Every established order will have its defenders, its reactionaries, those so heavily invested in the present they'll frantically fight to stave off the smallest moves toward future change. It's what we've been witnessing-- the favorite tactic being to focus on myself; to caricaturize the critic, so that at the end of the day I'm such a bad writer I can hardly string three words together; I'm merely "bitter" because I'm not one of the special elite, etc. etc., while my points, arguments, and evidence are avoided.
With Bennington, I located a sensitive spot on the Beast. If nothing else the place is a good example of the Buddy system.
Do you recall the questions of plagiarism raised about Harper's magazine? One of the writers involved was one of our Bennington friends. To defend the person, albeit indirectly, MacArthur grant "genius" winner Jonathan Lethem later wrote a long essay, full of sophistry, for Harper's, explaining how everything is plagiarism. After all, we all use words, and SOMEONE somewhere has used these same words before at some time. Had to have! (This is a variation of the chimps at typewriters writing "Hamlet" idea.) Lethem defined the word plagiarism out of existence, which for Harper's was quite convenient!
THIS is what qualifies as literary genius in this age-- demonstrations of originality in defense of the corruption of the mainstream. The game-show bell rings. "Come on down! Let's give this man some money!"
And now another of the Bennington Buds in the person of "Harland" is here defending the System's reputation. Examples of corruption? Can't be worried! Let's discredit the critic instead. Make sure to hide your identity, literary assassin. Oops! The mask is slipping out of place.
Know this, readers. These are extremely mendacious people with not a speck of character or integrity. It's how they achieve and maintain their station. Their facile, tactical brains are employed to defend the apparatus which sustains them. They have no vision of what literature can and should be. Their focus is at ground level, defending the perks, the sinecures, the positions; the incoming awards, advances, and grant money. The "art" itself-- skillfully empty posturing-- is merely an excuse for the process; a necessary inconvenience. Plagiarism, lies, financial venality-- all part and parcel of the established System of literature today.
Which is why that System must be unflinchingly attacked-- intellectually attacked-- and destroyed.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
New York Oz: The Reality
THINK for a minute of the cities of this country as entirely different lands. As Gore Vidal has pointed out, in the global economy our cities are city-states competing as much with one another as against other countries-- competing for investment, jobs, tourists, government funds and political influence. Also culturally.
I live right now in an industrial city-state, surrounded by fresh water lakes, whose industries are near collapse.
Imagine, at the very eastern end of the continent, situated on and around a narrow island, a Babylon-like city of more wealth than any city on the planet. More wealth than any city ever seen on the planet. It's moreover a city of caste, a towering pyramid of hierarchy. At the bottom of the pyramid are the brown-and-black skinned illegals, working in sidestreet sweatshops or serving the rich in some capacity. Substantially up the pyramid are the white ethnic bulldogs who dominate the police and fire departments. Slightly higher, the multi-ethnic political machine bureaucrats. Above them, the much-whiter layer of corporate lawyers, then the rich and ultra-rich investment people.
At the top, culturally and socially, are the trust-fund aristocrats who dominate publishing and the arts. They maintain their own hierarchical pyramids within the pyramid, are sustained by the brightest eager-beaver ladder climbers from the upper levels of other city-states, many educated at nearby "Ivy League" universities, come to the pyramid city to rise higher.
Attend a book party in the pyramid and you'll brush against the elite of the elite, overwhelmingly white, with a surprising number of upper-class Europeans. One stands at such a party with the awareness of being at the uppermost floor of the skyscraper; the highest level of caste. You will witness in the conversation around you utter superficialty, an almost total ignorance of the stark realities of life not only in America, but even in their own city.
Yet, bizarrely enough, these insulated mandarins determine, to a large extent, the culture of the entire nation.
Think of this glittering city-state, with its enormous wealth. Realize that every day many truckloads of books, magazines, and newspapers leave this place to be delivered to other city-states across the continent. (Or, the information to publish an enormous mass of print-media leaves the island.) We who live in other cities are inundated-- inundated-- with the values of this unreal Oz land.
The values expressed in the books and publications, unsurprisingly, are those of privilege and hierarchy; celebrations of wealth; opinions of intellectual mandarin masters; all mirroring the make-up of the pyramid city-state island.
I live right now in an industrial city-state, surrounded by fresh water lakes, whose industries are near collapse.
Imagine, at the very eastern end of the continent, situated on and around a narrow island, a Babylon-like city of more wealth than any city on the planet. More wealth than any city ever seen on the planet. It's moreover a city of caste, a towering pyramid of hierarchy. At the bottom of the pyramid are the brown-and-black skinned illegals, working in sidestreet sweatshops or serving the rich in some capacity. Substantially up the pyramid are the white ethnic bulldogs who dominate the police and fire departments. Slightly higher, the multi-ethnic political machine bureaucrats. Above them, the much-whiter layer of corporate lawyers, then the rich and ultra-rich investment people.
At the top, culturally and socially, are the trust-fund aristocrats who dominate publishing and the arts. They maintain their own hierarchical pyramids within the pyramid, are sustained by the brightest eager-beaver ladder climbers from the upper levels of other city-states, many educated at nearby "Ivy League" universities, come to the pyramid city to rise higher.
Attend a book party in the pyramid and you'll brush against the elite of the elite, overwhelmingly white, with a surprising number of upper-class Europeans. One stands at such a party with the awareness of being at the uppermost floor of the skyscraper; the highest level of caste. You will witness in the conversation around you utter superficialty, an almost total ignorance of the stark realities of life not only in America, but even in their own city.
Yet, bizarrely enough, these insulated mandarins determine, to a large extent, the culture of the entire nation.
Think of this glittering city-state, with its enormous wealth. Realize that every day many truckloads of books, magazines, and newspapers leave this place to be delivered to other city-states across the continent. (Or, the information to publish an enormous mass of print-media leaves the island.) We who live in other cities are inundated-- inundated-- with the values of this unreal Oz land.
The values expressed in the books and publications, unsurprisingly, are those of privilege and hierarchy; celebrations of wealth; opinions of intellectual mandarin masters; all mirroring the make-up of the pyramid city-state island.
Backwards
The sure mark of a demi-puppet is to view all literary situations ass-backwards; so that, for instance, the most powerful and connected writers in America need their protection, and stray dissenters to the monolithic mindset of the status quo become a threat. An example of this is the self-described publishing person who has posted comments on this blog. The individual's words bolster my case: the disdain for writers, like myself, who are too outspoken, who aren't submissive. The kind of undomesticated writer they so badly need, who can attract attention to the art. "You've received enough attention already," this bureaucratic snob said in dismissal.
Oh, really? How did this happen? Was the attention granted me through the generosity of overdogs; the standard operating procedure? Or did I not earn the attention through my own p.r. efforts?
What the apparatchiks overlook, enclosed as they are in their insular world, is that I'm not JUST a writer of the kind they so easily and regularly control or dismiss. I'm first a unique noisemaker. With no funds, I've outdone entire conglomerate publicity departments.
Can it happen again? Don't bet against it.
The question isn't who I'm pissing off, but who's pissing off myself. I know my own value. I do the lit world a favor by posting my ideas. They can listen to them or ignore them as they like.
Oh, really? How did this happen? Was the attention granted me through the generosity of overdogs; the standard operating procedure? Or did I not earn the attention through my own p.r. efforts?
What the apparatchiks overlook, enclosed as they are in their insular world, is that I'm not JUST a writer of the kind they so easily and regularly control or dismiss. I'm first a unique noisemaker. With no funds, I've outdone entire conglomerate publicity departments.
Can it happen again? Don't bet against it.
The question isn't who I'm pissing off, but who's pissing off myself. I know my own value. I do the lit world a favor by posting my ideas. They can listen to them or ignore them as they like.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Who's Harland?
A VARIATION OF THE "WHERE'S WALDO?" GAME.
"Harland," to me, appears fairly transparent. He first appeared recently on an old post of this blog which people from Bennington were finding when googling for info about one of their dead colleagues. Several new comments were added to the thread-- all from Bennington folks. We can assume Harland is in some way a Bennington person as well, and since he hid his identity-- unlike the others-- likely of greater stature, or at least someone known to myself. He's not a poet, has not responded to poetic aspects of the discussion, confining his attention to novelists. This narrows the field somewhat.
Why would Bennington be hyper about what I say? It's the home of two main antagonists of my campaign, one of them being the overmuch mentioned Poster Boy of Literary Corruption, known to all.
Who's the other guy? Someone who has writing skill combined with personal ambition and an extremely narrow outlook on literature-- always concerned, like so many of his kind, that writers follow the arbitrary "rules" of the game. When he wrote an essay about the ULA several years ago, he excerpted a piece of mine written in a Kerouac/Hubert Selby style-- and made sure to point out all necessary commas and such which were supposed to be there. This was a sign of his well-trained obedience, his anality, which is one of the first things the Rebellion is designed to overthrow. We wish to change the literary mentality itself, of which he's an exemplar.
Beyond this is a refusal not only to look one step ahead-- to see what literature can and should be in this culture-- but even to see it as it is now; the tool of huge, enormously funded institutions, from conglomerates to universities to foundations, which working together have imposed upon the art and its practitioners an institutional mindset. And so, in the essay, he made absurd remarks, such as no writers in the past criticized the literary system because it's always been so fragile.
Well, if literature today is so fragile-- and I don't dispute this-- then WHY IS THIS? Given the enormous expenditure, the hundreds of writing programs, the billions of dollars being spent to, one would think, make it a vibrant, ongoing concern; as healthy in society as it once was, why hasn't this worked? Isn't this something which we should be looking at? The second point to be made is that the institutions which control literature aren't fragile at all. They include monstrous Time-Warner, Murdoch, etc.: media giants with enormous power. The literature of the past never faced this kind of control.
A gross ugly beast has its slimy, dragon-like paw around a delicate, ever-withering flower. I'm trying to slay the dragon to release the flower; to plant it back in the ground so it can reconnect with its organic roots and become healthy and beautiful once more.
(Please keep up with other aspects of this discussion at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com, or really, all of my blogs.)
"Harland," to me, appears fairly transparent. He first appeared recently on an old post of this blog which people from Bennington were finding when googling for info about one of their dead colleagues. Several new comments were added to the thread-- all from Bennington folks. We can assume Harland is in some way a Bennington person as well, and since he hid his identity-- unlike the others-- likely of greater stature, or at least someone known to myself. He's not a poet, has not responded to poetic aspects of the discussion, confining his attention to novelists. This narrows the field somewhat.
Why would Bennington be hyper about what I say? It's the home of two main antagonists of my campaign, one of them being the overmuch mentioned Poster Boy of Literary Corruption, known to all.
Who's the other guy? Someone who has writing skill combined with personal ambition and an extremely narrow outlook on literature-- always concerned, like so many of his kind, that writers follow the arbitrary "rules" of the game. When he wrote an essay about the ULA several years ago, he excerpted a piece of mine written in a Kerouac/Hubert Selby style-- and made sure to point out all necessary commas and such which were supposed to be there. This was a sign of his well-trained obedience, his anality, which is one of the first things the Rebellion is designed to overthrow. We wish to change the literary mentality itself, of which he's an exemplar.
Beyond this is a refusal not only to look one step ahead-- to see what literature can and should be in this culture-- but even to see it as it is now; the tool of huge, enormously funded institutions, from conglomerates to universities to foundations, which working together have imposed upon the art and its practitioners an institutional mindset. And so, in the essay, he made absurd remarks, such as no writers in the past criticized the literary system because it's always been so fragile.
Well, if literature today is so fragile-- and I don't dispute this-- then WHY IS THIS? Given the enormous expenditure, the hundreds of writing programs, the billions of dollars being spent to, one would think, make it a vibrant, ongoing concern; as healthy in society as it once was, why hasn't this worked? Isn't this something which we should be looking at? The second point to be made is that the institutions which control literature aren't fragile at all. They include monstrous Time-Warner, Murdoch, etc.: media giants with enormous power. The literature of the past never faced this kind of control.
A gross ugly beast has its slimy, dragon-like paw around a delicate, ever-withering flower. I'm trying to slay the dragon to release the flower; to plant it back in the ground so it can reconnect with its organic roots and become healthy and beautiful once more.
(Please keep up with other aspects of this discussion at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com, or really, all of my blogs.)
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Victory Denied?
I've had some time to think about ULA strategy, its successes and failures. I realize how close we came to collapsing the whole shitty mess of the literary elite on more than one occasion.
My question: Why did people on the other side exaggerate our threat, giving us power we didn't have-- the ability to shut out privileged writers? Because that's how they saw us, a sign of their own weakness.
ACTIVIST CAMPAIGN
Isolating just the activist campaign-- one of four legs of the original strategy-- one can see how in its early stages it worked beautifully. Targeted was not the entire literary establishment-- always unnecessary-- but a few isolated pressure points. We struck inside the very heart of the beast. The main part of our total campaign-- in-person protests and shows combined-- in 2001 lasted a grand total of six weeks before the ULA itself split in half, yet the momentum we generated carried through 2003.
Until 2004 a few core remaining members did enough to keep the momentum rolling, despite our limitations. Establishment response was inept, best exemplified by Dave Eggers caught posting anonymously against us on Amazon, as spotlighted in the New York Times. Still, we had a short window of opportunity before the establishment solidified its opposition and sealed its walls at all points against us. Speed versus time.
Later demonstrations of the campaign, notably the Howl Protest, were probings of status quo strength-- necessary reminders that the ULA campaign was ongoing. Through vehicles like this blog, ULA pressure never ceased.
One mistake we made was to underestimate status quo weakness. Panicked mad reaction, as we faced; hostility and blackballing; is no sign of strength.
The essence of a guerrilla insurgency campaign is to wait for openings, then exploit them. Opportunity was granted early in 2007 with the Paris Review/CIA revelations. Yes, it's a low circulation publication, but has always had tremendous influence within inner circles of New York decision making. (Look at the names on its masthead sometime.)
We didn't notice ENOUGH Paris Review's failure to address the CIA question. (We also didn't recall the quick failure of another lit journal, when it was caught printing a fake letter purporting to be from me.) We didn't recognize the huge ongoing embarrassment of the CIA matter being openly discussed, including on Paris Review's Wikipedia entry, or the panicked flurry of e-mails from ex-PR co-editor James Linville, and his panicked flight from London to New York to consult with the current Paris Review team.
We felt the pressure ourselves as we generated it. Within the circles of the Paris Review and their allies it had to be greater. As the ULA ship vibrated from its own assault, the ULA member with closest contacts to the New York scene bailed, taking four other ULAers out the door with him. Our direction was turned. Attack engines shut down.
If the Paris Review-- a key foundation stone of the literary elite-- had been forced to address the legitimate questions raised, this would've been a huge victory for the ULA.
The departure of five ULA members at once was damaging, no doubt about it. The timing was killing. I put on a brave front on this blog, and took full responsibility for the situation. This weakened me irrevocably within the ULA team.
We'd found a vulnerable spot on the establishment dragon-- but you need to push the sword home all the way in order to slay it. The vulnerabilities in the serpent remain.
My question: Why did people on the other side exaggerate our threat, giving us power we didn't have-- the ability to shut out privileged writers? Because that's how they saw us, a sign of their own weakness.
ACTIVIST CAMPAIGN
Isolating just the activist campaign-- one of four legs of the original strategy-- one can see how in its early stages it worked beautifully. Targeted was not the entire literary establishment-- always unnecessary-- but a few isolated pressure points. We struck inside the very heart of the beast. The main part of our total campaign-- in-person protests and shows combined-- in 2001 lasted a grand total of six weeks before the ULA itself split in half, yet the momentum we generated carried through 2003.
Until 2004 a few core remaining members did enough to keep the momentum rolling, despite our limitations. Establishment response was inept, best exemplified by Dave Eggers caught posting anonymously against us on Amazon, as spotlighted in the New York Times. Still, we had a short window of opportunity before the establishment solidified its opposition and sealed its walls at all points against us. Speed versus time.
Later demonstrations of the campaign, notably the Howl Protest, were probings of status quo strength-- necessary reminders that the ULA campaign was ongoing. Through vehicles like this blog, ULA pressure never ceased.
One mistake we made was to underestimate status quo weakness. Panicked mad reaction, as we faced; hostility and blackballing; is no sign of strength.
The essence of a guerrilla insurgency campaign is to wait for openings, then exploit them. Opportunity was granted early in 2007 with the Paris Review/CIA revelations. Yes, it's a low circulation publication, but has always had tremendous influence within inner circles of New York decision making. (Look at the names on its masthead sometime.)
We didn't notice ENOUGH Paris Review's failure to address the CIA question. (We also didn't recall the quick failure of another lit journal, when it was caught printing a fake letter purporting to be from me.) We didn't recognize the huge ongoing embarrassment of the CIA matter being openly discussed, including on Paris Review's Wikipedia entry, or the panicked flurry of e-mails from ex-PR co-editor James Linville, and his panicked flight from London to New York to consult with the current Paris Review team.
We felt the pressure ourselves as we generated it. Within the circles of the Paris Review and their allies it had to be greater. As the ULA ship vibrated from its own assault, the ULA member with closest contacts to the New York scene bailed, taking four other ULAers out the door with him. Our direction was turned. Attack engines shut down.
If the Paris Review-- a key foundation stone of the literary elite-- had been forced to address the legitimate questions raised, this would've been a huge victory for the ULA.
The departure of five ULA members at once was damaging, no doubt about it. The timing was killing. I put on a brave front on this blog, and took full responsibility for the situation. This weakened me irrevocably within the ULA team.
We'd found a vulnerable spot on the establishment dragon-- but you need to push the sword home all the way in order to slay it. The vulnerabilities in the serpent remain.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
More Writing!
For those who claim I'm not a writer, I have more samples up on my blogs to be praised, ripped-apart, or ignored, depending what mood takes you.
