The moribund literary world coasts along like a stodgy used Volvo with a 4-cylinder motor, driven by blinkered academics with pampered overdressed drooling trust-fund babies strapped into the backseat.
But what of our own vehicle? The ULA Car has a powerful engine and a day-glo pop baby-blue custom paint job with "ULA" in bright orange hand-lettered symbols across the side next to painted flames, but is up on blocks in the speedshop, the roaring engine silent.
I'd be the first to admit the ULA needs work. If former members weren't satisfied with the speed of our progress, I can only respond, "Neither am I!" Curious that their withdrawal came when the ULA vehicle WAS moving again. We took it out for a drive during our July Philly show. The car handled well and was loud and exciting.
As current members have mentioned, we need to rearrange the names on the site-- along with roles and responsibilities-- to reflect current reality. We need more unity and more efficiency. We need to do a better job of keeping up on the activities of off-line ULAers and involving them in the team. We need more within-team COMMUNICATION about where we're going.
Our "Monday Reports" need to be consistently kick-ass, uncompromising, and newsworthy. We also need to do a better job announcing these essays far and wide.
We need more emphasis on poetry, an integral element (one of several) of the ULA campaign.
Most important, the ULA needs to BE the ULA again. Do this and we'll achieve anything. Our "car"-- our message, our voice, our attitude, our behavior-- was designed to be striking. It's time to uncap the headers. I want literary windows shattered when we step on the gas when we drive down the street.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Strategical Thoughts Part III
BECAUSE the ULA stands legitimately outside the mainstream, it has to be destroyed. It represents a choice NOT within the predictable bounds of well-regulated corporations, foundations, and universities, but REAL choice which can't be guided or controlled by media and intellectual powers of the society.
Our ideas are often borrowed by others-- the source never acknowledged. To do so would be to break a key unwritten rule of the literary monopolists. We have no standing in this society. Far be it for even the "progressives" among the affluent elite which dominates intellectual discussion in this country to give us any. (Is the situation different in other societies?) A Noam Chomsky or Hilton Kramer or Katrina vanden Heuvel or William F. Buckley-- "Right" and "Left"-- can rub elbows at comfy Christmas parties, spiked egg-nog spilling over their pampered faces. Despite their proclaimed differences, they belong to the same class; comprise part of the cultural aristocracy. By contrast the ULA outside the stone-walled club in the snow and cold is of, from, among the populace.
Like the Jacobins, we've formed our own debating society. We're designed to be an aggressive dog pack, loyal to one another, a team of equals eager to run disruptively through mainstream culture. Let other dogs be beribboned pets resting on Master's lap within the warmth of the mansion. That's no role for us.
The year 2005 for the ULA can be summed up as a series of attacks against us. We've stood up well. By losing weaker elements we've been strengthened.
I found it interesting that, toward the end, the attacks (and peace offers) by puppets and demi-puppets against the ULA took on a coherent strategy. (I have no idea whether this was done consciously or unconsciously.) Isolate one target and concentrate force upon that: Standard doctrine that was tried against us, myself the target, resurrecting my importance within the team to attempt this.
The strategy foundered for two reasons.
1.) The ULA team would continue without me. I'm not the all-important figure I'm made out to be.
2.) At the same time I'm no weak link easily discouraged or discredited. I've never lost a debate. (Been held even once or twice.) Come after me and you might destroy yourself. I believe in what I'm doing, in the ULA, and am incapable of being swayed.
A fanatic for literature; for the Underground Literary Alliance? Yes, I embrace that designation. I'm a literary fan all the way.
Our ideas are often borrowed by others-- the source never acknowledged. To do so would be to break a key unwritten rule of the literary monopolists. We have no standing in this society. Far be it for even the "progressives" among the affluent elite which dominates intellectual discussion in this country to give us any. (Is the situation different in other societies?) A Noam Chomsky or Hilton Kramer or Katrina vanden Heuvel or William F. Buckley-- "Right" and "Left"-- can rub elbows at comfy Christmas parties, spiked egg-nog spilling over their pampered faces. Despite their proclaimed differences, they belong to the same class; comprise part of the cultural aristocracy. By contrast the ULA outside the stone-walled club in the snow and cold is of, from, among the populace.
Like the Jacobins, we've formed our own debating society. We're designed to be an aggressive dog pack, loyal to one another, a team of equals eager to run disruptively through mainstream culture. Let other dogs be beribboned pets resting on Master's lap within the warmth of the mansion. That's no role for us.
The year 2005 for the ULA can be summed up as a series of attacks against us. We've stood up well. By losing weaker elements we've been strengthened.
I found it interesting that, toward the end, the attacks (and peace offers) by puppets and demi-puppets against the ULA took on a coherent strategy. (I have no idea whether this was done consciously or unconsciously.) Isolate one target and concentrate force upon that: Standard doctrine that was tried against us, myself the target, resurrecting my importance within the team to attempt this.
The strategy foundered for two reasons.
1.) The ULA team would continue without me. I'm not the all-important figure I'm made out to be.
2.) At the same time I'm no weak link easily discouraged or discredited. I've never lost a debate. (Been held even once or twice.) Come after me and you might destroy yourself. I believe in what I'm doing, in the ULA, and am incapable of being swayed.
A fanatic for literature; for the Underground Literary Alliance? Yes, I embrace that designation. I'm a literary fan all the way.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Strategical Thoughts Part II
THROUGHOUT the 1990s I saw the zeen movement as "Beneath the American Renaissance" (to borrow a phrase from historian David Reynolds). Underground pamphlets in the 1800s such as "The Davy Crockett Almanack" influenced writers like Herman Melville. I believed that the authentic, gritty, outspoken words of zeensters like Doug Holland, Aaron Cometbus, Michael Jackman, Chris Estey and others would show the way toward a renaissance of literature in our time-- AWAY from convoluted over-intellectualized Foster Wallace-style posturing imposed by conglomerates and academics. The Underground Literary Alliance, which was discussed as a concept by myself and others in the early 90s, was first given public expression in my "How to Create a Literary Movement" broadside, re-published by "A Reader's Guide to the Underground Press" in the spring of 1999. I received a huge response from the zeen community; an outpouring of reactions and ideas. The ULA was on its way.
Meanwhile, the conglomerates had found their knock-off. Dave Eggers had been in San Francisco toward the latter part of Factsheet 5's "Zine Revolution." An unscrupulous rich guy with money to throw around, Eggers's slick hip journal Might might-- in some small way-- be considered tangentially a zine, though it was aimed at well-educated intellectuals from comfortable backgrounds, and spoke in their pretentious jargon-- the opposite of the San Francisco zeen style embodied by punk squatter Aaron Cometbus and street writer Doug Holland.
No matter! Eggers was soon in New York working at establishment icon Esquire, busily making friendships with the most over-hyped writers of the Manhattan Ivy League trust-fund crowd; the kind of Insider writers published in lit-establishment flagship The New Yorker. Eggers cut a book deal with Simon & Schuster, and simultaneously got his McSweeney's fake-zeen off the ground, while receiving a burst of publicity from Conde-Nast magazines like The New Yorker and Vanity Fair. This arm of the literary status quo was put forward, somehow (ignoring the reality), as DIY; as independent and new.
Eggers relationship with the monopolists has been mutually beneficial. Having their own version of the "new" (recycled Gordon Lish and David Foster Wallace)-- no matter how patently false-- was a wise strategic move, co-opting the nascent threat of the genuine underground. Eggers has gained by pushing himself into the heart of the establishment; positioning himself and his newfound friends (like Zadie Smith and Jonathan Lethem) as literature's great hopes. He's never stopped cutting book deals with the conglomerates.
Simultaneous with this has been the creation of the Underground Literary Alliance as vehicle for the genuine article. Nothing in the universe remains static. To retain the zeen impulse; to maintain our independence; we needed to take a further step. Joining in a cooperative project-- adding e-zeensters to our ranks-- has been it. We've survived. The true foundation for a new American literary renaissance yet lives.
(To be continued.)
Meanwhile, the conglomerates had found their knock-off. Dave Eggers had been in San Francisco toward the latter part of Factsheet 5's "Zine Revolution." An unscrupulous rich guy with money to throw around, Eggers's slick hip journal Might might-- in some small way-- be considered tangentially a zine, though it was aimed at well-educated intellectuals from comfortable backgrounds, and spoke in their pretentious jargon-- the opposite of the San Francisco zeen style embodied by punk squatter Aaron Cometbus and street writer Doug Holland.
No matter! Eggers was soon in New York working at establishment icon Esquire, busily making friendships with the most over-hyped writers of the Manhattan Ivy League trust-fund crowd; the kind of Insider writers published in lit-establishment flagship The New Yorker. Eggers cut a book deal with Simon & Schuster, and simultaneously got his McSweeney's fake-zeen off the ground, while receiving a burst of publicity from Conde-Nast magazines like The New Yorker and Vanity Fair. This arm of the literary status quo was put forward, somehow (ignoring the reality), as DIY; as independent and new.
Eggers relationship with the monopolists has been mutually beneficial. Having their own version of the "new" (recycled Gordon Lish and David Foster Wallace)-- no matter how patently false-- was a wise strategic move, co-opting the nascent threat of the genuine underground. Eggers has gained by pushing himself into the heart of the establishment; positioning himself and his newfound friends (like Zadie Smith and Jonathan Lethem) as literature's great hopes. He's never stopped cutting book deals with the conglomerates.
Simultaneous with this has been the creation of the Underground Literary Alliance as vehicle for the genuine article. Nothing in the universe remains static. To retain the zeen impulse; to maintain our independence; we needed to take a further step. Joining in a cooperative project-- adding e-zeensters to our ranks-- has been it. We've survived. The true foundation for a new American literary renaissance yet lives.
(To be continued.)
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Strategical Thoughts Part I
One can't understand the ULA and our battles without understanding OUR history and background in the zeen scene of the 1990s.
The most interesting new aspect of the literary scene of that decade was the rise of "zines"-- self-published tracts and pamphlets. Fanzines had been around since at least the 70s. It wasn't until the publicity generated by the Seth Friedman version of Factsheet 5 that the media mainstream began giving the resurgent print underground notice and attention.
