tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post8023003709283480318..comments2024-02-12T03:04:46.091-08:00Comments on AttackingtheDemi-Puppets: Was I Too Tough?King Wenclashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-25025664526329222562010-05-14T22:05:35.041-07:002010-05-14T22:05:35.041-07:00He was famous?
I don't even think what you d...He was famous? <br /><br />I don't even think what you did, Wenclas, qualifies for infamy. That precious publicity mostly mocked you. I don't think anyone said, "oh hey, check these guys out, they are fantastic performers, and even more, they're the best writers today." I think those are your lines.<br /><br />I know I know, they were afraid of you guys. Right.<br /><br />Hey, I think that if you upped the ante and started claiming that the lit "establishment" was run by reptilian individuals (New World Order and all that shit), you might get a book deal. It worked for David Icke. <br /><br />The press still mocks the guy, though. But at least he's rich, right? And people listen to him. The latter is very important to you, no? Otherwise, why would you write this blog?<br /><br />I think you should be thanking us for giving your blog hits. "Well, why do you do that, demi-puppet?" Because it's amusing that you clutch so steadfastly to this belief that you've been blackballed from the litworld™ because you're such a veracious rebel.<br /><br />You stake a claim to an authenticity that I'm not sure anyone can rightfully claim. If anything, I'll take William T. Vollmann's tales of lonely journalists in foreign lands, junkies, and prostitutes &c. to James Nowlan's "chunks of experience" any day. <br /><br />You've shown that you're more interested in one's background and credentials than any publisher. Because that is ALL you talk about. It makes me laugh. It's like a dick measuring contest to see who's the poorest, the least educated, most punk, most contemptuous of the Bourgeoisie, most underground motherfucker alive... and in all that, you forget about the most important thing: The writing. What's on the page.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05760059346914640588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-20930610643027318812010-05-14T21:00:14.189-07:002010-05-14T21:00:14.189-07:00My mistake for trying to sympathize with a dickwad...My mistake for trying to sympathize with a dickwad.<br /><br />I'm a pathetic lapdog? Why? Because I publish, of course. How could I be anything other than a "pathetic lapdog" if I actually publish? <br /><br />I'd rather be an intellectual coward than an anti-intellectual. <br /><br />Funny. "We" are cowardly assholes, but "you" are the one always talking in the most commercial terms, about PR, about marketing, about publicity. Super-artistic, fuckface. Your proudest accomplishment is getting mentioned on Page Six. Bravo. Just like that great artist, Paris Hilton. What a fucking jerk you are. <br /><br />Sure, it was a "more logical campaign," if your only interest in publication is synonymous with "publicity." Great. You got famous for fifteen minutes. Moron. <br /><br />"See ya, asshole."<br /><br />Not if I see you first.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-36011960968421197722010-05-14T17:29:32.935-07:002010-05-14T17:29:32.935-07:00But it's my right to do so!
Yeah, you're &...But it's my right to do so!<br />Yeah, you're "back to work."<br />Really?<br />No you're not. You're posting here.<br />(If you're NOT a grad of Brown etc, Not-Harland, then you're a pathetic lapdog to that crowd. Maybe that's what's bothering you.<br />Because you're an intellectual coward, we'll never know.<br />You know, I could've attacked anonymously. I still could. It'd be a much easier road. I just can't bring myself to do so.<br />Say what you will, I've held myself accountable for everything I've said-- gone head-on and straight up.)<br />The only thing I work myself up about are anonymous attacks such as yours, because I see them as cowardly and unfair. Gutless to the max. Against every code I know.<br />The rest-- the ULA campaign-- was a logical, reasoned-out strategy which accomplished the basics of what I wanted from it-- making pr noise. We obtained free publicity, which was the goal; a necessary marketing strategy for writers with no resources and no connections. It was the only route open and I took it.<br />In most respects it was a more logical campaign than, say, publishing a literary journal with writers who sound like 50,000 others. This goes against every marketing maxim in the book.<br />But you're right. I'm wasting too much time HERE, debating with you.<br />Your time is more of a waste-- I mean, I'm going nowhere regardless. I may as well vent. <br />What's my alternative? Selling used cars? The economy is dead.<br />Will I offend some folks?<br />It's not as if I have anything to lose!