Genre categorization is a capitalist (rather than artistic) thing, a symptom of marketing and major-chain bookshelf placement.

Having a voice unlike another means you've found yourself as a writer.

The Internet is perfect for delivering large blocks of text to people throughout the world for free. That's a plus. The downside is the ADD, the Internet-addled Attention Deficit Disorder.

Artists used to argue about art for art's sake versus social realism etc, and now it's like the most dominate argument is related to art for the market's sake. It's a necessity, somewhat, for some people.

If you want to change things in the USA it's best not to spend all your time writing but to take action against the ol' sea of troubles.

There's a ton of good art and music and writing out there offline among a ton of trash, and the same goes with what's online.

Online writing is supplementary, complementary, another part of the whole, something that's only as important as one's investment in it.

I don't have a philosophy. I have an instinct. I accept stuff that I like.

I really wouldn't call a lot of what's online literature since that word, to me, refers to a sub-genre of writing that belongs to the heavy-hitters, the canonical writers, Shakespeare, Dante, Milton, Dostoevsky, Kafka, and even Toni Morrison, George Saunders, Thomas Bernhard, Sebald, Borges, DFW, e.g.