Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Street Versus Academic Poetry

The matter was proved fairly conclusively in January 2004 when the prestigious University of Pennsylvania held a poetry slam at their Kelly Writers House. First Prize was cash money and promised publication in one of their literary periodicals. They opened the competition not just to their own pedigreed students, but to members of the general Philly poetic community.

Present to compete were the well-screened well-trained "Best of the Best" which Ivy League students are supposed to represent. After all, they pay gigantic sums of money ($41,000 a year) to achieve this standing.

However, the event was won by ULAer Frank Walsh, who read his masterpiece "Reagan's Brain" and wowed the audience. Coming in close second was energetic Philly street poet (previously renowned in L.A.) Michael Grover. U of Penn's best finished far behind. From their perspective, the contest was embarrassing.

Would it surprise you to know that Penn reneged on its promise to publish Frank's work? No explanation given. (Though they did at least come through with the cash, which they have plenty of.)

Academy poets are unthinking zombies clinging to outmoded rules and training. They see a poem as a dead object to be dissected by morticians in a laboratory. Underground poets, by contrast, breathe life into their works through the synergy created by public performance. Poetry becomes a vibrant, unpredictable EVENT, as it was at the beginning of its history; compelling words combined with the speaker's passion and energy. (This is the secret to the success of Shakespeare-- whose words, as I've stressed again and again on this blog, were meant to be performed; to be heard, witnessed, viscerally felt.)


Tim Hall said...

Did they give him a reason why they were reneging?

I think we should start a "Demi-Puppet Library", and nominate certain texts based on how well they expose (usually unintentionally) the demi-puppet demimonde. My first nominee is Dan Wakefield's "New York in the Fifties" -- it's a virtual bible of demi-puppetry. Published 35 years after the publication of ON THE ROAD, Wakefield still expresses bafflement at the ascendency of the barbarian beats, who he claims "were only a small niche in the whole scene." And yet all his reminiscences are about: going to bars and parties; going to columbia and other schools; networking with magazine and newspaper journalists and editors; meeting famous people. Throughout, he's a spectator to his own spectator - a meta-spectator. He still resents the beats because they weren't "making the scene" like he and his pals; still distrusts them because they were doers, not talkers.

As a record of the times it's a slight book; as the unintentional unfolding of the demi-puppet mindset it's riveting, and well worth reading for insights into these reactionary times. I would have thrown it out 5 years ago if I hadn't caught on to that aspect of it, and I flip through and still marvel at Wakefield's vast, windswept cluelessness.

I can easily picture a believer acolyte or 826 slave penning such a book 30 years from now, and it being just as filled with emptiness and head-scratching at the ULA.

Beau Blue said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Beau Blue said...

The Streets v. The Tower

Another brag about how the masses embrace recalcitrants, reject academe's weaknesses.

Personally, I've never understood which of the 'groups' I should align myself with, considering the great indifference of both towards anybody but their own insiders and acolytes. The ol' boy network working in both camps. Both 'sides' blind in one eye.

And other than some emotional release in complaining, what is the point of this continuing tirade? Is there a plan to push this underground to the respectability of a 'movement'? Is there a master plan on how to change the quo? Cause reading one bitch after another gets old pretty fast. 'Specially when the rants are powerless to cause change.

More than the rants, I think, I'd like to see some suggestions on how to expand the ranks of the underground. A blueprint for obtaining even more recalcitrant recognition for even more recalcitrants. Has anyone in the underground published a 'project plan' for unseating the favored from their positions? A formal plan for expanding the reach of the underground? That would be of more interest to me than restatement after restatement of the 'strengths' of the forgotten and the 'weaknesses' of the respectable.


Anonymous said...

We HAVE a plan for taking over literature. We're not about, though, to post our entire strategy here for all to view!
Suffice it to say we're proceeding according to plan. The first step is getting a position on the chessboard, which we've managed to do thanks to the attention we've received. Options have opened-- the trick will be to take advantage of them.
We're steadily expanding our membership and our reach. We're careful not to grow too fast.
We're not a clique-- we're open to all underground writers who agree with our program and can get involved.
There's a waiting list of writers to get on board. Managing any organization takes a lot of energy and time, however. . . .
Sorry that you get tired of our lobbying for our cause. But winning the debate over literature is a necessary step toward our goal. One has to hit the world with our ideas again and again-- to prove our point over and over. Did movements in other realms ever stop lobbying? The Marxists? Christians?
The question for you is not to expect me to stand on my head to entertain you, but to make a decision as to which side represents the future of literature. All you're doing now is fence-sitting. Choose a side and get involved! That's half the fun.

Anonymous said...

Karl W can't get a job--but he's going to take over literature. Classic. But Beau Blue, don't you love his ability to evade any criticism by one of three transparent arguments? I'd list them here, but it's beside the point, isn't it? The ULA: proof positive that habitually avoiding the truth actually makes people stupider.

Anonymous said...

Study history sometime, Anonymous, and you'll see that the most important factor in changing the world is simply believing in what you're doing! As we do. 99% of the people in any field at any time are merely marking time, unsure about what to believe-- like Montezuma when confronting Cortez and his small band, looking for signs to tell him what to do.
All I said in my comment was the truth. The ULA continues to add members and expand the number of people who know about us. As long as this continues we have no reason for concern. Just in the last few months we've added some very dynamic literary activists-- Tim Hall, Patrick Simonelli, and Noah Cicero, among others. (Maybe you noticed our site's recent improvement.)
Don't I have reason to be confident about the ULA's direction? Why be glum, when our position on the game board continually strengthens?
(p.s. I should be starting two jobs soon-- when I, er, get back from Zytron that is! Not that it matters. The founder of the biggest movement of them all was usually homeless, we kind of forget. They faced their number of setbacks. . . .)

Tim Hall said...

"Karl W can't get a job--but he's going to take over literature. Classic."

OH MY GOD, Anonymouse, that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time!!! LOL!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!

Translation: "How are you going to change things if you can't fit into the STATUS QUO?"

OMG!!! <3 !!! :-D ... U REWL

Anonymous said...

Dude, you can totally be confident. You've signed up new people? Awesome. Good on ya. You're on the chess board? Fuckin A. More and more people know about the ULA? As Mr. Burns would say, "Excellent."

The problems, as I see them as an amused/interested though dispassionate observer (who will remain anonymous because I have no desire to start getting ULA mail):

The dynamic new writers who are ULAers up in USA literature's grill are, frankly, terrible writers. I've googled some of their work. Noah Cicero has anti-talent. Tim Hall is a crank bitterly old before his time; his work has as much surprise in it as empty box. The other dude I don't know, but, given what's up at any given moment on the ULA site, I'm not hopeful. If these are the saviors of American lit, let the apocalypse begin.

On the chess board: What chess board? Art is not a political arena. It's not about maneuvering. It's not about careers, or "plans." It's funny: You guys are bigger glory hounds and more shameless careerists than the pretty boys you hate. Your entire understanding of how art and culture and literature works is completely wrong. Again, I'd tell you how and why, but that would require my belief that anything I'm typing right now will be considered and thought about by you.

More people know about the ULA: My friend, I live in a media center in the industrial Midwest. I know people who know you. I know lots of indie writers and do-it-yrselfers. And you're right: people do know about the ULA, more than ever. Unfortunately, when the ULA comes up there is usually copious eye-rolling and laughter. That you believe in what you're doing is beside the point. People who believe in UFOs believe in what they're doing. The sad fact is that talent is important. Ability is important. Your hero Shakespeare would understand that. He'd also look at the work the ULA is doing and throw up his mutton at the vindictiveness, boringness, hysteria, and good old shitty predictability of all ULA work.

