The entire team was blindsided by your resignations, myself included. We had not an inkling of your dissatisfaction with me and the ULA. Up until the times you resigned, my correspondence with both of you was nothing but friendly. Now you're trying to gain attention, or curry favor with others, through attacks on the ULA. You behaved in no way-- in no way-- like teammates; like members of an organization. To you, notions of solidarity are without meaning. I was loyal to you both (while at the same time being loyal to the principles of the ULA) throughout your time in the ULA.
My favorable posts about Noah are still on this blog for all to see. A mere couple weeks before Tim bailed I was taking his part in an internal discussion about a name for a publication. The only frustration I might've sensed from them was that I wasn't giving them enough attention. Not enough attention! The micromanager Tim portrays is the micromanager they wanted me to be-- not what I've been in reality. Even had I wanted to "dictate," I don't have the time! Noah and Tim were both free to pursue their projects as they wished, within the framework of the ULA. (Their grievances remain mysterious.)
There was never a question of putting handcuffs on them. In hindsight-- though they raised nary a peep at the time-- it was more they wanting to stifle other ULAers, whether Crazy Carl, or Jeff Potter, or me. Did they approach Steve with their grievances? Did they raise their complaints with the team? Not to my knowledge.
I don't understand what they're now saying. They seem to want the ULA to stop being the ULA; to lessen our vision, our belief that we can change things; to stop our comic-book populism and our in-your-face agitation. They seem bothered that I have a role and voice in the ULA. The question then: Why did they ever join? Obviously they saw us as a stepping stone for their ambition, one stone among many stones along their path, with no sense of loyalty or commitment to anything except their own egos. Noah is a bigger disappointment than Tim, because he professes to wish to change this society. (Tim is about promoting his own writing.) Noah, you don't change anything by abandoning and turning on colleagues at the first expeditious moment or momentary sense of frustration. Like a J.T. Leroy you've become an embarrassment to the idea of a working class as it once existed in this country. Before I was born my old man, an autoworker, was part of post-WWII strikes which built the union movement in this society. I was raised on his history. Through my life I saw the working class gradually knocked down and destroyed. I saw more recent strikers, in 1995, beaten and bloodied by jackbooted union-busters in the same city of Detroit during an infamous newspaper strike. (A story ignored by corporate media.) Their broken faces were right in front of me. Dig far enough into my past and you'll find I was a (very young) union steward and shit-disturber myself someplace-- far more volatile than I am today. I've tried to bring the merest hint of this kind of solidarity and attitude to the community of writers, in order to change the culture, in order to renew this society. The one person I thought would "get" what I was doing was you. My efforts in this regard were a failure, as you wish to be a head-in-the-sand pessimist blind to the realities of literature and the world, abandoning real hope of changing things-- even buying the lie that lower class people don't like to read. (Surely, TV or no TV, the masses are no less deprived or depraved than in Jack London's day. The vast mass of Americans of any class are no less hungry for truth, relevance, soul, and reality, which only literature can fully bring. To think otherwise is to short-sell humanity.)
The founding and growth of the Underground Literary Alliance has been an important accomplishment-- the creation in literature of a truly independent voice. Nothing changes without conflict and setbacks. Ours have been temporary. The ULA's most exciting history will be in the days ahead.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Sunday, November 13, 2005
The Real Truth About Memogate
The CBS "Memogate" controversy about Bush's National Guard service has been reopened with the publication of the Mary Mapes book Truth and Duty, excerpted in Vanity Fair. In her book, Mapes makes the case that the documents CBS News put forward as authentic may indeed BE authentic; that the case against them hasn't been proved. Were right-wing bloggers wrong? Where lies the truth?
No one has consulted the ultimate authority on proportionally-spaced typewriters, small-press publisher Fred Woodworth, to receive the definitive answer.
That answer is given by Fred on pages 32 through 36 of his Mystery & Adventure Series Review, issue #38. Fred is, in his own words, "the one person anywhere who still operates all of these devices every day"-- referring to Selectric Composers, IBM Executive Typewriters, Varitypers, Justowriters, and similar machines which "could have produced proportionally-spaced typing in a style like that of the documents. . . ."
Like Mary Mapes, Fred shreds many of the arguments of the bloggers and their experts.
One can't know by the appearance of the characters if the documents were faked. Repeated photocopying "altered the letter shapes enough to cast doubt even on what formal name might be assigned to the typeface."
"Nor is the 'th' in one of the lines a sure indicator of computer production," Woodworth continues. He explains how a small lifted "th" could've been produced on a period machine.
Fred mocks those "experts" who claimed absurdities such as that the documents were fake because Times New Roman typeface was invented for computer systems ("it looks much more like Garamond to me," Fred says). Times New Roman made its public debut in 1932!
"In the case of the disputed documents, only mathematics could prove the point one way or the other."
Woodworth explains the numbers, or values, for each character on the keyboards of the various proportionally-spacing machines which could potentially have typed the questionable memos. (With standard typewriters, the spacing is a single unit per character. Not so with these devices.) By adding up the "unit or increment values of all the characters in the memos he or she can easily determine their legitimacy. If unit values in a system don't result in characters staying in the same relationship to each other as in the memo shown, then that particular system can be excluded."
Woodworth has typed out, for our perusal, on various machines, lines from the previously shown memo. "Note how in each example, differing systems of character units result in differing relative line lengths-- and all are different from the CBS one."
The question WASN'T, as many bloggers thought, whether the documents could have been faked or reproduced by computer. It was whether they were created in 1972. The answer is an unqualified unequivocal NO, as Woodworth shows.
Think about this for a minute. At great expense, St. Martin's Press has just issued a book, Vanity Fair has excerpted it, the key argument at the heart of which is WRONG. Flatly wrong. Definitively wrong, as Woodworth easily demonstrates in his short but expert essay on the subject. If ever Mary Mapes, St. Martin's Press, and Vanity Fair should have gotten a story right, THIS WAS THAT MOMENT. Instead, they blew it.
Fred Woodworth's conclusion:
"The recent Bush-memo scandal convinces me that the apparatus for conveying truth to a wide public is broken if it ever worked at all. People get up and say whatever serves their agenda whether they actually know anything about their topic or are just making it up on the spot. Persons with no axe to grind and with real expert knowledge to impart are contemptuously ignored. . . ."
For #38 of the M & A Series Review send five dollars cash or stamps to Fred Woodworth, PO Box 3012, Tucson AZ 85702. The article inside is a must-read for anyone interested in the Memogate story.
No one has consulted the ultimate authority on proportionally-spaced typewriters, small-press publisher Fred Woodworth, to receive the definitive answer.
That answer is given by Fred on pages 32 through 36 of his Mystery & Adventure Series Review, issue #38. Fred is, in his own words, "the one person anywhere who still operates all of these devices every day"-- referring to Selectric Composers, IBM Executive Typewriters, Varitypers, Justowriters, and similar machines which "could have produced proportionally-spaced typing in a style like that of the documents. . . ."
Like Mary Mapes, Fred shreds many of the arguments of the bloggers and their experts.
One can't know by the appearance of the characters if the documents were faked. Repeated photocopying "altered the letter shapes enough to cast doubt even on what formal name might be assigned to the typeface."
"Nor is the 'th' in one of the lines a sure indicator of computer production," Woodworth continues. He explains how a small lifted "th" could've been produced on a period machine.
Fred mocks those "experts" who claimed absurdities such as that the documents were fake because Times New Roman typeface was invented for computer systems ("it looks much more like Garamond to me," Fred says). Times New Roman made its public debut in 1932!
"In the case of the disputed documents, only mathematics could prove the point one way or the other."
Woodworth explains the numbers, or values, for each character on the keyboards of the various proportionally-spacing machines which could potentially have typed the questionable memos. (With standard typewriters, the spacing is a single unit per character. Not so with these devices.) By adding up the "unit or increment values of all the characters in the memos he or she can easily determine their legitimacy. If unit values in a system don't result in characters staying in the same relationship to each other as in the memo shown, then that particular system can be excluded."
Woodworth has typed out, for our perusal, on various machines, lines from the previously shown memo. "Note how in each example, differing systems of character units result in differing relative line lengths-- and all are different from the CBS one."
The question WASN'T, as many bloggers thought, whether the documents could have been faked or reproduced by computer. It was whether they were created in 1972. The answer is an unqualified unequivocal NO, as Woodworth shows.
Think about this for a minute. At great expense, St. Martin's Press has just issued a book, Vanity Fair has excerpted it, the key argument at the heart of which is WRONG. Flatly wrong. Definitively wrong, as Woodworth easily demonstrates in his short but expert essay on the subject. If ever Mary Mapes, St. Martin's Press, and Vanity Fair should have gotten a story right, THIS WAS THAT MOMENT. Instead, they blew it.
Fred Woodworth's conclusion:
"The recent Bush-memo scandal convinces me that the apparatus for conveying truth to a wide public is broken if it ever worked at all. People get up and say whatever serves their agenda whether they actually know anything about their topic or are just making it up on the spot. Persons with no axe to grind and with real expert knowledge to impart are contemptuously ignored. . . ."
For #38 of the M & A Series Review send five dollars cash or stamps to Fred Woodworth, PO Box 3012, Tucson AZ 85702. The article inside is a must-read for anyone interested in the Memogate story.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
The ULA Reality
CURIOUS are remarks tarring the ULA as a one-man operation. What's the motivation behind these statements? At the moment my role in the organization is marginal-- nothing more than posting on this blog once or twice a week. Meanwhile, Jeff, Steve, and Pat Simonelli are involved in publishing and selling books and zeens by ULA writers. Others like Leopold, Brady Russell, and Patrick King are moving forward on other activities. Our Monday Reports come from undergrounders of every kind. Jeff Potter and Pat S. in particular are devoting a great deal of time and energy into building the groundwork of our new-style machine. We're a team of cooperative equals. If I vanished tomorrow, the ULA would continue on with little change.
Get used to it! The Underground Literary Alliance is here to stay.
Get used to it! The Underground Literary Alliance is here to stay.
Proportion
There's an amazing lack of sense of proportion among those who equate attacks on me and the ULA with those on the actions of someone like Rick Moody. Take away my blog and I'm absolutely powerless within this society. I work and live among the lower class. Rick Moody moves among the the wealthiest and most influential cultural cirlces in exclusive private clubs in New York City. His father is a powerful world banker, at the very peak of the world's socioeconomic pyramid, above the world's billions of people. Why do Rick Moody's mediocre novels receive massive publicity? How does he come to make grants decisions involving so many foundations?
We can do little about politics but we can clean up our own backyard of literature. This is what the ULA has been doing. The constant squawkings and insults we face are withdrawal symptoms of those addicted to status quo ideology. Embracing change is never easy. We welcome others to the fight-- even someone like Maud who's ostensibly progressive yet disturbed by what we're doing. They first need to see the literary world as it exists in reality; a mirror image of the rest of society.
This isn't a complaint. I'm merely stating the obvious. When making change, betrayals come with the territory.
All the personal attacks and slanders against me by ex-ULAers don't change the fact that the two individuals making the noise flinched from the fight I described. I'm a much easier target than those who dominate awards, media mags, and money! Attacking me takes no career risk and little bravery. Their panicked screams are rationalizations; cover for the fact that in the face of strong odds they ran away.
We can do little about politics but we can clean up our own backyard of literature. This is what the ULA has been doing. The constant squawkings and insults we face are withdrawal symptoms of those addicted to status quo ideology. Embracing change is never easy. We welcome others to the fight-- even someone like Maud who's ostensibly progressive yet disturbed by what we're doing. They first need to see the literary world as it exists in reality; a mirror image of the rest of society.
This isn't a complaint. I'm merely stating the obvious. When making change, betrayals come with the territory.
All the personal attacks and slanders against me by ex-ULAers don't change the fact that the two individuals making the noise flinched from the fight I described. I'm a much easier target than those who dominate awards, media mags, and money! Attacking me takes no career risk and little bravery. Their panicked screams are rationalizations; cover for the fact that in the face of strong odds they ran away.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Memo to Benedict Arnold
I finally got a chance to read the Noah Cicero thing. Wasn't going to say anything, but can't resist. What a chameleon! Who would've believed he'd turn into such a self-important jerk? In the ULA he was a Leninist radical; a fire-breather. Suddenly now he's a tweedy dilettante, authority on all things obscurely literary. Bring on the slippers and pipe. Let's all just get along, he proclaims; all 24,000 of us bunkered down in the last outpost, the Corregidor of literature. He takes umbrage that lowly King Wenclas, who lives in a transient hotel right now, is somehow picking on lorldly rich guy Bret Easton Ellis. Such a tragedy! Unbelievable! At this dire treatment of the aristocrat, Noah stalked out of the ULA. (Forgetting to tell any of us at the time why.) The horror. How many sleepless nights did Noah endure, sniffles in his pillow, at the mistreatment of his idol? (I don't even recall knocking Ellis's writing-- only the fawning publicity he receives.)
Yes, interesting the way Noah has changed. The previous incarnation/act is gone, along with the rants and misspellings. (Read: phony.) He's been properly lobotomized.
80% of the interview is verbal diarrhea. The only parts of interest are those involving the ULA. Anyone not entranced with his own genius can see that the ULA is the reason for the interview's being, from the first question out of the gate. "Reader" many times steers the discussion back to Noah's departure from the ULA. The interview is an excuse to take shots at the ULA, while parading, like a talking dog or a geek in a circus carnival, the "autodidact"; the man who turned on the ULA. "Look! He writes. He drops pretentious names!" The genteel crowd gasps. Over the curtained booth hangs a large sign. "THE AUTODIDACT." "Step this way. Step this way!" announces Reader-of-Depressing Books the carnival barker. "See the literary freak."
Noah doesn't have the common sense to realize his departure from the ULA is the reason for his sudden acceptance by these people. When he was with us, he was object of their scorn. Now that he's given up the fight and become, like them, an eager-beaver suck-ass game player, everything is fine.
Has he covered every base? Said something nice about Eggers? Check. Put the blame, bizarrely, for the Daniel Handler fake letter controversy on me? (I wasn't supposed to say anything, only stay in my corner and take it, happy that they falsely used my name.) Check. Stereotyped what for the most part are reasoned arguments from me, buttressed by facts, into calling people "dickheads" and "fascists"? (Words I don't use.) Check. Taken a shot at the ULA's populist fan site, which (unlike ambitious writers) doesn't take itself too seriously? Check and double-check.
(I know you won't mind these remarks, Noah. After all, they come from a person who "can't write.")
Reading the interview-- slogging through it dutifully-- I found myself drowning in falsehoods, absurdities, and phoniness.
Noah expresses his concern about the organization of the ULA. He enjoys Hermitt's writing-- apparently the main reason he joined the ULA (does anyone buy this?); having no knowledge the organization was about anything else-- no understanding of its protests and campaigns. (Memos sent him unread.) Once in, he discovers that Hermitt isn't very active in the organization! Someone do something, Noah screams. Not to any of us, but inside his head. Does he ask Hermitt what he thinks of the ULA, encouraging him to become more involved in our activities? Of course not! Noah didn't join to roll up his sleeves, get busy and make the ULA a stronger and better organization. He joined merely because he likes Hermitt's writing.
(Noah, part of what we do in the ULA is provide a place for undergrounders to communicate with one another. It's why we sent you the list of contact information!)
Who Noah most wanted to communicate with aside from Tim Hall wasn't all the working class or poor writers and zeensters who fill our ranks; people like Joe Verrilli or Bill Blackolive or Chris Robin or Yul Tolbert or Frank Walsh or Patrick King-- but me, then the busiest ULAer but also the one with the highest visibility. Though according to Noah I can't write, he kept mailing and e-mailing books, essays, and poems for me to read. Curious, you say? He even asked me to write an intro to his recent book. Though my life was in crisis (still is frankly), working two jobs and busy with other activities, I took the time to read his novel and mail the requested introduction. Did he use it? Was it dropped? Despite my trouble, I received no explanation.
Do you know how many times prolific writer Noah expressed his dissatisfaction with our organization to Steve Kostecke or myself? None. Zero. Not once. The Leftist didn't grasp that communication is part of any collective project. Many of us, like Wred, Jeff, Leopold, Pat Simonelli, Steve, and myself did everything we could to make Noah an important part of the group. Noah gave no space to the normal vagaries of an organization, especially one with as diverse a mix of personalities as ours. There was scant commitment-- COMMITMENT-- to our ideals, our goals, our cause, the level of which has to be high, has to be strong, to endure all the fights setbacks and attacks one receives if one TRULY wishes to make change rather than making wishes postures and dreams. He knew when he joined we like our attitude balls-to-the-wall. His fervor lasted six months. At his first piqued moment or found opportunity elsewhere he bailed. Now he hangs with enervated apologists for the establishment like Depressed Reader of Books, symbol of literary inertia, representative of everything wrong with the art-- the reason it's ignored-- young men discussing existentialist philosophy like retired professors at a rest sanitarium.
(Depressing Writer, whose attitude toward how the world operates is that of a 5 year-old, comes up with an absurdity of his own when he says that Dave Eggers gives "all" his money to charity, and is therefore redistributing wealth!)
Absurdities everyplace. Noah states that one can't intentionally create a movement. This is unhistorical nonsense. Every movement which has had influence was intentionally created, from Christianity to the Bolsheviks to rock n' roll. The evangelists didn't stay home drawing circles in the sand. They strode to every corner of the known world very INTENTIONALLY building their movement. The Jacobins intentionally wrote their gutter-press tracts and intentionally opened their clubs. Lenin traveled to the Finland Station. It didn't travel to him. The rock music phenomenon was intentionally created by hustlers like Alan Freed and Sam Phillips. Colonel Parker himself said he promoted Elvis Presley not as a lone talent, but as the cutting edge of a movement. The British Invasion nine years later was the intentional creation of Brian Epstein and Andrew Loog Oldham.
