrator."
I give up. You win.
You don't care what anyone thinks.
“research” lmfaoooo ok
This comment thread has been a wild ride and I'm just happy to be here.
jimmies = rustled
I was sent this substack, after attending your event and reading your book. I was unaware that you made this account and thought this was another promotional use for your book, that I originally thought was an autobiography, or even close to auto - fiction, if anything.
The reason why I also reference the auto fiction or even autobiography as the medium of “fuccboi,” is because towards the end of the book, there’s a lot of reference to how you were inspired by multiple conversations with other characters into writing “fuccboi,” despite the alleged controversy between you and artist Sam Pink is barely mentioned despite eclipsing over the conversation at the event last weekend. It should be named though, that even auto fiction can allude to be being an unreliable narrator.
An unreliable narrator, often times, can be a focal point for truth in the story, however, I was struck at the aim you took in causing so much distinction between you as the author, and this so called “narrator,” of the book. I was curious at the beginning of the event, when you read out a section of your book. After a steady beat of trying to concentrate on the right page to bring the audience into the story, you somehow reference one part of Philly when actually discussing another area altogether in the same section you read aloud (see 2:43 in podcast video.)
As an audience member, I remember one of the questions raised, which I though was fairly light was about media that was consumed at the time, which became vague and alarming to how unconvincing terms like “nutty,” or “jawn” seemed too dated. It struck me when the dichotomy of that was hearing and reading a member of the non Black community say the N word over six times..
Fuccboi can remind you of the Dear White People-ification that happened in 2017 when Trump was elected, but fails to engage media and only selects with mediums to show his “hardness” or lack thereof. I’m not sure how stylistic it was for you to try to romanticize a majority Black working class city like Philadelphia in this way, but it certainly was… a choice…
I would also like to take the time to say that even this entire substack commentary also is on the backdrop of *yet* ANOTHER Trump era incident, and instead of choosing to make political commentary, we end up going on this excavation into a three-year long drawn out feud… choices have been made.
How do you find the use of the term n*gga serving as meaningful rhetoric to push your story forward
Directly from your voice, do you find your audio book voice differs? Do you find that as a form of racebaiting ?
These were questions that I wanted to ask, and still do because unlike the outlandish claims that other arguments don’t help with supporting the text ,I think they do. The truth about being a writer, is that all of our work, as we cease to know it, will always be work in progress.
What impact do you believe your use of the word “n*gga” has on readers, particularly Black readers, and how do you respond to those who find it hurtful or offensive?
It is worrying when most of the femme women of color audience members at last weekend’s event, which were a handful (I might add) are trying to engage with your work, are asked if they even read or engage with said kind of work. It’s insulting to anyone’s intelligence to be diminished in a public space like that, let alone to not even be given a full answer when being asked what media was consumed at such a politically and racially charged time in America, but still claiming this fetishized wokeness.. crazy innit?
Your book is interesting, Sean, I will give you that, but what I won’t say is that it’s original. I am not referencing to you stealing a style, but at american grammar, couldn’t really stick to your question or even the story at hand… wild innit?
In “FuccBoi,” you reference “EditorBae.” Have you ever questioned whether they were truthful about the quality of your book?
And now that we are here, grappling with the feud, the book, who you are Sean, what do you have to say to us, now, really?
Sean cool substack it’s almost like you wrote a book…
But anyways… I recently attended your talk about "Fuccboi," hoping to gain a deeper understanding of your book and its themes. Unfortunately, I left feeling extremely underwhelmed. Throughout the discussion, you failed to answer numerous questions about your work in a meaningful or definitive manner. When asked about American identity, the media that influenced your writing, and what makes your book "universal," your responses were vague and unconvincing.
Your lack of depth in addressing these important aspects of your book was disappointing. These are fundamental questions that any author should be able to discuss with confidence, especially if they claim their work tackles significant contemporary issues. Instead, your responses felt evasive and lacked the insight one would expect from the creator of a supposedly groundbreaking novel.
What struck me most was your stark contrast in demeanor when the topic of the Sam Pink controversy was raised. Suddenly, you became defensive and verbose, aggressively defending yourself against accusations of stylistic appropriation. This was the only moment during the entire talk when you seemed animated and capable of forming coherent, complete sentences.
This defensiveness only adds to the skepticism surrounding your work's authenticity. If "Fuccboi" is truly an original and authentic piece, why is it that the only time you can speak passionately is when your integrity is questioned? The way you fixated on defending yourself against Sam Pink's accusations, while failing to provide substantial answers to other questions, suggests that the controversy strikes too close to home. It casts a long shadow over your claims of originality and undermines your credibility as an author.