ULAers like Jeff Potter, Tom Hendricks, Yul Tolbert, Owen Thomas, Jack Saunders, and myself-- and ex-ULAer Doug Bassett-- were minor but representative figures in this new literary movement. (I had a short essay in F5 in 1995 which examined 19th century forerunners of zines.) Stars of the movement were phenomenons Doug Holland and Aaron Cometbus, who, along with Friedman himself, were based in the San Fran Bay area.
"Cometbus," who traveled the country selling zeens, spreading the message like Johnny Appleseed, quickly became an almost mythical figure-- as did Doug Holland in San Fran, who would sell hundreds of copies of his "Pathetic Life" zeen at street fairs. Holland was at the very center of underground literary activity-- a new bohemia-- in that city. The striking point about both Holland and Cometbus-- beyond the fact that both were excellent writers-- was that they both embodied in their lives and ideas the "Do-It-Yourself" philosophy. Both writers began to attain mainstream attention as far away as New York City. Doug Holland being profiled in the ultra-hip Interview magazine was a sign that this wave of zeendom had arrived.
It must've dawned at some point though, on the literary establishment and attached media puppets in NYC, that neither writer was a likely candidate to be bought-out (though lesser figures like Pagan Kennedy and Lisa "Suckdog" Carver certainly were). Holland went in the other direction with his creation of Zine World: A Reader's Guide to the Underground Press. (Long-time zeenster Michael Jackman, himself an excellent, grittily-real zeen writer, served as Holland's #2.)
An Analogy: Remember the rise of a small card company named Recycled Paper Products? Using a couple original cartoonists, this company made the giant Hallmark look stale and stodgy. Though the market share taken by the upstart must've been miniscule, the giant reacted by issuing inferior knock-offs-- near carbon copies in some instances-- of what Recycled Paper Products was doing.
How did the literary monopolists react to the rise of print-zeensters? Did they manufacture an inferior copy in order to co-opt us?
Stay tuned.
The most interesting new aspect of the literary scene of that decade was the rise of "zines"-- self-published tracts and pamphlets. Fanzines had been around since at least the 70s. It wasn't until the publicity generated by the Seth Friedman version of Factsheet 5 that the media mainstream began giving the resurgent print underground notice and attention.
ULAers like Jeff Potter, Tom Hendricks, Yul Tolbert, Owen Thomas, Jack Saunders, and myself-- and ex-ULAer Doug Bassett-- were minor but representative figures in this new literary movement. (I had a short essay in F5 in 1995 which examined 19th century forerunners of zines.) Stars of the movement were phenomenons Doug Holland and Aaron Cometbus, who, along with Friedman himself, were based in the San Fran Bay area.
"Cometbus," who traveled the country selling zeens, spreading the message like Johnny Appleseed, quickly became an almost mythical figure-- as did Doug Holland in San Fran, who would sell hundreds of copies of his "Pathetic Life" zeen at street fairs. Holland was at the very center of underground literary activity-- a new bohemia-- in that city. The striking point about both Holland and Cometbus-- beyond the fact that both were excellent writers-- was that they both embodied in their lives and ideas the "Do-It-Yourself" philosophy. Both writers began to attain mainstream attention as far away as New York City. Doug Holland being profiled in the ultra-hip Interview magazine was a sign that this wave of zeendom had arrived.
It must've dawned at some point though, on the literary establishment and attached media puppets in NYC, that neither writer was a likely candidate to be bought-out (though lesser figures like Pagan Kennedy and Lisa "Suckdog" Carver certainly were). Holland went in the other direction with his creation of Zine World: A Reader's Guide to the Underground Press. (Long-time zeenster Michael Jackman, himself an excellent, grittily-real zeen writer, served as Holland's #2.)
An Analogy: Remember the rise of a small card company named Recycled Paper Products? Using a couple original cartoonists, this company made the giant Hallmark look stale and stodgy. Though the market share taken by the upstart must've been miniscule, the giant reacted by issuing inferior knock-offs-- near carbon copies in some instances-- of what Recycled Paper Products was doing.
How did the literary monopolists react to the rise of print-zeensters? Did they manufacture an inferior copy in order to co-opt us?
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Using the Past
Winston Churchill said that he could see farther into the future because he looked farther back into the past.
He saw that change is everpresent; the context of situations, beliefs, and technology is forever different, yet patterns can be seen, cycles repeat themselves, the tug of natural forces intrinsic to the universe is constant; commonalities of human nature and behavior remain.
(That people themselves over the cultures and ages carry the same strengths and flaws, and make the same mistakes, is what makes great literature universal and timeless.)
When I look at historical examples from the past, I do so to see what can be used in the context of the ULA. I look at movements at their beginnings and in their early stages; noting later corruptions of the original missions as what to avoid.
Books on the rise of rock n roll and punk are everywhere. Check out the first volume of Andrew Loog Oldham's autobio for an extreme promoter's mindset.
The Foundations of Christianity by Karl Kautsky is a good starting point about that hectic movement. The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels discusses early struggles and literary conflicts.
For lit movements, Geniuses T0gether by Humphrey Carpenter and Birthing the Beats by Steven Watson are musts.
He saw that change is everpresent; the context of situations, beliefs, and technology is forever different, yet patterns can be seen, cycles repeat themselves, the tug of natural forces intrinsic to the universe is constant; commonalities of human nature and behavior remain.
(That people themselves over the cultures and ages carry the same strengths and flaws, and make the same mistakes, is what makes great literature universal and timeless.)
When I look at historical examples from the past, I do so to see what can be used in the context of the ULA. I look at movements at their beginnings and in their early stages; noting later corruptions of the original missions as what to avoid.
Books on the rise of rock n roll and punk are everywhere. Check out the first volume of Andrew Loog Oldham's autobio for an extreme promoter's mindset.
The Foundations of Christianity by Karl Kautsky is a good starting point about that hectic movement. The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels discusses early struggles and literary conflicts.
For lit movements, Geniuses T0gether by Humphrey Carpenter and Birthing the Beats by Steven Watson are musts.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Kong Mistakes?
Peter Jackson, director of the new "King Kong" movie, is a fan of the 1933 original. The changes he's made to the story show he doesn't understand it.
Jackson has said he's brought "photorealism" to the tale. Realism? There's not much realistic about the plot of "King Kong"! It's the representation of a dream. Of a nightmare, really.
The black-and-white 1933 original, dreamlike in so many aspects, achieves its objective perfectly-- which is why the movie has appealed to so many people. The subconscious was put onto the screen.
The story is told through a haze, starting with the opening shots in New York City, on to the first relating of the farcically fantastic Kong story on board ship. (A comic book tale if there ever was one.) Kong Island is glimpsed through mists, to haunting music by Max Steiner. The dream is only beginning.
The second mistake Peter Jackson has made is tampering with the personality of Ann Darrow's rescuer and love interest, Jack Driscoll, who in the original is a woman-hating he-man sailor. It should be starkly obvious to every movie buff around that, like the creature in "Forbidden Planet," Kong is a Monster from the Id. Jackson treats King Kong like a separate character, when Kong HAS NO EXISTENCE apart from Jack the sailor. In the original movie he's a metaphor for the dawning sexual attraction between Ann and Jack. Kong is the beast within Jack unleashed. This theme is carried on throughout the movie. Doesn't the monster represent Victorian/feminist hysteria over what's going to happen to Ann Darrow on her wedding night?
Clues about this are everyplace. Back in New York, Jack uncomfortable in the collar of his tuxedo parallels the monster in chains yards away on stage. The hotel room Jack and Ann flee to looks like a bridal suite-- Kong staring through the window on their wedding night. At the end, the shot of Ann clambering into Jack's arms is followed by the monster sprawling dead below, with the promoter's cryptic remark, "Twas Beauty killed the Beast!" The roughneck sailor presumably has been tamed and domesticated.
Peter Jackson changing the monster and the male lead tampers with the delicate balance of the original story. In the original, Kong doesn't look humanized, or like a long-haired Chewbacca there for our sympathy. He was made to look and behave as frightening as possible for the time (down to chewing up people between his teeth); like a mad indistinct monster from out of our dreams.
Jackson has said he's brought "photorealism" to the tale. Realism? There's not much realistic about the plot of "King Kong"! It's the representation of a dream. Of a nightmare, really.
The black-and-white 1933 original, dreamlike in so many aspects, achieves its objective perfectly-- which is why the movie has appealed to so many people. The subconscious was put onto the screen.
The story is told through a haze, starting with the opening shots in New York City, on to the first relating of the farcically fantastic Kong story on board ship. (A comic book tale if there ever was one.) Kong Island is glimpsed through mists, to haunting music by Max Steiner. The dream is only beginning.
The second mistake Peter Jackson has made is tampering with the personality of Ann Darrow's rescuer and love interest, Jack Driscoll, who in the original is a woman-hating he-man sailor. It should be starkly obvious to every movie buff around that, like the creature in "Forbidden Planet," Kong is a Monster from the Id. Jackson treats King Kong like a separate character, when Kong HAS NO EXISTENCE apart from Jack the sailor. In the original movie he's a metaphor for the dawning sexual attraction between Ann and Jack. Kong is the beast within Jack unleashed. This theme is carried on throughout the movie. Doesn't the monster represent Victorian/feminist hysteria over what's going to happen to Ann Darrow on her wedding night?
Clues about this are everyplace. Back in New York, Jack uncomfortable in the collar of his tuxedo parallels the monster in chains yards away on stage. The hotel room Jack and Ann flee to looks like a bridal suite-- Kong staring through the window on their wedding night. At the end, the shot of Ann clambering into Jack's arms is followed by the monster sprawling dead below, with the promoter's cryptic remark, "Twas Beauty killed the Beast!" The roughneck sailor presumably has been tamed and domesticated.
Peter Jackson changing the monster and the male lead tampers with the delicate balance of the original story. In the original, Kong doesn't look humanized, or like a long-haired Chewbacca there for our sympathy. He was made to look and behave as frightening as possible for the time (down to chewing up people between his teeth); like a mad indistinct monster from out of our dreams.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Into the Literary Future
New technology won't destroy literature-- as the rise of blogs amply demonstrates-- but it WILL transform it. The trick is to anticipate the transformation, which the ULA is doing better than anybody.
Blogs are at the forefront of the democratization of literature, reversing a sixty-year trend toward increasing professionalization of the art, with attendant baggage of bureaucracy and credentialism. The journalistic community is being affected first by the changes. We see the decline of newspapers balanced by the popularity of websites and blogs manned by those without large staffs or prestigious journalism degrees. What had been a gated and controlled entranceway toward being allowed a voice in this society has been destroyed. The monitors and guards are gone. There is no reason why sites like the ULA's can't compete equally for stories and attention with those of giant dinosaurs like The New Yorker and the New York Times. (Our site has often been more relevant and exciting.)
