Sunday, February 04, 2007

A Quote

"Minimizing the CIA's role in Encounter because the journal's editors were not simply following orders, however, diverts attention from the large, pernicious consequences of having a clandestine government agancy act as the Ministry of Culture."

-Michael P. Rogin in The Nation, June 12, 2000.

The same might be said about The Paris Review.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dude, get a job and get over yourself. Where do you find the time to obsess about this shit?

Anonymous said...

I gave you shit three years ago, fatty. Tonight, I'm bored and looked you up again. I see you're STILL on about this Eggars fella (whoever the hell that is). This will undoubtedly get your blood pressure up, you worthless nothing who no one cares about, but hold that mirror up and look deep into it and tell me how your little group is any less insular than the "evil organizations" you bitch about.

Jesus, what a waste of time your life is. It's a good thing you have no talent.

jimmy the hyena said...

and no sorry dave the rough trade white trash stuff doesn't do it for us either though I'm sure it goes over big at valencia st.

jimmy grace said...

Off topic, but the Monday report today is righteous.

King said...

Grace, you should be on our side of things, instead of that of the rich assholes who dominate this society, its politics, and yes, also its literature.
Should the ULA make noise?
It's not as if we have that much else to do-- beyond working shitty jobs as most of us do.
Uncredentialed unconnected writers like ourselves are shut out of the process-- so we may as well point out the corruption. Someone has to.
The privileged are upset because someone points out their privilege. You won't see them complain about Paris Review's fifty years of misrepresentation-- but they won't hesitate to scream about the ULA!

jimmy grace said...

Just because I hate the system doesn't mean I have to find you smart.

Here's your new opportunity to get money from me: find a moment where I've spoken up for any rich asshole.

For the record, "Nobody gives a shit" does not constitute speaking up.

Anonymous said...

Not many Peepul know this, but Karl has an Ydentical Twyn Brother. (The Story that Karl has an Ydentical Twyn Couzin is Real False.) This Brother's yclept Krudd Wenclas. But he is Ydentical only on ye Outside. In Person-Al-I-Tee, he is ye Polar Opposite. Scowling Olde King Wenesclas never hath any Funn. Krudd hath Loads of Funn. He hath Ye Threesomes, All ye Tyme, with Bernice Mullins and Jessica Disobedience! And he keepeth yon Iournal about his Doin's. (That's cause he's a Manne, and not a Womanne who keepeth Diarie. Ye Henry Reed distinction.) He just might Share his Record, if ye art good. Yrs, Anti-Yoda (PS I resent being called yon Elizabethan. I come from long ago, and a Galaxie far, far away)

Anonymous said...

Karl's Flick-r Galerie is Funny. There is a Pic of Lisa Carver on Thar. Lisa saith, after she met King: "I like 'em Crazee. But he wasn't Krazee enuff." Dust Off ye Olde Slade Elpees, King.

King said...

But you've defended rich assholes like Rick Moody on this blog-- or at least are there every time we've posted about him; there to tell us to leave him alone.
As if somehow we're picking on a scion of one of the most powerful families in this nation.
I don't think you realize how thoroughly embedded with the upper class the publishing and print-media industries are today, in New York City. Look at New York Social Diary sometime and you'll see rich writers and publishing types often highlighted; visible at swanky parties.
And so the books they hype are of the variety of "Posh" and others of that kind. The perspective is very narrow-minded.
You should put George Plimpton in perspective, the old Mayflower descendent, and realize what he was about. He existed in circles of swanky parties and private clubs. (For all his posturing and occasional slumming, a Rick Moody is little different.)
I saw the publishing world up close when I picketed the National Book Awards (Nov 2005?). A parade of rich tuxedoed assholes on their way to their $10,000 tables; completely disconnected from the populace.
Maybe things are different in San Fran, where you're from. (Yet that also has become a very expensive town to live in.)
There you have bohemian millionaires on the order of Po Bronson and Dave Eggers. Voices of the people, I guess.
When you attack the ULA and what we're doing, you (unknowlingly?) are taking the side of our opponents.
You're taking the side of a clique of well-off well-connected literati who seek to close off literature; to shut down any story about it (like the CIA matter) which might be potentially troubling.
Paris Review, which can be shown to have myriad connections to publishing and print media, is a bastion of that clique.
Here's the choice:
The gap between haves and have-nots is at least as great in our society as it was in 1789 France.
You can side with the aristocrats with their carriages, their ruffles, and their powdered wigs.
Or you can side with us, the "gutter press" who follow in the gutter press tradition of radical writers and self-publishers like Marat and Brissot, who, if I remember my history correctly, were able to change things.
Whose side are you on?

