Aristocracy Lives!

A REVIEW (Abridged Version)

--of the book Marie Therese, Child of Terror, by Susan Nagel.
$39.99, Bloomsbury, 418 pages.

THIS biography of Marie Antoinette's daughter, which is getting a big push by publisher Bloomsbury (they even sent me a copy), has more to say about American aristocratic attitudes today than about what really happened in the late 18th century.

As history the book is ridiculous. As biography it's soap opera. It appeal is to the imaginations of the privileged upper caste of our own civilization.
********************************************
HISTORY
Nagel's mistake is to rely heavily for sources on discredited memoirs from the day, which are compilations of gossip, urban legends, and hysteria; what David Andress in The Terror calls "--the many rumors and plot-fantasies of the era."

Renowned historian Alfred Cobban, in dismissing such historical sources (in Aspects of the French Revolution), said that the compilers of memoirs of figures like Baron deBesenval and Joseph Weber "often were not those whose names appeared on the title page." The intent of the ghost authors was to provide "picturesque material": collections of "scandalous anecdotes" often disavowed by the presumed authors' families.

To Susan Nagel this is no matter, probably because her goal likewise is to present picturesque material to satisfy her weepy readers, who want not truth, not history, but bad melodrama full of good guys and bad guys. Melodrama, moreover, where the downtrodden have become evil and the despotic royals virtuously pure.

For example: historian Cobban called Madame Campan's memoirs "unreliable." Melodramatist Nagel fills no less than 24 pages of her book with anecdotes from this unreliable source.

The most ridiculous part of Marie Therese is its use of footnotes. Nagel would've been better off not using any. Instead she averages three footnotes per entire chapter-- for a work whose every page bursts with assertions and anecdotes.

Nagel flatly states on pages 146-147 that mementos of the late Queen were found under Robespierre's mattress after his death. Wow! Quite a story. Where's the source? Or, on page 69, the evil Duke of Orleans had "secretly amassed an immense hoard of grain with the intent of causing a shortage--"! Another dramatic revelation, shocking in import. Again, where's the footnote; the source?

The items which should be footnoted, aren't. We have hosts of tabloid rumors buttressed by a flimsy intellectual veneer.
******************************************
MELODRAMA
In her text, Nagel mentions Sydney Carton and the Scarlet Pimpernel. I suspect those are her true sources.

Her book is not without its attractions. Many of the early chapters, such as "Two Orphans," are compelling. (Blurb: "King Wenclas calls Marie Therese 'compelling.'")

The novel-- excuse me, "biography"-- reminds me of the movie version of "Gone With the Wind," in that the first half is hyper-dramatic with a strong heroine beset on all sides. In the second half the heroine, Marie Therese, lives among the aftermath of a changed world, involved with suitors, marriage, family scandals and social involvements. After the tremendous activity of the French Revolution, during which the young Marie Therese lived at the very center, it all becomes anti-climactic.

But what drama there is while it lasts! Escapes, dungeons, attempted rescues, mad crowds, beheadings-- here indeed is the stuff for a great novel, which sadly only Charles Dickens among literary masters was ambitious enough to attempt.

Nagel does her best, painting in garish colors, usually with too-heavy a brush. Often we're faced with the comical, as when in Bordeaux, brave Duchess d'Angouleme (Marie Therese) tries to halt Napoleon's return from Elba. (Page 265.) (She fails.)
****************************************************
PROPAGANDA
Nagel makes not the slightest attempt at balance or objectivity, which is a refreshing change from standard liberal phoniness. Here we see what the publishing industry today truly thinks and feels. (In this endeavor Nagel is backed by Tina Brown, ex New Yorker and Vanity Fair Editor; author of The Diana Chronicles.)

There's a blatant worship of wealth, privilege, titles, and possessions. One of Nagel's scarce footnotes is for a list of the trousseau Marie Therese left behind when fleeing into exile: a 220-word catalogue of clothing which the book's fans will find gush-worthy.

One gets the impression that aristocracy past and present is about the superficial: clothes, manners, robes, and poses, exemplified by the piled-on language of "Your Highness" in every phrase, the elaborate curtseying and bowing, the kissing of hands, which when it suddenly ceases comes to the nobility as a shock.

Nagel's bias is shown by her chapter headings: "Child of France"; "Once Upon a Time"; "Storm Clouds over the Palace"; "The End of the Fairy Tale"; "Two Orpahns"; "Every Inch a Princess"; and so on. If this is history, it's an antiquated kind of history; a 418-page press release which could've been issued by Louis XVI himself! Susan Nagel is blindly transfixed. The trappings of power-- "His Most Christian Majesty, dressed in the Order of the Holy Ghost ablaze with diamonds"-- to a product of a society which through magazines like Vanity Fair itself worships such trappings, such extreme wealth, obsessively, have hypnotized our chronicler. All she can do, ultimately, is gush, as in her acknowledgement to "the help and encouragement of His Serene Highness, Prince Charles-Henri de Lobkowicz." Can we surmise that our historian, Ms. Nagel, has been allowed into too many Insider parties?

PRISONERS
Long before King Louis XVI and his family were prisoners in a dungeon, they were prisoners of the isolation of their mindset. Historian William Doyle concluded in Origins of the French Revolution that there were many opportunities for the King to halt the revolution, through concessions or force, as he retained immense power. He lacked the imagination to use it.

Nagel is focused on the personal, on family. This matches the King's focus. Happenings occur; the anger of mobs; the currents of change. To the King and Nagel trapped within Versailles it's all very confusing.

Unstated: the man was supreme ruler! Yet he knows nothing about the country he rules, and doesn't want to know. As revolution breaks and cascades over Versailles, the King has willfully escaped from reality, spending long hours hunting! The state is bankrupt, the people starving, and the man in charge does nothing. Like Montezuma, he remains trapped by his own inertia. He makes no real effort even to save his crown, out of "love for his people." He's not a ruler at all, but a prop, as if Versailles were a great glittering movie set.

Nagel buys the myth of the King as helpless victim-- and so absolves him of responsibility even for his own actions. There's a disconnect not just in the mind of the King, and his wife and daughter, but more unforgiveably, in the mind of the biographer, Susan Nagel. War and counter-revolution begin quickly; attempts to rollback the popular changes; the onset of civil war. The King sits innocently in his palace.

Marie Antoinette of course maneuvered to rescue the old regime. She encouraged foreign invasion, and bribed politicians. Yet for Nagel, these actions should have no consequences. The consequences in fact surprise her. She has so swallowed Marie Antoinette's mentality whole she can only ask, with her characters, Why has this occurred?

On the one hand the people love the Bourbons and the "Children of France," right to the bitter end; the last ignominious flight. On the other hand the angry mobs indicate that they really don't like the Bourbons at all. This contradiction is never resolved. Or, it's resolved through cardboard bad guys like the Duke of Orleans.

CONCLUSION
Marie Therese, Child of Terror may find a large audience around the country among suburbanites with failed mortgages, who-- along with the myth of endless affluence-- bought their own opulent palaces and are now on the verge of being kicked out.

The perpetrators of the book, however, represent a miniscule sliver of this nation residing on an east coast island; many of them transplanted royalist Brits like Vicky Ward and Tina Brown. Miniscule they are in numbers but great in media power.

Nagel's book to its rich fans expresses an unspoken fear about their own time; a fear which comes with improportionate wealth. Their own land-- this land-- increasingly to them is an unknown place of "oddly dressed, ill-spoken, belligerent" mobs.
*************************************************************
(Note: The full version of this review will be posted on my new writing blog later this week.
Watch also http://www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com/ for further remarks.)

Teaser

My review of Susan Nagel's paean to royalty, Marie Therese, Child of Terror, should be up on one of my blogs by Monday. (I have a new writing blog starting.) For a quick preliminary taste, here's the review's opening.
**********************
This biography of Marie Antoinette's daughter, which is getting a big push by publisher Bloomsbury (they even sent me a copy!), has more to say about American aristocratic attitudes today than about what really happened in France in the late 18th century.

As history the book is ridiculous. As biography it's soap opera. Its appeal is to the imaginations of the privileged upper caste of our own civilization.
**********************
Will I be able to support these statements? Check back to see.

Meanwhile, partying for the book by today's aristos has begun. For a glimpse, see
www.nysocialdiary.com/node/4604

Boozhie Eyeglasses

WHY UNDERGROUND WRITERS ARE NEEDED

Right now the established literary system presents ONE way of looking at the world, instead of a variety of viewpoints from all segments of America. Standard pod writers see life through boozhie eyeglasses. They don't realize in their candyass existence that others in this land live completely different from they; are entirely another kind of human animal. It's the difference you might see between a beat-up alley cat, scowling with one eye closed behind the dumpster, and the homebound puffy one wearing ribbons inside the mansion; at the window peering prettily and stupidly from within. Their attitudes on this world aren't the same.

Identities

Though I've been permitting a free-for-all on my Comments page, I encourage those who drop in to use their own identities. It's a sign of character, and adds credibility to what you say.

To create a new literature, a new culture, a new society-- to start over in this crazy country we've inherited-- we need to do so on a foundation of truth, character, and responsibility.

Are you willing to step into the future, or remain chained to a past world of corruption and lies?

Update

A new chapter of "Plutocracy USA" is already up at Literary Mystery,

www.literarymystery.blogspot.com

The chapter is called, "The Wheels of Reaction." You might find it fun.
****************************************************
OTHER NEWS
I'm working furiously to read and review a new 418-page book by Susan Nagel about the French Revolution. I want to review it while the book is "hot." I plan my review to entertain and enlighten. (Also to come: the promised review of Lawrence Richette's latest novel.)

Stay tuned.

Truths

THE COMMITMENT TO TRUTH

For an underground literary rebellion to succeed it has to be better than what it seeks to replace. This means better art, better performers, better ideas. Most of all it has to offer INTEGRITY-- an alternative to the lies and corruption of the established lit-scene.

As I've refused to accept falsehoods and non-accountability from the so-called mainstream, why would I accept them from the underground?

The most important component of the literary rebellion when it began in October 2000 was its search for truth; its commitment to truth. This was embodied in our initial protests against the grants-awarding process, and in many actions since, most notoriously with the Paris Review-CIA story.

