The Underground Literary Alliance is too radical to be covered by the mainstream media in this country. We received mucho coverage at the start-- this was halted when the literary establishment realized we weren't just playing like so many others; that we believed what we said. (An unknown concept in the higher levels of society.)
Maybe we'll have to go overseas to break the blackballing. We know this blog is being read in Somaliland, for one thing. I say, the next ULA show should be in Somaliland!
Apparently folks are also watching our activities-- which are historic and relevant after all-- in the United Kingdom. We were presented by the Guardian as new upstarts, along with the n+1 crowd, as major competitors to the McSweeney's outfit. (You know them: Church of the Undead.) This when describing literary activity on this side of the Atlantic. Imagine! No wonder the ruthless Eggers Gang wants to destroy us.
I now say: Next ULA show should be in London!
(See http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/02/surfing_the_new_literary_wave.html to read what I'm talking about.)
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
-
▼
2007
(246)
-
▼
February
(35)
- Yet Another NYC Photo
- Another NYC Photo
- Not the Philly Show!
- Fighting Literary Reactionaries
- ULA Dynamite!
- ULA Redone
- The SuperPoet Is Insane!
- Don't Be Frightened!
- The Poet
- Hypocrisy and Manners
- Unique ULA
- ULA Books
- Letter from Gutmann
- Prophets in Own Land
- New Yorkers Welcome
- Jelly Boy
- About "Jimmy Grace"
- News
- They're Coming. . .
- Reality
- Functionaries
- Spoken Word Theater
- Shootout at Sundown
- The Game Is Up
- Core ULA Ideas
- The Audience
- Money and Poetry
- The Eloi
- Blowing the Doors Off!
- Trends
- Threads
- A Quote
- Overdog Staffers
- Questions
- Where's the Outrage?
-
▼
February
(35)
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
33 comments:
1. The mainstream media, at least in America, barely covers fiction, and one can't devote much time to one organization. I rarely hear about the inner workings of the Romance Writers Association or SFWA in the mainstream press, and they work in the most popular segments of literature.
2. It isn't impossible to come through the backdoor (a la Bukowski). I'm not sure Britain is the place, from what I have seen lately the literary movements in Britain seem to be the equivalent of (insert)-punk: young drunks who are rebelling.
3. I'm not sure how many foreign language speakers you have in the ULA, but it seems France and Spain have the potential to become literary hotbeds again.
4. Did you lose another member?
http://j-d-finch.livejournal.com/37024.html
5. All the guardian link says is, "Meanwhile, across the Atlantic resides the daddy of all online magazines, McSweeney's. It now has as many detractors as loyal readers, but still seems to have the edge on young pretenders, the particularly user-hostile Underground Literary Alliance ] and the smart n+1 magazine."
6. I'm not sure the "Eggers Gang" wants to destroy you as much as they just want to stick up for each other. Both organizations have zero hope of appealing to each other and any strife would be as senseless as me haranguing Harlequin.
Curious, JJ, that one of our members just resigned, puts a mention of it on a very obscure corner of the Internet, and you already know about it. Explanation?
Re Finch: Yes, hate to lose him; a very good guy and a funny writer. I wish him all success with his work.
What does it say about the ULA? Not a lot. Like any organization we go through constant changeover. Losing eight (I think) members in six years isn't a drastic number-- and fairly low, actually, considering that we're literary pariahs and that what we do as an organization isn't for everybody.
I'll address the "boss" idea when I can. One of our problems is that there is no boss. Strictly DIY, which is why progress sometimes stagnates.
Some of the members who've left have done so exactly at the wrong time.
You know, in the late 80s I wrote a newsletter for a commodity trader (a financial pirate) and got to observe the phenomenon of people buying or selling at just the wrong moment-- at an interim top or bottom, say. It's a psychological thing. Things look their absolute worst for a commodity right as the market is bottoming. When the last person has "sold," the price starts going up.