More absurdities. Diarrhea compounding itself. The smell becomes oppressive. Noah rightly tells us about the importance of publicity in the lit world-- but is unable to see the importance of publicity in constructing the ULA platform, which is being built to give writers like him a voice. That we've positioned ourselves as the anti-McSweeney's; as Avis to McSweeney's Hertz; is a concept beyond this authority's imagination. Like most lit people he knows nothing about business but opens the floodgates of diarrhea anyway. He speaks from no track record of experience on these matters. Instead he expounds any expedient idea which enters his head. It's closing time at the sideshow, lights are being dimmed, and in his brightly-colored booth the Autodidact jabbers on. Please listen! This fellow knows. He supports progressive ideas but adopts the status quo company/party line that I'd be okay if I voiced my ideas alone. My mistake was becoming part of a group, adding my voice to those of like-minded others to have more influence and leverage in this extremely noisy and contentious society. People are okay with what I do as long as I don't try to actually CHANGE anything. Being a lone voice in the wilderness is okay.
Of course, according to Noah, the reason I formed the ULA was because I couldn't get published. On what does he base this assertion? Inside knowledge about the ULA's founding? No: Noah Cicero has taken a new job at the literary carnival, that of Mind Reader. He knows my motivations better than I know them myself, while presenting no evidence to support his case. The real story of the ULA's beginning is a tad different. It includes a chapter on my having left zeening and literature altogether in 1998, when I was managing a trade office along the Detroit-Canada border. Encouraging letters from Doug Bassett and Steve Kostecke prodded me back into the game, along with a visit to Detroit by Michael Jackman. Ideas of book publication couldn't have pushed me out of my office, only something more enticing-- the prospect of changing the culture by creating something independent and new. It's funny and sad that a self-proclaimed Leftist/Leninist et.al. like Noah could so lack vision that his entire view of society and the culture is encompassed by the narrow bourgeois objective of book publication (which by itself is meaningless). For me, writing has never been an end in itself, but a means toward a goal; an avenue toward changing a world I find to be increasingly soulless.
I discussed with others the idea of a lit movement. I pondered the idea for countless hours in my head. I steeped myself in DIY philosophy as propounded by folks like Fred Woodworth (the genuine article). The process is dismissed in a phrase by Noah. ULA history is turned into parody. It doesn't matter to him whether his words contain truth-- only that they conform to the prejudices of his lit-blogger readers. Caricaturing me and my ideas allows bourgeois demi-puppets to nod complacently and assume all is well. King Wenclas is just like them! He's only out for himself.
Noah has decided the status quo literary world with its hierarchies, corruptions, and inequities is okay and in no need of change. He argues for this in his statements. They're not arguments-- they're rationalizations. The lit world is powerless, he tells us-- even the millionaires-- consisting of only 24,000 people, yet at the same time we should be careful not to piss any of them off! Maybe they're not so powerless after all. At least Noah's not stressed out anymore. Like Winston Smith at the end of 1984 he's found peace. ("Reader" playing O'Brien in this theatrical version of the play.)
The acceptance is mind-boggling. Lorrie Moore? If delicate Ms. Moore with her wry subtlety and lifelessness is the literary role model then literature WILL be restricted to 24,000 people. I've seen Lorrie Moore read. She's as animated as a puppet caught between work assignments, as is her writing.
Noah would never argue that the political system doesn't need to be changed. He's vociferous against it. He forgets he's not IN politics-- he's in literature. Politics and literature are reflections of the same stratified society. It's easy to be against something over which you have no influence and doesn't affect your career one iota.
I'll give my former colleague an alternate checklist for consideration. The mainstream print media dominated by Ivy Leaguers? Check. Writers without credentials or connections not given a fair shake? Check. The poor and working class not fairly represented in the noise of this society, through their own voices? Check. Our ideas ignored until they're borrowed by those with the right pedigree? Check. Writers from the bottom half of society indeed effectively blackballed? Check and double-check.
We don't submit manuscripts to conglomerate slush piles (some of us have in the past) because we're working to create an independent alternative to the cultural monopolies. I thought this part of our campaign was well-known and obvious. It should be to anyone who was once part of the ULA.
More rationalization appears in Noah's confused statements about why people do or don't read. This part of the interview is truly diarrhea; during it Noah is speaking out of his ass. His remarks are pure speculation. Noah, in fact, is living disproof of his own statements-- he's one of the many millions of souls in this country who aren't supposed to enjoy literature or reading. People don't read! They only watch TV. Noah has it on good authority, and anyway, most important, to adopt this notion fits comfortably with the smug prejudices of those with whom he's now currying favor. Only problem is the notion is wrong.
Is Noah saying that the mass public can't soak up good, clear, relevant literature? That literature can't become once again important? That it's doomed to be marginalized? Throughout my life I've encountered working class and poor people who love to read, in auto factories and warehouses and railyards and saloons and halfway houses and inner city schools and calling rooms. (There are more autodidacts out there than people think.) They read literature, if it's good, including Dickens, Dumas, and Dostoevsky-- or Jack London (whose Iron Heel is a striking book). In short, the best writers who lived. My experiences and my own life, and the lives and experiences of other undergrounders like Jackman, Grover, Mullins, Nowlan, Ranello, Pachinko, Blackolive, Logan Mason, and many many others support my belief on this subject. Literature can and should be huge. The ULA strategy is sound.
Ours is an optimistic vision of literature and that's what scares some people.
The most egregious and hypocritical part of the Cicero interview is his attack on the ULA's Crazy Carl, whom he falsely brands as misogynist. (This from a defender of Bret Ellis.) In Crazy Carl's good-natured comical yarns, his main target isn't women, but men! I should know, as I've been the butt of a few of his tales, and enjoyed it, because it's done humorously and well. Carl's main target in everything he writes is himself-- the recipient of most of his barbs. In truth Crazy Carl loves women. He's an extremely lively and engaging writer as entertaining in person as in print; that literary rarity, an unconstipated author lacking a trace of snobbery and pretense. I'd take him over a boatload of precious meandering analytical and eternally bland Readers of Depressed Books. Crazy Carl's take on the world is mocking and joyful, rigid ideological theoretical intellectual categories removed. What you get instead is simple honesty. Noah's a talented writer, but there's not a shred of joy for life in his words. It's no wonder Crazy Carl is beyond his comprehension.
Noah says he admires Steve Kostecke's work. Some of Steve's tales about prostitutes could be construed by some as sexist. Where do we draw the line? Guidelines, please. What if someone decides that YOU and your outspoken novels, Noah, are politically incorrect, because they offend someone? What do you do then?
Contradiction upon contradiction. Noah even defends establishment cronyism! Would he apply his remarks to Mr. Bush and friends?
Were some ULAers angry at Noah's departure, as Noah asserts? Not to my knowledge. Our collective emotion was one of puzzlement. My last e-mail to him was very friendly, complimenting him on a favorable review of his work. Sorry if this doesn't fit with the portrait he's painted, but it's the truth.
I could go on. After awhile it becomes pointless. I've opened every window and still can't remove the stench.
If Noah were serious about peace and harmony in the literary world, he wouldn't have taken shots at us. He couldn't leave without throwing people under the bus. He doesn't believe in taking sides but he's taken a side-- the wrong one. I hope it helps him sell a few books.
We've seen the writer-gentry rush to the "Reader"'s blog to express agreement with Noah's remarks, with his departure from the ULA, and their scorn for the organization and its members. Way to go, Noah! You've accomplished a great deal-- revealing the mendacity of the lit-world and the self-centered nature of many writers.
Yes, interesting the way Noah has changed. The previous incarnation/act is gone, along with the rants and misspellings. (Read: phony.) He's been properly lobotomized.
80% of the interview is verbal diarrhea. The only parts of interest are those involving the ULA. Anyone not entranced with his own genius can see that the ULA is the reason for the interview's being, from the first question out of the gate. "Reader" many times steers the discussion back to Noah's departure from the ULA. The interview is an excuse to take shots at the ULA, while parading, like a talking dog or a geek in a circus carnival, the "autodidact"; the man who turned on the ULA. "Look! He writes. He drops pretentious names!" The genteel crowd gasps. Over the curtained booth hangs a large sign. "THE AUTODIDACT." "Step this way. Step this way!" announces Reader-of-Depressing Books the carnival barker. "See the literary freak."
Noah doesn't have the common sense to realize his departure from the ULA is the reason for his sudden acceptance by these people. When he was with us, he was object of their scorn. Now that he's given up the fight and become, like them, an eager-beaver suck-ass game player, everything is fine.
Has he covered every base? Said something nice about Eggers? Check. Put the blame, bizarrely, for the Daniel Handler fake letter controversy on me? (I wasn't supposed to say anything, only stay in my corner and take it, happy that they falsely used my name.) Check. Stereotyped what for the most part are reasoned arguments from me, buttressed by facts, into calling people "dickheads" and "fascists"? (Words I don't use.) Check. Taken a shot at the ULA's populist fan site, which (unlike ambitious writers) doesn't take itself too seriously? Check and double-check.
(I know you won't mind these remarks, Noah. After all, they come from a person who "can't write.")
Reading the interview-- slogging through it dutifully-- I found myself drowning in falsehoods, absurdities, and phoniness.
Noah expresses his concern about the organization of the ULA. He enjoys Hermitt's writing-- apparently the main reason he joined the ULA (does anyone buy this?); having no knowledge the organization was about anything else-- no understanding of its protests and campaigns. (Memos sent him unread.) Once in, he discovers that Hermitt isn't very active in the organization! Someone do something, Noah screams. Not to any of us, but inside his head. Does he ask Hermitt what he thinks of the ULA, encouraging him to become more involved in our activities? Of course not! Noah didn't join to roll up his sleeves, get busy and make the ULA a stronger and better organization. He joined merely because he likes Hermitt's writing.
(Noah, part of what we do in the ULA is provide a place for undergrounders to communicate with one another. It's why we sent you the list of contact information!)
Who Noah most wanted to communicate with aside from Tim Hall wasn't all the working class or poor writers and zeensters who fill our ranks; people like Joe Verrilli or Bill Blackolive or Chris Robin or Yul Tolbert or Frank Walsh or Patrick King-- but me, then the busiest ULAer but also the one with the highest visibility. Though according to Noah I can't write, he kept mailing and e-mailing books, essays, and poems for me to read. Curious, you say? He even asked me to write an intro to his recent book. Though my life was in crisis (still is frankly), working two jobs and busy with other activities, I took the time to read his novel and mail the requested introduction. Did he use it? Was it dropped? Despite my trouble, I received no explanation.
Do you know how many times prolific writer Noah expressed his dissatisfaction with our organization to Steve Kostecke or myself? None. Zero. Not once. The Leftist didn't grasp that communication is part of any collective project. Many of us, like Wred, Jeff, Leopold, Pat Simonelli, Steve, and myself did everything we could to make Noah an important part of the group. Noah gave no space to the normal vagaries of an organization, especially one with as diverse a mix of personalities as ours. There was scant commitment-- COMMITMENT-- to our ideals, our goals, our cause, the level of which has to be high, has to be strong, to endure all the fights setbacks and attacks one receives if one TRULY wishes to make change rather than making wishes postures and dreams. He knew when he joined we like our attitude balls-to-the-wall. His fervor lasted six months. At his first piqued moment or found opportunity elsewhere he bailed. Now he hangs with enervated apologists for the establishment like Depressed Reader of Books, symbol of literary inertia, representative of everything wrong with the art-- the reason it's ignored-- young men discussing existentialist philosophy like retired professors at a rest sanitarium.
(Depressing Writer, whose attitude toward how the world operates is that of a 5 year-old, comes up with an absurdity of his own when he says that Dave Eggers gives "all" his money to charity, and is therefore redistributing wealth!)
Absurdities everyplace. Noah states that one can't intentionally create a movement. This is unhistorical nonsense. Every movement which has had influence was intentionally created, from Christianity to the Bolsheviks to rock n' roll. The evangelists didn't stay home drawing circles in the sand. They strode to every corner of the known world very INTENTIONALLY building their movement. The Jacobins intentionally wrote their gutter-press tracts and intentionally opened their clubs. Lenin traveled to the Finland Station. It didn't travel to him. The rock music phenomenon was intentionally created by hustlers like Alan Freed and Sam Phillips. Colonel Parker himself said he promoted Elvis Presley not as a lone talent, but as the cutting edge of a movement. The British Invasion nine years later was the intentional creation of Brian Epstein and Andrew Loog Oldham.
More absurdities. Diarrhea compounding itself. The smell becomes oppressive. Noah rightly tells us about the importance of publicity in the lit world-- but is unable to see the importance of publicity in constructing the ULA platform, which is being built to give writers like him a voice. That we've positioned ourselves as the anti-McSweeney's; as Avis to McSweeney's Hertz; is a concept beyond this authority's imagination. Like most lit people he knows nothing about business but opens the floodgates of diarrhea anyway. He speaks from no track record of experience on these matters. Instead he expounds any expedient idea which enters his head. It's closing time at the sideshow, lights are being dimmed, and in his brightly-colored booth the Autodidact jabbers on. Please listen! This fellow knows. He supports progressive ideas but adopts the status quo company/party line that I'd be okay if I voiced my ideas alone. My mistake was becoming part of a group, adding my voice to those of like-minded others to have more influence and leverage in this extremely noisy and contentious society. People are okay with what I do as long as I don't try to actually CHANGE anything. Being a lone voice in the wilderness is okay.
Of course, according to Noah, the reason I formed the ULA was because I couldn't get published. On what does he base this assertion? Inside knowledge about the ULA's founding? No: Noah Cicero has taken a new job at the literary carnival, that of Mind Reader. He knows my motivations better than I know them myself, while presenting no evidence to support his case. The real story of the ULA's beginning is a tad different. It includes a chapter on my having left zeening and literature altogether in 1998, when I was managing a trade office along the Detroit-Canada border. Encouraging letters from Doug Bassett and Steve Kostecke prodded me back into the game, along with a visit to Detroit by Michael Jackman. Ideas of book publication couldn't have pushed me out of my office, only something more enticing-- the prospect of changing the culture by creating something independent and new. It's funny and sad that a self-proclaimed Leftist/Leninist et.al. like Noah could so lack vision that his entire view of society and the culture is encompassed by the narrow bourgeois objective of book publication (which by itself is meaningless). For me, writing has never been an end in itself, but a means toward a goal; an avenue toward changing a world I find to be increasingly soulless.
I discussed with others the idea of a lit movement. I pondered the idea for countless hours in my head. I steeped myself in DIY philosophy as propounded by folks like Fred Woodworth (the genuine article). The process is dismissed in a phrase by Noah. ULA history is turned into parody. It doesn't matter to him whether his words contain truth-- only that they conform to the prejudices of his lit-blogger readers. Caricaturing me and my ideas allows bourgeois demi-puppets to nod complacently and assume all is well. King Wenclas is just like them! He's only out for himself.
Noah has decided the status quo literary world with its hierarchies, corruptions, and inequities is okay and in no need of change. He argues for this in his statements. They're not arguments-- they're rationalizations. The lit world is powerless, he tells us-- even the millionaires-- consisting of only 24,000 people, yet at the same time we should be careful not to piss any of them off! Maybe they're not so powerless after all. At least Noah's not stressed out anymore. Like Winston Smith at the end of 1984 he's found peace. ("Reader" playing O'Brien in this theatrical version of the play.)
The acceptance is mind-boggling. Lorrie Moore? If delicate Ms. Moore with her wry subtlety and lifelessness is the literary role model then literature WILL be restricted to 24,000 people. I've seen Lorrie Moore read. She's as animated as a puppet caught between work assignments, as is her writing.
Noah would never argue that the political system doesn't need to be changed. He's vociferous against it. He forgets he's not IN politics-- he's in literature. Politics and literature are reflections of the same stratified society. It's easy to be against something over which you have no influence and doesn't affect your career one iota.
I'll give my former colleague an alternate checklist for consideration. The mainstream print media dominated by Ivy Leaguers? Check. Writers without credentials or connections not given a fair shake? Check. The poor and working class not fairly represented in the noise of this society, through their own voices? Check. Our ideas ignored until they're borrowed by those with the right pedigree? Check. Writers from the bottom half of society indeed effectively blackballed? Check and double-check.
We don't submit manuscripts to conglomerate slush piles (some of us have in the past) because we're working to create an independent alternative to the cultural monopolies. I thought this part of our campaign was well-known and obvious. It should be to anyone who was once part of the ULA.
More rationalization appears in Noah's confused statements about why people do or don't read. This part of the interview is truly diarrhea; during it Noah is speaking out of his ass. His remarks are pure speculation. Noah, in fact, is living disproof of his own statements-- he's one of the many millions of souls in this country who aren't supposed to enjoy literature or reading. People don't read! They only watch TV. Noah has it on good authority, and anyway, most important, to adopt this notion fits comfortably with the smug prejudices of those with whom he's now currying favor. Only problem is the notion is wrong.
Is Noah saying that the mass public can't soak up good, clear, relevant literature? That literature can't become once again important? That it's doomed to be marginalized? Throughout my life I've encountered working class and poor people who love to read, in auto factories and warehouses and railyards and saloons and halfway houses and inner city schools and calling rooms. (There are more autodidacts out there than people think.) They read literature, if it's good, including Dickens, Dumas, and Dostoevsky-- or Jack London (whose Iron Heel is a striking book). In short, the best writers who lived. My experiences and my own life, and the lives and experiences of other undergrounders like Jackman, Grover, Mullins, Nowlan, Ranello, Pachinko, Blackolive, Logan Mason, and many many others support my belief on this subject. Literature can and should be huge. The ULA strategy is sound.
Ours is an optimistic vision of literature and that's what scares some people.
The most egregious and hypocritical part of the Cicero interview is his attack on the ULA's Crazy Carl, whom he falsely brands as misogynist. (This from a defender of Bret Ellis.) In Crazy Carl's good-natured comical yarns, his main target isn't women, but men! I should know, as I've been the butt of a few of his tales, and enjoyed it, because it's done humorously and well. Carl's main target in everything he writes is himself-- the recipient of most of his barbs. In truth Crazy Carl loves women. He's an extremely lively and engaging writer as entertaining in person as in print; that literary rarity, an unconstipated author lacking a trace of snobbery and pretense. I'd take him over a boatload of precious meandering analytical and eternally bland Readers of Depressed Books. Crazy Carl's take on the world is mocking and joyful, rigid ideological theoretical intellectual categories removed. What you get instead is simple honesty. Noah's a talented writer, but there's not a shred of joy for life in his words. It's no wonder Crazy Carl is beyond his comprehension.