Dedication to truth has two components.

1.) HEARING THE TRUTH.
This is difficult for anyone, myself not excepted. Established literature fails this test miserably, suffering from the "cognant dissonance" of bureaucracies; the refusal to hear unpleasant things. In the novel 1984, George Orwell used the term "Crimethink" for those truths which were unacceptable to people. "No, don't tell me! I don't want to hear! Stop saying that! Shut that person up, please!" One has to vigilantly fight this tendency. If the underground adopts this mind-closing behavior, then it's lost its fight.

2.) SPEAKING THE TRUTH.
The flip side of hearing it. You can't have one without the other. There has to be a willful struggle to speak honestly, and to be accountable for one's own statements. I never pushed a campaign I didn't ruthlessly believe in. To intentionally lie, to ignore contrary proofs or refuse to correct mistakes, to be unaccountable, has no place in a revolt whose foundation is integrity. Our integrity is our strongest weapon. It can't be compromised. If I've been inflexible on this point it's for a reason. A new movement, representing change, has to be built on a solid foundation.

Who Are the Demi-Puppets?

I've used the term demi-puppets since this blog began to designate servants of the Overdogs and defenders of the status quo-- opponents to the literary rebellion who aren't Overdogs themselves. Demi-puppets have been the most vociferous critics of the rebellion which began more than seven years ago.

Have the demi-puppets acted against their own interest?

Many haven't-- if it's in their interest to work long hours in a hyper-expensive city in order to be part of the established publishing game. A great many demji-puppets are the foot soldiers and worker bees of the literary System as it exists today. This includes not just editors, agents, readers, et.al., but all the many English and Creative Writing lecturers and professors in universities around the country. Not all are chaired tenured profs like our disingenuous friend Phillip Lopate, who portrayed himself, with some exaggeration, as living in a dirt-floor hovel with countless mouths to feed. Many in the academy ARE barely getting by financially.

Another layer are those of literary bent who reside in the nation's newspapers; arts journalists and book reviewers; a vanishing breed.

The remainder of the demi-puppets could be called the lumpen literati: unpublished and underpublished writers, unemployed academics, and the like. Many lit-bloggers are in this category.

As the authentic underground which began rebellion may not be able to overturn the ancien regime on its own, the question is to what extent the rebellion can draw from demi-puppet ranks.

When it has, results haven't been promising. Boozhie writers who weren't true undergrounders were the quickest to betray the rebellion at every apparent stall or setback. But any gain they obtained from the betrayal has been illusory.

Many demi-puppets are getting little or no benefit from the current system, so their loyalty to it is perplexing. In many cases they're better writers and more intelligent readers than the well-connected aristocratic fops who inhabit the approved literary stage. It would serve their interest not to approve the System, or meekly comply with it, but oppose it. That would require from them artistic daring and imagination.

A rebellious demi-puppet is an oxymoron. The person will have to become no longer a demi-puppet. This will entail a new state of mind; a mind not of subservience and conformity, but independence, boldness, and freedom. It will require a passion for trailblazing, a love of the unpredictable, and an eagerness to make literary history.

More on Leadership

The question of leadership is a philosophical concept.

Those who believe a movement can be created without a creator-- a leader-- are those whose knowledge of the world is at a kindergarten level, and hardly worthy of conversation.

I ponder the masterpieces of art; a Michaelangelo sculpture, a Beethoven symphony, a play by Shakespeare, a novel by Tolstoy. Did they occur spontaneously? Did the Pieta cause itself? Did a slab of marble fall over and break off a few pieces, accidentally? Did words arrange themselves on the Tolstoyean page? Or was not an active intelligence present someplace behind the scenes?

I think of the string of American business success stories, from Ford to Apple-- each one the result of an active, involved intelligence.

The raw material has to be there, is always there, as the zeen movement of the 1990's was the raw material for the creation of the ULA. But to progress, at some point some individual has to take that material and focus and shape it. The ULA was created as an act of intent, of energy and will. All its early progress, if not all its progress, came about through leadership: intentional design.

Now that the original leader has in stages been metaphorically assassinated and cast aside, those left clutching the remaining pieces of the project are proclaiming, "No leaders!" Which is comical, in a way.

For the movement as a whole to progress to the next stage, someone else will have to emerge to pick up the pieces, rearrange them, refocus them, reshape the strategy and recreate the dynamic energy that was invested into the original campaign. Otherwise it will stay running in place.

Today's Question

What's your favorite flavor of ice cream?
************************************************
This question signifies that I've reopened comments on this blog, if anyone be interested.
GROUNDRULES. Just know that this is a personal blog. I'm no longer active in any literary organization, owe no obligations to anyone-- except myself and my integrity-- am beholden to nobody. On this space I submit to no veto, bullying, dishonesty, or bad behavior. By posting here you've entered my territory and will be treated accordingly.

New Stuff

New posts are up TODAY at both Literary Mystery--

www.literarymystery.blogspot.com

with a new chapter of "Plutocracy USA," and Philly Literary,

www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com

Both tales take place at about the same time period, interesting enough.

I intend from hereon to put up a new chapter at Literary Mystery every week. The fun is only beginning.

Undergrounders

Undergrounders' biggest enemy is themselves.

The problem with the Rebellion from the beginning has been the non-stop internal disputes and betrayals.

I've always stressed distinguishing our actual enemies. Personality-based conflicts are counter-productive.

One can see what a miracle it was to keep the ULA on course and together as long as I did. I sought a broad-tent approach; wanted the movement open to ALL writers, as long as they acknowledged that literature needed to change; i.e., that rebellion was necessary. This is still the only way the movement will succeed.

A LEADER?
A leader is absolutely necessary with a team of attack dogs, to keep their energies focused in the right way, on the right target. To keep them pulling in the same direction. Even then, keeping a lid on resentments, jealousies, and disagreements isn't easy. Without a leader, the attack dogs come off their leashes and fight themselves, as we're seeing. I can't think of a bigger waste of time.

Why Rebellion?

For starters, having a literary revolution is more exciting than not having one.

Lit Mystery Update!

At last-- a new string of chapters begun at www.literarymystery.blogspot.com

A fictional novel about gang wars in the literary scene. It resumes slowly, setting the stage for what will culminate in cinematic fireworks.

Speaking of which, my "Ten Best Movies" series will resume soon at
www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com
-- along with other happy literary stuff including an essay on "The Great Reaction, 1953-2008" in American letters, as well as reviews of Amy Hempel and John Updike.

On this blog: "Who Are the Demi-Puppets?" in which I will offer the notion they're on the wrong side; and the beginning of profiles of various generic categories of underground writers. Not to mention an essay on the Rebellion, "Victory Denied?"

(I will also be addressing the smorgasboard of points made by the anonymice at this address-- the most exciting blog in the literary universe.)

What's Talent?

THOSE well-schooled and heavily indoctrinated mistake training for talent. The object of training is, first, to break the person, the way you train a horse or a dog. Obedience is the desired end. The goal of training is to have the person trained: to behave like other employees. Training is the essence of the system mentality.

To me, talent is a different thing. It's the spark of life in a person's writing.

A good example is Scott Fitzgerald's This Side of Paradise. Maxwell Perkins had seen an even rougher version of this roughly written novel. Any editor today would reject it immediately. Maxwell Perkins saw in the crude manuscript the spark of talent. Whatever else the book was, it was alive-- alive with exuberance, energy, ideas, and noise. With talent.

Talent was what I recognized in the zeens of the original "Zeen Elvis" candidate. Unchecked emotion. "Raw Power," to quote Iggy. Power and emotion that smoked the page. The ace in the hole for my intended campaign. That this necessary piece of the strategy was lost early was a big reason for the ultimate failure of the lit rebellion's first wave. (Other waves are coming. After 1905 came 1917.)

The underground is a vast place. I suspect "Who" has read those undergrounders he'd be least likely to appreciate. (With my differently-taught mind I see in their works amazing things.) The ranks include, however, also those who write in a traditional way.

I therefore CHALLENGE "Who" to read Lawrence Richette's Private Screenings. (My guess is he can afford to buy a copy via Xlibris.) I challenge him to read it with his acute intelligence and review it. I'll post his review on one of my blogs, be it negative or positive, under his nom-de-plume or real name, according to his choice.

Healthy Underground

All the contention on Brady's blog (see below) shows me that the literary underground is alive and well-- a ferment of activity, with the emergence of many strong personalities, including Walsh, Pat Simonelli, Pat King, Brady, Potter, and even "Whocanitbenow?" whose identity is no mystery to me. As I disagree with him, as I disagree with Mr. King and Mr. Potter, I'm still glad they checked in.

Brady seems to have gotten more than he bargained for. . . .

NOTHING changes without a leader. The American Revolution was fortunate to have Washington, who if not smart enough was at least big enough to keep everyone in line.

Did the literary rebellion emerge in my head? Not really. I was merely swept up in the zine scene of the 90's, which was called again and again the "Zine Revolution." I guess I took it all seriously.

But-- ideas have to emerge from somewhere. Did the Russian Revolution emerge from Lenin's head? The Mexican Revolution from Zapata's? It didn't make the rebellions any less real or relevant. SOMEONE needs to start the ball rolling. "WHO" in his cynical way is grasping toward some truths which he's unable to see clearly-- mainly, that the literary establishment is manifestly weak. It screams weakness. This may be what I was reacting to when I kicked off the ULA. Opportunity!

Or maybe it's that I love reading-- literature, by extension-- and know it can be much better, but for that to happen we need some housecleaning.

An example of establishment stagnation compared to the noise of the underground lit scene: in N+1 a couple issues ago there was an exchange of letters between two supposed literary heavyweights, James Wood and Jonathan Franzen. Their contention was hardly contentious at all. They were hitting each other with wet handkerchiefs. This is what results when you isolate literature into a bubble. We undergrounders, with our different tactics, are trying to break the bubble and free the art.

David Gates: Average Guy

On the "Value" thread below, someone posted a quote from the Washington Post as a way to knock the idea of "unflinching truth"-- as well as scorning, apparently, the viewpoint of "life at the bottom."

I surmised that its author is a yuppie. Is he?