Is that the case this time?
The pressure to be a ULAer always increases exactly when we're doing things which make us go up in attention. Was there panic in the ranks when we crashed KGB, for instance? Absolutely, even though that incident created for us tremendous buzz.
Now we have: a battle with the CIA (we clearly have to be crazy) and the upcoming outing of a possible McSweeney's lieutenant. Yes, we have to be crazy.
Finch got out and the very next day we get a great notice in the Guardian. Timing is a curious thing. It's easy to misstep.
This game is far from over. We have a lot of cards left to play.
(And it might be time to start wondering why YOU'RE here, JJ. What's your reason for posting?
I'm curious why an author with books to sell and advertise, and a name to promote, is here posting under a fake identity. Makes no sense whatsoever to me. Maybe you can explain.)
Curious, JJ, that one of our members just resigned, puts a mention of it on a very obscure corner of the Internet, and you already know about it. Explanation?
The link to the Guardian blog did not work at the time, so I searched google blogs and the link popped up:Here is the search string I ran. That link is 2 links under the 3 AM mag link
What does it say about the ULA? Not a lot. Like any organization we go through constant changeover. Losing eight (I think) members in six years isn't a drastic number-- and fairly low, actually, considering that we're literary pariahs and that what we do as an organization isn't for everybody.
I'm not saying that was representative or negative or anything. It just piqued my interest because I actually found out about the ULA through a former member, well technically. A blog called "Grumpy Old Bookman" mentioned a writer I had never heard of (Noah Cicero) I ran a search on him and ended up reading some article/interview he did, and then stumbled about the literaryrevolution site and then here.
(And it might be time to start wondering why YOU'RE here, JJ. What's your reason for posting?
I'm curious why an author with books to sell and advertise, and a name to promote, is here posting under a fake identity. Makes no sense whatsoever to me. Maybe you can explain.)
I have no books to sell. I am writing full time, but I haven't finished my manuscript. My resume is mostly just SS at the moment. I tend to post on various blogs/forums because I just like books and book discussions. And since the media doesn't cover anything beyond Harry Potter/Da Vinci Code type stuff, I have to search out for info. I read this blog, Miss Snark, post at absolutewrite.com, I read 101 reasons to stop writing, Grumpy Old Bookman, Reader of Depressing Books, Maud Newton, the list goes on and on. When I'm not out getting drunk/high, I'm pretty much about literature.
As for why I don't use my real name, that is simple. I believe that some writers should be read and not heard. This is why I will never sign a contract that requires me to do interviews/readings and such.
So far Mr. Joyce you haven't really given much reason for me to believe that you are anything but an agent. What is the real motive behind your presence on this blog? It seems to be to counter the arguments made by the ULA. Why? You say that you are not so interested and neither is anyone else. The character you've invented (or that was invented for you)seems more than a bit contrived. Why do you thing France or Spain are becoming literary hotbeds. Literary hotbeds for who?
So far Mr. Joyce you haven't really given much reason for me to believe that you are anything but an agent.
That is some hardcore paranoia.
What is the real motive behind your presence on this blog? It seems to be to counter the arguments made by the ULA. Why
It appears to be an open blog. Of course, I am not a cheerleader for anyone: independent mind that I am.
I don't think it's that far out an assumption to make. Lot's of companies or interest groups have spooks role playing on the internet to counter eventual critics of whatever it is that they might be peddling. The ones I've come across have sounded quite a bit like yourself.
I don't think it's that far out an assumption to make.
It's pretty out there. I could see if one thought I was a cop if this was some sort of druggie messageboard or something.
Lot's of companies or interest groups have spooks role playing on the internet to counter eventual critics of whatever it is that they might be peddling.
