Lit-Blogger Suck-Up Report

I haven't had time to check to see if the general run of establishment-flunkie lit-bloggers-- Maud Newton, Mark Sarvas, Galleycat, Bondgirl, and Company-- had anything other than lavishly positive things to say about Rick Moody's Believer article, but I can guess. The see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil crowd. Sgt. Schultz: "I know nothing. Nothing!"

One can hear the demi-puppets murmuring among themselves, puppet strings vibrating frantically. "Book awards? Lily Tuck? Moody receiving grants? We've never heard about any of this!"

There used to be a slogan, "Question Everything." The demi-puppets have one of their own: "Question Nothing!" All they've been trained to know about is a writer's pedigree. Article in The Believer? Then it has to be great! Sucksucksucksuck. . . .

I've been out of touch for awhile, but I hear a mediocrity named Scott McLemee has been badmouthing me. He was supposed to write a piece on the ULA once about four years ago-- asked questions, but didn't care for the answers. Very open minded. Someone on the planet was questioning the state of writing and the literary establishment; he couldn't handle it. He bailed. Ms. Frey took up the assignment instead.

McLemee is one of those "objective" lit-bloggers, you see. Engages in ad hominen attacks, generalizing with no evidence or supporting information. I guess our writing isn't quite refined. Too much of the genuine; honesty and authenticity, unlike anything he's seen. In four years he hasn't changed. (Factory-produced robots designed on a blueprint never vary.)

(Supposedly the bugs have been eliminated from this blog. We'll see.)