The ULA's foundation in the zeen scene of the 1990's leaves us well adapted for change in the literary realm. In the long run there is no way that bureaucracy-heavy book companies, burdened by hierarchies of staff, located in expensive suites of offices in high-rent skyscrapers, can compete with an insurgent organization like ours. We may or may not be the new model-- the innovative competitor which will drive them into bankruptcy. At the least we're a primitive version of the model.
Our strength is our DIY philosophy. Unlike MFA grads-- helpless specialists who know only how to write-- our self-sufficiency leaves us better able to exist without layers of bureaucracy. To survive as a print zeenster, to find any kind of readership (as many of us did), we had to edit, format, design, package, print, market, and distribute our writing strictly OURSELVES. It was a liberating experience-- the freedom of not being dependent on any entity (particularly out-of-touch mandarins in New York City) in order to be writers. Our announced task at the ULA's founding was to transfer this independence and these discovered abilities into a cooperative organization. To date we've done this imperfectly-- we've had few models to follow, as we're the trailblazers. WE'RE the model. That we've survived despite our many fumblings is itself an achievement.
A few "literary" folks from more traditional literary backgrounds have embraced change admirably. Still, their mentality lies in the past. Even the most advanced of them is inescapably the product of bureaucratic indoctrination. They accept literary change piecemeal. They might grasp control of the means of production of literature, but exempt from change the nature of literature's creation. Having invested in expensive writing degrees, they can't see that such degrees in this field are unnecessary. They cling to MFA styles of writing, which are a product of monopoly specialization. (This a subject for a long post in itself-- how professionalization, certifications, and bureaucracy led to a writing style which celebrates jargon, bureaucratese, and unneeded complexity, best found in recent years in the pages of McSweeney's.)
In other words, you can't democratize only the means of production of the art-- you have to democratize the art itself, in order to broaden its appeal, as print-zeensters by necessity have already been doing, as the modest success of no-budget literature like Cometbus and Urban Hermitt demonstrates.
In literature today only the Underground Literary Alliance advocates literary change in ALL aspects. In that sense we're the most futuristic lit-group around, and are truly revolutionary.
Blogs are at the forefront of the democratization of literature, reversing a sixty-year trend toward increasing professionalization of the art, with attendant baggage of bureaucracy and credentialism. The journalistic community is being affected first by the changes. We see the decline of newspapers balanced by the popularity of websites and blogs manned by those without large staffs or prestigious journalism degrees. What had been a gated and controlled entranceway toward being allowed a voice in this society has been destroyed. The monitors and guards are gone. There is no reason why sites like the ULA's can't compete equally for stories and attention with those of giant dinosaurs like The New Yorker and the New York Times. (Our site has often been more relevant and exciting.)
The ULA's foundation in the zeen scene of the 1990's leaves us well adapted for change in the literary realm. In the long run there is no way that bureaucracy-heavy book companies, burdened by hierarchies of staff, located in expensive suites of offices in high-rent skyscrapers, can compete with an insurgent organization like ours. We may or may not be the new model-- the innovative competitor which will drive them into bankruptcy. At the least we're a primitive version of the model.
Our strength is our DIY philosophy. Unlike MFA grads-- helpless specialists who know only how to write-- our self-sufficiency leaves us better able to exist without layers of bureaucracy. To survive as a print zeenster, to find any kind of readership (as many of us did), we had to edit, format, design, package, print, market, and distribute our writing strictly OURSELVES. It was a liberating experience-- the freedom of not being dependent on any entity (particularly out-of-touch mandarins in New York City) in order to be writers. Our announced task at the ULA's founding was to transfer this independence and these discovered abilities into a cooperative organization. To date we've done this imperfectly-- we've had few models to follow, as we're the trailblazers. WE'RE the model. That we've survived despite our many fumblings is itself an achievement.
A few "literary" folks from more traditional literary backgrounds have embraced change admirably. Still, their mentality lies in the past. Even the most advanced of them is inescapably the product of bureaucratic indoctrination. They accept literary change piecemeal. They might grasp control of the means of production of literature, but exempt from change the nature of literature's creation. Having invested in expensive writing degrees, they can't see that such degrees in this field are unnecessary. They cling to MFA styles of writing, which are a product of monopoly specialization. (This a subject for a long post in itself-- how professionalization, certifications, and bureaucracy led to a writing style which celebrates jargon, bureaucratese, and unneeded complexity, best found in recent years in the pages of McSweeney's.)
In other words, you can't democratize only the means of production of the art-- you have to democratize the art itself, in order to broaden its appeal, as print-zeensters by necessity have already been doing, as the modest success of no-budget literature like Cometbus and Urban Hermitt demonstrates.
In literature today only the Underground Literary Alliance advocates literary change in ALL aspects. In that sense we're the most futuristic lit-group around, and are truly revolutionary.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Keys to the Car
A COMMON talking point which appears again and again among those who contend with the ULA is the idea that Dave Eggers and his crew are little-known personalities with no influence beyond 25,000 people. This may be true-- but what does it then say about their abilities?
Eggers has been given the keys to the car by the publishing giants. Clueless themselves about the world outside their hermetic skyscrapers, they've bought into the Eggers p.r. machine, believing he can be their salvation. Company after company, from Random House to Houghton-Mifflin, have signed onto joint projects with McSweeney's Books (many of them anthologies). One sees the books continually at the front of book chains. The congloms have invested huge sums in Eggers's judgement and his writers.
Book editors don't have a rumor of a hint what kind of literary writing will sell. On their own, they fall into the nepotistic easy-out of hyping books by the sons or brothers of well-connected magazine editors. (See Nick McDonell and Jonathan Safran Foer.) Their hope in Eggers is misplaced. In their blindness they can't see the smugness, insularity, and exclusiveness of the McSweeney's style of writing, which limits its appeal to snob-wannabes who hold MFA degrees. The said 25,000.
Eggers is analogous to Matt Millen. General Manager of the Detroit Lions, Millen was given the keys to the football operation by the Ford automotive family which owns the team. Watching games from the comfort of their stadium skybox, the Fords have little idea about what happens on the field. (As shown by decades of failure.) Signing on Millen was a laudable gamble, but the gamble has turned into a multi-vehicle pile-up. The problem isn't so much Matt Millen, but the desperation revealed by his hiring.
The book conglomerates are in a similar state of desperation. Uninteresting novels by rich guys like Rick Moody are hyped as great. The public doesn't care. Credibility dwindles. As solution, the companies run to Eggers-- who himself publishes Moody and his ilk at every opportunity, which demonstrates that Eggers has no new game plan, no innovative strategy, no revolutionary plays or exciting players, only more of the same.
Eggers has been given the keys to the car by the publishing giants. Clueless themselves about the world outside their hermetic skyscrapers, they've bought into the Eggers p.r. machine, believing he can be their salvation. Company after company, from Random House to Houghton-Mifflin, have signed onto joint projects with McSweeney's Books (many of them anthologies). One sees the books continually at the front of book chains. The congloms have invested huge sums in Eggers's judgement and his writers.
Book editors don't have a rumor of a hint what kind of literary writing will sell. On their own, they fall into the nepotistic easy-out of hyping books by the sons or brothers of well-connected magazine editors. (See Nick McDonell and Jonathan Safran Foer.) Their hope in Eggers is misplaced. In their blindness they can't see the smugness, insularity, and exclusiveness of the McSweeney's style of writing, which limits its appeal to snob-wannabes who hold MFA degrees. The said 25,000.
Eggers is analogous to Matt Millen. General Manager of the Detroit Lions, Millen was given the keys to the football operation by the Ford automotive family which owns the team. Watching games from the comfort of their stadium skybox, the Fords have little idea about what happens on the field. (As shown by decades of failure.) Signing on Millen was a laudable gamble, but the gamble has turned into a multi-vehicle pile-up. The problem isn't so much Matt Millen, but the desperation revealed by his hiring.
The book conglomerates are in a similar state of desperation. Uninteresting novels by rich guys like Rick Moody are hyped as great. The public doesn't care. Credibility dwindles. As solution, the companies run to Eggers-- who himself publishes Moody and his ilk at every opportunity, which demonstrates that Eggers has no new game plan, no innovative strategy, no revolutionary plays or exciting players, only more of the same.
Puppet World
THE POWER of establishment literature has been shown by its ability to transform even hard-core ULAers into puppets.
I was walking through a small urban park on a cool fall day and noticed at the end of it-- a side surrounded by a wall of luxury condo skyscrapers-- a puppet theater. A yellow box sat on a table, a miniature green curtain at the front of it. I'd wondered what'd become of two departed ULAers. The curtain raised in the box, and there danced in puppet form facsimiles of the very same writers!
One was growly and mean, with a painted-on red sneer at the bottom of his puppet face. The other was placid and bland, inked-in eyebrows raised in amusement as a voice came from the other (from somewhere behind the box) filled with vulgarities and hate directed at me! Their puppet arms moved wildly. A Maud puppet and Depressed Reader puppet (holding a pretend book) stood clapping to the side. As with all puppet shows, it was ludicrous, cheap, and insane; the sing-song incoherent nonsense of a bad dream.
I knew they were puppets because they followed scripts and voiced talking points. The Maud puppet took the lead, calling the ULA "the King Wenclas Show." The other puppets fell into line. The problem with me, they said, wasn't my blog itself, but that it was attached to the ULA! "Better for you to attack, not promote," the placid puppet advised, leaning forward with feigned objectivity, having moved close to the edge of the stage. The voice somewhere behind the box dropped to a confidential whisper. I bought the argument for a second-- before realizing it came from a comical puppet!
The show turned into mad hilarity. "I'm not Guski!" the other puppet claimed-- then turned around to show the very name written on the back of his clothing! Children in the audience laughed at his transparency. The puppets began clubbing one another as the curtain came down, along with sudden cold rain, people fled from the park, I put up my collar and hurried away.
I was walking through a small urban park on a cool fall day and noticed at the end of it-- a side surrounded by a wall of luxury condo skyscrapers-- a puppet theater. A yellow box sat on a table, a miniature green curtain at the front of it. I'd wondered what'd become of two departed ULAers. The curtain raised in the box, and there danced in puppet form facsimiles of the very same writers!