I would say you over estimate many companies/interests groups. But I've seen it, especially from the likes of foreign governments seeking to do minor PR. It wouldn't matter on views of opinion though, especially on literature. The closet thing to such an occurrence are the amounts of obvious studio shills that populate message boards at imdb.com
Actually you sort of sound like several freeper disinformation agents I've come across. This rap about America the ultimate meritocracy is such total crap. Other countries every goes to public highschools. Why? Because the government wants everyone to have something close to an equal chance. In the states the rich go to exclusive boarding schools that give them all kinds of contacts that other people will never have and insulate them from the ugliness if public education in the US. I think the commonality of interests between the bougeois liberal ideology and hypercapitalism is pretty much being exposed, while pretending to be opponents they are basically advancing their mutual agenda. As they become less useful as apologists they'll have to convert to neocon or go peddle themselves overseas. We're seeing this happen now.
Actually you sort of sound like several freeper disinformation agents I've come across.
That is LOL
America the ultimate meritocracy is such total crap
It isn't. America is not a meritocracy nor should it be. America does not have a free-market economy, but it should. What we have is a welfare state (for corporations and everyone else) and it is sickening.
Results are what matters. Capitalism (the more free it is) rewards results and results are a reward. Much like literature. Write a crappy book with no redeeming value and no appeal it will not sell. Write something amazing and it will. Of course, if sales matter to a writer that is another story.
We're not living in free market capitalism any more. We're living in hyper-capitalism; hyper-capitalism rewards nothing but hype. The game isn't about making a better product but about controlling the market to keep competitors who might make a better product than you are blocked out. I'd write a better book than Eggers or Easton-Ellis in a month or so if I didn't know in advance that it'd have zero chance of being accepted by any major publisher given the current state of things.
We're not living in free market capitalism any more.
America never had a free-market economy. From day one the government was interfering in the market, taxes/tariffs and so forth.
Free-Market
The game isn't about making a better product but about controlling the market to keep competitors who might make a better product than you are blocked out
The motive is actually profit, and publishers profit more when they meet consumer demand. The only people being kept out are those that have no demand. Even bad writers can get published (and become rich). The more commercial the book the better the chance at selling. Proust, Woolf and thousands of others currently writing have to self-publish because there is simply little market for their work or it doesn't fit what a publisher wants. Being published is not some sort of right it is a privilege. But it is one anyone can use. For instance, LULU.com is a wonderful service for serious writers looking to get a finished product printed up.
Oops, wrong link: Free-Market
You know the state can exist without a free market but big business can't exist without the state without are structure of laws a territory defined whatever property can't even attributed. Who interferes with whom. Do they subcontract this stuff or something? Is this your first disinformation agent job? I don't think that the existence of something like lulu though I think there service is interesting makes it any less important to point out the corrupt structures in the lit world.
attention ula: there are people who disagree with you who do NOT work for the CIA.
You know the state can exist without a free market but big business can't exist without the state without are structure of laws a territory defined whatever property can't even attributed
You are partially right. Big Business can't exist because they have no state to cosset it. You sound as if you are confusing government and state (not to mention the purview of nation). A government is simply holding the reins (monopoly of force) of the state. A nation can exist without a central state, most people actually live anarchic lives. The government rarely prevents such things as crime, its education is sub-par, its taxation excessive, and its expenditures profligate. The best thing the state/government does is defense of the nation (in most cases). But simply looking back to early America, we can see that this can be done without excessive meddling. The proper place of government is the courts, police and defense, anything beyond that is excessive. I'm a hardcore (negative liberty)Lockean- (pro-defense)Goldwaterist.
This is pretty much an issue that has been dealt with ad nauseum. I suggest the works of Hans Hoppe specifically his analysis of the worst political system known to man: Democracy: The god that Failed
So are you hoping maybe to get a job in the same think tank as Dave's brother Bill? Any ideology becomes ultimately nothing more than a pretext. Actually I find it pretty hard to stomach Europeans who grew up in a system that nutures, protects and educates coming to the US a nation that abuses intimidates stupifies its citizens and keeps them from protecting themselves and giving some sort of lectures about the burden of social programs which in the States might as well not even exist compared to a European state.