An All-New chapter of "Plutocracy USA" is just up at
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
A poem/polemic is up at my new writing blog,
www.happyamericawriting.blogspot.com
And don't forget to read my "Zytron" excerpts about my experience in the teaching game at the August 2005 archive on this very blog.
All-in-all, great variety-- enough there to keep everyone busy.
An All-New chapter of "Plutocracy USA" is just up at
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
A poem/polemic is up at my new writing blog,
www.happyamericawriting.blogspot.com
And don't forget to read my "Zytron" excerpts about my experience in the teaching game at the August 2005 archive on this very blog.
All-in-all, great variety-- enough there to keep everyone busy.
About Teaching
BECAUSE I've been critical of writing programs doesn't mean I'm against teachers, or don't understand the tremendously difficult job teaching is. As I mentioned in a response to a comment, I've done some teaching myself, as an uncertified substitute in Philadelphia. A slightly fictionalized version of one of my more positive experiences is on this blog, under August 2005, as part of my "Zytron" series. (Note: by the nature of blogs, the posts are in reverse order.)
Writing classes are not a bad thing, but there are sound reasons to question graduate writing programs and MFA writing degrees, which I'll list some time.
The zine (zeen) underground represents an alternate way of producing writers. Note my new post at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com
Writing classes are not a bad thing, but there are sound reasons to question graduate writing programs and MFA writing degrees, which I'll list some time.
The zine (zeen) underground represents an alternate way of producing writers. Note my new post at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The Monolith
CONTRARY to what's been said by "Harland," it could easily be shown using statistics alone that the literary world is a monolith with the main power center in New York. It'd be a job for someone's doctoral dissertation, no doubt. One could calculate:
-percentage of magazine ad dollars spent, spent in New York;
-percentage of total books sold which were created in New York;
-percentage of total advance money paid, paid from New York;
-percentage of books reviewed, sent from New York;
and so on.
More important than quantity of influence on literature is quality of influence. America's intellectual class is large, but tiny compared to America as a whole. I'd guess that the main source of cultural information for that class, overwhelmingly, is the New York Times, including its Book Review. In second place would be The New Yorker.
If one did a survey of the very serious writing students at the University of Iowa, you'd find their most studied publication, for models, to be not at all the esteemed North American Review, based in the state, but The New Yorker. (I recall reading about this.)
This dominating influence is why work in the most obscure "literary" journal in the most ignored corner of America will sound like the lame poetry and fiction in The New Yorker.
-percentage of magazine ad dollars spent, spent in New York;
-percentage of total books sold which were created in New York;
-percentage of total advance money paid, paid from New York;
-percentage of books reviewed, sent from New York;
and so on.
More important than quantity of influence on literature is quality of influence. America's intellectual class is large, but tiny compared to America as a whole. I'd guess that the main source of cultural information for that class, overwhelmingly, is the New York Times, including its Book Review. In second place would be The New Yorker.
If one did a survey of the very serious writing students at the University of Iowa, you'd find their most studied publication, for models, to be not at all the esteemed North American Review, based in the state, but The New Yorker. (I recall reading about this.)
This dominating influence is why work in the most obscure "literary" journal in the most ignored corner of America will sound like the lame poetry and fiction in The New Yorker.
Tactic
ONE of the favorite tactics of the literary establishment and its advocates is to intentionally turn reality on its head. Or maybe they really believe I'm this powerful onrushing force liable to put all of them out of their jobs. And so the radio commentator last year assumes "eternal outsider" myself will somehow exclude literary darling Jeffrey Eugenides, who by the way continues scoring huge advances while I score sandwiches meant for the homeless. Or editor Aaron Hicklin takes an unnecessary shot at me in the Foreword to the Black Book anthology. I may be a lone nut on the sidewalk but they're eager to knock down my stand and throw me into the street! (Exactly what happened to me, incidentally, when I was with a few other writers outside the New York Times last year.)
The latest demi-puppet to wade into battle on this blog talks about tiny deviations from my 'program." Program? My program is more an anti-program. Even if I had a "program," I have no power to implement it. I have no power whatsoever. Remember, I'm the guy on the sidewalk who was futilely standing with my underground brothers outside huge entities like the Conde-Nast building.
The workers inside must get panicked by a mouse. "There they are! Look out the window. Those dots far below. It's them! Those grubby undergrounders. They don't tolerate the dissent that we in this billion-dollar skyscraper represent. They're trying to impose their Program, on us! Do something! Security! Police! Help us!"
(Would that the underground had a program.)
The latest demi-puppet to wade into battle on this blog talks about tiny deviations from my 'program." Program? My program is more an anti-program. Even if I had a "program," I have no power to implement it. I have no power whatsoever. Remember, I'm the guy on the sidewalk who was futilely standing with my underground brothers outside huge entities like the Conde-Nast building.
The workers inside must get panicked by a mouse. "There they are! Look out the window. Those dots far below. It's them! Those grubby undergrounders. They don't tolerate the dissent that we in this billion-dollar skyscraper represent. They're trying to impose their Program, on us! Do something! Security! Police! Help us!"
(Would that the underground had a program.)
Monday, May 12, 2008
Smugness
It's possible that my message will never connect with those in established literature. The residents of that land are insulated by their own smugness. There's no need for contrary opinions when they already know everything.
Are they a mono-class? For the most part, yes. The power in print-media and publishing is concentrated in New York. The decision-makers are predominately Ivy Leaguers, which means, from the upper echelons of this society.
America's social stratifications aren't something I've made up. They're clearly visible for those who care to see them-- the bottom level most strikingly obvious in a city like Detroit, where only 25% of students even finish high school. What percentage go on to college? Graduate school?
Our well-educated Overdogs on the other hand, several who post here, overwhelmingly from comfortable backgrounds, will have none of it. They dismiss notions about the "real world," because to them their catered life is just as real. Any criticism of themselves that seeps through to them is just so much carping from an "eternal outsider"; from a caricature. Smugly, they insist I don't know how the machine works. "You just don't know!" they say, from the safety of the latest cocktail party. "Those people in the photos, the socialites, have nothing in common with the publishing grunts, much less a creative writing instructor in Iowa"-- and this has a sliver of truth. The Machine encompasses many levels-- I've never said otherwise. It itself is very hierarchical. It's sustained because those toward the bottom (not at all at the bottom of America by the way; only of the Machine) never question it, and allow through their subservience the obvious power of the monied at the top.
Those who refuse to see caste in America and in the creation of its literature aren't fooling me, whatever happens to me. The realities I live among are all too true, incapable of being ignored. The smug literati in their castle of illusion are fooling themselves.
Are they a mono-class? For the most part, yes. The power in print-media and publishing is concentrated in New York. The decision-makers are predominately Ivy Leaguers, which means, from the upper echelons of this society.
America's social stratifications aren't something I've made up. They're clearly visible for those who care to see them-- the bottom level most strikingly obvious in a city like Detroit, where only 25% of students even finish high school. What percentage go on to college? Graduate school?
Our well-educated Overdogs on the other hand, several who post here, overwhelmingly from comfortable backgrounds, will have none of it. They dismiss notions about the "real world," because to them their catered life is just as real. Any criticism of themselves that seeps through to them is just so much carping from an "eternal outsider"; from a caricature. Smugly, they insist I don't know how the machine works. "You just don't know!" they say, from the safety of the latest cocktail party. "Those people in the photos, the socialites, have nothing in common with the publishing grunts, much less a creative writing instructor in Iowa"-- and this has a sliver of truth. The Machine encompasses many levels-- I've never said otherwise. It itself is very hierarchical. It's sustained because those toward the bottom (not at all at the bottom of America by the way; only of the Machine) never question it, and allow through their subservience the obvious power of the monied at the top.
Those who refuse to see caste in America and in the creation of its literature aren't fooling me, whatever happens to me. The realities I live among are all too true, incapable of being ignored. The smug literati in their castle of illusion are fooling themselves.
Is It True?
Is it true that there are vast differences throughout the literary establishment; that some who inhabit it are more in touch with what's happening in this country that others? That a writing instructor in Virginia will have little in common with a Vanity Fair editor in New York?
Well, yes and no. This weekend I sent off some e-mail spam to creative writing instructors in Virginia, to the renowned writing program at the university there. Many of the e-mails were returned instantly with polite messages saying the person was on vacation for the summer, and would check messages "infrequently," or when he or she got back in the fall. One, from an Elizabeth Denton, spoke humorously of a "Semester at Sea," "sailing around the world."
Can we surmise that these folks are not part of this nation's bottom half, those now under economic siege? Is that an unfair leap? Might they have much in common with their literary brethren in New York after all?
Well, yes and no. This weekend I sent off some e-mail spam to creative writing instructors in Virginia, to the renowned writing program at the university there. Many of the e-mails were returned instantly with polite messages saying the person was on vacation for the summer, and would check messages "infrequently," or when he or she got back in the fall. One, from an Elizabeth Denton, spoke humorously of a "Semester at Sea," "sailing around the world."
Can we surmise that these folks are not part of this nation's bottom half, those now under economic siege? Is that an unfair leap? Might they have much in common with their literary brethren in New York after all?
Montezuma
OCCASIONALLY an establishment mouthpiece will show up on this blog with superficially plausible arguments and for a time score a few points. My wonder is why they still insist on remaining anonymous. Wouldn't a "Harland" want the credit due him for putting me in my place?
Yet he hesitates. He thinks he can destroy my arguments, but he's not sure. There remains a level of doubt-- and that doubt, that hesitation, reveals his own weakness and the weakness of the status quo behind him.
Yet he hesitates. He thinks he can destroy my arguments, but he's not sure. There remains a level of doubt-- and that doubt, that hesitation, reveals his own weakness and the weakness of the status quo behind him.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The Pod Way
The biggest crime a writer can commit today is to criticize contemporary literature. Its defenders all sound the same. (In a monotone): "Our literature is wonderful William Vollmann Philip Roth Nicholson Baker John Ashbery there is nothing wrong everything is fine people love what we make the conglomerates are hip everything is okay. Go home and don't make waves."
A person murmurs in your ear: "Shhh! Don't make waves," while your file is being stamped, "BLACKBALLED."
Not just criticism of the status quo is banned, but if you're too provocative, too loud, too exciting, too different. When mediocrity is the standard, anyone who stands out is suspect.
The small press and the lower-level writing programs follow the pattern, the unspoken goal of "Same as the big guys." It's the same compliant complicit boozhie people. They truly believe for instance that Alice Munro's coagulated New Yorker writing has "reinvigorated the story." Why do they believe this? Because everyone says it. It's an affirmation of blandess. (Anyone who believes that Alice Munro has reinvigorated anything lives in a world of delirium.)
The General Motors Syndrome:
"These are our best cars yet!"
"Are as they as good as Japanese cars?"
"Well, no. But we're trying!"
Complacency leads to mediocrity, which the literary world is drowning in.
A person murmurs in your ear: "Shhh! Don't make waves," while your file is being stamped, "BLACKBALLED."
Not just criticism of the status quo is banned, but if you're too provocative, too loud, too exciting, too different. When mediocrity is the standard, anyone who stands out is suspect.
The small press and the lower-level writing programs follow the pattern, the unspoken goal of "Same as the big guys." It's the same compliant complicit boozhie people. They truly believe for instance that Alice Munro's coagulated New Yorker writing has "reinvigorated the story." Why do they believe this? Because everyone says it. It's an affirmation of blandess. (Anyone who believes that Alice Munro has reinvigorated anything lives in a world of delirium.)
The General Motors Syndrome:
"These are our best cars yet!"
"Are as they as good as Japanese cars?"
"Well, no. But we're trying!"
Complacency leads to mediocrity, which the literary world is drowning in.
The Obligation of Students
The obligation of university students is to know when they're being force-fed garbage. The purpose of the new generation is to overthrow those who are in charge, not to meekly obediently accept what they're presented, the art of a static present which in a swiftly moving universe is already outdated. Failure to embrace change, to destroy, to burn down and rebuild an art is to fail the reason for which you're born, the reason you've become an artist.
Can one become an artist of any kind without pushing boundaries; without criticizing what is, NOW? You're too complacent. You're too programmed. You're too subservient to the erected temple gods-- Roth, Beattie, Ashbery, Gluck, name as many as you like. If you don't believe you can do way better you have no business calling yourselves writers.
Which is not blindly to accept my ideas either or the ideas and writers of the underground, but to seek and create a synthesis of the new and the past and the now.
You're not amoebas at desks. Challenge your professors.
Can one become an artist of any kind without pushing boundaries; without criticizing what is, NOW? You're too complacent. You're too programmed. You're too subservient to the erected temple gods-- Roth, Beattie, Ashbery, Gluck, name as many as you like. If you don't believe you can do way better you have no business calling yourselves writers.
Which is not blindly to accept my ideas either or the ideas and writers of the underground, but to seek and create a synthesis of the new and the past and the now.
You're not amoebas at desks. Challenge your professors.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Pathetically Bad
REVEALED
I've found out, anyway, why critics of this blog who post here generally don't give their real names. When they do, it exposes their own work to scrutiny, which destroys anything they have to say.
THE FRAGILITY DEFENSE
When I present my case, the attitude which infects even myself, not to mention the other side, is that opponents are so feeble and defenseless that if I argue against their ideas and their art I'm picking on them.
Case in point: poet Christopher Salerno, Bennington MFA grad.
By naming him I'm singling him out, so I'll add that I use him only as a typical case. Others of his kind are worse. I hope I don't bruise him. He has a cozy teaching position, and is young enough anyway to find another career. I urge him to do so. Removing himself from the bubble of academe could only improve his work.
Much of his poetry is on-line. While examining it I thought, "He received an expensive MFA degree, studying for many years with the supposed best, to create this?"
He's learned little of the various forms and tricks of harmonious sound which bring joy to the art. Unlearned and unexpressed is the idea of poetry as language; musical magical language that when recited takes the poet and the audience to another plane.
With today's poets-- I use Christopher Salerno only as example-- after fifteen minutes of reading their work one is able to match it, if anyone'd want to. One could sit down and in an hour create ten times the amount, as pretentious and meaningless. The years of study at Bennington; the teaching of renowned instructors-- WHERE IS IT? What's being taught?
*************************************************************
Democracy XX
One part and the farthest
I awake next to the
refrigerator
On one hand and the other
hand
you prefer that I not sit
grappling with muddy boots.
Democracy XXVI
When you wake, when you
sit, when you cry,
Not sleeping,
crying
The painting is in the attic.
Democracy XXXII
Here, here is the
mud that you came for,
the tracks across
the kitchen floor
Here are the
tracks of your conscience
given form
weighed against the
scales of my labor
Your dark-eyed hangover
the literal interior mess
coming home from the bar.
Democracy XXXXVVIII
Here is the poetry
bad
poetry
worse than worst,
execrable poetry
I call it bad,
a nightmare of evasion
the twisted experience of too many
writing programs
dollars paid, receipt stamped
detestable fraud
the dead garbage can remains
with the unplucked festering
egg
coffee grounds mixed with decaying fish
foul smell, putrid mess
back alley behind the barn
fills with it
the smell of broken
lavoratories human stench classrooms
vomitories repositories of pretention
at Bennington
barge heaps towed down the Hudson
unwanted refuse
from all the bad poets
from all the preppy New England
green campus students
I call it charade, circus, scam,
You call it poetry.
(Disclaimer: these poems are inspired by, but are not actually written by, Mr. Salerno.)
I've found out, anyway, why critics of this blog who post here generally don't give their real names. When they do, it exposes their own work to scrutiny, which destroys anything they have to say.
THE FRAGILITY DEFENSE
When I present my case, the attitude which infects even myself, not to mention the other side, is that opponents are so feeble and defenseless that if I argue against their ideas and their art I'm picking on them.
Case in point: poet Christopher Salerno, Bennington MFA grad.
By naming him I'm singling him out, so I'll add that I use him only as a typical case. Others of his kind are worse. I hope I don't bruise him. He has a cozy teaching position, and is young enough anyway to find another career. I urge him to do so. Removing himself from the bubble of academe could only improve his work.
Much of his poetry is on-line. While examining it I thought, "He received an expensive MFA degree, studying for many years with the supposed best, to create this?"
He's learned little of the various forms and tricks of harmonious sound which bring joy to the art. Unlearned and unexpressed is the idea of poetry as language; musical magical language that when recited takes the poet and the audience to another plane.
With today's poets-- I use Christopher Salerno only as example-- after fifteen minutes of reading their work one is able to match it, if anyone'd want to. One could sit down and in an hour create ten times the amount, as pretentious and meaningless. The years of study at Bennington; the teaching of renowned instructors-- WHERE IS IT? What's being taught?
*************************************************************
Democracy XX
One part and the farthest
I awake next to the
refrigerator
On one hand and the other
hand
you prefer that I not sit
grappling with muddy boots.
Democracy XXVI
When you wake, when you
sit, when you cry,
Not sleeping,
crying
The painting is in the attic.
Democracy XXXII
Here, here is the
mud that you came for,
the tracks across
the kitchen floor
Here are the
tracks of your conscience
given form
weighed against the
scales of my labor
Your dark-eyed hangover
the literal interior mess
coming home from the bar.
Democracy XXXXVVIII
Here is the poetry
bad
poetry
worse than worst,
execrable poetry
I call it bad,
a nightmare of evasion
the twisted experience of too many
writing programs
dollars paid, receipt stamped
detestable fraud
the dead garbage can remains
with the unplucked festering
egg
coffee grounds mixed with decaying fish
foul smell, putrid mess
back alley behind the barn
fills with it
the smell of broken
lavoratories human stench classrooms
vomitories repositories of pretention
at Bennington
barge heaps towed down the Hudson
unwanted refuse
from all the bad poets
from all the preppy New England
green campus students
I call it charade, circus, scam,
You call it poetry.
(Disclaimer: these poems are inspired by, but are not actually written by, Mr. Salerno.)
