Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The Eloi

Trying to arouse interest in the CIA inflitration of literature (to what extent it occurred and whether it's continuing) makes me feel like Rod Taylor in the movie version of "The Time Machine." A lot of blank-headed people walking in straight lines like zombies. No conscience, no backbone, no will. "Nobody cares."

Does it matter all that much to me if the CIA issue is fully exposed, as it properly should be?

Not really. The ULA is doing all it can do in the cause of truth. If it isn't enough, so be it. We're leaving a record establishing our integrity on the issue.

The big losers in the matter will be the sheep of the literary world, who by their silence are completely discrediting themselves. This includes those who used to work at Paris Review and might be expected to have an opinion on the matter. It includes especially the current names on the Paris Review masthead, whose credibility, by their inaction, will be forever tarnished.

"Well, Ms. Cipher and Mr. Blank," history will ask. "Everything you did in the cause of literature and new ideas was well and good-- but where were you when it counted? Why did you not stand up when it was time to stand up?"

5 comments:

jimmy grace said...

Silence = sucking up to status quo.
Debating = sucking up to status quo.

Let's see, I guess that only leaves subservience to our King.

Victor Schwartzman said...

James, ol' bean:

If, in your view, Karl and the ULA are wasting their time, and are not important, why do you keep posting on this blog? Should you not be making art (or Phil or George)? Why are YOU wasting YOUR time, by your own definition?

Just call me curious.

King said...

Ah, but Victor, that's the relevant question.
WHY has Grace been posting here so much, for months?
Could he possibly have a reason?
Of course he does.
To think he's an innocent bystander who simply stumbled upon us here makes no sense whatsoever.

King said...

To answer "Grace" regarding Paris Review-- DEBATE is exactly what we're trying to encourage. Yet no one connected with the Paris Review will PUBLICLY say much of anything about the matter.
The private "debate" I was having via, yes, around 100 e-mails revolved around whether or not anyone involved was going to say something publicly. Paris Review I'm certain was aware of the conversations.
If I post here what was said, I end that back-channel communication. Maybe I'm naive to think such people will come around. It's obvious to me they have something to hide, or there would have been public denials.
The whole thing is curious and I can't say I've figured it out.
But by all means, let's have public debate about it.
I'll leave all else for a Monday Report a couple ULAers are doing on the matter.

jimmy grace said...

I post on blogs because I get bored in my day job. I'd make art here, but it's hard to look busy with a sketchpad.

Of course, it turns you on to think I debate you because I'm sucking up to the status quo. Just like it turns you on to think that people who ignore you are sucking up to the status quo.

You're not afraid of debate, oh goodness no! You just make everyone register to post comments on your fucking blog because, well, when people comment anonymously that's, um, a sign that they're trying to destroy you.