Anonymous said...

Wo. Wait a second. I just read the pieces by your journalist Cummings who started this all. it reads like... I actually worked at Paris Review as a manuscript reader, albeit a zillion years ago. The place where George lived and had his parties was one flight up from the street. There was no elevator. Cummings talks about taking an elevator to the party. It was an old low rise building, there was no elevator and could never have been one.

what's with this guy?

jimmy grace said...

Look again, King. I call Moody all sorts of names. The difference is that I don't think that constitutes a revolutionary act.
You call me "narrow-minded" but then tell me I should be checking out the New York Social Diary. I don't need to do that to know that corporate guys in tuxes aren't the voice of the people, or that they don't make good art. If I say you're lame, I'm speaking up for them? Please. Talk about fascist rhetoric. Next you'll tell me that if I don't like you it means I hate the troops. Sorry, I call it like I see it. I see a guy who thinks bothering guys in tuxes is a revolutionary act. What do you think you're going to accomplish that way? Do you think Rick Moody's going to say, "Wait a minute! You're right!"
I live in Oakland - I got priced out of San Francisco, and soon I'll be priced out of here, too. But I won't stop making art. Also, I won't stand outside McSweeney's yelling about injustice. If that makes me a corporate tool, well, then tell me where to pick up my fucking check, because the CIA seems to have lost my address.

Scott said...

wait. I just read the pieces by Richard Cummings that started this all. He talks about taking an elevator to a Plimpton party. I actually worked at Paris Review as manuscript reader, albeit a zillion years ago. there was never any elevator. it was an old low rise walk up building. there could never be any elevator at a building like that.

what's with this guy?

Scott said...

let's see... it was the oppressive Jimmy Carter government that prevented Richard Cummings from publishing a book about Ethiopia... which must have been a very important place back then. But the regime of Dick Cheney now let's you publish its supersecrets.

right.

chapman said...

plimpton hosted parties at lots of places, including one in a long island mansion (owned, of course, by some friend of his).

a guy i know went to that party. lauren bacall and peter jennings were there...supposed to be a literary gathering. my friend loved it, but he was like that.

GP'd be perfectly capable of hosting a party at some pals's stupid pied-a-terre on york avenue with an elevator. so i don't think you're on to something.

King said...

"Grace," once again you're discrediting yourself.
Do you really believe that the ULA's campaign against Rick Moody was name-calling?
Or did we not document the guy's intrinsic corruption in applying for and receiving a $35 thou grant (to me a huge amount of money) which he clearly didn't need; then later awarding other monies to his buddies.
These were real issues which needed to be discussed.
You also miss my point about "Social Diary" et.al. I'm pointing out the milieu in which offical literature today is embedded. Do you really dispute this?
All the major U.S. publishing housesd are based in NYC. The decision makers at these houses are from a very narrow world. As are the leading editors at the major magazines, the individuals who decide which books are promoted. (And so we get: Jonathan Safran Foer and Marisha "Million-Dollar" Pessl.)
Are they American culture? Are they the voice of America now?
Or instead, the voice of a narrow sliver of overeducated puppets who don't think very deeply but do know how to play by the rules.

jimmy grace said...

For the gazillionth time, I agree that much of today's mainstream literature is crap. And it's crap that makes a handful of people rich. (See also visual art, music, film, television, food...)

That's why I work with other artists to make cool alternatives. You, on the other hand, prefer to attack people - and yeah, I'd call your tactics namecalling. Look at your own list of actions - harassing writers by mail and in person, bugging people in tuxes, shouting about where richboy magazines get their money. Meanwhile, artists I work with are drawing bigger and bigger crowds on a tour.

Which approach sounds like Elvis, your favorite metaphor? I must have missed Elvis's early albums in which he complained about polkas.

King said...