One was growly and mean, with a painted-on red sneer at the bottom of his puppet face. The other was placid and bland, inked-in eyebrows raised in amusement as a voice came from the other (from somewhere behind the box) filled with vulgarities and hate directed at me! Their puppet arms moved wildly. A Maud puppet and Depressed Reader puppet (holding a pretend book) stood clapping to the side. As with all puppet shows, it was ludicrous, cheap, and insane; the sing-song incoherent nonsense of a bad dream.
I knew they were puppets because they followed scripts and voiced talking points. The Maud puppet took the lead, calling the ULA "the King Wenclas Show." The other puppets fell into line. The problem with me, they said, wasn't my blog itself, but that it was attached to the ULA! "Better for you to attack, not promote," the placid puppet advised, leaning forward with feigned objectivity, having moved close to the edge of the stage. The voice somewhere behind the box dropped to a confidential whisper. I bought the argument for a second-- before realizing it came from a comical puppet!
The show turned into mad hilarity. "I'm not Guski!" the other puppet claimed-- then turned around to show the very name written on the back of his clothing! Children in the audience laughed at his transparency. The puppets began clubbing one another as the curtain came down, along with sudden cold rain, people fled from the park, I put up my collar and hurried away.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Missed Poetry Event
It looks like I missed attending the American Poetry Review's gala 33rd anniversary event at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Meryl Streep was present, along with establishment hack-poets/stooges John Ashberry, Rita Dove, Robert Pinsky, Jorie Graham, and Robert Haas. The celebration was headlined, "Of the People, For the People." Tickets were only 250 bucks! A lot of the "people" there, no doubt. The ULA should've been also.
We'll mark that on our calendar for next year.
We'll mark that on our calendar for next year.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Letter to Two Former Colleagues
The entire team was blindsided by your resignations, myself included. We had not an inkling of your dissatisfaction with me and the ULA. Up until the times you resigned, my correspondence with both of you was nothing but friendly. Now you're trying to gain attention, or curry favor with others, through attacks on the ULA. You behaved in no way-- in no way-- like teammates; like members of an organization. To you, notions of solidarity are without meaning. I was loyal to you both (while at the same time being loyal to the principles of the ULA) throughout your time in the ULA.
My favorable posts about Noah are still on this blog for all to see. A mere couple weeks before Tim bailed I was taking his part in an internal discussion about a name for a publication. The only frustration I might've sensed from them was that I wasn't giving them enough attention. Not enough attention! The micromanager Tim portrays is the micromanager they wanted me to be-- not what I've been in reality. Even had I wanted to "dictate," I don't have the time! Noah and Tim were both free to pursue their projects as they wished, within the framework of the ULA. (Their grievances remain mysterious.)
There was never a question of putting handcuffs on them. In hindsight-- though they raised nary a peep at the time-- it was more they wanting to stifle other ULAers, whether Crazy Carl, or Jeff Potter, or me. Did they approach Steve with their grievances? Did they raise their complaints with the team? Not to my knowledge.
I don't understand what they're now saying. They seem to want the ULA to stop being the ULA; to lessen our vision, our belief that we can change things; to stop our comic-book populism and our in-your-face agitation. They seem bothered that I have a role and voice in the ULA. The question then: Why did they ever join? Obviously they saw us as a stepping stone for their ambition, one stone among many stones along their path, with no sense of loyalty or commitment to anything except their own egos. Noah is a bigger disappointment than Tim, because he professes to wish to change this society. (Tim is about promoting his own writing.) Noah, you don't change anything by abandoning and turning on colleagues at the first expeditious moment or momentary sense of frustration. Like a J.T. Leroy you've become an embarrassment to the idea of a working class as it once existed in this country. Before I was born my old man, an autoworker, was part of post-WWII strikes which built the union movement in this society. I was raised on his history. Through my life I saw the working class gradually knocked down and destroyed. I saw more recent strikers, in 1995, beaten and bloodied by jackbooted union-busters in the same city of Detroit during an infamous newspaper strike. (A story ignored by corporate media.) Their broken faces were right in front of me. Dig far enough into my past and you'll find I was a (very young) union steward and shit-disturber myself someplace-- far more volatile than I am today. I've tried to bring the merest hint of this kind of solidarity and attitude to the community of writers, in order to change the culture, in order to renew this society. The one person I thought would "get" what I was doing was you. My efforts in this regard were a failure, as you wish to be a head-in-the-sand pessimist blind to the realities of literature and the world, abandoning real hope of changing things-- even buying the lie that lower class people don't like to read. (Surely, TV or no TV, the masses are no less deprived or depraved than in Jack London's day. The vast mass of Americans of any class are no less hungry for truth, relevance, soul, and reality, which only literature can fully bring. To think otherwise is to short-sell humanity.)
The founding and growth of the Underground Literary Alliance has been an important accomplishment-- the creation in literature of a truly independent voice. Nothing changes without conflict and setbacks. Ours have been temporary. The ULA's most exciting history will be in the days ahead.
My favorable posts about Noah are still on this blog for all to see. A mere couple weeks before Tim bailed I was taking his part in an internal discussion about a name for a publication. The only frustration I might've sensed from them was that I wasn't giving them enough attention. Not enough attention! The micromanager Tim portrays is the micromanager they wanted me to be-- not what I've been in reality. Even had I wanted to "dictate," I don't have the time! Noah and Tim were both free to pursue their projects as they wished, within the framework of the ULA. (Their grievances remain mysterious.)
There was never a question of putting handcuffs on them. In hindsight-- though they raised nary a peep at the time-- it was more they wanting to stifle other ULAers, whether Crazy Carl, or Jeff Potter, or me. Did they approach Steve with their grievances? Did they raise their complaints with the team? Not to my knowledge.
I don't understand what they're now saying. They seem to want the ULA to stop being the ULA; to lessen our vision, our belief that we can change things; to stop our comic-book populism and our in-your-face agitation. They seem bothered that I have a role and voice in the ULA. The question then: Why did they ever join? Obviously they saw us as a stepping stone for their ambition, one stone among many stones along their path, with no sense of loyalty or commitment to anything except their own egos. Noah is a bigger disappointment than Tim, because he professes to wish to change this society. (Tim is about promoting his own writing.) Noah, you don't change anything by abandoning and turning on colleagues at the first expeditious moment or momentary sense of frustration. Like a J.T. Leroy you've become an embarrassment to the idea of a working class as it once existed in this country. Before I was born my old man, an autoworker, was part of post-WWII strikes which built the union movement in this society. I was raised on his history. Through my life I saw the working class gradually knocked down and destroyed. I saw more recent strikers, in 1995, beaten and bloodied by jackbooted union-busters in the same city of Detroit during an infamous newspaper strike. (A story ignored by corporate media.) Their broken faces were right in front of me. Dig far enough into my past and you'll find I was a (very young) union steward and shit-disturber myself someplace-- far more volatile than I am today. I've tried to bring the merest hint of this kind of solidarity and attitude to the community of writers, in order to change the culture, in order to renew this society. The one person I thought would "get" what I was doing was you. My efforts in this regard were a failure, as you wish to be a head-in-the-sand pessimist blind to the realities of literature and the world, abandoning real hope of changing things-- even buying the lie that lower class people don't like to read. (Surely, TV or no TV, the masses are no less deprived or depraved than in Jack London's day. The vast mass of Americans of any class are no less hungry for truth, relevance, soul, and reality, which only literature can fully bring. To think otherwise is to short-sell humanity.)
The founding and growth of the Underground Literary Alliance has been an important accomplishment-- the creation in literature of a truly independent voice. Nothing changes without conflict and setbacks. Ours have been temporary. The ULA's most exciting history will be in the days ahead.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
The Real Truth About Memogate
The CBS "Memogate" controversy about Bush's National Guard service has been reopened with the publication of the Mary Mapes book Truth and Duty, excerpted in Vanity Fair. In her book, Mapes makes the case that the documents CBS News put forward as authentic may indeed BE authentic; that the case against them hasn't been proved. Were right-wing bloggers wrong? Where lies the truth?
No one has consulted the ultimate authority on proportionally-spaced typewriters, small-press publisher Fred Woodworth, to receive the definitive answer.
That answer is given by Fred on pages 32 through 36 of his Mystery & Adventure Series Review, issue #38. Fred is, in his own words, "the one person anywhere who still operates all of these devices every day"-- referring to Selectric Composers, IBM Executive Typewriters, Varitypers, Justowriters, and similar machines which "could have produced proportionally-spaced typing in a style like that of the documents. . . ."
Like Mary Mapes, Fred shreds many of the arguments of the bloggers and their experts.
One can't know by the appearance of the characters if the documents were faked. Repeated photocopying "altered the letter shapes enough to cast doubt even on what formal name might be assigned to the typeface."
"Nor is the 'th' in one of the lines a sure indicator of computer production," Woodworth continues. He explains how a small lifted "th" could've been produced on a period machine.
Fred mocks those "experts" who claimed absurdities such as that the documents were fake because Times New Roman typeface was invented for computer systems ("it looks much more like Garamond to me," Fred says). Times New Roman made its public debut in 1932!
"In the case of the disputed documents, only mathematics could prove the point one way or the other."
Woodworth explains the numbers, or values, for each character on the keyboards of the various proportionally-spacing machines which could potentially have typed the questionable memos. (With standard typewriters, the spacing is a single unit per character. Not so with these devices.) By adding up the "unit or increment values of all the characters in the memos he or she can easily determine their legitimacy. If unit values in a system don't result in characters staying in the same relationship to each other as in the memo shown, then that particular system can be excluded."
Woodworth has typed out, for our perusal, on various machines, lines from the previously shown memo. "Note how in each example, differing systems of character units result in differing relative line lengths-- and all are different from the CBS one."
The question WASN'T, as many bloggers thought, whether the documents could have been faked or reproduced by computer. It was whether they were created in 1972. The answer is an unqualified unequivocal NO, as Woodworth shows.
Think about this for a minute. At great expense, St. Martin's Press has just issued a book, Vanity Fair has excerpted it, the key argument at the heart of which is WRONG. Flatly wrong. Definitively wrong, as Woodworth easily demonstrates in his short but expert essay on the subject. If ever Mary Mapes, St. Martin's Press, and Vanity Fair should have gotten a story right, THIS WAS THAT MOMENT. Instead, they blew it.
