So many happenings are still running through my mind that I couldn't begin to encapsulate all of them. Even at Zinefest yesterday I found myself becoming absent-minded from trying to recall and correlate everything.
The Saturday reading at the Medusa was awesome. Not perfect-- there were a few glitches-- but awesome all the same. A few of the readers were so striking (especially Michael Grover and Natalie Felix) that the merely good suffered in comparison. Sean Terreri; Ish Klein-- one could give out a host of accolades. Crazy Carl Robinson and Wred Fright were extremely funny. Natalie Felix stunned the audience with her strong voice, her flowing movements, her beauty. Poet Michael Grover then stunned the audience, in a different way, with the power of his voice and commitment and the clarity of his poetry. I've never seen either poet better.
The Read-Off between the Masked Professor (Frank Walsh) and the Student (Brady Russell) was filled with drama, bombast, noise, fireworks. Frank Walsh is an outstanding poet but also the greatest pure entertainer in the lit world. Brady Russell was the big surprise. He'd been quiet the entire evening-- was almost silent during the interview portion when questioned by Wred Fright. Brady's burst of verbal energy once the match began thus took everyone by surprise-- giving the Prof back as good as he got; the two combatants exchanging rhetorical blows like two literary heavyweights. I'd wager the lit world has never seen anything like it!
There were so many outstandings performances, so much noise and excitement, throughout the evening, that once headliner Jack Saunders stepped to the mic, we were all as exhausted as I seem to be today.
Thanks and kudos to all who performed or were in the audience. (I'll give the full line-up of readers and other doings in a couple days. There were a couple last-minute changes.) I'll also discuss the Zinefest-- and say more about the Read-Off-- when I can!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Buy American Pop Lit at Barnes & Noble
Buy American Pop Lit at Amazon
Tweets
Fun Stuff
- A Tale of Two Literary Worlds
- Literary Nomenklatura
- The Literary Story Examined
- American Literary Apparatchiks
- The Believer ULA Essay Part I
- The Believer ULA Essay Part II
- The Believer ULA Essay Part III
- The Believer ULA Essay Part IV
- End of the Pods
- The Timid Generation
- Three Question Archive
- Jonathan Lethem and Postmodernism
- What Kind of Revolution Is It?
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(336)
-
▼
July
(25)
- The ULA Experiment
- Withdrawal Symptoms
- Quixotic
- A Point to Be Stressed
- News?
- ULA Excitement, Part II
- Excitement of the ULA
- Mystery Tape
- Controversy
- The Line-Up!
- Zinefest Report
- Weekend Report!
- ULA Show Diary
- Our Philadelphia Goal
- Summer of the ULA
- ULA Remarks
- King Wenclas Versus ULAers
- The Literary Future
- The Literary Past
- ULA Show Diary
- Lynn Freed's Partial Confession
- ULA Show Diary
- Polemical Art
- Thoughts About Aid Concerts and Imperialist Art
- Monday Report
-
▼
July
(25)
Links
- New Pop Lit
- Fast Pop Lit
- NPL News
- New Pop Lit's Open Mic
- New Pop Lit Extra
- American Pop Lit
- Happy America Lit
- The Literary Circus
- Crime City Blog
- Detroit Literary
- Election Follies 2012
- Literary Mystery
- Blitz Book Review
- El Cid Project
- Philly Zeen
- Populist America
- Philly Literary
- Happy Writing
- Petition to PEN
- ULA
- ULA Poetry and Fiction
- ULA Review
- ULA Press
- Wred
- How Publishing Is Rigged
- Dust Bowl Poetry
- Books Inq
- New Yorker Commas
- Random Rae
- American Dissident
- Blue Collar Holler
- Idiom Poets
- Piggy Plutocrats
- A Practical Policy
- Remnants
- Litkicks
- Complete Review
- Emerging Writers
- Germ Books
- Fran
- Salome
- Syntax
- First Line
- You Are Here
- Josh Saitz
- Sunday Salon
About Me
- King Wenclas
- The ultimate literary outlaw. "I could be bounded in a nutshell and call myself a king of infinite space." -William Shakespeare
13 comments:
I gotta say, there were some terrific writers reading. Not everybody blew me away, but there was lots of great stuff. Your organization is bullshit but you got talented people.
