The Squirrels at Rittenhouse

Rittenhouse Square is a pleasant little park of grass, trees, sidewalks and park benches set in Center City Philadelphia. The square is surrounded on all sides by towers of condos inhabited by the wealthy. Yet all kinds of people hang out at the square.

You used to see a lot of squirrels in the park. Bold squirrels. Assertive squirrels. They'd jump right onto your park bench to beg for one of those peanuts you hand in your hand! Heavens.

The squirrels weren't asking for a whole lot. Squirrels have to live also. Besides, I'd bet that squirrels inhabited that landscape before refined mankind came around.

Lately, I've seen no squirrels in Rittenhouse Square. Not a one of them.

Can we surmise that squirrels became irritating to the rich gentry who live around the square, and that the exterminators were called?

The irony is that you can bet that these very same gentry are animal lovers. No doubt they donate tax-deductible money to a variety of animal causes, from wolves in Colorado to elephants in Africa. They love animals, these good liberal people. As long as those animals aren't in their own backyard.

You can choose the analogy you want. A hundred are out there. Prosperous liberal people move in somewhere and take ownership, bringing with them their rules of cleanliness and order.

I prefer to use the analogy of what's happened to American literature. We see not populists, but pseudo-populists. Elitists with a populist pose. The authentic voice has been displaced. After a time, the very existence of the authentic voice becomes intolerable.

The Underground Literary Alliance was treated like bothersome squirrels by the literary establishment. Yes, the fine Members of the Club are all "progressives," "social democrats," and the like-- they'll tell you so themselves-- but our grubby hungry presence just became, well, intolerable! Call the exterminators.

Publishing Is Like. . . .

In a celebration of Keith Gessen's paean to conglomerate publishing, "How a Book Is Born," blogger Michael Pokocky states that "publishing is like Investment Banking." Apparently Pokocky is an investment banker himself.

http://antresolcafe.posterous.com/how-a-book-is-born-the-making-of-the-art-of-f

Is Michael Pokocky spot on? God help us!

At least his conclusion is promising. Yes, we need a new model.

Who's Afraid of "Bluebird"?

I've mailed a modest amount of promo material to select locations within the media establishment. The mailings announce my e-books, particularly the story, "Bluebird," part of Mood Detroit. The high-placed literary crowd refuses to read "Bluebird." Why is that?

I've long been scorned by those who run Literature. The dominant narrative created about the ULA and myself in our heyday was that we're not writers. Not writers! This justified shutting us out. It was the accepted reason we were blackballed.

This same crowd, then, won't read my actual work. They can't read it. They're terrified of it, lest they find their narrative to be false. Lest they discover to their chargrin and horror I'm a very good writer after all.

Who's Covering the Recession?

Who in today's literary world is covering America's severe recession? Anyone?

Read hipster lit-journals like The Believer and n+1 and you'll see not a hint of America's problems. The literary caste in its insularity doesn't know economic problems exist. Tragic stories take place throughout the land. They see none of it.

You can bet if they did cover the recession, it would be in the most constipated pseudo-intellectual way possible, no pain or anger visible. The lits' pristine innocence would remain untouched.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the subtext of the new e-book Mood Detroit is America here and now.

Writers Rich and Poor

A short essay of mine, "A Tale of Two Literary Worlds," has been posted at the citizen journalist website Inewp, at
http://inewp.com/?p=8888

I wrote the article after looking at the current issue of Vanity Fair at a magazine stand. Though I opened the issue because Angelina Jolie was on the cover, I found inside an essay by Keith Gessen of n+1 instead!

Keith Gessen's subject is Chad Harbach's novel, The Art of Fielding, but he also examines today's publishing world. I was struck by the narrowness of Gessen's viewpoint. I had to respond.

Is Melissa Bluebird Zooey Deschanel?

IS ZOOEY DESCHANEL MELISSA BLUEBIRD?

You would think so if you heard "Rave On," the Starbucks compilation of Buddy Holly covers. Listen to "Oh Boy!" by She and Him, which features Zooey Deschanel on vocals. That's Melissa Bluebird, that voice, right there. Then, for contrast, listen to "Heartbeat" by the Detroit Cobras on the same cd, vocals by Rachel Nagy. The two songs encapsulate my theme. While Zooey may not have been my original model, she shows the relevance of the character.

"Bluebird" is part of Mood Detroit, available on e-book.

About Detroit Rock

Is it a coincidence that the best songs on "Rave On," the Starbucks tribute album to Buddy Holly, have Detroit connections?


With some exceptions (see Nick Lowe), the other covers on the album range from the forgettable to the lamentable to the execrable. In the latter category put the disappointing Paul McCartney and Modest Mouse contributions.

Maybe Detroit musicians are better able to capture Holly's roots-rock authenticity.

This includes "Crying, Waiting, Hoping," by Karen Elson, produced by Jack White. It includes "Well All Right" by Kid Rock. It includes "Words of Love" by Patti Smith, who lived for many years in the Detroit area. Best of all is "Heartbeat" by the Detroit Cobras, the best rock n' roll band-- and best kept secret-- on the planet.

(Originally posted at the Detroit Literary blog.)

The Illusion

Publications like Vanity Fair and The New Yorker create the illusion of American literature. American literature is what they say it is, because they say it. They say it often enough that people believe it. Even though they represent a tiny fraction of American writers. Not the best of them either. Definitely not the most independent and original of them.

What this crowd carries is the biggest megaphone.

(Read Mood Detroit.)

Bluebird Mystery Continues

Although they're not reading "Bluebird," part of the e-book Mood Detroit, I suspect that literary mandarins have met Melissa Bluebird. I believe they know the person quite well.

About the Underground

It's hard to believe that four years ago, the underground was still a player in the literary game. Now its writers are dead or dropped-out, buried in the ground or living in ratholes, protesting in whispers against a hurricane of neglect.

The Truth About the Truth

"Gimme some truth."  -John Lennon

The truth about the American literary world is that writers aren't allowed to speak the truth about it. Few dare criticize the system itself. The system is stratified, hierarchical, incestuous, but to point this out risks offending the power brokers of that system, without whose beneficent glance the writer doesn't stand a chance.

Cozzens and Hobsbawm

Two of my favorite authors are American conservative novelist James Gould Cozzens and Leftist historian Eric Hobsbawm. They come from opposite ends of the political spectrum, yet have much in common which makes them both a worthwhile reading experience. They both think with intense clarity-- they're from an era where intellectual clarity was a given. Both have a high level of intelligence which enables them to see and understand the world in its particular but also as a whole. The systems which comprise civilization are to them not a blur. They see the "Machine" from different viewpoints-- but at least they see it.

Most of all what makes both men important writers is their honesty. Honesty which makes them upfront about their biases, which enables the reader to allow for that slant, that bias, and adjust assessment of what they say accordingly. It's an honesty which allows Hobsbawm in The Age of Extremes to explain how the Soviet Union's "really existing socialism" was unfit for a late-Twentieth century world. An honesty which compels Cozzens in Guard of Honor to show the corruption and incompetence within a U.S. military bureaucracy which he's attempting to laud.

Understanding reality is like looking at a mountain. To truly know the mountain you can't see just one face of it. You need to see it from a number of different perspectives. This means reading and understanding a variety of viewpoints. The viewpoints are worth knowing if they're expressed with honesty, clarity, and intelligence-- a rare thing nowadays.

Does Background Matter?

In Mood Detroit I detail the backgrounds of several of the characters-- particularly the two leads of "Bluebird." Rock musicians Melissa Bluebird and Alexandra Skarzki bring with them very different attitudes toward the band and their art, attitudes formed by their respective histories. By presenting a look at those histories, I seek to create a more rounded artwork. We can't know, we can't see this society unless we look at it from different angles.

We're products of background and will more than heredity. We're amorphous ectoplasms until molded by learning and experience.

In other words, there's no possible way Melissa could be Alex, or Alex, Melissa, though superficially the two women could seem the same.

"Heart Warming"

As far as I'm concerned, the kiss of death for any art is to be labeled "heart warming." It conjures images of Norman Rockwell, Sominex, and warm milk. Status quo bland. The last thing I want to create are writings which are "heart warming."

The three tales in my e-book Mood Detroit challenge the reader to think about this country, and maybe also about the nature of artists and art. They have emotion in them. I hope none of them is "heart warming."

Monsoon Season

The nonstop rains we've been hit with are killing me. Nothing is worse in this society than being sick and broke.

What's Middlebrow?

Why would Louis Menand in The New Yorker (9/5/11) dredge up a term, "middlebrow," which made limited sense fifty years ago and makes none now?

Faux-radical Dwight MacDonald invented the categorization in the 1950's as a way to attack novelist James Gould Cozzens. MacDonald never explained with precision what the term meant.

Was Cozzens's Guard of Honor middlebrow? The novel is complex, knowledgeable, intelligent, subtle, challenging, and difficult. Ultimately, it has more to say about the creation of American empire than any novel written. High-brow? Not really. The work is grounded in real situations and people. It presents intelligence rather than intellectualism. But in no way could it be called middlebrow.

Is Jonathan Franzen's Freedom middlebrow? The Art of Fielding by Chad Harbach?

We're in vague territory. Categorizations according to "brow"-- perception and pose-- are more about standings within the society of letters than about works of literature themselves.

More About Mood Detroit

The writing style of the three tales in Mood Detroit may look different to the standard literary reader from the norm. Pop fiction is a different way of looking at literature and the world. I've added several paint daubs to the narratives. My intention was to create paintings using words. The three "paintings" in the e-book present an overall argument-- a justification for DIY. They say, there is more than one way to be an artist, a writer, a musician. Art is for everybody.

