As a gesture of good will, I'm removing the reference to pods in this blog's Profile. I've also made another change for politically correct reasons, meeting critics halfway.
I'm also willing to overlook differences of opinion with Moody-spokesman "Harland," to pursue instead those points we can agree upon; chiefly the belief in democracy in literature. In coming days I'll propose an area in which we might be able to work together toward that goal.
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
-
▼
2008
(228)
-
▼
May
(36)
- Censorship?
- A PEN Quote
- The Dishonesty Brigade
- New Links
- Peace Gesture
- The PEN Board
- Miscalculation
- Two Undergrounds
- A Crazy Tale
- "Burning Mansions"
- Letter to PEN
- The Island
- Poem
- Points of Agreement?
- Defenders of Corruption
- New York Oz: The Reality
- Backwards
- Who's Harland?
- Victory Denied?
- More Writing!
- About Teaching
- The Monolith
- Tactic
- Smugness
- Is It True?
- Montezuma
- The Pod Way
- The Obligation of Students
- Why Change?
- Pathetically Bad
- "Star Spangled Poet II"
- To the Demi-Puppets
- This Blog
- The Gessen Problem
- Breaking the Stranglehold
- New York Media S.O.S.
-
▼
May
(36)
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
8 comments:
So the defender of freedom of speech caves. I guess we see how strong your principles are now, don't we? You're giving in to censorship, to the established ways of thinking, things you speak out against.
But retreating a bit and understanding that other people feel and think differently from yourself is a wise strategy.
You well point out what a no-win situation I'm in when dealing with the demi-puppets of the mainstream.
Keep in mind that I'm from the zeen (zine) world, where all things and everything could and was printed. Very refreshing. The reader can sort things out for himself. I plan eventually to return to that scene when I can no longer stomach the so-called "mainstream."
EVERYBODY feels differently about things. It's part of being a human being.
We DON'T get to see those differences in the approved lit-scene, unfortunately.
We'll see if Mr. Moody is willing to compromise. So far he hasn't budged.
King,
I'm gratified to see that you say you're willing to move beyond the politics of the personal insult. And yet here, in your comments section, you bow to the slightest pressure -- one comment criticizing you for caving in to common decency, to restraint from overbroad statements, and you're right back to referring to anyone who doesn't agree with you as a "demi-puppet of the mainstream." Well, nevertheless I look forward to your plans.
By the way, I spoke to Rick this weekend. I told him that you remained concerned about the Guggenheim he received eight years ago. At first he thought he'd gotten it longer ago, but together we checked the records and, indeed, it was eight years ago. Rick told me that despite your insistence that he is wealthy beyond measure, that time in his life was filled with significant hardship. I wonder if you recall the brief reversal in real estate prices in New York City at the end of the 90s. Rick explained that he'd sold his co-op then and taken quite a loss on it -- the Guggenheim was necessary for him to live in the manner to which he'd become accustomed.
Curious sarcasm, as it's self-defeating.
I hope Mr. Moody will cooperate with what we're doing-- it'll be in his interest. Kind of a bold, Nixon-in-China move that would only bolster his credibility and his reputation.
The Guggenheim is not awarded based on financial need. It clearly says that on the Guggenheim website. Can you find something else to criticize Moody about?
And yes, King, it is a no-win situation when you say one thing and do another.
"Curious sarcasm, as it's self-defeating.
I hope Mr. Moody will cooperate with what we're doing-- it'll be in his interest. Kind of a bold, Nixon-in-China move that would only bolster his credibility and his reputation."
It's very difficult to avoid sarcasm with you, King.
I'm sure Moody's only interested in bolstering his literary reputation, not his reputation as a politician. That would be your specialty, inept as you are at it.
All these anonymous statements of course side-step the main points.
Yes, the Guggenheim grant was strictly "legal," according to how that foundation has been corrupted from its original vision.
Did that make the grant ethically and morally right?
Let me remind you that the Guggenheim family was granted tax-free status for that pool of money, originally, with the idea that it was going to be used for philanthropic purposes.
Does giving scarce arts grant money to the person who least needs it qualify?
The Guggenheim family, in fact, was noted for its charity-- they KNEW the vast class differences in this country; the differences in opportunity, and did much to try to alleviate those differences.
The award to Rick Moody was a slap in the face to those principles.
Just one more example of how the upper class scams. If the money isn't going to be used for its original purpose, then it should be taxed-- it should never have been sheltered in the first place!
The rich get richer. . . .
PEN, by the way, follows in this same recent tradition. This "public charity" lasy year gave its largest literary award to Philip Roth, one of the most successful writers in the country.
Does he qualify as a charity case?
Hey, King.
Maybe, because literature is so inherently uplifting, what with all those social qualities it has that you keep talking about here, maybe they gave that Guggenheim to Moody because they figured the little people, the common man, Mr. Front Porch, would get uplifted from reading it. Imagine, all those armies of people feeling relief from their woes and cares after reading a book. And all for $35,000 seed money. Almost seems worth it.
Maybe they should give a Guggenheim to Alice Sebold next.
Post a Comment