tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post932602930397876022..comments2024-02-12T03:04:46.091-08:00Comments on AttackingtheDemi-Puppets: AmazementKing Wenclashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-50198843183279577442008-06-11T08:39:00.000-07:002008-06-11T08:39:00.000-07:00"When was it different?" is hardly a compelling ar..."When was it different?" is hardly a compelling argument.<BR/>And you say I have no imagination?Karl Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12328715380823038766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-29306018040688456462008-06-10T13:27:00.000-07:002008-06-10T13:27:00.000-07:00"Of course you're turning a blind eye to this ques..."Of course you're turning a blind eye to this question, as it exists today-- a society much more hierarchical, stratified, than in the 1950's; the class gap much wider."<BR/><BR/>So Robert Lowell embraced the Beats, is what you're saying? Or just that it mattered less? <BR/><BR/>"What's your plan for brining democracy to literature?"<BR/><BR/>I don't believe in democracy in literature. I believe good and perspicacious writers will be published and bad and perspicacious writers will self-publish and start blogs, and some tiny, lucky, percentage will be Rick Moody and publish "lead titles," with huge commercial houses, that get optioned by the movies, and most (would-be) writers will just give up. Again: when was it different? <BR/><BR/>"Will you sign my PEN petition when/if I get it going?"<BR/><BR/>Depends what it says.<BR/><BR/>"Re Lethem; yes, I'm going by his last book, which was pretty awful!"<BR/><BR/>Agreed.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-8360318574917856812008-06-10T10:13:00.000-07:002008-06-10T10:13:00.000-07:00Ofg course you're turning a blind eye to this ques...Ofg course you're turning a blind eye to this question, as it exists today-- a society much more hierarchical, stratified, than in the 1950's; the class gap much wider. <BR/>What's your plan for brining democracy to literature?<BR/>Will you sign my PEN petition when/if I get it going?<BR/>Re Lethem; yes, I'm going by his last book, which was pretty awful!King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-46523389071249080702008-06-09T16:20:00.000-07:002008-06-09T16:20:00.000-07:00How does King know what Lethem's premises and mode...How does King know what Lethem's premises and mode of thinking are?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-67435853634758344912008-06-09T09:16:00.000-07:002008-06-09T09:16:00.000-07:00I've never turned a blind eye to the influence of ...I've never turned a blind eye to the influence of social position and connections. Tell me again, when was it different? Tell me about Allen Ginsberg (who went to Ivy League Columbia, by the way) and Gregory Corso, your two big heroes, being welcomed into the poetic fraternity with open arms by Robert Lowell and Robert Frost. Somehow, they kept going. The real question is, why are YOU so preoccupied with social position and connections?Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-86224044909969127682008-06-09T09:11:00.000-07:002008-06-09T09:11:00.000-07:00"read a Jonathan Lethem novel and EVERYONE is the ..."read a Jonathan Lethem novel and EVERYONE is the same; from the same hipster class with the same premises and modes of thinking as the author."<BR/><BR/>But that's not true at all, King. Three of the first four novels are dystopic science fiction. The other deals with academia. The fifth has to do with white orphans in Italian Brooklyn. The sixth deals with a broad array of characters, ranging from hippies, to poor urban blacks, to yuppies, and to gentrifying hipsters. In fact, that's the *point* of the novel. Only the most recent novel is as class-claustrophobic as you're asserting.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-9829342523666731292008-06-09T07:52:00.000-07:002008-06-09T07:52:00.000-07:00Curious that there's from Harland/Hiram always a g...Curious that there's from Harland/Hiram always a gliding away from realities of the publishing industry today. Fact is that the Ivy League is over-represented at the highest levels of publishing, and at what is represented to us as the "best" literary journals, such as Paris Review, the Believer, and n+1. It may, in fact, be the case that ALL of the editors of these mags are from the Ivy League.<BR/>These journals and their writers (look at the ample publicity Keith Gessen has received for his novel-- no, he's not reduced to writing his own Amazon review) get an inordinate amount of attention from the mainstream/conglomerate media. Maybe because the staffs at magazines like Vanity Fair, New Yorker, New York, Elle, GQ, Vogue, Esquire, et.al., are almost ENTIRELY from Ivy League universities.<BR/>Given this real-world context, it's pretty hard to overrate the influence of these places of privilege on American letters today.