The Underground Literary Alliance has set the standard for truth and openness in the literary world. At the beginning of our campaign we held a press conference to which we invited the entire New York literary and media worlds to question our ideas and protests. Led by George Plimpton, they did their best to challenge us. We hit their every pitched hardball question out of the park.
We've pointed the way the literary world should operate. If football coaches can face scrutiny every week, why not us?
In response to our honesty we've faced dirty trick after dirty trick-- as shown last year on this blog. The games have all fallen apart. It's why we've insisted on no anonymous games from ourselves. They never work. Is this still our policy? Yes! Anonymous posters like "Ranger West" who've sought to join us have been rebuffed. Former ULAers who've played such games would never have been allowed in if we'd known what they were about.
Look at the list of defeated adversaries: Dave Eggers posting anonymously on Amazon; Daniel Handler constructing a fake letter; the onslaught of "Bryan Guski" and other fake posters. None withstood scrutiny or questions.
The ULA has been questioned, examined, and scrutinized for five years, and has always held up.
But who is allowed to ask tough questions of the established lit world? Can we question departing Harper's editor Lewis Lapham, or his successor Roger Hodge? What about Joel Connaroe of Guggenheim or other foundation heads? Will new Paris Review editor Philip Gourevitch consent to be interviewed by ULA reps? Or Morgan Entrekin of Grove/Atlantic Books?
If not, why not? Are they more hostile to the scrutiny of a truly free press than football coaches?