So are you hoping maybe to get a job in the same think tank as Dave's brother Bill?
IIRC, his brother works at some TT that shills for the GOP. I only respect about 4 or 5 poles in the entire party. I don't join parties or think tanks or groups.
Actually I find it pretty hard to stomach Europeans who grew up in a system that nutures, protects and educates coming to the US a nation that abuses intimidates stupifies its citizens and keeps them from protecting themselves and giving some sort of lectures about the burden of social programs which in the States might as well not even exist compared to a European state.
1. These countries are small
2. They are closer to ethnic homogeneity
3. Most tend to have higher unemployment than the US
4. A number have higher suicide rates and rates of crime higher than the US (except muder and violent crime)
5. Those countries are poor. If Sweden were a US State it would be as poor as Kentucky, probably poorer.
By "poor" you probably mean, "without a lot of (useless) material things."
They do have health care.
With all this propaganda at your findertips, one wonders what neo-con think tank you're working at.
(Unanswered question: DID you crib your opinion of the Beats from Norman Podhoretz?)
p.s. JJ, you didn't address my post "The Conservative Fallacy," which I referenced for you on the last thread.
Also, it's clear why you haven't replied about the Arendt quote.
Like so many people today who let others do their thinking for them, you used that quote without ever having thought about it or questioned it. Mindlessly. Because it sounded good.
ABOUT mainstream media coverage. I think in what you said in your first post on this thread, you're being disingenuous.
The mainstream print media-- NY Times, New Yorker, the various glossy magazines-- don't cover Romance writers. They do give lavish attention on occasion to your much-scorned "literary" writers-- insiders like Eggers, Moody, and Company, who've been covered by high-circulation mags like Vanity Fair. Also of course in high-profile articles in NY Times.
Sales/circulation has little to do with it.
What were n+1's sales figures when they started? What are they now? Yet upon their debut they received lavish attention in a NY Times spread. Because of what?
Our goal was to get that kind of attention-- but with more populist writers to make better use of the buzz.
(Such attention leads to radio interviews, TV, the whole nine yards of media coverage.)
Some of your arguments are transparently flimsy, yet you think we won't notice. Just a con man.
You know all think tanks shill for somebody, they'll say whatever they think the people paying for the study want to hear. Cocaine addiction is genetically transmitted or whatever. That's pretty much how academia is find whatever evidence is needed to prove the thesis ignore the rest. Your group down there in Alabama sounds pretty trippy.
Sometimes I think: if all the energy that went into these blog postings went instead into writing fiction or poetry, would we not all be better off?
Just my opinion, of course.
Spank me for spoiling the party, if you must.
"The country's great the nation sucks"
you mean the state of PA? If yu mean the nation s is KAPITALIZED.
PA is a commonwealth any way.
Nation is a notion which has not only outlived its time but outdead it too!
Near two- hundred million human beings have been slaughter by state sponsored slaughter sine the late 1800's, not including soldiers and 100's of millions because of corporate- state programs that enhanced the effects of famine and drought and flood in Victorian and pre WWI times.
"I mage nation."
Laissez- faire is not corporate capitalism.
as the pirate is to HMS
a cult is not a cooperative alliance as the Mcsweeny- Valencia- Eggers- Moody progrom is to the ULA and the reat of the international underground literary MOVEMENT that is "outlaw".
LIke Rexroth sez: "I do poetry for two REASONs. To SEDUCE women and destroy CAPITALISM."
(Appolonaire's following and audience in Paris was HUGE, subsequently the DADA and SURREALIST performance/ actions were HUGELY attended throughout their brief and potent apparitions!)
But these are "country matters"?