Noah says he admires Steve Kostecke's work. Some of Steve's tales about prostitutes could be construed by some as sexist. Where do we draw the line? Guidelines, please. What if someone decides that YOU and your outspoken novels, Noah, are politically incorrect, because they offend someone? What do you do then?
Contradiction upon contradiction. Noah even defends establishment cronyism! Would he apply his remarks to Mr. Bush and friends?
Were some ULAers angry at Noah's departure, as Noah asserts? Not to my knowledge. Our collective emotion was one of puzzlement. My last e-mail to him was very friendly, complimenting him on a favorable review of his work. Sorry if this doesn't fit with the portrait he's painted, but it's the truth.
I could go on. After awhile it becomes pointless. I've opened every window and still can't remove the stench.
If Noah were serious about peace and harmony in the literary world, he wouldn't have taken shots at us. He couldn't leave without throwing people under the bus. He doesn't believe in taking sides but he's taken a side-- the wrong one. I hope it helps him sell a few books.
We've seen the writer-gentry rush to the "Reader"'s blog to express agreement with Noah's remarks, with his departure from the ULA, and their scorn for the organization and its members. Way to go, Noah! You've accomplished a great deal-- revealing the mendacity of the lit-world and the self-centered nature of many writers.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
nATIONAL bOOK aWARD fOLLIES
The aristocrats at the National Book Award Foundation aren't going out of their way to advertise this year's black-tie ceremony, held as before at the Marriott-Marquis fortress in newly Disneyfied Times Square. Are they afraid I might show up again with my camera, my protest signs, and my flying bird hat? (As of now it looks like I'll be unable to make it-- look for my shadow in the cold regardless.)
This year, the rich people who control the thing have allowed to be nominated for the fiction prize two token populists. Safely predictable Leftist novelist E.L. Doctorow will be carted out, with wheelchair or walker, IV tube or embalming jar. He's very "radical" as long as being so doesn't conflict with his cushy New York University professor job! (Mr. E.L.-- ever read the ending of "Animal Farm"? Snort, snort. Enjoy the swanky dinner!)
Along for the ride as well is one-time street writer Mary Gaitskill, who used to pen great stories when she was living among real people, before trading in authenticity for the posing trust-fund crowd. (I optimistically look forward to reading her novel.)
Look folks-- all the cover, the glitter and glitz, the black ties and $10,000 tables doesn't change the fact the "National" Book Awards ceremony representing a sliver of American society and literature is a sham-- just another con game perpetrated by the puppet-masters of American culture. Outside last year's event I hung out with a small group of low-rent working class rebels there to protest the nomination of the 9-11 Commission's Official Report for a book award. The passage of one year has shown the protestors to have been right-- the Commission's Report was a whitewash. This has been demonstrated by the recent Able-Danger revelations in which at least seven credible government employees have testified or attempted to testify that segments of the federal government knew about the Al-Queda cells in this country before 9-11 occurred. The Commission panelists didn't want and DON'T want to know anything about Able-Danger-- neither does the bulk of the establishment media both "Right" and "Left" (two sides of the same coin)-- though the revelations about advance government knowledge are likely only part of the story; the tip of the iceberg.
This year, the rich people who control the thing have allowed to be nominated for the fiction prize two token populists. Safely predictable Leftist novelist E.L. Doctorow will be carted out, with wheelchair or walker, IV tube or embalming jar. He's very "radical" as long as being so doesn't conflict with his cushy New York University professor job! (Mr. E.L.-- ever read the ending of "Animal Farm"? Snort, snort. Enjoy the swanky dinner!)
Along for the ride as well is one-time street writer Mary Gaitskill, who used to pen great stories when she was living among real people, before trading in authenticity for the posing trust-fund crowd. (I optimistically look forward to reading her novel.)
Look folks-- all the cover, the glitter and glitz, the black ties and $10,000 tables doesn't change the fact the "National" Book Awards ceremony representing a sliver of American society and literature is a sham-- just another con game perpetrated by the puppet-masters of American culture. Outside last year's event I hung out with a small group of low-rent working class rebels there to protest the nomination of the 9-11 Commission's Official Report for a book award. The passage of one year has shown the protestors to have been right-- the Commission's Report was a whitewash. This has been demonstrated by the recent Able-Danger revelations in which at least seven credible government employees have testified or attempted to testify that segments of the federal government knew about the Al-Queda cells in this country before 9-11 occurred. The Commission panelists didn't want and DON'T want to know anything about Able-Danger-- neither does the bulk of the establishment media both "Right" and "Left" (two sides of the same coin)-- though the revelations about advance government knowledge are likely only part of the story; the tip of the iceberg.
Conclusion About Ben Marcus
The title of the Marcus Harper's essay was the hyperbolic "Why Experimental Fiction Threatens to Destroy Publishing, Jonathan Franzen, and Life as We Know It."
I wonder: when will this take place? The experimental movement Marcus advocates has been around for over 40 years and had little influence-- it consists of nothing more than stuffy professors in thick-stoned mothballed universities passing hermetic texts back and forth among themselves; the world outside their shuttered windows an unknown realm.
What we see with the publication of the enervated Marcus essay incapable of stirring anyone to action beyond the slightest nod of head, irritated cough, or pinched brow is a failed attempt to co-opt the radical message of the only truly different dangerous new literary movement on the scene now-- scorned and blackballed by status quo apologists one and all-- the
UNDERGROUND LITERARY ALLIANCE.
I wonder: when will this take place? The experimental movement Marcus advocates has been around for over 40 years and had little influence-- it consists of nothing more than stuffy professors in thick-stoned mothballed universities passing hermetic texts back and forth among themselves; the world outside their shuttered windows an unknown realm.
What we see with the publication of the enervated Marcus essay incapable of stirring anyone to action beyond the slightest nod of head, irritated cough, or pinched brow is a failed attempt to co-opt the radical message of the only truly different dangerous new literary movement on the scene now-- scorned and blackballed by status quo apologists one and all-- the
UNDERGROUND LITERARY ALLIANCE.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Ben Marcus and Test Tube Literature
The kind of experimental writing Marcus advocates isn't the same as the ground-up DIY writing experiments a Mark Sonnenfeld or Jack Saunders practices.
Instead, it's a tops-down institutional approach, created in the literary laboratories of academe. It's funded through the same kind of government-academy synthesis that over the years has funded experiments in genetics, space technology, and weapons systems. (This is a subject I investigated in the 90's for my New Philistine newsletter. I asked questions about these literary experiments-- for instance, about Larry McCaffery's involvement in the takeover of Critique magazine by a Washington D.C. entity named Heldref which was controlled by noted neo-conservative figure Jeane Kirkpatrick and her husband.)
Crucial questions about WHO OWNS LITERATURE?, as applied to Jonathan Franzen, the Fiction Collective, or even Harper's magazine-- questions which are the only way to determine which writers in fact represent the status quo-- are questions which will never be addressed by establishment hacks like Franzen or Marcus, let alone answered.
Instead, it's a tops-down institutional approach, created in the literary laboratories of academe. It's funded through the same kind of government-academy synthesis that over the years has funded experiments in genetics, space technology, and weapons systems. (This is a subject I investigated in the 90's for my New Philistine newsletter. I asked questions about these literary experiments-- for instance, about Larry McCaffery's involvement in the takeover of Critique magazine by a Washington D.C. entity named Heldref which was controlled by noted neo-conservative figure Jeane Kirkpatrick and her husband.)
Crucial questions about WHO OWNS LITERATURE?, as applied to Jonathan Franzen, the Fiction Collective, or even Harper's magazine-- questions which are the only way to determine which writers in fact represent the status quo-- are questions which will never be addressed by establishment hacks like Franzen or Marcus, let alone answered.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Ben Marcus and Establishment Cronyism
I found amusing and revealing Marcus's mention in his Harper's essay of the band The Silver Jews as an example of artists marginalized in this society.
The Silver Jews are led by establishment poet-darling David Berman, yet one more American child of extreme privilege. (His father appears to be the owner of Bermanco, one of the more notorious corporate lobbyist firms in Washington D.C.) David Berman has been house poet at the trendy trust fund lit-journal Open City as well as The Believer, the journal Marcus's wife Heidi Julavits edits. David Berman hasn't been marginalized at all. Instead, despite having little musical or poetic talent, he's been pushed, funded, hyped, and lauded (including by the likes of Billy Collins) over and over.
Ben Marcus, in his post at Columbia U, and through his friendships, is immersed in establishment cronyism. This is why he couldn't see anything wrong in last year's National Book Awards fiction and poetry awards, which were dominated by the privileged; the winners and many of the nominees coming from the upper levels of society and centered in the city of New York.
(To be continued.)
The Silver Jews are led by establishment poet-darling David Berman, yet one more American child of extreme privilege. (His father appears to be the owner of Bermanco, one of the more notorious corporate lobbyist firms in Washington D.C.) David Berman has been house poet at the trendy trust fund lit-journal Open City as well as The Believer, the journal Marcus's wife Heidi Julavits edits. David Berman hasn't been marginalized at all. Instead, despite having little musical or poetic talent, he's been pushed, funded, hyped, and lauded (including by the likes of Billy Collins) over and over.
Ben Marcus, in his post at Columbia U, and through his friendships, is immersed in establishment cronyism. This is why he couldn't see anything wrong in last year's National Book Awards fiction and poetry awards, which were dominated by the privileged; the winners and many of the nominees coming from the upper levels of society and centered in the city of New York.
(To be continued.)
Friday, October 21, 2005
ULA Dress Code?
Now that the NBA (National Basketball Association) has instituted a dress code in order to improve its image, speculation is rampant that the most infamous writers group on the planet, the ULA (Underground Literary Alliance), will follow suit.
On the one hand are ULAers like George Balgobin and Yul Tolbert who would likely think dressing members in distinctive, eye-catching uniforms would be an astute move, further distinguishing us from the literary pack and drawing increased attention to ourselves.
On the other hand are members like Wild Bill Blackolive, who might be concerned that they'd have to cut their hair and shave, or put on shoes and a shirt.
All I can say at the moment is that I've been given no word by ULA leaders about any proposed dress code.
On the one hand are ULAers like George Balgobin and Yul Tolbert who would likely think dressing members in distinctive, eye-catching uniforms would be an astute move, further distinguishing us from the literary pack and drawing increased attention to ourselves.
On the other hand are members like Wild Bill Blackolive, who might be concerned that they'd have to cut their hair and shave, or put on shoes and a shirt.
All I can say at the moment is that I've been given no word by ULA leaders about any proposed dress code.
Disingenuous Marcus
More About the Ben Marcus Essay in the October Harper's.
A few sentences from his essay reveal Ben Marcus as less than completely honest.
"I have never said that anyone who does not want to read difficult writing is a moron. I think there are pleasures and challenges to be had in both approaches. . . ."
Yet Marcus's friends have said essentially this, including in an essay which appeared in The Believer, a wordy journal his wife edits.
"Although those writers may be, in Franzen's view, failing with language, and although the whole venture may be doomed, it is their right to try and fail, as this failure might help readers discover new ways of thinking and feeling."
"--Franzen is not just criticizing a writer when he dismisses Gaddis; he's criticizing an audience, telling them that there's no way they could possibly like what they like. . . ."
Would Ben Marcus apply these statements to the writers and audience of the Underground Literary Alliance?
(To be continued.)
A few sentences from his essay reveal Ben Marcus as less than completely honest.
"I have never said that anyone who does not want to read difficult writing is a moron. I think there are pleasures and challenges to be had in both approaches. . . ."
Yet Marcus's friends have said essentially this, including in an essay which appeared in The Believer, a wordy journal his wife edits.
"Although those writers may be, in Franzen's view, failing with language, and although the whole venture may be doomed, it is their right to try and fail, as this failure might help readers discover new ways of thinking and feeling."
"--Franzen is not just criticizing a writer when he dismisses Gaddis; he's criticizing an audience, telling them that there's no way they could possibly like what they like. . . ."
Would Ben Marcus apply these statements to the writers and audience of the Underground Literary Alliance?
(To be continued.)
Monday, October 17, 2005
Winning the Argument
Here's only the latest example of agreement with the ULA's argument, in an interview the October 16 New York Post did with establishment author and reviewer Walter Kirn.
Kirn's response when asked about the state of American fiction:
"It's become dominated by a certain kind of academic, consciously sophisticated, artsy writing. There used to be a much healthier spread, writers from all regions, all economic classes. I think the whole thing's beginning to lean too much toward the graduate writing school, very smart, very privileged writer . . . of which I'm probably one."
The Underground Literary Alliance, of course, is the antidote to the trend Kirn describes. Is the ULA campaign making headway? (We applaud Walter Kirn for his honesty.)
Kirn's response when asked about the state of American fiction:
"It's become dominated by a certain kind of academic, consciously sophisticated, artsy writing. There used to be a much healthier spread, writers from all regions, all economic classes. I think the whole thing's beginning to lean too much toward the graduate writing school, very smart, very privileged writer . . . of which I'm probably one."
The Underground Literary Alliance, of course, is the antidote to the trend Kirn describes. Is the ULA campaign making headway? (We applaud Walter Kirn for his honesty.)
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Spotlight on Ben Marcus
First in a Series.
WITH HIS October Harper's essay, McSweeneyite Ben Marcus behaves like the David Horowitz of the literary world.
David Horowitz is the chameleon of establishment politics. In the 60's, as an editor of radical Ramparts magazine, Horowitz associated with leftist groups like the Black Panthers. Currently he's employed on the neo-conservative end of the spectrum. His attacks on billionairess Katrina vanden Heuvel (a bonded member of the establishment) as a dangerous Leftist gives the centrist aristocrat radical cred she doesn't warrant.
Similarly, in his essay Ben Marcus tags author Jonathan Franzen as a populist, though Franzen's writing style, focus, and point-of-view are narrow, not populist at all.
The Ben Marcus argument exists without context. He manufactures a gulf of difference between himself and Franzen, when both are certified members of the approved literary club. Marcus fails to reveal himself as a Columbia prof, or mention that his wife Heidi Julavits is editor of insider mouthpiece The Believer. Marcus doesn't explain that professors he champions like Larry McCaffery and John O'Brien receive funding from the same sources as Franzen. (The National Endowment for the Arts, for instance.) (Marcus hero Rick Moody was on the NEA panel which gave Franzen his money.)
What of Franzen's novel The Corrections, which Marcus points to as polar opposite to his own "avant-garde" views? For even the comfortable folks its million-dollar marketing campaign was aimed at, Franzen's "populist" novel was a decorative coffee table book more bought than read. It's filled with pretentious description of coagulated prose-- is hardly a page-turner in the 1950's Herman Wouk mode.
The Marcus essay, in short, is a fraud, designed to narrow the spectrum of literature by positing as opposites writers who have few differences between them. This is an old trick (used in 2004 in politics with two rich Yale graduates). It doesn't always work. Only writers dwelling in the same establishment literary skyscraper with Marcus and Franzen will buy the Marcus argument; will sympathize with him for having a smaller office than Franzen's, though on the same floor and right down the hall.
(To be continued.)
WITH HIS October Harper's essay, McSweeneyite Ben Marcus behaves like the David Horowitz of the literary world.
David Horowitz is the chameleon of establishment politics. In the 60's, as an editor of radical Ramparts magazine, Horowitz associated with leftist groups like the Black Panthers. Currently he's employed on the neo-conservative end of the spectrum. His attacks on billionairess Katrina vanden Heuvel (a bonded member of the establishment) as a dangerous Leftist gives the centrist aristocrat radical cred she doesn't warrant.
Similarly, in his essay Ben Marcus tags author Jonathan Franzen as a populist, though Franzen's writing style, focus, and point-of-view are narrow, not populist at all.
The Ben Marcus argument exists without context. He manufactures a gulf of difference between himself and Franzen, when both are certified members of the approved literary club. Marcus fails to reveal himself as a Columbia prof, or mention that his wife Heidi Julavits is editor of insider mouthpiece The Believer. Marcus doesn't explain that professors he champions like Larry McCaffery and John O'Brien receive funding from the same sources as Franzen. (The National Endowment for the Arts, for instance.) (Marcus hero Rick Moody was on the NEA panel which gave Franzen his money.)
What of Franzen's novel The Corrections, which Marcus points to as polar opposite to his own "avant-garde" views? For even the comfortable folks its million-dollar marketing campaign was aimed at, Franzen's "populist" novel was a decorative coffee table book more bought than read. It's filled with pretentious description of coagulated prose-- is hardly a page-turner in the 1950's Herman Wouk mode.
The Marcus essay, in short, is a fraud, designed to narrow the spectrum of literature by positing as opposites writers who have few differences between them. This is an old trick (used in 2004 in politics with two rich Yale graduates). It doesn't always work. Only writers dwelling in the same establishment literary skyscraper with Marcus and Franzen will buy the Marcus argument; will sympathize with him for having a smaller office than Franzen's, though on the same floor and right down the hall.
(To be continued.)
Scum of the Earth Dept.
Here is part of what The Ruminator has put on their site in lieu of a disclaimer:
"Ruminator has received several e-mails from a person identifying himself as Karl "King" Wenclas, disclaiming authorship of a letter. . . ."
Am I supposed now not to exist? (Many lit-folk wish I didn't exist.) This blog must write itself. There is no human being at the keyboard.
The Ruminator's editors are compounding their prank. Ha ha! Very funny. Should earn them brownie points with esteemed literati.
I don't know anymore what to say about such people. They haven't a shred of integrity, and care not to gain any. The letter the Ruminator published with my name attached was faked-- most likely by Daniel Handler himself. When I questioned him about his lies, he ran away. Anyone seen him anyplace lately?
Par for the course: The lit world is filled with the corrupt and the conscienceless.
"Ruminator has received several e-mails from a person identifying himself as Karl "King" Wenclas, disclaiming authorship of a letter. . . ."
Am I supposed now not to exist? (Many lit-folk wish I didn't exist.) This blog must write itself. There is no human being at the keyboard.
The Ruminator's editors are compounding their prank. Ha ha! Very funny. Should earn them brownie points with esteemed literati.
