Thursday, December 11, 2008

Counter-Rebellion Goals

BACKGROUND

The goals of the counter-insurgency against the literary rebellion-- which I've been writing about in fictionalized form at the Literary Mystery blog (yes, I'm behind on it)-- were several. One of the objectives was to discredit me with the larger literary community, and also with the ULA itself.

The latter was accomplished in a couple ways.

A.) To make it look like any stalls in group progress were due to the noise I was making. (Never mind that the ULA gained a national profile through such noise.)

An example of this was blogger Dan Green combining an attack on myself with a positive review of ULA books. This created the illusion: "If only. . . ." If only Wenclas wasn't around, the books would be a great success. I knew the implications as soon as I read his post-- that my days of activity with the ULA were numbered.

B.) The use of at least one mole within the ULA.

The ULA campaign, which assumed strong blowback against us, could work only if the team was completely united. It was a short-cut up the mountain, but an extremely difficult short-cut. To have individuals within the group, plants or not, questioning every aspect of the campaign created fingerpointing, backbiting, and doubt-- especially among those who'd been hesitant about the strategy and tactics from the start.

2 comments:

Bob said...

Karl, how could any "unified" "literary rebellion" achieve anything without fingerpointing, etc., when you brook NO dissent? You can't entertain the merits of ANY argument made against the positions you take and the opinions you express. When asked to elaborate you offer NOTHING except the Wenclas line, restated yet again. You are your own counterinsurgency. You are impossible to work with.

King said...

Examples? Evidence?
What you express here is the counter-rebellion narrative. How much truth is there to it?
I admit my objective was to keep the campaign on course. We achieved some amazing things, shook up the lit world without question, but could have done so much more.
Would it have been worth following my "line"?