Response to the "Conservative Fallacy"
The great flawed premise of conservative ideology (secretly believed by many liberals), is that the United States has a free market economy which equitably distributes income and wealth to those who work hardest. Conservative commentators make the argument that high progressive taxes penalize those who are most deserving (our tax system in fact penalizes most the working poor); they claim the rich are entitled to their every penny.
Who are these conservatives? The only people I can think that you are talking about are Republican Politicians. Can you name economists?
The economy does penalize the rich though. The top 50% pay almost 97% of taxes. Hence it isn't hard to see why so many want government to benefit them in some way. Of course the biggest opponents of a Free-Market are Big Business followed by liberals, leftists and conservatives.
Yet, economic history's chief advocates of the free market, Von Mises and his school, as well as the founding fathers of this country, presupposed a stable currency as fixed touchstone of the economic engine; a rational yardstick unsusceptible to change. Today we have anything BUT this-- the "yardstick" changes its length continually as the value of our currency fluctuates. And so, the ideas of THEIR OWN ideological forebears invalidate conservative arguments. Their ideology rests on quicksand.
Von Mises and the Austrian School are advocates of the Gold Standard (something Conservatives don't advocate). The Founding Fathers were not monolithic on opinions of currency (with a number favoring a National Bank). I favor a return to the Gold Standard.
THE ANALOGY in literature to conservative ideologues are those who believe that writers at the top of the literary pyramid are truly deserving; that lower-class writers are shut out because we're "untalented" and have nothing to say. The only way literary liberals are able to justify this distorted thinking to themselves is by embracing the god of style. ULA writers are untalented because we don't follow the accepted bourgeois writing styles endorsed by writing programs. It's akin to saying we're not dressed properly. Our own many-varied writing styles look unfamiliar to the bourgeoisie. We're unacceptable to the cultural doormen, who rigidly enforce a status quo literary dress code as a way of excluding lower class writers from consideration.
Literature is not like a solid social science. Literature is purely subjective, and the marketing end doesn't exist, and shouldn't exist, for the same reason has the production end (art). The publisher wants profit and the artist must produce something valuable if they want to be taken in.
That goes for any profession. Pink houses don't sell because there is no market demand. Despite what some pink-loving architect wants. This is borne out even more when we look at the great books in the last 150 years and see few sold well, and those that did (a la Dickens) were written for profit.
If you aren't writing the kind of things readers want then you can't really blame the publishing industry. And even saying "publishing industry" belies the situation, because there are thousands of publishers. The problem is too many people are writing.
Scams like PublishAmerica attest to the problem, most writers are crap. The only way to judge what is "great" is to use subjective aesthetic judgment. And of course to judge what is successful we have to use the marketplace.
Also, it should be noted, that if one is aiming for the big houses then one needs an agent (common knowledge). Agents are truly the middle-ground:
1. Most will not take on a book they don't love, even if it has decent commercial potential.
2. They won't take a book they don't think they can sell
The questions that arise:
1. Why would an INDY writer not publish with INDY presses?
2. Why is an INDY writer involving themselves, or seeking to involve themselves, in commercial publishing?
The whole point of being INDY is to avoid the commercial.
Sos there's a tiered system?
A writer is a writer amd should be published by publishers'
Granted the Middleman, middlemen,
are a problem thery are not motivated by anything but kissing the ass of their conglomeraite masters and money of bourse.
Agoodgreat writer is independent already your use of the catchphrases, abbrevs, ideological defintions of mms and pubs is just towing the partyline to give credence to the Capt.MrktCorp. Spectacle (underground culture as sd. here time and agin is simply the label applied to the alternative to obscure and confuse, the undergound culture is culture underground or in troth THE Culture the mainstream home of the powerbrokers, agents, and politicos is just that a mainstream-- the ripoff the petty thuggery crooks and extortionists closer to what Syphilization is about.. all this to obscure("let the indy keep to his/her place like a good servant, come in thru the back door" where the people can't espy 'em) the real issue of course:
distribution and access, which happens to be the underlying issue behind most of what's wrong with this "notion". Re: "the pursuit of happiness", last of the Great Triplet under siege in the USA.
So ingrained so insidious in this picture only a revolutiopn, no another rebellion, general strike can have any widespread and lasting effect.
And where better to begin chainreaction wise is with literature as this Blo and Wenclas has been ingenuing for years!
the real issue of course:
distribution and access, which happens to be the underlying issue behind most of what's wrong with this "notion".
So once again this isn't really a problem with the publishing industry. It is more along the lines of a high school "why won't they accept me" EMO tract. This is not television. If you want to know about access being an issue try something limited like getting a job as a writer for television. I wonder if the ULA even deals with Teleplay (TV) writers and Screenplay writers.
Go on over to the Done Deal Message Board [ http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/ ] and you will see what it is like to compete where there are few slots. Anyone can publish, promote and distribute a book. The average advance of a published author + costs of marketing at a big house is next to nil anyway. Granted the promotion for the latest XYZ bestseller is going to top 100,000. But with the internet and actual underground sales one can easily sell a few thousand copies, if it has appeal.
Television waves are regulated by the government. You think a TV writer who wants to create characters saying "FUCK" has the ability to? No, because the government censors TV. He could shoot for HBO or Showtime but those networks, on all shows combined have less than 50 writers.
Screenwriters are just as passionate as novelists, but they are more realistic and surely have it much, much, much harder.
It seems you only wear that INDY tag but what to where the corporate one.
Correction: Want to wear the corporate one.
The following posts from JJ express a naivete that is astounding:
"It isn't impossible to come through the backdoor (a la Bukowski)."
***
"Write a crappy book with no redeeming value and no appeal it will not sell. Write something amazing and it will."
***
"Also, it should be noted, that if one is aiming for the big houses then one needs an agent (common knowledge). Agents are truly the middle-ground:
1. Most will not take on a book they don't love, even if it has decent commercial potential.
2. They won't take a book they don't think they can sell
The questions that arise:
1. Why would an INDY writer not publish with INDY presses?
2. Why is an INDY writer involving themselves, or seeking to involve themselves, in commercial publishing?
The whole point of being INDY is to avoid the commercial."
Victor: The art is out there. We're discussing the why's and wherefore's of support, access, reviewing, systematics.
Here's another doozy from JJ:
"For instance, LULU.com is a wonderful service for serious writers looking to get a finished product printed up."
***
The problem is not one of killing trees. That is easy.
The problem is one of getting attention for quality in a climate where quality is highly manipulated. It's not a simplistic situation: quality is needed by the public AND it is kept down by middlemen for whom quality is *thought* to be a threat to the greater portion of their efforts. Quality is always a risk. Risk is anathema to a system.
So, quality will have to do things to get attention despite the efforts, machinations, secrecy and just plain habits of insiders.
jjitgw: no your wrong. The wrong direction you take is deliberate, you keep INVERTing the information given egalitarianistically to your own party line for your masters purposes which is not only elitist and narrow minded but an insult to the droves of free thinkers coming to this Blog.
Hence you are a waste of time and a blood sucker, but then what does one expect from a lapdog of the "Church Of The Undead", and your outta my picture at least. Good ridance.
Also (per Victor) besides the interesting point that EP was put in a cage in the middle of the Italian summer on THE USAF AIRSTRIP, interogated, mentally torture by the CIE (Central intelligence Europe) which shortly morphed into the CIA (if lit isn't important, why was the Picasso of Am Poetry treated this way by the CIA-- sounds familar), why has his "bones" been denied honor at St. John The Divine's on the upper East side NYC, when a confirmed rabid anti-semite and intellectual bigot AND a verifiable supporter of Fascism especially in UK at the time, ELLIOT, is!?????
I can't not comment on JJ's remarks about how TV has it far worse than publishing.
...Well, of course!
