Saturday, August 27, 2005

Fake Letter

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?


King said...

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.
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. claims to be the "love child" of 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.

King said...

A Reminder:
This blog, and the ULA's 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.

King said...

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.