Writer Who Sells Millions
I gotta say, there were some terrific writers reading. Not everybody blew me away, but there was lots of great stuff. Your organization is bullshit but you got talented people.
Writer Who Sells Millions
The easiest ways for writers to be activists for their art, take a stand, put themselves out there and say something is to sell copies of their work, so it can be read by a wide variety of people. Selling millions, in fact, does this. I hope the best ULA writers sell millions, and I'd never deride them for any of their efforts to do just that.
It's a shame the ULA feels differently - about work they often don't even read before judging as "part of the problem." Putting on a great event in Philly is no different from giving out an award in New York - it's publicity, in order to get your work out there - and at least the New York crowd doesn't have the audacity to claim that they're somehow "revolutionary." The ULA, instead, spends far too much time beating up on Rick Moody, or threatening Daniel Handler, or calling Dave Eggers a phony - writers who have worked their own game to get their work out there, and who try to give a hand up to writers they know and/or admire so that they, too, can get exposure. You know, just like the ULA does for its club.
Writer Who Sells Millions
Congratulations to everyone who participated in the show. I've never seen Wenclas this satisfied with one, so I assume it went well. My condolences to Jack Saunders.
I'm sick of hearing about Moody, Franzen and Eggers, too. But muckraking is part of the ULA's stated purpose, and there's usually something going on in the floundering lit establishment that merits a few jabs to the shoulder. I think some of the ULA's "scandals" (particularly the constant small-press infighting) are pointless, but the Moody protest, the Firecracker protest and the Amazon call-out all resonated outside the "club." I'm sure the ULA will afflict the comfortable as long as it keeps comforting the afflicted.
Most ULA critics either tut-tut Karl's antagonism (while simultaneously baiting him into further confrontation... you know, just for fun) or describe underground writers the way a classical music journal probably would've described the Ramones in 1977. Short-sighted at best.
I also saw Karl organize the Cullen Carter Benefit and see it through, which I'm sure no other alt.zines denizen would've done. He was disappointed with that show for a number of reasons, but it helped a sick man and his family. Ignoring that, while placing Eggers beyond reproach because of 826 Valencia, renders you a hypocrite.
One great reading does not a victory make.
(Bad news about Jack, who's truly a great guy. Cards of condolence can be sent to him at the address which should be up for him at the www.literaryrevolution.com site.)
The Millions Writer's remarks are disingenuous, to say the least. According to him, Eggers, Moody, and Company are little different than us-- except they have access to the levers of media power, monopolistic support, huge sums of money, etc, and represent not the voice of the populace but of an insular elite within it. His argument is made of tissue paper.
I guess we should now abandon our project, fold our tent and go home at the first signs of success. All is done! Mission accomplished!
On the contrary, after our Medusa triumph, which showed we're for real; when we're in some small way ascendent, this is good reason to push our ideas further, with greater enthusiasm. Sorry, "Millions."
Re Mr. Grover: He seems to believe that poetry exists without context, outside society, with no need for an audience. By this standard, one may as well recite poetry to trees in a forest, where no one can hear it, to ensure it maintains its purity and withstands any possible taint of contamination. Literature inside a hermitage: isn't this exactly what the ULA has been battling against?
It's a contradiction to want the world changed but to take no actions to accomplish this. MDG's poems can have influence only if people hear them and hear about them. This is what the ULA does for underground writers-- expose great artists like Grover not just to the folks who were at the show, but to the many thousands who read the ULA site and this blog.
This applies to activist novelists as well. It does no good to write strong novels telling the truth about this land if they stay a secret-- if no one reads them or hears about them. The ULA is a promotional campaign. The difference between ourselves and the mainstream is that with us, writers and artists are in control-- not bean-counting corporate skyscraper suits who couldn't care less about art, only numbers. (See the MediaBistro site sometime-- ads not even for MFA's, but MBA's, which demonstrates their focus.)
The difference is also in the writers we promote.
