Because it's the only place where you'll find truly alternative thoughts and views about current literature. No other lit-group steps very far outside the accepted lines. The ULA steps ALL the way out. We're also the only lit group that's truly independent.
If you want to challenge your own received opinions about writing, culture, and books, then you have to read us.
At: www.literaryrevolution.com.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I read everything I can regarding the ULA and every other group, I am open to all viewpoints, but as a Recusant I call it as I see it free of bias.
-The Unabashed Truth
Leopold-
Finally, someone reasonable to talk to. The little secret about the "vast conspiracy" of elitist publishers and editors that are the object of so much fantasized envy on this site is that they are people with jobs who are trying to get ahead in those jobs, and getting ahead means publishing books that sell or at least garner critical acclaim.
If publishing some brilliant "underground" talent would help them do that (ie, if they believed the book will sell) then they will do it, and there are tons and tons of examples of memoirs and novels, written by the type that is romanticized by the ULA, that *are* published, and do sell.
This argument can't be unfamiliar to the faithful at the ULA--who seem obsessively focused on the slights, real or imagined, they have suffered by not having their work published or appreciated by the evil publishing conglomerates. So if they choose to believe that editors are instead passing up the opportunity to publish talented writers and make money because they are elitists who hate the underclass, well, I wish them lots of luck with that world view--they'll need it.
I think it is this sense of victimization that the people who have come here to mock find so distasteful. You profess to know that there are people out there with real problems, that you are down there with the down and out, but so much of your energies--SO MUCH OF IT, is spent in childish immature attacks on other writers, the motive of which, as far as I can tell, is naked envy, or some award that was given out years ago. This envy is dressed up as a crusade against "unfairness" but in almost every case I've noticed, you haven't done your research, or you make wild accusations. Needless to say some of the "historical analysis" on this site is laughably uniformed, and presented in the strident tones of goose-stepping brownshirts, which doesn't help the cause either--at least among people who are turned off by cultishness, bullies, and ideologues--ie, most people who like literature.
It's not as if the publishing "elite" doesn't have the same goals as the ULA--higher literacy, new markets, in short, people passionate about reading. I myself grew up in a lower middle class family in an old, industrial town and I'd say--because of TV and other entertainments, that reading is going to be a tough sell to the people in my family and in my family's neighborhood. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope you can accept that this is not the product of class hatred but rather a dismal depressing fact. So good luck to you guys, because it's not as if the publishing "elites" control the means to reach these people. You guys have a web site, there are tons of avenues for publishing out there. It looks like you're taking advantage of them, so you can let the people decide. Good luck to you, I mean it.
It's a pity you aren't the public voice of the group, Leopold. A responsible group would put a muzzle on the lunatic ravings that come out of some of your members.
What people don't seem to get is exactly what Leopold said-- that this is my blog and my take on the lit-world.
This is why I've refused time and again to sign on (or sign the ULA onto) someone's political agenda. Our agenda is literature. I can't speak for the ULA beyond the basic outlines of that, because I know our group consists of many diverse viewpoints.
Still, to insist that the lit-world isn't corrupt is to have your head in the sand. Look up my "Special Report" on the NEA a few years ago. That documented the situation in just that one aspect very well.
As Noah points out, we also are confronted by "liberals" who complain about the corporate dominance of the culture-- except, apparently, when it comes to literature. Then they're quite eager to do business with the monopolists.
To those lit-gruntworkers out there trying to make it: Can't you see that the present hierarchical system gives the writer no power or leverage (unless you're well-connected)? We're trying to change that, by seting up a horizontal, cooperative system where the artists themselves are in charge. I've explained this concept again and again on this blog-- but our opponents are incapable of understanding it. They are simply unable to look outside the walls of the present system's box. They won't even consider alternatives to it. Their minds, unfortunately, are closed.
The most ridiculous accusations, from my perspective, is that we want to be just like Eggers and Co. That we just want to sell out. If so, I would have done it. In the 90's my newsletter had as paying subscribers a "Who's Who" of trendy young writers. I could list them all here-- to do so would embarrass them. I could have played the same ass-kiss game that Tom Bissell has been doing (or that, in his own way, pathetic Raymond Carver did) to try to be a member of "The Club." Instead I burned my bridges to them-- all of them-- with the ULA's Moody Protest, because ALL of these lauded and approved writers insisted on turning a blind eye to something that-- however much one wishes to rationalize it-- was BLATANTLY wrong. (If you think that a super-wealthy guy who lives on the most exclusive enclave in America should be receiving philanthropic grants, then you're entirely clueless.)