Our authority on life at the bottom, David Gates, is an Insider's Insider. From an upper-middle class background in Connecticut, Gates briefly attended exclusive Bard College before "dropping out." He managed to quickly enough return to college and graduate-- in fact earning a Phd from U-Conn, where he met and married writer Ann Beattie, noted "minimalist" (read: pod). They both taught at Harvard shortly thereafter, no easy feat for new graduates.

Gates, no longer married to Beattie, has a residence in Manhattan and one in upstate New York. He's had a long-time staff position at Newsweek, where he reviews books-- some lit power there-- and also teaches at two Insider writing programs, Bennington and the New School. He's known for speaking slowly and quietly. If he raises his voice he becomes worried. His most widely-hyped book is named Jernigan.

There are few persons on this planet guaranteed to be more unsympathetic to current underground writers than him.

Leadership

Here are the principles of leadership I tried to follow when I was running the Underground Literary Alliance.

1.) LEAD FROM THE FRONT.
I never asked anyone to do what I wasn't willing to do myself. At most of our actions I was at the head of the pack. No one worked harder.

2.) LOYALTY.
From 10/8/2000 to 12/31/2007 I defended the ULA and its writers in every possible forum, against all comers. But loyalty has to work in both directions.

3.) RESPONSIBILITY.
The leader of a project must take responsibility for that project-- whether any "fault" was truly his or not. In that regard, the ULA's failings were my failings, and in some respects still are.
With responsibility should come authority, however, and that I didn't have.

4.) ACCOUNTABILITY.
I made myself consistently accountable, to friends and foes alike, on this blog and elsewhere. It was probably the single biggest use of my time! The extreme example of this was late 2006, receiving on the ULA forum an endless barrage of questions and criticisms from one V. Schwartzman, page after page, day after day after day, which I attempted to patiently and forthrightly answer until someone else finally cut him off. Such events were enormous time-wasters. I'd not go through that again. There has to be some element of trust.

5.) HONESTY.
The most important principle, and the rarest.

6.) STEADFASTNESS.
Not losing sight of the objective. Keeping your head while everyone else is panicking-- which happened often.

7.) UNDERSTANDING THE STRATEGY.
This means holding in your head the overall picture, recognizing the real enemies, deciding which fights are worthwhile and which aren't. It's the factor with the most flexibility for a decision-maker and one of the hardest to carry out.

8.) MANAGING THE TEAM.
Keeping morale up; your people content, motivated, and active; egos stroked; internal fights resolved for the good of all. With undergrounders: Impossible.

New Underground Leader?

Underground writer Brady Russell is pushing the idea of finding a new leader for the rebellion, as outlined here: www.thistoowillpass.com/bradydale/wordpress/?p=727

Though I think "uniting the tribes," as I attempted to do, is close to impossible, I support Brady's project in theory.

His characterization of my problems as one of "ego" is a simplification, as I'm sure he knows. (I'm used to the criticism.) Many factors were involved, including having no mechanism for resolving disputes, and no way of using members' talents rationally, leaving things to be done on an ad-hoc basis. Differences between radicals and moderates in the team were never resolved. These are problems which come with a volunteer, non-hierarchical organization. People have to buy into the program completely.

Part of the problem is that any rebellion faces intense reaction, from all sides, even on occasion from within. Rebellion creates real enemies. How people deal with this determines success or failure.

My first priority was keeping the campaign on course, following the strategy, adhering to its principles. Under my watch, the movement was not co-opted or compromised.

I believe that in a project of this nature, anyone without a strong ego will quickly be destroyed.

I should mention that the campaign had many successes which will be hard for anyone to duplicate. Currently I'm following a strategy of ideas. I believe the rebellion will triumph based first on its ideas.
***************************************************
Two key questions about Brady's project:
1.) Does the rebellion need a leader?
2.) What qualities and abilities are required for that person to succeed?

I've been reading about the great rebels and revolutionaries of history-- Vercingtorix, Brutus, Jesus, Washington, Robespierre, Lenin, Trotsky-- and have my thoughts, but I want to know: what do you think?
(Serious replies only. Others will be deleted.)

Value

The value of this blog is that I give the reader unflinching truth about literature, and about the literary world and how it operates.

A Movement of Ideas

One thing I haven't stressed enough is that the literary rebellion stands on a foundation of ideas. The underground arose as an expression of ideas, DIY ideas, given voice by Wred Fright, Tom Hendricks, Doug Holland, Doug Bassett, Fred Woodworth, Violet Jones, and so many others.

The rebellion, as a whole, is the only literary movement around today which represents new thought; an entirely new way of viewing literature and the literary world.

At the core, these ideas are aimed at breaking down two monopolies:
1.) The physical monopoly represented by the conglomerates.
2.) The intellectual monopoly, which I call Literary Solipsism, that has dominated poetry and prose for fifty years.

Liberating Literature

THE LITERARY REBELLION is a liberation movement. It began on October 8, 2000. Its goal is to liberate literature from the entrapment of bureaucratic boxes.

A FAILED ART
Any person with clear vision and the ability to view the larger context can see that as an art, based on what it produces, and on its role in the culture, extablishment literature is a failure. Since the 1920's it's been on a steady downward trend, despite occasional successes which come originally from out side the system, like the Beats.

Upticks in a down trend like McSweeney's are unable to halt the decline and rescue literature, because they embrace the system, and in their modest success, reinforce what's wrong with it.

THE BUSINESS
That the conglomerates are able to squeeze meager profits from the art means nothing, because it's accomplished through demeaning the art by ever more standardized examples of "popular" novels, genre fiction (interchangeable commodities like romance novels); and degrading trends like the execrable snob-based "gossip girl" books. Actual literature meanwhile is reserved for a coterie of fossilized authors young and old, from John Updike and Philip Roth to Marisha Pessl and Jonathan Safran Foer.

CHANGE FROM WITHIN?
If change is to come from within the system, it won't be done by co-opting undergrounders like myself. It will happen by writers already within the system joining the rebellion.

FAILED FOUNDATION
Contemporary literature rests on a philosophical and aesthetic foundation put into place fifty-five years ago. Call it postmodernism or call it reaction. Its weakness should be apparent to all. When a working class guy like myself who was not raised or educated to be a writer can hold his own in debate against armies of the system's best and brightest, it's not because of any intrinsic abilities of myself (other than basic common sense), but because I have a winning argument.

MINI-TETS
The dramatic actions of the Underground Literary Alliance the last seven years, or even my forays onto on-line nests of status quo apologists, are demonstrations that the System is too weak to deal with outside ideas-- that there is no way the literary rebellion, now that it's begun, can be stopped.

THE UNDERGROUND
The internal conflicts within the resistance are growing pains: signs of strength. They show that, unlike the monolithic literary establishment, our ideas have not hardened into concrete.

REBELLION HISTORY
Even if all literary rebels were somehow co-opted or destroyed, the rebellion itself would still triumph-- because of our ideas and our history: our founding myths. Our actions have been amazing and unprecedented. Their glow of boldness will serve to appeal to independent-minded writers for generations to come.

MODERATES
The System itself is grudgingly recognizing the necessity of change-- though movement in that direction has come in baby steps. Critics like B.R. Myers and James Wood can't be compared even to a Kerensky or a Lafayette. They are instead reformist cabinet ministers brought in by desperate sovereigns when the specter of revolution stands before them.

History shows that by then it's too late. Once the door to revolution has been opened it can't be closed until the house is rebuilt or overthrown. Ideas introduced from outside have an irresistible momentum. Once a Luther nails his 93 theses on a door, upheaval is certain to follow.

THE QUESTION for undergrounders and system literary folk alike is whether they wish to remain wedded to a backward, rear-guard approach, or instead award themselves the advantages which come with stepping fearlessly into a new world of revived literature.

Boycott: The Game

It'll be interesting to see if the boycott against the Underground Literary Alliance continues now that I'm no longer active in the organization.

How do I know there's a boycott?

A.) When NO lit-bloggers address major stories like the ULA uncovering the Paris Review/CIA link; or the Howl protest at Columbia-- only one of the most exciting literary events EVER, which I'm told created great word-of-mouth buzz in New York-- then there might be a boycott ongoing.

B.) When no major lit-bloggers will link to this blog; few lit-bloggers, period, beyond the unknowing or the extremely brave.

C.) A lit-blogger actually said, "We're not supposed to pay anymore attention to King Wenclas, but. . . ." !!

BOYCOTT: THE GAME

This is how the game is played:

1.) I try to come up with something interesting or provocative that lit-people want to talk about but know they can't.

2.) They-- the literary gossips especially-- sit anally at their desks in front of their computers testing how much they can take while holding in their eagerness to type.
(I'm told several New York media people have expired at their desks-- exploded into tiny pieces actually-- while playing this game during the ULA's Howl Protest.)
****************************************************
Possible Reactions to this Post:

THE PREPPY-GIRL YALE GRAD
"Boycott? That's like so-o-o-o silly, that's just like so-o-o paranoid, you asshole."

THE LOGICAL LIT-BLOGGER IN BOW TIE
"Let me point out to you, Wenclas, that when you flit around alienating everybody, as you've done rather exhaustively these lo so many last several years, then I'd rather think you rather precipated this rather predictable, if-you-will, treatment."

THE LITERARY TOTALITARIAN
"There is no boycott! Do you hear me? NOT A BOYCOTT. No boycott."

THE PUNK PSEUDO-REBEL PUBLISHING FLUNKIE
"Quit whining! You're always whining! Everything you've ever done you're forever whining!"

THE TRUST FUND EX-DEBUTANTE MCSWEENEYITE SNOB
"Go back to your basement and your job at Burger King. Nobody wants you, you no-talent hack. I wish you'd just die!"

Not Good Enough?

IT IRKS ME just a tad when some ignorant brainwashed stooge who knows nothing about literature and writing other than what was pumped into him in school will glance at a criticism I make of the lit world-- an informed criticism-- and dismiss it, out of hand, with a remark highlighting his ignorance-- usually that I'm "bitter" or "not good enough" for said literary establishment.

Not good enough! For a System which by-and-large produces garbage, from Philip Roth down.

This is akin to the "not a writer" charge which I endured patiently for seven years from a series of ULAers I was trying to promote, from Miss Sneerzinger to Mr. Hall to the five who bailed from the ULA a year ago. (Four whose own writing has scarcely progressed from kindergarten level.) The kind of thing which finally caused me to say, "Enough!" and depart from the organization myself.