Detroit makes an apt setting for this statement.

Who Is Melissa Bluebird?

I ask the question at
http://americanpoplit.blogspot.com/2011/09/who-is-melissa-bluebird.html

Do you have the answer?

"Buddy Holly and Detroit"

Yo! See the post at
http://detroitliterary.blogspot.com/2011/09/buddy-holly-and-detroit.html

"An Alternate Model"

Wherein I discuss an alternative to the big-brain novel, at
http://americanpoplit.blogspot.com/2011/09/alternate-model.html

Mood Detroit

I have a new e-book available for sale, Mood Detroit. Three strong mini-novels. Their subject is artists, struggle, and love. Tales from a permanent recession. Ridiculously affordable. Kindle or Nook. Buy it now.

Recession? What Recession?

A few people remain untouched by economic events. The big news in the publishing world while I've been off-line is the $650,000 advance received for The Art of Fielding by Chad Harbach, an editor at n + 1.

"Muzzled"?

Does Fox News commentator Juan Williams truly believe he's "muzzled"?

Programming Update

It seems I burned out my little el cheapo Netbook while writing on it at my place during this past weekend's 100-degree heat wave. I have no air-conditioning. I was working up two new e-books. Oh well! Looks like I'm taken out of the ballgame-- which I haven't really been in of late anyway.

Descent Into Mindlessness

MORE PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALISM AT HTML GIANT

When last seen on the topic, I was engaged in a short debate at a post at the literary hipster site HTML Giant when my hapless opponents quickly scampered for cover. Though the post received 233 comments-- most in a day or two before I jumped in-- said post was quickly taken down from the site's list of "Popular Posts." HTML Giant is as committed to free and open debate as is the rest of the literary establishment-- which means, not very committed to it at all.

The subject of the debate was the embrace by today's so-called literary intellectuals of nonsense.

Later, at HTML Giant came another post which proved my points. Here:
http://htmlgiant.com/random/hi-i-want-to-talk-about-influence-a-little-bit/

Andrew James Weatherhead gives his self-referential take on a post at another hipster site, Montevidayo. The post he celebrates, "Influence=Deformation Zone," by aptly named Joyelle McSweeney, is loaded with Academy Speak. "Gender," "patrilineage," "heterosexist," "reproductive futurism," "linear notions of temporality," and so on. Joyelle McSweeney is clearly a person unable to think other than in the code words she ingested in the university.

Would anyone who'd not been through university indoctrination think and speak in this manner?

What passes for ideas from her, is a rejection of reality. Joyelle scorns "reproductive futurism," apparently not understanding that every living organism on this planet reproduces itself-- all life is reproduction; nature is reproduction-- without reproduction there is no future. As "sexist," oppressive, etc., as reproduction is, there's no way to do away with it and have any existence.

For those who live in a world of nonsense it doesn't matter.

The next step is to reject the law of causation: "that what comes before causes what comes after." Causation is not only an inescapable part of our world, and likely of the entire universe, but it's also the essential foundation of the tale; the story. The fundamental basis and justification for what's become known as literature.

What happens next? McSweeney, Weatherhead, and their ilk don't want to know.

It's part of a philosophy of intentional ignorance. Which explains a lot. Our programmed intellectuals have been trained not to notice much of anything, even when it concerns themselves. So, college students compile enormous personal debts, the cost of education continually rises, all the while campuses expand around them, gleaming new buildings on all sides, purchases of more real estate by the institutions, pushing out, in many cases, such as at U of Penn and Columbia, long-time ethnic neighborhoods. Our intellectuals who are paying so much for the privilege of becoming intellectuals can make no connection. No links acceptable. After all, that would be to accept causation, patrilineage, etc., and that won't do.

This is called, in layman's terms, being a sucker.

Much the same can be said about the current debt crisis, about which their generation will become, necessarily, the Bag Holders. (Boomers are only beginning to retire. Americans are living longer than ever. The demographics are inescapable. But-- do our young intellectuals really want to live in the real world? No signs of it.)

Andrew James Weatherhead applauds Joyelle McSweeney's rejection of "traditional ideas lineage." How far do they wish to take that? Will they reject sentences? The alphabet? Language?

"Influence should be open to be whatever you want it to be--"

Yet when you examine their stated influences, they're always influences approved by the literary establishment at that particular point of time, from Agamben to Sebald to Robbe-Grillet to Roberto Bolano. (Bolano was ignored by U.S. intellectuals until he died and one of the major book conglomerates began publishing and hyping his work. Our herd of pseudo-intellectuals quickly got in line.)

An American writers group, the Underground Literary Alliance-- whose literary influences came from an entirely different source-- found throughout its existence that U.S. literature's pseudo-intellectuals weren't at all as open as they pretend. The ULA instead was the target of their attacks, including from leading lit-hipster figures and leading lit-hipster pseudo-intellectual publications like The Believer. The ULA's activist campaign began in 2001 with a full-page article in the Village Voice titled "Start Making Sense." Pseudo-Intellectuals may be open to many things. Making sense is scarcely one of them.

What literary hipsters, especially of the pseudo-intellectual variety, are about is pose. The pose is all.

Joyelle McSweeny calls for thinking outside structures and strictures. Yet, McSweeney made sure to acquire her proper hierarchical degrees from the proper linear educational system, from giant institutions which, um, are structures which set down a great many strictures, including about literature. So did Andrew James Weatherhead, no doubt. As did likely most if not all of the entire lit-hipster crowd.

Are they intellectual frauds?

They appear to be pets of the current literary system, following, in linear fashion, all the rules, step-by-step. They exist within a cage yet assure themselves that they're free. The actual structure and production of literature, from overpriced writing programs to government/non-profit funding to the giant book conglomerates isn't a concern. This multi-layered system isn't addressed. It's hardly looked at. When you have the sense of an ant, such a notion is incomprehensible.

Joyelle's much-applauded essay, which starts from a point of nonsense, can go in only one direction, linear or not. It devolves into incomprehensible jargon:

"I use a term for this mutagenic zone; stealing a phrase from the Swedish poet Aase Berg, I call it the deformation zone. Translation is the ultimate manifestation of Art’s deformation zone, for entering yourself in Art’s mutagenic properties, for being entered and altered and destroyed, if necessary, by Art’s rogatives. Translation is anachronistic, it happens in real time and across time; it happensbackwards; it changes he who takes and he who gives; no boundaries can stand up to this innundation; everything is rendered a membrane by translation. Translation is bio-identical to Art’s influence, spreads and eats and leaks more tets, more Art. It makes too many versions, breeds new hybrid languages, and obscures priority. . . ."

And so on. It reads like the scrawl of a severely brain-damaged person.

Situation hopeless.

(NOTE: Joyelle McSweeney has a B.A. magna cum laude from Harvard, a graduate degree from Oxford University, and an MFA from Iowa. She teaches English at Notre Dame University. Andrew Weatherhead is an MFA student at the New School.)

Saving American Writers

THE PLIGHT OF UNDERGROUND WRITERS

The fate of Eric aka Jellyboy-- and as much or moreso of poet Frank D. Walsh-- illustrates the need for ways to protect and defend American underground writers, and to archive their work.

Most mainstream writers won't acknowledge that the underground variety even exists as a unique type. System writers come from, or are co-opted into, a narrow world, and insist that their bounded space is all there is.

Standard writer organizations, such as PEN American Center, are elitist and privileged, solely unto themselves, and so for our purposes are useless.

I'd love to be proven wrong about that, but don't think it will happen.

One path is to outcompete the mainstream. Extremely difficult given the circumstances, but not impossible.

Another way is to do some of the things a one-time underground writers group engaged in, including advocacy and the exposing of system corruption. As we've seen, at least some writing has been saved; the fact, the existence, the histories of a few great American folk writers recorded.

*****************************************************
At the moment my first task is to save myself!

You can aid in this by purchasing Ten Pop Stories for 99 cents at:

Amazon's Kindle store at http://www.amazon.com/

or as a Nook Book at http://www.bn.com/

Jelly Boy Writing!

Here's the link to what I believe is the only writing of Jelly Boy the Clown (Eric Broomfield) available on line, or maybe anyplace:

http://www.outyourbackdoor.com/article.php?id=971

Publisher Jeff Potter promises that proceeds will go to Jelly's enormous hospital bills.

Get your copy now!

Literary Police State II

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES

This was in January 2007, in front of the Times's previous headquarters. I'm told they've since moved into more exclusive digs.

The fortress-like structure rose before us like a heartless monolith of power. We were there to make those who dominate news in this country aware of the plight of underground writers. That had been ever the purpose and cause of our now-destroyed organization, the Underground Literary Alliance. We set up a zeen table on the public sidewalk and began handing out flyers to Times editors and writers entering and exiting the fortress.

Soon enough, someone dimed us out. Security thugs ran out and began pushing us around. The zeen table was tossed into the street, zeens flying. I wrestled the zeen box away from the head thug. I don't know if the New York Times' precious liberal journalists looked on, from inside the doors or from above.

THE TRUTH about the New York Times is that it's the center of system power. It dominates intellectual debate, and the dissemination of ideas. It's the representative and embodiment of hierarchy. Its members, despite the pristine gloss they place over themselves, are among this society's most privileged. Many, if not most, of them are Ivy Leaguers. They're from a very UNrepresentative sliver of America. They feign to speak about America, yet know little about much of it. As the January 2007 incident in front of their building illustrates, they don't want to know.