Elvis needed to go to New York to become huge. Even then, the distribution of culture was centralized (but not as much as now).
Part of what we're doing is provoking people, sure. Trying to wake people up.
Yes, we could do nothing but put on literary shows.
Right now there are hundreds, if not thousands, of writers groups doing exactly that.
Only one is following a different path-- the one you happen to be most concerned about.
(You're not interested in our shows, on the other hand. There's not one post by you on that thread. And yet our shows, as well as our personal appearances, are known for their excitement.)
Btw, we follow more historical analogies than just Elvis. I've studied influential movements throughout history. The ones who prevailed were not the largest but were the most balls-to-the wall. And yes, they knew they had to be at the center of action.
The Christian cult, after all, was only one of hundreds of mystery religions and Jewish sects. The Essenes were a noted contrast, because they did not confront the world, but instead pushed their ideas through their local situation.
They vanished into the dust, to be dug up ten thousand years later as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Christians on the other hand traveled to the heart of empire, to Rome itself, and for good or ill transformed the empire and the world.
Was Lenin conforntational?
Did he not travel to the Finland Station?
Didn't he face down his own followers during the October Revolution, when he saw the system ready to be overturned?
They were the smallest political party but the most committed to change, which is why they prevailed. Again, for good or ill-- I'm studying their tactics and what worked; not the ideas themselves.

King said...

Here's the bottom line, "Grace."
Follow your tactics, and more power to you. I wish you all success.
But you're not JUST doing your shows. You're also spending a great deal of time attacking our way of doing things.
Why is that?
Isn't there room enough in this culture to attempt various paths?
We can try to change corrupt status-quo culture from various directions.
There's room enough for everyone.
Yet you seem to want no room for us.

jimmy grace said...

Hey,I'd come to your shows if I was in town. I don't comment on them because I'm not there. And yeah, there are thousands of groups promoting their own work. But you don't want to be like them. You'd rather insult people. You know, just like Elvis did. And Christ. Give me a fucking break.
I'm off to eat lunch if I don't throw up thinking of you comparing yourself to bonafide activist movements.

jimmy grace said...

And there you go with "no room for us." What the fuck? Who's stopping you? How does a single negative comment have any real power over what you do? Are you really so fucking timid that you can't take the slightest bit of argument? Gosh, eek, somebody doesn't like me, I'm being crushed!!

King said...

Please. People have felt "insulted," by our protests, sure, but our entire campaign has been constructed on a solid foundation of documenting corruption, often point-by-point, the Moody/grants matter one example. (The Big Money takeover of CLMP a more recent issue.) Funny that you won't discuss that matter.
(As for our public actions: At one of the more infamous, Housing Works in 2003, we were thrown out by requesting that effette writers discuss not just candy bars and trees, but the looming war.)

King said...

Well explain then, "Grace," how a few negative comments from us appear so threatening to the anonymous posters on this blog?
The fact is that we can take the heat.
Does anyone from the other side open himself up for questions on a continual basis?
Moody? Eggers? Franzen?
How long would they last if they did?
We already know that Eggers can tolerate very little criticism. The evidence for this is in the Gessen essay-- and the fact that it was squelched.

Scott said...

The ULA journalist said a party at George Plimpton's HOME... and he took an elevator. Anyone who has stood outside that building, let alone stepped inside to the Paris Review office on the ground floor, or to a party at the apartment one flight up would know THERE WAS NO ELEVATOR!!!

I don't think that guy ever stepped foot in.

Scott said...

In Cummings ULA piece, did Shana Alexander really say that?

Has anyone called her and double-checked?

Jeff Potter said...

I think it's fine that "Grace" is having success on his niche-market tour, but he should feel free to make some noise or stake a claim one way or another about about the bigger game as well.

JG, do you resent indy art being relegated to the niches?

Do you resent world lit, "big art" being treated like a niche as well?

I personally also do a lot of work in the niches. I see what goes on in the bigger picture, too. I see how indy artists COULD be offering a lot of fresh action to vitalize the "world lit" scene. The good big art AND the good niche art are in the indy scene.

It doesn't bug you that the big scene has crude cheat systems in place that prevents the kind of excitement and access we find in the indy niches?

The process you went thru to bring your art to your popular indy venues WOULD NOT WORK if you had something bigger to say to the culture.

As you as you step outside a specialty, minor niche, you would be PREVENTED. By fancy lads.

Doesn't that get yer goat?

I mean, if you were familiar with artists who had world talent, would it get your goat to see them being prevented?

Maybe you're satisfied in your indy niche. Or maybe you find yourself pushing against its ceiling a bit. And maybe you know folks who are rammed hard up FLAT against its ceiling.