"Star Spangled Poet II"
(For Bennington)
I wanna
wanna wanna
wanna wanna wanna
wanna wanna
wannabe
wanna wanna be
a poet.
I wanna
wanna wanna
wanna wanna wanna
wanna wanna
wannabe
wanna wanna be
a poet.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
To the Demi-Puppets
My problem with demi-puppets isn't that they work low-level jobs in the lit-biz. Not at all. It's instead that they relentlessly support the status quo-- things as they are-- cannot see that our literature A.) is on the wrong course; B.) can be much better. It may have something to do with their being INSIDE the system; that they've been trained to conform.
To say, for instance, that academic poetry was good sixty years ago is hardly an argument for the stale and lethargic academy poetry of now.
It's like "The School of Rock"-- new generations taught to do it the way it's been done; the same postures, the same sound, with a few differences in notes. Worship the dead. You're perpetuating a dead art form.
To say, for instance, that academic poetry was good sixty years ago is hardly an argument for the stale and lethargic academy poetry of now.
It's like "The School of Rock"-- new generations taught to do it the way it's been done; the same postures, the same sound, with a few differences in notes. Worship the dead. You're perpetuating a dead art form.
Monday, May 05, 2008
This Blog
IT'S UNFORTUNATE that writers who heard about Jason Shinder's death last Friday, and googled his name for information, came up first with a 2006 post from this blog. Hardly what they wanted. (See www.kingwenclas.blogspot.com/2006/03/establishment-pet-poet-of-year-jason.html) Unfortunate for Mr. Shinder: the cost of being on the wrong side of literary history.
**********************************************
With the passing of both Liam Rector and Jason Shinder in recent months-- members of the most infamous Insider writers nest, at Bennington-- I'd guess the literary gods are temporarily appeased. It'd make a good time for the literary establishment to make peace. Their position won't improve. I'm in "exile" in Detroit. The literary Resistance is momentarily disunified, but this will change. Movements, like the patterns of life, proceed in up and down waves. Blackballing me hasn't worked. My message is getting out there, as the google searches done by folks this weekend indicate.
I should add that I have a line-up of strong posts ready to go up on this blog, as well as my other blogs, and a couple new blogs yet to follow. The literary establishment hasn't seen anything. Peace or war?-- it's your choice.
(More on Jason Shinder at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com)
**********************************************
With the passing of both Liam Rector and Jason Shinder in recent months-- members of the most infamous Insider writers nest, at Bennington-- I'd guess the literary gods are temporarily appeased. It'd make a good time for the literary establishment to make peace. Their position won't improve. I'm in "exile" in Detroit. The literary Resistance is momentarily disunified, but this will change. Movements, like the patterns of life, proceed in up and down waves. Blackballing me hasn't worked. My message is getting out there, as the google searches done by folks this weekend indicate.
I should add that I have a line-up of strong posts ready to go up on this blog, as well as my other blogs, and a couple new blogs yet to follow. The literary establishment hasn't seen anything. Peace or war?-- it's your choice.
(More on Jason Shinder at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com)
Saturday, May 03, 2008
The Gessen Problem
AT A BOOKSTORE I glanced at Keith Gessen's novel, All the Sad Young Literary Men, which seems to be based on the ideas of himself and his n+1 colleagues. In the novel they allude to themselves as Marxists, identify with Menshevists, posture as political radicals-- most notably at the end-- but present is the sense that they're playing; that Gessen himself knows they're playing and can't be taken seriously in any way as revolutionaries.
And how could they be? They're the established system's captive pets, existing at the center of New York hierarchy and privilege.
Noteworthy is the group's real-world treatment of the literary underground-- an underground that was spawned from authentic grass roots samizdat. Embarrassed by the genuine article, they've done their best to ignore us. They refused at first even to print a letter from me a couple issues ago-- though they readily print all nonsense from the boozhies-- then relented and printed half of it only after intensive lobbying. In their latest issue they celebrate a Russian underground poet who's not half as lively as the literary activists of the ULA. Any mention of the American literary underground? No place! Amazing.
We don't exist to them. I've yet to find an explanation for this other than pure phoniness. I believe Gessen is smart enough to realize he's a phony-- that in the face of the uncompromising buzzsaw voices across the spectrum of our side of things (I think of George, Frank W., MDG, Nowlan, and other attack dogs) Gessen and his friends would wilt away.
At least, that's the impression I received browsing for several minutes through his book.
(For a fictional look at the n+1 gang, see www.literarymystery.blogspot.com)
And how could they be? They're the established system's captive pets, existing at the center of New York hierarchy and privilege.
Noteworthy is the group's real-world treatment of the literary underground-- an underground that was spawned from authentic grass roots samizdat. Embarrassed by the genuine article, they've done their best to ignore us. They refused at first even to print a letter from me a couple issues ago-- though they readily print all nonsense from the boozhies-- then relented and printed half of it only after intensive lobbying. In their latest issue they celebrate a Russian underground poet who's not half as lively as the literary activists of the ULA. Any mention of the American literary underground? No place! Amazing.
We don't exist to them. I've yet to find an explanation for this other than pure phoniness. I believe Gessen is smart enough to realize he's a phony-- that in the face of the uncompromising buzzsaw voices across the spectrum of our side of things (I think of George, Frank W., MDG, Nowlan, and other attack dogs) Gessen and his friends would wilt away.
At least, that's the impression I received browsing for several minutes through his book.
(For a fictional look at the n+1 gang, see www.literarymystery.blogspot.com)
Breaking the Stranglehold
I'm convinced that American literature can be saved only by breaking the New York City monopoly on publishing, print media, and our intellectual life.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
New York Media S.O.S.
MAY DAY! MAY DAY! MAY DAY!
American culture is in distress.
It's been captured by the aristocrats, the Spirit of 1776 reversed.
S.O.S.! S.O.S.!
The latest manifestation of this is the cover story by privileged brat ex-Philadelphian Jessica Pressler about the hyper-privileged brats of the TV show, "Gossip Girl" (based on the book series) in the April 28 issue of the magazine which celebrates New York hyper-wealth, New York. (Note all the plastic surgery ads throughout the mag-- a good clue to its audience.)
The loathsome article itself is at
www.nymag.com/arts/tv/features/46225/
What does it mean?
It means the overpriced island of exclusivity has further disconnected itself from the nation. They chatter through their bistros, their million-dollar lofts, their chi-chi parties, as their island slips farther into the Atlantic. They're in love with all things European anyway. We best see them off at the dock.
A horn sounds. Streamers and confetti everyplace. The gangplank rises, the rich and the insulated all aboard. The snobby island of fools and fops begins sailing into the deep blue.
"Yummy hors d'ouevres!" is the last distant sound heard from them.
(See more May Day posts at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com)
American culture is in distress.
It's been captured by the aristocrats, the Spirit of 1776 reversed.
S.O.S.! S.O.S.!
The latest manifestation of this is the cover story by privileged brat ex-Philadelphian Jessica Pressler about the hyper-privileged brats of the TV show, "Gossip Girl" (based on the book series) in the April 28 issue of the magazine which celebrates New York hyper-wealth, New York. (Note all the plastic surgery ads throughout the mag-- a good clue to its audience.)
The loathsome article itself is at
www.nymag.com/arts/tv/features/46225/
What does it mean?
It means the overpriced island of exclusivity has further disconnected itself from the nation. They chatter through their bistros, their million-dollar lofts, their chi-chi parties, as their island slips farther into the Atlantic. They're in love with all things European anyway. We best see them off at the dock.
A horn sounds. Streamers and confetti everyplace. The gangplank rises, the rich and the insulated all aboard. The snobby island of fools and fops begins sailing into the deep blue.
"Yummy hors d'ouevres!" is the last distant sound heard from them.
(See more May Day posts at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com)
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
"Star Spangled Poet"
I Wanna Be a Poet
A Rebel
Icon spouting fiery language
the veneer of revolution
without the substance
yelling words mouthing
Che t-shirt wearing
shit
man, I'm bad.
I wanna be a star
in whiskey-sour saloons
wanna-be language-wearing
conscience-breaking all-American
streetcorner rabble-rousing
curiosity
wave my arms around
look sincere
that's right
beatified halo effect
in the spotlight
drum the rhythmn
impress the women
in the smoky
red-lit barroom
jazz the room
syncopated. . . .
Che was cool, man
dig that cat
don't know why he was in the jungles
when he coulda been a poet
coulda been a contender in a slamfest poetry match
havin' swingin' fun with words
role-playing vibe language sounds,
brother,
with no meaning or action behind them.
A Rebel
Icon spouting fiery language
the veneer of revolution
without the substance
yelling words mouthing
Che t-shirt wearing
shit
man, I'm bad.
I wanna be a star
in whiskey-sour saloons
wanna-be language-wearing
conscience-breaking all-American
streetcorner rabble-rousing
curiosity
wave my arms around
look sincere
that's right
beatified halo effect
in the spotlight
drum the rhythmn
impress the women
in the smoky
red-lit barroom
jazz the room
syncopated. . . .
Che was cool, man
dig that cat
don't know why he was in the jungles
when he coulda been a poet
coulda been a contender in a slamfest poetry match
havin' swingin' fun with words
role-playing vibe language sounds,
brother,
with no meaning or action behind them.
Finally!
I've finally more-or-less completed my review of Susan Nagel's Marie Therese, Child of Terror, now up at
www.happyamericawriting.blogspot.com
That's the last long review, with quotes, etc., I plan to do. With it I still followed too closely to the accepted "rules." From hereon with all my reviews I'm throwing out the rules. (As I did in the 1990's with my review zeen, New Philistine.) Book reviews have to be revamped. They have to be punchy and provocative. They must be quickly exciting. There's no place for outdated rules in a new literary environment.
(I'll be using this new blog for longer pieces of mine; prose and poetry both.)
www.happyamericawriting.blogspot.com
That's the last long review, with quotes, etc., I plan to do. With it I still followed too closely to the accepted "rules." From hereon with all my reviews I'm throwing out the rules. (As I did in the 1990's with my review zeen, New Philistine.) Book reviews have to be revamped. They have to be punchy and provocative. They must be quickly exciting. There's no place for outdated rules in a new literary environment.
(I'll be using this new blog for longer pieces of mine; prose and poetry both.)
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The Brady Thread
Brady Russell's post, on his personal site (This Too Will Pass), calling for a new underground leader, was entirely his own idea. It began highly critical of no one so much as MYSELF. Despite this, I supported the idea. Through my experiences with the ULA, and my readings of history, I've come to believe that for a rebellion to succeed, strong leadership is necessary.
I entered into the discussion without knowing what the outcome would be. The discussion, for the most part, turned out to be a good thing. Diverse members of the underground were able to exchange views honestly, in a neutral setting. Such a discussion depends on the honesty and good will of those who participate. For me it was a way to see which of the younger writers in the movement would display leadership qualities. The movement can progress from here only with new faces.
Some, like both Pats, acquited themselves well. (Both are consensus-builders for their respective teams.) Brady has to be commended for convening the "conclave" in the first place.
STRATEGY
Most important was that Brady began the thread. That rare thing: an undergrounder stepping back from the endless petty feuds and micro-level obsessions to examine the larger picture. The underground is a small part of the literary scene as a whole and has to be viewed within that context, for us to understand what steps need to be taken on a strategic (broad) level for our cause to expand its base and raise its profile.
A major part of this for all of us has to be abandoning personality conflicts in the interest of following that larger strategy.
But what is that strategy? Who will implement it? How do we harmonize the various elements of the literary Resistance to follow it, even once it's articulated and agreed to?
There are many steps yet which have to be taken; that can't be done in an atmosphere of chaos (underground chaos-- I'll accept societal upheaval, am well adapted to crisis and conflict). We can't proceed without direction or directors, or directions, amid inertia, ostriches, lone wolves and loose cannons.
AMBITION
Above all we need ambition-- artistic ambition and ambition which dares to want to change this society. I could lock myself in a garret to "just write"-- but shit-disturbing is far more exciting. I spent many years of my life as the happy guy at the end of the bar-- at some point saw that as not enough. For a few years, for someone like me-- an ordinary working guy-- I helped accomplish some amazing things. We shook the lit establishment to its foundations. This was merely a taste of what we can potentially achieve-- if we have the desire to achieve.
I entered into the discussion without knowing what the outcome would be. The discussion, for the most part, turned out to be a good thing. Diverse members of the underground were able to exchange views honestly, in a neutral setting. Such a discussion depends on the honesty and good will of those who participate. For me it was a way to see which of the younger writers in the movement would display leadership qualities. The movement can progress from here only with new faces.
Some, like both Pats, acquited themselves well. (Both are consensus-builders for their respective teams.) Brady has to be commended for convening the "conclave" in the first place.
STRATEGY
Most important was that Brady began the thread. That rare thing: an undergrounder stepping back from the endless petty feuds and micro-level obsessions to examine the larger picture. The underground is a small part of the literary scene as a whole and has to be viewed within that context, for us to understand what steps need to be taken on a strategic (broad) level for our cause to expand its base and raise its profile.
A major part of this for all of us has to be abandoning personality conflicts in the interest of following that larger strategy.
But what is that strategy? Who will implement it? How do we harmonize the various elements of the literary Resistance to follow it, even once it's articulated and agreed to?
There are many steps yet which have to be taken; that can't be done in an atmosphere of chaos (underground chaos-- I'll accept societal upheaval, am well adapted to crisis and conflict). We can't proceed without direction or directors, or directions, amid inertia, ostriches, lone wolves and loose cannons.
AMBITION
Above all we need ambition-- artistic ambition and ambition which dares to want to change this society. I could lock myself in a garret to "just write"-- but shit-disturbing is far more exciting. I spent many years of my life as the happy guy at the end of the bar-- at some point saw that as not enough. For a few years, for someone like me-- an ordinary working guy-- I helped accomplish some amazing things. We shook the lit establishment to its foundations. This was merely a taste of what we can potentially achieve-- if we have the desire to achieve.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Media Aristocrats
BEFORE THE DELUGE
Here's a story about New York media's current favorite hangout:
www.nysocialdiary.com/node/2976
"Cinderella," were you there?
Here's a story about New York media's current favorite hangout:
www.nysocialdiary.com/node/2976
"Cinderella," were you there?
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Establishment Weakness
UNDERGROUND STRENGTH
Once again it's been demonstrated that establishment literature is a house of cards awaiting collapse.
What happened: a preview of my review of Susan Nagel's Marie Therese was posted on this blog more than two weeks ago, followed by the review three days later which demolished the book's credibility as history. (A tepid, half-hearted "pan" followed in the New York Times many days later.) The review here was a direct hit on the protege of one of established print media's most powerful figures, Tina Brown, who even hosted a release party to celebrate Nagel's book, with premature smiles in place before the splatter of embarrassment disturbed the cozy plastic-surgery faces. To this date, Ms. Brown and friends have been unable to put the pieces of the book back together again. The only attempt to counteract my argument, in a discussion on the World of Royalty blog, ended in quick failure; their defense of the book so swiftly blown apart by myself that the blog's managers hurriedly deleted the entire thread. (Traces remain on Google.)
Don't think there's not a battle going on. The establishment has lost every encounter. They're able to respond only in underhand fashion, through hackers, moles, and anonymous posters-- signs of weakness and panic.
If the underground took its view of things higher than one inch above the sidewalk, if it united and organized, it'd put the bankrupt philosophy of the print media monopolists into flight. The insular Overdog mindset should be grabbed by the collar and tossed out. (Tina Brown first of all. She should better exult over privilege from London.)
As I've said many times about New York, nothing is there. Money and superficial smiles, maybe, but no ideas, originality, character, honesty, integrity, belief in what they do or ability to generate lasting literary excitement.
Once again it's been demonstrated that establishment literature is a house of cards awaiting collapse.
What happened: a preview of my review of Susan Nagel's Marie Therese was posted on this blog more than two weeks ago, followed by the review three days later which demolished the book's credibility as history. (A tepid, half-hearted "pan" followed in the New York Times many days later.) The review here was a direct hit on the protege of one of established print media's most powerful figures, Tina Brown, who even hosted a release party to celebrate Nagel's book, with premature smiles in place before the splatter of embarrassment disturbed the cozy plastic-surgery faces. To this date, Ms. Brown and friends have been unable to put the pieces of the book back together again. The only attempt to counteract my argument, in a discussion on the World of Royalty blog, ended in quick failure; their defense of the book so swiftly blown apart by myself that the blog's managers hurriedly deleted the entire thread. (Traces remain on Google.)
Don't think there's not a battle going on. The establishment has lost every encounter. They're able to respond only in underhand fashion, through hackers, moles, and anonymous posters-- signs of weakness and panic.
If the underground took its view of things higher than one inch above the sidewalk, if it united and organized, it'd put the bankrupt philosophy of the print media monopolists into flight. The insular Overdog mindset should be grabbed by the collar and tossed out. (Tina Brown first of all. She should better exult over privilege from London.)
As I've said many times about New York, nothing is there. Money and superficial smiles, maybe, but no ideas, originality, character, honesty, integrity, belief in what they do or ability to generate lasting literary excitement.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Context #2
I'VE RECEIVED word that the Zinewiki project, intended to preserve and celebrate the history of underground lit on-line, has been destroyed by hackers. "Hackers." Who are these people? What's the motivation?
This is a reminder that the struggle of underground literature, of our art, is still merely to survive, in a tops-down overregulated society hostile to what we're doing.
This is a reminder that the struggle of underground literature, of our art, is still merely to survive, in a tops-down overregulated society hostile to what we're doing.
Context #1
AN INTERESTING article was in the Detroit News yesterday, by Charlie LeDuff:
www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/METRO/804220377&imw=Y
Powerful stuff.
This city, where I've lived some years of my life, is part of my background, the context within which I write.
www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/METRO/804220377&imw=Y
Powerful stuff.
