IMAGINING THE IMPOSSIBLE
ONE reason my ambitious plans to transform literature haven't been realized, aside from a total lack of resources, is that I've been pushed to an isolated corner of the literary map through fear and blackballing. My expanding blog network will eventually break me out of this, but I hope to speed up things.
1.) The boycott of my blogs and their growing readership by the main establishment-oriented lit-blogs is senseless. Maud, for instance, links to every obscure lit-blog on the planet, including many defunct ones, but pretends this blog doesn't exist. Talk about a Cold War mentality! The result is to shut out the kind of radical new ideas which the stagnant lit-world badly needs. Readers should be urging them to reverse this.
2.) I seek adventurous allies willing to join a planned future new assault on the status quo lit-world. My move to Detroit has been a tactical retreat, that's all. After the tremendous noise made by the initial stage of the campaign, does anyone believe I'll not rework the strategy and put together another wave?
What's to be gained? Everything! For starters, the excitement of making literary history. With the right ideas and energy we can reinvent the art, in so doing multiplying its audience. Steps toward accomplishing this goal are being put into place. . . .
What I'd like to hear from readers isn't more of the "It can't be done" naysaying I've been bombarded with, but suggestions about what stories, poems, products, personalities will give lit a radically new look and attract a mass audience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Note: Title graphics color has been temporarily changed to black, in mourning for the sad fate of noted demi-puppet "Harland."
I ask the ULA to put its pirate flag at half mast.
You haven't really demonstrated that "Harland" has been outed. You said you know who he is, but you haven't stated who that is publicly.
Of course, the bigger issue is that it doesn't matter who Harland is. The arguments he has made are worthy regardless of who makes them.
But that's something you don't seem to understand, so I might as well be talking to a wall.
I guess you're just claiming victory wherever you can get it?
King's rogue's gallery is so small, and he clings so tightly to his delusions of relevance to a certain group of people, I'm betting he's decided that Harland is Handler. Any takers?
Yes, I think this is Karl's "Mission Accomplished" moment.
I don't know who you people are but I KNOW you.....
Karl,
Have you written to Maud and the others asking them to link to you? Without accusing them of blackballing you?
I wonder is this really a lit blog? I think perhaps some of your others are lit blogs but is this a lit blog? It seems more like a place where you forcefully express your opinions.
I would be happy to take you up on your offer to challenge the status quo. By what means? And while I do not reject the idea of popularity out of hand, is a suggestion invalid if it does not attract a mass audience?
Populism isn't a problem; it's "the" problem. It's about how power structures need to label people in order to classify them and exclude those who don't conform. This shouldn't really be my problem at all as the united states of america is no longer my country but unfortunately america's elites profiting from the the power base that was created by and continues to be maintained by its underclasses use their influence to persecute those who might be opposed to their propaganda.
Jimmy,
I agree with you. This raises a philosophical question. Is such populism the project of literature, is it the project of literature and all of the arts, is it the project of politicians, or is it the proejct of literature working hand in glove with politically active people.
Connie Pease said,King's rogue's gallery is so small, and he clings so tightly to his delusions of relevance," You know this for a fact? Maybe you should research this a little.
Do you have some reason for making this up?
The dispute between me and Harland is between me and Harland. As I've said, it's personal. It's also a person I'd rather not attack, given a choice. As I've said, I'm looking for allies.
My ideas stand well. I'm arguing for, and have been trying to construct, an alternative literature-- or really, to put American literature BACK in the mainstream of American culture.
Pick up a copy of a lit journal like N+1 and ask yourself: who does this appeal to? A tiny tiny segment of people. It's an artistic dead end. It doesn't even present itself as any kind of voice of America. The question isn't even addressed. It's the voice of globe-trotting jet-setting Ivy League would-be Overdogs more concerned, as Imperialists would be, with actions in places like Turkey.
This kind of dead-end mindset, propagated for a reason-- as I'll address-- would be so easy to outdo and overthrow it's not funny.
One thing the underground needs is its own lit journal presenting a new American literature; new ideas; new art.
p.s. Harland isn't Handler. (You're surely presupposing intelligence Mr. Handler doesn't have.)
Handler was never of any interest to me whatsoever-- I'd never heard of him before he intro'd himself to me in a rude way. I have no interest in children's literature-- though I guess the idea that this character is involved with it is kind of scary.
I threw him into "Literary Mystery" because he seemed to be an obvious lackey of, well, you figure it out. He's since objected, so expect the character of "Ogre" to vanish. (New episodes upcoming, by the way. I've been tardy for sound reasons.)
To John,
Uh, you haven't stated who YOU are publicly. What a friggin hypocrite and phony.
Read Richette's book yet?
Hmm, so you shut down a commenter who was arguing with your philosophy by investigating him and then personally attacking him. Well, that's your way.
Good luck with finding allies.
Explain how I am a hypocrite, if you can.
First of all, I use my real name. Second, I've never demanded that you give Harland's identity. I just pointed out that you are mourning something that no one else has any reason to believe even happened. It's personal, that's a good argument, though a bit late. Also, why should the ULA put its flag at half mast if it is a private matter?