In a word: You guys need to change drastically, or stop. Ten years from now, you're all going to be telling us how victory is nigh. It will be pathetic then. It's pathetic now.

I'm sorry.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mister Anonymouse-

"People who believe in UFOs believe in what they're doing."

Is this supposed to mean that UFOs aren't real?!! You really are naive, demi puppet!

You speak of literature as if there are objective standards, as if "talent" is something that you're born with, or something that can be developed through hard work and a dedication to craft. Well, as my briskly selling 'zine, "Rambings of a Half-wit Pseudo Marxist" has demonstrated, the REAL REVOLUTIONARY LIT of today is about the self-pitying narcissism of underachievers, the paralyzing whining of the less fortunate, it's about the timeless "Town vs. Gown" narrative so profoundly explored in Good Will Hunting, John Hughes movies, or "The OC". Are you trying weally, weally hard? Do you have a hard luck story? Then you are a genius, or at the very least, a "dynamic" writer.

So take that demi puppet--check, and mate!

Noah Cicero said...

Mr. Anon
Note Monday Report. The Underground demolished the Professionals when the writing was shown to regular people. Six of those eight people were casual readers. That is empirical evidence. Bukowski sells more books a year than Eggers or Moody does. That is empirical evidence. Where is yours?
It is obvious that Kostecke, Crazy Carl, and Michael Estabrook should be published and put in the stores and not the three professionals named from that experiement. The numbers are there. We have shown one fact after another. But you give us is a bunch of upper class toads laughing. The ULA sits around and laughs at you too, are we both right then. The only evidence you have provided is laughter, HA HA, am I right now. That is just silly and kind of childish don't you think. It reminds of when I was little and a kid would say, "My dad told so, and my dad doesn't lie." Sartre wrote in the Critique of Dialectical Reason, "The other tells the other tells the other, till no one thinks it." You people exhibit his idea of how public opinion is made perfectly.

"Noah Cicero is anti-talent" I kind of like that, can I use that as a blurb? If anti-talent means not writing long dry sentences with big words that don't need to be used, not writing novels that are just filler about horses and skiing, if it means not writing books full of stale bourgeois notions that aren't based in concrete reality, if it means not sacrificing making sense to have a sentence with alliteration, if it doesn't mean I was trained at an expensive college, if it means I don't write my books to be made into movies, if it means I don't get to appear in Harper's, if it means that NO ONE RADS MY BOOKS BECAUSE MY WRITING SUCKS EXCEPT OTHER BOURGEOIS UPPER CLASS SNOBS WHO ONLY BUY MY FUCKING BOOK TO HOLD IT IN A PUBLIC PLACE HOPING SOME OTHER SNOBBISH BITCH WILL SEE THEM HOLDING IT AND WILL WANT TO HAVE LAME BOURGEOIS SEX WITH THEM, then I guess I don't have any fucking talent, and to tell you the truth that has been my goal since the beginning. And in reality talent doesn't exist, talent means: inherently good. I choose my sentences, I choose every fucking goddamn word that is written, I don't let one mother fuckering asshole choose or influence one word for me. If that means I am "Anti-Talent" then I proudly am.

Anonymous said...

Noah Cicero,

You can lead a moron to Sartre, but you can't make him think.

You don't respond to argument. You respond with completely unfounded accusations of classism and snobbery when, in fact, none exist. I didn't even go to college. I don't give a shit where other people went. I accept that most people, and most writers, are basically doing the best they can given their circumstances, and I bestow upon those who deserve it the benefit of the doubt. Your writing stinks not because you're poor or didn't go to college or whatever. Your writing stinks because you have no appreciation of the mystery of human beings or their lives. You hate too much with too little contemplation. You write out of unhealthy impulses: revenge, anger, scorn, recrimination, class hostility. If you think Dave Eggers (whose work I'm not that crazy about) has had an easy life, and is an upper-class twit, that's stupid. His parents died criminally early, his sister killed herself: Do you want to switch places with him? Are your parents still with us? Ever lose a sibling you loved? Just because someone grew up in a nice house does not mean they are inhuman, or unfamiliar with pain. As REM said, "Everyone hurts." Bukowski got along quite well financially, in the end. Should he be rejected because of that? You can't apply unfair standards of morality only to the people you don't admire. That's what's wrong with you. Yours is a selective morality. An artist has to be better than that.

And what's all this about your little science project that proves certain writers would sell better than others? I just read it. As a scientific set-piece, it leaves much to be desired. I also unfortunately don't trust you not to cook the books. But anyway; Who gives a shit what sells? Melville sold terribly for decades. Popularity is not what art is about. Art is about exploration, and honesty, and openness. A good writer doesn't give a shit about what her books sell. A good writer cares about sales only insofar as it allows her to keep working.

What we have here is the classic paradox: You preaching against conformity, classism, snobbery, and cruelty in terms that are conformist, classist, snobby, and cruel. I'm sorry you're plagued with feelings of low self-esteem. That's not anyone's problem, or fault, but your own. If you could get beyond that, and write about what mattered to you in a way that was honest, self-critical, skeptical, and humane, you might actually write something good. However, I sincerely doubt that. I await your inevitable raillery...

Anonymous said...

Hey, Noah Cicero!

We'd love to have lame bourgeois sex with you, even though you don't like our books. Then maybe we can ride horses together. Think about it?

Heidi & Vendela

Anonymous said...

Oh, there’s a SECRET plan to take over literature. Well, then by all means…

Marxists and Christians didn’t pursue their goals by whining about the fact that no one paid any attention to them and by insulting their ‘enemies’ and their enemies’ families. They did it by embodying their values in resonant works of literature around which complex constituencies could organize themselves. Stalinists and inquisitors did it the other way, and betrayed the revolutionary intent of their movements. Thugs are always reactionaries, and anti-intellectuals are always thugs, which might be good things to keep in mind in developing the secret plan.

It’s easy to enlist Shakespeare in your cause, but if the ULA had been around in the sixteenth century, you know you’d have been slagging him as a demi-puppet of James I (he even called himself one of the ‘King’s Men’! Might as well have said ‘a McSweeney person’), saying that he and his insular little club of Burbage and Kempe at The Globe were meaningless elitists only interested in furthering the careers of their friends. And who but bourgeois robots cares about stories involving kings and princes, anyway? What relevance does a play about Cleopatra have for London’s working poor? What a bunch of overeducated sellouts. You probably wouldn’t even have read him or seen his plays because you’d heard he plagiarized Plautus and Ovid and Plutarch. And then he accepted the patronage of the Earl of Southampton even though his dad owned three houses in Stratford. Corrupt asshole.

Less talk, more rock, guys.

Anonymous said...


I'm sorry. I reread your experient's results, and you're right: Exotic dancers should be in charge of determining the course of literature. Thank you, you fucking visionary young man.

Anonymous said...

Dear Bam Bam (if that is your real name)-

Nice try distracting everyone with "logic" and historical "facts." (Like Shakespeare wasn't a made-up guy anyway.) If you want REAL FACTS, I invite you to look at the scientific study of literature at the Monday report. RAD THAT and then dispute it Demi-puppet motherfuckeringererer. The ULA does ROCK and the ghost of Hunter S Thompson--who wrote for glossy magazines but who cares because he was a "rebel"--told me so too. So take your smart little history lesson back to the tea party where you have bourgeoise sex with McSweeney's chicks, and prepare yourself for the LITERARY REVOLUTION, because when it happens, smarty pants, big-word-using jerks like yourselves are going to be the first ones up against the wall.

Anonymous said...

After reading over the comments of Bam-Bam, I have to conclude that it's now King Wenclas: 547, Demipuppets: 1. However, it is such a crushing demolishment, I think it's time to conclude that I've only been winning my arguments because my opponents get bored and stop posting. I hereby announce to all ULA members that I am staying on planet Zytron, or whatever the fuck it's called. I can win almost all of my arguments here, largely because I'm the only person on the planet. I'm now going to find all the upperclass rocks on planet Zytron's surface, and smash them. Our revolution on Earth is over. We are hopeless buttwads.

Noah Cicero said...

"of classism and snobbery when, in fact, none exist."
This is all about class. The war the ULA is waging has so little to do with writing it fucking sickens me.
"Your writing stinks because you have no appreciation of the mystery of human beings or their lives."
There is no mystery to human life, everything about humans that is to be known has been found out, Marx, Skinner, Sartre, De Beauvoir, Wittgenstein, Russel, Frued, Engels, and some others have put it all down on paper. What you mistake for mystery are only bourgeois cliches and notions.
"You write out of unhealthy impulses: revenge, anger, scorn, recrimination, class hostility."
Those are very healthy behaviors for a person from the lower classes but in reality now that i think of it, I don't know a single person from the lower classes that doesn't have those behaviors. Impulses don't exist, you choose what you do. and "class hostility" I cannot committ class hostility because I am of the lower classes, only the upper classses can commit class hostility.
"As REM said, "Everyone hurts."
REM and Bono are fucking stupid twats exploiting impoverished people to gain fame. Dave Eggers hurts because his mom doesn't love him, I hurt because I was BORN into a class that is locked out of chances. Ever shovel shit because because the state won't give your neighborhood city sewer and water because you live on the poor side of town. Probably not. Ever caddy for rich people, carrying two forty pound bags for rich people that treat you like an animal in 90 degree weather with 90% humidity. I doubt it. And if you have, then your current bourgeois notions you are upholding are just you trying to pretend you are rich. Isn't that just republican of you.
"I also unfortunately don't trust you not to cook the books"
That was beyond childish. I feel like I'm playing shoots and ladders with a six year old and I just won and the kid yells, "You cheated."
"Popularity is not what art is about."
You are defending writers like Eggers with a line like that. You are talking about writers who work their asses off to be "hip", who try to get into every magazine they can. You get their books in every big book store in America. Who try to win every award they can. That's something tenth grader girls say while carrying around Emily Dickenson wearing black shadow.
"A good writer doesn't give a shit about what her books sell"
You are going to have to prove that one, first find a good writer, and ask them, "Have you ever asked your publishing company how many books you've sold?" The answer will always be, "Yes." If Dave Eggers wasn't concerned with how many books him and his friends sell why would they put up reviews for each other. Obviously they want to sell more books, why would Moody and now Foer have their books made into movies, because they want to sell more books. Melville didn't sell when he was alive, but I'm sure he wanted his books too. People want their books to sell, it supplies money, money buys shit, at most a good writer could say, "I would like to sell a lot of books because I would like to entertain and show as many people as possible my own personal view of the world as possible." What you said also reminds me of a tenth grader girl carrying a copy of Emily Dickenson wearing black liner.
Another dumb about that is, that is like saying a good engineer doesn't want money for inventing a part. Or a good cook doesn't want money for making a new dish. A good band doesn't want to make money, U2 does stupid commercials, Rolling Stones has their songs on commercials. That was so dumb I wouldn't be surprised you have care-takers.
"What we have here is the classic paradox: You preaching against conformity, classism, snobbery, and cruelty in terms that are conformist, classist, snobby, and cruel."
The conformist thing I don't understand, maybe I'll bring it to the local high school and see what they say.
The classism thing is silly. I cannot be classist, (the caps are to emphasize slow talking) I AM FROM THE LOWER CLASSES, I CANNOT DIRECT HOSTILITY AT THE UPPER CLASSES, THEY CAN ONLY DO THAT TO ME.
The snobbery thing is really deranged. You call a group of writers that want to give good literature back to the people snobbish. Therefore you are saying, "It is better to be snobbish against every day working and unemployed people than to upper class people who have no problems, educations, coonections and firm economic lives." That is classist and even more republican of you.
"If you could get beyond that, and write about what mattered to you in a way that was honest, self-critical, skeptical, and humane, you might actually write something good"
I have no idea what that even means. You are going to have elaborate on that. That sounds like something somebody would say in a writing workshop. You're awsome.
Conclusion: I guess this is what happens when tenth graders read Dave Eggers. But knowing America's academic system this is probably a thirty five year old that graduated from Columbia.

Anonymous said...

"The war the ULA is waging has so little to do with writing it fucking sickens me. "

You and me both, Noah.

Noah Cicero said...

To the person that mentioned the exotic dancers.
Maybe you should ask Jean Rhys who was a prostitute and Kathy Acker who did sex shows.

Adam Hardin said...

You know I have read alot of back and forth comments between the underground and the MFAers, and they generally agree on one thing: Eggers is not that good.

The ULA says Eggers absolutely sucks(I agree). The MFAers say Eggers is not great. But both come to some kind a vague concensus that he is not Hemingway or Faulkner or a major American writer. Good.

(The fight over Bukowski is much more extreme and polarized.)

On the subject of the contest: I was very happy to hear that he won. It proves that if the contest is fair and judged blindly, on its merits, then a good poet may have a chance of winning regardless of whether or not he has a long resume. And this is why so many contests are fixed and awards go to former students, lovers, and friends. If the contests were merit based, they would lose a good part of the time. They need these awards for their resume.

Getting back to the original subject: I am suprised

Anonymous said...

OK Noah, now we're getting somewhere. You admit that the class gripes don't have anything to do with writing and that you don't understand most of what your opponents here are saying. Let me try to explain some of it to you:

I'm really sorry that you've had a tough time, and even sorrier that the tough time you've had has made you see the world in the crude terms of class. It's ok, a lot of people do--rich and poor--but I think your opponents here would argue that an artist needs to see beyond these poor dichotomies, especially in a country like this one where, in absolute terms, everyone is pretty fuckin' well off.

My life wasn't easy, and I've worked some pretty shitty, pretty humiliating jobs--digging ditches for rich people, taking care of tennis courts for rich people, fetching things for rich people--but I was always aware that it was within my power to make my life better, that I had my health, that I could create opportunities for myself.

Most of all I knew there were always others out there--inside our country and even more outside of it--who had it much harder and were handling their troubles with much more courage and grace, and so I would try not to feel sorry for myself and keep going. Anyway, I suspect you--and a lot of people posting on this blog--are better off than a lot of people, too, which makes the maudlin, self-pitying crap a little hard to take, especially when so much of it is focused on petty envy.

And yes, human beings (read lower classes) can direct hostility toward other human beings (read upper classes)--they might have better excuses for it, but an artist knows that the rich can sometimes be innocent and the poor can sometimes be guilty.

Last thing: you don't have to like the writing of Eggers or the Foer or the like, but because you don't like it doesn't mean that their writing is inauthentic. If you made "class" a basis for good literature (and that would exclude Eggers from your crude dichotomy, I think) then you'd be excluding a lot of fine literature, inclduing, as Bam Bam pointed out, Shakespeare, and also including some of the people *you* cited as secret sharers of all the "mysteries of human nature" (a statement, I'm sure, every one of them would disavow). Anyway, Eggers doesn't whine about how his mom didn't love him; he mourned her death--and his father's death-- both of which happened at a cruelly young age, and if that isn't enough suffering for someone's life to be authentic in your eyes, than you have bigger problems than being a ideologue. Of course, Eggers isn;t the one whining--he's writing books that you are free to dislike, but a lot of people do; and, instead of whining, he's putting a significant amount of money that he makes into reading centers that tutor underprivileged kids. What a jerk.

Anonymous said...

Dave Eggers is doing more for underprileged children, than the ULA, which is essentially narcissistic. This unmitigated hatred of success does not play well in America. The Jews, Blacks and Rich are not responsible for all of America ills. As a novelist, I could not care less about what the niche publiactions are doing. It's amazing ULA wastes its energy attacking what it wants to be. The Literary scene is not monolithic. I actually had a decent view of ULA, before I actually watched them closely, and my opinion keeps getting worse. Whining and moaning, which is a trait of the people you attack. They have chick lit, you the feeling that the world owes you something lit.

--The Unabashed Truth

Anonymous said...

Also, I agree with the poster who posted above me. Although I admit I am no fan of Eggers writing, but have a decent opinion of the man.

--The Unabashed Truth

Noah Cicero said...

You have a choice, since this is a class related problem. The ULA bitches like The Sierra Club or PETA, or we revolt and kill you. Pick, ULA or you and your family dead. Pick please. That is what I was talking about.

p.s. I don't care if Eggers whole family dies.

p.s. I feel like that character in Boyz in the Hood when he is punching the air in front of his girlfriend.

Anonymous said...

This comes from a new poster but avid reader of this blog.

Noah Cicero, I used to think you were an unreflective, petty, and overall pretty stupid guy who made King Wenclas look like John Locke. After that last post, I stand corrected.

You are a lousy, evil motherfucker who deserves to be punched in nuts.

Better yet, here's an idea. Find a bottle of Seconal. Take twelve tablets. Chase with a bottle of vodka. Repeat as necessary until the world is rid of you and your brainless assaholism.

Anonymous said...

Holy shit!

King, is this what your revolution and "cultural watchdog" group has come to? One of your members wishing death on the family of a writer?

The Unabashed Truth said it well: The more closely you guys are looked at, the more disgusting you appear.

Noah Cicero said...

I gotta write some more, to specify things. If The ULA cannot win with better writing and better ideas on literature. Then it must be a class problem. That implies to me you are a reactionary force, and the only way a reactionary force can be stopped is by a bigger force to physically stop it.
"Exotic dancers should be in charge of determining the course of literature."
Look at that comment, that says it all. Dancers are people and people should be charge of determining the course of literature. What does scholars give us , note the report, William Greenway is a award winning poet and professor, on the actual test no one even marked him as their favorte and like three marked him as their least favorite. Yes, the scholars should be charge, that's just genius.
To make nine dollars an hour in this country you have to excel at toadishes, lying, and to give up all diginity. That is what it means to make it in America, this country is so fucked now that you have sell your soul to get nine dollars an hour. You could make the movie Citizen Kane with Denny's managers nowadays.
"You are a lousy, evil motherfucker who deserves to be punched in nuts."
Come on bitch, I'll knock your stupid white collar ass out. I'll be in New York in May, that's where all you pansies live so I assume you live there. Give me your address, I'll come by and smash your face in and fuck your wife so hard she will scream for hours. And if this is a female I'll smash your face in and then fuck your husband.
You better hope I kill myself, because if I find you, first I'm gonna break your nose, then rip your eyes out and eat them, then break your hands so you can never type again, then fuck your wife, then I'm gonna go over to your mom's house and fuck her, and then beat the shit out of grandpa.

Noah Cicero said...

"the more disgusting you appear."
That's totally correct. If you came into my house and saw the holes in the cieling, the shitty twenty year old carpet that is NOT WHITE, my dancer girlfriend, and the remnants of hamburger helper in a pot on the kitchen table. You would for sure think I'm disgusting.
Question: Why do the intellectuals hate Bukowski? Because they fear what he wrote, that people acutally live like that. That America produces such vile creatures.
America is currently playing that we are a great country, when we are not. America is third world, our govt. is bankrupt, our dollar is lower than some third world countries, 1.2 apply for unemployment benifits a month when 130 thousand jobs are created, and OUR country has taken over two countries for no good reason. Those are the signs of a shitty country but you are still playing that we are great, give up the act, there are 250 millin disgusting no good mother fuckers in this country, face it.
With that phrase you keep proving my point, thank you. It is like you are all in line to come and prove how big classist assholes you are.
Next please

Anonymous said...

I keep hearing exclamations pro Eggers; but where are they to be found? On the ULA blog!

Shouldn't you guys be like... on the FOE (Friends of Eggers) site?

"He is not the only person to ever lose his parents, and ... he is not the only person ever to lose his parents and inherit a youngster. But he would like to point out that he is currently the only such person with a book contract." ---

I haven't been the first person to think Dave Eggers is amused by his own barren amusement. But I would like to point out that I am currently the only such person who will not criticize; as it's made nothing but mere animals out of the "Eggers fans."

Someone stated that Eggers does more for children than the ULA. Well, why shouldn't he? Rich people have the strongest claim to pity. Eggers' education tends to render him vain and helpless. He's operating on consumer dollars, the least he could do is give a little something to a community.

Anonymous said...

Monsieur Cicero,

I think the earlier poster meant you were morally disgusting, not literally disgusting.

I think you're a sick asshole too. You want to come bash in my face and fuck my husband and beat up my grandfather? My. How about I just give you the address of the apartment building I live in, and you can randomly assault everyone who lives here?

Let's see. My working definition of gutless fucking pussy: A guy who can dish out tons of scorn, but can't take it. Wait. Is that a gutless fucking pussy, or a pathetic frustrated bully? Maybe it's just the definition of "Noah Cicero."

The ULA: America's premier literary watchdog group that threatens to rape the people who make fun of it.

Beau Blue said...

Fighting imaginary wars

Was there ever a time when the ones at the top weren't viewed by the forgotten as lifeless? Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?

First an underground, then a movement, then a rung or two of respectability and lastly a footnote in someone who is respectable's history. Respectable (read 'weak' if you want) writers? Who wants to be one of those? All it takes to be a pro is to get someone to pay you to do it. Good or bad, if they pay? Guess what?

Condemning a 'group' in it's own time is a worthless exercise. In fact, it may be counterproductive. Brings them more attention from your ranks than they deserve. Ignore them in public except to raid them for converts. It's what they do to the rabble (read 'strong' if you want) writers, er rousers.

Wouldn't increased promotion of your ranks work better than dissing theirs to further your cause?


Anonymous said...

"Brings them more attention from your ranks than they deserve."

I thought this wasn't about class?

Beau Blue said...

the ranks of the 'rabble writers' v. the ranks of the 'establishment writers'.

Where this began, I think. Before Noah lost his head and blew it up into gigantic political struggles best left to people a little more stable than a pack of egoists & parasites & foolish old men with what are, at best, questionable pencils.


Anonymous said...


I can see where you're coming from (I think) but I have to disagree with something you said. "First an underground, then a movement, then a rung or two of respectability and lastly a footnote in someone who is respectable's history."

If it weren't for undergrounds and/or movements, women wouldn't have publication opportunities.
Bronte, Virginia Woolfe, etc.. are hardly a mere footnote in anyone's book.

My point is this: Conformity is a dangerous thing. The poet Juan Ramon Jimenez said "If they give you ruled paper, write the other way." The underground is an entire sub-culture. It's perfectly normal to criticize literature as it is. However, actions speak louder than words. The ULA acts.

Anonymous said...

Eggers' mini-neverlands are tax write-offs. He ends up taking home more money per year with them than without them.

Anonymous said...

Marissa:Virginia Woolfe, etc.. are hardly a mere footnote in anyone's book.

They did sit around complaining about some fanciful force of oppression. She and Leonard had there own press, all these women were from upper middle class to rich backgrounds. And what is the difference between bloomsbury and the cliques of today?

--The unabashed truth

Noah Cicero said...

"Before Noah lost his head and blew it up"
my first comment had the phrase "Upper Class" in it. Out of like 2 to 300 hundreds that is what the demi-puppet picked out. Why is that i think, why is it if Wenclas remotely says something that leads to "Class-division" does a shit storm occur. I think it is for the same reason I got called an "Evil Motherfucker." People call other people 'evil' because they do not understand them and because they are afraid of understanding them. It reduces the other people into objects, but at the same time does not make them wrong.
I didn't blow up, someone else did. And that's because they fear it, they know they are guilty, they know they are living peacefully off a corrupt and incorrect system, and that system will punish people as long at it lasts just for being born into a certain class. You are afraid of the word "class" like little children are afraid of the boogyman.
My brother killed himself last year, how come my book isn't in Barnes and Nobles and Borders.
I don't like it that Dave Eggers talks to children, he influences them to become bad writers and hipsters. And tells them that God is the Sun and if only they knew there would be no wars. But all that really does is get him a tax right off and relieves his guilt.
To the morally disgusting comment: It doesn't matter how I behave, in American capitalism the belief is that whoever has the less vice and sin gets the nicest things and has the best things happen to them, it is Christian in origin. Of course I have disgusting morals, I own disgusting things and never achieve anything like getting National Book Awards, therefore I am full of vice and sin, therefore I am morally disgusting.
"parasites" that is wonderful, I am cheap labor, a bottomfeeder, disgusting, and now a parasite. The true colors of the demi-puppets are coming out today aren't they.
"How about I just give you the address of the apartment building I live in, and you can randomly assault everyone who lives here?"
That sounds super, I'll have to bring some disgusting parasitic people with them though. People from that neighborhood you don't go in and that trailer park you laugh at on the way to work because the parasitic disgusting mullet people live there.
"Let's see. My working definition of gutless fucking pussy: A guy who can dish out tons of scorn, but can't take it. Wait. Is that a gutless fucking pussy, or a pathetic frustrated bully? Maybe it's just the definition of "Noah Cicero."
I've been taking it for years baby. Bring it on. I assume you've never seen outbursts of anger before because you a nice little cozy life in the suburbs or in a nice apartment in NYC. Well, that happens down here amongst the people with the cornrolls and mullets. Ever see "Cops", I'm one of those people, but I got a hold of some books, and this is what has happened when one those dirty parasitic, disgusting fucks speaks.
Like the dog that I am, I can smell your fear, and when a dog smells fear, it attacks!

Anonymous said...

Dear Noah,

Just to be clear (again), what makes you digusting (again), is not that you have disgusting things or that you never won an award, or that you live among mullets. You're disgusting because when you become angry with people, you wish their families dead, and you threaten to rape them. You are disgusting because you're a moral monster.

Is this why King Wenclas doesn't want to reveal the ULA's Secret Plan to take over literature? Is the Plan the widespread rape of demi-puppets? Maybe this blog should be renamed "Threatening to Rape the Demi-Puppets."

The fear you say you smell isn't fear. It's the Hamburger Helper.

Anonymous said...

Maybe this blog should be renamed "Threatening to Rape the Demi-Puppets."


-The Unabashed Truth

Noah Cicero said...

Hey Demi-bitches
The monday report is still there, with the empirical evidence. There are three writers for sure that would out sell the overdogs of award winning literature. There at least twenty more that could out sell your writers. And the books will get read too, not just held.
Where is your empirical evidence. And I've never gotten a good response to anything I've written, just random comments about how I am an asshole, a parasite, and disgusting.
Want to comment on "egoists." There is this attitude amongst upper class people that lower class should know their place, and in their view their place is to be childlike and have a low self-esteem. Well, I guess this is what happens when a lower class person decides to have a self-esteem, they get a shit storm of name calling thrown at them. I guess to to ensure I learn my place, that I am a parasite and disgusting.
And Bam Bam, there was no historical necessity for an underground during Shakespeare's time, they allowed good literature to reach the people then. An underground movement only exists if the mainstream sucks and the system of govt provides enough freedom for an underground movement. Your point is mute, it doesn't matter. The ULA is fighting Dave Eggers and Rick Moody not Skakespeare. You can have money and be intelligent as in te cases of Sartre or Proust, but Dave Eggers and his people do are not. Nowadays people think if you are in the academia or get an award you are mystically intelligent and good at writing. What you stated Bam Bam is a mute point because the ULA only pertains to current day America, if the mainstream changes and allows underground writers in and intelligence to enter the media, the underground will disappear shortly afterwards. The American Underground is not an object that lives forever, it is an outgrowth of a historical situation that America is currently in. Sharespeare's time did have the same situation we are in, neither did fifties America. it is a situation that started in the 70s and continuous to today.
"anti-intellectuals are always thugs"
You say the word "intellectual" like it is an object and that anyone who is mystically connected to it is beyond criticism or is magically intelligent. There were intellectuals in Germany who thought that killing Jews was a good idea, there were intellectuals that the world was flat, there are intellectuals right now that are pro-capitalist and other intellectuals that are marxists, The ULA has several professors who believe the ULA is right and they are professors therefore they are intellectuals, some intellectuals believe in Frued's works and other Skinners, the head of Harvard who is the God of All Intellectuals believes women are inferior to men. Those are all intellectuals, some disagree with each other are they thugs, some have said really insane shit and they were and are they the intellectuals you are speaking of?
Also the genius of Shakespeare was that he brought literature down from the Gods to real people, that was a major step in literature, they were powerful kings and queens but they still are real people. Then literature went to regular rich people, and it is still in that state in the mainstream. When The ULA succeeds it will be the first time in history a large group of authors write about regular people and their lives. It has happened a few times with single authors popping out like Bukowsk and Twain, for some reason those books are still sold, I wonder why. The ULA has the writers that are putting the end to an epoch of writings about rich people. Literature started with the Gods and it will end with a cook at McDonalds. And the book will be written by someone who works at McDonalds not by some lamo upper liberal who wants to write about the suffering of a McDonald's worker to get an award and in a bunch of magazines.