Re: The Poster Boy of Literary Corruption. Note that on this blog I usually mention him when he does something-- such as his involvement in the National Book Awards, or his easily-shredded justification for his actions at same which appeared in The Believer magazine, or most recently his prominence in the Atlantic's current Fiction issue. I know people want to believe he's an innocent bystander who accidentally strayed into the ULA's sights; that we've made him the face of the literary establishment for sound tactical reasons, to better illustrate our campaign. The truth, though, is that Moody IS the face of the literary establishment-- he IS the establishment, as his omnipresence in arts foundations and money decisions pre-and-post ULA demonstrates.
Do we now abandon our activist campaign? With what do we replace it? Do we become like all other lit groups-- the thousands of them dutifully cranking out their lit-journals, giving readings, and otherwise making no noise?
The ULA's uncompromising attack-dog behavior is what has distinguished us from all other lit organizations-- it's what has given us a profile in the lit-world, has made us THE alternative to influential Insiders and their allies in the battle to represent the future of literature. That battle is far from over.
(The "attack" campaign is the only one of the original four legs of our strategy which was carried through, and that only sporadically. Without the "revolution" in literaryrevolution, not much remains.)
ABOUT CLIQUES AND CLUBS
The idea that the Underground Literary Alliance is just another clique, like key players in the mainstream, is nonsense. We disproved this with the Medusa show, when we presented the widest possible variety of voices and styles available. All were invited-- no one shut out. Our target audience isn't 5% of the public-- not simply an insular, well-educated elite (much less Moody's "3,000")-- but the entire population. We claim to represent the true literature of our time.
Do we want ULA writers to be popular? As we want LITERATURE to be popular, relevant to the everyday life of the society, the answer has to be, "YES!"
The ULA was designed to capture literature and the culture, and to transform society. Nothing less.
Is this too ambitious? Have we set impossible goals? Absolutely. It's what makes the fight worthwhile and what will enable us to accomplish much, if not all. We have a long way to go. The Medusa event was an early step.
Ah yes, poets in love... :)
One of the many cool things about the ULA is that we make noise even amongst ourselves. And even that is fruitful! Even our internal squabbles get good results, hone us into sharper artists and activists, and of course our external projects get results, too.
Compare and contrast to the dullness of everything the System does!
The Academic Cabal only stays afloat due to frickin' omerta---get the degree, get the contract, get the bully pulpit, then don't SAY A WORD or you're thru! Ha! What a buncha COWARDICE!
Look to the ULA for fresh approaches to all this. State your piece---pick your fight---let's have it! There's no reason why indy artists should or should PRETEND to get along. Art and artists need to depict and explore reality. Doing that involves hashing and clashing, friction and irritation---on paper and in life, every which way. The ULA has never shirked from any of it. Yet we also join our forces and work together as need be to create fresh new projects, to expose villany in high places, and to get attention for great work that's being kept down.
What a combination! Unbeatable!
Yeah, Eggers & Co. have access to a more powerful network. As do I. We sweated it out, sent stuff to magazines, went drinking with editors and watched our careers grow. Just like you guys. The gang at Esquire, the gang at FSG - they all started out scribbling on the outskirts. I published maybe 75 stories in magazines that make Slushpile look like the Paris Review before anyone paid attention.
Meanwhile, your king goes out of his way to denounce these guys (and NO, not just when they do something - scroll down this blog and count the Eggers, Moody disses), not to mention firing off letters to Handler, Franzen, blah blah blah. And then - guess what? - you find that the ULA doesn't have access to the network of mainstream lit. Well, duh! You can't drunkenly heckle Elissa Schappell and then complain that Vanity Fair (where she works, for a pittance I might add) would never touch your stuff. Nobody touches the work of someone who regularly insults them.
And yes, most ULA writers don't engage in this: they just write. The Philly event showed that. My point is, why do you bother having your publicity guy shoot you in the foot? Thanks to King, the ULA is most famous for insulting successful writers. He protested the National Book Award, without reading the work of any of the writers nominated, on the grounds that Moody was on the panel. That's no revolution - and it's a deep disservice to all the talented underground writers. If you really want readers, you should promote work for the sake of the work. Keep holding events that feature good writing, and are fun and unpretentious (you know, like McSweeneys did it, and the Beats before them) - and fire the guy who is clearly more interested in being an asshole than being an artist.
