Saturday, December 13, 2008

Note to a Mole

I'll get to a number of points of this (counterrebellion) story, trying not to overwhelm the reader with a mass of data I've accummulated. The best way to do it is to remain focused on the story's key points:
A.) The Bigger Story.
B.) Moles.

"B" is important because it has implications for the ULA, past and future. Right now the question is one mole, who I've called "Guildenstern" at Literary Mystery.

There may be no more scorned figure in literature and life than the turncoat, for good reason. He's disliked by everyone-- disliked most by those who employ him. Noteworthy to me is how little the person ever gains-- while losing so much in self-respect and reputation.

I think of an earlier mole, "Rosencrantz," who left the ULA with a splash of outrage, received a brief write-up by ubiquitous Maud, then returned to the status of literary pariah.

What motivates these people?

Two things. 1.) Lack of faith. 2.) Ego.

Benedict Arnold, for instance, didn't believe the colonists could win. Temporary setbacks encouraged his pessimism. At the same time, being fairly brilliant, he had contempt for Washington's abilities. George Washington wasn't the sharpest guy around, in that age of brilliance, but he trumped others with his steadfastness and his honesty-- the very qualities Benedict Arnold didn't have.

Ego: many who came into the ULA weren't impressed with me. I have many failings. They didn't feel it just that I'd received so much publicity, when they were clearly more capable.

It's been sad then to see both Rosencrantz and Guildenstern stumble about in what I call the ULA-Replacement Inocuous Nonentities Enterprise (U.R.I.N.E.), which is a kind of ULA without the activism or the noise. It's a home for declawed hobbyists. Everyone wears a smiley face. Nobody makes waves-- ever. Not quite the forum for R. and G. to display their own leadership abilities. One doesn't lead a cause among those who reject any cause.

"Fantastic! Great!" In such a place, compliments and plaudits have no meaning, because they're given to everybody.

Oh: About "A." I'll discuss the bigger picture another day.
************************
It occurs to me that if Guildenstern related his history of being a mole, then for once he'd have a story to tell.

5 comments:

Terri said...

Oh, King, dear -- I fixed your little Wiki.

King said...

Note-- this "Terri" isn't the Terri from Cincinnati, but one of the same old establishment posters who's used the name "Harland" and other identities.
Not messing around, are you?
Quite a lot of hatred against ONE outsider writer, isn't there?
Why is that?
Even what you posted at wiki shows that A.) dissent against establishment writers-- the list you cite-- according to you shouldn't be allowed. B.) One should not speak up for DIY writers.
Should I really be promoting a Jon Franzen who already has million dollar pr campaigns behind him?
Shouldn't someone speak up for the DIY part of literature?
This should be a lesson to all who dare criticize things-as-they-are.
Re Palin, whose church was just firebombed:
My hope with her is that she's NOT a standard knee-jerk conservative who hates unions and working folk. My hope is that she's NOT permanently wedded to the Repub party, which in its recent actions has written off huge segments of the American people, and in so doing written its political death warrant. (Mr. Palin, after all, is a union steelworker.)
p.s. Any pauses in my campaign to free literature from the vise-grip of the plutocrats will be due to economic circumstances, which obviously here aren't good. They won't be due to the likes of you, Overdog. You've well shown you won't give me peace under any circumstances.
So be it.

King said...

p.p.s. Every time you engage in anonymous dirty tricks you prove my arguments against the corruption of the literary establishment centered in New York.

Anonymous said...

Are you saying that the Wiki entry is inaccurate?

King said...

It's surely slanted. Your objectivity can be questioned if you're one of the well-known individuals you mention.
My quesions:
-How is it that I'm expected to be available at all times to answer all possible questions-- even though they come from the anonymice-- while the well-known authors mentioned are never available to answer anything?
Kind of a double standard.
-What do you think of your friend Daniel Handler spending so much time and energy the past few years obsessed with this blog?
Why are you so obsessed with it?
Why the hidden identities?
Does this not show intellectual cowardice?