Your behavior at the talk made it difficult to take your claims of authenticity seriously. Instead of getting defensive, you should focus on proving through your words and actions that "Fuccboi" stands on its own merits, beyond the shadow of another writer's influence. Until you can address the broader themes of your work with the same energy and clarity, it's hard to believe that "Fuccboi" is anything more than a derivative piece riding on controversy.
Well you see, Aminata, the thing about books is, the only way to understand them is you unfortunately have you to read them :/
In the video, you also responded to the “young woman’s” question by inquiring whether or not she reads. Is that what you do when you are unable to coherently answer a question? You belittle those asking it by insinuating that they must not read, and if they do, that they must not have the ability to comprehend your writing. What a chauvinistic, insecure, and lazy response to important questions and commentary surrounding your book. Also what, exactly, am I suppose to find insightful or revolutionary about your grammatically incorrect use of aave, your constant use of the n-word as a white man, your blaccent in the audiobook, and your overall appropriation and mockery of black Philadelphian culture? The fact that you claim to have created your own idiom language when it’s just an egregious amount of appropriation is insane. Not to mention the absolutely concerning and vile way you describe the women in your life. Then after all of that you claim that the people who are triggered by your book, minorities and women, are simply not smart enough to understand the “deeper meaning”. Like, bffr. You utilize these things to give yourself a sense of street cred that rings so false that it’s laughable. (Ex. 41 hunnit, gang)🙄.
Overall your book is inauthentic which is why you have to lash out every time someone questions it. you being mixed with Japanese and having a “hard life” does not excuse your appropriation or the use of slurs. You literally have colonizer on both sides of the genome and wanna act like you’re oppressed… sounds about white. Next time you go to a Q&A, try having coherent answers to the interviewers questions instead of doing your best impression of Biden at the presidential debates. You may have won the book deal, but you have no one’s respect, least of all from the people who are actually from Philly. You’re not a colleague, you’re a f*ckin colonizer lol
Ps fix your posture before you hurt yourself
And as you see I read your book so don’t even try it with that do you read sh*t 😒
Sorry the author's experience wasn't marginalized enough for him to have written this book, in your view. What an absolute plummet to the bottom this type of "criticism" is. Nice, "young woman" in quotes, as if that's fucking problematic? Oh my god, you're a narc... gonna stop engaging before I hemorrhage from your willfully illiterate tirades.
I remember having a bigger issue with him using the n-word lol. I quoted young woman to show that I was quoting his post… so anyways why don’t you seem to have an issue with white men using derogatory slurs against the black community to be edgy? And are you one of those white men that think they’re superior to minorities when they bring up valid issues that are genuinely offensive? Since you, as a white man, can’t relate to getting triggered by something offensive and could never hope to understand. Just something to ponder on. It also seems that you like to call people illiterate when they make comments on a book they literally read. Hmmmmm interesting. It’s ironic that the people who enjoys a book written for people who don’t read like to throw around accusations of illiteracy. And go ahead hemmorage… make my day 😘
"You don't seem"
"Are you one of those white men..."
Your entire comment is based on unfounded and moronic assumptions, and you only feel enabled because there are a bunch of other likeminded dummies in the comments.
I am not a white man. I'm Jewish and Italian.
This is so painfully boring, I have to find another way to amuse myself. I'm out.
And you see, Sean, the thing about writing books is that you should be able to answer questions about your work. Maybe if your book were truly original, you could discuss its themes and influences with the confidence of Prometheus handing down fire, instead of just getting defensive. ❤️🔥❤️🩹
I’m a bit unclear about why you’re here… but I do hope you ladies get that hate of your heart one day 😘
considering this is the same writer in the book that also tries to make nods to "ex" and "editor bae" through a rap and saying, "but they can both get fucked…" is... a choice and it seems that *several* choices are still being made...
Ya’ Allah 😪 Is this not a public platform??? Idk take it to patron if it hurts so bad.
And i hope you get the n-word out your mouth 🥰
What a weird critique. Have you ever been to an author Q & A before? Or, like, listened to an author interview? All of the answers are going to be vague on such big questions. That's like, for you to wrestle with as a reader. This is such a bizarre take that I wonder if it is in bad faith or simply reveals a lack of familiarity with how people talk about writing and books.
Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like — uh — your opinion, man.
There’s a difference between leaving things open to interpretation and being unable to coherently answer questions about something you wrote. And to insinuate that aminata has never been to an author Q&A is weird considering you don’t know them?? Sean contradicted himself multiple times in the interview and constantly evaded questions, constantly stopping and pivoting mid sentence making what he was saying hard to follow and leaving listeners unsatisfied to say the least. He uses buzz words and niche references but is never really able to tie his writing to them in a meaningful way. You can’t just say Dante’s inferno 5 times and expect me to be impressed that you read it, say that your work is allegorical, but then not be able to tell me how it’s allegorical. He’s a bullsh*tter lol
"When asked about American identity, the media that influenced your writing, and what makes your book "universal," your responses were vague and unconvincing."