(For authentic all-American DIY writing, purchase the new e-zeen Ten Pop Stories, now available for a ridiculously low price at Amazon's Kindle Store as well as at http://www.bn.com/.)

Literary Police State

.

Here's a photo of Jelly Boy-- currently fighting for his life in a NYC hospital-- and the editor of this blog during the ULA's January 2007 excursion to Manhattan. If I look glum, and am holding the box of zeens under my arm rather tightly, it's because this photo was taken shortly after the ULA and its sidewalk zeen table were thrown into the street by New York Times security people.

Yes! The precious and hallowed New York Times, which the elite bourgeois class continually gushes over. They do so because the New York Times is the center of their privilege and power.

Help Save Jelly Boy!

Here's another shot of Jelly Boy (Eric Broomfield) in Manhattan, from January of 2007 when he participated in an excursion to the Imperial City by the Underground Literary Alliance. Jelly is currently fighting for his life after a Queens fire.

Here's a better temporary link for donations, from the Nassau Chainsaw site:
http://www.nassauchainsaw.com/blog/

Spotting the Pseudo-Intellectual

ALL ABOUT HTML GIANT PART I

The Pseudo-Intellectual talks on and on using jargon and incomprehensible thought. If you call the person on it, introducing sense into the conversation, the pseudo-intellectual vanishes.

Another word for "pseudo-intellectual" is "bullshit artist."

Nearly 100 years ago the world lost an entire generation of intellectuals to the trenches of war. Madness. Currently we've lost a generation of intellectuals to the madness of the academy, which has filled their heads with nonsense.

Case in point is the literary hipster site, HTML Giant, which has become a home of pseudo-intellectualizing.

Recently I jumped into a hectic discussion about "Pop" literary ideas. I joined the discussion for obvious reasons, as I'm promoting the idea of Pop lit. The original post was by an HTML Giant regular named M. Kitchell, and referenced in particular pseudo-intellectuals Robbe-Grillet and the well-known literary character Tao Lin. The minute I began to ask embarrassing questions, the discussion dwindled, then halted. I'm sure I came across as someone from another planet.

You'll find the post and discussion here:

http://htmlgiant.com/word-spaces/pop-a-polemic-on-a-contemporary-language-based-objectivity/

As there are a great many comments, 230 in all, you may want to read the newest posts first (choose that option), because I added my remarks fairly late.

The few who attempted to answer my questions escaped so quickly that I never got in many other points-- including about Martin Heidegger, well-known Nazi philosopher and con artist. I could point to on-line essays which argue that Heidegger was a Nazi through and through, in his person and his thought. The thing about Heidegger though is that no one can be sure exactly what he was talking about. He was the Pseudo-Intellectual par excellence. He likely didn't know what he was talking about himself, but was the ultimate bullshit artist, to the extent of b.s.'ing himself out of trouble at the end of the Second World War. The ultimate weasel-- yet his nonsensical ideas have been adopted by American universities and are a major cause of the decline of our nation's intellectual thought.

I'm sure most of the writers and readers at HTML Giant retain sense and intelligence-- or will be able to someday find some. However, Part II of this examination leaves room for doubt. Stay tuned.

More About Jelly Boy

Here's a link from Nassau Chainsaw for info about Eric Broomfield aka Jelly Boy the Clown, along with a link to donate toward his medical bills--
http://www.nassauchainsaw.com/blog/jelly-boy-clown-burned-fire-good-friend-sideshow-community-please-readmake-donation-help-click-
(Jelly is shown in NYC in '07. He's on the right of the photo, along with Frank D. Walsh on the left and another ULAer.)

More ULAer Bad News

UNDERGROUND WRITERS ARE BEING KILLED BY THIS SOCIETY

As if Steve Kostecke's death wasn't bad enough. . . .

I've just received word about two other great ULAers. (Underground Literary Alliance, which was a phenomenon from 2001 through 2007 but lately has been inactive.)

First, that poet Frank D. Walsh, a modern day Francois Villon, is living in a flophouse, I believe in New York City, and has lost or had stolen his precious cache of manuscripts. Unbelievably dynamic poems, some of the best written anywhere the past fifteen years. Most aren't anywhere online.

Second, young beat writer and carny performer Eric Broomfield, aka Jellyboy the Clown, who accompanied me on my walk into the Den of the Privileged during the ULA's 2006 Columbia University "Howl" protest, was trapped in a house fire in Queens. As of earlier this week he was on life support.

Unbelievable. I've been talking for years about the conditions in which many talented underground writers exist in this country. These latest incidents exemplify this.

As of now I have no other details, hospital, etc., but hope to attain some.

Terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible. . . .

Independence Day in Philly

A look at one of the many festivities.

Film Critic Bias?

SEE! Cardboard cutouts of famous literary people!
SEE! A static camera, misfired jokes, uneven acting and recycled themes!
SEE! Kathy Bates playing Gertrude Stein as-- Kathy Bates!

Yes, I'm talking about the well-hyped Woody Allen flick, "Midnight in Paris." It's a nice little movie, I guess. But-- A-minus or Four-Star reviews? Something's going on here.

For much of the film, "Midnight in Paris" plays like a classic movie "Bomb." At times it's so bad it's embarrassing. Star Owen Wilson has no discernible personality or talent. He spends the time either moping about himself or waving his hands around. Through his characters Woody Allen declaims about how wonderful Paris is, but other than a moment or two, he doesn't make us feel it. Throughout he uses Gunsmoke-era TV camera setups. Any other director would be hammered for this and for the lethargic pace. The realization hits that Woody never advanced as a director. (If anything he's gone backward.) He's not a director. He's a writer-comedian who directs.

The film is surely no better than the recent "Atlas Shrugged" movie which was savagely attacked by film critics. But then, this one is by Woody Allen. One of them. The movie takes place among the smug and the affluent, a privileged class of dilettantes able to float above the hectic drama of the world.

For sensing the Twenties, I'd recommend the several literary memoirs about the period from the likes of John Glassco and Robert McAlmon. Or rent a movie from the Eighties called "The Moderns."

Wise Men II

As a reader, I enjoy escaping into novels from the 1940's and 50's written by the likes of Isaac Asimov and James Gould Cozzens, because they think and see the world with strict clarity and logic. This is a stark difference from the postmodern insanity of now. One learns nothing from today's novelists, because they know nothing themselves.

The Wise Men

I've been reading one of the novels in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. Great literature-- the Foundation saga is great literature-- gives one insights about how to view one's world. I'm struck by Asimov's tops-down viewpoint, which assumes hierarchies and competing intelligent rulers who run those hierarches.

There's no question that this is the viewpoint of those who run the American empire. It has been the prevailing operating philosophy since World War II, when the nation was led-- some would say taken over-- by several of the most intelligent Americans who ever lived. George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, and George Kennan were among their number. Above them all sat the master manipulator, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As in an Asimovian universe, these wise men, in order to keep our planet from evil and chaos, the violence, madness, and destruction everywhere around them, constructed the American machine which for over sixty years has been the planet's dominant force.

Who runs the machine now?

Thinking of today's figures as characters from an Asimov novel, our Presidents, be they Obama or the younger Bush, are a tad too young, energetic, and callow to be much more than dynamic front men. True decisions are not made by any one man or woman, but through a consensus of men and women who follow the outlines of the plan which the Seldon-like FDR put into place. Surface power is granted to a First Foundation, which is then closely watched by a Second Foundation. If the plan gets too far off course, they then move to put it back in line. (1963? 1974?)

When one understands the immense importance of monetary policy and the financial system, then it's easy to think that America runs with a dual leadership. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is at least as influential as the President in what the future of our civilization looks like, because he provides the life-sustaining blood-- the lubricant of money without which nothing will work.

I thought of this while hearing about Alan Greenspan's strong criticisms of current Fed Chair Ben Bernancke. Bernancke has foolishly pumped too much money into the system-- the consequences have only begun to be played out. Whatever one thinks of Greenspan, he kept the American imperial system operating in one piece through many crises over two decades. Strangely enough, Greenspan was once a protege of Ayn Rand, an Asimov-like novelist.

"Elvis Meets Frankenstein"

If you want the authentic version of this legendary meeting, recorded as a "fictional" story, pick up the new ebook, Ten Pop Stories, available now on Nook at
http://www.bn.com/

Fiction and Empire

JAMES WOOD AND THE NEW YORKER

I note that lead New Yorker literary critic James Wood has an essay in the new issue about a Hungarian novelist with an unreadable unpronouncable name. I won't try to remember it here. The question is why Wood thinks his readership would be interested in this author. The question is: Who is that readership?

There's no interest in the concept of "American" literature-- and why should there be, from the James Wood perspective? He's a British mercenary-for-hire, raised with an implicit British global view of the world which matches the view of the magazines he writes for. The New Yorker's view is not toward America, but Europe, first, then the rest of the world. The world belongs to them and their highly educated imperialistic readership. More than latter-day Brits, they are current-day Romans.

I've advocated literary rebellion from their rear, behind their backs, to rescue American literature from them. I still advocate that.

Ten Pop Stories!

FIRST RELEASE

My new ebook, Ten Pop Stories, is available first and exclusively for the moment on Nook at

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ten-pop-stories-king-wenclas/1103909160?ean=2940012896605&itm=1&usri=ten%2bpop%2bstories

I'm offering it at an introductory low price. This may be the best value in literature. The collection contains some of my best pop stories along with several new ones. It will soon enough be available at other outlets-- but get it now ahead of the crowd!

Can You Challenge Your Own Assumptions?