I don't know anymore what to say about such people. They haven't a shred of integrity, and care not to gain any. The letter the Ruminator published with my name attached was faked-- most likely by Daniel Handler himself. When I questioned him about his lies, he ran away. Anyone seen him anyplace lately?
Par for the course: The lit world is filled with the corrupt and the conscienceless.
ULA Writer
Check out the very strong story by James Nowlan now up on the ULA Adventures blog at www.literaryrevolution.com. (Note also the Monday Report by Bill Blackolive about an imprisoned writer.)
Friday, October 07, 2005
New Stars of the Literary Underground: Natalie Felix
Natalie is one of the most dynamic lit-readers in the country. She polished her performing talents by appearing at hundreds of open mics the last several years, reading against and observing the very best. She's hosted regular reading series of her own, including two with noted street poet Michael Grover. Since I've known her I've seen her steadily improve until few can match her voice and style; almost no one can equal her charisma. When she appeared with the ULA in Philadelphia this summer she was as good as I've ever seen her. Like many undergrounders, she doesn't just stand up there and read, but constructs a performance, a narrative of movement and voice, that blows audiences away.
Natalie Felix has also created zeens. Her zeen work combines her poetry with artistic graphics, complementing her words with style in the same way her flowing movements complements her words when she reads them in person. Encountering the work of Natalie is always an exhilharating experience!-- she's one of the best undergrounders on the scene today. (Check out her website, www.mishabittleston.com/artists/natalie_felix/)
Natalie Felix has also created zeens. Her zeen work combines her poetry with artistic graphics, complementing her words with style in the same way her flowing movements complements her words when she reads them in person. Encountering the work of Natalie is always an exhilharating experience!-- she's one of the best undergrounders on the scene today. (Check out her website, www.mishabittleston.com/artists/natalie_felix/)
UL:A Five Year Anniversary
Tomorrow, October 8, marks five years since the founding meeting of the Underground Literary Alliance in Hoboken, New Jersey. Since that time, many skeptics and opponents have fallen by the wayside.
One year after our founding, a zine proclaimed our "disintegration." Yet we kept going, are still here today.
This year alone we've seen attack after attack after attack upon ourselves as individuals, upon our cause, upon our ideas. The scorn and mocking piled higher and higher-- including at least two parody blogs aimed at us, and one fake letter published in a once-respectable literary journal. Attack after attack. Yet here we are! We haven't gone anyplace.
During the past five years leading ULA personalities like myself, Michael Jackman, and probably the majority of our members have endured crushing personal setbacks, the pain, the hectic struggle merely to survive in this society, and still found smidgens of time to write. The setbacks haven't weakened or discouraged us in the slightest.
FIVE YEARS AGO we kicked off our organization with the kind of public campaign no American writers had dared before begin-- few if any would take on the fight now-- when we signed our names to a Protest against the awarding of philanthropic, tax-sheltered money to one of the wealthiest, most connected writers in America. Forty zine writers and publishers signed the Protest. It was signed by not one of the 300 upstanding establishment literary folk to whom it was circulated. Not one! This alone proved our argument about the system's lethargy and corruption. (Also that many of those same writers agreed with our campaign privately.)
Since that time we've made more noise in our attempts to wake up literary society, to awaken all writers everyplace. In return we've been mischaracterized, slandered, and dismissed by the bulk of the literary establishment and by establishment-wannabes-- not given credit for the rightness of our cause, for our unflinching integrity and our bravery. We won't be given credit, until we stop fighting with one hand tied behind our back by the inequities of this society and grab control of more space in the media carnival of noise, to further reach and speak for the bulk of the population so long ignored by the insular world of literary elitists.
Watch out! Our campaign is only beginning.
One year after our founding, a zine proclaimed our "disintegration." Yet we kept going, are still here today.
This year alone we've seen attack after attack after attack upon ourselves as individuals, upon our cause, upon our ideas. The scorn and mocking piled higher and higher-- including at least two parody blogs aimed at us, and one fake letter published in a once-respectable literary journal. Attack after attack. Yet here we are! We haven't gone anyplace.
During the past five years leading ULA personalities like myself, Michael Jackman, and probably the majority of our members have endured crushing personal setbacks, the pain, the hectic struggle merely to survive in this society, and still found smidgens of time to write. The setbacks haven't weakened or discouraged us in the slightest.
FIVE YEARS AGO we kicked off our organization with the kind of public campaign no American writers had dared before begin-- few if any would take on the fight now-- when we signed our names to a Protest against the awarding of philanthropic, tax-sheltered money to one of the wealthiest, most connected writers in America. Forty zine writers and publishers signed the Protest. It was signed by not one of the 300 upstanding establishment literary folk to whom it was circulated. Not one! This alone proved our argument about the system's lethargy and corruption. (Also that many of those same writers agreed with our campaign privately.)
Since that time we've made more noise in our attempts to wake up literary society, to awaken all writers everyplace. In return we've been mischaracterized, slandered, and dismissed by the bulk of the literary establishment and by establishment-wannabes-- not given credit for the rightness of our cause, for our unflinching integrity and our bravery. We won't be given credit, until we stop fighting with one hand tied behind our back by the inequities of this society and grab control of more space in the media carnival of noise, to further reach and speak for the bulk of the population so long ignored by the insular world of literary elitists.
Watch out! Our campaign is only beginning.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
The Conservative Fallacy
A Lesson in Economics.
The great flawed premise of conservative ideology (secretly believed by many liberals), is that the United States has a free market economy which equitably distributes income and wealth to those who work hardest. Conservative commentators make the argument that high progressive taxes penalize those who are most deserving (our tax system in fact penalizes most the working poor); they claim the rich are entitled to their every penny.
Yet, economic history's chief advocates of the free market, Von Mises and his school, as well as the founding fathers of this country, presupposed a stable currency as fixed touchstone of the economic engine; a rational yardstick unsusceptible to change. Today we have anything BUT this-- the "yardstick" changes its length continually as the value of our currency fluctuates. And so, the ideas of THEIR OWN ideological forebears invalidate conservative arguments. Their ideology rests on quicksand.
In reality we live amid a Distorted Market. Money created at whim is pumped into the economy, which distributes it in an exaggerated, irrational fashion. In the Fifties, when there was a more stable currency, a factory worker could earn ten grand a year, the chief exec of the company 100 grand. Today the factory worker is up to 40 grand in some cases (where there hasn't been union busting). The CEO meanwhile earns twenty million!
Think of a flattened-out map of the planet; distorted reality where the size of the land mass increases the farther away one moves from the equator, so that Greenland appears gigantic. This is economic reality today. The only fixed point on the economic map is near the economic equator, where the minimum wage remains at the $5.15 an hour it was ten years ago. The poor are held down while wealth flows greatest to those atop the economic pyramid, whether the beneficiaries be basketball players or bankers.
THE RESULT is that the working poor work harder and harder just to survive. It's all but impossible to be a true bohemian today. (This society allows only for the trust-fund fake kind.) Low-pay writer-workers like myself, Frank Walsh, and other ULAers are being increasingly squeezed as cost-of-living increases; one paycheck away from the street.
THE ANALOGY in literature to conservative ideologues are those who believe that writers at the top of the literary pyramid are truly deserving; that lower-class writers are shut out because we're "untalented" and have nothing to say. The only way literary liberals are able to justify this distorted thinking to themselves is by embracing the god of style. ULA writers are untalented because we don't follow the accepted bourgeois writing styles endorsed by writing programs. It's akin to saying we're not dressed properly. Our own many-varied writing styles look unfamiliar to the bourgeoisie. We're unacceptable to the cultural doormen, who rigidly enforce a status quo literary dress code as a way of excluding lower class writers from consideration.
LIBERAL establishment writers are considered deserving because they're credentialed by the most elite educational institutions in the country-- places like Brown and Columbia. The Believer's editors and writers, for instance, are from these places, and so they have to be great!-- even if their ideas are unimaginative, their writings unreadable, their essays without content, their stories and poems boring.
THESE WRITERS, despite their liberal posturing, enforce a cultural caste system. Caste is the foundation of their existence as writers, the argument for their privileged standing. Without realizing it, they've bought the substance of conservative ideology.
The great flawed premise of conservative ideology (secretly believed by many liberals), is that the United States has a free market economy which equitably distributes income and wealth to those who work hardest. Conservative commentators make the argument that high progressive taxes penalize those who are most deserving (our tax system in fact penalizes most the working poor); they claim the rich are entitled to their every penny.
Yet, economic history's chief advocates of the free market, Von Mises and his school, as well as the founding fathers of this country, presupposed a stable currency as fixed touchstone of the economic engine; a rational yardstick unsusceptible to change. Today we have anything BUT this-- the "yardstick" changes its length continually as the value of our currency fluctuates. And so, the ideas of THEIR OWN ideological forebears invalidate conservative arguments. Their ideology rests on quicksand.
In reality we live amid a Distorted Market. Money created at whim is pumped into the economy, which distributes it in an exaggerated, irrational fashion. In the Fifties, when there was a more stable currency, a factory worker could earn ten grand a year, the chief exec of the company 100 grand. Today the factory worker is up to 40 grand in some cases (where there hasn't been union busting). The CEO meanwhile earns twenty million!
Think of a flattened-out map of the planet; distorted reality where the size of the land mass increases the farther away one moves from the equator, so that Greenland appears gigantic. This is economic reality today. The only fixed point on the economic map is near the economic equator, where the minimum wage remains at the $5.15 an hour it was ten years ago. The poor are held down while wealth flows greatest to those atop the economic pyramid, whether the beneficiaries be basketball players or bankers.
THE RESULT is that the working poor work harder and harder just to survive. It's all but impossible to be a true bohemian today. (This society allows only for the trust-fund fake kind.) Low-pay writer-workers like myself, Frank Walsh, and other ULAers are being increasingly squeezed as cost-of-living increases; one paycheck away from the street.
THE ANALOGY in literature to conservative ideologues are those who believe that writers at the top of the literary pyramid are truly deserving; that lower-class writers are shut out because we're "untalented" and have nothing to say. The only way literary liberals are able to justify this distorted thinking to themselves is by embracing the god of style. ULA writers are untalented because we don't follow the accepted bourgeois writing styles endorsed by writing programs. It's akin to saying we're not dressed properly. Our own many-varied writing styles look unfamiliar to the bourgeoisie. We're unacceptable to the cultural doormen, who rigidly enforce a status quo literary dress code as a way of excluding lower class writers from consideration.
LIBERAL establishment writers are considered deserving because they're credentialed by the most elite educational institutions in the country-- places like Brown and Columbia. The Believer's editors and writers, for instance, are from these places, and so they have to be great!-- even if their ideas are unimaginative, their writings unreadable, their essays without content, their stories and poems boring.
THESE WRITERS, despite their liberal posturing, enforce a cultural caste system. Caste is the foundation of their existence as writers, the argument for their privileged standing. Without realizing it, they've bought the substance of conservative ideology.
Stranded on Zytron
Note: I'll be reading and answering very few e-mails or letters in the next few weeks. I plan to continue posting on this blog. Later in the year, I'll be posting a little about my adventures on this insane planet.
Overheard
A sports fan on the radio, talking about a football coach: "He reminds me of a 7th grade literature teacher. He's got no edge."
The ULA's task is to be loud and in-your-face; to provide literature's edge.
The ULA's task is to be loud and in-your-face; to provide literature's edge.
The Literary Castle
Part of the ULA's role in literature is to be scorned and attacked and part of it is to be ignored. People know we're out there-- they read our site and this blog. Our ideas are mocked or mimicked, our arguments followed. This can't be acknowledged. To acknowledge us would be to broaden their conception of the literary world. It'd be too shocking to establishment minds. Their systems would rebel; they'd have heart attacks and nervous breakdowns.
It's funny to witness their stodgy internal debates: Gessen versus Wood versus Marcus versus Franzen-- all taking place within the thick stone walls of the castle; refined and lifeless words; echoes bouncing back and forth amid the cold and dusty halls. The drawbridge is raised, the gates secure. The pontification continues. "No, YOU are the proper Elitist," one of the nobles insists. "No, YOU are," the other returns. "No, I am." "I am." They trade bon mots. Both quote Henry James for support while sipping wine and nibbling fancy hors d'oeuvres. Allow the people outside into the conversation? It couldn't be done-- or even thought of.
Outside the castle, unrest grows. Other discussions-- with more energy; with stronger rhetoric-- take place around campfires. Those on the battlements of the castle avert their eyes and pretend not to notice.
It's funny to witness their stodgy internal debates: Gessen versus Wood versus Marcus versus Franzen-- all taking place within the thick stone walls of the castle; refined and lifeless words; echoes bouncing back and forth amid the cold and dusty halls. The drawbridge is raised, the gates secure. The pontification continues. "No, YOU are the proper Elitist," one of the nobles insists. "No, YOU are," the other returns. "No, I am." "I am." They trade bon mots. Both quote Henry James for support while sipping wine and nibbling fancy hors d'oeuvres. Allow the people outside into the conversation? It couldn't be done-- or even thought of.
Outside the castle, unrest grows. Other discussions-- with more energy; with stronger rhetoric-- take place around campfires. Those on the battlements of the castle avert their eyes and pretend not to notice.
Reactionary Rhetoric
REACTIONARY is anyone who'll argue that the ULA not go after writers who stand for corruption, elitism, greed, snobbery, and other sins which afflict this society, under the phony mantra that all writers should get along. Class war has been waged relentlessly in this nation since 1981 at least, yet ULA writers are asked to stand aside under the scam idea that all writers are the same-- even the sons and daughters of the billionaires who run this planet and construct its inequities. The Overdogs' privileged progeny clutch tightly to literary culture as if it were their personal domain and we're not supposed to say anything.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Bill Bennett Is Illogical
The Great Learned Professor Dr. William Bennett can't see why his statement is illogical and racist.
His statement (that aborting every black baby in America would lower the crime rate) would be logical only if the babies' blackness itself were the cause of crime. It's not. The social, economic, and cultural settings and relationships one is born into and raised in-- the choices one is given, the models displayed-- cause crime; effects which happen after birth.
It'd be like thinking that ice hockey is caused by white babies. A white baby born in New Mexico is likely not going to cause hockey! Put a baby of any color or ethnicity, however, into a northern setting of ice ponds and skating rinks, where hockey is the norm, and the child could well grow up to be a hockey player. Ice hockey was not played in Italy-- yet there have been great Italian hockey players in North America like the Esposito brothers. Race or ethnicity by itself doesn't cause anything.
We see that as a thinker the much esteemed Dr. Bennett is just one more highly touted fake.
His statement (that aborting every black baby in America would lower the crime rate) would be logical only if the babies' blackness itself were the cause of crime. It's not. The social, economic, and cultural settings and relationships one is born into and raised in-- the choices one is given, the models displayed-- cause crime; effects which happen after birth.
It'd be like thinking that ice hockey is caused by white babies. A white baby born in New Mexico is likely not going to cause hockey! Put a baby of any color or ethnicity, however, into a northern setting of ice ponds and skating rinks, where hockey is the norm, and the child could well grow up to be a hockey player. Ice hockey was not played in Italy-- yet there have been great Italian hockey players in North America like the Esposito brothers. Race or ethnicity by itself doesn't cause anything.
We see that as a thinker the much esteemed Dr. Bennett is just one more highly touted fake.
Friday, September 30, 2005
The New Literary Establishment
To the argument that there are no literary Insiders with access to the organs of establishment money and media power-- that the Eggers Gang is no different from a writers group publishing a humble lit journal in Kansas-- one can point to a steady ability to draw awards and funds to themselves. (Often because their friends and associates chair the panels!)
I hope some enterprising ULAer is working on a Monday Report about the recent MacArthur "Genius" grant to Jonathan Lethem.
I can't say I know much about the guy. I've read one essay of his-- which was about the 1956 western movie "The Searchers." It was one of the stupidest, most self-involved essays I've ever read. Lethem made no coherent case for the movie's greatness. He showed no new insights about the film. His essay broke no new ground. ("The Searchers" has been overrated by the sniffle-sniff school of corny film criticism for decades.) The essay consisted of little more than Lethem's relating of everyplace he saw the movie, and his babyish personal reaction. In other words, as per usual for McSweeneyites, the focus was most intensely not on the movie, but himself.
A genius? Not hardly. But the guy must have connections of some kind, or friends who could build for him a Potemkin Village reputation, so I guess we can give him kudos for that.
I hope some enterprising ULAer is working on a Monday Report about the recent MacArthur "Genius" grant to Jonathan Lethem.
I can't say I know much about the guy. I've read one essay of his-- which was about the 1956 western movie "The Searchers." It was one of the stupidest, most self-involved essays I've ever read. Lethem made no coherent case for the movie's greatness. He showed no new insights about the film. His essay broke no new ground. ("The Searchers" has been overrated by the sniffle-sniff school of corny film criticism for decades.) The essay consisted of little more than Lethem's relating of everyplace he saw the movie, and his babyish personal reaction. In other words, as per usual for McSweeneyites, the focus was most intensely not on the movie, but himself.
A genius? Not hardly. But the guy must have connections of some kind, or friends who could build for him a Potemkin Village reputation, so I guess we can give him kudos for that.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Final Letter Comments
Daniel Handler has informed me he won't answer any of my e-mails (even though he initiated every e-mail exchange we had).
For his sake, this is just as well, because every time he discussed the matter he contradicted previous statements of his, digging himself deeper. For instance, in his first e-mails he said he hadn't shown the letter to anyone but Sedaris. In his last one he admits he "showed it around."
He mentioned the ULA house zeen Slush Pile. Jeff Potter checked his records-- they show that Handler ordered a copy in early May, well over a month before the magic letter made its appearance at litster parties. Slush Pile of course discusses the ULA's exchanges with the Eggers camp. Contrary to his statement that he "doesn't care" about the ULA, and hardly knew anything about us, we find him interested in the feud six weeks before the letter's appearance.
The main point is the big "X" on the letter. I put myself in Daniel Handler's place, and wondered at my reaction if I received a similar letter, from friend or foe, underground or establishment. WHOEVER the letter would be purportedly from, the big "X" in place of a signature would make me question its authenticity-- as it would to anyone with half a brain. Wouldn't it make you question it also? If I later received an e-mail from the supposed author denying any connection, and requesting information, this would further pull me up short. There's no way, at that point, I'd give to someone to publish.