This city, where I've lived some years of my life, is part of my background, the context within which I write.
About George
Regarding George Balgobin, who like so many of us has a habit of upsetting people. Through the years of the ULA I disagreed with George on many things, but always respected his honesty. I wanted him in the ULA, when I was active in it, because I knew he would never try to bullshit me, and on any topic or person he was guaranteed to give me a bullshit-free take. His entire career as a writer has been committed to truth-telling as he sees it, wrong on occasion though he may be. He's fearlessly expressed his ideas, willing to coherently support and defend his statements. No pandering, no expediency, letting the chips fall where they may has been his history. This is not a bad thing! It's consistent with the ideals of the ULA.
George is also an excellent essayist, as good, when he wants to be, as anyone in the country.
A movement-- any movement-- has to want the best, most talented people in its ranks, on its side, and has to make an effort to obtain and keep those people, whoever they may be. It's true that we never adequately figured out how to use him. The effort was worthwhile. If the Rebellion can't learn how to appeal to disaffected members of the intellectual class it won't succeed.
*****************************************************
There's consolidation and then there's withdrawing. I fear the underground is too content to put its head back into the hole in the ground from where it came; to abandon the boldness of new tactics; to embrace tried-and-failed ways of doing things; the incremental, the inch-by-inch day-by-day creep of illusory progress while the rest of this monopolistic society races by. To embrace as well while high-fiving over petty gains the comfort of petty feuds and grievances. To splinter and fragment into ever smaller pieces. The province: the parish: the street. The garrett, finally; back to the starting point, where there's no failure because no risks are taken. You can't be upset by how that article portrays you when there are no articles. Right back at the beginning.
When I was active in the ULA it was my task to think bigger than this. To envision a greater movement which could truly compete. To recruit on the edges of the established machine those with skills and talents who were attracted to our ideals and our noise.
George is also an excellent essayist, as good, when he wants to be, as anyone in the country.
A movement-- any movement-- has to want the best, most talented people in its ranks, on its side, and has to make an effort to obtain and keep those people, whoever they may be. It's true that we never adequately figured out how to use him. The effort was worthwhile. If the Rebellion can't learn how to appeal to disaffected members of the intellectual class it won't succeed.
*****************************************************
There's consolidation and then there's withdrawing. I fear the underground is too content to put its head back into the hole in the ground from where it came; to abandon the boldness of new tactics; to embrace tried-and-failed ways of doing things; the incremental, the inch-by-inch day-by-day creep of illusory progress while the rest of this monopolistic society races by. To embrace as well while high-fiving over petty gains the comfort of petty feuds and grievances. To splinter and fragment into ever smaller pieces. The province: the parish: the street. The garrett, finally; back to the starting point, where there's no failure because no risks are taken. You can't be upset by how that article portrays you when there are no articles. Right back at the beginning.
When I was active in the ULA it was my task to think bigger than this. To envision a greater movement which could truly compete. To recruit on the edges of the established machine those with skills and talents who were attracted to our ideals and our noise.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Happy Earth Day!
To celebrate Earth Day I have a special Earth Day chapter up at the "Plutocracy USA" series at
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
The chapter is entitled, "A Gang Self-Destructs."
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
The chapter is entitled, "A Gang Self-Destructs."
A Dead Review?
A RELIC OF LITERATURE PAST
The New York Times came out Sunday, April 20, with their own review of the Susan Nagel Marie Therese, Child of Terror book:
www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/books/review/Steiker-t.html?ref=todayspaper
The review, by Valerie Steiker, is critical of the book in a lukewarm way, like so much of the NYTBR's writing. It mentions the subject's restricted point-of-view, but fails to put the work within context of our society today-- and scarcely mentions its historical inaccuracy.
This may have something to do with the fact that Valerie Steiker is Culture editor at Vogue, a fashion magazine-- with that circumstance, the perusal was guaranteed to be superfical, as if the book were reviewed by a well-trained intelligent Persian cat.
Actually it's a miracle that Valerie Steiker wasn't glowing with praise, given that her magazine is at the heart of the Conde Nast magazine empire-- our own little aristocracy-- stomping grounds for many years of Tina Brown, Nagel's mentor. Can we guess that there will be polite tsks and frowns at a future Manhattan cocktail party? This is a narrow world, folks; a tiny little closed-mided insular and intellectually incestuous little world of superficial people living a "rarefied, peripatetic extistence," who happen to have billions of dollars of media clout behind them.
The New York Times came out Sunday, April 20, with their own review of the Susan Nagel Marie Therese, Child of Terror book:
www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/books/review/Steiker-t.html?ref=todayspaper
The review, by Valerie Steiker, is critical of the book in a lukewarm way, like so much of the NYTBR's writing. It mentions the subject's restricted point-of-view, but fails to put the work within context of our society today-- and scarcely mentions its historical inaccuracy.
This may have something to do with the fact that Valerie Steiker is Culture editor at Vogue, a fashion magazine-- with that circumstance, the perusal was guaranteed to be superfical, as if the book were reviewed by a well-trained intelligent Persian cat.
Actually it's a miracle that Valerie Steiker wasn't glowing with praise, given that her magazine is at the heart of the Conde Nast magazine empire-- our own little aristocracy-- stomping grounds for many years of Tina Brown, Nagel's mentor. Can we guess that there will be polite tsks and frowns at a future Manhattan cocktail party? This is a narrow world, folks; a tiny little closed-mided insular and intellectually incestuous little world of superficial people living a "rarefied, peripatetic extistence," who happen to have billions of dollars of media clout behind them.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Danica's Triumph
Danica Patrick's IRL open-wheel racing win over the weekend is a victory for Danica, but moreso a victory for Indy racing in competing against the overwhelming lead NASCAR has built in the sport of auto racing.
I was raised in a region and a time when the Indy 500 was THE biggest sporting event. (Surely the greatest sporting event I've attended.) The two events Indy car has needed in recent years: A.) to unite its two leagues; B.) to create an Elvis-like face; have now taken place.
It's a victory for the underdog and a positive note for all underdogs competing against larger rivals.
I was raised in a region and a time when the Indy 500 was THE biggest sporting event. (Surely the greatest sporting event I've attended.) The two events Indy car has needed in recent years: A.) to unite its two leagues; B.) to create an Elvis-like face; have now taken place.
It's a victory for the underdog and a positive note for all underdogs competing against larger rivals.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Revolutionary Writing
READERS of this blog keep asking where's the new underground writing. It's under their noses. They're reading it. From the start I've offered literary criticism unlike any seen anywhere, in that I place literature within context of A.) current historical trends; B.) the Machine which produces it.
I've also worked to build alternatives, and have presented in-person criticism through various live crashes and confrontations, with the ULA and without them: criticism taken OFF the page and put directly in front of the lit crowd.
Most recently I've been working to create a new-style of book review which can rescue the genre. In coming months on my various blogs I'll be presenting varied examples.
Standard lit people have been trained to think in terms of what's available now-- the safe and known. Which means, stories and novels.
When being questioned about the underground last July by a staffer before going on a Philly radio show, I was asked if we write short stories. (Creative Writing class thinking.) "Short stories?" I said. "We're not from a writing class. We're undergrounders. We produce ZEENS. We're not the same-old same-old."
I've also worked to build alternatives, and have presented in-person criticism through various live crashes and confrontations, with the ULA and without them: criticism taken OFF the page and put directly in front of the lit crowd.
Most recently I've been working to create a new-style of book review which can rescue the genre. In coming months on my various blogs I'll be presenting varied examples.
Standard lit people have been trained to think in terms of what's available now-- the safe and known. Which means, stories and novels.
When being questioned about the underground last July by a staffer before going on a Philly radio show, I was asked if we write short stories. (Creative Writing class thinking.) "Short stories?" I said. "We're not from a writing class. We're undergrounders. We produce ZEENS. We're not the same-old same-old."
Monday, April 14, 2008
Aristocracy Lives!
A REVIEW (Abridged Version)
--of the book Marie Therese, Child of Terror, by Susan Nagel.
$39.99, Bloomsbury, 418 pages.
THIS biography of Marie Antoinette's daughter, which is getting a big push by publisher Bloomsbury (they even sent me a copy), has more to say about American aristocratic attitudes today than about what really happened in the late 18th century.
As history the book is ridiculous. As biography it's soap opera. It appeal is to the imaginations of the privileged upper caste of our own civilization.
********************************************
HISTORY
Nagel's mistake is to rely heavily for sources on discredited memoirs from the day, which are compilations of gossip, urban legends, and hysteria; what David Andress in The Terror calls "--the many rumors and plot-fantasies of the era."
Renowned historian Alfred Cobban, in dismissing such historical sources (in Aspects of the French Revolution), said that the compilers of memoirs of figures like Baron deBesenval and Joseph Weber "often were not those whose names appeared on the title page." The intent of the ghost authors was to provide "picturesque material": collections of "scandalous anecdotes" often disavowed by the presumed authors' families.
To Susan Nagel this is no matter, probably because her goal likewise is to present picturesque material to satisfy her weepy readers, who want not truth, not history, but bad melodrama full of good guys and bad guys. Melodrama, moreover, where the downtrodden have become evil and the despotic royals virtuously pure.
For example: historian Cobban called Madame Campan's memoirs "unreliable." Melodramatist Nagel fills no less than 24 pages of her book with anecdotes from this unreliable source.
The most ridiculous part of Marie Therese is its use of footnotes. Nagel would've been better off not using any. Instead she averages three footnotes per entire chapter-- for a work whose every page bursts with assertions and anecdotes.
Nagel flatly states on pages 146-147 that mementos of the late Queen were found under Robespierre's mattress after his death. Wow! Quite a story. Where's the source? Or, on page 69, the evil Duke of Orleans had "secretly amassed an immense hoard of grain with the intent of causing a shortage--"! Another dramatic revelation, shocking in import. Again, where's the footnote; the source?
The items which should be footnoted, aren't. We have hosts of tabloid rumors buttressed by a flimsy intellectual veneer.
******************************************
MELODRAMA
In her text, Nagel mentions Sydney Carton and the Scarlet Pimpernel. I suspect those are her true sources.
Her book is not without its attractions. Many of the early chapters, such as "Two Orphans," are compelling. (Blurb: "King Wenclas calls Marie Therese 'compelling.'")
The novel-- excuse me, "biography"-- reminds me of the movie version of "Gone With the Wind," in that the first half is hyper-dramatic with a strong heroine beset on all sides. In the second half the heroine, Marie Therese, lives among the aftermath of a changed world, involved with suitors, marriage, family scandals and social involvements. After the tremendous activity of the French Revolution, during which the young Marie Therese lived at the very center, it all becomes anti-climactic.
But what drama there is while it lasts! Escapes, dungeons, attempted rescues, mad crowds, beheadings-- here indeed is the stuff for a great novel, which sadly only Charles Dickens among literary masters was ambitious enough to attempt.
Nagel does her best, painting in garish colors, usually with too-heavy a brush. Often we're faced with the comical, as when in Bordeaux, brave Duchess d'Angouleme (Marie Therese) tries to halt Napoleon's return from Elba. (Page 265.) (She fails.)
****************************************************
PROPAGANDA
Nagel makes not the slightest attempt at balance or objectivity, which is a refreshing change from standard liberal phoniness. Here we see what the publishing industry today truly thinks and feels. (In this endeavor Nagel is backed by Tina Brown, ex New Yorker and Vanity Fair Editor; author of The Diana Chronicles.)
There's a blatant worship of wealth, privilege, titles, and possessions. One of Nagel's scarce footnotes is for a list of the trousseau Marie Therese left behind when fleeing into exile: a 220-word catalogue of clothing which the book's fans will find gush-worthy.
One gets the impression that aristocracy past and present is about the superficial: clothes, manners, robes, and poses, exemplified by the piled-on language of "Your Highness" in every phrase, the elaborate curtseying and bowing, the kissing of hands, which when it suddenly ceases comes to the nobility as a shock.
Nagel's bias is shown by her chapter headings: "Child of France"; "Once Upon a Time"; "Storm Clouds over the Palace"; "The End of the Fairy Tale"; "Two Orpahns"; "Every Inch a Princess"; and so on. If this is history, it's an antiquated kind of history; a 418-page press release which could've been issued by Louis XVI himself! Susan Nagel is blindly transfixed. The trappings of power-- "His Most Christian Majesty, dressed in the Order of the Holy Ghost ablaze with diamonds"-- to a product of a society which through magazines like Vanity Fair itself worships such trappings, such extreme wealth, obsessively, have hypnotized our chronicler. All she can do, ultimately, is gush, as in her acknowledgement to "the help and encouragement of His Serene Highness, Prince Charles-Henri de Lobkowicz." Can we surmise that our historian, Ms. Nagel, has been allowed into too many Insider parties?
PRISONERS
Long before King Louis XVI and his family were prisoners in a dungeon, they were prisoners of the isolation of their mindset. Historian William Doyle concluded in Origins of the French Revolution that there were many opportunities for the King to halt the revolution, through concessions or force, as he retained immense power. He lacked the imagination to use it.
Nagel is focused on the personal, on family. This matches the King's focus. Happenings occur; the anger of mobs; the currents of change. To the King and Nagel trapped within Versailles it's all very confusing.
Unstated: the man was supreme ruler! Yet he knows nothing about the country he rules, and doesn't want to know. As revolution breaks and cascades over Versailles, the King has willfully escaped from reality, spending long hours hunting! The state is bankrupt, the people starving, and the man in charge does nothing. Like Montezuma, he remains trapped by his own inertia. He makes no real effort even to save his crown, out of "love for his people." He's not a ruler at all, but a prop, as if Versailles were a great glittering movie set.
Nagel buys the myth of the King as helpless victim-- and so absolves him of responsibility even for his own actions. There's a disconnect not just in the mind of the King, and his wife and daughter, but more unforgiveably, in the mind of the biographer, Susan Nagel. War and counter-revolution begin quickly; attempts to rollback the popular changes; the onset of civil war. The King sits innocently in his palace.
Marie Antoinette of course maneuvered to rescue the old regime. She encouraged foreign invasion, and bribed politicians. Yet for Nagel, these actions should have no consequences. The consequences in fact surprise her. She has so swallowed Marie Antoinette's mentality whole she can only ask, with her characters, Why has this occurred?
On the one hand the people love the Bourbons and the "Children of France," right to the bitter end; the last ignominious flight. On the other hand the angry mobs indicate that they really don't like the Bourbons at all. This contradiction is never resolved. Or, it's resolved through cardboard bad guys like the Duke of Orleans.
CONCLUSION
Marie Therese, Child of Terror may find a large audience around the country among suburbanites with failed mortgages, who-- along with the myth of endless affluence-- bought their own opulent palaces and are now on the verge of being kicked out.
The perpetrators of the book, however, represent a miniscule sliver of this nation residing on an east coast island; many of them transplanted royalist Brits like Vicky Ward and Tina Brown. Miniscule they are in numbers but great in media power.
Nagel's book to its rich fans expresses an unspoken fear about their own time; a fear which comes with improportionate wealth. Their own land-- this land-- increasingly to them is an unknown place of "oddly dressed, ill-spoken, belligerent" mobs.
*************************************************************
(Note: The full version of this review will be posted on my new writing blog later this week.
Watch also http://www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com/ for further remarks.)
--of the book Marie Therese, Child of Terror, by Susan Nagel.
$39.99, Bloomsbury, 418 pages.
THIS biography of Marie Antoinette's daughter, which is getting a big push by publisher Bloomsbury (they even sent me a copy), has more to say about American aristocratic attitudes today than about what really happened in the late 18th century.
As history the book is ridiculous. As biography it's soap opera. It appeal is to the imaginations of the privileged upper caste of our own civilization.
********************************************
HISTORY
Nagel's mistake is to rely heavily for sources on discredited memoirs from the day, which are compilations of gossip, urban legends, and hysteria; what David Andress in The Terror calls "--the many rumors and plot-fantasies of the era."
Renowned historian Alfred Cobban, in dismissing such historical sources (in Aspects of the French Revolution), said that the compilers of memoirs of figures like Baron deBesenval and Joseph Weber "often were not those whose names appeared on the title page." The intent of the ghost authors was to provide "picturesque material": collections of "scandalous anecdotes" often disavowed by the presumed authors' families.
To Susan Nagel this is no matter, probably because her goal likewise is to present picturesque material to satisfy her weepy readers, who want not truth, not history, but bad melodrama full of good guys and bad guys. Melodrama, moreover, where the downtrodden have become evil and the despotic royals virtuously pure.
For example: historian Cobban called Madame Campan's memoirs "unreliable." Melodramatist Nagel fills no less than 24 pages of her book with anecdotes from this unreliable source.
The most ridiculous part of Marie Therese is its use of footnotes. Nagel would've been better off not using any. Instead she averages three footnotes per entire chapter-- for a work whose every page bursts with assertions and anecdotes.
Nagel flatly states on pages 146-147 that mementos of the late Queen were found under Robespierre's mattress after his death. Wow! Quite a story. Where's the source? Or, on page 69, the evil Duke of Orleans had "secretly amassed an immense hoard of grain with the intent of causing a shortage--"! Another dramatic revelation, shocking in import. Again, where's the footnote; the source?
The items which should be footnoted, aren't. We have hosts of tabloid rumors buttressed by a flimsy intellectual veneer.
******************************************
MELODRAMA
In her text, Nagel mentions Sydney Carton and the Scarlet Pimpernel. I suspect those are her true sources.
Her book is not without its attractions. Many of the early chapters, such as "Two Orphans," are compelling. (Blurb: "King Wenclas calls Marie Therese 'compelling.'")
The novel-- excuse me, "biography"-- reminds me of the movie version of "Gone With the Wind," in that the first half is hyper-dramatic with a strong heroine beset on all sides. In the second half the heroine, Marie Therese, lives among the aftermath of a changed world, involved with suitors, marriage, family scandals and social involvements. After the tremendous activity of the French Revolution, during which the young Marie Therese lived at the very center, it all becomes anti-climactic.