Fred Woodworth's conclusion:
"The recent Bush-memo scandal convinces me that the apparatus for conveying truth to a wide public is broken if it ever worked at all. People get up and say whatever serves their agenda whether they actually know anything about their topic or are just making it up on the spot. Persons with no axe to grind and with real expert knowledge to impart are contemptuously ignored. . . ."
For #38 of the M & A Series Review send five dollars cash or stamps to Fred Woodworth, PO Box 3012, Tucson AZ 85702. The article inside is a must-read for anyone interested in the Memogate story.
No one has consulted the ultimate authority on proportionally-spaced typewriters, small-press publisher Fred Woodworth, to receive the definitive answer.
That answer is given by Fred on pages 32 through 36 of his Mystery & Adventure Series Review, issue #38. Fred is, in his own words, "the one person anywhere who still operates all of these devices every day"-- referring to Selectric Composers, IBM Executive Typewriters, Varitypers, Justowriters, and similar machines which "could have produced proportionally-spaced typing in a style like that of the documents. . . ."
Like Mary Mapes, Fred shreds many of the arguments of the bloggers and their experts.
One can't know by the appearance of the characters if the documents were faked. Repeated photocopying "altered the letter shapes enough to cast doubt even on what formal name might be assigned to the typeface."
"Nor is the 'th' in one of the lines a sure indicator of computer production," Woodworth continues. He explains how a small lifted "th" could've been produced on a period machine.
Fred mocks those "experts" who claimed absurdities such as that the documents were fake because Times New Roman typeface was invented for computer systems ("it looks much more like Garamond to me," Fred says). Times New Roman made its public debut in 1932!
"In the case of the disputed documents, only mathematics could prove the point one way or the other."
Woodworth explains the numbers, or values, for each character on the keyboards of the various proportionally-spacing machines which could potentially have typed the questionable memos. (With standard typewriters, the spacing is a single unit per character. Not so with these devices.) By adding up the "unit or increment values of all the characters in the memos he or she can easily determine their legitimacy. If unit values in a system don't result in characters staying in the same relationship to each other as in the memo shown, then that particular system can be excluded."
Woodworth has typed out, for our perusal, on various machines, lines from the previously shown memo. "Note how in each example, differing systems of character units result in differing relative line lengths-- and all are different from the CBS one."
The question WASN'T, as many bloggers thought, whether the documents could have been faked or reproduced by computer. It was whether they were created in 1972. The answer is an unqualified unequivocal NO, as Woodworth shows.
Think about this for a minute. At great expense, St. Martin's Press has just issued a book, Vanity Fair has excerpted it, the key argument at the heart of which is WRONG. Flatly wrong. Definitively wrong, as Woodworth easily demonstrates in his short but expert essay on the subject. If ever Mary Mapes, St. Martin's Press, and Vanity Fair should have gotten a story right, THIS WAS THAT MOMENT. Instead, they blew it.
Fred Woodworth's conclusion:
"The recent Bush-memo scandal convinces me that the apparatus for conveying truth to a wide public is broken if it ever worked at all. People get up and say whatever serves their agenda whether they actually know anything about their topic or are just making it up on the spot. Persons with no axe to grind and with real expert knowledge to impart are contemptuously ignored. . . ."
For #38 of the M & A Series Review send five dollars cash or stamps to Fred Woodworth, PO Box 3012, Tucson AZ 85702. The article inside is a must-read for anyone interested in the Memogate story.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
The ULA Reality
CURIOUS are remarks tarring the ULA as a one-man operation. What's the motivation behind these statements? At the moment my role in the organization is marginal-- nothing more than posting on this blog once or twice a week. Meanwhile, Jeff, Steve, and Pat Simonelli are involved in publishing and selling books and zeens by ULA writers. Others like Leopold, Brady Russell, and Patrick King are moving forward on other activities. Our Monday Reports come from undergrounders of every kind. Jeff Potter and Pat S. in particular are devoting a great deal of time and energy into building the groundwork of our new-style machine. We're a team of cooperative equals. If I vanished tomorrow, the ULA would continue on with little change.
Get used to it! The Underground Literary Alliance is here to stay.
Get used to it! The Underground Literary Alliance is here to stay.
Proportion
There's an amazing lack of sense of proportion among those who equate attacks on me and the ULA with those on the actions of someone like Rick Moody. Take away my blog and I'm absolutely powerless within this society. I work and live among the lower class. Rick Moody moves among the the wealthiest and most influential cultural cirlces in exclusive private clubs in New York City. His father is a powerful world banker, at the very peak of the world's socioeconomic pyramid, above the world's billions of people. Why do Rick Moody's mediocre novels receive massive publicity? How does he come to make grants decisions involving so many foundations?
We can do little about politics but we can clean up our own backyard of literature. This is what the ULA has been doing. The constant squawkings and insults we face are withdrawal symptoms of those addicted to status quo ideology. Embracing change is never easy. We welcome others to the fight-- even someone like Maud who's ostensibly progressive yet disturbed by what we're doing. They first need to see the literary world as it exists in reality; a mirror image of the rest of society.
This isn't a complaint. I'm merely stating the obvious. When making change, betrayals come with the territory.
All the personal attacks and slanders against me by ex-ULAers don't change the fact that the two individuals making the noise flinched from the fight I described. I'm a much easier target than those who dominate awards, media mags, and money! Attacking me takes no career risk and little bravery. Their panicked screams are rationalizations; cover for the fact that in the face of strong odds they ran away.
We can do little about politics but we can clean up our own backyard of literature. This is what the ULA has been doing. The constant squawkings and insults we face are withdrawal symptoms of those addicted to status quo ideology. Embracing change is never easy. We welcome others to the fight-- even someone like Maud who's ostensibly progressive yet disturbed by what we're doing. They first need to see the literary world as it exists in reality; a mirror image of the rest of society.
This isn't a complaint. I'm merely stating the obvious. When making change, betrayals come with the territory.
All the personal attacks and slanders against me by ex-ULAers don't change the fact that the two individuals making the noise flinched from the fight I described. I'm a much easier target than those who dominate awards, media mags, and money! Attacking me takes no career risk and little bravery. Their panicked screams are rationalizations; cover for the fact that in the face of strong odds they ran away.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Memo to Benedict Arnold
I finally got a chance to read the Noah Cicero thing. Wasn't going to say anything, but can't resist. What a chameleon! Who would've believed he'd turn into such a self-important jerk? In the ULA he was a Leninist radical; a fire-breather. Suddenly now he's a tweedy dilettante, authority on all things obscurely literary. Bring on the slippers and pipe. Let's all just get along, he proclaims; all 24,000 of us bunkered down in the last outpost, the Corregidor of literature. He takes umbrage that lowly King Wenclas, who lives in a transient hotel right now, is somehow picking on lorldly rich guy Bret Easton Ellis. Such a tragedy! Unbelievable! At this dire treatment of the aristocrat, Noah stalked out of the ULA. (Forgetting to tell any of us at the time why.) The horror. How many sleepless nights did Noah endure, sniffles in his pillow, at the mistreatment of his idol? (I don't even recall knocking Ellis's writing-- only the fawning publicity he receives.)
Yes, interesting the way Noah has changed. The previous incarnation/act is gone, along with the rants and misspellings. (Read: phony.) He's been properly lobotomized.
80% of the interview is verbal diarrhea. The only parts of interest are those involving the ULA. Anyone not entranced with his own genius can see that the ULA is the reason for the interview's being, from the first question out of the gate. "Reader" many times steers the discussion back to Noah's departure from the ULA. The interview is an excuse to take shots at the ULA, while parading, like a talking dog or a geek in a circus carnival, the "autodidact"; the man who turned on the ULA. "Look! He writes. He drops pretentious names!" The genteel crowd gasps. Over the curtained booth hangs a large sign. "THE AUTODIDACT." "Step this way. Step this way!" announces Reader-of-Depressing Books the carnival barker. "See the literary freak."
Noah doesn't have the common sense to realize his departure from the ULA is the reason for his sudden acceptance by these people. When he was with us, he was object of their scorn. Now that he's given up the fight and become, like them, an eager-beaver suck-ass game player, everything is fine.
Has he covered every base? Said something nice about Eggers? Check. Put the blame, bizarrely, for the Daniel Handler fake letter controversy on me? (I wasn't supposed to say anything, only stay in my corner and take it, happy that they falsely used my name.) Check. Stereotyped what for the most part are reasoned arguments from me, buttressed by facts, into calling people "dickheads" and "fascists"? (Words I don't use.) Check. Taken a shot at the ULA's populist fan site, which (unlike ambitious writers) doesn't take itself too seriously? Check and double-check.
(I know you won't mind these remarks, Noah. After all, they come from a person who "can't write.")
Reading the interview-- slogging through it dutifully-- I found myself drowning in falsehoods, absurdities, and phoniness.
Noah expresses his concern about the organization of the ULA. He enjoys Hermitt's writing-- apparently the main reason he joined the ULA (does anyone buy this?); having no knowledge the organization was about anything else-- no understanding of its protests and campaigns. (Memos sent him unread.) Once in, he discovers that Hermitt isn't very active in the organization! Someone do something, Noah screams. Not to any of us, but inside his head. Does he ask Hermitt what he thinks of the ULA, encouraging him to become more involved in our activities? Of course not! Noah didn't join to roll up his sleeves, get busy and make the ULA a stronger and better organization. He joined merely because he likes Hermitt's writing.
(Noah, part of what we do in the ULA is provide a place for undergrounders to communicate with one another. It's why we sent you the list of contact information!)
Who Noah most wanted to communicate with aside from Tim Hall wasn't all the working class or poor writers and zeensters who fill our ranks; people like Joe Verrilli or Bill Blackolive or Chris Robin or Yul Tolbert or Frank Walsh or Patrick King-- but me, then the busiest ULAer but also the one with the highest visibility. Though according to Noah I can't write, he kept mailing and e-mailing books, essays, and poems for me to read. Curious, you say? He even asked me to write an intro to his recent book. Though my life was in crisis (still is frankly), working two jobs and busy with other activities, I took the time to read his novel and mail the requested introduction. Did he use it? Was it dropped? Despite my trouble, I received no explanation.