THE DAVID MAMET QUESTION

Playwright David Mamet, in his new book, The Secret Knowledge, explains why he's jumped from liberal to conservative in his thinking.

It might be an extreme leap to make. My idea is to take the best from both camps-- or at least eliminate the worst of ideas available from both sides.

The question is why Mamet made the change.

It might be his realization that what passes today as Liberal is not liberal-- not as the word was known fifty years ago, during liberalism's heyday and the idealization which came with the election of JFK. (See the notion of integration, for instance, which has been abandoned by the Left in the interest of the balkanization of American society and culture.)

Or, it might be that Mamet became frustrated with the utter stupidity, on issue after issue, by those mechanically mouthing the stances of today's liberal-Left.

Maybe not stupidity so much as gullibility-- the inability to question what's programmed into them.

This is an interesting phenomenon. When you see the progressive individual wearing a t-shirt that says, "Question Everything," you can be certain that the individual questions nothing. Wearing the slogan eliminates the need to question. It certifies that the individual is already correct in his ideas, no further examination necessary. The work has already been done. Somewhere, offstage, presumably by the person's professors, who hand the hapless soul prepackaged doctrine accompanied by liberal sanctification removing any need for further thought.

I use the example of manmade Global Warming Theory because it's such an obvious case. (I've been introduced to people before with this phrase: "Karl doesn't believe in Global Warming." In other words, I'm something of a nut. All thought closed off.)

The vast mass of people who accept Global Warming haven't looked into it. They accept it as a whole, in large part because it comes from on high, from authority figures. How can anyone question it?

The more successfully educated the person, the more gullible. For this reason: Those who do best in high school and college, at the very top of the pool, all A's and other scholastic honors, are those persons who best accept what's taught them, and ingest it fully so they can hand it back at a moment's notice.

I could sit down in front of you with graph paper and within fifteen minutes show you what Global Warming Theory is based on, and what's wrong and inadequate about its premises.

Not that this would make a difference to you. Humans aren't logical animals, for the most part. They're most comfortable when part of a herd. (p.s. This applies to the Right as well as the Left.)
*********************************************
Global Warming hysteria can be explained through a book which should be part of everyone's education, but isn't: Charles MacKay's Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Well known among hard core investors and speculators. It's worth a look.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: In correcting a mistake I made regarding the author of said book, and googling the title, I stumbled upon an interesting paper regarding the Global Warming controversy:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases
Worth a look for those interested in truth instead of ideology.)

Wild Animals

This morning in Center City Philadelphia I saw a bourgie young woman pushing a baby boy of two or three in a carriage. In the child's lap was a book, presumably with pictures, titled "Wild Animals of North America."

I noted to myself several ironies. One is that there are very few wild animals left in North America, unless you count squirrels. Another is that, while young boys are attracted to the notion of wild animals, that boy will grow up in the most regulated, watched, and catalogued society-- be it of animals or humans-- ever. We're little better than zoo animals. Except for patches of urban wilderness which soon enough point their occupants toward actual prisons, or a few rural hinterlands where reside historical throwbacks like Wild Bill Blackolive, dreams of the wild are all most people get. That boy might become a young literary writer, properly MFA'd after being properly indoctrinated in college, with proper style and proper self-regulated politically-correct thoughts, nothing untoward or messy or wild to be found in himself and his well-crafted words, anywhere.

Coming Soon! New Release!

Yes, my first ever e-book, Ten Pop Stories, will be available for sale somewhere as early as the end of this week, with all luck. Why be interested? Because it's a first step toward a new populist way of viewing the contemporary American short story. Stay tuned.

Radical Change

RADICAL CHANGE IN SPORT AND ART

The biggest loser at the U.S. Open golf championship this weekend had to be Phil Mickelson. For more than a decade Mickelson has made a career out of being the second-best player in the world, a golfer almost-but-not-quite as good as Tiger Woods. He's even won a few major tournaments himself to justify this image. By Friday this stance was shattered.

On the first two days of the tournament, Thursday and Friday, Mickelson played in the same group with young Rory McIlroy, who went on to win big. They weren't on the same level. Afterward McIlroy remarked to the effect that he admired Mickelson's ability to scramble out of trouble after bad shots. Left unsaid was that Mickelson was so often in trouble to begin with, in the world's most difficult tournament. McIlroy made it look easy, seldom making bad shots. A level closer to golf perfection indeed.

Why would we not think that McIlroy has raised the bar not just on Phil, but on Tiger himself? Change is the fundamental law of nature.

For fifteen years Tiger Woods has dominated the golf world by working harder than other golfers-- by having stronger determination, practicing longer, conditioning himself better, to give himself an edge. On the golf course he could always scramble out of trouble and will himself to a win. McIlroy's dominance is an entirely different animal. Or so it appeared next to the supposed "best of the rest" in smiling Phil, who became instantly obsolete compared to the appearance of the New.

I've argued that this is exactly the kind of phenomenon which should occur in the world of literature. The short story is obviously stagnant, trapped in a competent Phil Mickelson-style outdated version of brilliance which appears to the thoughtfully observant to be stodgy and old. I'll read a story by the best of today's literary scribblers-- Mary Gaitskill for instance-- and shake my head at the work's slowness and predictability, despite the writer's evident trained skill.

I don't pretend that I'll be able to write the radical new story to rescue the art. But, I hope to present nascent examples pointing a road down which future radically-different radically-better new talents could go.

(In other words, watch for my first e-book, "Ten Pop Stories," on sale someplace soon.)

Why Economics?

Why have I covered matters of economics? Why have I stated affinities with libertarian Tea Party folks?

First, because I continue to have a DIY roots Do-It-Yourself mindset, which sets me apart from the vast majority of writers and literary experts.

Second, the situation American literature is in now, and how it will be rescued, is a matter of economics.

American publishing and literary thought now: The worst aspects of crony Capitalism and tops-down socialism, merged. A handful of media monopolies cranking out a mass of thoughtless commercial pablum junk, with the prestige happy face slapped onto the machine of unreadable overrefined literary product. Both ends of this mess: tops-down, detached, and in their essence, uncompetitive. Uncompetitive now with other aspects of the culture. (See Lady Gaga.) Ultimately, if new free-booting entrepreneurs emerge, the stagnant status quo we have should prove uncompetitive with the dynamic new.

Where's the Left?

Nothing better reveals the phoniness of the so-called Left, centered in the media, than this: We continue to be in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've entered a new one in Libya. President Obama is ignoring the War Powers Act-- according to some, like Dennis Kucinich, illegally. Yet where are the demonstrations? The marches? The outraged editorials? How easy it is to coopt these people. Nothing has changed with these matters since George W. Bush was President. Only the front-man face. One more friendly to the soppy media-hack Left. An adept switch. The machine rolls on.

Profiling New York Media

SUBJECT: ERIC ALTERMAN

It's often said by the media elite themselves-- journalists at the New York Times, for instance-- that they're notably more objective and informed than outsider bloggers.

Meanwhile, we see that establishment journalist Eric Alterman is gaining attention for a column in The Nation which refers to half the Republican Party-- the populist half, naturally-- as idiots, liars, and lunatics. The column is little more, in fact, than name-calling. One looks for an actual argument, buttressed by logic-- one seeks for a smidgen of objectivity-- and finds instead ranting and sophistry.

(It should be noted that Alterman was known in the past for his virulent attacks on Ralph Nader, of all people.)

Eric Alterman is an Insider's Insider. B.A. from Cornell, M.A. in International Relations from Yale, Ph.D from Stanford, he worked early in his career as a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York City and Washington D.C. His entire career has taken place within the top 1% intellectual aristocracy. As a result, his solutions for anything are tops-down, institutional solutions.

Alterman claims his education has given him "historical context for understanding what is going on."

Yet his arguments are absent an understanding of history. For instance, of the trend in the 1930's toward managed economies and away from liberal democracies, shown in a variety of countries. Even the most idealistic of these movements, the Popular Front under Leon Blum in France, was, from an economic standpoint, an abject failure. Not until France freed up its economy in 1939 did it revive. Too late, it turned out, to save it in a war with two managed economies, who went to war in large part because their own economies, after initial success, were quickly going bankrupt.

In other words, in the long-run, managed economies don't work and have never worked. (See the Soviet Union.)

The great irony right now is that the solutions advocated by Alterman's "idiots" is the solution, with all its many flaws, of liberal democracy. A Sarah Palin is classically liberal in her thinking, a small-d democrat all the way.

The media elite will always be against populists of either party, Nader or Palin, and for those who represent the interests of the centrist establishment, which stands for institutionally-based tops-down power and thought, be it from the "Left" or the "Right." Eric Alterman, like others at The Nation (owned and edited by an heiress to a billion-dollar fortune) would never wish for true change in this country; to disturb or destroy the nation's hierarchies, because he's a product of those hierarchies. He's as fearful of the amorphous uncontrolled "mob" as is Ann Coulter. They're raised, educated in, and dwell in elite bubbles. Usually, as a matter of happenstance, on the east coast, in a well-protected realm extending from Dartmouth to the Washington Beltway. It's understandable that those outside their special Eden appear to them to be demons and, well, idiots.

About False Narratives

THOUGHTS ON THE U.S. INTELLECTUAL ESTABLISHMENT

The reaction to the campaign of the Underground Literary Alliance last decade revolved around a false narrative which completely distorted what we were about. The ULA was called Stalinist in places like The Believer. I was widely referred to across the Internet as a dictator. This, about the most open and democratic of organizations. This experience gave me a first-hand look at how the Intellectual Establishment operates.

