A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE?
I began to set up a blog, "Petition to PEN," at www.penpetition.blogspot.com
Apparently it's been frozen. Perhaps by the time you read this their review will be over and you'll be able to read what the Petition says.
It's curious-- blogger has thousands and thousands of blogs to manage. Why would they take action like this-- unless someone complained?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
A PEN Quote
From PEN's Larry Siems:
"Excluding those with challenging or critical viewpoints is just as wrong now. In the post-9/11 world, where the future depends more than ever on bridging intellectual chasms and cultural divides, we believe that exclusion is also self-defeating."
Does he and PEN apply this to America's literary scene?
PEN is doing many things right. I believe they can do better.
"Excluding those with challenging or critical viewpoints is just as wrong now. In the post-9/11 world, where the future depends more than ever on bridging intellectual chasms and cultural divides, we believe that exclusion is also self-defeating."
Does he and PEN apply this to America's literary scene?
PEN is doing many things right. I believe they can do better.
The Dishonesty Brigade
I've been getting hit of late with a variety of anonymous posters, from all directions, in various guises. They're what Shakespeare described inThe Tempest, "that by moonshine do the green sour ringlets make": demi-puppets. Shadows without substance.
The shadows have complained about my hostility, yet their dissembling is hostile. They won't give my readers and myself the respect of appearing under their own identities. Their actions are of duplicity. Let them come into the light if they have genuineness and meaning. I can hardly be blamed for calling them demi-puppets when they remain demi-puppets!
The shadows have complained about my hostility, yet their dissembling is hostile. They won't give my readers and myself the respect of appearing under their own identities. Their actions are of duplicity. Let them come into the light if they have genuineness and meaning. I can hardly be blamed for calling them demi-puppets when they remain demi-puppets!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
New Links
In addition to my new review blog at
www.blitzreview.blogspot.com,
I've added two other contacts to my Links feature--
www.apragmaticpolicy.wordpress.com (this link long overdue);
and
www.sundaysalon.com,
an interesting new lit site.
Check them out!
www.blitzreview.blogspot.com,
I've added two other contacts to my Links feature--
www.apragmaticpolicy.wordpress.com (this link long overdue);
and
www.sundaysalon.com,
an interesting new lit site.
Check them out!
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Peace Gesture
As a gesture of good will, I'm removing the reference to pods in this blog's Profile. I've also made another change for politically correct reasons, meeting critics halfway.
I'm also willing to overlook differences of opinion with Moody-spokesman "Harland," to pursue instead those points we can agree upon; chiefly the belief in democracy in literature. In coming days I'll propose an area in which we might be able to work together toward that goal.
I'm also willing to overlook differences of opinion with Moody-spokesman "Harland," to pursue instead those points we can agree upon; chiefly the belief in democracy in literature. In coming days I'll propose an area in which we might be able to work together toward that goal.
The PEN Board
I'M TOLD that one has to have a book published to be on PEN's board of trustees, or to become a member of PEN. This means that excluded writers can't belong to an organization meant to protect excluded writers! A neat trick.
Who are PEN board members?
They're the most privileged and connected writers in America, with the least interest in changing anything about the American writing scene. The very writers who least should be on the board of such an organization are running the thing.
The solution: There are underground writers who've been published who'd make excellent PEN trustees; Tim W. Brown, Carl Robinson, and Wred Fright among them.
Who are PEN board members?
They're the most privileged and connected writers in America, with the least interest in changing anything about the American writing scene. The very writers who least should be on the board of such an organization are running the thing.
The solution: There are underground writers who've been published who'd make excellent PEN trustees; Tim W. Brown, Carl Robinson, and Wred Fright among them.
Miscalculation
The biggest miscalculation I made when plotting the original ULA strategy was assuming that established literati, as writers, had consciences. I assumed the justness of our grievance would be universally recognized; that those who pay lip service to democracy and foul play would help us institute democracy in literature in reality. I assumed that our first target would return the ill-gotten grant we protested against, and apologize. Surely no one of his station could be that obstinate, that greedy, that selfish. We sought to remind him and his friends that they're part of a community of citizens, a community of writers which includes others beyond their own privileged clique-- that they had an obligation as members of that community to not always take all resources for themselves; they who least needed those resources.