<br />See ya, asshole.King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-58653002808918669432010-05-14T17:01:51.873-07:002010-05-14T17:01:51.873-07:00Why this little corner of the world, King? Wow, g...Why this little corner of the world, King? Wow, glad-handing and log-rolling amid the New York artistic landscape. I mean, I know this actually *means* something to you, but what I don't think you realize is how little it means to writers. Published writers, even published writers living in New York City. You glance at the list of Guggenheim recipients and say of maybe two or three, "Oy vey." The same with the prize nominations, the teaching posts, the big advances, all that shit. It's irritating as hell, sure. Why did Rick Moody get a Guggenheim? I don't know, exactly. Did he need it? Probably not. And I like Rick. But you can't drive yourself crazy thinking about what other people are getting that you're not, if for no other reason than because it does drive you crazy. You think I haven't sat there wondering why this bit of good fortune or that piece of luck went to Writer X and not to me? Yeah, for about ten minutes. Then it's back to work, you know? Envy sucks, even if it's justified. I don't know why you let yourself be devoured by it.<br /><br />And then to turn it into all-inclusive corruption. That's your twist, and I can see the way your thinking leads you there, but I don't think it's especially effective thinking. It puts you in a box in which you (and a tiny handful of others) are the ONLY righteous, true, honest, incorruptible practitioners of an incredibly flexible and, yes, democratic art. And I don't mean 'democratic' as in Everybody Gets Published By Doubleday, I mean that the means to learn and the means to practice are available to anyone with access to a library. OK? I just don't get worked up about the "establishment" because, guess what? I didn't go to an Ivy League school, and I didn't get an MFA, and believe it or not I'm well aware that the "establishment" harbors a million hacks who generate third-rate work. But there's also good work out there, and it's reductive and self-impoverishing to just paint every published author with the same broad brush.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-72850013666889282102010-05-14T16:47:52.756-07:002010-05-14T16:47:52.756-07:00(Rich people are so used to people falling down wh...(Rich people are so used to people falling down when they walk that they believe this is a usual occurence. That Daniel Handler is a huge commodity and can take his game to another book company, say-- as he recently did-- signifies nothing. No influence. No leverage.<br />That Rick Moody could be caught with his hand in the cookie jar and receive not even a slap on the wrist-- in fact, be given assignments on other panels himself-- is surely not a sign of influence or power or anything like that. Is it? While the whistleblowers became the bad guys in literature's bizarro universe.)King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-13336227484999754432010-05-14T16:41:41.534-07:002010-05-14T16:41:41.534-07:00I can either call the person I was talking about N...I can either call the person I was talking about Not-Harland-- or you Not-Moody-- if that'll make you feel good. Not much difference between the two personalities that I can see.<br />re Handler. You don't get it. It goes beyond "being a prick." Your attitude is from within the bubble. When someone with his power gives signals, the realm of literature shakes. He's a person not to be alienated. This is reality-- the history of the ULA's campaign is proof of that. As I've mentioned, the fear to sign a protest agreed with. Or silence on everyone's part to example after example of corruption.<br />A grab-bag? really? <br />A nice claim-- but with the instance of PEN alone I put up many posts outlining and documenting the intertwined relationships between the system's various parts. The New Yorker editors and writers attending PEN's swanky parties, to give one example. Do you really think they would write anything strongly critical of the outfit?<br />Post after post outlining how these institutions, and those who inhabit them, work.<br />Symbiotic relationships between PEN, supposed watchdog, and the conglomerates.<br />Let's give ONE instance, using the aforementioned Mr. Moody ("Not-Harland") as an example.<br />Joel Conarroe was running the Guggenheim when Not-Harland Mr. Not-Grab-Bag grabbed or bagged his infamous monetary award. Mr. Conarroe oversaw the award, defended Not-Harland, answered our letters, and took heat from the ULA for doing so.<br />DESPITE the noise that'd been made (Page Six et.al.), the fact that the issue had been contentious and controversial, Not-Harland was allowed to select Mr. Conarroe to be the director of PEN. Buddy-buddy. Payback time I guess. (My source for this was given in a previous post.)<br />Again, one example of many of the incestuous and corrupt ways of the literary establishment.<br />Yeah, they're just friends etc etc, it's all an accidental happening, and besides, as you say, it's nobody's business.<br />Except that, like PEN, the Guggenheim is a publicly-regulated tax shelter whose activities are answerable to the public.