Sorry, guys, but I KNOW I can write-- have put occasional evidence of this even up on this blog, if you care to look for it. In the last few months: my 12/31 post, or the Lish/Tolstoy satire, or more recently the "Planet XYZ" and "300" posts, in-your-face though they are.

Back in the early 90's when most of my current critics were soiling their diapers I wrote two long essays for what was then the best literary magazine in the country, regular winner of national magazine awards and such. Serious essays-- unlike what I do here. (One has to wonder if the journal was penalized for publishing me. Seriously. The lit-world is every bit as corrupt as I've claimed.)

I didn't begin writing to be just one more "literary" writer, however. Instead I sought to change a system I'd found to be staggeringly backward-- to change it through noise-making tactics like the ULA. The result was being branded by the real Know-Nothings of literature, the snob boys in bow ties, as "not a writer" or "not good enough."

I sigh like Charlie Brown at the price to be paid for attempting to wake up the literary world.

Pods

The System of literature is beyond internal reform, and in its current state is doomed to mediocrity, because it's filled at every level, from universities to editors to agents to lit-bloggers, with conformist boozhies who are thrown by those less regulated than them.

There isn't a striking personality among the lot. Blandness is their calling card. They're hostile to anyone who stands out.

"The Invasion of the Body Snatchers," in either 50's or 70's version, is a perfect metaphor for how the lit-world is now. In my every encounter with literary boozhies, this is how they've acted, like pods, whether their unconcern to revelations of corruption; or the stiff audiences and readers at KGB and Miller Hall; to e-mails from those like Ed "Rants" urging me to get with the program and be like everyone else.

It's scary if one thinks about it.

Magazine Report

A FEW DAYS LATE

In this week's New Yorker, Editor David Remnick defines Russian strong man Putin by his KGB past. The thinking: "Once KGB, always KGB."

I wonder if Remnick would apply this to the CIA: "Once CIA, always CIA."

This week's Newsweek has a cover story on the death of William F. Buckley. They pass over in light-hearted fashion the year he spent after Yale as a CIA agent. A meaningless fling? Maybe-- but years later Buckley wrote a series of novels devoted to the agency.

By "CIA" we mean not simply the government, but what for many years was a government within the government. We mean a mindset existing within the agency and outside it, which might best be described as "aggressive eastern establishment."

Buckley is regarded as the father of modern American conservatism. His journal, National Review, was founded in 1955 (two years after Paris Review). Buckley is being praised far and wide for having chased the "wackos" out of the conservative movement-- which means, in part, those who followed the original anti-Imperialist vision of this nation.

In Newsweek, praise for Buckley is given even by Nation Editor and Publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, renowned Lefty, though Buckley and her had little in common. But they had a great deal in common in that both came from backgrounds of extreme-- extreme-- wealth and privilege, and no doubt circulated at many of the same Manhattan and D.C. functions and parties.

Which indicates to me that class is more important than ideology in this country-- or maybe that the core, fundamental ideology of establishment "Right" and "Left" is the same.

You see, many questions are raised. . . .

In a sense, the ultra-wealthy deserve the power they wield over intellectual debate, because they're willing to fight for that power, by starting or buying intellectual journals, as the careers of Buckley and vanden Heuvel indicate.

Life Among the Overdogs

The New Yorker Conference has been announced for May 8 and 9 in Manhattan. Malcolm Gladwell is featured speaker. They promise "two days of forward thinking." Cost: $2,000 per person.

You'll get more new ideas from this blog, for free.

Underway

My four-part series on the major publishing industry has begun at
www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com

(I also have some remarks from Philly poet Victor Thompson at
www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com)

"The 300"

No, not the 300 Spartans. Anything but. I'm referring to the ULA's original Protest back in 2001. Remember it? We advocated against a large grant of money from a tax-shelter foundation to a very rich writer. The Protest had been signed by 40 zeensters. We mailed it to 300 prominent literary people, including the biggest names in the bizness-- Mailer, Updike, Sontag, and the like. 300 names. Not one signed it-- though many of them talked about it afterward at parties, as "Page Six" verified.

300 sterling names! Not a single example of conscience or backbone among them.

Is it any wonder I have no respect for these people?

I was actually surprised. I hadn't realized things were so bad. I was reminded of the first time I saw "The Hustler" on TV as a kid. At the end, the Paul Newman character is blackballed, and Minnesota Fats-- the great pool shark Minnesota Fats-- sits there submissively and does not intervene. Surprising. It was the first indication to me that something is more powerful than fame or talent; something lurking behind the scenes. Such is it with the literary industry.

The John Updikes of literature are mere show; the play of marionettes, pretending to speak with authority. With "authority"! The Great John Updike! Yet he has no authority at all. After all, he and others like him are merely puppets dancing across a stage; wooden-headed concoctions with no independence or integrity, and mean nothing.

TRUTH TO LITERARY POWER

In case you didn't understand what was happening here.

The Prisoner of Planet XYZ

AN ANONYMOUS poster on this blog questioned whether the literary establishment fears the literary rebellion.

The truth is that every action of theirs shows they're terrified of it. The panic we've faced has been palpable-- as on the radio show I did last year in Philadelphia. The host and the callers ascribed to the rebels untold powers we didn't have. We were going to shut out the Ivy Leaguers! US! We rag-tag rebels living in poverty. Heavens! Dangerous!

We received the same reaction in 2006, at Columbia's Miller Hall, from the Overdogs on stage. It was hilarious, really. These prestigious, much lauded writers, going into sudden unhinged hysterics as soon as I said one word under my breath: "Hypocrisy." Phillip Lopate stood, flummoxed and flustered, hand shaking, pointing, putting aside his prepared remarks to denounce us from the stage.

Fearful? The lit establishment? They're terrified! Petrified that their cozy world of corruption and insularity might be shaken by mere words, ideas, voices-- which is all the rebellion has for weapons. THEY control the institutions of literature-- the big money corporations, universities, foundations. Yet we're confident while they're frightened.

Frightened? Yes! Why else have I been so isolated?

I have a bit of a name-- received ample press attention when the ULA was at the peak of their activity. Yet has there been any effort to utilize that name? Have I received one offer to write one scrap of opinion for anybody? Not one! It might be too dangerous an opportunity to let a literary revolutionary speak.

Legions of line-ups of fearful little puppets, whispering beneath their strings. . . .

(Plimpton the only Overdog who wasn't fearful.)

Where have been the Overdogs willing to debate myself, or my recent allies in the ULA? (The radio debate last year, I faced a biased host, a stacked-deck of hostile callers, and a turned-down microphone, yet won anyway.)

The main portion of the literary blogosphere has blacklisted me. Scan all the bigger names and try to find any links to me. Gawker recently pointed to a post of mine-- but made certain not to mention my name.

Terrified? Terrified!

Using the planetary analogy from Literary Mystery's "Plutocracy USA," I'm a prisoner on a tiny planet in a faraway corner of the literary galaxy. That's what you're visiting right now, you know. An isolated little corner of the lit scene. Haven't you noticed? I'm under quarantine. The situation has been arranged so that I'll be no further trouble to the powers that be. I dwell on a far, desolate planet, depopulated-- which is what central Detroit feels like. Allowing the noisemaking, the articles, the attention the rebels received a few years ago is acknowledged far and wide by the mandarins as having been a mistake.

Ah, but what if by chance I should someday escape from exile on Planet XYZ? What then?

WHAT THEN???

The Society Page

While scanning literary sites, I stumbled upon the site for trendy Insider writer Meghan Daum. Anyone who argues that the approved literary world is NOT dominated by bluebloods from backgrounds of extreme privilege had best take a look at her photo at

www.meghandaum.com

Very attractive, sure, but very much in a very stuffy snooty Social Register way. Doesn't she look ready for the full dress ball at the mansion? Will Mumsy and Daddy be there? "Brent" or "Chip" or "Darcy" or "Binnie" or "Boo"? Aristocracy lives! Call out the footmen and carriages, with giant mastiffs on guard on the lawns.

But what do you think?

Meanwhile

Latest statistics show the high school graduation rate in Detroit is 32%. An enormous underclass is being created in America. We're now a very hierarchical society of many classes, many levels; like a too-tall many layered cake. Right near the top of the cake, a mere sliver of it, exists the established literary world. The perspective of these insulated people is cut off from the rest of society-- yet in their narrow arrogance they imagine that their view is the only view. They can't feel the churning beneath their feet.

The result: an American literature which is increasingly irrelevant.

Who Wants Change?

THE QUESTION becomes: Who wants to change literature? Who believes that American literature today is corrupt and decrepit? Who understands that the public face of the novel, dinosaurs like Philip Roth and John Updike, would be Grade B level in a better time, or that mainstream poetry is in such sad shape it has no public face-- unless one counts John Ashbery and his inert New Yorker scribblings?

Who wants change?

The Halfwayers

THOSE who are attracted to change need to realize there is no halfway point between literary rebellion and being in the camp of the Overdogs. Some lit personalities like Meghan O'Rourke and Ed Champion believe they can do both.

Meghan is a fan of undergrounds past. She pays lip service to the idea of undergrounds. Feckless Ed pays lip service to the idea of change. He wishes to believe that lit-bloggers can represent change and not change anything at all about the current system.

When push does not come to shove-- when there is only the most mild push engaged in by someone; the gentlest tap of dissent to the status quo-- such as they turn into reactionaries. Indeed, they become the firmest of reactionaries; the most closed-minded toward new ideas. Probably because real change shows up the phoniness of a pose.

Misconceptions

THE IRONIES involves with recent ULA happenings which helped lead to my departure are many. Two misconceptions:

1.) The widespread notion among ULAers past and present that the ULA's activist campaign was the problem-- when it's the one aspect of the ULA which worked best.

2.) The idea that I called all the shots in the organization. The reality was different. What I did manage to do in the Underground Literary Alliance the last several years:
a.) Hang on to my corner of the ULA-- said activism-- against continual panic and hand-wringing.
b.) Take responsibility for everything, taking all the hits, all the blame, from insiders and outsiders alike, thereby providing cover for the rest of the team.