Only someone who knew it was phony to begin with-- whoever constructed it-- would ignore my e-mail. Only someone to whom it was just a gag-- a big joke. In fact, my immediate opinion upon seeing the letter was that it was an obvious shot at the Underground Literary Alliance-- the big illiterate "X" there for wink-wink purposes, obviously aimed at putting us down.
The problem Handler and Sedaris must've run into, if wanting to laugh the whole thing off after it was published, is that the folks at the Ruminator accepted the letter as legitimate, were not in on the joke. Their publishing it opened them up to responsibility which they didn't deserve.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the fake letter existed before Daniel Handler. That it was sent to him without envelope, address, postmark, is ludicrous. We could easily check with the person who handles author mail at HarperCollins and find out what's up. The suggestions I've received as to how it could've happened not even Handler's children readers would believe. Someone said that "X" must've snuck into HarperCollins (past security; without employee ID), found and entered the mailroom, and deposited the naked letter there, someplace where they'd be sure to notice. Ostensibly it was then sent up with the legitimate mail to the proper office, where the employee forwarded the crank, unaddressed etc letter, without comment. The scenario is indeed out of a children's book! The question unasked is why I, "X," or whomever would go to all that trouble, taking the risk of the letter most likely not getting there, when he could've simply dropped it into the mail. Duh! People are working backward for explanation. As usual, the simplest explanation is the best; that Handler, wanting to be a hit at parties, and engaged in the Eggers gang/ULA feud, created the letter himself.
For his sake, this is just as well, because every time he discussed the matter he contradicted previous statements of his, digging himself deeper. For instance, in his first e-mails he said he hadn't shown the letter to anyone but Sedaris. In his last one he admits he "showed it around."
He mentioned the ULA house zeen Slush Pile. Jeff Potter checked his records-- they show that Handler ordered a copy in early May, well over a month before the magic letter made its appearance at litster parties. Slush Pile of course discusses the ULA's exchanges with the Eggers camp. Contrary to his statement that he "doesn't care" about the ULA, and hardly knew anything about us, we find him interested in the feud six weeks before the letter's appearance.
The main point is the big "X" on the letter. I put myself in Daniel Handler's place, and wondered at my reaction if I received a similar letter, from friend or foe, underground or establishment. WHOEVER the letter would be purportedly from, the big "X" in place of a signature would make me question its authenticity-- as it would to anyone with half a brain. Wouldn't it make you question it also? If I later received an e-mail from the supposed author denying any connection, and requesting information, this would further pull me up short. There's no way, at that point, I'd give to someone to publish.
Only someone who knew it was phony to begin with-- whoever constructed it-- would ignore my e-mail. Only someone to whom it was just a gag-- a big joke. In fact, my immediate opinion upon seeing the letter was that it was an obvious shot at the Underground Literary Alliance-- the big illiterate "X" there for wink-wink purposes, obviously aimed at putting us down.
The problem Handler and Sedaris must've run into, if wanting to laugh the whole thing off after it was published, is that the folks at the Ruminator accepted the letter as legitimate, were not in on the joke. Their publishing it opened them up to responsibility which they didn't deserve.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the fake letter existed before Daniel Handler. That it was sent to him without envelope, address, postmark, is ludicrous. We could easily check with the person who handles author mail at HarperCollins and find out what's up. The suggestions I've received as to how it could've happened not even Handler's children readers would believe. Someone said that "X" must've snuck into HarperCollins (past security; without employee ID), found and entered the mailroom, and deposited the naked letter there, someplace where they'd be sure to notice. Ostensibly it was then sent up with the legitimate mail to the proper office, where the employee forwarded the crank, unaddressed etc letter, without comment. The scenario is indeed out of a children's book! The question unasked is why I, "X," or whomever would go to all that trouble, taking the risk of the letter most likely not getting there, when he could've simply dropped it into the mail. Duh! People are working backward for explanation. As usual, the simplest explanation is the best; that Handler, wanting to be a hit at parties, and engaged in the Eggers gang/ULA feud, created the letter himself.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
More True than Ever
Steve Kostecke in the Introduction to Slush Pile #4:
"--how the buffoons of today's American lit world operate. They anonymously post reviews of praise for themselves and their friends; they anonymously attack the ULA, which represents a lit movement based on above-the-boards straight talk; and the most inexcusable part of all, these established writers themselves end up being the ones guilty of committing the low acts that they accuse the ULA of committing! How's that for sheer bullshit? Then the spin comes, the anonymous postings disappear, and Eggers pleads to the NYTimes: 'I just tried to bring back some balance.'"
(Eggers and his friends have 1,000 times more money, resources, and access in this society than we do. They need to balance US??)
"--how the buffoons of today's American lit world operate. They anonymously post reviews of praise for themselves and their friends; they anonymously attack the ULA, which represents a lit movement based on above-the-boards straight talk; and the most inexcusable part of all, these established writers themselves end up being the ones guilty of committing the low acts that they accuse the ULA of committing! How's that for sheer bullshit? Then the spin comes, the anonymous postings disappear, and Eggers pleads to the NYTimes: 'I just tried to bring back some balance.'"
(Eggers and his friends have 1,000 times more money, resources, and access in this society than we do. They need to balance US??)
Purveyors of Nonsense
Eggers, Handler, and Sedaris could apologize for concocting the fake letter. (All indications and evidence point to them as the originators.) They won't, because they're not big enough. For all their fame and wealth, their millions of dollars, their cumulative character could be put into a thimble. Their failure to acknowledge their mistake proves this.
Why would they care enough about the squawking of a rough band of unknowns to attack us? Because we're the genuine article. Our very existence shows them up as frauds. While they read at Versailles-like palaces, lecture at academies, or parade through gleaming offices of the corporate world, ULAers are engaged in the elemental struggle for survival. We're not insulated by jaded theory and overschooling, nor by success and millions, from the universal realities of the world-- which a Michael Jackman, say, among many others, in the tradition of a B. Traven or Jack London, captures so well. We have no money, pedigree, or connections. As writers we have something more valuable-- access to simple truth.
Why would they care enough about the squawking of a rough band of unknowns to attack us? Because we're the genuine article. Our very existence shows them up as frauds. While they read at Versailles-like palaces, lecture at academies, or parade through gleaming offices of the corporate world, ULAers are engaged in the elemental struggle for survival. We're not insulated by jaded theory and overschooling, nor by success and millions, from the universal realities of the world-- which a Michael Jackman, say, among many others, in the tradition of a B. Traven or Jack London, captures so well. We have no money, pedigree, or connections. As writers we have something more valuable-- access to simple truth.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Folk Synergy
I WAS THINKING about what would've happened had Buddy Holly not died in 1959 in a plane crash. He was already living in Greenwich Village (then an authentic bohemian neighborhood), would've likely been living there a couple years later when Bob Dylan moved into the neighborhood. What an encounter that would've been!-- the most intelligent and adaptable of the early rock n' roll stars listening at some grungy folk club to the unknown bard of folk music.
Early rock n' roll in its essence, in its various strands, was folk music. Rock at its beginning was the music of the hinterlinds, the ghettoes, and the people. Elvis himself was referred to as a folk singer in his first recording years-- the sound of the Sun Sessions is similar to that of the early Bob Dylan.
Folk synergy of the literary kind is to be found in the Underground Literary Alliance-- with added edge. We're bringing together various strands of folk writers; DIY self-created purveyors of verse and prose living authentic lives in the gritty corners of this land; capturing, representing, embodying the rhythmns and voice of the populace.
Establishment literature, created and nurtured within giant institutions, is many things, but it's not folk writing. A Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Leadbelly, Muddy Waters or Hank Williams is not to be found there.
Which brings us to Rick Moody's new novel. Call it glib, showy, intellectual, or accomplished; for all anyone knows it might be the best the establishment machine can now offer. It's a universe removed from what the ULA does. The Diviners is a product of the machine, created from on high after much deliberation and training. Its emphasis is on facile skill, not the soul.The book represents not truth, not authenticity, not the new, but the culmination of process. If you compared Moody to musicians during Rock's early years, it'd be to slick corporate popular musicians of the era like Mantovani or Les Brown and his Band of Renown. There are no rough edges to polish or complain about, because there were never any rough edges to start with. No one would think of discovering Moody in a bohemian neighborhood, or finding new wisdom there if you did. You may as well seek artistic wisdom from an executive at General Motors. Rick Moody was discovered on estate lawns; in the salons and ivy-covered institutional halls of the status quo. His book doesn't experience America from within. It glimpses the nation from above, portraying the superficial noise and flash of a television show.
If you want to meet today's folk writers you'll come to Philly to listen to Frank Walsh or argue with Michael Grover. You would've been here July 16th when we brought folk-lit pioneer Jack Saunders to town. You'd have seen Jack's encounter with young smart-aleck lit stars like Patrick King, Brady Russell, and others. You would've taken part in the new literary folk synergy which has only begun.
Early rock n' roll in its essence, in its various strands, was folk music. Rock at its beginning was the music of the hinterlinds, the ghettoes, and the people. Elvis himself was referred to as a folk singer in his first recording years-- the sound of the Sun Sessions is similar to that of the early Bob Dylan.
Folk synergy of the literary kind is to be found in the Underground Literary Alliance-- with added edge. We're bringing together various strands of folk writers; DIY self-created purveyors of verse and prose living authentic lives in the gritty corners of this land; capturing, representing, embodying the rhythmns and voice of the populace.
Establishment literature, created and nurtured within giant institutions, is many things, but it's not folk writing. A Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Leadbelly, Muddy Waters or Hank Williams is not to be found there.
Which brings us to Rick Moody's new novel. Call it glib, showy, intellectual, or accomplished; for all anyone knows it might be the best the establishment machine can now offer. It's a universe removed from what the ULA does. The Diviners is a product of the machine, created from on high after much deliberation and training. Its emphasis is on facile skill, not the soul.The book represents not truth, not authenticity, not the new, but the culmination of process. If you compared Moody to musicians during Rock's early years, it'd be to slick corporate popular musicians of the era like Mantovani or Les Brown and his Band of Renown. There are no rough edges to polish or complain about, because there were never any rough edges to start with. No one would think of discovering Moody in a bohemian neighborhood, or finding new wisdom there if you did. You may as well seek artistic wisdom from an executive at General Motors. Rick Moody was discovered on estate lawns; in the salons and ivy-covered institutional halls of the status quo. His book doesn't experience America from within. It glimpses the nation from above, portraying the superficial noise and flash of a television show.
If you want to meet today's folk writers you'll come to Philly to listen to Frank Walsh or argue with Michael Grover. You would've been here July 16th when we brought folk-lit pioneer Jack Saunders to town. You'd have seen Jack's encounter with young smart-aleck lit stars like Patrick King, Brady Russell, and others. You would've taken part in the new literary folk synergy which has only begun.
E-Mail Note from Ruminator Magazine
"We have already inserted a note in this next issue (Oct/Nov 2005) indicating that you've disclaimed authorship of the letter published in conjunction with the Handler/Sedaris interview published in the Aug/Sept issue. We will also post that note on the web version of the Handler/Sedaris interview when we next update the site.
Regards,
Susannah McNeely, Editor
Ruminator magazine."
Thank you.
Regards,
Susannah McNeely, Editor
Ruminator magazine."
Thank you.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Comedians and Villains
1.) THE RUMINATOR.
This was once a respectable group of people. They've allowed themselves to become dominated by cynical lit-establishment types-- have damaged their reputation by refusing to acknowledge a mistake. Their Editor's sole response to me, quoted further down on this blog, is a classic of bureaucratic officiousness. A sad moment for a literary journal.
2.) DAVID SEDARIS.
Daniel Handler's quote to me 9/12 regarding Sedaris: "I showed the first letter to Sedaris because I thought it was a hoot."
How great a role did Sedaris play in the publication of the fake letter? Did he arrange it? The conversation of the two men about the letter in the interview takes on greater meaning now that we know their real attitude.
3.) DANIEL HANDLER.
Not the biggest loser, as "Lemony Snicket" is obviously not very intelligent or scrupulous. One would think Sedaris, Eggers, and folks at The Ruminator would've noticed.
4.) DAVE EGGERS.
Every time he or his flunkies go after the ULA, they blunder. Serious questions have to be raised about how sharp the guy really is-- or if his success is more the product of connections with the Rick Moodys of the lit-world and publicists at Simon & Schuster.
5.) LIT-BLOGGERS.
Will they miss an opportunity to demonstrate impartiality and independence?
This was once a respectable group of people. They've allowed themselves to become dominated by cynical lit-establishment types-- have damaged their reputation by refusing to acknowledge a mistake. Their Editor's sole response to me, quoted further down on this blog, is a classic of bureaucratic officiousness. A sad moment for a literary journal.
2.) DAVID SEDARIS.
Daniel Handler's quote to me 9/12 regarding Sedaris: "I showed the first letter to Sedaris because I thought it was a hoot."
How great a role did Sedaris play in the publication of the fake letter? Did he arrange it? The conversation of the two men about the letter in the interview takes on greater meaning now that we know their real attitude.
3.) DANIEL HANDLER.
Not the biggest loser, as "Lemony Snicket" is obviously not very intelligent or scrupulous. One would think Sedaris, Eggers, and folks at The Ruminator would've noticed.
4.) DAVE EGGERS.
Every time he or his flunkies go after the ULA, they blunder. Serious questions have to be raised about how sharp the guy really is-- or if his success is more the product of connections with the Rick Moodys of the lit-world and publicists at Simon & Schuster.
5.) LIT-BLOGGERS.
Will they miss an opportunity to demonstrate impartiality and independence?
Saturday, September 17, 2005
The Literary World Today
The actions of an activist protest movement presuppose a level of conscience in one's opponents and among objective observers. It's thought that exposing the TRUTH should in itself be enough to make change. That was my assumption when the ULA campaign began. Now I wonder if my faith in human nature was misplaced.
Despite the recent claims by A.O. Scott in the New York Times, Dave Eggers and his friends have no commitment to truth. None. They seldom "say what they mean" or mean what they say. Everything is a game.
Big guffaws all around no doubt about the fake letter in The Ruminator. Does anyone doubt that Daniel Handler contrived it? Chuckle, chuckle! A big hit at cocktail parties. (Handler's bio info brags about letters he used to send out under fake names.) It makes sense that Handler is a children's author. After all, he lies like a child. "No, I didn't eat the last slice of chocolate cake," the child insists, chocolate smeared over his face!
The fact is that I don't register in this society, and so can be slandered with falsehoods at will. The fact is that Dave Eggers and his friends are to the point of success where they can get away with anything. (This was proved with the Atlantic "killed story" matter, Eggers both initiator and professed victim of the ensuing tragedy.) This is the nature of American society. The sycophantic literary fans are dazzled by the success itself-- then find the qualities they wish to see in the writing. Eggers's memoir a lie? No matter! it's all a game. The baby-like scene of The Dave driving with "Toph" is cringe-worthy it's so contrived, but has meaning for those who identify with him and his privileged bubble-like upbringing.
The biggest obstacle to making change is the demi-puppet state of mind-- the attitude of the herd of media underlings, most themselves from affluent backgrounds, who support unquestioningly top-level aristocratic stars like Eggers and Rick Moody. The rest of American writers, like the bottom 80 or 90% of American society, have no existence for these people. Privilege itself is the highest value; the only morality.
The fake letter trivializes the ULA campaign. It reveals the simplistic way Eggers people see our arguments. Truths about classism and corruption are beyond them. Who does the ULA petition for redress of the grievance? Lit-bloggers? Journalists? Editors at HarperCollins? Not a one cares in the slightest. They lack any conception of the meaning of the word integrity, let alone the trait itself. To careerist sociopaths, success is the only truth, power the only conscience.
So let's throw away the A.O. Scott nonsense that postmodern lying is over. The fake letter in The Ruminator shows the perfection of the postmodern lie, no one involved in perpetrating the hoax the least bit shame-faced.
Despite the recent claims by A.O. Scott in the New York Times, Dave Eggers and his friends have no commitment to truth. None. They seldom "say what they mean" or mean what they say. Everything is a game.
Big guffaws all around no doubt about the fake letter in The Ruminator. Does anyone doubt that Daniel Handler contrived it? Chuckle, chuckle! A big hit at cocktail parties. (Handler's bio info brags about letters he used to send out under fake names.) It makes sense that Handler is a children's author. After all, he lies like a child. "No, I didn't eat the last slice of chocolate cake," the child insists, chocolate smeared over his face!
The fact is that I don't register in this society, and so can be slandered with falsehoods at will. The fact is that Dave Eggers and his friends are to the point of success where they can get away with anything. (This was proved with the Atlantic "killed story" matter, Eggers both initiator and professed victim of the ensuing tragedy.) This is the nature of American society. The sycophantic literary fans are dazzled by the success itself-- then find the qualities they wish to see in the writing. Eggers's memoir a lie? No matter! it's all a game. The baby-like scene of The Dave driving with "Toph" is cringe-worthy it's so contrived, but has meaning for those who identify with him and his privileged bubble-like upbringing.
The biggest obstacle to making change is the demi-puppet state of mind-- the attitude of the herd of media underlings, most themselves from affluent backgrounds, who support unquestioningly top-level aristocratic stars like Eggers and Rick Moody. The rest of American writers, like the bottom 80 or 90% of American society, have no existence for these people. Privilege itself is the highest value; the only morality.
The fake letter trivializes the ULA campaign. It reveals the simplistic way Eggers people see our arguments. Truths about classism and corruption are beyond them. Who does the ULA petition for redress of the grievance? Lit-bloggers? Journalists? Editors at HarperCollins? Not a one cares in the slightest. They lack any conception of the meaning of the word integrity, let alone the trait itself. To careerist sociopaths, success is the only truth, power the only conscience.
So let's throw away the A.O. Scott nonsense that postmodern lying is over. The fake letter in The Ruminator shows the perfection of the postmodern lie, no one involved in perpetrating the hoax the least bit shame-faced.
Friday, September 16, 2005
American Aristocrats
p.s. to the previous post.
Daniel Handler and Dave Eggers have apparently done many readings together, most notably at a swanky function in California on 4/21/05 at, fittingly, the Carolands, "one of the last great private homes in the United States."
