Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Monday Report

I want to remind readers that the ULA has been getting some dynamite Monday Reports up lately at our www.literaryrevolution.com fan site. The current one by Patrick Simonelli is about curious connections at Simon & Schuster. Last week's, by Adam Hardin, was a look at the continued denigration of Charles Bukowski. Both articles were well-documented-- hard to refute. But we welcome comments by all about them-- even by demi-puppets and other anony-mice! (The "Evil Journalista" mystery, covered by Noah Cicero, is also open for questioning, sleuthing, and debate.)


King said...

You'll find that these articles have credibility-- as opposed to, say, comments made on other lit-sites about the ULA.
One example:
After I posted the nine examples of Tom Bissell's plagiarism on this blog, sites like Media Bistro insisted I'd been waiting for the first opportunity for "revenge" on him. This is completely untrue-- as Bissell himself knows.
The truth is that the ULA first heard about the plagiarism charges at the same time the Believer article, by Bissell, on the ULA came out-- August 2003, from an anonymous e-mailer. We discounted this without looking into it, as we did again when remarks were posted on Amazon by others about the plagiarism. Not until "Ranger West" posted the examples last summer or so on a ULA thread I had going on the Atlantic forums did I truly look into the matter. To me, the examples were impossible to ignore.
As they are for any objective person. (Except hair-splitting rationalizers of the worst kind.)
One could show the nine examples to any writer, without telling giving my or Bissell's name, and they'd have to admit the "borrowings" were very questionable-- as such people as Galley cat, Ed Rants, and others did before they realized it was politically incorrect to take any stance aligned, accidentally or not, with the Underground Literary Alliance.
Those "objective" bloggers (some who, like Maud and Sarvas, had attacked us long before who we knew who they were!) made sure to cover the story only up to the point before I made my response, which blew the arguments of Maud, Rationalizing Radosh, and others out of the water. There was not a shred of objectivity to the way they covered the matter-- only, as always, just the pose.
Great examples at least of how NOT to address stories. The ULA, while admitting we HAVE a point-of-view, always tries to be accurate with the facts. We usually are-- which is why we win just about every argument over these matters.

ShadowSax said...

the big red thing on the new ula site makes my eyes bleed. otherwise i'd probably check it out more often.

otherwise, still good stuff. keep it up yo.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for your support and for linking to our site...

The red colour of the box in question has been known to startle the eyes. Unlike the photos of ULAer Leah Smith (and the apparently deranged Tom Beller pic)...


...one shouldn't stare at the red box for very long. Perhaps i should put up a disclaimer stating this, to avoid potential lawsuits from the crowd of people likely to clench steaming styrofoam cups of McDonald's coffee between their legs, while driving, shaving, and talking on cell phones.

The rest of the ULA site is usually a tranquil white, except now the front page features Papal Purple, which is liable to change at any moment.

Works in progress, all.

-Pat, ULA Webmaster

Anonymous said...

Long live the white working man


King said...

That's an awesome photo of Leah Smith. You should see her in person!

Anonymous said...

from Noah

What the hell is that on Beller's head?
Is that what those assholes dress like?

Emerson Dameron said...

After "Ed Rants" roasted something I wrote, I solicited a debate, expecting passion and invective. I got zilch, and walked away thinking him a smug, predictable, link-happy Joe Blogger with blueberry-sized testicles. Elitism is fine so long as you're willing to defend it, but I've yet to encounter anyone in the lit-blog clique with well-defined ideas about... anything.