No, I haven't read Richette's book. The plot doesn't appeal to me. Furthermore, you are the one who first mentioned a review of his work, then never did it. I simply wondered when you were ever going to make good on the real work you talk about so much. Finally you did post the review. While I don't think the review is very objective, it's the first time in a long time that you have actually promoted literature instead of just talking about it. Maybe you should thank me for getting you moving.
Just because you post a review you said you were going to post, doesn't mean that everyone who reads it is required to read the book. Actually, a good review shouldn't be trying to persuade at all.
I've never been interested in Richette's work. I was interested in seeing if you were actually ever going to promote any literature, seeing as how you say that's what needs to be done. If you're going to rely on outside prodding to get you to make good on your word, then you're in for a long battle indeed.
It's personal as in, you confronted Harland with his true identity and he agreed not to post comments any more?
I just wonder because, you know, it's an interesting kind of a coincidence that when Harland announces that he's bored of arguing with Karl, and then stops posting, Karl announces that he knows who Harland is and suggests that he used that knowledge to make him stop.
What was the dispute between you and Harland? I don't understand that either. You mean a dispute beyond the arguments he was making in his comments or is there some personal dispute that influenced him to make those comments or what do you mean, Karl?
??? If it's personal, I can't really talk about it, can I?
I'll just say that there was a game within the game; that I was lucky enough to pick up a dropped hint from Harland, and H. then picked up a few hints from myself.
Don't think I disrespect this person, though our differences are more than you know. Harland on the other hand has absolutely zero respect for myself, which should hearten all of you.
********************
"John" hand is a joke. He's using his real name. What is that? John, of course!
Oh, okay. We know now you're completely on the level, whoever you are. No agenda at all. After all, you've told us who you are: John!
Re my "half-mast" quote: I think some people take what I say all too seriously! Lighten up a bit, Mr. Hypocrite.
p.s. All answers to the questions Neville etc are asking are already IN the past discussion between Harland and myself. We were talking on more than one level. . . . I'm not nearly as smart as Mr. Harland, but I have unusual perception. . . . Sometimes to survive in life you have to notice everything going on.
*************************
And that's enough about that. Harland is gone. Let's move on.
Harland is Lee Klein, isn't he?
Your calls for openness and honesty, King, ring very false, now that you're suddenly shrouding your own dealings.
It doesn't matter who Harland is. He said he kept his identity secret so you wouldn't launch personal attacks against him, as you do with so many writers. Looks like you discovered who he was, and then threatened to reveal him if he didn't stop posting. Total bullshit, below-the-belt behavior - all so you could duck the kind of arguments you say you encourage.
Well King, John is my real first name. You can believe that or not, your call. I noticed you use "King" instead of Karl. King is not your real name, but a nickname. So putting down Harland for not using his real name makes YOU the hypocrite.
Everyone has an agenda. Mine is to have fun arguing with you because it's so easy.
Also, you still didn't explain how I am a hypocrite.
Karl, are you saying that Harland was saying things that don't mean what they seemed to mean to me and to others? Is everything always so deeply coded? I'm just a simple reader, writer, listener and so I see things on face level and will surely grant that I may have missed what you picked up. But all of that? It seems to me and from what I gather from others here that Harland said everything he had to say and said he was leaving. Not to question you but if he comes back will you reveal him.
And who is Lee Klein? Just curious.
I don't think Lee even reads this blog. Though I didn't think "Harland" did either.
Not code-- but if I'm very familiar with "Harland," and the person uses a phrase in passing which immediately identifies the person. . . .
My own hints were rather more obvious.
But enough of this!
The fact is that Harland came onto this blog under a false identity with malicious intent-- to attack and embarrass me. The peanut gallery welcomed this until I began to fight back.
Yes, my name is Karl Wenclas. I make no effort to hide myself or my agenda; I take responsibility for my statements and put myself, my own valued identity (valued to me), up for correction and attack.
Very few of the posters here are able to do likewise.
Karl,
What was the phrase? I am just curious because if its someone whose familiar to you but not to me, and why should he or she be?, then there'd be no way to tell who this individual is from my perspective. I am just very curious too because, you know, sometimes you act like there are more importrant things than, knowing how to read carefully or checking out the sentences and what they say and how they're phrased and or written, and I'm gratefied to see demonstrated that you possess certain acumen in this aspect of your writing endeavors and interests too after all. When you confronted him or her was he or she embarassed that you discovered his or her truthful identity. It must have been quite a moment of self-reflection for this individual.
Harland attacked your arguments and just when you were losing the argument you suddenly made him quit through a back door. If this were the Wild West (as you fantasize) you'd be shooting men in the back while you cheated at poker. I wonder how that'll work out for you.
... whatever, more important developments in the comment section of the "Import" post.
The analogy about "shooting someone in the back" is kind of misplaced coming from someone who's anonymous!
As Harland was.
No, I don't skulk around; am upfront and open.
Or, as said in the classic western "Ride the High Country,"
I proceed head up and straight on.
Post a Comment