Today's Question

Who is Hollywood's best babe?
-Jessica Alba
-Halle Berry
-Scarlett Johansen
-Angelina Jolie
-Eva Longoria
-Jennifer Lopez
-Other.

New Postings

Here's what we've got for you:

-Nationally-known anthologized writer Lee Klein, now a Philadelphian, at
www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com

-#7 of my "Ten Best" movie series at
www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com

A new Chapter at "Literary Mystery" should be up this weekend, featuring another appearance by fictional character "George Plimpton." Brand new chapters are in the works.
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com

(You may not be having fun, but I am.)

Check them out!

Ideas or Tactics?

A mistake I made when leading the Underground Literary Alliance was allowing our enemies to define us solely on our tactics, when the important part of the literary rebellion has always been the ideas behind the tactics.

Not that the tactics weren't necessary-- they were absolutely necessary to give the authentic literary underground any kind of standing. In this society, cultural totalitarianism is maintained by its noise level.

In future essays I'll point out the anachronistic thought patterns of System-backed pseudo-rebels; how they're immoveably stuck in the assumptions of the Sixties, which no longer hold in a nation which since then in so many ways, starting with economically, has been radically transformed. The entire culture remains trapped in the Sixties. It's time to cut loose.

The literary Resistance will triumph with new, unstoppable ideas.

More Carver II

I really believe that with segments of the literary industry we're dealing with malevolence. Gordon Lish had to hate Ray Carver to do what he did-- or be totally consumed with his own ego and selfishness. Read the original versions of the stories and you'll see they were fine-- nothing untoward or amateurish about them. Lish DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT to rewrite them to make them Gordon Lish stories. It was about power and control, not art. Read Lish's own work and you'll see that he hates literature-- unless you consider lobotomized exhibitionism to be literature.

The Editor's job is NOT to replace the writer's vision and style with his own, but, at most, to help the writer more ably and fully express the intent and vision of the artwork.

Carver wasn't a baby at writing. He'd been at it for years and knew what he was doing. Lish used him like a ventriloquist's dummy-- used him flagrantly and maliciously.

There's pathos in this matter-- most of all when Carver decided before the Lish-edited book came out that he wanted it stopped. Think what a dilemma this represented for a guy who'd been struggling to achieve major publication for so long. According to reports, Carver frantically wrote Gordon Lish asking that the book be halted. Lish ignored him.

Today's Question

Who would win a steel cage match last person standing between:
-Hillary Clinton;
-Barack Obama;
-John McCain;
-"Dick" Cheney;
-Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
??(I was going to include Putin, but that would make the question too easy.)

Lish Is Responsible

Gordon Lish is responsible for being a major influence on some of the worst writing in American literary history.

For instance, the anthologized story by the famous trendy author which begins something like this:

"I'm a dog, yes a dog, dog dog dog, a fast dog, like to go fast, fast fast fast dog, like to run run run fast fast fast, a dog, I am, yes a dog. . . ."

This kind of gibberish is one step beneath Dr. Seuss.

Gordon Lish, along with David Foster Wallace, were chief influences on an entire lit movement, the dreaded McSweeneyites.

The 1980's was one of the worst decades for American literature EVER. You had the George Plimpton-created brat pack of Jay McInerney and Tama Janowitz; assorted minimally-talented "minimalists" like Peter Cameron and Ann Beattie, and worst of all, the cutesy kindergarten level posing of Gordon Lish's journal, Quarterly. That he helped discover Amy Hempel is reason alone to put him in American Lit's "Hall of Infamy," alongside Phillip Lopate and Jason Shinder.

As bad as the Eighties decade was for established literature, however, things have only gotten worse. The retreat into thumb-sucking narcissism, as represented in journals like the afore referred-to McSweeney's, would now shock even a five year-old.

Today's Question

Who's the most overrated rock singer?

(Note: All comments are allowed, for the time being.)

More Raymond Carver

MALEVOLENT LIT PART I

We in the underground least of all should be blaming the victim when a fellow writer is abused by literary Overdogs. Ray Carver is a tragic figure and deserves our sympathy. He was an ambitious working class writer who was played for a fool; used as the class clown at writing programs then later turned into a Frankenstein monster or freak show attraction.

"Look at him! The Minimalist! Get yer tickets here, folks. Step right up! Behind this curtain, we have for you. . . ."

They tamed and mutilated him, then gave him to the public as if to say, "Here! This is what we can do to a writer."

Carver knew what'd been done to his work, and to him. He'd been psychologically lobotomized, as helpless as Winston Smith at the end of Orwell's masterpiece. Isn't this how so much of Ray Carver's work sounds to the reader? The stories were lobotomized. And so, trendy Overdog writers like Ann Beattie, Susan Minot, and Jay McInerney gloried in them.

It was subtle, what'd been done to Carver, as cruel in its way as any censorship devised by totalitarians. (Maybe because it came from literary totalitarians.) Ray Carver was censored and celebrated; celebrated BECAUSE he'd been censored in some kind of sick inside joke.

WRITERS CAN BE DANGEROUS. They're not wanted by the establishment if they've shown signs of too much independence. We see in the pages of lit journals and New Yorker magazines the domesticated pets of literature. Literature has lost its anarchy, its rebelliousness, and its excitement.

Safe pets all: editors, critics, poets and writers alike. Line them up in a row and that's what you'll find.

It'd always been a mystery to me why Raymond Carver was lauded as a great writer. He was a good one-- his longer stories like "Boxes" were pretty good-- but critically there was a wild overreaction to them. Something else was going on.

Blog Report

Check out "The John Wayne Factor" at
www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com
"Fantastic Detroit" is still ongoing at
www.detroitliterary.blogspot.com -- for those who want the flavor of Detroit.
Another writer checks in at the "Philly Lit Today" series at
www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com
And-- there are some key posts below this one on this blog, including "Gordon Lish Meets Tolstoy," and an Inside Tip for the publishing world.

Check it all out!

My Strategy

Let me state that I have nothing but regard for the ULA. How could I not? It was my creation. I wish it nothing but success. We remain on the same side, as far as I'm concerned. Our objectives, I'd hope, are the same.

My leaving should've surprised nobody. I stated it and discussed it on this blog and on the ULA's private forum. I generally say what I mean and mean what I say.

And really, it was past time for me to leave. Once I realized I'd lost the support of the ULA's #2 and #3, my departure was a done deal. After what transpired the last couple months within the team, there was no way I could remain. I'd certainly put in enough years on the project. No one should begrudge my wanting a change. Besides, no one was listening to me anyway! I needed a break from the ULA, and it needed a break from me.

REBELLION
As I stated in my 12/31 note on this blog, the Underground Literary Alliance is not the rebellion itself, only one vehicle for it. I intend to continue literary rebellion, in my own way, but it will be a rebellion of one.

CONSIDERATIONS
The ULA wasn't working for me personally as that rebellion-- which isn't to say that it can't work well for others. I hope it does. I'll take some reflected glow in its success. Too much of my time over the past several years was taken up by the demands and debates of the team. Further, the ULA was becoming too easy a target. I found myself with no mobility, was too easily pinned down within the ULA. The point I was making with my 12/31 post, for those who cared to see it, is that the literary rebellion can exist outside any house or group or name. There are advantages to a group-- which is why eight years ago I formed one. The disadvantage is anchoring that rebellion to an organization which can be isolated and attacked, as it's been attacked very strenuously from the outside and the inside.

As I was almost always the target of those attacks, I can best help the ULA by stepping away from it.

STRATEGY
Moving to Detroit gave me a different perspective on the literary game board-- an opportunity to devise a different strategy. The ULA strategy which had been in place was sounder than most believed-- as I'll explain in coming days-- but had been reduced to, in football terms, running the ball straight up the middle; directly into the opposing line. (For this I take full responsibility.) It would've worked with full execution, but committed execution of the plan we didn't have and never had.

For me, the break from the team has been liberating. I no longer feel tied down worrying about who I please or displease with my words or actions. The only person I need to satisfy is me. I'm free to draw on the entire range of my talents, which are substantial. I'm the best publicist (or propagandist) the underground has seen in a generation. No one in the lit world can generate strong arguments and sustain them like I can.

THE ASSUMED PLAN
I'm putting together my own propaganda machine, my own personal "army," if you will, of up to a dozen blogs. With no distractions I'll be able to maintain them and create a synergy of noise. The Idea: using Detroit and Philly as bases from which to move about the country. (I'll be pursuing in those towns only peace.) Endless options open up to me. Do I target Chicago, for instance: a major prize? I can appear at open mics throughout the country, eventually head west and hook-up with undergrounders from Portland to the Bay area.

BACK-UP
Meanwhile, there IS a "Project X" on my drawing board, and a pre-Project X to set it up. Whether I get to them will depend on my situation.

Gordon Lish Meets Tolstoy

(Note: Gordon Lish is the editor who mangled Ray Carver's writing. Lish is himself a prominently published writer; a major influence on the "hippest" writers of today. I imagined what would happen if Lish were assigned the task of editing classic novelists like Melville or Tolstoy.)

GORDON LISH MEETS TOLSTOY
"First, Lev, baby, boychik, we have to take out this messy historical business. It has to go. Nobody wants to read it! It's history! Does anyone like history? A clue: a short little brief whispered I won't say it loudly little tiny clue: 'Dry as dust.' Okay? Are we getting the picture, the image here, Mr. Count? Yes, yes, I know, you have all that time on your hands on your nice little estate when you're not chasing peasant girls, but we're talking serious business here, Count. We're talking literature! We're talking readers! Is a teenage girl Hannah Montana teenage fan girl in Ocean Barf California going to care one gazoodle about all this historical junk you've crammed into this too-long book? Napoleon? Please. He's got to go, and your characters are talking about Napoleon almost on the very first page! NOBODY cares about Napoleon! Are we understanding what we're talking about here Mr. Bigshot Russian Novelist? Is the light glimmering? GET RID OF IT! Yes, yes, Moscow is very important, yes, crucial, you say. But don't you know one soft-pedalled whispered hint about writing strategies? What did they teach you in writing class? Were you sleeping? Snoozing snoring through your moustaches? Here's what we do: 'And then Napoleon captured Moscow.' There. Okay? That's it. Presto magic solution. SOLVED. Lightbulb? It gets us directly to the important stuff, which is how Natasha feels about it. We'll get inside her perky little head and stay inside there and eliminate the cluttered furniture; the houses, armies, generals, battles, landscapes, families, bad relations, rowdy peasants-- ugh!-- drunken lieutenants: the entire sorry soggy mess.