The literary wing of that Establishment, despite the posturing, is anti-democratic-- evidenced by the structure and history, for instance, of the main U.S. branch of the PEN writers organization, which I've covered on this blog and elsewhere previously.

The hostility toward intellectual outsiders extends to outsider ideas-- to any ideas that aren't the elite's.

An example of this is what was added to my wikipedia profile in an attempt to discredit me. They mentioned that I'm a skeptic of manmade global warming theory-- as anyone should be a skeptic of any such extreme scenario, especially when there are gaping holes in it. Second, my anonymous opponents stated that I had mildly defended Sarah Palin on a couple points. Wow!

Now, consider the thinking of those who added this to that wiki entry. Their belief seems to be that merely holding such thoughts puts one beyond the pale. All they need do is inform people of what I'd said, and I'd be instantly discredited. In other words, there are ideas and positions-- not at all outlandish-- which are intellectually unacceptable.

Does this show a hostility to the free interchange of ideas and to independent thinking?
*************************************
I note that last night the Tony Awards took place in tony New York City. A musical which mocks the Mormon religion received a gazillion nominations. Fine. Free expression, approved by the intellectual elite. But the question has to be raised: Could such a stage play ever be made about, say, Islam? For me it seems an example of intellectual inconsistency, hypocrisy, and cowardice.
*************************************
Again, I have the position of one who's been on the receiving end of that elite's fraudulence and dishonesty.

Meanwhile, I see Sarah Palin, a private citizen, is in the news again. Apparently 24,000 of Ms. Palin's emails have been thrown open for public viewing, including many on a private Yahoo account. This was the result of, and occasioned, a mass media frenzy by those eager to discredit Ms. Palin.

Supporters of President Obama, for obvious reasons, should be among those outraged at this. If only to avoid the appearance of a clear double standard.

What has been found in Ms. Palin's emails? All 24,000 of them? Has there been support of the media's constructed imagined narrative about her? Was she shown to be a partisan extremist, prima donna hyper-ambitious egotist?

Hardly. She's in fact been shown to be notably NON-partisan, an independent thinker who was willing to clash with powerful members of her own party.

Why am I posting this? I'm not a conservative. I'm sure I disagree with Sarah Palin on many things. Much of my history has been on the other side of the divide.

I like to think, however, that I have intellectual honesty and integrity. I call things as I see them. I'm outraged by phoniness and duplicity. I've also had my eyes opened, when I was a leading member of the ULA, to the absence of character of those who control the main avenues of intellectual debate in this society, those who presume to decide what is or isn't proper thinking.

Sorry for the rant.

(p.s. This stream of thought came about after seeing Woody Allen's new film, "Midnight in Paris." A nice little movie. Not a dud, not quite, because it's saved toward the finish and ends up being a pleasant if unexceptional movie experience. But-- starred reviews? A- ratings? Gushes of enthusiasms? Something else is going on with those doing the gushing-- their bias is showing. I plan to discuss this further in a review of the movie, upcoming.)

More American Writer Tournament

The #13 and #14 seedings for the All-Time American Writer Tournament are now posted at the American Pop Lit blog, with attached commentary. See them at

www.americanpoplit.blogspot.com/2011/06/13-and-14-seeds.html

About Jon Stewart

I see Jon Stewart is getting some criticism for soft-soaping the scandal involving his friend Mr. Weiner, target of jokes far and wide. Stewart's a genuine good guy, but one can question the mental universe he inhabits.

There's a YouTube video of Stewart debating libertarian Senator Rand Paul. What's noteworthy is that both men are talking past each other like religious believers of different sects convinced they're right, unwilling to concede a point from the other side. (Which, after all, is the format.)

Which worldview is right?

No one really knows. Which economic theory works best is guesswork-- though we can see what works now and can study analogies from the past to help decide.

I find this irony about both philosophies. While Stewart's managed economy ideas stem originally from Marx, it's a philosophy whose antecedents are in a Judeo-Christian view of the universe-- meaning, fairly static, predictable, on a predictable course with a predictable outcome, and the overall belief that the economy and society can be wisely managed from on high.

Rand Paul's view of the universe is that of a more chaotic and unpredictable place with multiplicities of changes and variables taking place constantly, with progress dependent on sudden mutations. In other words, fairly Darwinian-- which still allows for a broader order to the whole thing. Marxian theory says that eventually, inevitably, our system's contradictions will bring the machine down. Rand Paul's ideas believe the machine will have ups and downs but will be able to renew itself. It allows for-- it expects-- the occasional free agent Steven Jobs-style innovating entrepreneur to bring new energy and growth to the massive entity, and thereby save it.

Everything in life is a living breathing changing organism, even economies. Even arts. Even literary scenes.

Keep It Simple!

I heard a song on the radio this morning, played because it related to a current media scandal: Chuck Berry’s “Anthony Boy.” You should be able to listen to it here:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ55EzUt2h4

When I heard it, I marveled at A.) how simple and goofy the song is; B.) the idea that this song was dropped onto the culture by one of the true founders of rock n’ roll.

What’s the lesson for us? That this groundbreaking musician was engaged in—having fun?

When rock n’ roll appeared, played by low-rent characters like Chuck Berry and Bill Haley, the American musical scene was dominated, on the one hand, by a great period of classical music in this country, represented by the likes of Leonard Bernstein, Aaron Copland, Mario Lanza, Van Cliburn and company. On the other hand, by extremely skilled pop and big band singers and musicians like Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, Frank Sinatra, Perry Como and the like.

Into this refined world came—the simplest music possible. Which only captured the market, pushed all else to the sidelines, and grew the market for music many times over.

Is there anything to learn in this tale for those who wish to revive the American short story?

Newsweek Magazine Becomes Freakishly Hysterical

OR WHY YOU CAN'T TRUST THE MASS MEDIA

Quite an interesting May 29 Newsweek magazine cover story from Sharon Begley. It's called, "Are You Ready for More?" Its subtitle is, "Freak Storms Are the New Normal." Its thesis is that the recent floods and killer tornadoes represent drastic manmade climate change which will drastically alter how we live within a decade or two. The article is 5% science and 95% hysteria.

Here's a typical quote from the piece:

"--one lesson is sinking in with terrifying certainty. The stable climate of the last 12,000 years is gone. Which means you haven't seen anything yet. And we are not prepared."

Begley then asks us to imagine a drastically changed world, where, for instance, California's Pacific Highway will have to be rerouted inland, through the mountains!

The language and the scenarios presented aren't objective. ("Terrifying.") What they are is exaggerated propaganda. The tipoff is the line about the "stable climate of the last 12,000 years."

Does anyone believe this? Really? 12,000 years of a stable if fragile planet, which we little organisms have irrevocably overturned. Do people buy this? Are Newsweek readers truly that gullible?

Hmm. Killer tornadoes. Haven't seen them before. Yet a quick check on wikipedia reveals that in 1925 the Tri-State Tornado killed 695 people in the same general Missouri part of the country, at a time when the United States was much less populated than it is now. An anomaly, surely.

There were killer tornadoes as far back as in Sicily in 1851. Or in Malta in 1551.

A check of the worst recorded natural disasters in history shows the 1931 China floods which killed 1,000,000 to 2,500,000, and the 1887 Yellow River floods which killed 900,000 to 2,000,000.  Also on the list is the 1839 India Cyclone which killed a mere 300,000 people. What would Sharon Begley say if that occurred now?

Well, there is the Missippippi flooding taking place right now. What about that?

We have to ask why the levees were built in the first place. Apparently there'd been flooding before. Like the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, which was the worst American flood during the microinstant of time that is American history.

As there are more people recording disasters now than ever before, and more people living on this planet, putting themselves in the way of such disasters, and since we have short lifespans during which anything that happens to us as individuals is very important, it's easy to see how a Sharon Begley could lose her head.

The underlying problem is that the "best" educated persons in America have been indoctrinated into a series of assumptions and myths, which have been so embedded into their fragile brains they're unable to question them. Global warming! And here comes a tornado. And it kills people! Ohmygod, the nightmare scenario is all coming true! Run to shelter! Before it's too late! Flee to the mountains!

The point for this blog is that the same sort of unquestioned unexamined assumptions underlie the behavior and opinions of the literary world.

Meanwhile, I wonder why Sharon Begley limited her period of climate stability to 12,000 years. Could it be that a few thousand years before that, drastic climate change wiped out the Neanderthals?-- when Europe changed from forests to grasslands within a single generation. Giving Neanderthals apparently no time to reroute their highways.

But after all, that's what they got for cooking over open fires and disturbing the climate!

Now Up at Pop Lit

Three opportunities:

1.) Go to the American Pop Lit blog at www.americanpoplit.blogspot.com/2011/06/scott-in-paris.html and give your quick opinion, if you've seen it, of the new Woody Allen flick, "Midnight in Paris." Or state if you plan to see it.

2.) While over there, take a glance at the ongoing "All-Time American Writer Tournament" and think of possible candidates for entrance.

3.) Finally, click on the link at the left of this blog to purchase The Whirligig ebook. Then let us know if the underground writers included within match up to the legendary "Lost Generation" of the 1920's.

Thanks!

Why I Hate Hipsters

WHEREAS original 1940's and 50's hipsters were marked by a Kerouacian beatified outward plunge into and regard for the world and all encompassed by it, from mountains to every kind of person everywhere, the current version of hipsterdom is manifested by nothing so much as self-regard, self-love. "Aren't we wonderful?" their every narcissistic gesture and ironic smirk says to everyone else. They consider themselves incorruptible gods, their entitlement their due, their every word special because it's theirs, while the world outside their circle is an inferior place either to be graced with their occasional presence, or dismissed, satirized, or ignored. Do you see them on their higher plane, the clean and saved, of liberal speciality, wearing white robes? They're not human, because human beings are flawed.