My fault was in believing in my principles and standing by them.
Do I want to sell out? Do you think I'm not for real? That I'm just out for myself? Then come to Philly (or Zytron) and see how I live.
Well, golly gee, the literati were okay with me reviewing J.T. Leroy in the pages of the ultra-trendy Insider mag Bookforum in 2000. NOW though they don't like what I'm doing-- because I and my allies sincerely want to improve literature, to make it relevant and democratic; to live up to the principles which the phonies will advocate but don't actually live.
(FACTS FACTS FACTS: Check the mastheads of mainstream large circulation magazines, those which determine the direction of the culture, that decide which writers and artists are covered, and you'll find, invariably, nothing but Ivy Leaguers, with an upper-class Brit or two thrown in. Is this representative of our culture? Is this the way things should be? I say not. What say you?)
By looking at the "Poetry" thread below, we can see what sets people off about us.
1.) That we speak the truth. (As that post does.)
2.) That we exist! People really got bothered when I said that the ULA was growing and I liked its progress. Then all hell broke loose.
Close those eyes and ears! No contrary opinions allowed.
The lit-world: "Where seldom is heard, a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day.")
To the guy who said about Leopold that he was finally someone reasonable to talk to. What's up there? I'm reasonable! I respond to details and give specific responses. Reasonable, I tell ya! And I see reason popping up everywhere on our side, sometimes in unfamiliar garb but it's there!
Then the (Anony)Mouse guy brings up one of the hoariest illusions in America. And he's supposedly literate! The subject of most modern literature is that his idea that "quality will out" is dead wrong! His remark was that if underground writing seemed like it would sell to any editor then they would publish it. That's rich! Yeah, the "free market" is really free. Corporate life is simple! Yeah!
Then several people, including him, mention publishers doing things only for the career and the money. Well, life ain't that simple there either. For sure, the career is biggest to them: but results aren't what bring advancement today. Have results ever determined careers in bureaucracies? Hello? As regards money: lit-publishing is IN THE TANK. Literary houses have been in a free-fall for about a decade now. (Didn't about half the univ presses fold a year or two ago?) C'mon, people, let's be aware! Literature is today in dire straits in terms of business. That's a big reason why people are so responsive to us. We are going to outsell them, but that won't be hard. They're going under. But my own OYB d-i-y project, in contrast, is in the black and building steam. We're not resentful of success. How simplistic!
Leopold seems to have mentioned something about even the lit journals didn't start out with a big bankroll, or some such. Maybe his typing got out of hand, but actually that's how many lit journals did start out: bankrolled by an out of touch fat cat. This hasn't helped their viability or relevance! But it did keep them in print and in soirees.
There's actually a fascinating dynamic at play. Insiders have been exposing and exploring it to a small, fragmented extent within the pub-trade for years but we're popularizing it. And we're upping the ante. Our goal is to bust lit out of its smug, low-sales straitjacket. We're not only questioning overt assumptions, we're challenging actual behaviors (which, typically, go against stated ideals). And we're showing another method in the many things we DO.
Another small example of the complexity relates to the literary journals someone mentioned: the obvious case is that no one reads them, but that people buy zeens, even the challenging ones, by the thousands even though they have no real distribution system and even though there's no career benefit from reading them. The zeen model points a way to hope and success that's superior to the literary journal model in every way but the bureaucratic.
Another example is when the guy says that mainstream publishers cover the underground all the time. Yeah, well, it helps to see how they cover it, what they pick, and what happens to those books after 6 months. There are worthy details to note here!
This is actually a complex project. We are up front and detailed about what we do and why, every time. Sure, we're tactical and keep surprises in store. But our backtrail is there for all to see. Every act stood up for and SIGNED.
Keep up with where we're going if you can. Pick another act to track if you think something else out there is better. And while you're at it: if you find something better, let us know what it is, and why, and how it's worked for you.