"And all this philosophical garbage?!! You have me tearing my hair out here in frustration at what you've presented me here with this manuscript, Count, really."

BONUS: GORDON LISH MEETS MELVILLE
"A whale? A white whale???!"

Inside Tip

WE'LL see coming up whether the New York publishing world any longer contains even an ounce of brains; whether those N.Y. insiders-- Gawker or whoever-- who still read this blog know how to spot and jump on opportunity. After all, the Choire Sichas, Maud Newtons, and Elizabeth Spiers of the Magic Island are nothing if not opportunists, and I'm giving here, if not the scoop of a lifetime, the opportunity of 2008.

I've just received and read Philly writer Lawrence Richette's latest novel, Private Screenings, published through Xlibris. Richette has always been that rarest of beings today, a competent novelist, but now he's outdone himself and written a great one. Perhaps the stress of his recent life (Philly people know what I mean) has opened the floodgates on his talent and bumped it to another level. I don't know the why, wherefores, or whatevers. I just know his new book is a terrific read. It's the best novel of this decade. Yes, believe it. That it was published through Xlibris, that it had to be published through Xlibris, makes it a bigger story.

I'll be reviewing the book on more than one blog simultaneously in a few weeks-- which leaves others (agents, reviewers, publishers) time to get quickly in step with what's happening: the full emergence of a major American writer.

Today's Question

Who's the Tiger Woods of literature, past or present?

Done with It

For those who were wondering, or if there was doubt--

Put this in your pipe and smoke it: I'm officially through (have been) with the ULA as an Active Member. I've asked to be taken down from my positions of prominence on the ULA site.

The ULA was a quixotic project. When I created it I carried many ideals. Few remain.

I'm still a supporter-- for now-- which means, passively observing from the sidelines, like Achilles at his ships. For further statement see Achilles's speech near the beginning of The Iliad when he was withdrawing from that team.

For me, the ULA is in the past. I'm moving forward.

On Raymond Carver

FANS
Writers who are fans of Ray Carver should be most outraged at the way he was treated. No better argument can be given for the original ULA campaign, which was supposed to change the dynamic of writers as powerless supplicants subservient to the whims of all-powerful editors and publishers.

The Ray Carver story shows that editorial decisions change the nature of artworks-- decisions based on ideology masquerading as aesthetics; completing the job begun in writing programs of gutting the writer's mind and his work of content and context, leaving mere vague feelings, which is what happened with Carver's writing.

Today's Question

Is baseball pitcher Roger Clemens lying?

Now Up

"Fantastic Detroit": a great new essay at www.detroitliterary.blogspot.com

ALSO:
-"Best Movie" #8 at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com
-News at www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com

The King Wenclas Lit-Blog Network

More CIA Fun Stuff

THE DROOLING braindead mavens of what passes today for literary culture need to view American literature within context. From 1950 to 1990 that context was the Cold War. The leading literary figures during that period, including George Plimpton but also Robert Silvers of New York Review of Books, Norman Podhoretz at Commentary, the "New York Intellectuals" at Partisan Review and New Criterion, were COLD WARRIORS. Study their friggin' history! Is everyone in literature today an ignorant zombie? Are you going to tell me their political ideology had NO influence on editorial policy?
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The guy we should've interviewed was Mailer, before he passed on. Curious that a few months before his death he'd been giving his usual flatulent interviews to adoring boozhie audiences, then suddenly was gone. (Smothered by a pillow?) (Maybe his son cryogenically froze him a la Ted Williams. We can hope.)

Mailer was a good buddy of Plimpton's and likely knew the truth. He'd written a novel about the CIA-- I plan to read it-- and had a sequel planned before being talked out of it to do instead a crapsterpiece about Hitler.

I suspect the troll on the mountain will make a reappearance at my "Plutocracy USA" tale (www.literarymystery.blogspot.com). That is, if I'm not "accidentally" run over by a Detroit snowplow in the interim.
**********************************************************
(Note: This Friday, February 8, is the seven-year anniversary of the great debate at CBGB's-- specifically, CB's Gallery-- preppy editors of the Paris Review including Mr. Plimpton against the ULA. It was a real exchange of conflicting ideas-- one of the great moments of literary history.)

Today's Question

A SUPER TUESDAY PACZKI DAY QUESTION

Who will be the next President? (BONUS QUESTION: Who were you supporting?)

The King Wenclas Lit-Blog Network

Much happening worth checking out:

-A Lawrence Richette essay now up at
www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com

-A new essay of my own at
www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com

-Chapter Eight now up at
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
(with a special fictional appearance by none other than "George Plimpton.")

-A great new essay about the Cass Corridor upcoming at
www.detroitliterary.blogspot.com

HERE at this location I'll be doing a series of posts on the topic, "Compromise and Ray Carver." This story is at the heart of what's wrong with American literature today. The question of when to compromise, and in what areas, should be of concern for every writer.

Request

Could someone notify us here if the NY Times runs an article on the Harold Humes/Peter Matthiessen issue, or if they have this week already? I suspect it will be of the cover-up variety.
Thanks.

On James Linville

My communications over the last few years with former Paris Review editor James Linville have strengthened my belief in the Richard Cummings article. Mr. Linville sometimes appears to border on the unstable. He has a penchant for sending out hysterical e-mails (such as those sent to me and to a couple ULAers this weekend). If the New York Times deals with him for any length of time they'll realize this also. (I suspect they already have.)

It's James Linville who seems to lack any semblance of common sense. He has no perspective toward who myself and the ULA are, and what was important and newsworthy in the story we posted, and why we posted it. It's Linville who has behaved, since the Matthiessen story broke, like the proverbial chicken with its head cut off; bombarding people with scattershot e-mails; not even getting the names and roles straight of the ULAers to whom he's been sending them.

THE CONTEXT
The ULA has posted its "Monday Reports" with a belief in Thomas Jefferson's famous motto: put all ideas on the table and the truth will win out.

The ULA is not the New York Times. We don't have an army of paid fact-checkers. What the Underground Literary Alliance has been, through its history, is a mere handful of rabble-rousing truth seekers who work shitty low-pay jobs and pursue lit activities during stray moments of free time.

Unlike James Linville, I don't have the means to fly back and forth across the oceans to pursue this odd detail or that one. In truth, it's not what the ULA has been about.

THE OFFER
I notified James Linville before we ran the Richard Cummings article in 2005. J.L. refused to publicly deny Cummings's contentions, would not confirm or deny the central premise (which presumably he already knew to be true), and couldn't give me, and has never given me, a straight answer about anything. From Linville all has been vagueness and obfuscation.

As the piece ran on our site, I offered James Linville the opportunity to give us his response. He could've denied the essay, politely or with outrage. Linville could've attacked a particle of it or all of it, in as many words as he cared to utilize. For almost three years that offer has been open AND CONTINUES TO BE OPEN to James Linville. He has never sought to take advantage of it.

CREDIBILITY
If I've formed a question about the credibility of anyone in this affair, it's James Linville himself. Throughout he's behaved in ways cryptic and mysterious, acting-- bizarrely enough-- AS IF he were a secret agent; after the Matthiessen revelation flying back and forth from England on a moment's whim; arranging sudden consultations with Paris Review editors; behaving toward Richard Cummings-- whose essay, opinionated and foolhardy or not, was an act of bravery-- in a manner akin to stalking. Likely Linville isn't a "secret agent," but he sure enjoys playing one.

THE PROPOSED MEETING
Linville forwarded to me copies of many e-mails he sent Cummings, in which Linville was trying to arrange a meeting, alone, with Cummings, during which he wanted to "ask him one question." What the important and mysterious question was, and why he couldn't ask Cummings via e-mail, was not revealed. The request for a meeting was interspersed with bullying insults, attempts at intimidation. I'm sure I still retain copies of those e-mails. Cummings would've been crazy to meet the man.

THE PARIS REVIEW
Throughout, The Paris Review, to my knowledge, has never denied one iota of the substance of the Cummings article. Their current editor, in fact, has acknowledged the key point, saying this was "common knowledge" among the TPR staff. (Matthiessen's connection with the CIA was surely NOT common knowledge among the reading public.)

Several months AFTER the ULA ran the Cummings piece, I met with a representative of The Paris Review, Jonathan Dee, who wanted to interview me for a supposed book on George Plimpton. We met for lunch at McHale's in New York City. During the entirety of our taped conversation, Mr. Dee never once mentioned the Cummings matter. I eventually broached the subject myself, in a light-hearted way. He said nothing, did not seem to want to discuss the issue, so I moved on. Obviously, there was no apparent animus at that time toward me from the magazine, and no eagerness to question me or the ULA about what we were doing or saying regarding the CIA. They had pronounced uninterest in the story. So has it remained.

Many, many questions of course remain.

Advisory

Note: The Paris Review/CIA matter has resurfaced in the person of James Linville, who supposedly is cooperating with the New York Times on a story on the matter.

I hope the New York Times gives myself (and the ULA, if they wish to be involved), proper TIME to respond to this matter before running anything-- and hope they contact us themselves. I trust they won't rush into print a hatchet job.

As for myself, I eagerly welcome ANY public discussion of this matter, and hope that all parties-- including the Paris Review-- are involved in such discussion. I'll take full responsibility for the ULA running the Cummings piece, if need be, as I arranged it.

The fact is that the piece was run in the interest of BRINGING THIS MATTER TO DAYLIGHT. Again, any public discussion of this is a good thing.

I'll have much more to say on the matter-- and now feel free to bring James Linville's actions to light-- such as the 100+ e-mails he sent me after Peter Matthiessen admitted CIA backing of the journal-- which, after all, was the central revelation of the Cummings piece the ULA ran as a "Monday Report."

Bring it on!

