Thursday, January 15, 2009

Who's Right?

MANY "literary" writers dismiss this blog and myself as being too extreme-- "off the deep end"-- for their genteel tastes. This is chiefly because they don't like to be caused to think about discomforting things. They prefer the lit-world as it once was-- placid; immobile; unstimulating: "Where seldom is heard, a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day."

That I'm a fanatic for literature who strongly believes in what he's doing compounds the situation.

Yet who's been wrong, and who right?

Who's been right from the beginning about the Paris Review/CIA revelations?

Who was right about an established Insider author (Daniel Handler, it turned out) being the long-time demi-puppet attacker "Jimmy Grace"?

One could go point-by-point over the issues which have involved the underground rebellion and this blog the last eight years and see that I've usually turned out to be on the right path.

-Right about the grants corruption involving author Rick Moody and others.

-Right to want to discuss the oncoming Iraq war at Housing Works in 2003.

-Right about the Daniel Handler fake letter affair.

-Right about the Harpers plagiarism controversies.

-Right about the Big Money takeover of a small press organization.

-Right about the literary divide between rich and poor.

And so on, and so on.

With each tactical victory the establishment has become more hostile and abusive, lit-bloggers more closed-minded, and underground types more panicky.

The last anonymous demi-puppet to "amend" and distort my wiki bio portrays me as currently being "in the wilderness." I suppose I am.

Which leaves me to continue posting my ideas on my blogs and elsewhere, and hope that other writers catch up to me.

(See for more.)

No comments: