Saturday, December 27, 2008


The literary Rebellion was in an uptrend until late 2003, with seemingly unstoppable momentum generated by simultaneous articles in Black Book, The Believer, Glasgow Herald, Brown Daily Herald, and many other places.

Early in 2004 the Eggers/Amazon story hit in the New York Times. Membership and interest in our cause were at a peak.

Since then, one could chart a flattening, even a decline caused by the impact of dissension within the main vehicle, the ULA.

The counter-rebellion which was implemented by the ULA's enemies was successful, when one considers that some of the underground's major figures now reside in a ULA-like outfit created by the rebellion's overdog opponents to be a harmless version of the ULA. I believe this was part of an intentional strategy. The counter group's expressed motives fit perfectly with arguments made here by establishment demi-puppets like Daniel Handler ("Jimmy Grace"); chiefly the thesis that DIY means remaining forever marginalized.

The attempt to discredit literary rebels didn't succeed completely-- not yet anyway. There's hope that many writers will open their eyes-- setting the stage for the Rebellion's re-emergence and eventual victory.


Anonymous said...

All this talk about a "mole" is hilarious. Believe it if you want but it's not true. You are aware that an ISP address proves nothing, right? That tells you that the "mole shared the same web provider as a bunch of other people in the area. Now an IP address might prove something.

O(W)ur group was started as a lark the day after four of us quit. Leopold and I invited the "mole" to participate in our discussions. We initiated it. The "mole" (who is no longer with the group) wasn't even sure he wanted to join another group. But we convinced him.

Though the "mole" ran the opinion section of the website, the leaders of the group were Leopold and myself. Until Leopold dropped out and now it's me and a couple of other people.

Your idea is silly and I'm not sure what you're getting out of it except that you thrive on confrontation with enemies, whether they actually exist or not.


King Wenclas said...

Many places on-line use IP and ISP interchangeably, as I've been doing. Perhaps I should say IP-- because I have been looking up the individualized numbers, not the general Internet Service shared by individuals.
Needless to say, I'm still learning this.
Because I HAVE been hit and still get hit with flurries of attacks, which I find curious; an indication to me that this literary Rebellion has been hitting a nerve.
I didn't make up the fake letter and the fake e-mails from Daniel Handler.
Re the "mole." Perhaps he's not a very competent mole (he's not on my LitMystery blog either). Then again, under Quilty10, he was attacking even my wiki entry. It seems that he knows Daniel Handler, and before he joined the ULA was a hanger-on with the Eggers crowd.
He left the ULA at a curious time, with curious reasons-- the same ones you articulated, Pat: concern about the Paris Review and Jimmy Grace stories. Why would this bother you?
I believe I was on the right track with the stories. As important, the idea of the ULA campaign to start with was to prod the established literary beast where it hurt. I was never playing at this.
I truly believe that established lit is in sorry shape. As I continue to post, their ideas are flawed from top to bottom. Their ways of choosing writers is badly flawed.
What is OW doing? What headway is it making? Is it possible for it to stir anything up when your philosophy is to not bother anybody? (See Mr. Schwartzman's Don't Make Waves philosophy.)
This is an acceptance of Things-As-They-Are. It's a pre-emptive surrender; dropping your weapons before the battle.
You're too good a writer to remain forever marginalized. You should opt back into the cause. I've been negotiating with the ULA about restarting the literary Insurgency. Believe it or not, the campaign shook established lit to its foundations. It can do more.

King Wenclas said...

p.s. Confrontations?
What's the ULA web address? Do you recall?
Life is too short to stand pat. I'm out for real change. I know it can be made. The Clash of Ideas. This is how change is made, historically speaking. There are countless examples where small, marginalized groups toppled entire civilizations. Overthrowing a corrupt and cliqueish literature is childs play in comparison.