That was an interesting comment put on one of our threads by Ms. Mullins. Contention about the state of literature in bars is exactly what the lit-world needs. We've had too little of it. It's the sign of a healthy scene. One sees too much of a blind and almost total acceptance of things as they are now in literature, which is crazy, because the art form's position in the culture is lessening. Disagree with us, but the ULA at least is questioning everything and subjecting all aspects of literature today to question and debate.
One hears in bars intense arguments over football, and what the teams are doing wrong, what the sport is doing wrong; what the owners and commisioner are doing wrong; which players are overpaid and should be released. EVERYTHING about the sport is on the table for the fans to rant about and debate. Yet try to do the same thing with the protected world of literature! What's wrong with this picture? That sports has more open, free, unrestricted discussion about its every aspect than does lit?
Moody throws interceptions every week; Beller's team remains in the cellar; Eggers's is a one-man show; stands are empty (skyboxes taken by a coterie of Ivy Leaguers)-- take a seat anywhere-- highly drafted quarterbacks who can barely complete a pass are kept on the roster; the general public, when it considers writers at all, thinks of them as kind of a joke, yet for the caretakers of literature everything is okay. This is one reason why the ULA has formed a rival league. . . .