But what drama there is while it lasts! Escapes, dungeons, attempted rescues, mad crowds, beheadings-- here indeed is the stuff for a great novel, which sadly only Charles Dickens among literary masters was ambitious enough to attempt.
Nagel does her best, painting in garish colors, usually with too-heavy a brush. Often we're faced with the comical, as when in Bordeaux, brave Duchess d'Angouleme (Marie Therese) tries to halt Napoleon's return from Elba. (Page 265.) (She fails.)
****************************************************
PROPAGANDA
Nagel makes not the slightest attempt at balance or objectivity, which is a refreshing change from standard liberal phoniness. Here we see what the publishing industry today truly thinks and feels. (In this endeavor Nagel is backed by Tina Brown, ex New Yorker and Vanity Fair Editor; author of The Diana Chronicles.)
There's a blatant worship of wealth, privilege, titles, and possessions. One of Nagel's scarce footnotes is for a list of the trousseau Marie Therese left behind when fleeing into exile: a 220-word catalogue of clothing which the book's fans will find gush-worthy.
One gets the impression that aristocracy past and present is about the superficial: clothes, manners, robes, and poses, exemplified by the piled-on language of "Your Highness" in every phrase, the elaborate curtseying and bowing, the kissing of hands, which when it suddenly ceases comes to the nobility as a shock.
Nagel's bias is shown by her chapter headings: "Child of France"; "Once Upon a Time"; "Storm Clouds over the Palace"; "The End of the Fairy Tale"; "Two Orpahns"; "Every Inch a Princess"; and so on. If this is history, it's an antiquated kind of history; a 418-page press release which could've been issued by Louis XVI himself! Susan Nagel is blindly transfixed. The trappings of power-- "His Most Christian Majesty, dressed in the Order of the Holy Ghost ablaze with diamonds"-- to a product of a society which through magazines like Vanity Fair itself worships such trappings, such extreme wealth, obsessively, have hypnotized our chronicler. All she can do, ultimately, is gush, as in her acknowledgement to "the help and encouragement of His Serene Highness, Prince Charles-Henri de Lobkowicz." Can we surmise that our historian, Ms. Nagel, has been allowed into too many Insider parties?
PRISONERS
Long before King Louis XVI and his family were prisoners in a dungeon, they were prisoners of the isolation of their mindset. Historian William Doyle concluded in Origins of the French Revolution that there were many opportunities for the King to halt the revolution, through concessions or force, as he retained immense power. He lacked the imagination to use it.
Nagel is focused on the personal, on family. This matches the King's focus. Happenings occur; the anger of mobs; the currents of change. To the King and Nagel trapped within Versailles it's all very confusing.
Unstated: the man was supreme ruler! Yet he knows nothing about the country he rules, and doesn't want to know. As revolution breaks and cascades over Versailles, the King has willfully escaped from reality, spending long hours hunting! The state is bankrupt, the people starving, and the man in charge does nothing. Like Montezuma, he remains trapped by his own inertia. He makes no real effort even to save his crown, out of "love for his people." He's not a ruler at all, but a prop, as if Versailles were a great glittering movie set.
Nagel buys the myth of the King as helpless victim-- and so absolves him of responsibility even for his own actions. There's a disconnect not just in the mind of the King, and his wife and daughter, but more unforgiveably, in the mind of the biographer, Susan Nagel. War and counter-revolution begin quickly; attempts to rollback the popular changes; the onset of civil war. The King sits innocently in his palace.
Marie Antoinette of course maneuvered to rescue the old regime. She encouraged foreign invasion, and bribed politicians. Yet for Nagel, these actions should have no consequences. The consequences in fact surprise her. She has so swallowed Marie Antoinette's mentality whole she can only ask, with her characters, Why has this occurred?
On the one hand the people love the Bourbons and the "Children of France," right to the bitter end; the last ignominious flight. On the other hand the angry mobs indicate that they really don't like the Bourbons at all. This contradiction is never resolved. Or, it's resolved through cardboard bad guys like the Duke of Orleans.
CONCLUSION
Marie Therese, Child of Terror may find a large audience around the country among suburbanites with failed mortgages, who-- along with the myth of endless affluence-- bought their own opulent palaces and are now on the verge of being kicked out.
The perpetrators of the book, however, represent a miniscule sliver of this nation residing on an east coast island; many of them transplanted royalist Brits like Vicky Ward and Tina Brown. Miniscule they are in numbers but great in media power.
Nagel's book to its rich fans expresses an unspoken fear about their own time; a fear which comes with improportionate wealth. Their own land-- this land-- increasingly to them is an unknown place of "oddly dressed, ill-spoken, belligerent" mobs.
*************************************************************
(Note: The full version of this review will be posted on my new writing blog later this week.
Watch also http://www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com/ for further remarks.)
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Teaser
My review of Susan Nagel's paean to royalty, Marie Therese, Child of Terror, should be up on one of my blogs by Monday. (I have a new writing blog starting.) For a quick preliminary taste, here's the review's opening.
**********************
This biography of Marie Antoinette's daughter, which is getting a big push by publisher Bloomsbury (they even sent me a copy!), has more to say about American aristocratic attitudes today than about what really happened in France in the late 18th century.
As history the book is ridiculous. As biography it's soap opera. Its appeal is to the imaginations of the privileged upper caste of our own civilization.
**********************
Will I be able to support these statements? Check back to see.
Meanwhile, partying for the book by today's aristos has begun. For a glimpse, see
www.nysocialdiary.com/node/4604
**********************
This biography of Marie Antoinette's daughter, which is getting a big push by publisher Bloomsbury (they even sent me a copy!), has more to say about American aristocratic attitudes today than about what really happened in France in the late 18th century.
As history the book is ridiculous. As biography it's soap opera. Its appeal is to the imaginations of the privileged upper caste of our own civilization.
**********************
Will I be able to support these statements? Check back to see.
Meanwhile, partying for the book by today's aristos has begun. For a glimpse, see
www.nysocialdiary.com/node/4604
Boozhie Eyeglasses
WHY UNDERGROUND WRITERS ARE NEEDED
Right now the established literary system presents ONE way of looking at the world, instead of a variety of viewpoints from all segments of America. Standard pod writers see life through boozhie eyeglasses. They don't realize in their candyass existence that others in this land live completely different from they; are entirely another kind of human animal. It's the difference you might see between a beat-up alley cat, scowling with one eye closed behind the dumpster, and the homebound puffy one wearing ribbons inside the mansion; at the window peering prettily and stupidly from within. Their attitudes on this world aren't the same.
Right now the established literary system presents ONE way of looking at the world, instead of a variety of viewpoints from all segments of America. Standard pod writers see life through boozhie eyeglasses. They don't realize in their candyass existence that others in this land live completely different from they; are entirely another kind of human animal. It's the difference you might see between a beat-up alley cat, scowling with one eye closed behind the dumpster, and the homebound puffy one wearing ribbons inside the mansion; at the window peering prettily and stupidly from within. Their attitudes on this world aren't the same.
Identities
Though I've been permitting a free-for-all on my Comments page, I encourage those who drop in to use their own identities. It's a sign of character, and adds credibility to what you say.
To create a new literature, a new culture, a new society-- to start over in this crazy country we've inherited-- we need to do so on a foundation of truth, character, and responsibility.
Are you willing to step into the future, or remain chained to a past world of corruption and lies?
To create a new literature, a new culture, a new society-- to start over in this crazy country we've inherited-- we need to do so on a foundation of truth, character, and responsibility.
Are you willing to step into the future, or remain chained to a past world of corruption and lies?
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Update
A new chapter of "Plutocracy USA" is already up at Literary Mystery,
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
The chapter is called, "The Wheels of Reaction." You might find it fun.
****************************************************
OTHER NEWS
I'm working furiously to read and review a new 418-page book by Susan Nagel about the French Revolution. I want to review it while the book is "hot." I plan my review to entertain and enlighten. (Also to come: the promised review of Lawrence Richette's latest novel.)
Stay tuned.
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
The chapter is called, "The Wheels of Reaction." You might find it fun.
****************************************************
OTHER NEWS
I'm working furiously to read and review a new 418-page book by Susan Nagel about the French Revolution. I want to review it while the book is "hot." I plan my review to entertain and enlighten. (Also to come: the promised review of Lawrence Richette's latest novel.)
Stay tuned.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Truths
THE COMMITMENT TO TRUTH
For an underground literary rebellion to succeed it has to be better than what it seeks to replace. This means better art, better performers, better ideas. Most of all it has to offer INTEGRITY-- an alternative to the lies and corruption of the established lit-scene.
As I've refused to accept falsehoods and non-accountability from the so-called mainstream, why would I accept them from the underground?
The most important component of the literary rebellion when it began in October 2000 was its search for truth; its commitment to truth. This was embodied in our initial protests against the grants-awarding process, and in many actions since, most notoriously with the Paris Review-CIA story.
Dedication to truth has two components.
1.) HEARING THE TRUTH.
This is difficult for anyone, myself not excepted. Established literature fails this test miserably, suffering from the "cognant dissonance" of bureaucracies; the refusal to hear unpleasant things. In the novel 1984, George Orwell used the term "Crimethink" for those truths which were unacceptable to people. "No, don't tell me! I don't want to hear! Stop saying that! Shut that person up, please!" One has to vigilantly fight this tendency. If the underground adopts this mind-closing behavior, then it's lost its fight.
2.) SPEAKING THE TRUTH.
The flip side of hearing it. You can't have one without the other. There has to be a willful struggle to speak honestly, and to be accountable for one's own statements. I never pushed a campaign I didn't ruthlessly believe in. To intentionally lie, to ignore contrary proofs or refuse to correct mistakes, to be unaccountable, has no place in a revolt whose foundation is integrity. Our integrity is our strongest weapon. It can't be compromised. If I've been inflexible on this point it's for a reason. A new movement, representing change, has to be built on a solid foundation.
For an underground literary rebellion to succeed it has to be better than what it seeks to replace. This means better art, better performers, better ideas. Most of all it has to offer INTEGRITY-- an alternative to the lies and corruption of the established lit-scene.
As I've refused to accept falsehoods and non-accountability from the so-called mainstream, why would I accept them from the underground?
The most important component of the literary rebellion when it began in October 2000 was its search for truth; its commitment to truth. This was embodied in our initial protests against the grants-awarding process, and in many actions since, most notoriously with the Paris Review-CIA story.
Dedication to truth has two components.
1.) HEARING THE TRUTH.
This is difficult for anyone, myself not excepted. Established literature fails this test miserably, suffering from the "cognant dissonance" of bureaucracies; the refusal to hear unpleasant things. In the novel 1984, George Orwell used the term "Crimethink" for those truths which were unacceptable to people. "No, don't tell me! I don't want to hear! Stop saying that! Shut that person up, please!" One has to vigilantly fight this tendency. If the underground adopts this mind-closing behavior, then it's lost its fight.
2.) SPEAKING THE TRUTH.
The flip side of hearing it. You can't have one without the other. There has to be a willful struggle to speak honestly, and to be accountable for one's own statements. I never pushed a campaign I didn't ruthlessly believe in. To intentionally lie, to ignore contrary proofs or refuse to correct mistakes, to be unaccountable, has no place in a revolt whose foundation is integrity. Our integrity is our strongest weapon. It can't be compromised. If I've been inflexible on this point it's for a reason. A new movement, representing change, has to be built on a solid foundation.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Who Are the Demi-Puppets?
I've used the term demi-puppets since this blog began to designate servants of the Overdogs and defenders of the status quo-- opponents to the literary rebellion who aren't Overdogs themselves. Demi-puppets have been the most vociferous critics of the rebellion which began more than seven years ago.
Have the demi-puppets acted against their own interest?
Many haven't-- if it's in their interest to work long hours in a hyper-expensive city in order to be part of the established publishing game. A great many demji-puppets are the foot soldiers and worker bees of the literary System as it exists today. This includes not just editors, agents, readers, et.al., but all the many English and Creative Writing lecturers and professors in universities around the country. Not all are chaired tenured profs like our disingenuous friend Phillip Lopate, who portrayed himself, with some exaggeration, as living in a dirt-floor hovel with countless mouths to feed. Many in the academy ARE barely getting by financially.
Another layer are those of literary bent who reside in the nation's newspapers; arts journalists and book reviewers; a vanishing breed.
The remainder of the demi-puppets could be called the lumpen literati: unpublished and underpublished writers, unemployed academics, and the like. Many lit-bloggers are in this category.
As the authentic underground which began rebellion may not be able to overturn the ancien regime on its own, the question is to what extent the rebellion can draw from demi-puppet ranks.
When it has, results haven't been promising. Boozhie writers who weren't true undergrounders were the quickest to betray the rebellion at every apparent stall or setback. But any gain they obtained from the betrayal has been illusory.
Many demi-puppets are getting little or no benefit from the current system, so their loyalty to it is perplexing. In many cases they're better writers and more intelligent readers than the well-connected aristocratic fops who inhabit the approved literary stage. It would serve their interest not to approve the System, or meekly comply with it, but oppose it. That would require from them artistic daring and imagination.
A rebellious demi-puppet is an oxymoron. The person will have to become no longer a demi-puppet. This will entail a new state of mind; a mind not of subservience and conformity, but independence, boldness, and freedom. It will require a passion for trailblazing, a love of the unpredictable, and an eagerness to make literary history.
Have the demi-puppets acted against their own interest?
Many haven't-- if it's in their interest to work long hours in a hyper-expensive city in order to be part of the established publishing game. A great many demji-puppets are the foot soldiers and worker bees of the literary System as it exists today. This includes not just editors, agents, readers, et.al., but all the many English and Creative Writing lecturers and professors in universities around the country. Not all are chaired tenured profs like our disingenuous friend Phillip Lopate, who portrayed himself, with some exaggeration, as living in a dirt-floor hovel with countless mouths to feed. Many in the academy ARE barely getting by financially.
Another layer are those of literary bent who reside in the nation's newspapers; arts journalists and book reviewers; a vanishing breed.
The remainder of the demi-puppets could be called the lumpen literati: unpublished and underpublished writers, unemployed academics, and the like. Many lit-bloggers are in this category.
As the authentic underground which began rebellion may not be able to overturn the ancien regime on its own, the question is to what extent the rebellion can draw from demi-puppet ranks.
When it has, results haven't been promising. Boozhie writers who weren't true undergrounders were the quickest to betray the rebellion at every apparent stall or setback. But any gain they obtained from the betrayal has been illusory.
Many demi-puppets are getting little or no benefit from the current system, so their loyalty to it is perplexing. In many cases they're better writers and more intelligent readers than the well-connected aristocratic fops who inhabit the approved literary stage. It would serve their interest not to approve the System, or meekly comply with it, but oppose it. That would require from them artistic daring and imagination.
A rebellious demi-puppet is an oxymoron. The person will have to become no longer a demi-puppet. This will entail a new state of mind; a mind not of subservience and conformity, but independence, boldness, and freedom. It will require a passion for trailblazing, a love of the unpredictable, and an eagerness to make literary history.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
More on Leadership
The question of leadership is a philosophical concept.
Those who believe a movement can be created without a creator-- a leader-- are those whose knowledge of the world is at a kindergarten level, and hardly worthy of conversation.
I ponder the masterpieces of art; a Michaelangelo sculpture, a Beethoven symphony, a play by Shakespeare, a novel by Tolstoy. Did they occur spontaneously? Did the Pieta cause itself? Did a slab of marble fall over and break off a few pieces, accidentally? Did words arrange themselves on the Tolstoyean page? Or was not an active intelligence present someplace behind the scenes?
I think of the string of American business success stories, from Ford to Apple-- each one the result of an active, involved intelligence.
The raw material has to be there, is always there, as the zeen movement of the 1990's was the raw material for the creation of the ULA. But to progress, at some point some individual has to take that material and focus and shape it. The ULA was created as an act of intent, of energy and will. All its early progress, if not all its progress, came about through leadership: intentional design.
Now that the original leader has in stages been metaphorically assassinated and cast aside, those left clutching the remaining pieces of the project are proclaiming, "No leaders!" Which is comical, in a way.
For the movement as a whole to progress to the next stage, someone else will have to emerge to pick up the pieces, rearrange them, refocus them, reshape the strategy and recreate the dynamic energy that was invested into the original campaign. Otherwise it will stay running in place.
Those who believe a movement can be created without a creator-- a leader-- are those whose knowledge of the world is at a kindergarten level, and hardly worthy of conversation.
I ponder the masterpieces of art; a Michaelangelo sculpture, a Beethoven symphony, a play by Shakespeare, a novel by Tolstoy. Did they occur spontaneously? Did the Pieta cause itself? Did a slab of marble fall over and break off a few pieces, accidentally? Did words arrange themselves on the Tolstoyean page? Or was not an active intelligence present someplace behind the scenes?
I think of the string of American business success stories, from Ford to Apple-- each one the result of an active, involved intelligence.
The raw material has to be there, is always there, as the zeen movement of the 1990's was the raw material for the creation of the ULA. But to progress, at some point some individual has to take that material and focus and shape it. The ULA was created as an act of intent, of energy and will. All its early progress, if not all its progress, came about through leadership: intentional design.
Now that the original leader has in stages been metaphorically assassinated and cast aside, those left clutching the remaining pieces of the project are proclaiming, "No leaders!" Which is comical, in a way.
For the movement as a whole to progress to the next stage, someone else will have to emerge to pick up the pieces, rearrange them, refocus them, reshape the strategy and recreate the dynamic energy that was invested into the original campaign. Otherwise it will stay running in place.
Today's Question
What's your favorite flavor of ice cream?
************************************************
This question signifies that I've reopened comments on this blog, if anyone be interested.