"The Carolands was conceived as an adaptation of the Vaux-le-Vicomte, the chateau that inspired Louis XIV to build the palace of Versailles. This 65,000 square foot American Renaissance home was built by Pullman train car heiress. ."etc.etc.
Michael Chabon and Vendela Vida were also present. Guests sat at $10,000 "Pulitzer Prize" tables. The price tag included cocktail reception with the authors, valet parking, and gift bag.
There were other, various priced tables, all the way down to the slummy $500 "Booker Award" tables at the back.
Daniel Handler and Dave Eggers have apparently done many readings together, most notably at a swanky function in California on 4/21/05 at, fittingly, the Carolands, "one of the last great private homes in the United States."
"The Carolands was conceived as an adaptation of the Vaux-le-Vicomte, the chateau that inspired Louis XIV to build the palace of Versailles. This 65,000 square foot American Renaissance home was built by Pullman train car heiress. ."etc.etc.
Michael Chabon and Vendela Vida were also present. Guests sat at $10,000 "Pulitzer Prize" tables. The price tag included cocktail reception with the authors, valet parking, and gift bag.
There were other, various priced tables, all the way down to the slummy $500 "Booker Award" tables at the back.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The Case of Daniel Handler Part II: The Other E-Mail
At the bottom of Daniel Handler's first, 9/11, e-mail to me is attached a copy of an e-mail I'd sent him on June 27th. This reminded me that I HAD sent him an e-mail about the fake letter, over two months ago. What prodded my e-mail?
On June 24th I received an e-mail from a mystery person named "g smithe." I regularly receive a lot of e-mails from mysterious persons. Much I ignore. Many I delete. I had to check back to see if I'd saved this one. I had.
The 6/24 g smithe e-mail read, in part,
"You should know that King Wenclas's derisive letter to Daniel Handler (aka Lemony Snickett) is getting passed around by the literati-- not the ULA's strongest statement of purpose. Don't know if your "king" has been hitting the bottle or what, . . . ."
I replied that I'd sent no letters to anyone lately, that I wasn't sure who Handler/Lemony Snickett was, that the language described didn't sound like me, but I couldn't be sure unless I saw the letter.
"g smithe" responded with an e-mail 6/26:
"Thought it seemed out of character. Don't have a copy of the letter-- it was passed around at a party, not electronically-- but you can ask the man himself. . . ."
"smithe" included Handler's e-mail address.
On 6/27 "smithe" sent me another e-mail:
"Looks like McSweeney's & Co. are prepping a response . . . if you really didn't write him a letter you'd best nip this in the bud. . . ."
Though I thought the whole thing was a made-up prank, in order to cover myself I immediately sent Handler an e-mail:
"The letter supposedly from me being handed around at parties is a fake.
Anything you can tell me about the matter would be appreciated."
I also posted a comment on my blog on June 29 publicly disclaiming any connection to any such letter, then forgot the matter. Whether or not Handler read the June 29 post (aware as he now was of my blog, as he said), he received and read my 6/27 e-mail, as shown when he attached it to his 9/11 message.
Handler was aware on June 27 of my denial-- yet he gave the fake letter to The Ruminator anyway, which is highly unethical behavior, maybe libelous.
I'll gladly forward a copy of my 6/27 e-mail to any lit-blogger interested in the truth. I doubt, though, that anyone wants to touch this.
Know this about the Eggers gang: Even when they're wrong, they're not wrong. They're not wrong even when caught red-faced and red-handed, as they've been time and again. They're never wrong, and never can be, simply because they're such wonderful people.
Call it the arrogance and insularity of privilege, success, and power.
On June 24th I received an e-mail from a mystery person named "g smithe." I regularly receive a lot of e-mails from mysterious persons. Much I ignore. Many I delete. I had to check back to see if I'd saved this one. I had.
The 6/24 g smithe e-mail read, in part,
"You should know that King Wenclas's derisive letter to Daniel Handler (aka Lemony Snickett) is getting passed around by the literati-- not the ULA's strongest statement of purpose. Don't know if your "king" has been hitting the bottle or what, . . . ."
I replied that I'd sent no letters to anyone lately, that I wasn't sure who Handler/Lemony Snickett was, that the language described didn't sound like me, but I couldn't be sure unless I saw the letter.
"g smithe" responded with an e-mail 6/26:
"Thought it seemed out of character. Don't have a copy of the letter-- it was passed around at a party, not electronically-- but you can ask the man himself. . . ."
"smithe" included Handler's e-mail address.
On 6/27 "smithe" sent me another e-mail:
"Looks like McSweeney's & Co. are prepping a response . . . if you really didn't write him a letter you'd best nip this in the bud. . . ."
Though I thought the whole thing was a made-up prank, in order to cover myself I immediately sent Handler an e-mail:
"The letter supposedly from me being handed around at parties is a fake.
Anything you can tell me about the matter would be appreciated."
I also posted a comment on my blog on June 29 publicly disclaiming any connection to any such letter, then forgot the matter. Whether or not Handler read the June 29 post (aware as he now was of my blog, as he said), he received and read my 6/27 e-mail, as shown when he attached it to his 9/11 message.
Handler was aware on June 27 of my denial-- yet he gave the fake letter to The Ruminator anyway, which is highly unethical behavior, maybe libelous.
I'll gladly forward a copy of my 6/27 e-mail to any lit-blogger interested in the truth. I doubt, though, that anyone wants to touch this.
Know this about the Eggers gang: Even when they're wrong, they're not wrong. They're not wrong even when caught red-faced and red-handed, as they've been time and again. They're never wrong, and never can be, simply because they're such wonderful people.
Call it the arrogance and insularity of privilege, success, and power.
The Case of Daniel Handler, Part I
It's a good policy to operate in an upfront, open manner. Games, trickery, and anonymous names have a way of backfiring, as we've seen before.
I asked to see the postmark and envelope of the Ruminator letter, because I KNEW I hadn't sent the thing. (Granted that I may have enemies in Philly-- none though who'd stoop to such behavior as sending a fake letter.)
The letter should be recognized as fake by anyone familiar with my writing. I don't need to call anyone an "asshole," when I have logic on my side.
Daniel Handler has sent me two e-mails about this matter. I'll present the facts and let you, the reader of this blog, decide where lies the truth of the matter.
In his first e-mail to me, dated 9/11, Handler makes several assertions. 1.) The letter was forwarded to him by his publisher. 2.) He'd never heard of me before that time. 3.) He believed the letter was real because it matched the language of this blog. (We can presume then that after reading the letter he read this blog.)
The end of Handler's e-mail shows no anxiousness to get to the bottom of the matter: "I don't know what's going on and frankly don't care . . . if you'll excuse me I'm off to my local dive bar to drink bourbon and read Frederick Busch."
Several questions went through my head after reading Handler's statement-- first among them being, "Why did he wait so long to respond to this matter?" Note that his response occurred only after I tried to force his hand, asking, "Where's Daniel Handler?"-- and after I added a note showing that I was open to the possibility that he had indeed received the fake letter from somebody. Suddenly he let me know that he did receive it, indeed!
Why the wait? Once he was aware of my blog, wouldn't he look in periodically AFTER the letter appeared in The Ruminator? Wouldn't his friends at The Believer keep him updated?
On August 27 I put a post up on this blog, "Fake Letter," which addressed the controcersy. Whatever he'd thought beforehand, Handler should've been aware that the letter wasn't from me. Yet he sent no e-mail to me-- not for two weeks. He made no response while I notified The Ruminator, while Jeff Potter did; while further discussion occurred on this blog, along with the big Patrick Simonelli Monday Report on the matter on the www.literaryrevolution.com ULA site.
On September 8 Maud Newton mentioned the controversy on her widely-read site. The injured party Daniel Handler remained silent-- until September 11. Curious behavior.
(As we'll see in Part Two of this post, Handler knew the letter wasn't from me long before this.)
I'll readily accept Handler's other contention that he'd never heard of me or the ULA before receiving the letter (only his friends know the truth about this), even though The Believer, whose editors he's tight with, and which he presumably reads, did a contentious lead article on the ULA in 2003, which led to some minor "Page Six" controversy. He'd never heard of us though we attended a 2003 McSweeney's-sponsored affair at Housing Works in New York which had led to other "Page Six" publicity. He'd never heard of us even though the New York Times did a front-page article in January 2004 about anonymous Amazon attacks on the Underground Literary Alliance by Dave Eggers. The New York Times Book Review listed our site in their pages in October 2004, but Handler never reads the book journal. Many, many people have never heard of the ULA-- the Eggers gang NOT among them. But we can still accept his statement.
What we DO know is that Daniel Handler was aware of us AFTER receiving the letter, as he admits, BEFORE giving the letter to The Ruminator. This gives his exchange with David Sedaris more meaning, adding to the "wink, wink, nod, nod" tone of the exchange.
In my response to Handler's September 11 e-mail, the one in which he said he didn't care about the matter, I pointed out that he'd cared enough to pass around the letter at parties, and to give it to The Ruminator to publish publicly. I said (sincerely) that I wanted to find out who sent the letter. I asked about the postmark.
Handler replied on September 12. He said:
-"The letters were forwarded from my publisher, without the original envelope, as with much of my mail."
-"I don't bring private correspondence to parties,"
-"I can't imagine why we'd have any reason to communicate further,"
Note Handler's eagerness to drop the matter. Most interesting is the idea that his publisher opens his mail. I've had mail forwarded to me by periodicals and companies, addressed to me c/o the publication or company. Even when The Atlantic printed a simple letter by me, some time ago, they forwarded, unopened, mail addressed to me that was afterward sent to them. In fact, opening mail addressed to someone else, as far as I'm aware, is against the law. (Daniel Handler might want to notify his publisher about this.)
Even when one employs or designates a secretary or agent to handle one's mail, standard business procedure is to staple the opened envelope to the back of the letter. Often a return address is given only on the envelope. Everyone who receives a lot of mail-- as I do-- knows this. Further, the envelope is legal evidence that one received the item on such and such date. This is important ESPECIALLY if one is going to publish the letter. One could hardly credibly publish such letter without such proof of mailing and reception. Without such evidence, one may as well assume the letter was never mailed or received at all.
This is damning evidence to any notion that I sent the letter. It's reason alone for immediate apology and correction from The Ruminator, and from Handler himself. However, there's more, as I'll discuss in Part II, "The Other E-Mail."
I asked to see the postmark and envelope of the Ruminator letter, because I KNEW I hadn't sent the thing. (Granted that I may have enemies in Philly-- none though who'd stoop to such behavior as sending a fake letter.)
The letter should be recognized as fake by anyone familiar with my writing. I don't need to call anyone an "asshole," when I have logic on my side.
Daniel Handler has sent me two e-mails about this matter. I'll present the facts and let you, the reader of this blog, decide where lies the truth of the matter.
In his first e-mail to me, dated 9/11, Handler makes several assertions. 1.) The letter was forwarded to him by his publisher. 2.) He'd never heard of me before that time. 3.) He believed the letter was real because it matched the language of this blog. (We can presume then that after reading the letter he read this blog.)
The end of Handler's e-mail shows no anxiousness to get to the bottom of the matter: "I don't know what's going on and frankly don't care . . . if you'll excuse me I'm off to my local dive bar to drink bourbon and read Frederick Busch."
Several questions went through my head after reading Handler's statement-- first among them being, "Why did he wait so long to respond to this matter?" Note that his response occurred only after I tried to force his hand, asking, "Where's Daniel Handler?"-- and after I added a note showing that I was open to the possibility that he had indeed received the fake letter from somebody. Suddenly he let me know that he did receive it, indeed!
Why the wait? Once he was aware of my blog, wouldn't he look in periodically AFTER the letter appeared in The Ruminator? Wouldn't his friends at The Believer keep him updated?
On August 27 I put a post up on this blog, "Fake Letter," which addressed the controcersy. Whatever he'd thought beforehand, Handler should've been aware that the letter wasn't from me. Yet he sent no e-mail to me-- not for two weeks. He made no response while I notified The Ruminator, while Jeff Potter did; while further discussion occurred on this blog, along with the big Patrick Simonelli Monday Report on the matter on the www.literaryrevolution.com ULA site.
On September 8 Maud Newton mentioned the controversy on her widely-read site. The injured party Daniel Handler remained silent-- until September 11. Curious behavior.
(As we'll see in Part Two of this post, Handler knew the letter wasn't from me long before this.)
I'll readily accept Handler's other contention that he'd never heard of me or the ULA before receiving the letter (only his friends know the truth about this), even though The Believer, whose editors he's tight with, and which he presumably reads, did a contentious lead article on the ULA in 2003, which led to some minor "Page Six" controversy. He'd never heard of us though we attended a 2003 McSweeney's-sponsored affair at Housing Works in New York which had led to other "Page Six" publicity. He'd never heard of us even though the New York Times did a front-page article in January 2004 about anonymous Amazon attacks on the Underground Literary Alliance by Dave Eggers. The New York Times Book Review listed our site in their pages in October 2004, but Handler never reads the book journal. Many, many people have never heard of the ULA-- the Eggers gang NOT among them. But we can still accept his statement.
What we DO know is that Daniel Handler was aware of us AFTER receiving the letter, as he admits, BEFORE giving the letter to The Ruminator. This gives his exchange with David Sedaris more meaning, adding to the "wink, wink, nod, nod" tone of the exchange.
In my response to Handler's September 11 e-mail, the one in which he said he didn't care about the matter, I pointed out that he'd cared enough to pass around the letter at parties, and to give it to The Ruminator to publish publicly. I said (sincerely) that I wanted to find out who sent the letter. I asked about the postmark.
Handler replied on September 12. He said:
-"The letters were forwarded from my publisher, without the original envelope, as with much of my mail."
-"I don't bring private correspondence to parties,"
-"I can't imagine why we'd have any reason to communicate further,"
Note Handler's eagerness to drop the matter. Most interesting is the idea that his publisher opens his mail. I've had mail forwarded to me by periodicals and companies, addressed to me c/o the publication or company. Even when The Atlantic printed a simple letter by me, some time ago, they forwarded, unopened, mail addressed to me that was afterward sent to them. In fact, opening mail addressed to someone else, as far as I'm aware, is against the law. (Daniel Handler might want to notify his publisher about this.)
Even when one employs or designates a secretary or agent to handle one's mail, standard business procedure is to staple the opened envelope to the back of the letter. Often a return address is given only on the envelope. Everyone who receives a lot of mail-- as I do-- knows this. Further, the envelope is legal evidence that one received the item on such and such date. This is important ESPECIALLY if one is going to publish the letter. One could hardly credibly publish such letter without such proof of mailing and reception. Without such evidence, one may as well assume the letter was never mailed or received at all.
This is damning evidence to any notion that I sent the letter. It's reason alone for immediate apology and correction from The Ruminator, and from Handler himself. However, there's more, as I'll discuss in Part II, "The Other E-Mail."
Monday, September 12, 2005
The Eggers Juggernaut?
From the ULA's perspective, everything seems to be going "The Dave's" way.
We've been on the defensive since July; betrayed from within, attacked from outside. We're like the Achaeans at their ships in The Iliad, on the verge of being pushed back into the sea with nary an Ajax or Patroclus in sight to save the day, much less an Achilles.
Eggers, meanwhile, allied with rich and powerful lit-Insiders like Rick Moody, expands his empire as he strengthens his connections with the leading conglomerate publishing companies. Can anyone remember, or believe, that Eggers once portrayed his venture as alternative and D-I-Y? He misrepresented himself from the beginning. Now he's the center of energy and power of establishment literature.
Folks at small lit-journals like The Ruminator will naturally be afraid to offend the Eggers gang-- would sooner besmirch their own reputation by letting stand without correction a fake letter in their pages. Who can blame them? If Eggers can force the Atlantic to cave in to his will, as he did a few years ago when they were about to publish a potentially critical article on him, what can one expect from The Ruminator?
Lit-bloggers are likewise cowed. They'll contort their arguments to avoid criticizing Dave and his allies, portraying those who stand up to him as crazy. The most prominent lit-blogger engages in around-the-clock adulation, prepared at any moment to eviscerate his enemies.
In this past Sunday's New York Times we saw an article which is similarly fawning. More than that, it was a free advertisement for one of his publications! Titled "Among the Believers," written by A.O. Scott, the article gymnastically links Dave Eggers in a laudatory if not idolistic way with a new lit project by Keith Gessen called "n +1." Gessen and his friends state "it is time to say what you mean"-- with the unsaid caveat that ideas have meaning in the exclusive realm of established literature only if spoken by the right people.
Eggers has to be chortling over the Scott article. Why? Keith Gessen was the author of the infamous killed Atlantic article which had irritated The Dave. (It was a 95% puff piece.) Gessen was upset at the time-- his friends got me a copy-- yet declined to voice his complaints publicly. Gessen balked when given the opportunity by "Page Six" to express his anger, when asked to "say what you mean." He instead made a careful, inocuous statement. Now Eggers's one-time antagonist is allowed to crawl into the spotlight, in an article whose main thrust is the greatness of Dave!-- "Believers" in big letters in the headline, photo included of Eggers's wife; Gessen's project a secondary consideration. Gessen's radical brainstorm idea, the sudden lightbulb realization that maybe it's time to speak with honesty and clarity (which for the ULA comes naturally) is, 1984-style, claimed for its true originator, the antithesis of the notion; the epitomy of postmodern fakery-- Dave Eggers!
Whatever idea is thought suddenly trendy, there will be found beforehand, like a Big Brother billboard, the smirking mug of The Dave.
But, after all his setbacks and struggles, Keith Gessen is at last taken seriously, adorned with blazer and tie and allowed entrance into The Club. Not through the servants' entrance either! There he strides through the front door, little worse for the wear, albeit noticeably cautious and tame, his eyes rather blank, rather glazed, as if he'd been hypnotized or lobotomized.
Bow to Eggers obsequiously, beg for forgiveness, and maybe you also will be given a portion of acceptability. Or maybe not. After all, it depends on the unpredictable whim and humor of The Dave.
We've been on the defensive since July; betrayed from within, attacked from outside. We're like the Achaeans at their ships in The Iliad, on the verge of being pushed back into the sea with nary an Ajax or Patroclus in sight to save the day, much less an Achilles.