Noah Cicero said...

baby I said fuck, not rape. Your husband will willfully fuck me because he will be so turned on by me smashing your face in and happy too, because you sound like you would be hell to live with.
I said, "I don't care if his whole family dies." That implies if his whole family got the ebola virus I wouldn't care. I wouldn't cheer for their deaths, but that I don't care.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the clarification, Noah.

I move that we rename the blog: "Fucking Their Husbands after We Smash in the Faces of the Demi-Puppets."

PS It's "moot," not "mute," you fucking twit.

Jeff Potter said...

People who correct blog spelling are just a little bit twitty...

Did the keyword "poet" bring these new lightweights to the neighborhood?

Whiny? Karl's post was an on-target skewering of MFA poets.

The ULA is a BIG and diverse scene. It's rich from top to bottom. A yeasty foment! Ripe compost! If you give it a quick blogtron glance and dismiss it---your loss.

Noah is our resident pitbull. You should meet our writer, Wild Bill---he RAISES pitbulls.

He's an ex-boxer, -bouncer, -art model, proudly unemployable, SSI-recipient.

If you can find better sentences in today's writing than he writes (as per our Essays section of our ULA website), feel free to post one. (Try:

Compare and contrast: the unbudgeted xeroxes from trailer parks versus the output of the billion$ MFA-Lit industry.

Sure MFAers get occasional hits. Nothing really of note, though. Nothing enduring in recent decades. This is worth agitating! It's not just coincidence. The system is BROKE. We're the only ones calling it on it. And we're the only ones spotlighting a system that works better: the zeen world.

Call it whiny complaining if you like but you look so lightweight in so doing.

The underground in contrast to NYC is full of easy cherrypicking for those who take the time to dig a little. It's totally under-used, even from a pure biz view. And it's the only indy scene left with such a distinction! We explain why.

Our little no-budget farflung group can come up with a hefty handful of legendary writers, (including those who've influenced generations already, without notice, credit or viable publication) just by reaching into today's zeen scene. While MFAers come up year after year with maybe a couple in a thousand fully-funded, totally-supported efforts. You're darn right we make noise about this!

And we're getting traction! We're moving steadily forward!

For instance... Next month I'm launching the ULA PRESS to the bookstore trade with the first-ever Catazeen---a distinctive combo of catalog and zeen, offering ULA projects of all kinds along with little-known but lively items from kindred publishers. It's a far cry from magalogs, ho ho. It's a revival of the usually-boring book catalog. And we'll follow up on it, too. This horse is bustin' out!

These latest snipes from the peanut gallery are just typical brainless blog reflex. See any blog exchange to compare. How about this one? It's about the hilariously pitiful fad of guys wearing striped shirts--- Boy, some of them sure don't like being exposed, do they? The "get a life" retorts from striped-shirt wearers sure must sting the original essayist!

The Mice here say we're just complainers. Huh? That's who gets on the cover of the NYT? And in their list of coolest lit-sites? It's "just complaining" to be the first to dare speak up and bust millionaire writers for accepting NEA grants? The Wash. Post didn't think so. Neither did Jon Saf-Foer who turned down his cash last year out of FEAR of us. Who's afraid of us whiners? ---The entire Lit establishment. You don't think they're watching their P's&Q's more lately?

Such lightweights.

Jeff Potter said...

PS: That first post from Ye Olde Blue about not ever knowing which side he should take. Ha! What a wimp! Has he ever DONE anything? Worked on a big lit project yet? Has he published and sold, and heard back from readers, noting what works and what doesn't? Has he worked out beyond anyone else and discovered how THAT can work and WHO helps with such efforts? THAT'LL TELL 'IM WHAT SIDE! Does he have experience with our openness and who we've helped and welcomed and why? I'll answer: NO! Karl had it right: fencesitting do-nothing. Yeah, all sides are the same. Both favor their own insiders, both blind in one eye. And, yeah, we're ALL about sides. We have NO scope to go with our laserbeam focus. Diversity SCARES us. The underground isn't bustin' at the seams. And the MFA doesn't have a dull, repetitive program. We heard that hoary, weak "all the same" remark from the naysayers the first day we started---a hundred national media explosions and literary projects ago. Of course, it's been a worthless old canard since the beginning of humanity. Yeah, camp that couch, man! But I won't try to win you over to our side. If you were an MFA-winner, you'd be busy working for The Man. You'd only post after giving the secret handshake. If you were zeenster, you'd already know what side. So you're just another do-nothing. Can the ULA use such people? No. They've excluded themselves from the real race long ago. Not that I deny herculean transformations. Show me, is all I've ever asked.

Anonymous said...

Well put brother! The demi puppets and their MFA (ie, Mother Fuckering Assholes) ilk talk a big game, and maybe they spell things right and use words correctly, but are they willing to go the distance for literature? Noah Cicero is--he's willing to bash in faces and fuck husbands and wives for the REVOLUTION. I'll be right behind you Noah--when you're ripping the arms off of little demi-puppet children, I'll be TOSSING YOUR SALAD. When you're eating the eyeballs of demi-puppet grandfathers, I'll be licking Hamburger Helper off your body. OR whatever else you'd like me to do. That's what good writing, and social change is all about!

You demi puppets and your hyper-educated media cronies. Don't you know you're already losing? 6 out of 7 of my closest friends agree that the writings of Bukowski are better than Tom Beller's. Do you even know who Bukowski is?! You do? Oh, you read him in college . . . at your fancy Ivy League school? . . . You studied him at an MFA program? . . . You don't care for Beller either? Well fuck you, where does your grandfather live!?

You all make me sick. Look at the NY Times book review of last October. We were voted as one of the hundreds of hot literary sites out there. The New York Times!!! You and your sick demi puppet big media snobs--the New York Times gave us their seal of approval!! Who do you think makes those decisions?

Bam Bam, you clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about. Elizabethan England was a worker's utopia. It's not like there was civil war going on in England, sectarian strife, a rigid class system. Besides, kings and queen at that time were good rich people, and it has only been in the past 35 years that rich people became bad and dedicated themselves to bad literature.

King Wenclas said...

It looks like we've struck a nerve. Good! For maybe the first time in their lives, the demi-puppets are forced to think, even if only to defend their insular views about literature. (Now, if they had the courage to put their names behind their statements. . . .)
So, because we want to alter the inequities of this society, beginning with the culture, we're labelled as "whiners." Oh, the Christians never were, huh? They were only put on crosses, their leader (Peter) crucified at the heart of Empire upside down for the affluent Romans to laugh about.
By contrast, I'd say we're facing not much opposition at all.
Most of these anonymous commentators, I'd wager, are not even benefitting from the lit-system they so heartily support. They're likely working shitty jobs in the dungeons of publishing while the mansion-dwelling Rick Moodys of the realm win accolades and sit on grants panels. It's why put the "demi" in front of the puppet designation. They're not successful even as puppets.
Kind of like old movies like "Gone with the Wind" where the house servants are still eagerly defending the masters while their hierarchical world begins tumbling around them. One can only laugh at them.
(Oh my, Noah is a radical who actually gets carried away and has some passion about his views. can't have that! Heaven forbid! Tuesday I (or a holographic representation of me) appeared at a sparsely attended open mic. Some fatass bourgeois dude who couldn't even get out of his chair and stand up to read he was so gluttonous fat lectured, before reading some tame verse, about the difference between poetry as "philosophy" and demagogues and radicals. WHen my turn came I looked at him and told him that I was a demagogue and a radical-- then proceeded to be five times louder and more passionate then anyone in the place. THAT'S what literature should be about-- not a collection of ticket punchers lamely going along to get along and not changing or even trying to change a thing.)
p.s. The real story, which I looked into, is that Eggers drove his sister to suicide, by his endeavors to squelch revelation of the lies he told in his memoir. THAT is the inconvenient truth.