GROUNDRULES. Just know that this is a personal blog. I'm no longer active in any literary organization, owe no obligations to anyone-- except myself and my integrity-- am beholden to nobody. On this space I submit to no veto, bullying, dishonesty, or bad behavior. By posting here you've entered my territory and will be treated accordingly.
************************************************
This question signifies that I've reopened comments on this blog, if anyone be interested.
GROUNDRULES. Just know that this is a personal blog. I'm no longer active in any literary organization, owe no obligations to anyone-- except myself and my integrity-- am beholden to nobody. On this space I submit to no veto, bullying, dishonesty, or bad behavior. By posting here you've entered my territory and will be treated accordingly.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
New Stuff
New posts are up TODAY at both Literary Mystery--
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
with a new chapter of "Plutocracy USA," and Philly Literary,
www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com
Both tales take place at about the same time period, interesting enough.
I intend from hereon to put up a new chapter at Literary Mystery every week. The fun is only beginning.
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
with a new chapter of "Plutocracy USA," and Philly Literary,
www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com
Both tales take place at about the same time period, interesting enough.
I intend from hereon to put up a new chapter at Literary Mystery every week. The fun is only beginning.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Undergrounders
Undergrounders' biggest enemy is themselves.
The problem with the Rebellion from the beginning has been the non-stop internal disputes and betrayals.
I've always stressed distinguishing our actual enemies. Personality-based conflicts are counter-productive.
One can see what a miracle it was to keep the ULA on course and together as long as I did. I sought a broad-tent approach; wanted the movement open to ALL writers, as long as they acknowledged that literature needed to change; i.e., that rebellion was necessary. This is still the only way the movement will succeed.
A LEADER?
A leader is absolutely necessary with a team of attack dogs, to keep their energies focused in the right way, on the right target. To keep them pulling in the same direction. Even then, keeping a lid on resentments, jealousies, and disagreements isn't easy. Without a leader, the attack dogs come off their leashes and fight themselves, as we're seeing. I can't think of a bigger waste of time.
The problem with the Rebellion from the beginning has been the non-stop internal disputes and betrayals.
I've always stressed distinguishing our actual enemies. Personality-based conflicts are counter-productive.
One can see what a miracle it was to keep the ULA on course and together as long as I did. I sought a broad-tent approach; wanted the movement open to ALL writers, as long as they acknowledged that literature needed to change; i.e., that rebellion was necessary. This is still the only way the movement will succeed.
A LEADER?
A leader is absolutely necessary with a team of attack dogs, to keep their energies focused in the right way, on the right target. To keep them pulling in the same direction. Even then, keeping a lid on resentments, jealousies, and disagreements isn't easy. Without a leader, the attack dogs come off their leashes and fight themselves, as we're seeing. I can't think of a bigger waste of time.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Lit Mystery Update!
At last-- a new string of chapters begun at www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
A fictional novel about gang wars in the literary scene. It resumes slowly, setting the stage for what will culminate in cinematic fireworks.
Speaking of which, my "Ten Best Movies" series will resume soon at
www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com
-- along with other happy literary stuff including an essay on "The Great Reaction, 1953-2008" in American letters, as well as reviews of Amy Hempel and John Updike.
On this blog: "Who Are the Demi-Puppets?" in which I will offer the notion they're on the wrong side; and the beginning of profiles of various generic categories of underground writers. Not to mention an essay on the Rebellion, "Victory Denied?"
(I will also be addressing the smorgasboard of points made by the anonymice at this address-- the most exciting blog in the literary universe.)
A fictional novel about gang wars in the literary scene. It resumes slowly, setting the stage for what will culminate in cinematic fireworks.
Speaking of which, my "Ten Best Movies" series will resume soon at
www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com
-- along with other happy literary stuff including an essay on "The Great Reaction, 1953-2008" in American letters, as well as reviews of Amy Hempel and John Updike.
On this blog: "Who Are the Demi-Puppets?" in which I will offer the notion they're on the wrong side; and the beginning of profiles of various generic categories of underground writers. Not to mention an essay on the Rebellion, "Victory Denied?"
(I will also be addressing the smorgasboard of points made by the anonymice at this address-- the most exciting blog in the literary universe.)
What's Talent?
THOSE well-schooled and heavily indoctrinated mistake training for talent. The object of training is, first, to break the person, the way you train a horse or a dog. Obedience is the desired end. The goal of training is to have the person trained: to behave like other employees. Training is the essence of the system mentality.
To me, talent is a different thing. It's the spark of life in a person's writing.
A good example is Scott Fitzgerald's This Side of Paradise. Maxwell Perkins had seen an even rougher version of this roughly written novel. Any editor today would reject it immediately. Maxwell Perkins saw in the crude manuscript the spark of talent. Whatever else the book was, it was alive-- alive with exuberance, energy, ideas, and noise. With talent.
Talent was what I recognized in the zeens of the original "Zeen Elvis" candidate. Unchecked emotion. "Raw Power," to quote Iggy. Power and emotion that smoked the page. The ace in the hole for my intended campaign. That this necessary piece of the strategy was lost early was a big reason for the ultimate failure of the lit rebellion's first wave. (Other waves are coming. After 1905 came 1917.)
The underground is a vast place. I suspect "Who" has read those undergrounders he'd be least likely to appreciate. (With my differently-taught mind I see in their works amazing things.) The ranks include, however, also those who write in a traditional way.
I therefore CHALLENGE "Who" to read Lawrence Richette's Private Screenings. (My guess is he can afford to buy a copy via Xlibris.) I challenge him to read it with his acute intelligence and review it. I'll post his review on one of my blogs, be it negative or positive, under his nom-de-plume or real name, according to his choice.
To me, talent is a different thing. It's the spark of life in a person's writing.
A good example is Scott Fitzgerald's This Side of Paradise. Maxwell Perkins had seen an even rougher version of this roughly written novel. Any editor today would reject it immediately. Maxwell Perkins saw in the crude manuscript the spark of talent. Whatever else the book was, it was alive-- alive with exuberance, energy, ideas, and noise. With talent.
Talent was what I recognized in the zeens of the original "Zeen Elvis" candidate. Unchecked emotion. "Raw Power," to quote Iggy. Power and emotion that smoked the page. The ace in the hole for my intended campaign. That this necessary piece of the strategy was lost early was a big reason for the ultimate failure of the lit rebellion's first wave. (Other waves are coming. After 1905 came 1917.)
The underground is a vast place. I suspect "Who" has read those undergrounders he'd be least likely to appreciate. (With my differently-taught mind I see in their works amazing things.) The ranks include, however, also those who write in a traditional way.
I therefore CHALLENGE "Who" to read Lawrence Richette's Private Screenings. (My guess is he can afford to buy a copy via Xlibris.) I challenge him to read it with his acute intelligence and review it. I'll post his review on one of my blogs, be it negative or positive, under his nom-de-plume or real name, according to his choice.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Healthy Underground
All the contention on Brady's blog (see below) shows me that the literary underground is alive and well-- a ferment of activity, with the emergence of many strong personalities, including Walsh, Pat Simonelli, Pat King, Brady, Potter, and even "Whocanitbenow?" whose identity is no mystery to me. As I disagree with him, as I disagree with Mr. King and Mr. Potter, I'm still glad they checked in.
Brady seems to have gotten more than he bargained for. . . .
NOTHING changes without a leader. The American Revolution was fortunate to have Washington, who if not smart enough was at least big enough to keep everyone in line.
Did the literary rebellion emerge in my head? Not really. I was merely swept up in the zine scene of the 90's, which was called again and again the "Zine Revolution." I guess I took it all seriously.
But-- ideas have to emerge from somewhere. Did the Russian Revolution emerge from Lenin's head? The Mexican Revolution from Zapata's? It didn't make the rebellions any less real or relevant. SOMEONE needs to start the ball rolling. "WHO" in his cynical way is grasping toward some truths which he's unable to see clearly-- mainly, that the literary establishment is manifestly weak. It screams weakness. This may be what I was reacting to when I kicked off the ULA. Opportunity!
Or maybe it's that I love reading-- literature, by extension-- and know it can be much better, but for that to happen we need some housecleaning.
An example of establishment stagnation compared to the noise of the underground lit scene: in N+1 a couple issues ago there was an exchange of letters between two supposed literary heavyweights, James Wood and Jonathan Franzen. Their contention was hardly contentious at all. They were hitting each other with wet handkerchiefs. This is what results when you isolate literature into a bubble. We undergrounders, with our different tactics, are trying to break the bubble and free the art.
Brady seems to have gotten more than he bargained for. . . .
NOTHING changes without a leader. The American Revolution was fortunate to have Washington, who if not smart enough was at least big enough to keep everyone in line.
Did the literary rebellion emerge in my head? Not really. I was merely swept up in the zine scene of the 90's, which was called again and again the "Zine Revolution." I guess I took it all seriously.
But-- ideas have to emerge from somewhere. Did the Russian Revolution emerge from Lenin's head? The Mexican Revolution from Zapata's? It didn't make the rebellions any less real or relevant. SOMEONE needs to start the ball rolling. "WHO" in his cynical way is grasping toward some truths which he's unable to see clearly-- mainly, that the literary establishment is manifestly weak. It screams weakness. This may be what I was reacting to when I kicked off the ULA. Opportunity!
Or maybe it's that I love reading-- literature, by extension-- and know it can be much better, but for that to happen we need some housecleaning.
An example of establishment stagnation compared to the noise of the underground lit scene: in N+1 a couple issues ago there was an exchange of letters between two supposed literary heavyweights, James Wood and Jonathan Franzen. Their contention was hardly contentious at all. They were hitting each other with wet handkerchiefs. This is what results when you isolate literature into a bubble. We undergrounders, with our different tactics, are trying to break the bubble and free the art.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
David Gates: Average Guy
On the "Value" thread below, someone posted a quote from the Washington Post as a way to knock the idea of "unflinching truth"-- as well as scorning, apparently, the viewpoint of "life at the bottom."
I surmised that its author is a yuppie. Is he?
Our authority on life at the bottom, David Gates, is an Insider's Insider. From an upper-middle class background in Connecticut, Gates briefly attended exclusive Bard College before "dropping out." He managed to quickly enough return to college and graduate-- in fact earning a Phd from U-Conn, where he met and married writer Ann Beattie, noted "minimalist" (read: pod). They both taught at Harvard shortly thereafter, no easy feat for new graduates.
Gates, no longer married to Beattie, has a residence in Manhattan and one in upstate New York. He's had a long-time staff position at Newsweek, where he reviews books-- some lit power there-- and also teaches at two Insider writing programs, Bennington and the New School. He's known for speaking slowly and quietly. If he raises his voice he becomes worried. His most widely-hyped book is named Jernigan.
There are few persons on this planet guaranteed to be more unsympathetic to current underground writers than him.
I surmised that its author is a yuppie. Is he?
Our authority on life at the bottom, David Gates, is an Insider's Insider. From an upper-middle class background in Connecticut, Gates briefly attended exclusive Bard College before "dropping out." He managed to quickly enough return to college and graduate-- in fact earning a Phd from U-Conn, where he met and married writer Ann Beattie, noted "minimalist" (read: pod). They both taught at Harvard shortly thereafter, no easy feat for new graduates.
Gates, no longer married to Beattie, has a residence in Manhattan and one in upstate New York. He's had a long-time staff position at Newsweek, where he reviews books-- some lit power there-- and also teaches at two Insider writing programs, Bennington and the New School. He's known for speaking slowly and quietly. If he raises his voice he becomes worried. His most widely-hyped book is named Jernigan.
There are few persons on this planet guaranteed to be more unsympathetic to current underground writers than him.
Leadership
Here are the principles of leadership I tried to follow when I was running the Underground Literary Alliance.
1.) LEAD FROM THE FRONT.
I never asked anyone to do what I wasn't willing to do myself. At most of our actions I was at the head of the pack. No one worked harder.
2.) LOYALTY.
From 10/8/2000 to 12/31/2007 I defended the ULA and its writers in every possible forum, against all comers. But loyalty has to work in both directions.
3.) RESPONSIBILITY.
The leader of a project must take responsibility for that project-- whether any "fault" was truly his or not. In that regard, the ULA's failings were my failings, and in some respects still are.
With responsibility should come authority, however, and that I didn't have.
4.) ACCOUNTABILITY.
I made myself consistently accountable, to friends and foes alike, on this blog and elsewhere. It was probably the single biggest use of my time! The extreme example of this was late 2006, receiving on the ULA forum an endless barrage of questions and criticisms from one V. Schwartzman, page after page, day after day after day, which I attempted to patiently and forthrightly answer until someone else finally cut him off. Such events were enormous time-wasters. I'd not go through that again. There has to be some element of trust.
5.) HONESTY.
The most important principle, and the rarest.
6.) STEADFASTNESS.
Not losing sight of the objective. Keeping your head while everyone else is panicking-- which happened often.
7.) UNDERSTANDING THE STRATEGY.
This means holding in your head the overall picture, recognizing the real enemies, deciding which fights are worthwhile and which aren't. It's the factor with the most flexibility for a decision-maker and one of the hardest to carry out.
8.) MANAGING THE TEAM.
Keeping morale up; your people content, motivated, and active; egos stroked; internal fights resolved for the good of all. With undergrounders: Impossible.
1.) LEAD FROM THE FRONT.
I never asked anyone to do what I wasn't willing to do myself. At most of our actions I was at the head of the pack. No one worked harder.
2.) LOYALTY.
From 10/8/2000 to 12/31/2007 I defended the ULA and its writers in every possible forum, against all comers. But loyalty has to work in both directions.
3.) RESPONSIBILITY.
The leader of a project must take responsibility for that project-- whether any "fault" was truly his or not. In that regard, the ULA's failings were my failings, and in some respects still are.
With responsibility should come authority, however, and that I didn't have.
4.) ACCOUNTABILITY.
I made myself consistently accountable, to friends and foes alike, on this blog and elsewhere. It was probably the single biggest use of my time! The extreme example of this was late 2006, receiving on the ULA forum an endless barrage of questions and criticisms from one V. Schwartzman, page after page, day after day after day, which I attempted to patiently and forthrightly answer until someone else finally cut him off. Such events were enormous time-wasters. I'd not go through that again. There has to be some element of trust.
5.) HONESTY.
The most important principle, and the rarest.
6.) STEADFASTNESS.
Not losing sight of the objective. Keeping your head while everyone else is panicking-- which happened often.
7.) UNDERSTANDING THE STRATEGY.
This means holding in your head the overall picture, recognizing the real enemies, deciding which fights are worthwhile and which aren't. It's the factor with the most flexibility for a decision-maker and one of the hardest to carry out.
8.) MANAGING THE TEAM.
Keeping morale up; your people content, motivated, and active; egos stroked; internal fights resolved for the good of all. With undergrounders: Impossible.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
New Underground Leader?
Underground writer Brady Russell is pushing the idea of finding a new leader for the rebellion, as outlined here: www.thistoowillpass.com/bradydale/wordpress/?p=727
Though I think "uniting the tribes," as I attempted to do, is close to impossible, I support Brady's project in theory.
His characterization of my problems as one of "ego" is a simplification, as I'm sure he knows. (I'm used to the criticism.) Many factors were involved, including having no mechanism for resolving disputes, and no way of using members' talents rationally, leaving things to be done on an ad-hoc basis. Differences between radicals and moderates in the team were never resolved. These are problems which come with a volunteer, non-hierarchical organization. People have to buy into the program completely.
Part of the problem is that any rebellion faces intense reaction, from all sides, even on occasion from within. Rebellion creates real enemies. How people deal with this determines success or failure.
My first priority was keeping the campaign on course, following the strategy, adhering to its principles. Under my watch, the movement was not co-opted or compromised.
I believe that in a project of this nature, anyone without a strong ego will quickly be destroyed.
I should mention that the campaign had many successes which will be hard for anyone to duplicate. Currently I'm following a strategy of ideas. I believe the rebellion will triumph based first on its ideas.
***************************************************
Two key questions about Brady's project:
1.) Does the rebellion need a leader?
2.) What qualities and abilities are required for that person to succeed?
I've been reading about the great rebels and revolutionaries of history-- Vercingtorix, Brutus, Jesus, Washington, Robespierre, Lenin, Trotsky-- and have my thoughts, but I want to know: what do you think?
(Serious replies only. Others will be deleted.)
Though I think "uniting the tribes," as I attempted to do, is close to impossible, I support Brady's project in theory.
His characterization of my problems as one of "ego" is a simplification, as I'm sure he knows. (I'm used to the criticism.) Many factors were involved, including having no mechanism for resolving disputes, and no way of using members' talents rationally, leaving things to be done on an ad-hoc basis. Differences between radicals and moderates in the team were never resolved. These are problems which come with a volunteer, non-hierarchical organization. People have to buy into the program completely.
Part of the problem is that any rebellion faces intense reaction, from all sides, even on occasion from within. Rebellion creates real enemies. How people deal with this determines success or failure.
My first priority was keeping the campaign on course, following the strategy, adhering to its principles. Under my watch, the movement was not co-opted or compromised.
I believe that in a project of this nature, anyone without a strong ego will quickly be destroyed.
I should mention that the campaign had many successes which will be hard for anyone to duplicate. Currently I'm following a strategy of ideas. I believe the rebellion will triumph based first on its ideas.
***************************************************
Two key questions about Brady's project:
1.) Does the rebellion need a leader?
2.) What qualities and abilities are required for that person to succeed?
I've been reading about the great rebels and revolutionaries of history-- Vercingtorix, Brutus, Jesus, Washington, Robespierre, Lenin, Trotsky-- and have my thoughts, but I want to know: what do you think?
(Serious replies only. Others will be deleted.)
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Value
The value of this blog is that I give the reader unflinching truth about literature, and about the literary world and how it operates.