Writer Who Sells, Well OK, 1.5 Million
Writer: Get a clue. I don't think many ULAers would submit to Vanity Fair and we certainly wouldn't suckup to editors to advance our careers. The point of the ULA is to find a better way for writers to get exposure.
And--say what you will about Karl or ULA tactics, but please, don't ever equate McSweeney's to the Beats again! Yikes!
If drinking with someone you like is sucking up, I guess I suck up most nights. You don't seem to understand that you're talking about writers who genuinely respect each other. You know, like the ULA does. For the life of me I can't understand why you'd be loathe to be reviewed in a major magazine - you know, one read by lots of potential readers - but whatever. I'm not picky about who reads me. Kurt Cobain changed the cover of one of his albums so it would be sold in Wal-Mart, because that's where he bought records when he was a kid. I guess he's a sellout, too.
As for the Beats and McSweeneys, the parallels are quite numerous: a handful of truly talented people, plenty of medicore hangers on, wacky readings, a lot of hype, and the invigoration of thousands and thousands of young readers. The Beats helped found City Lights Books - you know, a small publishing house with distinctive design, that many people decried as selling out the true nature of the Beats. (None of the Beats complained, though - they wanted their work out there, no matter how glossy the cover.) Yeah, I'll take Ginsburg over Eggers any day of the week, but writers like Ginsburg come along every 100 years. In the meantime the new gang'll do.
Let's say FSG offered 50 grand for a ULA anthology. You're telling me you'd turn it down, a nice-looking book of good writing that'd easily be sold coast-to-coast, in favor of reading in bars in large urban areas? I pity your revolution.
And now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go write.
The Millions Writer ignores the fact that there are about a million writers out there who dutifully follow the rules, attend workshops, get their MFA's, go to seminars and expensive summer writers conferences where they get to suck-up to the bigwigs, and never get anyplace. The only reason you're discussing us at all is because we HAVE made some noise in this society.
Gee, did our crash blow our chances to get into Vanity Fair? Did we lowly ULAers really have a chance to get in before that? How long has Jack Saunders been writing and sending out his stuff-- and how many times has "Vanity" Fair written or phoned to talk about it?
Writer, you miss my main point, big-time. The fact that you're a well-read writer, and don't understand how the society you live in operates, is scary.
Context. Context! Eggers and Moody have to be put into the context of the conglomerate monopolistic machine which backs them; which surrounds their every move. (Should we examine Eggers's ties to Simon & Schuster which helped McSweeney's get off the ground?)Those who want to believe these extremely affluent writers are really the same as the writers in the ULA are seeing only the puppet show in front of them, believing in the actions of the puppets, without a thought or glance toward the stage scenery, or the puppetmaster behind the curtain.
The ULA is doing what underground writers have to do-- building alliances among ourselves. The elite do their networking usually at prep schools or exclusive Ivy League universities. They have access to connections the average writer doesn't know exists. Should I drag out the case-by-case examples I gave in my NEW PHILISTINE newsletter?
Regarding the National Book Awards. I did read the award winner, by a wealthy well-connected New York City matron. It was so bad I couldn't get beyond the third chapter/self-indulgent diary entry/whatever it was. Total crap which has already vanished in memory and importance as far as American literary history is concerned.
What you should worry about, Millions, is that, despite the enormous investment made in establishment authors from the moment they're born-- the most elite schools and even the most expensive day care centers, all they way through Columbia and Brown, and the monetary grants from foundations-- despite this, as you know, there's no way these stiffs could ever compete straight up against ULAers.
Care to put it to the test? I and other ULAers will debate the matter against any of your idols in any public forum-- hall, saloon, or open-air park-- and we'll see who wins.
(Or, in your world, we all have the same chance of becoming President as George W. Bush! After all, he just networked with his buds. . . .
Btw, I still don't know when I supposedly attacked "Handler"-- not quite sure who the dude is.)
An example of just how clueless our opponents are is the idea of these trust-fund rich kids, raised as conformists from the word go and getting their aesthetic cues from the New Yorker, sitting around their mansions and private clubs imagining they have anything to do with the Beats. Hilarious.
Post a Comment