<br />In other words, how they operate is EVERYBODY's business.King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-8255065642344517892010-05-14T12:26:04.293-07:002010-05-14T12:26:04.293-07:00Oh, God, don't tell me I'm supposed to be ...Oh, God, don't tell me I'm supposed to be Rick Moody again.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-5242340348888848712010-05-14T12:24:09.594-07:002010-05-14T12:24:09.594-07:00"Elsewhere? The only elsewhere you've giv..."Elsewhere? The only elsewhere you've given me is sad literary knock-offs like Sarabande."<br />Please. I've mentioned a dozen presses here; it doesn't matter. Your response is always the same. Nothing they do is worthwhile. They're the worst of the demi-puppets, creating themselves in the image of the bigs. <br /><br />"I'm waiting for you to answer my question about Handler's anonymous attacks. Justified, in your book? Proportionate?"<br /><br />Your "question" is floating in this jumbled mulligatawny of old grievances, arcane references to things you assume "everybody" knows about, and assumptions about some kind of systemic plot underlying the motivations of individuals. I'm sorry he was a prick to you. Maybe he's a prick generally. <br /><br />"What you have well-exhibited here is the sneering tone of the literary establishment (bla bla)"<br /><br />King, what is the "literary establishment" other than the agglomeration of writers, critics, books, journals, magazines, blogs, newspapers, academics, and institutions that have in some sense rejected you? A random grab at them -- National Endowment for the Arts! Sarabande! Brown! Rick Moody! The Believer! -- brings up a handful of things that have nothing in common other than the fact that you don't like them. <br /><br />"Think about the personality who would apply and accept such a grant when he doesn't require it."<br /><br />Why would I think about it? It's between him and the Guggenheims.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-68084270399955235382010-05-14T11:32:45.082-07:002010-05-14T11:32:45.082-07:00(I have to add, this character can operate ONLY if...(I have to add, this character can operate ONLY if the deck is stacked in his favor. This is a major reason why he remains anonymous. It's how he's always operated.<br />Like the, er, similar character I asked a few questions of at Philly's Free Library once, from the audience. This fellow was surrounded by security. I was threatened with banishment from the library, by security, if I even went near him, much less spoke again to him. <br />That character later wrote a story, "Free Library," expressing his contempt not only for me, but the other characters in the story. The sneering tone never left.<br />It must be tough to be a writer when you have no conscience and no soul.<br />Just my two cents of course. Take it for what you will.)<br />***********************<br />(p.s. Am I being unfair to him? Would I judge him through a stereotype, as he claims?<br />What I've judged are his ungenerous actions, which speak fully for themselves, and require no stereotype, no distortion. <br />The actions and the sense of entitlement that goes with them.)King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-65458770440153916772010-05-14T11:22:25.672-07:002010-05-14T11:22:25.672-07:00Elsewhere? The only elsewhere you've given me ...Elsewhere? The only elsewhere you've given me is sad literary knock-offs like Sarabande.<br />*****************<br />I'm waiting for you to answer my question about Handler's anonymous attacks. Justified, in your book? Proportionate?<br />*******************<br />What you have well-exhibited here is the sneering tone of the literary establishment. <br />It's amazing how much in your every contorted argument, distorted premise, and word you retain the voice of an asshole. It's part and parcel of your personality.<br />In this you're like the bankers who've raped this country-- the same kind of self-justification; the greed and selfishness.<br />This is where the subject of class is important. The bankers progeny have brought this same attitude to literature.<br />You're here because you claim ownership of the art, and can tolerate not one dissenting voice.<br />It's why we have the case of rich writers grabbing tax-shelter grant money for themselves.<br />The asshole personality at work.<br />Think of the irony of it. The Guggenheims were immigrants who made a fortune. They faced endless discrimination from WASP overdogs. They created their foundations to bring learning and art to those less fortunate themselves. That was their intent.<br />Now, any self-important rich guy can walk in and take that largesse for himself. <br />Think about the personality who would apply and accept such a grant when he doesn't require it.<br />Class or conscience in literature?<br />What a radical thought.<br />Many writers today have the conscience of a sociopath.