The Real Shakspere

This week I jumped into a discussion on another blog, Daniel Green's "Reading Experience," on the post "Publish or Perish.) (See www.noggs,typepad.com/the_reading_experience)

On matters of literature, Green is my ideological opposite. He has a selfish view of literature-- if he had his wish the art would belong to him alone. The idea of reaching the masses is anathema to him.

He's advocated the polite kind of
poetry reading
of gentle words
and stripped-down verse
no rhythmn of rumbling building energy
of shouted unpleasantries
that shake the listener's spine--
no rhyme or euphonious line--
Not poetry at all.

And so he's far distant from the long ago literary performer who was the inspiration for THIS blog, Will Shakespeare.

THE QUESTION was about Ray Carver, and whether the art belongs to the artist, or to the conglomerate system of literary bureaucrats and skyscraper offices that bought it.

It's strictly a question of control. Amazing to me is how writers like Daniel Green are so eager to cede control to the hierarchs.

The irony is that people today applaud themselves for their non-conformity, yet are the most conformist generation of the most regulated and conformist society in history.

This subservient attitude is bad for literature and art.

An eye-opener for me was when I researched the original documents regarding "Shakspere," to understand the actual person.

His mentality was 180 degrees opposite that of writers today. With his writing itself he was restricted by no one. (He couldn't go too far with ideas against the Crown, of course.)

This man-- he was only a man; a roustabout actor-- felt free, as writers today are NOT free, to play with words, grammar, spelling. He wasn't a product of the Academy. There were no dictionaries. No editors as we know them. He was as much, or more, an artist of verbal language as of the written kind. His words and grammar were often made up on the spot. (He was much like a couple clown actor street writers I know.) This character Shakspere would never, NEVER, fit into today's hyperregulated system of literature.

Literary people today want stylistic standardization because they're creatures of the precision and standardization of the Machine Age introduced with Industrial Capitalism. The artisan exchanged for the assembly line.

Do we really need the standardization of literature? Which means, of our minds?

Why?

Well, to be plugged into proper jobs in this institutional bureaucracy or that one, that's why.

But what has this to do with art?

WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH ART???

Sure, Shakespeare was a genius, we say now. Yea, sure.

But in a way he wasn't a genius at all.

He was a scrambling boozing shitting struggling-to-survive-and-have-fun-while-doing-it character. He had fun, and today, hearing his words, seeing his plays, we have fun also.

Were Blake and Van Gogh geniuses?

Or were they not eccentrics of original vision?

What fun is there in foillowing the crowd?

Better to break the rules, snub the regulators, the school marms, the high priests of culture to step eagerly into the unknown.

Nine: "The Guns of Navarone"

An old-fashioned popcorn movie with a sense of wonder about it.

Dismissed as a straightforward action-adventure, there's more going on in it.

The movie's wonderful prologue, which speaks of the "gods and demi-gods" of ancient Greece, reveals this conscious attempt to create a modern-day myth, yet no one noticed.

We're cast quickly into myth, as a team of heroes is formed during WWII and sent on a seemingly impossible mission to destroy monsters: two gigantic German guns which rain fire on all around them. Few movies have so played with the forces of nature, as the band of commandos survive a sea storm; climb unscaleable cliffs; journey through tunnels and across snow-covered mountains on the way to their goal, which once glimpsed at the outset stand close in the back of our minds until presented again with all their terrible power. At the end the surviving heroes are thrown back into the sea from whence they came, come full circle, memories playing in their heads of their comrades and experience.

This is a movie not about ridiculous fantasy, but about myth; the creation of myth. The fiery guns are fantastic but very real at the same time, which adds to their strength as symbols. We know while viewing the action that such adventures, such heroics, DID happen, in the recent past. Which makes the heroics great and believable. No goofy CGI monsters, buff narcissistic gym-rats, or camera-trick hobbits, sorry.

Note: crucially important for the impact of "Guns" is the musical score by Dmitri Tiomkin. Motion pictures are a combination of arts. I rate the value of music as an ingredient in film very highly-- which is why with at least five of these choices, the film music is among the best ever written. Which is the case with the next selection. . . .

p.s. The remaining eight selections will be presented at my newest blog,
www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com

New Blog

I have to briefly interrupt my "Best Movies" series to announce another new blog at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com
which will eventually serve as a co-blog base for my upcoming projects, along with "Demi-Puppets" of course.

Next up at "Happy": "The Dream."

Number Ten: "Zorba the Greek"

I haven't seen this in many years, since I was in my twenties and viewed it at some art house revival. I can't say how it would hold up if I saw it again. For me it was life-changing. Its message is that life, like art, is exotic and an adventure and a mystery. One has to plunge into the experience. It's a cliche to say it, but we're all on our own personal Odysseys, as is the Alan Bates character, who arrives in Greece with his stack of books. Dominating the action is quixotic con artist Zorba, played by cinematic madman Anthony Quinn, who also appears, curiously enough, in the next selection; the most questionable choice of the ten.

The Ten Best Movies?

STARTING with my next post I'll give my selections for the ten best motion pictures of all time. I'll include some explanation of each one, so that by the time the last selection (#1) is given, the reader will have a sense of the criteria used when I made my choices. It's a subjective list but an objective one at the same time; as all art criticism has to be.

I treated movies as art and experience. I looked for films which exploited the possibilities of the art; understanding as I did what those possibilities are. Too much film criticism over the years has treated film as A.) a literary work; B.) a piece of furniture, whose importance lies in how it's pieced together.

I considered the movies chosen as they appear on the big screen-- how this particular art was meant to be displayed.

You'll see as the list is given that I avoided many (not all) of the obvious choices-- what would be the fun in that? Also because many of the obvious choices are wrong.

Many films almost made the cut. I would've loved to have included "GodfatherII," for instance; surely a masterpiece. The big screen reveals the incredible tapestry of its set pieces. (Who can forget the parade in Little Italy?) It was left off my list because it's too consciously a masterpiece. Its greatness is all on the screen. Despite the tragedy of Michael Corleone, the darkness is on the surface, without enough resonant depths which leave the viewer a different person; which cause him to judge not just Michael Corleone, but himself. Still, it's a masterpiece all the same.

But enough talk. Next up: Number Ten.

Coming Changes

MY BREAK from, if not with, the ULA is for real. At some point I'll evaluate where I stand. In the meantime I'm moving ahead with fresh projects. I'm motivated and advocating for radical literary change but will be applying a new strategy and new tactics. Stay posted on these moves here and on my other blogs--
www.detroitliterary.blogspot.com
www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com--
with a Chicago blog on the drawing board and another exciting new blog yet to follow.

Literary Rebellion 2008

NEW LITERATURE like all new art can't be confined to institutions. The literary revolution underway is greater than conglomerates or MFA programs. Only by breaking out of the current system can one see literature for what it truly is: a great moving transcendent art.

Those inside the system are blind to what's happening. Their institutional walls mirror the aesthetic walls erected around their brains.

Can one live inside the walls and understand what happens outside them?

Can living art be catalogued and confined, quantified and put into a box?

One can't be revolutionary, an advocate of new literature, without breaking from the institutional walls of the old. Non-criticism of the status quo means you still are one with that status quo. You haven't broken with the present and so are unable to build a new future. Instead you're co-opted, subsumed, consumed by what is now-- the rigidly dead and decaying corpse of literature now. You're one with a corpse.

The Underground Literary Alliance is a vehicle for that which is literary and revolutionary. Nothing more.

To break with the present and become part of the new world of literature means embracing the historical break that has taken place-- a break in time, visible, which occurred on October 8, 2000; the onset of literary rebellion, of an upturned and renewed literary world.

The literary revolution can't be destroyed. It's an idea, an energy-- not a building or one person or group of persons. The flag has been planted. The break recorded. The call for new literature documented.

If the vehicle of the movement stalls and crashes, the movement continues anyway.

If the members of the cause are betrayed, or betray their own cause, yet the movement continues anyway.

The basis of the new movement is truth, honesty, integrity, independence, cooperation, commitment, desire for change and unflinching FEARLESSNESS in implementing that change in pursuit of revived literature-- literature not of dead words and borrowed postures but living art.

Merry Christmas?

REMEMBER the homeless person in the wheelchair I wrote about a couple months ago?

This morning I was walking through the burned-out outskirts of downtown Detroit on a bitterly cold day-- bitterly cold-- when I saw said person in wheelchair vanish inside a niche of an abandoned building; seeking shelter from the relentless wind. A quickly-moving bundled figure in a chair. There are parts of Detroit that would move Charles Dickens to tears of frustration for exceeding in tragedy anything he depicted.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Essay Awaited

Next up from the McSweeney's Gang: An apologia for record-setting baseball player Roger Clemens saying he may not actually be lying about his steroid use-- where's the definitive proof?-- and it's excusable anyway because everyone else is doing it! Success is All.

Ten Landmark Movies

Here's my list, in historical order, of ten movies which came with the "shock of the new"; whose impact was greater than we can experience today. They redefined the art of film in this country-- for good or ill.

1.) The Great Train Robbery.
2.) Birth of a Nation.
3.) The Jazz Singer.
4.) Citizen Kane.
5.) The Robe.
6.) Psycho.
7.) Goldfinger.
8.) Bonnie and Clyde.
9.) Star Wars.
10.) Pulp Fiction.

This is a prelude to my next movie list, which will be less obvious and will come with explanations: The Ten Best Movies of All Time.

Movies: "The Godfather"

Remember the plot?

The Don won't compromise his principles. The other families are angry and put a hit on him, while trying to destroy his organization from within. Betrayals are common.

It's almost a history of the Underground Literary Alliance.

Open Mic

I checked out a decent open mic last night at a place called Beaner's on Woodward in Royal Oak, about five miles from Detroit. A report upcoming next week on my new Detroit blog.

Notice

I've stepped down as Publicity Director of the ULA until further notice. I'll not give my labor for free to those who'll betray it.

I remain as a Supporting Member, as I support the ULA mission, the web site and most of the current membership, the Philly branch particularly.

Motivations

Coup Plotter #2:
He's a "can't we all just get along" kind of person, and presumably blames me for the dissension we've had in the team, people who've left, and so on. He doesn't realize that people leaving happens in any organization. I've seen more people come and leave in my present job than in seven years of the ULA. Conflicts will happen-- especially in an outfit whose mission is rebellion.