Why not speak out on their behalf? Are you so content with your niche and with saying that "sure most everything else major is crap"? Why give it to them like that?

jimmy grace said...

Jeff Potter,

"The process you went thru to bring your art to your popular indy venues WOULD NOT WORK if you had something bigger to say to the culture."

How the fuck would you know? You have no idea what this art is saying to people. 100 people at a bar seeing new art is not a niche. That's WAY better than any bookstore reading featuring some asskissing hack.

By drawing crowds like these, artists get exposure. That exposure grows - we've gotten some press out of this tour. Some artists will get offers from corporate entities. Whether they'll take these offers, and whether they'll keep doing good work if they do, is an open question. But it sure as fuck looks like a strategy.

jimmy grace said...

And King,
Let me get this straight:
1. You crash a reading in New York.
2. You insult the participants. (Oh, I'm sorry, I mean you call them "effete" and ask them to discuss something else.)
3. You get thrown out.

This is a tactic? Did even a single person follow you out, saying, "I'd rather listen to the ULA than to the people I came to see"? NO.


Lastly, here are two quotes from you:

As an explanation for shutting down your comments section after some people got mad at you:

"I need a break from the ghosts, a couple days to think this out. Then I'll be looking for answers."

And:
"The fact is that we can take the heat. "

What-fucking-ever. If you'll excuse me I'm going to stop arguing and hit the sketchbooks, because I'm not quite deluded enough to think that my comments here are "revolutionary." The revolution is in making art.

Jeff Potter said...

JG: How would I know? Because it hasn't been done. Well, not in literature anyway. Maybe "Fight Club" did it. Once in 30 years. Ouch, that's bad. You can't get there from here. Music and film seem to have more ways out, more escapists from little to big, but even there it's shaky. But you tell me...

You said you're doing a queer-sex-art tour. You're getting good turn-out from those HOBBYISTS. Yeah, it's even more annoying than calling it a niche. But that's the dynamic, that's how and why it works. It's an interest group. They're the converted. Preach away. Welcome to indy culture's turf. It does help with you being urban in style and attractive to the alt.tabloids---a big splash can be made. But can the jump be made?

And, sure, some bigwigs might hear about some of your talent and siphon them off---to do what they're hired to do for their corporate masters and keep their mouths shut. As you hint at.

I haven't heard of it being a comfy transition. But maybe it happens more often in other artforms.

A ULA position is that Lit is the biggest art and is therefore kept down the hardest. We have fewer escapees from the genres into the big leagues. There's more dragqueens making it from the small tours to Hollywood, I'm sure.

However, I like hearing about exceptions. Or hearing about how strategies and dynamics compare.

You got all worked up. Do you folks really hope this tour might mean a break-thru to the bigtime? Maybe it will happen. More power to you.

We should tour more, too.

Making noise at readings might seem counterproductive, but it's actually worked for us a few times. The people at the readings we've spoken out at might all be into the tree poems but other folks reading about the protests seem to get into them sometimes. But we don't put all our hopes on our protests. We cover our bases.

jimmy grace said...

Hobbyists, please. We get a young crowd that buys drinks, books, CDs, posters and T-shirts. OK, they're generally queerfriendly, but who isn't these days? I don't see a lot of Bush supporters at mainstream lit readings. But it's cool. You can belittle it. You know why? Because we're not making any grandiose claims of revolution. We're just making art.

King said...

Well, yes, you're basically harmless. You're "just making art."
About Housing Works:
In truth we were very civil, reasonable, and polite. Such is (was?) our reputation that our very presence sets people off.
There were five of us in a crowd of 300. Avery preppy crowd, very Ivy League, reeking of privilege. Do these remarks show my prejudices. Well, I guess, but it doesn't detract from the truth of the matter.
The readings, in our book, were horrendous. Preppy humor. During a break we began asking questions of the main readers. We asked for a discussion of the war. We were asked to leave instead. Fine, we made our point. (Then, standing on the sidewalk outside, talking with Yarrow Regan and her friends-- they did not at the time know us-- a commotion started when the ULA's Leah Smith merely snapped a photo of a literary person. . . .)
Surely, "Grace," if you've met such people you well know their supreme arrogance. They're not at all down to earth.
The ULA is in fact quite laid back, as those who've met us can testify.

King said...