This is the impression one receives, anyway, when encountering hipsters in their bubbled habitat, whether in overpriced gentrified bars or in the pages of smug journals like The Believer and n+1.

To read more authentic American literature get The Whirligig ebook, available at the top left of this blog.

Purchase the New

ABOUT THE WHIRLIGIG E-BOOK

I've long talked about the need to create a new kind of fiction, beginning with the short story, in order to reinvigorate the art-- in order to get the mass public reading literature again. The task has been for writers to create not stale bland "literary" stories which stir and entertain no one, but instead, to yawp out in a good old American writer way stories which rock.

Undergrounders, especially from the "zine" scene, have been doing exactly that for a number of years.

Many of the best of these writers can be found in a new compilation of writing from one of the best lit-zines of the past ten years, The Whirligig. Editor Frank Marcopolos is now selling this compilation as an e-book at his site. Please click on the link at the left of this blog page to read more about it-- and to order your copy.

Do you want to read the new? Do you wish to discover a fresh alternative to the same-old same-old? Here is where you start.

I hope to have a few of my own ebooks available for sale as soon as possible-- if I ever master the difficulties involved in setting one up!

Remember: The future of literature belongs to those who create it.

Polarizing

ESPN commentator Michael Wilbon has pointed out how greatly National Basketball Association playoffs ratings are up right now. He attributes this to star Miami Heat player Lebron James turning himself into a controversial figure. Now no longer a bland nice guy, Lebron has become the kind of personality one loves or hates. Strong emotion generated.

This is exactly what the Underground Literary Alliance had going for it ten years ago. The ULA was polarizing. That, indeed, was its strategy. Its weak point was that many of its own members couldn't see this-- even at the beginning. After our Amato Opera House show, the culmination of six weeks of activity and controversy, we were briefly the talk of literary New York. Page Six stories on us lay ahead. The road was wide open for us to become a major player-- yet even then we were cracking apart internally. When we should have been staging more events in both New York and Philly, we instead spent our time bickering. The very prospect of success, for a few of us, was intimidating.

This, with what began as a kickass team of ultimate underground zeen writers. The bravest of the brave; craziest of the crazy. Today there are no writers around with one-tenth our energy and daring. Though a road into the culture could be opened again, it takes personalities willing to accept a blizzard of criticism, to jump boldly into the spotlight. In these timid and enervated times that's no longer a possibility.

Saving the Short Story

I was recently involved in a couple of online discussions about the short story, including here:

http://www.themillions.com/2011/05/publish-or-perish-the-short-story.html/comment-page-1#comment-20866

where the author of the post, Paul Vidich, gives only one part of the solution.

Apparently my points are unanswerable.

Winning the Debate

The strategy of the Underground Literary Alliance upon its founding in 2000 was to provoke a public debate about American literature, then to win that debate and convert opponents to our ideas. In that sense we welcomed strong criticism, and so could hardly complain when it occurred. What threw me is how quickly that criticism became underhanded, behind the scenes, anonymous, skulking-- including from at least one mole planted into the organization (proofs available) and numerous other betrayals.

When all is said and done, the ULA won the debate, big-time. We won every argument conducted honestly-- including early on at the 2001 CBGB's press conference when we debated the Paris Review and Open City staffs. Unlike our powerful adversaries, throughout we operated upfront, stand-up all the way. We exposed corruption, discussed topics, that no other writers would touch. The ULA's brief but explosive history is full of honor, integrity, courage, and pride.

Dangerous

If the literary rebellion, as once embodied in the Underground Literary Alliance, were ever resurrected it would be attacked from all sides more than it was the first time.

The Problem of the Contemporary

With ten seeds filled for the All-Time American Writer Tournament, I'm encountering more difficult choices-- particularly when assessing the writers of today. See the post,

www.americanpoplit.blogspot.com/2011/05/problem-of-now.html

Let's hear a few nominations.

Are We Still Here?

I get the impression many people were secretly hoping for the end of the world, to rescue them from the crushing expectations of life.

The World Ending?

Yes , we've all seen the billboards and people on the street with signs proclaiming the end of the world in a few days. Much snickering and amusement.

Yet is this really much different from the predictions of catastrophic global warming being pushed at the public by "green" con-artist hustlers the last twenty years? At least the May 21 hysterics don't seem to be making any bucks from their over-the-top predictions.

The most conned were the Ivy League intellectuals over at the pretentious pseudo-intellectual literary journal n+1. In a more-hysterical-than-usual issue of their rag a few years ago, these cats not only predicted the end of the world as-we-know-it, but also cried unknowingly about the "end of oil." Since then, of course, huge new pools of oil have been found on land and sea. The world is awash in oil-- if there's the will, money, and proper technology to get it out.

"The End Is Near!" Who are those crazy people? Could they possibly be-- gulp-- elite literati?

Organic Culture

The bankruptcies of classical music orchestras around the country show the failure of a tops-down, academy-nonprofit approach to culture. The theory was that the academy would train musicians, but while doing so, also create an audience for the music. Music culture became the property of elite institutions. Side-by-side the college training grounds were the nonprofit organizations housing the orchestras. Decisions as to quality, taste, and marketing were made completely separate from the market, which was looked upon as a corrupting influence.

In the long run, this way of creating and presenting music didn’t work.. Classical music, a vibrant, major part of the culture fifty years ago through giant figures like Leonard Bernstein, Mario Lanza, and Van Cliburn, has in the wake of the pop music explosion been left far behind. It didn’t compete because it never tried to compete.

The same phenomenon is taking place in a big part of the literary world, with the MFA training of writers, the thinking being that the writing school graduates—not the mass public—will be literature’s audience.

Literature has thrived through spontaneous generations of culture. One example might be the Harlem Renaissance, which I’ve just begun reading about to find a candidate or candidates for the All-Time American Writer Tournament ongoing at

www.americanpoplit.blogspot.com

About Literary Revolution

WHEN the current literary system collapses it won't be because of anything I do. Fundamental technological changes in how we receive words will be the cause. I've tried to point out structural flaws in the system-- its inadequacy as the engine and promoter of literature-- which argue for inevitable and necessary collapse.

Right now I'm more interested in what should follow the end of literary empire.

We need a broader definition of American literature more in line with American populism, reconnecting with a literary tradition unique to this land and its people, and vastly different from the literary traditions of France and Britain. We need a literature which reflects the American experience and voice: simple, direct, and large.

In a world filled with phoniness and lies, where many distrust what they read and hear from mainstream media-- and with philosophies like postmodernism which celebrate the lie-- literature needs to present stand-up writers who speak with unflinching honesty. This is how the literary art can recapture its once glorious reputation and standing within the larger society. We're a long way from that point!

I've been collecting ideas about what American lit should look like, at a post called "Reinventing the Canon" at
www.americanpoplit.blogspot.com/2011/05/reinventing-canon.html

Keeping Perspective

Everyone in this country seems caught in a two-choice good/bad Right-Left way of thinking. Reality is more complex. My point about Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged wasn't that it's the greatest book ever. But it's surely not the worst. For literary mandarins to claim it fails on every level, and then for other so-called intellectuals to blindly follow along, shows me that many people aren't thinking at all.

Someday, just to do it, I may get ahold of the novel-- I've read it only once, but I have read it-- and show passages where the writing works, and works well, is in line with prose from Rand's better accepted peers from Mailer to Bellow during the same time period. I'll also show how well constructed the book's narrative is. Whatever one thinks of Ayn Rand's ideas-- she surely took reason and logic to an unreal, imaginative extreme-- she used form and logic in putting together her greatest work. As one would assume to be the case.

A few days ago I was in a discussion about Atlas Shrugged, the movie and the novel, on a "Lefty" blog (the Leftists likely self-deluding bourgies who've never taken an upfront independent stand on anything, and who scorn independent thought). Here's an excerpt from what I said, with quotes added:

"Atlas Shrugged is an in-your-face novel-- which is why it continues to generate intense passion. Which, as I've said, is one of the objectives of art. In a sense she's asked for the blowback. Rather than give ticky-tack arguments about this point or that point of hers (I'm not an Objectivist so I don't care), try instead to assess the novel within context, understanding where the author was coming from and what she was trying to accomplish. As with all authors, Ayn Rand was trying to make sense of her life, which began with an experience of the Bolshevik revolution, and ended, at the time she wrote the book, living in the most successful civilization that ever was. Her philosophy and her aesthetic is an attempt to understand this and explain it. Few American novelists have tried to understand what's made this civilization as powerful and as wealthy as it's been-- yet that should be the task of the ambitious novelist. That the attempt ultimately failed is no argument against the attempt. Other writers, yes, like John Updike had much smaller goals. Their style of thought and literary art is very different. There should be room in American literature for a variety of viewpoints and artistic styles-- Ayn Rand's among them. Why is the very notion upsetting to people?


"This isn't a football game. There are no winners or losers in literature. Art isn't about keeping score. No significant work of art is all bad or all good. One can point to missteps and inconsistencies from the greatest novelists who ever lived, such as Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. That their philosphical ideas and arguments may be only partly true, that they're not followed by readers, doesn't make their novels insignificant or invalid or uninteresting. Atlas Shrugged is a significant novel in the context of American literature and American civilization because it presents one part of the argument, because it gives a picture of what the creators of the civilization have believed and thought, because it stimulated debate, was provocative, IS provocative even in our own time now. It's hard to ask more from a novel."