Do you know how many times prolific writer Noah expressed his dissatisfaction with our organization to Steve Kostecke or myself? None. Zero. Not once. The Leftist didn't grasp that communication is part of any collective project. Many of us, like Wred, Jeff, Leopold, Pat Simonelli, Steve, and myself did everything we could to make Noah an important part of the group. Noah gave no space to the normal vagaries of an organization, especially one with as diverse a mix of personalities as ours. There was scant commitment-- COMMITMENT-- to our ideals, our goals, our cause, the level of which has to be high, has to be strong, to endure all the fights setbacks and attacks one receives if one TRULY wishes to make change rather than making wishes postures and dreams. He knew when he joined we like our attitude balls-to-the-wall. His fervor lasted six months. At his first piqued moment or found opportunity elsewhere he bailed. Now he hangs with enervated apologists for the establishment like Depressed Reader of Books, symbol of literary inertia, representative of everything wrong with the art-- the reason it's ignored-- young men discussing existentialist philosophy like retired professors at a rest sanitarium.
(Depressing Writer, whose attitude toward how the world operates is that of a 5 year-old, comes up with an absurdity of his own when he says that Dave Eggers gives "all" his money to charity, and is therefore redistributing wealth!)
Absurdities everyplace. Noah states that one can't intentionally create a movement. This is unhistorical nonsense. Every movement which has had influence was intentionally created, from Christianity to the Bolsheviks to rock n' roll. The evangelists didn't stay home drawing circles in the sand. They strode to every corner of the known world very INTENTIONALLY building their movement. The Jacobins intentionally wrote their gutter-press tracts and intentionally opened their clubs. Lenin traveled to the Finland Station. It didn't travel to him. The rock music phenomenon was intentionally created by hustlers like Alan Freed and Sam Phillips. Colonel Parker himself said he promoted Elvis Presley not as a lone talent, but as the cutting edge of a movement. The British Invasion nine years later was the intentional creation of Brian Epstein and Andrew Loog Oldham.
More absurdities. Diarrhea compounding itself. The smell becomes oppressive. Noah rightly tells us about the importance of publicity in the lit world-- but is unable to see the importance of publicity in constructing the ULA platform, which is being built to give writers like him a voice. That we've positioned ourselves as the anti-McSweeney's; as Avis to McSweeney's Hertz; is a concept beyond this authority's imagination. Like most lit people he knows nothing about business but opens the floodgates of diarrhea anyway. He speaks from no track record of experience on these matters. Instead he expounds any expedient idea which enters his head. It's closing time at the sideshow, lights are being dimmed, and in his brightly-colored booth the Autodidact jabbers on. Please listen! This fellow knows. He supports progressive ideas but adopts the status quo company/party line that I'd be okay if I voiced my ideas alone. My mistake was becoming part of a group, adding my voice to those of like-minded others to have more influence and leverage in this extremely noisy and contentious society. People are okay with what I do as long as I don't try to actually CHANGE anything. Being a lone voice in the wilderness is okay.
Of course, according to Noah, the reason I formed the ULA was because I couldn't get published. On what does he base this assertion? Inside knowledge about the ULA's founding? No: Noah Cicero has taken a new job at the literary carnival, that of Mind Reader. He knows my motivations better than I know them myself, while presenting no evidence to support his case. The real story of the ULA's beginning is a tad different. It includes a chapter on my having left zeening and literature altogether in 1998, when I was managing a trade office along the Detroit-Canada border. Encouraging letters from Doug Bassett and Steve Kostecke prodded me back into the game, along with a visit to Detroit by Michael Jackman. Ideas of book publication couldn't have pushed me out of my office, only something more enticing-- the prospect of changing the culture by creating something independent and new. It's funny and sad that a self-proclaimed Leftist/Leninist et.al. like Noah could so lack vision that his entire view of society and the culture is encompassed by the narrow bourgeois objective of book publication (which by itself is meaningless). For me, writing has never been an end in itself, but a means toward a goal; an avenue toward changing a world I find to be increasingly soulless.
I discussed with others the idea of a lit movement. I pondered the idea for countless hours in my head. I steeped myself in DIY philosophy as propounded by folks like Fred Woodworth (the genuine article). The process is dismissed in a phrase by Noah. ULA history is turned into parody. It doesn't matter to him whether his words contain truth-- only that they conform to the prejudices of his lit-blogger readers. Caricaturing me and my ideas allows bourgeois demi-puppets to nod complacently and assume all is well. King Wenclas is just like them! He's only out for himself.
Noah has decided the status quo literary world with its hierarchies, corruptions, and inequities is okay and in no need of change. He argues for this in his statements. They're not arguments-- they're rationalizations. The lit world is powerless, he tells us-- even the millionaires-- consisting of only 24,000 people, yet at the same time we should be careful not to piss any of them off! Maybe they're not so powerless after all. At least Noah's not stressed out anymore. Like Winston Smith at the end of 1984 he's found peace. ("Reader" playing O'Brien in this theatrical version of the play.)
The acceptance is mind-boggling. Lorrie Moore? If delicate Ms. Moore with her wry subtlety and lifelessness is the literary role model then literature WILL be restricted to 24,000 people. I've seen Lorrie Moore read. She's as animated as a puppet caught between work assignments, as is her writing.
Noah would never argue that the political system doesn't need to be changed. He's vociferous against it. He forgets he's not IN politics-- he's in literature. Politics and literature are reflections of the same stratified society. It's easy to be against something over which you have no influence and doesn't affect your career one iota.
I'll give my former colleague an alternate checklist for consideration. The mainstream print media dominated by Ivy Leaguers? Check. Writers without credentials or connections not given a fair shake? Check. The poor and working class not fairly represented in the noise of this society, through their own voices? Check. Our ideas ignored until they're borrowed by those with the right pedigree? Check. Writers from the bottom half of society indeed effectively blackballed? Check and double-check.
We don't submit manuscripts to conglomerate slush piles (some of us have in the past) because we're working to create an independent alternative to the cultural monopolies. I thought this part of our campaign was well-known and obvious. It should be to anyone who was once part of the ULA.
More rationalization appears in Noah's confused statements about why people do or don't read. This part of the interview is truly diarrhea; during it Noah is speaking out of his ass. His remarks are pure speculation. Noah, in fact, is living disproof of his own statements-- he's one of the many millions of souls in this country who aren't supposed to enjoy literature or reading. People don't read! They only watch TV. Noah has it on good authority, and anyway, most important, to adopt this notion fits comfortably with the smug prejudices of those with whom he's now currying favor. Only problem is the notion is wrong.
Is Noah saying that the mass public can't soak up good, clear, relevant literature? That literature can't become once again important? That it's doomed to be marginalized? Throughout my life I've encountered working class and poor people who love to read, in auto factories and warehouses and railyards and saloons and halfway houses and inner city schools and calling rooms. (There are more autodidacts out there than people think.) They read literature, if it's good, including Dickens, Dumas, and Dostoevsky-- or Jack London (whose Iron Heel is a striking book). In short, the best writers who lived. My experiences and my own life, and the lives and experiences of other undergrounders like Jackman, Grover, Mullins, Nowlan, Ranello, Pachinko, Blackolive, Logan Mason, and many many others support my belief on this subject. Literature can and should be huge. The ULA strategy is sound.
Ours is an optimistic vision of literature and that's what scares some people.
The most egregious and hypocritical part of the Cicero interview is his attack on the ULA's Crazy Carl, whom he falsely brands as misogynist. (This from a defender of Bret Ellis.) In Crazy Carl's good-natured comical yarns, his main target isn't women, but men! I should know, as I've been the butt of a few of his tales, and enjoyed it, because it's done humorously and well. Carl's main target in everything he writes is himself-- the recipient of most of his barbs. In truth Crazy Carl loves women. He's an extremely lively and engaging writer as entertaining in person as in print; that literary rarity, an unconstipated author lacking a trace of snobbery and pretense. I'd take him over a boatload of precious meandering analytical and eternally bland Readers of Depressed Books. Crazy Carl's take on the world is mocking and joyful, rigid ideological theoretical intellectual categories removed. What you get instead is simple honesty. Noah's a talented writer, but there's not a shred of joy for life in his words. It's no wonder Crazy Carl is beyond his comprehension.
Noah says he admires Steve Kostecke's work. Some of Steve's tales about prostitutes could be construed by some as sexist. Where do we draw the line? Guidelines, please. What if someone decides that YOU and your outspoken novels, Noah, are politically incorrect, because they offend someone? What do you do then?
Contradiction upon contradiction. Noah even defends establishment cronyism! Would he apply his remarks to Mr. Bush and friends?
Were some ULAers angry at Noah's departure, as Noah asserts? Not to my knowledge. Our collective emotion was one of puzzlement. My last e-mail to him was very friendly, complimenting him on a favorable review of his work. Sorry if this doesn't fit with the portrait he's painted, but it's the truth.
I could go on. After awhile it becomes pointless. I've opened every window and still can't remove the stench.
If Noah were serious about peace and harmony in the literary world, he wouldn't have taken shots at us. He couldn't leave without throwing people under the bus. He doesn't believe in taking sides but he's taken a side-- the wrong one. I hope it helps him sell a few books.
We've seen the writer-gentry rush to the "Reader"'s blog to express agreement with Noah's remarks, with his departure from the ULA, and their scorn for the organization and its members. Way to go, Noah! You've accomplished a great deal-- revealing the mendacity of the lit-world and the self-centered nature of many writers.
Yes, interesting the way Noah has changed. The previous incarnation/act is gone, along with the rants and misspellings. (Read: phony.) He's been properly lobotomized.
80% of the interview is verbal diarrhea. The only parts of interest are those involving the ULA. Anyone not entranced with his own genius can see that the ULA is the reason for the interview's being, from the first question out of the gate. "Reader" many times steers the discussion back to Noah's departure from the ULA. The interview is an excuse to take shots at the ULA, while parading, like a talking dog or a geek in a circus carnival, the "autodidact"; the man who turned on the ULA. "Look! He writes. He drops pretentious names!" The genteel crowd gasps. Over the curtained booth hangs a large sign. "THE AUTODIDACT." "Step this way. Step this way!" announces Reader-of-Depressing Books the carnival barker. "See the literary freak."
Noah doesn't have the common sense to realize his departure from the ULA is the reason for his sudden acceptance by these people. When he was with us, he was object of their scorn. Now that he's given up the fight and become, like them, an eager-beaver suck-ass game player, everything is fine.