<BR/>**********************<BR/>They are, of course, just one example of what folks here are turning a blind eye to-- the influence of social position and connections on American culture. Not the only pernicious influence, certainly, but a chief one.<BR/>Nice that Overdog writers wish to believe the process for finding writers is a fair one. You all seem satisfied with the condition of American literature today. The main difference I have with the lot of you is that on this question I strongly disagree.<BR/>Re background: Noting it, and the differentiations of people throughout American life, is part of being a discriminating writer, to use Hiram's term. It's a talent that seems to be lost. read a Jonathan Lethem novel and EVERYONE is the same; from the same hipster class with the same premises and modes of thinking as the author.<BR/>Yes, this is a problem, when our nation's "best" authors know little about their own country.<BR/>Pods indeed!King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-39574230701332675422008-06-06T12:24:00.000-07:002008-06-06T12:24:00.000-07:00The Ivy League humanities academic and Harland see...The Ivy League humanities academic and Harland seem to be getting a dialogue going.<BR/><BR/>Uh-oh.<BR/><BR/>Better take down the comments again, King.<BR/><BR/>And lean back, and light up a Pall Mall and dream of better days. The days of jousting with Plimpton. The days of yore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-91689982889063686752008-06-05T16:32:00.000-07:002008-06-05T16:32:00.000-07:00II,I'm not here to defend the honor of the Ivy Lea...II,<BR/><BR/>I'm not here to defend the honor of the Ivy League, and I'll gladly concede the point, with reservations, and taking exceptions (you seem to be one) into account. <BR/><BR/>Not entirely sure I agree about "everyone" in a given field holding the same views. This blog, obviously, is an extreme example of a diversity of viewpoints, if one grants that the King is in the literary profession, which is a bit of a stretch. As for your experiences in the job mart, well, it just sounds like the usual at-will employment shuffle. Try heterodoxy when you're working as a shipping clerk. <BR/><BR/>MFA programs can be "conformist," or not. Really depends on the program -- director, faculty, and students. There are conservative ones, which mint miniature Richard Russos, and less conservative ones, which mint writers of varying stripes. The point in the present context is that the King values above all a kind of ambiently gathered, albeit apparently hard-won, wisdom, that evidently defies description since he's never managed to put into words what it consists of. Since he doesn't seem actually to know anything, I doubt that it has to do with disciplined autodidacticism, but it seems to find its most salient expression in a loathing of any activity, organized or perceived by him to be organized, that smacks of prestige, elitism, or professionalism.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-44839388096100163992008-06-05T15:52:00.000-07:002008-06-05T15:52:00.000-07:00Oh, my friend. Your breath is wasted on these dude...Oh, my friend. Your breath is wasted on these dudes, I'm afraid. Go back and read the archives. It's been said before, in various ways, and all you'll get back is a sub-Marxist condemnation and an accusation that you're Dave Eggers or Rick Moody. Sad, really.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-9125615453582359752008-06-05T15:46:00.000-07:002008-06-05T15:46:00.000-07:00as far as i can tell, the only ones bitching about...as far as i can tell, the only ones bitching about this general topic are people who's work sucks. everyone i know who's got any talent is busy getting published. same goes for the art world. i've known a lot of hacks over the years, and one thing they all have in common is the inability to see their own shortcomings and/or take criticism. for example, a good writer will observe that his/her audience is not getting what he/she is trying to convey, and will figure out how to improve the writing until they do get it. or perhaps target a different audience. a hack will always blame the readers, or the editors, or "the man." this is the literary equivalent to those talentless individuals that go on shows like american idol and blame the judges for their woes. i can't help but imagine what might happen if one were to redirect the energy one puts into writing such rants into, oh, say, honing one's craft. just a thought.quazipseudohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12885929547796747558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-40481098233352501812008-06-05T12:36:00.000-07:002008-06-05T12:36:00.000-07:00Harland,Anonymous II here. You write that it's wro...Harland,<BR/><BR/>Anonymous II here. You write that it's wrong "to tar the graduates of Ivy League universities as being one type of person exclusively, much less one type of writer exclusively."