Yeah, we're not exciting. And someone else is? Or are you just negative? Dudes, when you say we suck, say who doesn't, or else you're a loser.
Yo!
REASON!
Leopold, I agree with you 100%. The ULA has been successful in uniting great minds: Yours, Pat Simonelli's, and my own (Ahem, let me rub my knuckles on my chest).
Each ULA member has their own individuality: this has to be driven into the minds of this blogs readers.
The political mumbo jumbo from the previous blog is so...March 15th Tony Christini. The same shit over and over.
Ya' know--I try not to be ignorant. I do actually read what has been said on this blog, from ULA members and the anonymous alike. I take everything said into consideration too!
I'm not quick to respond to negative feedback--If someone doesn't like my poetry, fine. Fuck 'em. They don't have to read it. I actually feel flattered that they went out of their way to waste two minutes of their life to announce "Poem by Marissa Ranello...this is bad poetry."
If it was that awful--than I obviously left an impression. And that's my goal, like it or not--to leave a gender-bending-after-taste on society.
But I actually did take the time to read some of Tony Christini's shit last week, and he wrote a piece titled "Blissfully Free of Politics." In this piece, Christini proposed the question, "Why is it assumed that a writer fitting these descriptions [black, or gay, or Arab, or handicapped, or HIV-positive, or Jewish, or raising a child alone, or Latina, or living on a reservation] who nevertheless wants to write a book, fiction or nonfiction, that doesn't "intervene" politically is unusual, even an aberration?"
1 - Monica Ali (Bengali)
2 - Zadie Smith (Black)
As a matter of fact, Granta 81, Best of Young British Novelists 2003 features some great (although I'm not insane about Smith) non-political works.
Where are gay non political writers hiding? Take a look at my site, and Simonelli's site--I'm sure there's a few there. We have black writers, gay writers, Jewish writers, Janet Buck (Ugh!) is a handicapped writer who has affiliations with many non-political organizations. So why FOR THE LOVE OF CHEESE PUFFS is it so hard to understand how a group can identify themselves as "apolitical?".
A couple of falsehoods need to be cleared up. Marissa, you're quoting Dan Green on his weblog, not me. If you want to read something I wrote you might try my first Monday Report, "A Few Notes on the Literary Establishment," or the second one. Or see my websites.
The ULA manifesto establishes a number of political principles, as well as aesthetic ones.... So the question isn't whether ULA is political, but to what extent in what ways. ULA would have to stop doing a good bit of what it has been doing if it wants to be apolitical.
There are quite a number of apolitical ULA aspects, some of them quite valuable, in my opinion.
As is commonly known by now, I'm more interested in the politically progressive side of ULA than anything else, partly on principle, and partly for personal reasons, and partly for aesthetic reasons (though again I value the exposure to the diversity of other writings).
I've also suggested that an increased emphasis on independent popular progressive political priorities and realities would benefit ULA strategically. This is my opinion and a suggestion, not advice, and so surely not out of line on an open discussion forum.
(Also I have no problem understanding how a lit/writers group can identify themselves as apolitical. Having apolitical aspects, at least, makes lots of sense for such a group. But nothing could be more obvious than the many political aspects and actions, formal documents even, of ULA--that is unless we ludicrously restrict our understanding of the "political" to the grotesque theater and p.r. operations of the two dominant so-called "political" parties, the Democrats and Republicans, the paired extensions of the business establishment.)
I agree, in that sense (the broader meaning of the term) we are political, in that we're involved in discussing ideas publicly; we understand the notion of a polity.
In a sense, this is our reason for being. In a true democracy, every citizen has equal access to the arena of free speech-- is able to add, on an equal basis, his or her voice to the mix. This society isn't in any way a democracy (and wasn't really intended to be; Hamilton would be shocked at the idea). A Rupert Murdoch-- or George Soros, if you will-- has ten thousand times the "free speech" than does any one of us.
The only way we can counter this is by working together, as writers and artists, to build a platform on which we can stand to be heard. The ULA site is our voice-- and yes, we're a diversity of ideas, voices, viewpoints. We're constructing our own delivery system for writing. That's our only platform.
Post a Comment