Tuesday, December 28, 2004

Hamptons Bohemia

This is the title of a $40 book by Helen Harrison and Constance Denne.

Or, Tales of the Ungodly Rich.

It's a story of how the wealthy appropriate everything cool, including the word "bohemia." They're so used to buying things they think they can buy language too.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Noah, the crypto-Troskyist nonsense you're spurting undermines the good points you make. If the pretentious books you mentioned aren't $8, it's for reasons of marketing (high class books are supposed to cost a bunch) and economics (there are enough self-conscious goons to make it finacially viable). If the "poor" read these dumb books, especially in America, they wouldn't tear anyone apart; half of them would be disgusted and move on and the other half would admire the rich twats like they do Paris Hilton and other senseless entitled dimwits.

The Mc5 posturing about "classes" in America is outdated and nonsensical in quaintly, happily crypto-fascist land like the one we inhabit.

Anonymous said...

Pardon me if I find your "too simplistic to respond", ahem, response pretty obviously a "I have no idea how to respond effectively" response. It's the height of empty, archaic Bakunin-lite posturing to say that, because there are ditzy high-cultural products for the rich, the lower classes would catch wind of their shallowness and rise up. That's ridiculous; there are effete hipster cultural products for the rich in every society, and they will always be there due to economics.

The bigger point is that you can't seem to bring yourself to admit that, for whatever its other good points, America has ALWAYS been too consumerist, too Protestant work ethic and capitalism brainwashed, too docile in front of the monied classes to EVER have any type of large scale successful class conflict; this was true back in the 1920s and 30s, when there was actually international and national stimuli, let alone now, when it's just you and a couple others agitating on a blog. There surely may be a literary revolution in the next decade, though I can't say I've seen anyone on the ULA who convinces me they have the artillery, but it won't be caused or motivated by a class agitation.

Anonymous said...

Interesting debate, you both make good points:

Anonymous: "...there are effete hipster cultural products for the rich in every society, and they will always be there due to economics."

True enough, but Karl's original beef was with the oxymoronic coupling of "Hamptons" and "Bohemia." Noah may have been swatting a gnat with a sledgehammer; the whole thing reminded me of a song lyric I wrote in my angry early 20s:

Her idea/of the lower east side/is Southampton"America has ALWAYS been too consumerist, too Protestant work ethic and capitalism brainwashed, too docile in front of the monied classes to EVER have any type of large scale successful class conflict"

Right, which is why we currently live in a hallucinated Wal-Mart cheap oil fat suburban SUV "consumer" economy (Kunstler) that is evil and sick and utterly unsustainable. But why would you attack those who still rail against that torpor; why do you admit defeat so easily?

"There surely may be a literary revolution in the next decade, though I can't say I've seen anyone on the ULA who convinces me they have the artillery"

This is an interesting meme that I've seen repeated on a number of lame sites attacking the ULA: if the ULA is so ill-suited for the task at hand, why is it that they were THE ONLY ONES TO FIGHT FOR IT IN RECENT YEARS? After all, anonymous, you found your way to Karl's blog, and take the effort and energy to post thoughtful replies. This gripe that "the ULA's message may be right, but they are the wrong messengers," is prima facie nonsense, as it is the ULA's entire vision, focus, and determination that has gotten these subjects brought up at all.

I realize that last paragraph may not make much sense, but I hope you get my meaning.

And lastly, Anonymous, if you want to see an example of what the literary revolution might hold, I strongly recommend you get a copy of Noah's book THE HUMAN WAR from fuguestatepress.com -- it's really a fantastic novella, almost defines a new genre: primal, screaming, tightly controlled "sentegraphs" of existential minimalism.

Anonymous said...

P.S. I, Tim Hall, wrote the above post.

Anonymous said...

“You have proven my statement that you are too simplistic to debate with by never using a line that I wrote. Obviously you did not understand any of them to directly attack, even one. But only attacked the one that attacks your social identity of pretending that you are intelligent.”

For someone attacking Dave Eggers (who deserves to be reamed), you have to tendency to make statements that are equally adorably empty postures. I didn’t quote you because there’s no quote button on blogger; the fact that you’re not exactly nimble enough to correlate my response to your, ahem, points. I’ll be sure to provide directions in this post, my quaintly pseudonymed friend.

“The only thing you can do when you are in a corner is say that the other person is speaking nonsense or it is empty, or posturing but you give no reason substantial reason why. Bakunin was an anarchist; I am not an anarchist and did not show that at all. It can be assumed you only used that name to give your argument a connotation of intelligence.”

Err, let me take you by the hand lad – and I’ll ignore going into my background in regards to 19th century Russian studies. Bakunin wrote in grandiose conspiratorial language, posturing and agitating for preposterous revolutions that would never come. You, Noah Cicero, do the same; at least Bakunin and Nechaev had a COUPLE cells of followers (maybe a few score total) in Russia listening and willing to act on their calls.

“"Will always be there due to economics" thank you for proving my point again. And saying "always due to economics," that sentence actually makes you a Marxist.”

You have a horrible tendency for saying “Thanks for proving my point” by cherry picking a phrase here, a clause there, and pretending it somehow agrees with your warped Black Ink Panther mumbling. And saying that anyone who believes economic demand results in the supply of said product is a MARXIST, of all things, only exposes how silly you casting aspersions on anyone else’s intelligence is. Instead of responding to my points, you erect a dumb, uninformed straw man and playfully paw at it with all the precious feebleness of a kitty.

“There's a name for ideas like that, it is called reactionarism. This must said anyone who doesn’t want the distance between the classes to be lessened if it be through protest or violence prefers a race war. It can easily be assumed you prefer the race war.”

And you’re nuttier than I even began to suspect. Because I believe that a goony book catering to the NY upper classes and silly marketing ploys like it wouldn’t cause any noticeable response if made cheaply available to the lower classes, you contort it into a lame, wickedly silly “race war” statement. It’s a self-indictment that I don’t feel the need to cover any more in depth.

And as far as the other poster. . .

“Right, which is why we currently live in a hallucinated Wal-Mart cheap oil fat suburban SUV "consumer" economy (Kunstler) that is evil and sick and utterly unsustainable. But why would you attack those who still rail against that torpor; why do you admit defeat so easily?”

I attack anything that’s deserves attacking. Noah’s empty, blustery posturing deserved to be mocked for the nonsense it was.

“This is an interesting meme that I've seen repeated on a number of lame sites attacking the ULA: if the ULA is so ill-suited for the task at hand, why is it that they were THE ONLY ONES TO FIGHT FOR IT IN RECENT YEARS? After all, anonymous, you found your way to Karl's blog, and take the effort and energy to post thoughtful replies.”

There’s nothing mysterious to it. I like Karl’s blog, find it interesting, and I empathize with ULA’s goals and share the same enemies, more or less. As far as people rejecting the ridiculous postmodern “aren’t I cutesy rich hipster?” prose of the Moody/Eggers/Franzen gang, the ULA is far from alone; off the top of my head, Dale Peck, James Woods, John Dolan, and others have all taken their shots at them. And of course it matters how talented the ULA writers are; though I may agree with the concept and some of the ideological points, the fact that I’ve yet to see any legit writing out of the group that makes me believe they can really excite people and change things, it’s just an empty, powerless movement. Karl has written some great stuff, especially re: Eggers, but it will

King Wenclas said...

I just want to mention that the ULA is about far, far more than attacking the "hipster prose" of writers like Moody and Eggers. We've attacked the nature of the System that has put them in prominence-- the fundamental structural flaws of literature which has led to its diminished position in the culture. This is an area that narrowly focused System critics like Peck and Woods won't touch.