<BR/><BR/>This is all well and good, except that the very purpose of such institutions is to create uniformity. To say that the products of elite universities are all the same is not some form of crude stereotyping. It is simply an accurate description of the FUNCTION of these institutions. Undergrads learn to act alike, dress alike, socialize together, and mouth the same pretentious words that will allow them to recognize each other as fellow members of the educational elite once they are released back into the general population. Graduate students learn to think identically so that they can be marketed to other universities as known quantities. Hiring committees won't want to purchase something if they don't know exactly what it contains, so every element of a PhD candidate's intellectual make-up has to be rigorously standardized to ensure marketability.<BR/><BR/>You say you have no degree, which means that you have never undergone what is referred to, ominously, as "professionalization." You're lucky. I went into graduate school believeing in the ideology of "diversity," critical thinking, free discussion, and open debate. Unfortunately, all of these oft-repeated academic catchphrases are just so much Orwellian hogwash. One's job in graduate school is to learn to repeat back, as precisely as possible, exactly the views of one's advisors and/or the other established authorities in the field (everyone in the profession holds exactly the same views anyway), with the choicest jobs going to those who can most precisely play the role of human Dictaphone. Academia's tolerance for heterodoxy falls somewhere short of the Spanish Inquisition. Mention the wrong name at a conference or in a classroom discussion, or utter an opinion that deviates in the least from the norm, and one immediately becomes a target for exclusion, ridicule, and most likely unemployment. The level of (justified) paranoia in academia is right up there with Stalinist Russia, which is part of why the social atmosphere at academic conferences is often so tense, stilted, and awkward. <BR/><BR/>So, this is the anecdotal perspective of a self-confessed pod person. I have little experience with creative writing programs per se, but I suspect that they are as claustrophobically conformist as the rest of academia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-79223207620530808072008-06-05T12:09:00.000-07:002008-06-05T12:09:00.000-07:00I read the ULA Press book Security. It was a mess,...I read the ULA Press book Security. It was a mess, but not bad. Certainly not as bad as I was expecting. It was okay. Which is great. Good for the ULA Press and for the author. The thing is, none of the ULA Press books can get reviewed. Quick quiz. Is this because:<BR/><BR/>a) a far-reaching conspiracy so broad that every bookstore in America has received its orders not to stock ULA books, and every critic has received his or her orders not to review ULA books<BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>b) King Wenclas's reckless and irresponsible and at times downright nasty rhetoric made everybody take one look at the ULA and begin backing warily off.<BR/><BR/>Tough one, isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-83516847645588966242008-06-05T12:08:00.000-07:002008-06-05T12:08:00.000-07:00And another thing:Whatever the flaws of the Ivy Le...And another thing:<BR/><BR/>Whatever the flaws of the Ivy League and the educational system, anyone in my class who tries to finesse a critique in the manner of Pete Houston gets a new one torn for him.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-58263750129734244502008-06-05T12:05:00.000-07:002008-06-05T12:05:00.000-07:00"95% of whom happen to have been deemed unpublisha..."95% of whom happen to have been deemed unpublishable by any but the ULA house press"<BR/><BR/>Evidence, of course, of the conspiracy.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-38713640983342054232008-06-05T12:03:00.000-07:002008-06-05T12:03:00.000-07:00Another angle (since there actually seems to be an...Another angle (since there actually seems to be an intelligible person here disagreeing with me):<BR/><BR/>Has anybody, except *possibly* the King, ever suggested here that once upon a time the literary establishment was the go-to place to determine the health and well-being of the art? I don't think so. Pound bitched about the academy and academic poetry a hundred years ago (NB, King: that's an opening. Tell me about Pound the Fascist now). I don't think anything indicates the King's naked hunger for publicity and mainstream recognition than this Sears-Tower-tilting quixotic mission to reform literature from (what he perceives to be) the top. I've suggested this before, in little bite-sized nuggets that