<br />*****************<br />Keep creating cardboard distortions of my thoughts, if it makes you feel good.King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-71027902904936646362010-05-14T08:57:29.474-07:002010-05-14T08:57:29.474-07:00"?? Try to get your facts straight, "Har..."?? Try to get your facts straight, "Harland," instead of always distorting.<br />Neither Wred nor Carl went to Ivy League colleges."<br /><br />So you can't read either.<br /><br />"...though I don't like the bloodless lit handed us by the contemporary lit world."<br /><br />Who has been arguing in favor of "the bloodless lit"? All I've been saying is that to you it's ALL bloodless once it's been published. Publishing is like the process of koshering, to you.<br /><br />"The Ivy league is wildly overrepresented in the higher levels of literature."<br /><br />It sure is, but only if you dignify the upper echelons of commercial publishing with the phrase "higher levels of literature." I keep suggesting you look elsewhere. You keep telling me that "elsewhere" is made up of pathetic demi-puppets doing their best to emulate the "congloms."<br /><br />"One can say that the upper-class has always dominated the art form-- except it's not true regarding American lit; with examples like Twain, London, O. Henry, and many more."<br /><br />Yeah, but you don't have much good to say about people like Don DeLillo (Bronx-born to immigrants), Philip Roth (Newark-born to first generation Americans), Barry Hannah, etc., etc., etc. <br /><br />"By necessity, you seek to wipe out ALL context from the assessment of literature. Which allows you to pose as an edgy outsider."<br /><br />I don't even know what this means. Are you suggesting that since I decline to take the author's class or other aspects of his identity into account when assessing literature, I am affecting a "pose"?<br /><br />"Ever been in a fight, Harland?"<br /><br />You're incorrigible, King. Why, no, we didn't fight at Wealthton Country Day School. We dealt each other droll verbal jousts, sometimes dryly chuckling so hard that we spilled our martinis all over our oxford shirts and chinos.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-3291107839701045792010-05-14T07:33:26.134-07:002010-05-14T07:33:26.134-07:00?? Try to get your facts straight, "Harland,&...?? Try to get your facts straight, "Harland," instead of always distorting.<br />Neither Wred nor Carl went to Ivy League colleges. That was a couple others. (And I don't know where the Mole went to school.)<br />As I've said, the ULA was fairly representative of America-- unlike the established lit world. <br />And no, I don't advocate strictly proletarian literature in the 30's sense-- though I don't like the bloodless lit handed us by the contemporary lit world.<br />If you look at my pop stories (are you avoiding them?) you can see the direction I'm going in.<br />My argument re class is that not ALL approved writers should come from Columbia or Brown.<br />The Ivy league is wildly overrepresented in the higher levels of literature.<br />One can say that the upper-class has always dominated the art form-- except it's not true regarding American lit; with examples like Twain, London, O. Henry, and many more. American literature was known if anything for its vigor, which is now fairly well gone.<br />***********<br />By necessity, you seek to wipe out ALL context from the assessment of literature. Which allows you to pose as an edgy outsider.<br />************<br />For myself, I would've been better off staying in a world where my family was most comfortable. It was being bused into a different school district, a different world, that shaped much of my thoughts. Myself and my siblings and our immediate neighbors were the grubby outsiders put into a world where we didn't belong.<br />Ever been in a fight, Harland?<br />I was in a hundred in high school alone. One of my best friends fought every mock-tough kid in the school. All we did is fight, to hold our respect, so I'm well used to it-- but now I have to try to match the assholes of the world-- which you're purely one-- with words. Am I out of my depth? Surely, but I'm happy to engage regardless. Bring it on. I'm far from done. I have a lot of battling to do. <br />(Read the ending of my "Drug Dealer" story-- which carries the message that you'd better watch who you kill.)King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-15812376239150303692010-05-14T06:49:36.146-07:002010-05-14T06:49:36.146-07:00Wait, I don't understand. You and Crazy Carl ...Wait, I don't understand. You and Crazy Carl have PhDs, two members of the ULA were Ivy grads. Yet the King speaks out against academia and the Ivy League continually. I don't understand this tortured bifurcation. The man who says 'Do you really think I care about your "rules"??' does understand that, even if he happens to approve of the subject of your dissertation, you had to fill it with citations and footnotes and to defend it before a dissertation committee, right? Could it be that this is all rhetorical hyperbole on the King's part? Could I have misunderstood so badly?Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-39483065106934035352010-05-14T04:25:56.516-07:002010-05-14T04:25:56.516-07:00Ha! Yes, Crazy Carl and I were the black sheep of...Ha! Yes, Crazy Carl and I were the black sheep of the ULA with our Ph.D.s!Wred Frighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04628263242413308661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-6475357148464439652010-05-13T12:43:29.021-07:002010-05-13T12:43:29.021-07:00"A literary world which reflects the society;..."A literary world which reflects the society; which is more relevant and accessible to the American people."<br /><br />Uh, you can lead a horse to water, King. Even if I agreed with you that the most valuable function literature can perform is to turn experience within the lower echelons of society into accessible and instructive prose, that's not what "the American people" are interested in reading. Just check the bestseller list. <br /><br />Oh, and when I walk past the tables in Downtown Brooklyn where people are selling books, mostly with African-American themes, to passers-by, very few of those books seem to take the proletarian life as their subject matter. Is it possible that "relevant" literature is not what resonates with The People, even if it does resonate with a nice boy from Grosse Pointe?Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-65866259081378420552010-05-13T12:31:49.514-07:002010-05-13T12:31:49.514-07:00Selby and Nowlan are not even remotely similar, an...Selby and Nowlan are not even remotely similar, and if you think that Selby's artistic method consisted of hurling diaristic chunks of experience at the page then you have severely misread him. <br /><br />I think Nowlan's writing is barely literate and, you know, it actually points out your lack of discernment that you would see in the loose similarities between his work and the work of someone like Selby a kind of iron-clad affinity. And you're not going to persuade me, or anyone else, that Nowlan's inability to check the spelling of basic English words in the dictionary is evidence of a radical artistic sensibility. I would be willing to bet, without getting up and pulling any of Selby's books off the shelf, that Selby would never write of a "wall like building," or mix similes within a single sentence. In fact, Selby mostly avoided similes and other "artificial" figures of speech that a weak writer (like Nowlan) hangs onto like a crutch. <br /><br />Training has its purpose but what really matters "in my world" is practice. No practiced writer would write like Nowlan. It is the work of a not-terribly-talented amateur. Your argument, which I don't think I do have upside-down, is that because Nowlan has "ideas" and "experience" he should be embraced by this nebulous entity you've invented called "the lit world," and the fact that his shitty, amateur productions aren't indicates widespread "corruption."<br /><br />I don't "pretend" to embrace anything because I don't have a political or ideological outlook when it comes to literature. I read lots of things, in fact I read much more broadly than I did once upon a time. Believe it or not, I actually take books on a case-by-case basis, which pretty much precludes drawing broad and prejudicial conclusions about them on the basis of where the author's gone to school, who's published him, and so forth.Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-15692698707823010592010-05-13T11:47:54.444-07:002010-05-13T11:47:54.444-07:00p.s. I've in effect argued for DIFFERENCE. Do ...p.s. I've in effect argued for DIFFERENCE. Do we have it? Not in the American short story. . . .King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-81570543497000927302010-05-13T11:45:38.759-07:002010-05-13T11:45:38.759-07:00??? I've never said experience makes a writer ...??? I've never said experience makes a writer necessarily BETTER-- my argument is that we're getting too much, from contemporary lit, a kind of narrow, upper-middle class experience. (See Lorrie Moore. Uh, I read her novel. It wasn't compelling.)<br />Yes, I advocate a return to the days of Jack London, Stephen Crane, O. Henry and company, when American literature was more vigorous, more in touch with the American public. I argue against the tame literary product of today.King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-37808878959585983882010-05-13T11:13:08.357-07:002010-05-13T11:13:08.357-07:00Selby was never "shut out," dude. They m...Selby was never "shut out," dude. They made a MOVIE out of "Requiem for a Dream" and even gave him a fuckin' cameo. <br /><br />You live in a world of fantasy where you just say any old thing and it's true by virtue of you having said it. That is what's ridiculous to me. It's not enough that you disagree with the system, no... you disagree with anyone who might question your notions, no matter how loony they are. <br /><br />You want to know why "wall like buildings" is an awful simile? Because buildings HAVE walls. He's not saying anything but, "there's a building that... looks like a building."