Has he covered every base? Said something nice about Eggers? Check. Put the blame, bizarrely, for the Daniel Handler fake letter controversy on me? (I wasn't supposed to say anything, only stay in my corner and take it, happy that they falsely used my name.) Check. Stereotyped what for the most part are reasoned arguments from me, buttressed by facts, into calling people "dickheads" and "fascists"? (Words I don't use.) Check. Taken a shot at the ULA's populist fan site, which (unlike ambitious writers) doesn't take itself too seriously? Check and double-check.
(I know you won't mind these remarks, Noah. After all, they come from a person who "can't write.")
Reading the interview-- slogging through it dutifully-- I found myself drowning in falsehoods, absurdities, and phoniness.
Noah expresses his concern about the organization of the ULA. He enjoys Hermitt's writing-- apparently the main reason he joined the ULA (does anyone buy this?); having no knowledge the organization was about anything else-- no understanding of its protests and campaigns. (Memos sent him unread.) Once in, he discovers that Hermitt isn't very active in the organization! Someone do something, Noah screams. Not to any of us, but inside his head. Does he ask Hermitt what he thinks of the ULA, encouraging him to become more involved in our activities? Of course not! Noah didn't join to roll up his sleeves, get busy and make the ULA a stronger and better organization. He joined merely because he likes Hermitt's writing.
(Noah, part of what we do in the ULA is provide a place for undergrounders to communicate with one another. It's why we sent you the list of contact information!)
Who Noah most wanted to communicate with aside from Tim Hall wasn't all the working class or poor writers and zeensters who fill our ranks; people like Joe Verrilli or Bill Blackolive or Chris Robin or Yul Tolbert or Frank Walsh or Patrick King-- but me, then the busiest ULAer but also the one with the highest visibility. Though according to Noah I can't write, he kept mailing and e-mailing books, essays, and poems for me to read. Curious, you say? He even asked me to write an intro to his recent book. Though my life was in crisis (still is frankly), working two jobs and busy with other activities, I took the time to read his novel and mail the requested introduction. Did he use it? Was it dropped? Despite my trouble, I received no explanation.
Do you know how many times prolific writer Noah expressed his dissatisfaction with our organization to Steve Kostecke or myself? None. Zero. Not once. The Leftist didn't grasp that communication is part of any collective project. Many of us, like Wred, Jeff, Leopold, Pat Simonelli, Steve, and myself did everything we could to make Noah an important part of the group. Noah gave no space to the normal vagaries of an organization, especially one with as diverse a mix of personalities as ours. There was scant commitment-- COMMITMENT-- to our ideals, our goals, our cause, the level of which has to be high, has to be strong, to endure all the fights setbacks and attacks one receives if one TRULY wishes to make change rather than making wishes postures and dreams. He knew when he joined we like our attitude balls-to-the-wall. His fervor lasted six months. At his first piqued moment or found opportunity elsewhere he bailed. Now he hangs with enervated apologists for the establishment like Depressed Reader of Books, symbol of literary inertia, representative of everything wrong with the art-- the reason it's ignored-- young men discussing existentialist philosophy like retired professors at a rest sanitarium.
(Depressing Writer, whose attitude toward how the world operates is that of a 5 year-old, comes up with an absurdity of his own when he says that Dave Eggers gives "all" his money to charity, and is therefore redistributing wealth!)
Absurdities everyplace. Noah states that one can't intentionally create a movement. This is unhistorical nonsense. Every movement which has had influence was intentionally created, from Christianity to the Bolsheviks to rock n' roll. The evangelists didn't stay home drawing circles in the sand. They strode to every corner of the known world very INTENTIONALLY building their movement. The Jacobins intentionally wrote their gutter-press tracts and intentionally opened their clubs. Lenin traveled to the Finland Station. It didn't travel to him. The rock music phenomenon was intentionally created by hustlers like Alan Freed and Sam Phillips. Colonel Parker himself said he promoted Elvis Presley not as a lone talent, but as the cutting edge of a movement. The British Invasion nine years later was the intentional creation of Brian Epstein and Andrew Loog Oldham.
More absurdities. Diarrhea compounding itself. The smell becomes oppressive. Noah rightly tells us about the importance of publicity in the lit world-- but is unable to see the importance of publicity in constructing the ULA platform, which is being built to give writers like him a voice. That we've positioned ourselves as the anti-McSweeney's; as Avis to McSweeney's Hertz; is a concept beyond this authority's imagination. Like most lit people he knows nothing about business but opens the floodgates of diarrhea anyway. He speaks from no track record of experience on these matters. Instead he expounds any expedient idea which enters his head. It's closing time at the sideshow, lights are being dimmed, and in his brightly-colored booth the Autodidact jabbers on. Please listen! This fellow knows. He supports progressive ideas but adopts the status quo company/party line that I'd be okay if I voiced my ideas alone. My mistake was becoming part of a group, adding my voice to those of like-minded others to have more influence and leverage in this extremely noisy and contentious society. People are okay with what I do as long as I don't try to actually CHANGE anything. Being a lone voice in the wilderness is okay.
Of course, according to Noah, the reason I formed the ULA was because I couldn't get published. On what does he base this assertion? Inside knowledge about the ULA's founding? No: Noah Cicero has taken a new job at the literary carnival, that of Mind Reader. He knows my motivations better than I know them myself, while presenting no evidence to support his case. The real story of the ULA's beginning is a tad different. It includes a chapter on my having left zeening and literature altogether in 1998, when I was managing a trade office along the Detroit-Canada border. Encouraging letters from Doug Bassett and Steve Kostecke prodded me back into the game, along with a visit to Detroit by Michael Jackman. Ideas of book publication couldn't have pushed me out of my office, only something more enticing-- the prospect of changing the culture by creating something independent and new. It's funny and sad that a self-proclaimed Leftist/Leninist et.al. like Noah could so lack vision that his entire view of society and the culture is encompassed by the narrow bourgeois objective of book publication (which by itself is meaningless). For me, writing has never been an end in itself, but a means toward a goal; an avenue toward changing a world I find to be increasingly soulless.
I discussed with others the idea of a lit movement. I pondered the idea for countless hours in my head. I steeped myself in DIY philosophy as propounded by folks like Fred Woodworth (the genuine article). The process is dismissed in a phrase by Noah. ULA history is turned into parody. It doesn't matter to him whether his words contain truth-- only that they conform to the prejudices of his lit-blogger readers. Caricaturing me and my ideas allows bourgeois demi-puppets to nod complacently and assume all is well. King Wenclas is just like them! He's only out for himself.
Noah has decided the status quo literary world with its hierarchies, corruptions, and inequities is okay and in no need of change. He argues for this in his statements. They're not arguments-- they're rationalizations. The lit world is powerless, he tells us-- even the millionaires-- consisting of only 24,000 people, yet at the same time we should be careful not to piss any of them off! Maybe they're not so powerless after all. At least Noah's not stressed out anymore. Like Winston Smith at the end of 1984 he's found peace. ("Reader" playing O'Brien in this theatrical version of the play.)
The acceptance is mind-boggling. Lorrie Moore? If delicate Ms. Moore with her wry subtlety and lifelessness is the literary role model then literature WILL be restricted to 24,000 people. I've seen Lorrie Moore read. She's as animated as a puppet caught between work assignments, as is her writing.
Noah would never argue that the political system doesn't need to be changed. He's vociferous against it. He forgets he's not IN politics-- he's in literature. Politics and literature are reflections of the same stratified society. It's easy to be against something over which you have no influence and doesn't affect your career one iota.
I'll give my former colleague an alternate checklist for consideration. The mainstream print media dominated by Ivy Leaguers? Check. Writers without credentials or connections not given a fair shake? Check. The poor and working class not fairly represented in the noise of this society, through their own voices? Check. Our ideas ignored until they're borrowed by those with the right pedigree? Check. Writers from the bottom half of society indeed effectively blackballed? Check and double-check.
We don't submit manuscripts to conglomerate slush piles (some of us have in the past) because we're working to create an independent alternative to the cultural monopolies. I thought this part of our campaign was well-known and obvious. It should be to anyone who was once part of the ULA.
More rationalization appears in Noah's confused statements about why people do or don't read. This part of the interview is truly diarrhea; during it Noah is speaking out of his ass. His remarks are pure speculation. Noah, in fact, is living disproof of his own statements-- he's one of the many millions of souls in this country who aren't supposed to enjoy literature or reading. People don't read! They only watch TV. Noah has it on good authority, and anyway, most important, to adopt this notion fits comfortably with the smug prejudices of those with whom he's now currying favor. Only problem is the notion is wrong.
Is Noah saying that the mass public can't soak up good, clear, relevant literature? That literature can't become once again important? That it's doomed to be marginalized? Throughout my life I've encountered working class and poor people who love to read, in auto factories and warehouses and railyards and saloons and halfway houses and inner city schools and calling rooms. (There are more autodidacts out there than people think.) They read literature, if it's good, including Dickens, Dumas, and Dostoevsky-- or Jack London (whose Iron Heel is a striking book). In short, the best writers who lived. My experiences and my own life, and the lives and experiences of other undergrounders like Jackman, Grover, Mullins, Nowlan, Ranello, Pachinko, Blackolive, Logan Mason, and many many others support my belief on this subject. Literature can and should be huge. The ULA strategy is sound.
Ours is an optimistic vision of literature and that's what scares some people.
The most egregious and hypocritical part of the Cicero interview is his attack on the ULA's Crazy Carl, whom he falsely brands as misogynist. (This from a defender of Bret Ellis.) In Crazy Carl's good-natured comical yarns, his main target isn't women, but men! I should know, as I've been the butt of a few of his tales, and enjoyed it, because it's done humorously and well. Carl's main target in everything he writes is himself-- the recipient of most of his barbs. In truth Crazy Carl loves women. He's an extremely lively and engaging writer as entertaining in person as in print; that literary rarity, an unconstipated author lacking a trace of snobbery and pretense. I'd take him over a boatload of precious meandering analytical and eternally bland Readers of Depressed Books. Crazy Carl's take on the world is mocking and joyful, rigid ideological theoretical intellectual categories removed. What you get instead is simple honesty. Noah's a talented writer, but there's not a shred of joy for life in his words. It's no wonder Crazy Carl is beyond his comprehension.
Noah says he admires Steve Kostecke's work. Some of Steve's tales about prostitutes could be construed by some as sexist. Where do we draw the line? Guidelines, please. What if someone decides that YOU and your outspoken novels, Noah, are politically incorrect, because they offend someone? What do you do then?