Eggers, meanwhile, allied with rich and powerful lit-Insiders like Rick Moody, expands his empire as he strengthens his connections with the leading conglomerate publishing companies. Can anyone remember, or believe, that Eggers once portrayed his venture as alternative and D-I-Y? He misrepresented himself from the beginning. Now he's the center of energy and power of establishment literature.
Folks at small lit-journals like The Ruminator will naturally be afraid to offend the Eggers gang-- would sooner besmirch their own reputation by letting stand without correction a fake letter in their pages. Who can blame them? If Eggers can force the Atlantic to cave in to his will, as he did a few years ago when they were about to publish a potentially critical article on him, what can one expect from The Ruminator?
Lit-bloggers are likewise cowed. They'll contort their arguments to avoid criticizing Dave and his allies, portraying those who stand up to him as crazy. The most prominent lit-blogger engages in around-the-clock adulation, prepared at any moment to eviscerate his enemies.
In this past Sunday's New York Times we saw an article which is similarly fawning. More than that, it was a free advertisement for one of his publications! Titled "Among the Believers," written by A.O. Scott, the article gymnastically links Dave Eggers in a laudatory if not idolistic way with a new lit project by Keith Gessen called "n +1." Gessen and his friends state "it is time to say what you mean"-- with the unsaid caveat that ideas have meaning in the exclusive realm of established literature only if spoken by the right people.
Eggers has to be chortling over the Scott article. Why? Keith Gessen was the author of the infamous killed Atlantic article which had irritated The Dave. (It was a 95% puff piece.) Gessen was upset at the time-- his friends got me a copy-- yet declined to voice his complaints publicly. Gessen balked when given the opportunity by "Page Six" to express his anger, when asked to "say what you mean." He instead made a careful, inocuous statement. Now Eggers's one-time antagonist is allowed to crawl into the spotlight, in an article whose main thrust is the greatness of Dave!-- "Believers" in big letters in the headline, photo included of Eggers's wife; Gessen's project a secondary consideration. Gessen's radical brainstorm idea, the sudden lightbulb realization that maybe it's time to speak with honesty and clarity (which for the ULA comes naturally) is, 1984-style, claimed for its true originator, the antithesis of the notion; the epitomy of postmodern fakery-- Dave Eggers!
Whatever idea is thought suddenly trendy, there will be found beforehand, like a Big Brother billboard, the smirking mug of The Dave.
But, after all his setbacks and struggles, Keith Gessen is at last taken seriously, adorned with blazer and tie and allowed entrance into The Club. Not through the servants' entrance either! There he strides through the front door, little worse for the wear, albeit noticeably cautious and tame, his eyes rather blank, rather glazed, as if he'd been hypnotized or lobotomized.
Bow to Eggers obsequiously, beg for forgiveness, and maybe you also will be given a portion of acceptability. Or maybe not. After all, it depends on the unpredictable whim and humor of The Dave.
Response from Daniel Handler
Since my last post on this matter, I've received an e-mail from Daniel Handler stating that the fake letter was forwarded to him from his publisher. He also says he's since received another. Handler says he doesn't care about the letters, that he has other things to do, etc. I have to point out that he cared enough to pass it around at parties, and include it in the Sedaris interview, as if it was a big joke.
But who's sending the letters to his publisher? I hope Mr. Handler can get back to me about the postmark. One thing I know is that SOMEONE is going to a lot of trouble to play these pranks. The purpose, as it concerns the ULA, seems to be two-fold.
1.) To mimic and therefore mock ULA agitation.
2.) To discredit the sending of real letters, as we've done under our own names in the past (not for quite some time, to be honest), and thereby chill our right to communicate, petition, and protest.
It's a subtle and warped campaign.
As to who specifically is doing it-- the language strikes me as similar to that of "Bryan Guski," the basketball blogger, and others who've been attacking the ULA on this site.
If the Ruminator prints a correction, this matter will be settled.
But who's sending the letters to his publisher? I hope Mr. Handler can get back to me about the postmark. One thing I know is that SOMEONE is going to a lot of trouble to play these pranks. The purpose, as it concerns the ULA, seems to be two-fold.
1.) To mimic and therefore mock ULA agitation.
2.) To discredit the sending of real letters, as we've done under our own names in the past (not for quite some time, to be honest), and thereby chill our right to communicate, petition, and protest.
It's a subtle and warped campaign.
As to who specifically is doing it-- the language strikes me as similar to that of "Bryan Guski," the basketball blogger, and others who've been attacking the ULA on this site.
If the Ruminator prints a correction, this matter will be settled.
The New Paris Review: A Big Mistake
I'm sure I'm not the only person who'll notice that the new look of the Paris Review makes it indistinguishable from generic lit-journals like Grand Street and Kenyon Review.
The Paris Review had an immediately recognizable size and title; distinctive logos and packaging: a true literary brand. 50-plus years of investment in this brand is now destroyed-- without anything distinctive or unique to take its place. A colossal mistake.
The Paris Review had an immediately recognizable size and title; distinctive logos and packaging: a true literary brand. 50-plus years of investment in this brand is now destroyed-- without anything distinctive or unique to take its place. A colossal mistake.
Football Notes
A Part-Time Fan. Week One.
-Bret Favre and Steve McNair should've retired.
-Good coaching (Miami; San Francisco) makes a difference.
-Maybe Paul Hackett wasn't the problem with the New York Jets. His conservative system protected Chad Pennington the way a trust-fund baby author is protected by Morgan Entrekin.
Superbowl Prediction: Pittsburgh against Philadelphia.
-Bret Favre and Steve McNair should've retired.
-Good coaching (Miami; San Francisco) makes a difference.
-Maybe Paul Hackett wasn't the problem with the New York Jets. His conservative system protected Chad Pennington the way a trust-fund baby author is protected by Morgan Entrekin.
Superbowl Prediction: Pittsburgh against Philadelphia.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Where's Daniel Handler?
Why is Daniel Handler silent about the letter in the Ruminator? Why no explanation?
I have to shake my head in disbelief at this matter. It's amazing. I'm libelled with impunity. The lit world looks the other way. Kind of verifies the utter lack of integrity among literary people, doesn't it?
I have to shake my head in disbelief at this matter. It's amazing. I'm libelled with impunity. The lit world looks the other way. Kind of verifies the utter lack of integrity among literary people, doesn't it?
The ULA and Its Enemies
I'll reiterate, for those who don't know, that the Underground Literary Alliance from its beginning has operated in an open, honest, upfront manner. We've documented our accusations. We've presented them under our own names, accepting accountability for what we do and say.
By contrast, Dave Eggers's journal McSweeney's was born in an atmosphere of games and trickery. (Does anyone remember the McSweeney's family?) His publications have contained fake letters and false identities. This has been the essence of his behavior. In 2004 the New York Times itself revealed that Eggers, not the ULA, had engaged in anonymous attacks. Further evidence, in fact, about the two camps is available in the history of this blog. Witness the unrelenting swarm of pseudonymous and anonymous attacks against the ULA, which we confronted under our own names.
The question is out there: Which side is honest and which side lies? The answer, for anyone who looks at the situation honestly, with clear heads and unclouded eyes, is obvious.
What's the ULA? We're the whistle-blowers of literature, and for this we pay a price.
By contrast, Dave Eggers's journal McSweeney's was born in an atmosphere of games and trickery. (Does anyone remember the McSweeney's family?) His publications have contained fake letters and false identities. This has been the essence of his behavior. In 2004 the New York Times itself revealed that Eggers, not the ULA, had engaged in anonymous attacks. Further evidence, in fact, about the two camps is available in the history of this blog. Witness the unrelenting swarm of pseudonymous and anonymous attacks against the ULA, which we confronted under our own names.
The question is out there: Which side is honest and which side lies? The answer, for anyone who looks at the situation honestly, with clear heads and unclouded eyes, is obvious.
What's the ULA? We're the whistle-blowers of literature, and for this we pay a price.
Another Rich Guy Writes a Book
What's the latest literary news,
Media pushed at me and you?
Smarmy feckless familiar review
"Another Rich Guy Writes a Book"
Moody, Wilsey, Beller, Ellis
Fawning questions, gushy coverage
Fops posed to hint at wild danger,
though they look like Wall Street traders
Square-jawed smirky mugs are seen
glossy pages, magazines
Headline message always the same
"Another Rich Guy Writes a Book!"
Media pushed at me and you?
Smarmy feckless familiar review
"Another Rich Guy Writes a Book"
Moody, Wilsey, Beller, Ellis
Fawning questions, gushy coverage
Fops posed to hint at wild danger,
though they look like Wall Street traders
Square-jawed smirky mugs are seen
glossy pages, magazines
Headline message always the same
"Another Rich Guy Writes a Book!"
Friday, September 09, 2005
Class War in the Literary World
Don't kid yourselves-- that's exactly what the battles the ULA is having with the herd of conformist litsters is about. The Underground Literary Alliance has been attacked from outside and from within. Our enemies-- there's no other way to categorize them-- show hardly a shred of integrity. Lies, plagiarism, phony letters, endless anonymous attacks-- the purpose to enforce a Mono-Class Mono-Think Mono-Literature with no place for outsider voices.
What will be the result if our foes have their way and the ULA is destroyed? One of the few remaining voices standing for real outside the mainstream will have been silenced. A steel curtain will have dropped protectively around the status quo. Only the authorized, the certified, the programmed will be consdiered writers. The conjoined bureaucracies of university and conglomerate will reign dominant over literary culture. We see this now-- the ULA and this blog virtually blacklisted, our every revelation no matter how serious scorned or ignored. The herd is mad at US for Daniel Handler's fake letter-- as if, somehow, we forced him to do it.
What the Handler letter reveals is the grimy truth about the privileged darlings at the center of American literature. For bourgeois writers; for the Insider crowd and their apologists and acolytes, there can be no accommodation, no peace with our kind of writer and artist. A big "X" on the bottom of a page-- that's what this crowd of snobs truly thinks of us. Many of us in the ULA have been treated like shit by this society since Day One. The continuation of same shouldn't surprise us-- it always does. At our core we're idealists; thinking there can be a better way; that we can prevail in our fight to rescue literature from the corrupt careerist conformists who have tight hold of it and won't let go.
No, we're not "writers" in the standardized sense. We only WRITE, honestly expressing our experiences and ideas. I heard on a sports radio show the other day a caller say, about an anthology, "I'm not a reader, but I enjoyed that book." Is there a more telling clue about how to rescue the art; a more important statement about what writers should aim toward, who we should include (everyone); what literature should be about?
What will be the result if our foes have their way and the ULA is destroyed? One of the few remaining voices standing for real outside the mainstream will have been silenced. A steel curtain will have dropped protectively around the status quo. Only the authorized, the certified, the programmed will be consdiered writers. The conjoined bureaucracies of university and conglomerate will reign dominant over literary culture. We see this now-- the ULA and this blog virtually blacklisted, our every revelation no matter how serious scorned or ignored. The herd is mad at US for Daniel Handler's fake letter-- as if, somehow, we forced him to do it.
What the Handler letter reveals is the grimy truth about the privileged darlings at the center of American literature. For bourgeois writers; for the Insider crowd and their apologists and acolytes, there can be no accommodation, no peace with our kind of writer and artist. A big "X" on the bottom of a page-- that's what this crowd of snobs truly thinks of us. Many of us in the ULA have been treated like shit by this society since Day One. The continuation of same shouldn't surprise us-- it always does. At our core we're idealists; thinking there can be a better way; that we can prevail in our fight to rescue literature from the corrupt careerist conformists who have tight hold of it and won't let go.
No, we're not "writers" in the standardized sense. We only WRITE, honestly expressing our experiences and ideas. I heard on a sports radio show the other day a caller say, about an anthology, "I'm not a reader, but I enjoyed that book." Is there a more telling clue about how to rescue the art; a more important statement about what writers should aim toward, who we should include (everyone); what literature should be about?
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Ruminator Response
Today I received this response to my query about the fake letter in the Ruminator:
"We printed a scanned version of the original letter sent to Daniel Handler.
Thank you for your comment,
Susannah McNeely, Editor."
In my reply to this, I said, in part, "Sent to him by who??? Again, I didn't write or send that."
I await further explanation from Ms. McNeely, and from Daniel Handler himself.
(The question: Is this all just a big joke to Handler, Sedaris, McNeely, and others?)
"We printed a scanned version of the original letter sent to Daniel Handler.
Thank you for your comment,
Susannah McNeely, Editor."
In my reply to this, I said, in part, "Sent to him by who??? Again, I didn't write or send that."
I await further explanation from Ms. McNeely, and from Daniel Handler himself.
(The question: Is this all just a big joke to Handler, Sedaris, McNeely, and others?)
Demi-Puppet Angst
Last weekend I received an e-mail from long-time McSweeney fan Lee Klein. He wondered fretfully why he couldn't post a comment on this blog. This was a surprise to me, as Lee hadn't yet posted here-- at least, not under his own name.
In 2002 when we had the ULA Forum going, Lee was a regular poster, under a variety of names, including "Throop Roebling." If you don't know, Lee Klein is not only a devoted McSweeney's follower, he's friends with Insider writers like Zadie Smith, Amanda Filipacchi, and others. (To Lee, David Foster Wallace is a god.) One might consider Lee something of an overgrown establishment lapdog.
Could Lee Klein be one of a legion of demi-puppets (like "Bryan Guski") eager to score points with influential lit-people by attacking the ULA? No way! I'm sure his intended post was highly complimentary.
In 2002 when we had the ULA Forum going, Lee was a regular poster, under a variety of names, including "Throop Roebling." If you don't know, Lee Klein is not only a devoted McSweeney's follower, he's friends with Insider writers like Zadie Smith, Amanda Filipacchi, and others. (To Lee, David Foster Wallace is a god.) One might consider Lee something of an overgrown establishment lapdog.
Could Lee Klein be one of a legion of demi-puppets (like "Bryan Guski") eager to score points with influential lit-people by attacking the ULA? No way! I'm sure his intended post was highly complimentary.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
About ULA Membership
I mourn the departure of any ULAer from the team (there have been eight), seeing it as ULA failure-- failure in screening, or in meshing the person into our mad campaign.
EXPECTATIONS
We ask ULAers to support one another. The Underground Literary Alliance is supposed to be a team. The idea being, that which benefits the group benefits the individual. That which benefits the individual, by extension benefits the rest of the group, because of the individual's connection to the ULA. Getting the ULA name known is our first priority. One name, all focus on that. ULA. ULA! Everything else will follow. One can't jump to step D by skipping steps A, B, and C.
The amount of influence one has in the ULA depends on the amount of work one does for it, and how strongly one defends it. We ask for agreement with our general goal: The creation of an authentic, alternative literature. We remain open to all kinds of writers, as long as they believe in what we're doing, are willing to identify with our cause, and tie their fate to the ULA name.
LOYALTY
We've never demanded loyalty from ULAers, we've only asked for it. Otherwise, why be in the ULA? What would be the point? One of our early members attacked the ULA publicly for over a year, even produced a zeen announcing our demise, yet we never once asked the person to leave. I've given loyalty to each ULAer, even on occasions when doing so burnt bridges to lit people. In return I've HOPED for support from them for the ULA. Commitment is a two-way street. I've never asked anyone to do what I wouldn't do myself; I've been at the forefront of our actions and activities. This to me is the essence of leadership.
LEADERSHIP
Three years ago Michael Jackman was made Director of the ULA in hopes he would take a leading role as organizer and spokesman for the team. He had the personality for the role, was more presentable and articulate than myself. At some point he chose to adopt a low profile. When we find someone else suited for the role, who understands ULA philosophy, who believes in the team and the campaign, that person will be pushed forward.
MEMBERSHIP PROBLEM I
Too many ULAers have identified the ULA solely with me, judging their positions in the organization according to the status of their relationship with me. If I don't pay them enough attention, or answer every one of their e-mails, or read the entire body of their fiction and poetry-- as if there were ten of me, each one with endless amounts of time-- they're in crisis. The idea is for them to bond with the team; or as important, with the ULA name.
MEMBERSHIP PROBLEM II
Many of those we've lost were embarrassed to be in the ULA-- and so had no business joining in the first place.
BEST FIT
To date, zeensters-- those for whom zeening is not an experiment but a lifestyle; who long ago dropped pretensions of snobbery-- have been the best fit for the ULA. I believe the underground poets we're slowly bringing in will be a good addition as well, along with literary e-zinesters who understand what we're doing. Satirists and comedians mesh easily with us also. (After Neal Pollack fails at everything else, he'll be in the ULA.)
ADDENDUM
Several profiles of those who weren't completely right for the team:
THE FRIEND
I brought Michael Grover into the ULA solely because he was a good friend and I liked his poetry-- without thought of preparation, of letting him know exactly what he was joining.
THE FENCE STRADDLER
This is the person who hates to takes sides; who, like Rodney King, wants to get along with everyone. "Will Ratblood," for instance, is a nice guy who liked the ULA but also liked our most egregious enemies. He wants to like everybody! Since leaving the ULA and moving to New York City he keeps checking his mailbox for an invitation to join McSweeney's, but the mailbox remains empty.
THE CYNIC
This is someone who sees, to his mind, our basic incompetence, but also sees the attention we received, which must've dropped by accident from the sky. "What hapless losers!" he thinks. A word registers in his brain: "Opportunity." The cynically impatient hustler appears from nowhere with offers to get us squared away. "I can do this for you, and this, and this. You'll look and sound just like the big guys!" Because his hidden attitude toward us is one of total contempt, the attitude eventually explodes from him and he doesn't last-- particularly when we don't immediately follow his prescriptions for success, don't make peace with conglomerate-run lit media and meld into the System-approved tried-and-failed rulebook mode of operating which for him is a given, but continue speaking out and doing things our crazy ULA way.
THE CONSERVATIVE
We've interested a few conservatives in our campaign over the past several years, but have had difficulty retaining them. Some of our common sense criticisms and ideas are conservative, or at least libertarian, or at least anarchist masquerading as libertarian. Most conservatives, however, believe in hierarchies, while we're egalitarian. We not only represent the underdogs of the lit-world, we ARE those underdogs.