Beau Blue said...


I wander around the net reading poetry, criticism and observations on poetry. I stumble onto the IBPC, the ULA, and several other orgs unsatisfied with the place they've found themselves in today's internet world of poetry. I step forward to make a comment and ask a couple questions. Which no one has answered yet, BTW, with anything approaching a reasonable viewpoint.

Because I dare to ask questions of strangers in their own home, I'm not ignored. If I hadn't stumbled in here tho', I'd just be one of the great unwashed, er fence-sitters, the ULA, the IBPC and the 'establishment' ignores consistently. So I still stand saying to all of you, "why the hell should I care?"

And why should it matter who I am or what I've published? You guys don't care for anyone but your acolytes and all of you are as xenophobic in your houses as your 'enemies' are in their's. I'm a lightweight. A lightweight who responds better to 'promotion of quality' than to 'denigration of enemies' or 'insults to strangers'. That too civil an approach for you, Jeff? I'm sorry.

I'll wander off now. I'm obviously not 'convert' material, right? 'Cause, first of all, I can think for myself and second, I'm a lightweight nobody who has never ever participated in a 'publishing project'.

You make a lot of assumptions, Jeff, and then you belittle what you are certain is beneath you. In that respect, how are you even a little bit different than those you rail against? Thanks for the xenophobic demonstration. It was cute. Not what is needed if you'd like more soldiers, but in my wanderings I've noticed that none of the 'groups' are very good at recruiting. Excuse my impudence, please, I'll try not to do it again. Perhaps there's a manual on how I should behave while in your presence? A URL to something other than railing against the fierce collective would be appreciated.


Anonymous said...

You demi puppets and your hyper-educated media cronies. Don't you know you're already losing? 6 out of 7 of my closest friends agree that the writings of Bukowski are better than Tom Beller's. Do you even know who Bukowski is?! You do? Oh, you read him in college . . . at your fancy Ivy League school? . . . You studied him at an MFA program? . . . You don't care for Beller either? Well fuck you, where does your grandfather live!?

Really? Wow. I can find a few million who think Ashlee Simpson is more talented than Lena Horne. Paris Hilton is more talented than Katherine Hepburn. Grisham is more talented than Nabokov. It isn't shocking people in your group agree with you.

--The Unabashed truth

Anonymous said...

Blue, rock on. You said it. King, you're such a fucking hypocrite it's amazing. Demipuppets! I have no idea who the other posters are, but I'm just a guy who's been having a ball watching you and your dickheaded friends have your balls handed to you on a platter for the last 24 hours and YOU'RE EITHER TOO FUCKING STUPID OR TOO DISHONEST TO ADMIT IT. I'm just a guy, and a reader, sitting here in small-town Colorado, don't know anyone in New York City, read quite a bit, like some of it, don't like a lot of it, DON'T REGARD THIS AS A CONSPIRACY, and have now been told, by the champion of the downtrodden, that I'm a loser and bad puppet because I don't agree with your indefensible opinions. I'm--we, I suspect--are just readers, King. Readers who care about literature. You people are so repellent it's no wonder the only writers who want in on your group are a bunch of talentless fuckwits who don't know the difference between "mute" and "moot." I'm done reading this silly blog.

King Wenclas said...

No, if you're a writer still trying to "make it" through acceptable channels you just a hapless stooge.
Mad at us for pointing this out?
can't handle contention or argument?
That's what real literature is about, my friend. But run back to the safety of your cave. No one should ever take a stand on aesthetic questions, or have an opinion, or advocate (gulp!) for change, at least not with passion. Polite little discussions by professors in airless rooms only.

Anonymous said...

Jesus Christ! You're pathetic! I'm not a fucking writer! I'm a reader. I like to READ. And, as someone who likes to read, can honestly say you and your cronies CANNOT WRITE. You're NOT EXCITING. You're MIND-NUMBINGLY BORING. Different strokes, eh?


ryan said...

In denying that the tower might have anything to say, some here fall under the same guillotine as those in academia.

To say that NO good writers make the cut at Ivy League schools or elsewhere sounds, at best, like sour grapes.

Jeff Potter said...

"You write out of unhealthy impulses: revenge, anger, scorn, recrimination, class hostility."

That was a good one!

What a cool list. Obviously, lotsa great art has come from such motives and included them, too. Add the "unhealthy" and "impulses." Oooo-yeah!

Now add whining and complaining and you got DA BLUES in music.

Thanks to the ULA, we got em in writing now, too.

(Jack Saunders, master of blues writing and folk writing, a supposedly non-existent genre, done as world literature.)

HEALTH, ah yes, that's what we're after! We write for our health. That's another good one!


Help me here, people.

Anonymous said...


I'll help you.

Stop writing.

Jeff Potter said...

It's true that we're not for everyone.

If you start with "Why should I care?" you're at the wrong place already. There's a place bland enough out there with your passive profile dialed right in.

The thing is that millions of people DO care and do want writing that pushes them and which they can respond to. They're looking for it. The pressure is building. Lots of people of course don't even know what they're looking for. There's been nothing out there for them for so long. But they're game.

We're finding them, we're giving them what they need and we're attracting the writers who are into pushing them.

And we are indeed repelling the others.

Bruce Larson*Moore said...

Breath deep the coming storm, for only by knowing it's depths can you survive the wrath brought upon your reality.


Bruce Larson*Moore
Of Poetic*Service

Noah Cicero said...

