Friday, September 10, 2004


I'm sure there will be much internal discussion in the ULA about e-zines. Steve seems high on them; Yul presumably also; myself less so; Mike Jackman presumably not at all.

My concern: I'm leery of dealing with folks with their own agendas-- it's usually a time-waster.

My question: Where's the benefit to the ULA?

My stand: Remember that the ULA has created a foundation. We're willing to let anyone into the ULA tent to work with us, and use that foundation, within the context of the ULA name-- promoting a name, that name, which isn't me or Steve or anyone in particular, but the symbol of underground literature.


Anonymous said...

I thought the symbol of underground literature was Individuality.

King said...

That's a very vague comment, but typically 21st century American. We live in a society which encourages everyone to be an "individual." People are taught they can exist without context. But we all live within a society, within a context.

There is no reason persons can't be individuals and belong to a group at the same time. It's the nature of human existence.

Please read some of my posts near the beginning of this blog, which express my frustration at trying to motivate ULAers to work for a team, to cooperate for the ultimate benefit of all of us.

Every writer wants to be an island unto himself. It's defeatest.

(Underground writers should cooperate, seeing that they're facing off against gigantic conglomerates, which are very well organized. The trick, of course, is HOW we should work together. The ULA was created to grow horizontally, not vertically. We have some phony titles for the outside world, but in fact we're without hierarchies. We move and act by consensus. No chiefs-- only esteemed warriors and wise men. Or women. That's the idea, anyway.)

Anonymous said...

Yes, it was supposed to be a joke.

"There is no reason persons can't be individuals and belong to a group at the same time. It's the nature of human existence."

No there isn't. But if a writer came along who was not affiliated with an underground movement, such as the ULA, yet s/he changed fiction for the next century, that would exclude them from your respect? Or, is the only way for things to be changed to be through the ULA and only the ULA?

The HOW, I would answer this: Every underground writer, who has something real to say, should master the skill of writing. Then that would give the "evil" conglomerates something to be scared about, rather than balloon farts at "evil" literati public readings.

King said...

To say that because someone isn't in the ULA "excludes" them from my respect is reading something into my words that isn't there.

For instance, I still respect the writing of all six ex-ULAers. That we weren't able to blend them into the team doesn't detract from the fact that I love their work.

At the same time, we're trying to change things. Cooperation is a must. That doesn't mean one has to have "rules." One can look at movements in history and see how they operated. I find it interesting, for example, that Lenin needed few to no institutional titles throughout his career as a Bolshevik; he simply had everyone else's respect. (And they were a cast of strong characters.) (When the bureaucrat took over things, the movement was destroyed.)

Similarly, the Jesus movement wasn't institutionalized until Constantine co-opted it in the Fourth century. Until then, it operated by consensus, by exchange of ideas, which one gets a sense of through Paul's description of his conflicts with the elders of the movement, Peter and James.

The point is that they were both underground movements, and could survive only as groups.

King said...

p.s. I'm leery when someone begins speaking of the "skill" of writing-- which has led to the exclusionary mindset of institutionalized lit. Look at how Marissa Ranello lauds Kerouac in the current Monday Report at Didn't Kerouac spend much of his career fleeing the "skill of writing," in exchange for honesty, inspiration, and truth?

Anonymous said...

Whether you want to admit it or not, parts of writing are objective. Subject matter, and style, are subjective. The physical writing (point of view, narration, et.) are objective. The same goes with painting and music and movies, etc.