Thoughts About Insurgents

In recent days the world lost one of its top insurgents. With commando teams by all reports proliferating, the room to operate outside the technology-based world system becomes ever narrower. Some questions and thoughts.

-I was surprised that Bin Laden didn't have a weapon at hand, and didn't go down fighting. It seems he wasn't as hard-core balls-to-the-wall as he pretended. It may be that wealthy backgrounds produce soft revolutionaries. He didn't scorn luxury, wasn't found in an Afghanistan cave.

-The ULA, a peaceful cultural insurgency, was broken and scattered by a different kind of powerful establishment. Some of its hardest core members I haven't heard from in a while, and haven't been able to make contact with these past days. Incommunicado. One wonders where they're hiding out at-- maybe in some low-rent, obscure version of a cave.

The Last Straw

The final straw for authorities regarding Osama Bin Laden was the discovery that he was burning trash inside his compound, rather than recycling. :)

About Steve Kostecke

I first heard about and from Steve Kostecke in the 1990’s when the print-zine scene was at its peak, filled with fabulous writers many corresponding through long letters with one another, missives filled with ideas and energy and the joy of writing.

Steve lived overseas, bouncing around in countries like Korea and Thailand teaching English. He was one of a few of us caught up in the idea that underground writing was a vital segment of American literature. We discussed the idea of the writing of ourselves, a DIY from-the-ground mass generation of cheap publications, as an actual literary movement.

This was the topic of conversation when I finally met Steve, I think in 1997, in Detroit, which was the home base for both of us. Steve’s early writing was about growing up—high school partying mostly—in the Detroit area. Being from that crazed raw angry city was/is a contact point for its refugees, a shared foundation of experience with a kind of disbelief that the nature of the town so fell short of any widely projected American ideal.

I met Steve at a bar on the Wayne State U campus named Z’s Place, then after a few beers we journeyed further south into the lower part of the Cass Corridor where existed the real gritty dives filled with prostitutes druggies dropout bohemians fugitives from reality of all races in a kind of ultimate slice-of-life. I remember Steve as this cocky swaggering guy wearing a brown leather bomber jacket able to drink anyone under the table as we went through pitchers sitting at a creaky table in a saloon surrounded by stray paraphernalia and skinny addict whores at the bar leering our way, open door Cass Corridor life outside as the beers kept on coming. Steve, of course, thrived in such places in Asia.

He was a guy soaking in every aspect of life, with a wide-eyed American wonder at all of it.

Several of us continued to discuss, through the mails, starting a more tangible literary movement. In 1998 I was involved with another writer in a project called Pop Literary Gazette. Steve was one of the writers we included in the journal’s pages. After that folded I gave up everything literary altogether, concentrating on running a small office in the trade business along Detroit’s riverfront, working 70-hour weeks. Still, in the back of my mind I continued to mull over the lit movement idea. I knew there were many talented zine writers whose writing and personalities carried dynamic energy. Writers like Steve Kostecke.

Steve more than anyone—Doug Bassett and Michael Jackman were others—encouraged me to take the lead in putting our ideas into reality. At the end of 1999 I quit my job and moved to Philadelphia.

The founding of the Underground Literary Alliance occurred during a drinkfest weekend in October of 2000 in Hoboken, New Jersey. We’d invited every underground writer we knew to join—six of us made it. Steve came direct, it seemed, from Asia, looking like Jack London just got off a ship, wearing his usual bomber jacket and confident grin, a large duffel bag under his table as he drank freely at an outdoor cafe. He fit, to all of us, the image of a knockabout American writer, in the tradition of Kerouac and Hemingway.

By the end of the weekend, the ULA was reality.

Steve lived in Philadelphia for six months during the group’s early days; participated in two of our first explosive events. Soon enough his restless nature sent him traveling.

While he was in town we did a fair share of barhopping. At one point we went to a branch library in South Philly and Steve showed me how to get on the Internet, believe it or not. I’d been computer illiterate before that time. We also spent many hours debating the nature and substance of what we were trying to create. Within the group, Steve and I were at polar extremes. Steve, I realized, had a laidback Buddhist attitude toward life, while I overflowed with impatience, wanting and expecting to keep pushing and pushing the spark of publicity the ULA had received.

It’s amazing we kept the thing going as long as we did. Steve, Jeff Potter, and myself were the major players in keeping the ULA machine operating. Steve’s work was fundamentally behind the scenes, creating, for one thing, every issue of our house zeen, Slush Pile. For many of the new writers we brought into our ranks Steve was a mysterious figure, which caused in some, frustration. In others, he became the offstage good guy in contrast to the hard-charging reality of me. Steve at the same time cranked out many great zines of his own writing—one about his brief sojourn in Philly. The best of them, in my opinion, was Auslanders Raus!, about time he’d spent in Germany. Some of the best, clear, fun, knowing writing to be found anyplace.

The ULA’s final explosion, as least as far as both Steve and myself were concerned, came in ‘07. We both ended up leaving the team. I don’t know about him, but I was exhausted by the intensity of the project, the huge ambition it embodied and the blowback we’d received from status quo literati. Making change isn’t easy! Especially when attempting the impossible. By the end we were probably sick of each other and of all the various internal disputes we’d endured, about which we had differing viewpoints. There’s no question I was more to blame for the disputes. I’d always had the more volatile personality.

While it lasted, the Underground Literary Alliance was a great dream and a fantastic experience.

Steve was the last of the many underground writers I knew through that experience that I’d expect to leave us so early. He was the most unflappable, the most on an even keel, at the same time filled with healthy energy while having none of the self-destructive behavior of other ULAers—other than a love of drinking, talking, writing, experiencing life.

Note

I’ll be posting some thoughts about Steve Kostecke, maybe by the end of the week. Steve was as responsible as anyone for the idea of creating an underground literary movement. We discussed it over beers in Detroit back in ‘97 or thereabouts. A few years later the Underground Literary Alliance was formed.

The post below this one was already written and ready to go, so I’ve posted it.

Dagny Taggart and Feminism

The extensive hatred shown toward the “Atlas Shrugged” movie from liberal critics, so out of proportion to its message and impact, is strange indeed when one looks at it from a global perspective. Ayn Rand was very much within the parameters of secular, liberal society—if on the neoliberal end of that narrow spectrum. Liberal secularism is adhered to by a distinct minority of the world’s population.

Where is feminist opinion of the flick? The Best Actress Oscar this year went to Natalie Portman, who played a weak, disturbed character in a movie of weak or disturbed women characters. Is this the model? By contrast, the Dagny Taggart character played by Taylor Schilling in “Atlas Shrugged”—intelligent and self-assertive—should be a feminist’s dream. Obviously, something else is going on.

It tells me the extent to which feminism has allowed itself to become part of a narrow orthodoxy, in which if you deviate in one part of acceptable thought, you’re guilty in total. Liberalism itself has become an orthodoxy. Seeing that the term once meant the acceptance of a wide variety of viewpoints, one has to wonder whether the liberal concept any longer has meaning.

News

I just received word, unconfirmed, of the passing of Steve Kostecke, one of the six founding members of the Underground Literary Alliance. I can't begin to tell you how shocked I am.

The Truth About “Atlas Shrugged”

A MOVIE REVIEW

Tell a lie enough times and people will believe it. This is the case with the new film, “Atlas Shrugged: Part I,” based on the first third of the classic Ayn Rand novel.

I attended the movie with wariness, having read bad review after bad review about it. It couldn’t possibly be any good, I thought. Yet the reviews turned out to be lies matching lies about the Rand novel—the most ambitious American novel ever written. They also match, curiously enough, the media lies told about Rearden Metal in the film.

“Is Rearden Metal good?” the creator of the metal asks again and again. The point is made that media judgments are made for reasons other than truth.

It’s easy, of course, to see why the movie version of “Atlas Shrugged” has been panned. There are no serial killers, no vampires, no self-mutilations, no stupidities or insanities, no sadism. Only intelligent adults involved in high-level business dealings. The lead character is a self-assertive businesswoman. In this cracked age, what kind of role model is that?

The film starts slowly, laying down Ayn Rand’s plot threads. Contrary to what literary critics like Thomas Mallon have said, that Ayn Rand had no ability whatsoever at creating characters and plot, Rand was a master at constructing a narrative formed around iconic figures. The story’s development is akin to early moves in a chess game, the moves pointing toward actions to happen much further on. They’re like the first presentation of the themes of a symphonic movement. The story melds several plot strands. Mysterious John Galt. Vanishing talents. The secret of a new kind of motor and its Tesla-like inventor. Several ambitious company owners, Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden among them, struggling to fight corrupt political forces that would shut them down. These are Rand’s heroes. She asks the question, “What makes civilization—capitalism, America—work?”

Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart are fairly liberal business owners, truth be told, because they’re idealists interested in creating better products, leaving the cronyism and political maneuvering to those who are the bad guys of the tale, including Dagny’s brother.

It’s interesting that the movie is as scorned as it is. The film presents an anachronistic, 1957 look at industry and technology that should appeal to those on the Left—high-speed trains and steel mills. I found it appealing, reminiscent of the booming Detroit industrial world of my youth, and of the railyards I once worked in. “Atlas Shrugged” posits, as the way to achieve this prosperous world, unharnessing the mind and creating better products. Better trains, better metal. Who could possibly be against this?

It’s a vision which Barack Obama and Joe Biden themselves should applaud and approve.