perhaps weren't the brontoburgers the King requires to absorb the nutrients of a coherently made point, but literature isn't formed from the top. There aren't ukases filed by George Plimpton and Peter Olson and Nan A. Talese that give "us" our marching orders. People make what they want to make. Let's grant for the sake of argument that Moody is a lousy writer. So? Moody's lousiness doesn't necessitate that an otherwise good writer write in his footsteps. <BR/><BR/>The King, though, other than his shortlist of excellent authors, 95% of whom happen to have been deemed unpublishable by any but the ULA house press, never mentions any authors who deviate from the hierarchical norm, any authors doing interesting work, any authors, for that matter, he just likes to read when he's on a bloody airplane. The King has never once in response to my queries named an author he liked, or a small press he thought was publishing worthy work, or a literary journal that he thought consistently interesting. The King talks about the Real Voice of America and lectures about Detroit but doesn't seem to know the slightest thing about African-American literature, or the gut-bucket school of the '30s. The King's rhetoric is ahistorical and ignorant. I might accept the theses of someone coming on so persistently from a socio-political literary point of view if that someone actually *knew* what s/he were talking about and was capable of expressing it. But if, say, in agreement with the King I mention, say, Frederick Jameson -- can you imagine what the King's response would be? Hostility. Listen, guy -- don't sign on with the King. He'll bite your head off. PhD? He'll show you. He's a Doctor -- a Doctor of the Rough Streets. A Doctor of Real Life. A Doctor of America. PhD? You might actually...know...something he doesn't.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-56960918417599499472008-06-05T11:53:00.000-07:002008-06-05T11:53:00.000-07:00Well, Hardland (this is Anonymous 1, your fan), yo...Well, Hardland (this is Anonymous 1, your fan), you're obviously a pod person. When were you first approached? And did you hear about the meeting last week? We've finally been given orders to "neutralize" subject KW. The plan? Leave dog poo poo on his front stoop. But shhhhh! It's a secret still....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-36319278144687777922008-06-05T11:44:00.000-07:002008-06-05T11:44:00.000-07:00Actually, if you read some of my posts, or read th...Actually, if you read some of my posts, or read them carefully, Anonymous II (or whatever), you'd see that I haven't defended the Ivy League. What I'm doing is declining to blame the Ivy League for the state of literature, or to tar the graduates of its universities as being one type of person exclusively, much less one type of writer exclusively. <BR/><BR/>I don't know what would improve the state of culture in the U.S. I can think of far more attractive targets than the Ivy League or higher education generally, but I actually happen to think that the state of culture in the U.S. is just fine. What's in lousy shape -- and here I, once again, agree with the King -- is the culture industry, a phrase I used advisedly and which in itself speaks volumes about the problematic way that "culture" is retailed to people and their expectations. Real art is there, it's doing fine; unfortunately, one often has to seek it out. But I don't see how making wild, sweeping generalizations like the King helps in the least. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I teach at an Ivy League university. I don't have a degree of any kind, though. Which sort of skewers the King's fever dream of a perpetual incest machine.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-84579879150161217362008-06-05T11:36:00.000-07:002008-06-05T11:36:00.000-07:00Killing literature departments to save literature?...Killing literature departments to save literature? You've obviously been an academic way too long. Plenty of us don't really care about school, scholarship, or what writing programs do or do not do to this farcical idea of what writing should do societally. Some of us just like to read what we like to read, write what we like to write, and live our lives as thinking people, with full recognition that plenty of people get the shaft, plenty of commercially published books stink, and cope with the general unfairness of life. I'm not rich, have a BA from a shitty school, and go about my business. But I know a crank when I see one. King is a crank. That he can read these posts and see fear, and you can read Harlan and see celebration of education, pretty much proves our point that you guys are not always the brightest crayons in the box.