TV has never been asserted not to suck! From the start it's been a cooperation between biz and gov't with scarcely the slightest provision or opportunity for quality. I mean, it's whole shtick has been that it has never cared about quality. Heck, Hollywood film is nearly the same.
Art, reviewing and cultural commentary, on the other hand, have been touted as open and searching, especially after the massive rise of indy/folk art in film and music. And folk painting, why not.
JJ: "So once again this isn't really a problem with the publishing industry. It is more along the lines of a high school "why won't they accept me" EMO tract. This is not television."
No, it's more of a let's see why this scene is in the tank and what can be done about it. Has there been a structural or inside-cultural change of note:
JJ: "If you want to know about access being an issue try something limited like getting a job as a writer for television. I wonder if the ULA even deals with Teleplay (TV) writers and Screenplay writers."
Yes, we do. Our artists have often verged into screenplays and film activity and have even been the subject of several projects.
But back to your comment about access to TV being far worse: EXACTLY. It's supposed to be. It is a small scene set around a small set of airwaves designed only to make cash for its concessionaires. It's easy to create and easy to watch so it's also the focus of mass behavior and dynamics. So it's a lot of cash. Big deal. It has all the content of a casino for those involved with it.
JJ: "Go on over to the Done Deal Message Board [ http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/ ] and you will see what it is like to compete where there are few slots."
There are also only a few slots at NASA for astronauts. TV has only trace relations to art. As much creativity and cultural comment goes into a TV show as goes into a NASA troubleshooting project (far less probably).
JJ: "Anyone can publish, promote and distribute a book."
Ha! Again, naive. It's not only a matter of killing trees.
JJ: "The average advance of a published author + costs of marketing at a big house is next to nil anyway. Granted the promotion for the latest XYZ bestseller is going to top 100,000. But with the internet and actual underground sales one can easily sell a few thousand copies, if it has appeal."
---To an easily located and responsive NICHE MARKET, is the new rule. This is also a very limiting new dynamic that our culture needs to understand better. Old boss meet new boss, indeed. It's a new form of segregation.
JJ: "Television waves are regulated by the government. You think a TV writer who wants to create characters saying "FUCK" has the ability to? No, because the government censors TV. He could shoot for HBO or Showtime but those networks, on all shows combined have less than 50 writers.
Screenwriters are just as passionate as novelists, but they are more realistic and surely have it much, much, much harder."
Art has moved beyond the novel, I suspect. Or what we limit the novel to being all too often.
So what if TV is a small pond? It's hard to get a good job at any large business. I mean, there's only a few slots. So TV is a few companies with a few jobs in writing. What's that got to do with art or culture? What's the job limit on art? I never heard there was one. How can you apply to the "new vision of culture" department that all big-game writers work on?
JJ, your view reminds me of how colleges like to say they're training people to be the next generation of employees. So they can be competitive at getting the best jobs. Wheee! ...Education has nothing to do with any of that. That's wimpy voc-tech talk. Fine for the masses---who are they? I'm talking about The People. (Not units in bulk, nothing relating to "markets" that can be "delivered" to anyone.) Education brings out ("edu-care"--latin for "bring out") the reality that's latent in each generation. With education they kick exploiting boss's asses with what they discover *about themselves and their world.*
JJ: "It seems you only wear that INDY tag but [want] to [wear] the corporate one."
We're pushing beyond the current systems that are running literature into the ground. We're happy to work with both indy and corpo structures where suitable but we say that lit/art are above both. We look for talent everywhere not just where it's supposed to be. We assume nothing. (Egger's Valencia does outreach to the poor who supposedly need literacy---playing a role, the charity benefactor---when the poor are out there writing the pants off of what The Dave can imagine. They just need a shot at the title.) We're competitive. We want to kick all their butts. We're contenders. Marketing & Legal call the shots in today's corporate world. We're challenging that paradigm. We start this process by accepting none of it and by shining light on it wherever we can.
Post a Comment