Monday, March 17, 2008
A Movement of Ideas
One thing I haven't stressed enough is that the literary rebellion stands on a foundation of ideas. The underground arose as an expression of ideas, DIY ideas, given voice by Wred Fright, Tom Hendricks, Doug Holland, Doug Bassett, Fred Woodworth, Violet Jones, and so many others.
The rebellion, as a whole, is the only literary movement around today which represents new thought; an entirely new way of viewing literature and the literary world.
At the core, these ideas are aimed at breaking down two monopolies:
1.) The physical monopoly represented by the conglomerates.
2.) The intellectual monopoly, which I call Literary Solipsism, that has dominated poetry and prose for fifty years.
The rebellion, as a whole, is the only literary movement around today which represents new thought; an entirely new way of viewing literature and the literary world.
At the core, these ideas are aimed at breaking down two monopolies:
1.) The physical monopoly represented by the conglomerates.
2.) The intellectual monopoly, which I call Literary Solipsism, that has dominated poetry and prose for fifty years.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Liberating Literature
THE LITERARY REBELLION is a liberation movement. It began on October 8, 2000. Its goal is to liberate literature from the entrapment of bureaucratic boxes.
A FAILED ART
Any person with clear vision and the ability to view the larger context can see that as an art, based on what it produces, and on its role in the culture, extablishment literature is a failure. Since the 1920's it's been on a steady downward trend, despite occasional successes which come originally from out side the system, like the Beats.
Upticks in a down trend like McSweeney's are unable to halt the decline and rescue literature, because they embrace the system, and in their modest success, reinforce what's wrong with it.
THE BUSINESS
That the conglomerates are able to squeeze meager profits from the art means nothing, because it's accomplished through demeaning the art by ever more standardized examples of "popular" novels, genre fiction (interchangeable commodities like romance novels); and degrading trends like the execrable snob-based "gossip girl" books. Actual literature meanwhile is reserved for a coterie of fossilized authors young and old, from John Updike and Philip Roth to Marisha Pessl and Jonathan Safran Foer.
CHANGE FROM WITHIN?
If change is to come from within the system, it won't be done by co-opting undergrounders like myself. It will happen by writers already within the system joining the rebellion.
FAILED FOUNDATION
Contemporary literature rests on a philosophical and aesthetic foundation put into place fifty-five years ago. Call it postmodernism or call it reaction. Its weakness should be apparent to all. When a working class guy like myself who was not raised or educated to be a writer can hold his own in debate against armies of the system's best and brightest, it's not because of any intrinsic abilities of myself (other than basic common sense), but because I have a winning argument.
MINI-TETS
The dramatic actions of the Underground Literary Alliance the last seven years, or even my forays onto on-line nests of status quo apologists, are demonstrations that the System is too weak to deal with outside ideas-- that there is no way the literary rebellion, now that it's begun, can be stopped.
THE UNDERGROUND
The internal conflicts within the resistance are growing pains: signs of strength. They show that, unlike the monolithic literary establishment, our ideas have not hardened into concrete.
REBELLION HISTORY
Even if all literary rebels were somehow co-opted or destroyed, the rebellion itself would still triumph-- because of our ideas and our history: our founding myths. Our actions have been amazing and unprecedented. Their glow of boldness will serve to appeal to independent-minded writers for generations to come.
MODERATES
The System itself is grudgingly recognizing the necessity of change-- though movement in that direction has come in baby steps. Critics like B.R. Myers and James Wood can't be compared even to a Kerensky or a Lafayette. They are instead reformist cabinet ministers brought in by desperate sovereigns when the specter of revolution stands before them.
History shows that by then it's too late. Once the door to revolution has been opened it can't be closed until the house is rebuilt or overthrown. Ideas introduced from outside have an irresistible momentum. Once a Luther nails his 93 theses on a door, upheaval is certain to follow.
THE QUESTION for undergrounders and system literary folk alike is whether they wish to remain wedded to a backward, rear-guard approach, or instead award themselves the advantages which come with stepping fearlessly into a new world of revived literature.
A FAILED ART
Any person with clear vision and the ability to view the larger context can see that as an art, based on what it produces, and on its role in the culture, extablishment literature is a failure. Since the 1920's it's been on a steady downward trend, despite occasional successes which come originally from out side the system, like the Beats.
Upticks in a down trend like McSweeney's are unable to halt the decline and rescue literature, because they embrace the system, and in their modest success, reinforce what's wrong with it.
THE BUSINESS
That the conglomerates are able to squeeze meager profits from the art means nothing, because it's accomplished through demeaning the art by ever more standardized examples of "popular" novels, genre fiction (interchangeable commodities like romance novels); and degrading trends like the execrable snob-based "gossip girl" books. Actual literature meanwhile is reserved for a coterie of fossilized authors young and old, from John Updike and Philip Roth to Marisha Pessl and Jonathan Safran Foer.
CHANGE FROM WITHIN?
If change is to come from within the system, it won't be done by co-opting undergrounders like myself. It will happen by writers already within the system joining the rebellion.
FAILED FOUNDATION
Contemporary literature rests on a philosophical and aesthetic foundation put into place fifty-five years ago. Call it postmodernism or call it reaction. Its weakness should be apparent to all. When a working class guy like myself who was not raised or educated to be a writer can hold his own in debate against armies of the system's best and brightest, it's not because of any intrinsic abilities of myself (other than basic common sense), but because I have a winning argument.
MINI-TETS
The dramatic actions of the Underground Literary Alliance the last seven years, or even my forays onto on-line nests of status quo apologists, are demonstrations that the System is too weak to deal with outside ideas-- that there is no way the literary rebellion, now that it's begun, can be stopped.
THE UNDERGROUND
The internal conflicts within the resistance are growing pains: signs of strength. They show that, unlike the monolithic literary establishment, our ideas have not hardened into concrete.
REBELLION HISTORY
Even if all literary rebels were somehow co-opted or destroyed, the rebellion itself would still triumph-- because of our ideas and our history: our founding myths. Our actions have been amazing and unprecedented. Their glow of boldness will serve to appeal to independent-minded writers for generations to come.
MODERATES
The System itself is grudgingly recognizing the necessity of change-- though movement in that direction has come in baby steps. Critics like B.R. Myers and James Wood can't be compared even to a Kerensky or a Lafayette. They are instead reformist cabinet ministers brought in by desperate sovereigns when the specter of revolution stands before them.
History shows that by then it's too late. Once the door to revolution has been opened it can't be closed until the house is rebuilt or overthrown. Ideas introduced from outside have an irresistible momentum. Once a Luther nails his 93 theses on a door, upheaval is certain to follow.
THE QUESTION for undergrounders and system literary folk alike is whether they wish to remain wedded to a backward, rear-guard approach, or instead award themselves the advantages which come with stepping fearlessly into a new world of revived literature.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Boycott: The Game
It'll be interesting to see if the boycott against the Underground Literary Alliance continues now that I'm no longer active in the organization.
How do I know there's a boycott?
A.) When NO lit-bloggers address major stories like the ULA uncovering the Paris Review/CIA link; or the Howl protest at Columbia-- only one of the most exciting literary events EVER, which I'm told created great word-of-mouth buzz in New York-- then there might be a boycott ongoing.
B.) When no major lit-bloggers will link to this blog; few lit-bloggers, period, beyond the unknowing or the extremely brave.
C.) A lit-blogger actually said, "We're not supposed to pay anymore attention to King Wenclas, but. . . ." !!
BOYCOTT: THE GAME
This is how the game is played:
1.) I try to come up with something interesting or provocative that lit-people want to talk about but know they can't.
2.) They-- the literary gossips especially-- sit anally at their desks in front of their computers testing how much they can take while holding in their eagerness to type.
(I'm told several New York media people have expired at their desks-- exploded into tiny pieces actually-- while playing this game during the ULA's Howl Protest.)
****************************************************
Possible Reactions to this Post:
THE PREPPY-GIRL YALE GRAD
"Boycott? That's like so-o-o-o silly, that's just like so-o-o paranoid, you asshole."
THE LOGICAL LIT-BLOGGER IN BOW TIE
"Let me point out to you, Wenclas, that when you flit around alienating everybody, as you've done rather exhaustively these lo so many last several years, then I'd rather think you rather precipated this rather predictable, if-you-will, treatment."
THE LITERARY TOTALITARIAN
"There is no boycott! Do you hear me? NOT A BOYCOTT. No boycott."
THE PUNK PSEUDO-REBEL PUBLISHING FLUNKIE
"Quit whining! You're always whining! Everything you've ever done you're forever whining!"
THE TRUST FUND EX-DEBUTANTE MCSWEENEYITE SNOB
"Go back to your basement and your job at Burger King. Nobody wants you, you no-talent hack. I wish you'd just die!"
How do I know there's a boycott?
A.) When NO lit-bloggers address major stories like the ULA uncovering the Paris Review/CIA link; or the Howl protest at Columbia-- only one of the most exciting literary events EVER, which I'm told created great word-of-mouth buzz in New York-- then there might be a boycott ongoing.
B.) When no major lit-bloggers will link to this blog; few lit-bloggers, period, beyond the unknowing or the extremely brave.
C.) A lit-blogger actually said, "We're not supposed to pay anymore attention to King Wenclas, but. . . ." !!
BOYCOTT: THE GAME
This is how the game is played:
1.) I try to come up with something interesting or provocative that lit-people want to talk about but know they can't.
2.) They-- the literary gossips especially-- sit anally at their desks in front of their computers testing how much they can take while holding in their eagerness to type.
(I'm told several New York media people have expired at their desks-- exploded into tiny pieces actually-- while playing this game during the ULA's Howl Protest.)
****************************************************
Possible Reactions to this Post:
THE PREPPY-GIRL YALE GRAD
"Boycott? That's like so-o-o-o silly, that's just like so-o-o paranoid, you asshole."
THE LOGICAL LIT-BLOGGER IN BOW TIE
"Let me point out to you, Wenclas, that when you flit around alienating everybody, as you've done rather exhaustively these lo so many last several years, then I'd rather think you rather precipated this rather predictable, if-you-will, treatment."
THE LITERARY TOTALITARIAN
"There is no boycott! Do you hear me? NOT A BOYCOTT. No boycott."
THE PUNK PSEUDO-REBEL PUBLISHING FLUNKIE
"Quit whining! You're always whining! Everything you've ever done you're forever whining!"
THE TRUST FUND EX-DEBUTANTE MCSWEENEYITE SNOB
"Go back to your basement and your job at Burger King. Nobody wants you, you no-talent hack. I wish you'd just die!"
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Not Good Enough?
IT IRKS ME just a tad when some ignorant brainwashed stooge who knows nothing about literature and writing other than what was pumped into him in school will glance at a criticism I make of the lit world-- an informed criticism-- and dismiss it, out of hand, with a remark highlighting his ignorance-- usually that I'm "bitter" or "not good enough" for said literary establishment.
Not good enough! For a System which by-and-large produces garbage, from Philip Roth down.
This is akin to the "not a writer" charge which I endured patiently for seven years from a series of ULAers I was trying to promote, from Miss Sneerzinger to Mr. Hall to the five who bailed from the ULA a year ago. (Four whose own writing has scarcely progressed from kindergarten level.) The kind of thing which finally caused me to say, "Enough!" and depart from the organization myself.
Sorry, guys, but I KNOW I can write-- have put occasional evidence of this even up on this blog, if you care to look for it. In the last few months: my 12/31 post, or the Lish/Tolstoy satire, or more recently the "Planet XYZ" and "300" posts, in-your-face though they are.
Back in the early 90's when most of my current critics were soiling their diapers I wrote two long essays for what was then the best literary magazine in the country, regular winner of national magazine awards and such. Serious essays-- unlike what I do here. (One has to wonder if the journal was penalized for publishing me. Seriously. The lit-world is every bit as corrupt as I've claimed.)
I didn't begin writing to be just one more "literary" writer, however. Instead I sought to change a system I'd found to be staggeringly backward-- to change it through noise-making tactics like the ULA. The result was being branded by the real Know-Nothings of literature, the snob boys in bow ties, as "not a writer" or "not good enough."
I sigh like Charlie Brown at the price to be paid for attempting to wake up the literary world.
Not good enough! For a System which by-and-large produces garbage, from Philip Roth down.
This is akin to the "not a writer" charge which I endured patiently for seven years from a series of ULAers I was trying to promote, from Miss Sneerzinger to Mr. Hall to the five who bailed from the ULA a year ago. (Four whose own writing has scarcely progressed from kindergarten level.) The kind of thing which finally caused me to say, "Enough!" and depart from the organization myself.
Sorry, guys, but I KNOW I can write-- have put occasional evidence of this even up on this blog, if you care to look for it. In the last few months: my 12/31 post, or the Lish/Tolstoy satire, or more recently the "Planet XYZ" and "300" posts, in-your-face though they are.
Back in the early 90's when most of my current critics were soiling their diapers I wrote two long essays for what was then the best literary magazine in the country, regular winner of national magazine awards and such. Serious essays-- unlike what I do here. (One has to wonder if the journal was penalized for publishing me. Seriously. The lit-world is every bit as corrupt as I've claimed.)
I didn't begin writing to be just one more "literary" writer, however. Instead I sought to change a system I'd found to be staggeringly backward-- to change it through noise-making tactics like the ULA. The result was being branded by the real Know-Nothings of literature, the snob boys in bow ties, as "not a writer" or "not good enough."
I sigh like Charlie Brown at the price to be paid for attempting to wake up the literary world.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Pods
The System of literature is beyond internal reform, and in its current state is doomed to mediocrity, because it's filled at every level, from universities to editors to agents to lit-bloggers, with conformist boozhies who are thrown by those less regulated than them.
There isn't a striking personality among the lot. Blandness is their calling card. They're hostile to anyone who stands out.
"The Invasion of the Body Snatchers," in either 50's or 70's version, is a perfect metaphor for how the lit-world is now. In my every encounter with literary boozhies, this is how they've acted, like pods, whether their unconcern to revelations of corruption; or the stiff audiences and readers at KGB and Miller Hall; to e-mails from those like Ed "Rants" urging me to get with the program and be like everyone else.
It's scary if one thinks about it.
There isn't a striking personality among the lot. Blandness is their calling card. They're hostile to anyone who stands out.
"The Invasion of the Body Snatchers," in either 50's or 70's version, is a perfect metaphor for how the lit-world is now. In my every encounter with literary boozhies, this is how they've acted, like pods, whether their unconcern to revelations of corruption; or the stiff audiences and readers at KGB and Miller Hall; to e-mails from those like Ed "Rants" urging me to get with the program and be like everyone else.
It's scary if one thinks about it.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Magazine Report
A FEW DAYS LATE
In this week's New Yorker, Editor David Remnick defines Russian strong man Putin by his KGB past. The thinking: "Once KGB, always KGB."
I wonder if Remnick would apply this to the CIA: "Once CIA, always CIA."
This week's Newsweek has a cover story on the death of William F. Buckley. They pass over in light-hearted fashion the year he spent after Yale as a CIA agent. A meaningless fling? Maybe-- but years later Buckley wrote a series of novels devoted to the agency.
By "CIA" we mean not simply the government, but what for many years was a government within the government. We mean a mindset existing within the agency and outside it, which might best be described as "aggressive eastern establishment."
Buckley is regarded as the father of modern American conservatism. His journal, National Review, was founded in 1955 (two years after Paris Review). Buckley is being praised far and wide for having chased the "wackos" out of the conservative movement-- which means, in part, those who followed the original anti-Imperialist vision of this nation.
In Newsweek, praise for Buckley is given even by Nation Editor and Publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, renowned Lefty, though Buckley and her had little in common. But they had a great deal in common in that both came from backgrounds of extreme-- extreme-- wealth and privilege, and no doubt circulated at many of the same Manhattan and D.C. functions and parties.
Which indicates to me that class is more important than ideology in this country-- or maybe that the core, fundamental ideology of establishment "Right" and "Left" is the same.
You see, many questions are raised. . . .
In a sense, the ultra-wealthy deserve the power they wield over intellectual debate, because they're willing to fight for that power, by starting or buying intellectual journals, as the careers of Buckley and vanden Heuvel indicate.
In this week's New Yorker, Editor David Remnick defines Russian strong man Putin by his KGB past. The thinking: "Once KGB, always KGB."
I wonder if Remnick would apply this to the CIA: "Once CIA, always CIA."
This week's Newsweek has a cover story on the death of William F. Buckley. They pass over in light-hearted fashion the year he spent after Yale as a CIA agent. A meaningless fling? Maybe-- but years later Buckley wrote a series of novels devoted to the agency.
By "CIA" we mean not simply the government, but what for many years was a government within the government. We mean a mindset existing within the agency and outside it, which might best be described as "aggressive eastern establishment."
Buckley is regarded as the father of modern American conservatism. His journal, National Review, was founded in 1955 (two years after Paris Review). Buckley is being praised far and wide for having chased the "wackos" out of the conservative movement-- which means, in part, those who followed the original anti-Imperialist vision of this nation.
In Newsweek, praise for Buckley is given even by Nation Editor and Publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, renowned Lefty, though Buckley and her had little in common. But they had a great deal in common in that both came from backgrounds of extreme-- extreme-- wealth and privilege, and no doubt circulated at many of the same Manhattan and D.C. functions and parties.
Which indicates to me that class is more important than ideology in this country-- or maybe that the core, fundamental ideology of establishment "Right" and "Left" is the same.
You see, many questions are raised. . . .
In a sense, the ultra-wealthy deserve the power they wield over intellectual debate, because they're willing to fight for that power, by starting or buying intellectual journals, as the careers of Buckley and vanden Heuvel indicate.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Life Among the Overdogs
The New Yorker Conference has been announced for May 8 and 9 in Manhattan. Malcolm Gladwell is featured speaker. They promise "two days of forward thinking." Cost: $2,000 per person.