The movie isn’t the book, or even the first third of the book. It’s an argument for the book. The acting is fine, especially from the Dagny, Hank Rearden, and Wyatt characters. Some parts of the novel can’t be adequately depicted. In the novel the inaugural train ride testing Reardon’s new metal is one of the most compelling narrative sequences ever written—proof that Ayn Rand was a much better writer than’s been said.

The plot lines set down emerge together in the last five minutes of the movie—the story’s premise and main theme are suddenly, explosively revealed on a large sign in front of a surprisingly passionate Dagny Taggart. I was left hungry for more. Classic artistry.

Why the lies about the “Atlas Shrugged” movie found in review after review?

Was Ayn Rand right? Have people stopped thinking? Are they panicked by the presentation of ideas—contrary or not—of being asked to not follow the mob, but instead to think as citizens and moviegoers for themselves?

Intelligence

Is ideology a function of personality?

I was thinking about this while looking at a large poster in Philadelphia advertising a debate between Karl Rove and Howard Dean. I’d judge from the photos that in high school, Rove was a typical brainy chess-playing nerd, while grinning thick-necked and blandly handsome Dean was the go-getter class president type.

The one style will get ahead by quietly mastering information and numbers. Not being well-liked is a given. For the liberal, Dean style, being liked is everything. The good guy savior.

Does this distinction hold across the board between conservative and liberal? Are there other examples? Richard Nixon versus JFK? Paul Ryan opposed to President Obama?

One can apply this to the fans and haters of Ayn Rand. Rand was an extremist—but there’s an everpresent appeal in her stories and ideas to the intellect. Wanting to be liked? Rand was in-your-face on purpose with phrases like “the virtue of selfishness.” Agree with her or not, her books are a challenge—a thrown down gauntlet. It’s undeniable that on the big picture question of her time, the U.S.A. versus the Soviet Union—societies she knew intimately—if not on the details, Ayn Rand was right.

Contradictory New Yorker

The New Yorker magazine is a contradiction. This is evident in the Richard Brody review of the new film version of the classic Ayn Rand novel, "Atlas Shrugged." Brody accuses the film, the book, and Rand herself of being filled with "smug self-satisfaction" and "sneers and smears." Yet his short review is nothing more than a smear-- one giant sneer. Strange that he can't see this.

In the same April 18th issue, George Packer in "Talk of the Town" discusses budget "fairness." The very next piece is a glowing celebration of Gwyneth Paltrow's latest career in the food business. Paltrow, of course, is a well-connected aristocrat who's been able to do anything she wants whenever she wants to-- with middling success-- actress, country singer, now chef. Her entire life is a study in inequality, privilege, unfairness.

The contradiction is that the New Yorker magazine is a tribute to unfairness. Its core audience is America's-- or the world's-- top 2%. Every page of every issue is a glowing example of "smug self-satisfaction." yet apparently these people can't be upfront to themselves. They seem to only be able to exist with an ill-fitting facade of "fairness" laughably out of place with their glossy presentation.

Ayn Rand and Big Business

A question which needs to be asked: If Ayn Rand is simply an apologist for Big Business, why wasn't her most famous novel, Atlas Shrugged, made into a movie long before now-- with major backing behind it, backing the just released version doesn't have?

It's because Rand celebrated free market capitalism, which is only tangentially related to the corrupted version we have now. Ayn Rand's greatest appeal has been to do-it-yourself entrepreneurs and would-be artists. (Her appeal to the artist is palpable.) In her books she attacked crony capitalism, the idea that a person could get ahead by connections and gaming the system while having little ability and no backbone. It's no accident that establishment literary critics, who exist through their willingness to be unquestioning members of a herd, have savagely attacked her and her books.

There is much about Rand's analysis of society that I disagree with. I've lived much of my life on the other end of the political spectrum. Yet at the same time I've always seen the power and appeal of her novels-- the presentation of ideas and the huge ambition of her narratives. I'd rather see a writer risk much and fall short, than the endless line of go-along-to-get-along scribblers who risk nothing and fear to look beyond what all other writers are doing. Current literature is unexciting-- it's unexciting for a reason.

The Writer from Hell

Where the promoters of independent writers could destroy the "Big Six" publishers, if they had half a brain to, is by exploiting the most fertile and active ground, those writers the Big Six willfully avoid. Namely, the so-called "Writer from Hell." All the well-groomed well-trained well-credentialed editors and agents, as reflected in books like Jeff Herman's directory, or on writer discussion forums, scorn and avoid the "Writer from Hell." This is why and how the Big Six can be beaten. Writing, after all, is an art. Those best at it won't be able to be placed into a conformist box.

Think of a cultural fair. As you approach the Literature section, you notice two tents. Outside one of them is a large sign which states in bold letters, "THE WRITER FROM HELL."

A barker tells you more. "Step up folks, right here, di-rect from the wilderness, crazed and unable to be tamed-- The Writer from Hell!" "Strong brew!" he warns confidentially. "Not for everyone. Be prepared to be outraged."

Next to this tent is another one with a more carefully painted sign, "Comforting Writers." You see underneath this in smaller letters, "Same-old same-old. Warm milk and weak tea. Just like grandmother used to make."

Which tent to go inside? I glance inside the weak tea tent. There are half-a-dozen people in the seats listening to a monotone presentation. The entire audience is sleeping.
***************************************

The more I look around at what's out there among writers, in both the "literary" and "genre/popular" ends of the writing game, I realize how unique were the writers we gathered into the Underground Literary Alliance. Striking talents and personalities. They came from the print underground scene, which in the early part of last decade was still in its heyday.

A fellow traveler to what the ULA was doing, Frank Marcopolos, published many of the ULA's talents in his classic lit-zeen The Whirligig. He's now offering the best of that writing in a new ebook, which I hope to shortly be offering for sale at this site. Frank's collection contains the kind of writing you will simply not be able to read from the tepid mainstream-- including from one or two of those rare and mysterious creatures, The Writer from Hell. Stay tuned.

The Literary Nanny State

What the writing industry has done is turn writers into feeble and helpless individuals who truly believe they can't operate without an editor, a copy editor, an agent, and a helping hand guiding them every step of the way. As if they were five year olds. Writers don't seem to realize that it's in the interest of editors to tell you that you have to have an editor. It's in the interest of agents to tell you that you must have an agent. (At 15%.)

Or, as in so much else, it's all about the money.

Literature and Myth

What I see missing from the bowtie play-by-the-rules publishing crowd who control American literature is any sense of, or appreciation for, myth. I'm talking about the giant mythic literary personalities of the past up to Kerouac. Any civilization, any endeavor, even any band of writers needs their myths. Their examples to model themselves after. To become like. Foundational stories, because then when you blaze a new path through unknown wilderness, you're not by yourself.

When I ran the Underground Literary Alliance I looked for underground writers who carried mythic personas, whatever their other perceived flaws-- Wild Bill Blackolive the classic example.

Would I want to be stuck in a safe secure air-conditioned office with the bowties, taking no chances, assuming no risks?

Not this dog!

If American history and American literature have been about anything, they've been about freedom. Striking out on the open road. This is what our best writers have done and what at least a few writers need to do now if we're to make the literary art once again great and relevant.

The All-Time American Writer Tournament continues at
 http://www.americanpoplit.blogspot.com/

The Book Business

(I originally posted this at another site.)

There's no way that the Borders type of bookstore can survive the change in the way people receive literature-- and the cost at which they receive it. Stand inside one of the big stores and consider their overhead. Heating in winter? Air conditioning in summer? Lease or property tax costs? Staff? Maintenance?

The big stores have to sell a lot of volume to break even, and they need an adequate profit on each sale. The model works when they're selling $25 books. Even given the fact the stores are designed to be inefficient-- the wasted space; the browsers who read at the store and never purchase anything. Because of volume, the stores were able to accommodate this.

Now they're getting hit on two fronts. A third or so of all books sold are purchased as ebooks. Plot the trend. This percentage has gone up and will continue to go up. Stock analysts considering whether Barnes & Noble is a sound investment will have charts printed out showing the trend. There's no sign of the trend stopping. No-- instead, count on bookstores lucky to have a third of the market in a few years. You can buy e-readers now at drugstores like CVS, for $99. That price will continue to go down. Who needs bookstores? How can the big store model, with its built-in overhead costs, possibly be maintained?

The stores and the big publishers will be hit in a second way, by being drastically underpriced. The big stores can't make an adequate profit on three dollar books. The same thing, by the way, has happened to music stores. The $25 book will no longer be a mass market phenomenon. There's not enough value in a James Patterson for his audience to pay $25 for him when they can get him on an ebook for much less. The $25 book will become strictly a boutique product, sold to decidedly upscale folks at small, trendy boutique stores.

It's not the economy. It's revolutionary change in how people receive their words. Or, as they say in the Bronx, recession reschmession.

Ahead of the Curve

This blog, which from the start was calling for, and predicting, drastic change in literature, transformation of the system as we know it, is looking more and more prophetic. Upcoming I'll discuss why the changes so far regarding ebooks and closing bookstores are just the beginning of the literary revolution. (p.s. #2 seeds have been announced at American Pop Lit.)

Seeding So Far

Those who've been watching the All-Time American Writer Tournament at http://www.americanpoplit.blogspot.com/ know that the four #1 seeds have been selected. Namely, Hemingway, Whitman, Melville, and Twain. Next up will be a few surprises for #2 seeds. We'll get a tad more contemporary. Have faith.

The Top Seeds

Today I've begun announcing the four #1 seeds for the All-Time American Writer Tournament. Two selections have been made. I'm on the fence about the next two. Feel free to weigh in at www.americanpoplit.blogspot.com If you have favorites, you'd better start lobbying for them!