I feel like the book itself should be the first port of call in answering these questions - why is it important for the author (or EVERY author) to be some insightful or profound orator on the spot. Is this a criticism of the book/writing/themes or the way the author speaks in Q and As? Seems irrelevant to me. More than many other books, Fuccboi was very transparent about its "media influences".
I agree that the author speaks passionately and defensively when the topic of Sam Pink is raised, but to me it feels like the only time OTHER people speak passionately about the book is when questioning its integrity, bringing up Sam Pink, or squirming at the language. Who wouldn't be frustrated when this cloud seems to loom over all discussion of the book. Idk the dude or what a satisfactory level of passion from answers to questions in a public setting is for you, but as someone who listens to his podcast, he isn't short in passion about his book or literature.
"Until you can address the broader themes of your work with the same energy and clarity, it's hard to believe that "Fuccboi" is anything more than a derivative piece riding on controversy."
Seems like thats a decision for you to make after reading the book? I thought it was earnest and vulnerable and don't think anyone else apart from the author could've written it.
I see your point, but let’s be realistic here. When an author can’t even provide coherent answers about their own work, it raises significant red flags. Sure, the book itself might be transparent about its media influences, but that doesn’t excuse the author from being able to discuss these influences intelligently. It’s not too much to expect an author to be insightful or at least articulate about their own creation, especially in a public forum.
And let’s talk about passion. If the only time Sean can muster any real energy is when he’s defending himself against accusations related to Sam Pink, that’s pretty telling. Passion should extend beyond defensiveness. It should permeate discussions about the book’s themes, its inspirations, and its relevance. If he’s unable to engage in those conversations with any depth, it makes one question the substance behind the work.
You might find his podcast engaging, but in person, his defensiveness and lack of depth were glaringly obvious. It’s frustrating when the integrity of the book dominates the discussion, overshadowing other important aspects. If he can’t discuss broader themes with clarity and confidence, it makes it hard to take the book seriously as anything more than a derivative piece riding on controversy.
And yes, I’ve read the book. For me, it didn’t rise above being a derivative piece overshadowed by controversy. Maybe you see earnestness and vulnerability; I see a missed opportunity for originality. If “Fuccboi” were truly as groundbreaking and significant as some claim, it would stand on its own without the need for such aggressive defense. So, while you might find his work and his podcast full of passion, my experience has led me to a different conclusion.
Bootlicker.
More like ticklin' the balls of Big Lit.
How do Sam Pink's taste?
Oh, honey. I don't want to get you too excited with that information. Not in public anyhow. DM me.
Ask your Grandmother.
Awww coming to defend your buddy sean?? He got the d*ckriding avengers coming to save him lol
Sigh. Proud Boys with daddy issues. Wait, that's redundant.
The reason he seemed to speak about it with more “passion” is that the experience was incredibly traumatic for him, and he has clearly gone over it in his head and with others a million times. He talks about it in literally every podcast he does. (I’m not criticizing him for that at all—his girlfriend and friend/editor died in shocking ways just as he was celebrating a big accomplishment, and then this Pink accusation made him the punching bag of the entire internet.) Obviously because it’s something he’s been thinking about for literal years he’s going to be a little more prepared to talk about it versus the other, mostly super general/vague questions.
Show him some grace. If you’ve ever been blindsided by something you will know it can make you question everything—when it’s a very public and personal attack on your character I can’t even imagine what that’s like. Thankfully he is someone who is capable of transforming painful searching into moving art (fuccboi was fire).
i thought about the cicero thing for ages man. anyway. well said.
You've summed up my take well: "anyway."
Insert the "I aint reading all that meme." I like listening to your podcast though, especially the episodes with Harold, greetings from Ireland :)
1 on 1 hoops for the marbles
Fuck, this dude does not lack confidence.
Good to see the other side of the story and he definitely should not have to defend grinding to get a massive book deal.. honestly good for him.
That being said his book was fuckin awful. Changing literature? I feel secondhand embarrassment reading that.
Or "unique lexicon that I came up with"... the lexicon in question is the same forced bullshit that every white kid from the suburbs hears in an XXL interview and just overuses to death to try and sound cool. If it's not just performative how come he doesn't talk like that in any interview or on any podcast? Another cringeworthy aspect of this "revolutionary" piece of literature.
All in all I'm happy he wrote something he wanted to write, and made a bunch of money off of it and can hopefully keep pursuing his dream, but the hubris is off the charts and the book is fuckin shit.
“We did it Gian, we changed literature.” More like “ You did it Joe, you answered aaaall the questions”😂