THE LITERARY SNOB
This is a "Writer" with a capital W, the next coming of Henry James, whose accidental fall into our camp is merely a momentary setback. Ugh! Such company! Who is this idiotic Wenclas with his 40's skid row styles, or that unruly Wild Bill guy? Or Wred Fright! The snobby "Writer" is clearly slumming, generously allowing us the honor of promoting him or her while keeping one eye open for better opportunities. We know exit is near when the person stiffly stands and walks with head cocked at a proper nose-in-the-air tilt, and speaks, Madonna-style, with a phony British accent while nasally quoting Martin Amis.
THE SURPRISED
This individual joins up without bothering to learn our history, or read the manifesto on our site, or understand we're a radical, noise-making operation with hosts of enemies; or realize to be a ULAer is to be the most ostracized kind of outcast on today's literary landscape.
EXPECTATIONS
We ask ULAers to support one another. The Underground Literary Alliance is supposed to be a team. The idea being, that which benefits the group benefits the individual. That which benefits the individual, by extension benefits the rest of the group, because of the individual's connection to the ULA. Getting the ULA name known is our first priority. One name, all focus on that. ULA. ULA! Everything else will follow. One can't jump to step D by skipping steps A, B, and C.
The amount of influence one has in the ULA depends on the amount of work one does for it, and how strongly one defends it. We ask for agreement with our general goal: The creation of an authentic, alternative literature. We remain open to all kinds of writers, as long as they believe in what we're doing, are willing to identify with our cause, and tie their fate to the ULA name.
LOYALTY
We've never demanded loyalty from ULAers, we've only asked for it. Otherwise, why be in the ULA? What would be the point? One of our early members attacked the ULA publicly for over a year, even produced a zeen announcing our demise, yet we never once asked the person to leave. I've given loyalty to each ULAer, even on occasions when doing so burnt bridges to lit people. In return I've HOPED for support from them for the ULA. Commitment is a two-way street. I've never asked anyone to do what I wouldn't do myself; I've been at the forefront of our actions and activities. This to me is the essence of leadership.
LEADERSHIP
Three years ago Michael Jackman was made Director of the ULA in hopes he would take a leading role as organizer and spokesman for the team. He had the personality for the role, was more presentable and articulate than myself. At some point he chose to adopt a low profile. When we find someone else suited for the role, who understands ULA philosophy, who believes in the team and the campaign, that person will be pushed forward.
MEMBERSHIP PROBLEM I
Too many ULAers have identified the ULA solely with me, judging their positions in the organization according to the status of their relationship with me. If I don't pay them enough attention, or answer every one of their e-mails, or read the entire body of their fiction and poetry-- as if there were ten of me, each one with endless amounts of time-- they're in crisis. The idea is for them to bond with the team; or as important, with the ULA name.
MEMBERSHIP PROBLEM II
Many of those we've lost were embarrassed to be in the ULA-- and so had no business joining in the first place.
BEST FIT
To date, zeensters-- those for whom zeening is not an experiment but a lifestyle; who long ago dropped pretensions of snobbery-- have been the best fit for the ULA. I believe the underground poets we're slowly bringing in will be a good addition as well, along with literary e-zinesters who understand what we're doing. Satirists and comedians mesh easily with us also. (After Neal Pollack fails at everything else, he'll be in the ULA.)
ADDENDUM
Several profiles of those who weren't completely right for the team:
THE FRIEND
I brought Michael Grover into the ULA solely because he was a good friend and I liked his poetry-- without thought of preparation, of letting him know exactly what he was joining.
THE FENCE STRADDLER
This is the person who hates to takes sides; who, like Rodney King, wants to get along with everyone. "Will Ratblood," for instance, is a nice guy who liked the ULA but also liked our most egregious enemies. He wants to like everybody! Since leaving the ULA and moving to New York City he keeps checking his mailbox for an invitation to join McSweeney's, but the mailbox remains empty.
THE CYNIC
This is someone who sees, to his mind, our basic incompetence, but also sees the attention we received, which must've dropped by accident from the sky. "What hapless losers!" he thinks. A word registers in his brain: "Opportunity." The cynically impatient hustler appears from nowhere with offers to get us squared away. "I can do this for you, and this, and this. You'll look and sound just like the big guys!" Because his hidden attitude toward us is one of total contempt, the attitude eventually explodes from him and he doesn't last-- particularly when we don't immediately follow his prescriptions for success, don't make peace with conglomerate-run lit media and meld into the System-approved tried-and-failed rulebook mode of operating which for him is a given, but continue speaking out and doing things our crazy ULA way.
THE CONSERVATIVE
We've interested a few conservatives in our campaign over the past several years, but have had difficulty retaining them. Some of our common sense criticisms and ideas are conservative, or at least libertarian, or at least anarchist masquerading as libertarian. Most conservatives, however, believe in hierarchies, while we're egalitarian. We not only represent the underdogs of the lit-world, we ARE those underdogs.
THE LITERARY SNOB
This is a "Writer" with a capital W, the next coming of Henry James, whose accidental fall into our camp is merely a momentary setback. Ugh! Such company! Who is this idiotic Wenclas with his 40's skid row styles, or that unruly Wild Bill guy? Or Wred Fright! The snobby "Writer" is clearly slumming, generously allowing us the honor of promoting him or her while keeping one eye open for better opportunities. We know exit is near when the person stiffly stands and walks with head cocked at a proper nose-in-the-air tilt, and speaks, Madonna-style, with a phony British accent while nasally quoting Martin Amis.
THE SURPRISED
This individual joins up without bothering to learn our history, or read the manifesto on our site, or understand we're a radical, noise-making operation with hosts of enemies; or realize to be a ULAer is to be the most ostracized kind of outcast on today's literary landscape.
Refugees?
Debate rages over whether the folks evicted from New Orleans should be called refugees, evacuees, or survivors. I don't know which term is more accurate-- but I do know that scattered across the streets of Philadelphia and other cities of this great country, long before the hurricane, are people who look to me like refugees; refugees from rat-race American society. I guess as the bar is constantly raised, as more credentials and mentors are required, as the pace of the conformist Machine we all live in becomes faster all the time, many are thrown out of the house of America, or never allowed to enter in the first place.
Maybe there are more refugees in this nation than we think. (Some of them in the ULA.) I've known a lot of underground artists and writers, in both Detroit and this city, and most of them could be described as refugees. No health care, for years, for decades, walking around with accummulating contained ailments. One can spot the undergrounder right away-- usually the person has bad teeth, taped-up eyeglasses, walks with a cane from a broken leg or hip which never healed properly. Sometimes the person is also just a little crazy-- or seems to be to bourgeois outsiders. In truth, these are the sane people. The crazy are the mindless hordes caught up in the gears of the machine, unable to question it, to ask if there might be a better way.
Refugees? What else can millions of Americans consider themselves but refugees from a mad society?
Maybe there are more refugees in this nation than we think. (Some of them in the ULA.) I've known a lot of underground artists and writers, in both Detroit and this city, and most of them could be described as refugees. No health care, for years, for decades, walking around with accummulating contained ailments. One can spot the undergrounder right away-- usually the person has bad teeth, taped-up eyeglasses, walks with a cane from a broken leg or hip which never healed properly. Sometimes the person is also just a little crazy-- or seems to be to bourgeois outsiders. In truth, these are the sane people. The crazy are the mindless hordes caught up in the gears of the machine, unable to question it, to ask if there might be a better way.
Refugees? What else can millions of Americans consider themselves but refugees from a mad society?
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
The Great Shock
This is the screaming we've heard for the past week as the nation's privileged were forced to watch on their TV screens the realities of life in this country-- that there exists an underclass in America which is continually either ignored or treated like shit. This reality takes place every day-- unseen.
Outrage! yell the liberal lit-bloggers. Do something! Don't force us to see!
As these individuals live most of the time in Fantasyland with no sense of context, they look for an easy scapegoat-- which of course is comically and tragically provided by the flailing rich guy who occupies the White House. Remove him and everything will be fine! It's a start, but ignores a class system along with giant institutional forces which dominate this country, including the corporate money which paid for Bush's campaign and election in the first place. The solution is to change the nature of American society itself.
Literature is our chosen arena. The ULA seeks to change the nature of discovering and promoting writers; of ending the elitism and hierarchies in this corner of society.
The same lit-bloggers screaming about the treatment of poor people in New Orleans live in an insular world consisting of only those who look, think, and behave like themselves; writers from similar backgrounds; with familiar education, styles, codes, and ideas. These same individuals mock the ULA constantly, because A.) we're different from them; B.) we demand to be treated as equals. Snobbery and hypocrisy. Daniel Handler, David Sedaris, and the big "X" on the bottom of a fake letter-- there's evidence for what I say.
Outrage! yell the liberal lit-bloggers. Do something! Don't force us to see!
As these individuals live most of the time in Fantasyland with no sense of context, they look for an easy scapegoat-- which of course is comically and tragically provided by the flailing rich guy who occupies the White House. Remove him and everything will be fine! It's a start, but ignores a class system along with giant institutional forces which dominate this country, including the corporate money which paid for Bush's campaign and election in the first place. The solution is to change the nature of American society itself.
Literature is our chosen arena. The ULA seeks to change the nature of discovering and promoting writers; of ending the elitism and hierarchies in this corner of society.
The same lit-bloggers screaming about the treatment of poor people in New Orleans live in an insular world consisting of only those who look, think, and behave like themselves; writers from similar backgrounds; with familiar education, styles, codes, and ideas. These same individuals mock the ULA constantly, because A.) we're different from them; B.) we demand to be treated as equals. Snobbery and hypocrisy. Daniel Handler, David Sedaris, and the big "X" on the bottom of a fake letter-- there's evidence for what I say.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Establishment Counter-Attack Against the ULA
I'm told that Daniel G. Handler of the fake letter in the Ruminator has close ties to the 826 Valencia crowd. It should also be noted that David Sedaris's sister Amy is a regular contributor to The Believer. The phony letter, then, is in line with steady actions against the ULA over the last few years.
To list several, as a reminder:
-After the ULA's "Firecracker Awards" protest, our house publication Slush Pile being excluded from bookstores with close ties to Dave Eggers. (Such as Atomic Books in Baltimore.)
-The poorly researched 2003 Tom Bissell hatchet job on the ULA, filled with inaccuracies, which appeared in The Believer.
-The January 2004 revelation, discussed on the front page of the New York Times, that Dave Eggers had been personally attacking the ULA anonymously on Amazon.
-The bizarre Rick Moody short story about Philadelphia, "Free Library," in a 2004 issue of Ploughshares. The story includes a character modeled after me, with details about my life which could've been obtained only through investigation, or from a close source.
In 2005 the campaign against myself and the ULA has heated up, as evidenced by the steady variety of attacks on this blog. We've seen phony ULA sites, mad anonymous posts, and imitation Demi-Puppet blogs. SOMEONE has been investing a great deal of time in mocking us. The posts and fake blogs don't appear spontaneously on their own. We can postulate a person or persons behind them. Who?
Though many demi-puppet lit-bloggers hate the Underground Literary Alliance, I doubt the likes of Maud Newton and Company have the time or energy to post very much on this blog, or to create fake blogs. They're busy with their own. (Sucking up to Zadie Smith takes work!) The person behind the attacks on us has to be someone either with leisure time, or willing and able to pay to have the job done.
Dave Eggers is known to engage in vendetta behavior. One can look at his intense and successful campaign to have a 2001 Atlantic article about himself squelched. Or consider the threatening phone calls received by two individuals when a story about the matter was about to appear in "Page Six" of the New York Post. As for Mr. Moody, if he's the utter innocent he portrays himself to be, knowledgeable about little, scarcely touched by the happenings of the world, then he must be excluded from consideration. IF, however, his prominent role in the machinery of the lit-world-- steady appearances on foundation grants panels; founder of the Young Lions series; prominent PEN member and Yaddo overseer; etc.-- is NOT the result of mere accident, then he also has to be counted a suspect. Both men, after all, are very wealthy, and can pay for that which they're unwilling to do themselves.
All this is speculation-- thinking out loud. One sees a pile of shit in the middle of the highway and wonders how it got there.
There have been other recent tactics, such as the McSweeney's peace offer, or the fake Rick Moody cassette tape mailed to me from New York. Games and mischief. Some of it for fun, but some of it with more serious purpose-- to divide the ULA, derail our progress, and shut down this blog.
To list several, as a reminder:
-After the ULA's "Firecracker Awards" protest, our house publication Slush Pile being excluded from bookstores with close ties to Dave Eggers. (Such as Atomic Books in Baltimore.)
-The poorly researched 2003 Tom Bissell hatchet job on the ULA, filled with inaccuracies, which appeared in The Believer.
-The January 2004 revelation, discussed on the front page of the New York Times, that Dave Eggers had been personally attacking the ULA anonymously on Amazon.
-The bizarre Rick Moody short story about Philadelphia, "Free Library," in a 2004 issue of Ploughshares. The story includes a character modeled after me, with details about my life which could've been obtained only through investigation, or from a close source.
In 2005 the campaign against myself and the ULA has heated up, as evidenced by the steady variety of attacks on this blog. We've seen phony ULA sites, mad anonymous posts, and imitation Demi-Puppet blogs. SOMEONE has been investing a great deal of time in mocking us. The posts and fake blogs don't appear spontaneously on their own. We can postulate a person or persons behind them. Who?
Though many demi-puppet lit-bloggers hate the Underground Literary Alliance, I doubt the likes of Maud Newton and Company have the time or energy to post very much on this blog, or to create fake blogs. They're busy with their own. (Sucking up to Zadie Smith takes work!) The person behind the attacks on us has to be someone either with leisure time, or willing and able to pay to have the job done.
Dave Eggers is known to engage in vendetta behavior. One can look at his intense and successful campaign to have a 2001 Atlantic article about himself squelched. Or consider the threatening phone calls received by two individuals when a story about the matter was about to appear in "Page Six" of the New York Post. As for Mr. Moody, if he's the utter innocent he portrays himself to be, knowledgeable about little, scarcely touched by the happenings of the world, then he must be excluded from consideration. IF, however, his prominent role in the machinery of the lit-world-- steady appearances on foundation grants panels; founder of the Young Lions series; prominent PEN member and Yaddo overseer; etc.-- is NOT the result of mere accident, then he also has to be counted a suspect. Both men, after all, are very wealthy, and can pay for that which they're unwilling to do themselves.
All this is speculation-- thinking out loud. One sees a pile of shit in the middle of the highway and wonders how it got there.
There have been other recent tactics, such as the McSweeney's peace offer, or the fake Rick Moody cassette tape mailed to me from New York. Games and mischief. Some of it for fun, but some of it with more serious purpose-- to divide the ULA, derail our progress, and shut down this blog.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Jay McInerney the Wonk
McInerney in the 8/28 New York Times Book Review:
"Benjamin Kunkel's 'Indecision,' which manages to make the whole flailing, postadolescent, prelife crisis feel fresh and funny again, even as it sometimes resembles nothing so much as a self-conscious, postmodern homage/parody of the genre. In the end, though, it might just yearn to be something more daring than that, like, maybe, a post-9/11, postironic novel: a tentative response to David Foster Wallace's call for a new generation of sincere anti-rebels 'who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles.'"
Say what? Single entendre? McInerney isn't being ironic.
Who's Jay McInerney? A well-connected rich guy who made a career out of one Plimpton-mentored Paris Review short story later padded into his only decent novel. Since, he's been mainly a wine taster. That this (yet another) scion of wealth who can't write OR think has the lead essay in our nation's highest circulation literary publication marks the decayed condition of American letters.
The entire tired turgid essay shows two things:
1.) McInerney has forgotten how to write like a human being. Instead, he tries to be a literary intellectual like Foster Wallace-- without accompanying intellect.
2.) Establishment lit-figures like Jay Mac are struggling fitfully, with "tentativeness," toward the solid ground of where the ULA stands now. He calls for clarity in writing without being able to clearly describe it or accomplish it. He applauds "the birth of social conscience"-- "alienated from the status quo and politically awakened"-- which to him has meaning ONLY if members of the status quo like himself or Kunkel embrace the concept!
Contradictions and confusion abound. They want to question and attack the status quo and hang onto it at the same time. They suspect a literary revolution might be taking place. "Wait!" they yell. "Let WE the approved cultural leaders get to the front!"
As in everything, this privileged crowd expects to always be first in line. The Marquis de Lafayette advocating democracy while expecting himself and his friends to remain aristocrats and retain the biggest say.
(Quiz: Spot the blatant typo on the NYTBR's front page.)
"Benjamin Kunkel's 'Indecision,' which manages to make the whole flailing, postadolescent, prelife crisis feel fresh and funny again, even as it sometimes resembles nothing so much as a self-conscious, postmodern homage/parody of the genre. In the end, though, it might just yearn to be something more daring than that, like, maybe, a post-9/11, postironic novel: a tentative response to David Foster Wallace's call for a new generation of sincere anti-rebels 'who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles.'"
Say what? Single entendre? McInerney isn't being ironic.
Who's Jay McInerney? A well-connected rich guy who made a career out of one Plimpton-mentored Paris Review short story later padded into his only decent novel. Since, he's been mainly a wine taster. That this (yet another) scion of wealth who can't write OR think has the lead essay in our nation's highest circulation literary publication marks the decayed condition of American letters.
The entire tired turgid essay shows two things:
1.) McInerney has forgotten how to write like a human being. Instead, he tries to be a literary intellectual like Foster Wallace-- without accompanying intellect.
2.) Establishment lit-figures like Jay Mac are struggling fitfully, with "tentativeness," toward the solid ground of where the ULA stands now. He calls for clarity in writing without being able to clearly describe it or accomplish it. He applauds "the birth of social conscience"-- "alienated from the status quo and politically awakened"-- which to him has meaning ONLY if members of the status quo like himself or Kunkel embrace the concept!
Contradictions and confusion abound. They want to question and attack the status quo and hang onto it at the same time. They suspect a literary revolution might be taking place. "Wait!" they yell. "Let WE the approved cultural leaders get to the front!"
As in everything, this privileged crowd expects to always be first in line. The Marquis de Lafayette advocating democracy while expecting himself and his friends to remain aristocrats and retain the biggest say.
(Quiz: Spot the blatant typo on the NYTBR's front page.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