Note how the anonymous posters on this blog desperately seek to change the subject away from the CIA-in-literature story to flaws, imagined or real, of the ULA and myself. As if what we lowly writers could ever do would compare with the infiltration of the highest levels of American culture by the largest and best-funded intelligence operation on the planet. Information and disinformation are the tools of these people, who truly know every trick in the book because they wrote most of them.

Pat_King said...

I have no opinion on the Paris Review thing. But I do have to say that, as it relates the the Lemony Snickett/Handler matter, that letter was fake. Grace, do you really think that Karl wouldn't sign his name, if he had written the letter? The letter's online, you can still read it. The tone doesn't match.

Please quit bringing this up.

Chief said...

Quite separate from Jimmy, my antagonism (since you seem open to it, King) stems from the fact that you want to legislate what good writing is.

I'm a writer--a good one. I don't think the mainstream is ready to stand up and say, "This chief guy can write the hell out of a story", but, from the limited exposure I've had in the media, critics ARE prepared to say, "Yeah, this guy can write."

I don't have a pot to piss in, King, but critics like me. I'm not connected, I didn't graduate from an Ivy League school, and I couldn't live off of the earnings of my writing if my life depended on it, and yet, some surprisingly famous critics have praised my writing.

This is really my bone of contention with you guys, since we're all being relaxed and honest for a change: my wife pays the bills, not me, and yet, you would have stand up against the wall and be shot because I've been critically appreciated.

The absurdity of that makes me want to kill all of you guys. You think my little notices in W, X, Y, and Z magazines make me an oppressor? Fuck off. I worked my ass off on my books, and that's what I get for it: a few a columns of ink and a fight with my publisher to get my next one into print.

In the meantime, you're advising everyone to write like Sir Walter Scott as if you have any idea what you're talking about, and praising Allen Ginsburg as the ultimate anti-academic...

It doesn't make any sense! Not to one serious writer. Take a fucking poll, for fuck's sake!

who thinks that everyone should write a rock'n'roll epic a la King?

And who thinks writers should write whatever is most interesting or important to them?

Do you fucking get it now?

Of course you don't, because you're a buncha psycho imbecilles, but at least I said it. And that's it: I'm not ever throwing my 2 cents in here again.

You idiots have completely and permanently undermined my faith in human intelliegence.

Good bye forever.

Chief said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jooky said...

First off, I'm the anonymous poster who said this fool has no life and wastes his time, and that no one cares.

Jimmy the hyena: I'm not Dave Eggars. I don't even know who Dave Eggars is, outside of what I've read of your fixations.

Secondly, you define good literature by your standards only and bitch because, even using those self-made definitions, no one cares about you or your little world.

Lastly, your behavior truly is paranoid, delusional, and megalomaniacal. If this is not an act, you really should think about getting some help.

Also, "It's not as if we have that much else to do-- beyond working shitty jobs as most of us do.
Uncredentialed unconnected writers like ourselves are shut out of the process"--that's a cop out. Think about what you could have done with your life if you had focused on doing something positive and beneficial over the past five-ish years, instead of wasting your time bitching and surrounding yourself with others who bitch.

Really, your lack of initiative, combined with your voracious justification of such, is enough to dishearten anyone.

But, if it makes you happy...

King said...

Funny that posters here are turning reality completely on its head.
The ULA legislate what is or isn't considered good writing? The most powerless writers in society, who have no standing, no access to mainstream publications or intellectual journals? WE'RE setting the standards?
In fact we have a gigantic system for producing literature which IS setting standards, such as they are, in large part through ever-present writing programs and the ever-more-needed MFA degree. They're enforcing a sterile kind of homogenized conformity in writing.
I suggest folks examine literary journals over the past twenty-five years, their poems and stories-- thousands upon thousands of them-- and you'll see what's being "legislated." Meanwhile writing which is original or truthful or crude or real or too loud is shut out; my style of writing and others' styles of writing.
This is reality.
Ask yourself: who has the power for legislating writing in this culture? Why and how has literature become marginalized in this culture? IS there something wrong with what's being produced and handed to the public?
Yes, pushed to the margins; isolated on the tiny island of a few blogs attached to a web site, we've somehow obtained power over a massively gigantic system producing literature. Absurdity.
What we're fighting for is a tiny opening in the door; for a small space of ground for our kind of writers to stand on, next to the mass of "Conformists with Money" (see my 2006 Monday Report) whose kind of craft overwhelmingly dominates.
(In a way your charge is a compliment to the strength of our voice, which is all we have.)

jimmy the hyena said...