You'll get more new ideas from this blog, for free.
You'll get more new ideas from this blog, for free.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Underway
My four-part series on the major publishing industry has begun at
www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com
(I also have some remarks from Philly poet Victor Thompson at
www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com)
www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com
(I also have some remarks from Philly poet Victor Thompson at
www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com)
Monday, March 03, 2008
"The 300"
No, not the 300 Spartans. Anything but. I'm referring to the ULA's original Protest back in 2001. Remember it? We advocated against a large grant of money from a tax-shelter foundation to a very rich writer. The Protest had been signed by 40 zeensters. We mailed it to 300 prominent literary people, including the biggest names in the bizness-- Mailer, Updike, Sontag, and the like. 300 names. Not one signed it-- though many of them talked about it afterward at parties, as "Page Six" verified.
300 sterling names! Not a single example of conscience or backbone among them.
Is it any wonder I have no respect for these people?
I was actually surprised. I hadn't realized things were so bad. I was reminded of the first time I saw "The Hustler" on TV as a kid. At the end, the Paul Newman character is blackballed, and Minnesota Fats-- the great pool shark Minnesota Fats-- sits there submissively and does not intervene. Surprising. It was the first indication to me that something is more powerful than fame or talent; something lurking behind the scenes. Such is it with the literary industry.
The John Updikes of literature are mere show; the play of marionettes, pretending to speak with authority. With "authority"! The Great John Updike! Yet he has no authority at all. After all, he and others like him are merely puppets dancing across a stage; wooden-headed concoctions with no independence or integrity, and mean nothing.
300 sterling names! Not a single example of conscience or backbone among them.
Is it any wonder I have no respect for these people?
I was actually surprised. I hadn't realized things were so bad. I was reminded of the first time I saw "The Hustler" on TV as a kid. At the end, the Paul Newman character is blackballed, and Minnesota Fats-- the great pool shark Minnesota Fats-- sits there submissively and does not intervene. Surprising. It was the first indication to me that something is more powerful than fame or talent; something lurking behind the scenes. Such is it with the literary industry.
The John Updikes of literature are mere show; the play of marionettes, pretending to speak with authority. With "authority"! The Great John Updike! Yet he has no authority at all. After all, he and others like him are merely puppets dancing across a stage; wooden-headed concoctions with no independence or integrity, and mean nothing.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Prisoner of Planet XYZ
AN ANONYMOUS poster on this blog questioned whether the literary establishment fears the literary rebellion.
The truth is that every action of theirs shows they're terrified of it. The panic we've faced has been palpable-- as on the radio show I did last year in Philadelphia. The host and the callers ascribed to the rebels untold powers we didn't have. We were going to shut out the Ivy Leaguers! US! We rag-tag rebels living in poverty. Heavens! Dangerous!
We received the same reaction in 2006, at Columbia's Miller Hall, from the Overdogs on stage. It was hilarious, really. These prestigious, much lauded writers, going into sudden unhinged hysterics as soon as I said one word under my breath: "Hypocrisy." Phillip Lopate stood, flummoxed and flustered, hand shaking, pointing, putting aside his prepared remarks to denounce us from the stage.
Fearful? The lit establishment? They're terrified! Petrified that their cozy world of corruption and insularity might be shaken by mere words, ideas, voices-- which is all the rebellion has for weapons. THEY control the institutions of literature-- the big money corporations, universities, foundations. Yet we're confident while they're frightened.
Frightened? Yes! Why else have I been so isolated?
I have a bit of a name-- received ample press attention when the ULA was at the peak of their activity. Yet has there been any effort to utilize that name? Have I received one offer to write one scrap of opinion for anybody? Not one! It might be too dangerous an opportunity to let a literary revolutionary speak.
Legions of line-ups of fearful little puppets, whispering beneath their strings. . . .
(Plimpton the only Overdog who wasn't fearful.)
Where have been the Overdogs willing to debate myself, or my recent allies in the ULA? (The radio debate last year, I faced a biased host, a stacked-deck of hostile callers, and a turned-down microphone, yet won anyway.)
The main portion of the literary blogosphere has blacklisted me. Scan all the bigger names and try to find any links to me. Gawker recently pointed to a post of mine-- but made certain not to mention my name.
Terrified? Terrified!
Using the planetary analogy from Literary Mystery's "Plutocracy USA," I'm a prisoner on a tiny planet in a faraway corner of the literary galaxy. That's what you're visiting right now, you know. An isolated little corner of the lit scene. Haven't you noticed? I'm under quarantine. The situation has been arranged so that I'll be no further trouble to the powers that be. I dwell on a far, desolate planet, depopulated-- which is what central Detroit feels like. Allowing the noisemaking, the articles, the attention the rebels received a few years ago is acknowledged far and wide by the mandarins as having been a mistake.
Ah, but what if by chance I should someday escape from exile on Planet XYZ? What then?
WHAT THEN???
The truth is that every action of theirs shows they're terrified of it. The panic we've faced has been palpable-- as on the radio show I did last year in Philadelphia. The host and the callers ascribed to the rebels untold powers we didn't have. We were going to shut out the Ivy Leaguers! US! We rag-tag rebels living in poverty. Heavens! Dangerous!
We received the same reaction in 2006, at Columbia's Miller Hall, from the Overdogs on stage. It was hilarious, really. These prestigious, much lauded writers, going into sudden unhinged hysterics as soon as I said one word under my breath: "Hypocrisy." Phillip Lopate stood, flummoxed and flustered, hand shaking, pointing, putting aside his prepared remarks to denounce us from the stage.
Fearful? The lit establishment? They're terrified! Petrified that their cozy world of corruption and insularity might be shaken by mere words, ideas, voices-- which is all the rebellion has for weapons. THEY control the institutions of literature-- the big money corporations, universities, foundations. Yet we're confident while they're frightened.
Frightened? Yes! Why else have I been so isolated?
I have a bit of a name-- received ample press attention when the ULA was at the peak of their activity. Yet has there been any effort to utilize that name? Have I received one offer to write one scrap of opinion for anybody? Not one! It might be too dangerous an opportunity to let a literary revolutionary speak.
Legions of line-ups of fearful little puppets, whispering beneath their strings. . . .
(Plimpton the only Overdog who wasn't fearful.)
Where have been the Overdogs willing to debate myself, or my recent allies in the ULA? (The radio debate last year, I faced a biased host, a stacked-deck of hostile callers, and a turned-down microphone, yet won anyway.)
The main portion of the literary blogosphere has blacklisted me. Scan all the bigger names and try to find any links to me. Gawker recently pointed to a post of mine-- but made certain not to mention my name.
Terrified? Terrified!
Using the planetary analogy from Literary Mystery's "Plutocracy USA," I'm a prisoner on a tiny planet in a faraway corner of the literary galaxy. That's what you're visiting right now, you know. An isolated little corner of the lit scene. Haven't you noticed? I'm under quarantine. The situation has been arranged so that I'll be no further trouble to the powers that be. I dwell on a far, desolate planet, depopulated-- which is what central Detroit feels like. Allowing the noisemaking, the articles, the attention the rebels received a few years ago is acknowledged far and wide by the mandarins as having been a mistake.
Ah, but what if by chance I should someday escape from exile on Planet XYZ? What then?
WHAT THEN???
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Society Page
While scanning literary sites, I stumbled upon the site for trendy Insider writer Meghan Daum. Anyone who argues that the approved literary world is NOT dominated by bluebloods from backgrounds of extreme privilege had best take a look at her photo at
www.meghandaum.com
Very attractive, sure, but very much in a very stuffy snooty Social Register way. Doesn't she look ready for the full dress ball at the mansion? Will Mumsy and Daddy be there? "Brent" or "Chip" or "Darcy" or "Binnie" or "Boo"? Aristocracy lives! Call out the footmen and carriages, with giant mastiffs on guard on the lawns.
But what do you think?
www.meghandaum.com
Very attractive, sure, but very much in a very stuffy snooty Social Register way. Doesn't she look ready for the full dress ball at the mansion? Will Mumsy and Daddy be there? "Brent" or "Chip" or "Darcy" or "Binnie" or "Boo"? Aristocracy lives! Call out the footmen and carriages, with giant mastiffs on guard on the lawns.
But what do you think?
Meanwhile
Latest statistics show the high school graduation rate in Detroit is 32%. An enormous underclass is being created in America. We're now a very hierarchical society of many classes, many levels; like a too-tall many layered cake. Right near the top of the cake, a mere sliver of it, exists the established literary world. The perspective of these insulated people is cut off from the rest of society-- yet in their narrow arrogance they imagine that their view is the only view. They can't feel the churning beneath their feet.
The result: an American literature which is increasingly irrelevant.
The result: an American literature which is increasingly irrelevant.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Who Wants Change?
THE QUESTION becomes: Who wants to change literature? Who believes that American literature today is corrupt and decrepit? Who understands that the public face of the novel, dinosaurs like Philip Roth and John Updike, would be Grade B level in a better time, or that mainstream poetry is in such sad shape it has no public face-- unless one counts John Ashbery and his inert New Yorker scribblings?
Who wants change?
Who wants change?
The Halfwayers
THOSE who are attracted to change need to realize there is no halfway point between literary rebellion and being in the camp of the Overdogs. Some lit personalities like Meghan O'Rourke and Ed Champion believe they can do both.
Meghan is a fan of undergrounds past. She pays lip service to the idea of undergrounds. Feckless Ed pays lip service to the idea of change. He wishes to believe that lit-bloggers can represent change and not change anything at all about the current system.
When push does not come to shove-- when there is only the most mild push engaged in by someone; the gentlest tap of dissent to the status quo-- such as they turn into reactionaries. Indeed, they become the firmest of reactionaries; the most closed-minded toward new ideas. Probably because real change shows up the phoniness of a pose.
Meghan is a fan of undergrounds past. She pays lip service to the idea of undergrounds. Feckless Ed pays lip service to the idea of change. He wishes to believe that lit-bloggers can represent change and not change anything at all about the current system.
When push does not come to shove-- when there is only the most mild push engaged in by someone; the gentlest tap of dissent to the status quo-- such as they turn into reactionaries. Indeed, they become the firmest of reactionaries; the most closed-minded toward new ideas. Probably because real change shows up the phoniness of a pose.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Misconceptions
THE IRONIES involves with recent ULA happenings which helped lead to my departure are many. Two misconceptions:
1.) The widespread notion among ULAers past and present that the ULA's activist campaign was the problem-- when it's the one aspect of the ULA which worked best.
2.) The idea that I called all the shots in the organization. The reality was different. What I did manage to do in the Underground Literary Alliance the last several years:
a.) Hang on to my corner of the ULA-- said activism-- against continual panic and hand-wringing.
b.) Take responsibility for everything, taking all the hits, all the blame, from insiders and outsiders alike, thereby providing cover for the rest of the team.
1.) The widespread notion among ULAers past and present that the ULA's activist campaign was the problem-- when it's the one aspect of the ULA which worked best.
2.) The idea that I called all the shots in the organization. The reality was different. What I did manage to do in the Underground Literary Alliance the last several years:
a.) Hang on to my corner of the ULA-- said activism-- against continual panic and hand-wringing.
b.) Take responsibility for everything, taking all the hits, all the blame, from insiders and outsiders alike, thereby providing cover for the rest of the team.
Today's Question
Who is Hollywood's best babe?
-Jessica Alba
-Halle Berry
-Scarlett Johansen
-Angelina Jolie
-Eva Longoria
-Jennifer Lopez
-Other.
-Jessica Alba
-Halle Berry
-Scarlett Johansen
-Angelina Jolie
-Eva Longoria
-Jennifer Lopez
-Other.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
New Postings
Here's what we've got for you:
-Nationally-known anthologized writer Lee Klein, now a Philadelphian, at
www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com
-#7 of my "Ten Best" movie series at
www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com
A new Chapter at "Literary Mystery" should be up this weekend, featuring another appearance by fictional character "George Plimpton." Brand new chapters are in the works.
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
(You may not be having fun, but I am.)
Check them out!
-Nationally-known anthologized writer Lee Klein, now a Philadelphian, at
www.phillyliterary.blogspot.com
-#7 of my "Ten Best" movie series at
www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com
A new Chapter at "Literary Mystery" should be up this weekend, featuring another appearance by fictional character "George Plimpton." Brand new chapters are in the works.
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
(You may not be having fun, but I am.)
Check them out!
Ideas or Tactics?
A mistake I made when leading the Underground Literary Alliance was allowing our enemies to define us solely on our tactics, when the important part of the literary rebellion has always been the ideas behind the tactics.
Not that the tactics weren't necessary-- they were absolutely necessary to give the authentic literary underground any kind of standing. In this society, cultural totalitarianism is maintained by its noise level.
In future essays I'll point out the anachronistic thought patterns of System-backed pseudo-rebels; how they're immoveably stuck in the assumptions of the Sixties, which no longer hold in a nation which since then in so many ways, starting with economically, has been radically transformed. The entire culture remains trapped in the Sixties. It's time to cut loose.
The literary Resistance will triumph with new, unstoppable ideas.
Not that the tactics weren't necessary-- they were absolutely necessary to give the authentic literary underground any kind of standing. In this society, cultural totalitarianism is maintained by its noise level.
In future essays I'll point out the anachronistic thought patterns of System-backed pseudo-rebels; how they're immoveably stuck in the assumptions of the Sixties, which no longer hold in a nation which since then in so many ways, starting with economically, has been radically transformed. The entire culture remains trapped in the Sixties. It's time to cut loose.
The literary Resistance will triumph with new, unstoppable ideas.
More Carver II
I really believe that with segments of the literary industry we're dealing with malevolence. Gordon Lish had to hate Ray Carver to do what he did-- or be totally consumed with his own ego and selfishness. Read the original versions of the stories and you'll see they were fine-- nothing untoward or amateurish about them. Lish DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT to rewrite them to make them Gordon Lish stories. It was about power and control, not art. Read Lish's own work and you'll see that he hates literature-- unless you consider lobotomized exhibitionism to be literature.
The Editor's job is NOT to replace the writer's vision and style with his own, but, at most, to help the writer more ably and fully express the intent and vision of the artwork.
Carver wasn't a baby at writing. He'd been at it for years and knew what he was doing. Lish used him like a ventriloquist's dummy-- used him flagrantly and maliciously.
There's pathos in this matter-- most of all when Carver decided before the Lish-edited book came out that he wanted it stopped. Think what a dilemma this represented for a guy who'd been struggling to achieve major publication for so long. According to reports, Carver frantically wrote Gordon Lish asking that the book be halted. Lish ignored him.
The Editor's job is NOT to replace the writer's vision and style with his own, but, at most, to help the writer more ably and fully express the intent and vision of the artwork.
Carver wasn't a baby at writing. He'd been at it for years and knew what he was doing. Lish used him like a ventriloquist's dummy-- used him flagrantly and maliciously.
There's pathos in this matter-- most of all when Carver decided before the Lish-edited book came out that he wanted it stopped. Think what a dilemma this represented for a guy who'd been struggling to achieve major publication for so long. According to reports, Carver frantically wrote Gordon Lish asking that the book be halted. Lish ignored him.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Today's Question
Who would win a steel cage match last person standing between:
-Hillary Clinton;
-Barack Obama;
-John McCain;
-"Dick" Cheney;
-Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
??(I was going to include Putin, but that would make the question too easy.)
-Hillary Clinton;
-Barack Obama;
-John McCain;
-"Dick" Cheney;
-Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
??(I was going to include Putin, but that would make the question too easy.)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Lish Is Responsible
Gordon Lish is responsible for being a major influence on some of the worst writing in American literary history.
For instance, the anthologized story by the famous trendy author which begins something like this:
"I'm a dog, yes a dog, dog dog dog, a fast dog, like to go fast, fast fast fast dog, like to run run run fast fast fast, a dog, I am, yes a dog. . . ."
This kind of gibberish is one step beneath Dr. Seuss.
Gordon Lish, along with David Foster Wallace, were chief influences on an entire lit movement, the dreaded McSweeneyites.
The 1980's was one of the worst decades for American literature EVER. You had the George Plimpton-created brat pack of Jay McInerney and Tama Janowitz; assorted minimally-talented "minimalists" like Peter Cameron and Ann Beattie, and worst of all, the cutesy kindergarten level posing of Gordon Lish's journal, Quarterly. That he helped discover Amy Hempel is reason alone to put him in American Lit's "Hall of Infamy," alongside Phillip Lopate and Jason Shinder.
As bad as the Eighties decade was for established literature, however, things have only gotten worse. The retreat into thumb-sucking narcissism, as represented in journals like the afore referred-to McSweeney's, would now shock even a five year-old.
For instance, the anthologized story by the famous trendy author which begins something like this:
"I'm a dog, yes a dog, dog dog dog, a fast dog, like to go fast, fast fast fast dog, like to run run run fast fast fast, a dog, I am, yes a dog. . . ."
This kind of gibberish is one step beneath Dr. Seuss.
Gordon Lish, along with David Foster Wallace, were chief influences on an entire lit movement, the dreaded McSweeneyites.
The 1980's was one of the worst decades for American literature EVER. You had the George Plimpton-created brat pack of Jay McInerney and Tama Janowitz; assorted minimally-talented "minimalists" like Peter Cameron and Ann Beattie, and worst of all, the cutesy kindergarten level posing of Gordon Lish's journal, Quarterly. That he helped discover Amy Hempel is reason alone to put him in American Lit's "Hall of Infamy," alongside Phillip Lopate and Jason Shinder.
As bad as the Eighties decade was for established literature, however, things have only gotten worse. The retreat into thumb-sucking narcissism, as represented in journals like the afore referred-to McSweeney's, would now shock even a five year-old.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Today's Question
Who's the most overrated rock singer?
(Note: All comments are allowed, for the time being.)
(Note: All comments are allowed, for the time being.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
