This just to let people know that the letter supposedly from me in the current issue of The Ruminator, presented by Daniel Handler while being interviewed, is fake. My signature is a big "X." Is this supposed to be postmodern? Is the reader expected to know this is a joke? Very funny, ha-ha.
A trivial matter, no doubt, but it DOES reinforce the notion that for many of this country's trendiest writers, truth has no meaning. Which leaves them free to construct phony letters, fake other writings, plagiarize, and further reinforce and add to the widespread dishonesty and phoniness of American society-- which of course we experience every day on our TV screens. "Why should writers be any different?" seems to be the thinking.
(But the ULA IS different-- one reason why I'm no longer going to enable the dishonesty pushed out through numerous endless anonymous names.)
I do believe that in the back of their minds, people like Handler and his friends, who get a chuckle at what we're doing, are bothered by what we represent. Someplace, down deep, within themselves, is the suspicion that they're frauds, and we're for real. Why else all the trouble invested in attempts to discredit us? Why all the fake ULA sites; the hours put into constructing them and posting on them-- redoing the arguments in a rigged arena in a way to favor themselves? What does this say about these people?
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)
-
▼
August
(21)
- The Forbidden Zone: Conclusion
- Fake Letter
- The Forbidden Zone, Part II
- Zytron Journal: The Forbidden Zone
- Zytron Update
- More Cluelessness
- Rachel Donadio II
- Inertia and Change
- New ULAer
- Status Quo Equals Failure
- The State of the ULA?
- Twilight Zone
- Catazeen Progress
- The ULA Goes 826!
- News II
- Peace Offer
- Continuing Corruption
- Anonymice
- Natural Writers
- Fashion
- ULA Behind the Scenes
-
▼
August
(21)
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
3 comments:
The big "X" signature on the letter illustrates also the rampant classism of these "liberals."
More than that, it shows the narrow box in which their minds live. For one thing, they have little knowledge about the history of literature itself. It's similar to the surprise people show when they see William Shakespeare's scrawled signature. Why, the guy must've been illiterate! he could hardly sign his name. Someone ELSE must've written the plays.
Really?
The question is worth further examination. I'll just say here that a strong case could be made that the greatest, most influential
literature the world has produced has occurred at times of change from oral culture to a written one. (Periclean Athens, for instance. Or the Gospels. It's likely that Jesus couldn't sign his name-- his followers weren't highly educated people by any means. And then, of course, the problem of Shakespeare.)
You see, the rampant snobbery of people like Handler and David Sedaris, caught up in the wonderfulness of their own talents, will automatically dismiss all those not exactly like them. There may be a billion people alive today who are "illiterate"-- yet does this mean they're unintelligent, or can't communicate?
What do we say about a Homer, whose great poems were likely transmitted orally for many years before ever being written down?
Do people like Handler and Sedaris have any real understanding of what language and literature is about?
(Incidentally, I'm able to sign my name, for those who thought otherwise.)
p.s. www.ruminator.com claims to be the "love child" of Salon.com and Harper's magazine. Is the letter a small payback for my pointing out examples of plagiarism which occurred in the pages of Harper's? If so, the lie of the letter is fitting. Harper's Editor, after all, is a documented liar. No hyperbole in that statement-- only the truth.
Lapham, I suggest you rein in your puppets! Thank you.
A Reminder:
This blog, and the ULA's www.literaryrevolution.com site, are the only places you'll find news like this. In fact, they're likely the only places you'll hear ABOUT this, the Paris Review expose', and other revelations. Which means you can't wait for mentions or pointers to news on other blogs-- but have to check the ULA site every day to know what's really happening.
It's come to my attention that some blogs HAVE mentioned the Sedaris-Handler interview, with pointed reference to "hate mail." Posting connections to this interview, and by extension to the letter, is perpetuating a lie. It seems to be done gleefully. This matter, if nothing else, is a test to see if ANYONE in the lit-realm has integrity.
The ULA campaign itself is a test to see if the literary world of today can tolerate alternative ideas. So far, it's failing the test, big-time.
Post a Comment