To the xenophobia/hypocrite comments: When i first entered the ULA I asked Steve Kostecke do we ever attack writers like Tom Robbins, Chuck Palahniuk, Steven King, or John Grisham.
Steve Kostecke replied: "No, the ULA only goes after those take awards that aren't warranted, and who are phonies pretending they are good writers. Tom Robbins, Chuck Palahniuk, Steven King, and John Grisham don't walk around and pretend they are writing geniuses, they just do their thing and that's all."
The ULA only attacks those writers that take awards and grants they don't deserve, who got their books published and those awards through connections, and who do not represent the bulk of the American people in their writing.
The ULA resembles the EPA, for example when the EPA attacks a certain company for polluting the air.
What you are doing is the same thing that a billionaire does when the EPA comes to their business, the billionaire business talks shit about the EPA. The ULA is a Kyoto treaty, but you are like Bush and won't sign.
The ULA is very selective in who it attacks just like any activist group. We aren't shitting on romance writers or fantasy writers, because they don't parade around like they are geniuses of literature like the people we attack do.
Anne Rice has an MFA in literature, but we don't attack her. Why? Because Anne Rice doesn't take grants when she doesn't deserve them.
Why not allow MFAs into The ULA: First the only colleges that have MFAs that are worth a shit in the publishing world are Columbia, Iowa, Brown, and other ivy league schools. But there lots of MFA programs and kids go into those programs thinking they will learn how to write and then get published, but when they graduate they find out it is untrue. They have had their time and money stolen from them. YSU now has an MFA program and the people have to pay for it, the school is telling the people taking it they will get published for sure if they take the program, which is a horrible lie.
Also to get into one of the head MFA programs you had to go to an already expensive school. Private school masters programs work on a quota. If the program takes 12 people into it, 10 will be from expensive schools that normal people can't afford and only two will be from state schools, and maybe not even that. Also for someone to get into one of those grad schools it takes a large amount of toadishness and professor ass kissing, which at state schools working students don't have the time to brownnose because they are working to get through school because their parents don't throw money at them. The very design of the MFA program contains corruption, thievery, toadishness and snobbishness.
It is very hard to trust someone who would want to be in a program that involved so much corruption, thievery, toadishness, and snobbishness.
That is not xenophobia, xenophobia involves races or different classes or cultures. and people who are zenophobic have the behavior of never learning anything about what they are being xenophobic about. But The ULA has learned everything we can about the MFA programs, we know how they work, who the professors are, how their awards are given, who gives them, what magazines support MFA writers etc etc.
The ULA is very selective with who it attacks and it knows everything it can about who it attacks.
The ULA has proven mail fraud, shown phony contests, phony awards, and shown that millionaires are getting thousands in grants, and that the reviewers are making geniuses out of lousy writers, and now we have given empirical evidence that the unprofessionals would sell more if put into stores. It has been shown and it cannot be denied. Sartre showed that if someone learns the facts and sticks with their original behavior then they are a coward. The Demi-Puppets remind me of someone working at a plant under the boss, and the person learns the boss is polluting the local river and people will soon get sick from it, but the person enjoys being near the boss to much and doesn't tell anyone, he likes that identity too much of talking to the boss on a regular basis. and so the person allows the river to be filled with poison and the town to get sick for the sake of their identity.
Also: You call me morally disgusting, i have never taken a thirty thousand dollar grant when I was already rich. I have never set up a phony contest. I have never become the editor of a magazine to publish my fellow professors and students. I have written a book and got a 100 thousand dollar award after I had already sold 800 thousand copies. I have never gotten a review that said I was the voice of some generation and then agreed that was true when it obviously wasn't. I have never made a phony zeen that looked like Rolling Stone Magazine and won an award for it. I have never designed a two year program that costs 80 thousand dollars and convinced people that if they joined it they would be famous published authors. No, I've never done any of that. My question: do you people even know what your defending. You aren't defending the overdogs, all you do is bitch and say this and that about us. But you don't defend yourselves in anyway. You don't bring forth evidence that you didn't rig contests or take phony grants that you need and deserve. In my time on this blog and reading anti-ULA articles I have never seen anyone defend their position. They have attacked us, but not defended theirs. Hmm, strange.
also: I like how the demi-puppets have reduced their whole existences down a spell-checker. That think they have gotten ground by noticing that I didn't know how to spell a word. I admit that I didn't know it was moot not mute, but it still conveyed the point of what I was saying, but the point I suppose is above your heads. And that's why you've reduced to your life on this planet to the function a spell checker has.

Jimbo said...

An age we thought dead and gone brought back to life for you citizens by the ULA! Literary duels think of Dumas or Pouchkine! How many teams of disinformation agents are attacking us? Is the ULA irrelevant enough to deserve all this attention? Do you argue with crazy people ranting on the subway? You neocons and neoliberals both do agitprop so clumsily. You're all obviously interested parties who've done research and then present yourselves as the voices of spontaneous popular indignation.

Anonymous said...


It's Pushkin, numbnuts. It kind of damages ULA credibility when it can't even spell the names of the writers it supposedly loves.

Jamez Joice

Anonymous said...

Mr. The Hyena,

"You're all obviously interested parties who've done research and then present yourselves as the voices of spontaneous popular indignation."

Hmm. Like, oh geez, I don't know . . . THE ULA?

Anonymous said...

who do not represent the bulk of the American people in their writing.

Boy if you aim the complaints at Hollywood you sound exactly like the American Religious Right.
Damn elitists not representing the bulk of the population in their writing, like shakespere did in England. Or Hemingway, or Nabokov or Fitzgerald. You are simply a commercial fiction writer, allbeit with themes that are overdone senselessly, and still even with the internet not appealing to non-writers. Actually it's a lot easier to pawn dross over on someone who can't recognize great literature. Ever studied those that have a Phd in Literature? rarely are they writers. Just like the Literary critics.

King Wenclas said...

The feeblest argument regularly used against us is that, because we point out the domination of publishing and media by Ivy Leaguers, we somehow want to ban them in toto from literature. As if that were possible! Kind of a false-victim posturing.
Someone says to Kerry and W: "Uh, er, maybe someone else besides Skull and Bones grads should be Presidential candidates sometime."
Kerry and Bush unite together in outrage.
"How dare you!!" they shout. "You DARE to try to shut us grads of Harvard and Yale out of the political process! OUTRAGEOUS! You're clearly just a collection of thugs."

Adam Hardin said...

The ULA is not anti-MFA as much as you think it is.

There are over 300 MFA programs. Columbia and Iowa being golden tickets but not always, and Brown, and maybe a few others.

To be safe we can say that 290 programs aren't worth a god damn. And we can say that 2900 students a year are getting screwed out of their money and their time.

The ULA is fighting for those people who are getting screwed by buying into the MFA system as well even if you don't agree with us.

What you don't see is the number of graduates who do not have jobs in the MFA system. One to two percent are able to secure teaching jobs. The rest pay the salaries of the lucky few.

Classic Pyramid Scheme.

Jimbo said...

Oooh! It's spelled Pushkin is it now? In what language? A language that has what letters that sound like what? Wouldn't any spelling be an approximation? Jamz Joice,get some feeling in these numb nuts! Lick them a bit! And yes research is being done! Names are being done! Come the revolution we'll know where to find you piggies! Remember this:
Rotting carrion is the hyena's happy meal!

Anonymous said...

That's right Mr. Anonymouse-

If we want to call him Pooshkien, we can. maybee n ur fancie demi-puppet wurld ther r standurds ubout speling, butt thaats cuz U R beeg snobbs.

We R lookking 4 U and wen wee fynd U I M goying tu rip ur smarty tung out thru ur buthole. Remember, ur still beeting hart is Ezekiel's brekfust.

Anonymous said...

Wait, Jimmy, are you actually a real hyena? Because only actual hyenas can eat rotting carrion, not just people who call themselves hyenas. People who call themselves hyenas would get sick if they ate rotting carrion. I looked it up.

Adam Hardin said...

I have to clarify that when I said only ten were worth a damn, I meant in terms of gaining access to the publishing system and the MFA network.

I do not mean worth a damn as in making a writer stronger because the writers workshop itself is a disease for the young writer. It truncates and molests their development, and in the end, has probably ruined many good writers.

Frank Conroy should burn in hell.

Jimbo said...

jimmy is more hyena than human! He feasted on maggot infested carrion this morning and washed it down with a bottle of wine. When you no longer have the lioness to protect you you jackals won't last long. Then the hyena's feast will begin. What joy rolling around in entrails and cracking open bones to lick up the tasty jackal marrow! I'm going out the vineyards today to fill my wine casks in prepartion.

Anonymous said...

Well it does look like the King Ego is censoring peoples oppinions by taking stuff off the blog and if this is the future of underground literature we are already dead. It's a good thing he is not. You would have to know King Ego to understand why he would do such a things, as I do know him and believe that Bush should tap him for the Minister of Propaganda position. Oh yes and I was at that reading @ Penn. What he fails to say is that it was rigged by the judges.