Do you want me to fixate on you Dave? Would that be validating for you? You're just a product, like Big Mac or Coca Cola. You're only going to be as big as your marketing campaign. Really you're just Michael Jackson or Madonna for liberal arts grads with pseudo-intellectual pretentions. Oh and that's spelled Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers,Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers,Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers,Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers,Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers,Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers,Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers,Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers, Dave Eggers,
then again maybe you're more like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton Having lesbian sex

King said...

Regarding paranoia, bitching, et.al.
It's not paranoia if it's true. The Matthiessen revelations shows there's some fire to go with the smoke.
We've tried to document, during the course of our short history, what we've said. We've bolstered our arguments with evidence-- such as in the CLMP matter; or in our early "Special Report" about the NEA; or in the current Monday Report by Tom Hendricks and in other Monday Reports.
SOMEONE has to do this work. If not us-- who else? You?
Has it been a worthwhile investment of our time? I don't know. In a sense it's been, looking at the way we have on occasion gotten the word out.
I do know that the standard way of doing things IS a waste of time; sending out manuscript after manuscript to be tossed into slush piles which anymore exist in the East River; my writing if the envelopes ever are opened to be considered by attorneys of bourgeois conformity who don't have a clue what I or writers like me are getting at or talking about. (Two of the most original novelists of now, folk writers, organically grown, Jack Saunders and Bill Blackolive, are beyond the comprehension of standard-issue demi-puppets.)
We're actually trying to take the most rational course.
If literature is corrupt and irrelevant, create your own.
Which is what the ULA is doing.
There's an excitement to this campaign-- and yes, to these arguments, in which literature and the exchange of ideas LIVES.
Would you be here otherwise?

King said...

(Meanwhile we have a poster saying he wants to kill all of us, while complaining that he has to fight with his publisher to get his next book into print. That's my fault?
I get e-mails all the time from writers complaining that their major-house publishers do little or nothing to promote their books.
That's my fault?
The entire system is in need of change.
We believe we have one solution: writers in control of every step of the process.
We've walked off the reservation. The freedom of it is scary yet also exhilarating.
Those still enclosed on the well-regulated camp sound envious.)

Jeff Potter said...

JG, I'm not belittling indy culture by saying that it's been given the niches and kept out of the bigger game. The cultural system has done the relegating, not me!

I'm just noticing the dynamics and wondering what can be done about it. And I'm trying a few things to change it, myself.

***

Chief, why cry and run? We make noise about work that we like. We don't exclude, we focus. We can't do everything at once. That's sweet that you get acclaim. Now, what are you going to do to break out of whatever bind you feel your work or others to be caught in? (Do others figure in?) I work with a wide variety of writing. A lot of it is worthy of wider exposure. But I pick a few things to push hardest, a few extreme cases, because I think they can get attention better. If we can break one through the gap, benefits for others would follow. Now, writers can be a bit self-centered, let's say. (Chief?) But really we've done pretty good and might do better soon. I plan to do a full line of ULA PRESS books asap (2 out already) and get each writer out there raving about their work, doing readings---and hauling around the others' work, too. Get some critical mass for synergy. It could happen. And, really, it's a big tent. We have all kinds of writers. We don't exclude someone because they've been reviewed in the journals. Members can do as they like. If a chance comes up to highlight someone else, we do it. Anyway, we'll do readings, zeen/book shows, letter-writing campaigns...and sidewalk protests and party crashings as op's arise. --As the cases arise that give us a chance to make noise about the hilarious contrasts involved. --Like when a millionaire gets a taxpayer grant while a better writer (wave book around) is presently homeless...while the establishment declares the system works. It's fun stuff. Might even work. We'll try to get Lit some noise in "People," "USA Today" and "National Enquirer" but not (just) because of its celebrity aspect...for its IDEAS and RELEVANCE as they relate to the emptiness of the panicking celebrity writers...Hook!..."No pictures please! What money?"

chilly charlie said...

Hey, Jimmy bud,

Don't you just hate poseurs like Dean Haspiel?

I think he's a classic demi-puppet posing as a real underground artist.

Fuck him and his Brooklyn chinese restaurants,

And fuck Tim Hall, eh?

chilly charlie said...

Let's talk about Dean Haspiel.

He supports Tim Hall's campaign of hate against this blog.

Boycott his work.