I've had time to think about the question of leadership-- when a leader is necessary. I've sought the ULA to have role models, not leaders.

Without leaders a group can operate ONLY in the spirit of cooperation-- which is not how Coup Plotter #1 has been operating.

Every revolution in history has had leaders-- which may mean in the final analysis nothing more than someone there to take the heat, which has been my role in my seven years as unofficial leader of the ULA. Someone out front to receive the inevitable brickbats. During this period I've tried several times to push someone else to the forefront. There were never any takers. It takes a certain kind of personality to take the responsibility and take the heat. A revolt-- even a literary revolt-- is going to generate heat. In many ways that's the point.

Have I riled people? Many many people. I have enemies all over the place. It comes with the territory-- with daring to make real change.

Revolutions have tried to move without leaders, or a series of leaders. The French Revolution failed because it had no overarching unifying force like a George Washington. Men like Danton and Robespierre took their turns but were swept aside by the conflicts and heat, the madness of those who could not keep their heads while making change and so lost them literally.

What dilemmas did someone like Robespierre face? He started as a man of peace and of utter integrity, then faced a choice between losing the revolution or compromising his ideals as the Revolution was assaulted from all sides; betrayed from within and attacked from outside. Easy enough for us to sneer at him from the outside, through the pages of history books, without understanding the choices he faced.

The same can probably be said for Castro in our own time. Yes, he's a monster, a ruthless dictator; hardly a saint. He's imprisoned many people. Why? Attacked from without and within-- he could either act or lose the revolution, what he'd created. One can agree or disagree with his cause but at the same time recognize that the moment he caves in to the U.S. and the monopolies that experiment is over. It will be dismantled, piece by piece, becoming swiftly enough what it was before he came on the scene-- a Disney amusement park for the corrupt and the monied.

I'm trying to prevent the ULA from being co-opted and destroyed. . . .

What kind of ULA will remain if the coup plotters succeed?

There will be no leaders, certainly; not a trace of a leader. no decision making. No actions done which create any waves. It will separate into fiefdoms feeding on the remains of the ULA's reputation. There will be no one to generate-- or take-- any heat, and so it will stagnate into just one more on-line place for conversation and back-slapping, while the two coup plotters recede safely into the background, satisfied there is no longer any noise.

The Coup

I knew it was coming, in some ways willed it to happen.

I had left Philadelphia to give the campaign and myself some breathing space-- to lower the ULA's profile and give us a chance to regroup.

Remember what happened? The opposite of what I'd expected. Interest in this rebellion from our rivals and enemies suddenly went up. They smelled weakness and blood. I was attacked on "Gawker," of all places, and by others on this blog, the first visible interest in it in months. I played with this. I was experiencing real personal difficulties after my move. I wrote about them here, as readers know. I decided, "Let the sharks come out, from outside and within. Let them reveal themselves." The ULA seemed up for grabs.

In fact I've received many e-mails from likely and unlikely sources. From the ever-egregious Ed Rants, a System stooge through-and-through, urging me to quit the battle. From a McSweeneyite contact back east trying to find out where I was, what I was up to, and when I'd be back. Even from a prominent magazine editor in New York, friend of one of our major foes, prodding the apparently-dead corpse.

A maneuver was coming-- I only needed to wait for it.

(Next: The WHY of the matter.)

Update

Apparently a coup of sorts has taken place within the ULA, which has left me with no say in the organization I created. Consider me under internal "house arrest" at the present time. (Whether I can reverse this remains to be seen.)

In the meantime I'll be practicing my spoken word presentation-- instead of always winging things-- in preparation for becoming a solo act!

Sidebar

This is how I feel:

As if we've defeated over the years a series of the world's most evil and clownish villians-- the Joker, the Penguin, Doc Octopus, the Mummy, etc.-- and suddenly the entire group of them is brought back at once in front of our eyes.

Or, picture a line-up of eight jack-in-the-boxes popping up at once at the same point in the ridiculous music, all with the same painted-on idiotic grin.

Those to whom this refers will know what I'm talking about. Pardon me if I try to put you back in your boxes.

ULA Opportunities

2008 will be a good year for the ULA because the entire game board is open to us. Right now, Chicago is an open city-- a huge prize without the obstacles we've faced in the east. We have a base of sorts in Chicago-- a few great members; a couple media contacts-- but we need to strengthen it. I'm well-positioned in Detroit to access both Cleveland (a ULA base) and the jewel waiting to be taken that is Chicago. This I'll be doing.
(p.s. There's a great "ULA Monday Report" by Chicago-area writer Adam Hardin at www.literaryrevolution.com Check it out.)

New Blog

Check it out at www.detroitliterary.blogspot.com

Challenges

I've never felt truly alive unless I'm facing a challenge. Back against the wall.

Too many writers-- zine people for instance-- allow themselves to become stuck in a mental box or niche, a cozy place from which they never progress. The years pass and they keep cranking out more issues of "Macaroni," #812. Which is fine if that's all you want.

To leave a mark your projects have to constantly mutate and grow, artistically. This is the task of the Underground Literary Alliance-- to keep our core attitude and message yet keep moving and changing. This is our challenge.

We have a great history but it's only that. New moves are required.

I look out from our tiny outpost of Truth and Integrity on the literary map and see us surrounded by opponents on all sides. Massed armies. Yet at the same time I see their weakness; paths through them to their cardboard fortresses standing like stage scenery within sight. I feel in some small way how Cortez nust've felt with his band of brigands in a golden city in an alien land, surrounded by a magnificent opposing army of many thousands yet knowing victory was his if he kept his head and met the awe-inspiring challenge.

Typical Lit Site

"The cat sits
in the rain
Fuck Matt Damon."
-by Glitzy

"Brilliant." -Trash Mouth
"Awesome!" -D.J.

"The dog
barking
barfs."
-by Trash Mouth

"Awesome." -Glitzy
"Brilliant!" -D.J.

"I am a baseball
player
baseball
baseball,
player."
-by D.J.

"I didn't know you wrote poetry!" -Glitzy
"Brilliant! Awesome!" -Trash Mouth

Underground

On the verge of dropping completely off the radar screen and vanishing into the muck of a beaten-down city I've become again what I used to be: a genuine underground writer.

The Good News

The good news is that the Underground Literary Alliance is alive and well. Overall 2007 was a successful year for us. 2008 will be better.

The Truth Tellers

IN A LAND where literary Overdogs from the monied classes glory in their own duplicity; where literary bureaucrats beneath them, who I call Demi-Puppets, live insulated in their sinecured offices amazingly obtuse about the realities of America while obsessed not with art but with grammatical trivialities and editorial control over writers-- the bland-faced living definition of mediocrities-- where newspapers even the "alternative" kind in cities like Detroit suffering from economic depression and financial collapse are printed with large glowing Happy Faces on their covers; in this societally-mad situation only writers in the underground as represented in the ULA and elsewhere will give you an inkling of WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING.

Why I Write

I write to change the culture. I believe in cultural revolution-- in writing as a vehicle to bring about change. Real change. Transformational change. I'm involved with the Underground Literary Alliance in order to change literature. Not just change literature-- transform it, from top to bottom. I believe literature can rescue this society but first we have to rescue literature.

I don't know why others write. They seem to be stuck in holding patterns, believing that if they write long enough something will magically drop from the sky for them. If they just keep writing someone will recognize them. But that's not life. You have to make the world recognize you-- have to grab it.

The time for change is now. Not some ill-defined unspecified never-mentioned time that will never arrive. The time is NOW.

Writing

What I ask from the world is the freedom to write. I left the last decent job I had at the end of 1999 because I couldn't write. It was an always-on-call seven-day-a-week seventy-hour workweek position which left me no energy or time or space in my mind to write. I couldn't write! I was burning out brain cells processing stupefyingly dull paperwork submitting government-specified according-to-regulation entries for shipper clients and I never could write. As I worked I had many things in the back of my mind I wanted to write about. I created the ULA the spectre or first idea of the ULA back there, back in the untouched segments of my brain I wasn't using. Back in the tiny hectic riverfront office where I spent all my time.

Now I work shitty jobs part-time which don't pay my bills but I have some freedom. I write every day. I should be writing novels, could write some good ones but that's too draining when you still have to work but at least I'm writing, something. Even this. I yet have a little freedom.

I'm like the character I created Alex Skarski who just wanted to play her guitar the right way, except I'm not a guitarist, I'm a writer.

A Manifesto of Writing

My manifesto: I believe in literature. I'm part of the cult of fanatic madness of reading and writing. I believe words can save people. They saved me. When I was working nights in a railroad yard in the Eighties a young man with no course in life I read the words of giants like Dickens and Hugo and Dumas and Tolstoy and they saved me. I opened books in a tower while waiting for trains and the universe expanded. It multiplied in front of me. The great books expanded my mind.

Other writers are my brothers and sisters, yea, truly. They understand-- some of them understand-- this fanatic creed we've adopted, this cult of reading and writing. Literature is a religion if it reaches down into your soul; if it expresses the soul of life you see around you; if it shapes and explains your world and gives voice to your yearnings, your thoughts, your existence, your meaning.

Mailer

My take on Norman Mailer is still up at the Literary Mystery blog, in Chapter Four. (He appears near the end of the chapter.)

It can be found at www.literarymystery.blogspot.com/2007/07/chapter-four.html

What's Wrong with This Picture?

All this fall at libraries around the country, the ALA (www.ala.org) had displays up about "Banned Books." One of the books depicted on the display poster was The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan. Clearly visible on the cover of the book as shown on the poster were the words, "Nine Months on New York Times Best Seller List."

About ULA Shows

I just saw this recent remark from Jackie Corley's blog (http://jackiecorley.wordriot.org/2007/09/07/oh-benevolent-dictator/ )

"I like the ULA. I don’t agree with them all the time, but I like them. I did a ULA reading a couple years ago in this anarchist bar in Philly and it was probably the best lit event I’ve ever been to. All the readers varied in their writing and performance styles and that’s not something you see at most readings. Like, there were slam poets mixed in with short story writers, guys who were so sucked into their words that they spat and shouted their lines and guys who read in a straight monotone. There were just all different types of people. It felt very spontaneous, a little bit lunatic asylum. It was great."