Contradiction upon contradiction. Noah even defends establishment cronyism! Would he apply his remarks to Mr. Bush and friends?
Were some ULAers angry at Noah's departure, as Noah asserts? Not to my knowledge. Our collective emotion was one of puzzlement. My last e-mail to him was very friendly, complimenting him on a favorable review of his work. Sorry if this doesn't fit with the portrait he's painted, but it's the truth.
I could go on. After awhile it becomes pointless. I've opened every window and still can't remove the stench.
If Noah were serious about peace and harmony in the literary world, he wouldn't have taken shots at us. He couldn't leave without throwing people under the bus. He doesn't believe in taking sides but he's taken a side-- the wrong one. I hope it helps him sell a few books.
We've seen the writer-gentry rush to the "Reader"'s blog to express agreement with Noah's remarks, with his departure from the ULA, and their scorn for the organization and its members. Way to go, Noah! You've accomplished a great deal-- revealing the mendacity of the lit-world and the self-centered nature of many writers.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
nATIONAL bOOK aWARD fOLLIES
The aristocrats at the National Book Award Foundation aren't going out of their way to advertise this year's black-tie ceremony, held as before at the Marriott-Marquis fortress in newly Disneyfied Times Square. Are they afraid I might show up again with my camera, my protest signs, and my flying bird hat? (As of now it looks like I'll be unable to make it-- look for my shadow in the cold regardless.)
This year, the rich people who control the thing have allowed to be nominated for the fiction prize two token populists. Safely predictable Leftist novelist E.L. Doctorow will be carted out, with wheelchair or walker, IV tube or embalming jar. He's very "radical" as long as being so doesn't conflict with his cushy New York University professor job! (Mr. E.L.-- ever read the ending of "Animal Farm"? Snort, snort. Enjoy the swanky dinner!)
Along for the ride as well is one-time street writer Mary Gaitskill, who used to pen great stories when she was living among real people, before trading in authenticity for the posing trust-fund crowd. (I optimistically look forward to reading her novel.)
Look folks-- all the cover, the glitter and glitz, the black ties and $10,000 tables doesn't change the fact the "National" Book Awards ceremony representing a sliver of American society and literature is a sham-- just another con game perpetrated by the puppet-masters of American culture. Outside last year's event I hung out with a small group of low-rent working class rebels there to protest the nomination of the 9-11 Commission's Official Report for a book award. The passage of one year has shown the protestors to have been right-- the Commission's Report was a whitewash. This has been demonstrated by the recent Able-Danger revelations in which at least seven credible government employees have testified or attempted to testify that segments of the federal government knew about the Al-Queda cells in this country before 9-11 occurred. The Commission panelists didn't want and DON'T want to know anything about Able-Danger-- neither does the bulk of the establishment media both "Right" and "Left" (two sides of the same coin)-- though the revelations about advance government knowledge are likely only part of the story; the tip of the iceberg.
This year, the rich people who control the thing have allowed to be nominated for the fiction prize two token populists. Safely predictable Leftist novelist E.L. Doctorow will be carted out, with wheelchair or walker, IV tube or embalming jar. He's very "radical" as long as being so doesn't conflict with his cushy New York University professor job! (Mr. E.L.-- ever read the ending of "Animal Farm"? Snort, snort. Enjoy the swanky dinner!)
Along for the ride as well is one-time street writer Mary Gaitskill, who used to pen great stories when she was living among real people, before trading in authenticity for the posing trust-fund crowd. (I optimistically look forward to reading her novel.)
Look folks-- all the cover, the glitter and glitz, the black ties and $10,000 tables doesn't change the fact the "National" Book Awards ceremony representing a sliver of American society and literature is a sham-- just another con game perpetrated by the puppet-masters of American culture. Outside last year's event I hung out with a small group of low-rent working class rebels there to protest the nomination of the 9-11 Commission's Official Report for a book award. The passage of one year has shown the protestors to have been right-- the Commission's Report was a whitewash. This has been demonstrated by the recent Able-Danger revelations in which at least seven credible government employees have testified or attempted to testify that segments of the federal government knew about the Al-Queda cells in this country before 9-11 occurred. The Commission panelists didn't want and DON'T want to know anything about Able-Danger-- neither does the bulk of the establishment media both "Right" and "Left" (two sides of the same coin)-- though the revelations about advance government knowledge are likely only part of the story; the tip of the iceberg.
Conclusion About Ben Marcus
The title of the Marcus Harper's essay was the hyperbolic "Why Experimental Fiction Threatens to Destroy Publishing, Jonathan Franzen, and Life as We Know It."
I wonder: when will this take place? The experimental movement Marcus advocates has been around for over 40 years and had little influence-- it consists of nothing more than stuffy professors in thick-stoned mothballed universities passing hermetic texts back and forth among themselves; the world outside their shuttered windows an unknown realm.
What we see with the publication of the enervated Marcus essay incapable of stirring anyone to action beyond the slightest nod of head, irritated cough, or pinched brow is a failed attempt to co-opt the radical message of the only truly different dangerous new literary movement on the scene now-- scorned and blackballed by status quo apologists one and all-- the
UNDERGROUND LITERARY ALLIANCE.
I wonder: when will this take place? The experimental movement Marcus advocates has been around for over 40 years and had little influence-- it consists of nothing more than stuffy professors in thick-stoned mothballed universities passing hermetic texts back and forth among themselves; the world outside their shuttered windows an unknown realm.
What we see with the publication of the enervated Marcus essay incapable of stirring anyone to action beyond the slightest nod of head, irritated cough, or pinched brow is a failed attempt to co-opt the radical message of the only truly different dangerous new literary movement on the scene now-- scorned and blackballed by status quo apologists one and all-- the
UNDERGROUND LITERARY ALLIANCE.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Ben Marcus and Test Tube Literature
The kind of experimental writing Marcus advocates isn't the same as the ground-up DIY writing experiments a Mark Sonnenfeld or Jack Saunders practices.
Instead, it's a tops-down institutional approach, created in the literary laboratories of academe. It's funded through the same kind of government-academy synthesis that over the years has funded experiments in genetics, space technology, and weapons systems. (This is a subject I investigated in the 90's for my New Philistine newsletter. I asked questions about these literary experiments-- for instance, about Larry McCaffery's involvement in the takeover of Critique magazine by a Washington D.C. entity named Heldref which was controlled by noted neo-conservative figure Jeane Kirkpatrick and her husband.)
Crucial questions about WHO OWNS LITERATURE?, as applied to Jonathan Franzen, the Fiction Collective, or even Harper's magazine-- questions which are the only way to determine which writers in fact represent the status quo-- are questions which will never be addressed by establishment hacks like Franzen or Marcus, let alone answered.
Instead, it's a tops-down institutional approach, created in the literary laboratories of academe. It's funded through the same kind of government-academy synthesis that over the years has funded experiments in genetics, space technology, and weapons systems. (This is a subject I investigated in the 90's for my New Philistine newsletter. I asked questions about these literary experiments-- for instance, about Larry McCaffery's involvement in the takeover of Critique magazine by a Washington D.C. entity named Heldref which was controlled by noted neo-conservative figure Jeane Kirkpatrick and her husband.)
Crucial questions about WHO OWNS LITERATURE?, as applied to Jonathan Franzen, the Fiction Collective, or even Harper's magazine-- questions which are the only way to determine which writers in fact represent the status quo-- are questions which will never be addressed by establishment hacks like Franzen or Marcus, let alone answered.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Ben Marcus and Establishment Cronyism
I found amusing and revealing Marcus's mention in his Harper's essay of the band The Silver Jews as an example of artists marginalized in this society.
The Silver Jews are led by establishment poet-darling David Berman, yet one more American child of extreme privilege. (His father appears to be the owner of Bermanco, one of the more notorious corporate lobbyist firms in Washington D.C.) David Berman has been house poet at the trendy trust fund lit-journal Open City as well as The Believer, the journal Marcus's wife Heidi Julavits edits. David Berman hasn't been marginalized at all. Instead, despite having little musical or poetic talent, he's been pushed, funded, hyped, and lauded (including by the likes of Billy Collins) over and over.
Ben Marcus, in his post at Columbia U, and through his friendships, is immersed in establishment cronyism. This is why he couldn't see anything wrong in last year's National Book Awards fiction and poetry awards, which were dominated by the privileged; the winners and many of the nominees coming from the upper levels of society and centered in the city of New York.
(To be continued.)
The Silver Jews are led by establishment poet-darling David Berman, yet one more American child of extreme privilege. (His father appears to be the owner of Bermanco, one of the more notorious corporate lobbyist firms in Washington D.C.) David Berman has been house poet at the trendy trust fund lit-journal Open City as well as The Believer, the journal Marcus's wife Heidi Julavits edits. David Berman hasn't been marginalized at all. Instead, despite having little musical or poetic talent, he's been pushed, funded, hyped, and lauded (including by the likes of Billy Collins) over and over.
Ben Marcus, in his post at Columbia U, and through his friendships, is immersed in establishment cronyism. This is why he couldn't see anything wrong in last year's National Book Awards fiction and poetry awards, which were dominated by the privileged; the winners and many of the nominees coming from the upper levels of society and centered in the city of New York.
(To be continued.)
Friday, October 21, 2005
ULA Dress Code?
Now that the NBA (National Basketball Association) has instituted a dress code in order to improve its image, speculation is rampant that the most infamous writers group on the planet, the ULA (Underground Literary Alliance), will follow suit.
On the one hand are ULAers like George Balgobin and Yul Tolbert who would likely think dressing members in distinctive, eye-catching uniforms would be an astute move, further distinguishing us from the literary pack and drawing increased attention to ourselves.
On the other hand are members like Wild Bill Blackolive, who might be concerned that they'd have to cut their hair and shave, or put on shoes and a shirt.
All I can say at the moment is that I've been given no word by ULA leaders about any proposed dress code.
On the one hand are ULAers like George Balgobin and Yul Tolbert who would likely think dressing members in distinctive, eye-catching uniforms would be an astute move, further distinguishing us from the literary pack and drawing increased attention to ourselves.
On the other hand are members like Wild Bill Blackolive, who might be concerned that they'd have to cut their hair and shave, or put on shoes and a shirt.
All I can say at the moment is that I've been given no word by ULA leaders about any proposed dress code.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