<br /><br />"Urban monolith" might be a tad cliché, but at least it's not redundant.<br /><br />"--'wall like buildings' is an evocative phrase. A building without ornamentation or character, like, er, a wall."<br /><br />Yeah, the Great Wall of China... that has no character. It's just a bunch of bricks. There is nothing fantastic or artful about it.<br /><br />Right.<br /><br />And why do you keep saying "chunks of experience?" What does that mean? <br /><br />Yeah, I've been to Europe, too. I've worked shitty jobs. I dropped out of college. How does that make me any more qualified a writer than a trust fund kid with an MFA? I don't think it does. It might make me unpolished, street, hood, punk (whatever), but it doesn't make me BETTER (or worse). Just different. <br /><br />"You can argue that I don't accept writers-- but when I critique writers it's writers who are already successful and hardly require my acceptance. I'm not in a position to hold power over any writer, as I suspect you are."<br /><br />Don't play victim. It's kind of sad, and my tiny violin is out of tune.<br /><br />I would hardly call what you do "critiquing." You look at the publisher, find the author on wikipedia, and if you see lots of awards, or a college degree, they are summarily dumped into the "just another 'typical' Litworld™ writer" bin. <br /><br />Do you read novels anymore?<br /><br />"By the way, Harland, I'm a writer. I have many stories and poems now up on various blogs; from eight short stories on "Pop"; two longer ones at my Detroit blog; I link there to "Bluebird"; the three-part "Zytron" story on this blog from 2005 about teaching in an inner city high school; and so on. I'd think that qualifies me as a writer, except in your willfully-distorted world."<br /><br />By your definition of a writer, almost everyone under 30 is a writer. But you know, I'll give you your claim. If you believe you are a writer, then fine, you're a writer. Just remember that some take the designation a bit more seriously than that.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05760059346914640588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-37976435841754131452010-05-13T11:02:14.399-07:002010-05-13T11:02:14.399-07:00Re knowing about Wred's phd:
Let's see. So...Re knowing about Wred's phd:<br />Let's see. Some years ago I received in the mail a copy of Wred's gigantic dissertation, which happened to be about zines. (It wouldn't fit in my po box.) I still vividly recall lugging that unwieldy article back to my place. Backbreaking! I should've rented a truck to carry it. Maybe I had a clue then that he had a Phd.<br />*******************<br />Actually, Harland has inadvertantly shown that in practice I'm quite democratic in my tastes. We had at least two Ivy Leaguers, for instance, in the ULA. (One of them a founding member-- one of six.) I've never been about exclusion, but inclusion. A literary world which reflects the society; which is more relevant and accessible to the American people.King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-60515710025226860612010-05-13T08:59:26.437-07:002010-05-13T08:59:26.437-07:00Regarding Harland's identity:
This is an impor...Regarding Harland's identity:<br />This is an important issue, given that I was attacked by Daniel Handler, using a phony name, for quite a long time.<br />Handler, Eggers, Moody, Sedaris, wield enormous power within literature.<br />One can look at two recent NY Times articles on Handler, one which discusses his stupendous wealth; another about his switch of publishing companies, which gives indications that he has the power to shake these giant institutions.<br />Yet this same ultra-powerful individual posted hundreds of attacks against myself. One of the richest writers in America going after one of the poorest.<br />Harland, will you agree that Daniel Handler's attacks on me were unseemly and disproportionate?<br />(That they were done anonymously was the essence of cowardice.)<br />Think of the arrogance of the Handler/Sedaris fake letter-- the knowledge that they could get away with it; that NO ONE from the established lit world would call them on it. A symptom of privilege.<br />Think of the situation of a writer who would dare cross swords with the four "boys club" writers I mentioned. How would that writer be viewed by the literary/print media worlds? Wouldn't these worlds fear offending those named powerful, Borgia-like princes of literature?<br />Wouldn't that writer likely be blackballed? (Forget being published-- an obvious impossibility given the fear within literature. I'm talking being denied any attention or association at all.)<br />By the way, Harland, I'm a writer. I have many stories and poems now up on various blogs; from eight short stories on "Pop"; two longer ones at my Detroit blog; I link there to "Bluebird"; the three-part "Zytron" story on this blog from 2005 about teaching in an inner city high school; and so on. I'd think that qualifies me as a writer, except in your willfully-distorted world.