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-33381008623116179002008-06-05T11:23:00.000-07:002008-06-05T11:23:00.000-07:00My point was not confined to the Ivy League, but t...My point was not confined to the Ivy League, but to the American educational establishment in general, of which the Ivy League represents the pinnacle. I mentioned my own academic background only to establish my precious "credentials." Harland seems to hold the American system of higher "education" in high esteem, and as far as the humanities are concerned, I see no grounds for this. Elite universities in particular are just vehicles for nepotism and instruments for perpetuating social privilege (while simultaneously providing the illusion of meritocracy). If one wanted to improve the state of American literary and cultural life, disbanding university humanities departments would not be a bad first step (and I say that as someone who makes a living in one).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-47551305808663782002008-06-05T10:57:00.000-07:002008-06-05T10:57:00.000-07:00That's funny. I don't remember anyone here defendi...That's funny. I don't remember anyone here defending the Ivy League. Funny, isn't it, how some people can't hold two ideas in their heads at once?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-90333473124683627032008-06-05T10:49:00.000-07:002008-06-05T10:49:00.000-07:00Harland,I have a PhD from an Ivy League university...Harland,<BR/><BR/>I have a PhD from an Ivy League university. I teach at one of "America's renowned research universities." During my years in the educational racket, I've learned that the only real function these universities have, at least as far as the humanities are concerned, is class reproduction. It's very difficult to learn anything real about art or literature at one of these outfits; kids go there because their parents want them to, so that they can party for a few years and then use their degrees from a "renowned" university as the pretext for getting the jobs their family connections were always going to get them anyway. Oh, and if their parents are particularly indulgent, a few of them are allowed to study creative writing for a few years and play at being writers. You seem to be an "educator;" I'm astounded to hear that your experiences have been so different. (Or maybe you're simply deceiving yourself).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-40115050678113516412008-06-05T10:47:00.000-07:002008-06-05T10:47:00.000-07:00King, I think Pete's onto something here -- you ne...King, I think Pete's onto something here -- you need to add the phrase "s/he sucks" to your critical vocabulary and they'll all start coming around!Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-51103378396602094992008-06-05T10:31:00.000-07:002008-06-05T10:31:00.000-07:00What do these writers have in common:William T. Vo...What do these writers have in common:<BR/><BR/>William T. Vollmann—sucks, turgid, pretentious, moralizing<BR/><BR/>Rick Moody—sucks, self-involved bourgeois ennui<BR/><BR/>Dave Eggers—sucks, thinks he’s clever, but he’s actually retarded<BR/><BR/>Francine Prose—never read her<BR/><BR/>Miranda July—cheesy, but I like the dirty parts<BR/><BR/>Philip Lopate—never read him<BR/><BR/>Philip Roth—sucks, long-winded exposition, objectifies women, reactionary falsifications of history<BR/><BR/>Jeff Eugenides—sucks, boring, only got through a couple pages of Middlesex<BR/><BR/>Jonathan Franzen—never read him<BR/><BR/>Anne Beattie—good writer, but very bourgeois; ignorant and condescending towards the working class<BR/><BR/>Amy Hempel—I’ve met her; she’s arrogant; her work is boring, self-involved, and bourgeois (she sucks)<BR/><BR/>Jonathan Lethem—Fortress of Solitude is the most racist, self-pitying, bourgeois piece of shit I have ever read (he sucks)<BR/><BR/>Lily Tuck—what the fuck? (don’t know who this is)<BR/><BR/>Jorie Graham (don’t know her either)<BR/><BR/>Heidi Julavits—???<BR/><BR/>Alain Robbe-Grillet—sucks, boring writing based on obsolete philosophical theories<BR/><BR/>The common denominator seems to be that all of these writers suck, and yet are somehow famous. (Miranda July excepted—her thing in the New Yorker about a girl who masturbated in a porn shop for a living was decent piece of soft core porn, no more and no less).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-75352793307668368302008-06-05T09:29:00.000-07:002008-06-05T09:29:00.000-07:00It's true what Harland says in the comments of the...It's true what Harland says in the comments of the "My Response" post. I don't know all the names mentioned (though I love the sound of "Wild Bill Blackolive), and I'd heard things were lively here, but the most interesting things here are from Harland, and that's why I keep coming back.<BR/><BR/>Harland you should start your own blog, or if King keeps deleting your posts you should guest-post on Maude Newton or An Elegant Variation. I'm sure someone would invite your comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com