<br />If I'm not a writer, no one is.<br />(A new story, btw, is now up at Pop.)King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-7569237082003819292010-05-13T08:41:13.501-07:002010-05-13T08:41:13.501-07:00Well, I see that your arguments are filled with co...Well, I see that your arguments are filled with contradictions. You agree that Little Richard was a great musician, better than Pat Boone. On what objective criteria do you base that? His writing? ("Tutti Frutti" wasn't exactly Cole Porter.) Objectively, Pat Boone had a better, more well-trained voice. Isn't training what it's about in your world?<br />It seems to me that you carry a double standard regarding music and literature.<br />****************<br />You're tied into your own caricature of myself. I've criticized writing programs for their dominance of literature now, but not every writer who teaches writing when that's necessary. (Even Mary Gaitskill, whose work I've long admired, has taught in them.) I've mentioned them as a hazard to a writer's work, but I've not posited an either-or situation.<br />You always have my arguments upside-down.<br />Because I've argued that undergrounders should have a tiny sliver of the literary noise (say 1%), established litsters have pretended I want to shut them out. I guess by suddenly taking away their 100%.<br />Because I've argued that not ALL writers should have MFA's (indisputably the direction lit is going in) doesn't mean I believe that NONE of them should.<br />Today, virtually every story in every literary story collection is from an MFAer. If those collections are mediocre (as they are), then MFA programs have to be considered as a likely cause.<br />When closely looked at, your arguments are sophistry.<br />Hubert Selby, by the way-- a great but uneven writer-- presented the reader with large chunks of tough experience. In the same way James Nowlan does.<br />******************<br />Your attack on Nowlan's writing is so obsessive-compulsive it goes beyond constipation nearly into insanity-- and reveals your own flaw as a writer: your narrow outlook. (Your literalism, if you will.)<br />--"wall like buildings" is an evocative phrase. A building without ornamentation or character, like, er, a wall.<br />--"as if a tornado had passed."<br />This could mean "passed by" but it also could mean "passed through." When looked at within context, within the rest of the paragraph, it's obvious what's meant. I can't imagine a single reader, other than yourself, misinterpreting what he says-- and with you the misinterpretation is deliberate.<br />******************<br />What you are, "Harland," is a fraud. You pretend to embrace edgy, underground-style writers (like a Hubert Selby) but when it comes to accepting living versions, the true Harland comes out. Harland the Banker.<br />You can argue that I don't accept writers-- but when I critique writers it's writers who are already successful and hardly require my acceptance. I'm not in a position to hold power over any writer, as I suspect you are.<br />This is a huge difference.<br />My argument stands that writers as powerful in their themes and imagery AS Hubert Selby-- namely James Nowlan-- are shut out.King Wenclashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709139159194279478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-89868088428892952022010-05-13T08:40:25.022-07:002010-05-13T08:40:25.022-07:00The King does know that you're a Ph.D., doesn&...The King does know that you're a Ph.D., doesn't he, Fred? That you teach at college?Harlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390843325920311632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-62749136204142927012010-05-13T05:26:05.737-07:002010-05-13T05:26:05.737-07:00I made a typo in my initial publication of that la...I made a typo in my initial publication of that last comment so I deleted, corrected, and republished it. Proofreading: Don't leave home without it!Wred Frighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04628263242413308661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983462.post-46734919175810884122010-05-13T05:24:50.531-07:002010-05-13T05:24:50.531-07:00The ULA edition of Security reads like it was neve...The ULA edition of Security reads like it was never proofread, which is a shame, because it's a good read otherwise. I really enjoy Nowlan's work. His film Countdown runs in a similar vein. With what appears to be almost no budget, he made a film that's better than quite a few big budget movies I've seen from Hollywood. He may be a bit of an acquired taste, like many of the ULA writers, but I like his stuff. His style is unlike any other writer I've ever read. I'd describe him as a surrealist expatriate Bukowski. I'd like to read more by him. Harland, I'm sorry you don't like my writing, as I like your mask or whatever the hell it is you're wearing. The King's blog is a good time, isn't it?Wred Frighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04628263242413308661noreply@blogger.com