He was that obstinate. His crowd was that selfish, and closed ranks in support of the wrongdoer. They dismissed the idea of community. They've been the alienators, not anyone on our side.
I've sought redress of grievances-- to force our literature, our America, to live up to its ideals. To open up the decision-making to all levels of society, and to ensure that resources set aside to remedy inequalities, not be stolen first by those who already receive more than equal treatment.
Literary rebels in this society have nothing to lose. Who cares who we alienate when they're alienated to us anyway!-- when in their circles of snobbery they've been alienated to our kind of writer from the very beginning?
Ever read Robert Louis Stevenson's "A Lodging for the Night''-- his take on medieval poet Francois Villon? The encounter at the end between the cold and hungry poet, and the old "noble," is the dynamic we face today.
The Rebellion has nothing; no status and no resources, existing penniless in the cold, yet at the same time it has everything on its side; the hunger and energy of the new-- while the other side, the old order of literature, exists in a holding pattern, marching nowhere, clinging to its exclusiveness inside boundaries of its own making.
He was that obstinate. His crowd was that selfish, and closed ranks in support of the wrongdoer. They dismissed the idea of community. They've been the alienators, not anyone on our side.
I've sought redress of grievances-- to force our literature, our America, to live up to its ideals. To open up the decision-making to all levels of society, and to ensure that resources set aside to remedy inequalities, not be stolen first by those who already receive more than equal treatment.
Literary rebels in this society have nothing to lose. Who cares who we alienate when they're alienated to us anyway!-- when in their circles of snobbery they've been alienated to our kind of writer from the very beginning?
Ever read Robert Louis Stevenson's "A Lodging for the Night''-- his take on medieval poet Francois Villon? The encounter at the end between the cold and hungry poet, and the old "noble," is the dynamic we face today.
The Rebellion has nothing; no status and no resources, existing penniless in the cold, yet at the same time it has everything on its side; the hunger and energy of the new-- while the other side, the old order of literature, exists in a holding pattern, marching nowhere, clinging to its exclusiveness inside boundaries of its own making.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Two Undergrounds
PICTURE the heyday of the Soviet Union, when kitchen-produced samizdat was the only outlet for independent literary activity disconnected from the state-approved literature of the bureaucracies. What if the state had countered samizdat with its own fake version of underground writing, controlled from on high?
This is the situation in America today, where two undergrounds exist side-by-side. One is the authentic version, grass roots "zine" publishing, a spontaneous activity sparked in reaction to the oppressive dominating noise of the media monopolies. Genuine roots art; an organic cultural happening.
The Fake Underground is a Frankenstein monster produced in university and government laboratories; part of a reactionary move begun in the 1950's to misdirect the American literary mainstream. Its funding has come from various sources; from NEA grants to big-money foundations to, yes, in some instances, the CIA. (See post below this one.) Study where the support comes from for what's handed us by anonymous posters on this blog as "avant-garde" and you'll see it comes from the highest levels of society.
Locating the financial sources isn't easy, as they often operate through many layers. One of the players today is the "progressive" Creative Capital Foundation. Further digging shows CCF is funded by giant tax shelters like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the J.P. Morgan Chase Foundation.
In the 1990's, for my zeen I looked into the takeover of the U.S. version of Critique by the Jeane Kirkpatrick-run Heldref Foundation. (Kirkpatrick was a notorious neo-con ideologue.) Connected with this, curiously enough-- perhaps innocently-- was noted "avante-garde" lit figure and FC2 editor Larry McCaffery.
I covered a more recent takeover, of a small press organization, for the ULA. Check the Monday Report archives at www.literaryrevolution.com
Throughout the Substitute Underground (straight out of Orwell's 1984, by the way) are the fingerprints of the wealthiest, most powerful individuals in this country.
I consider it a reactionary phenomenon. For a similar occurrence one can look at the art world of the 1950's when the Rockefeller family, stung by an encounter with populist Mexican artist Diego Rivera-- who created works of striking social relevance-- went in the opposite direction with their enormous financial backing and promotion of abstract art. American art connecting with the people was shoved aside for art representing a heavily Europeanized elite, art which by its very nature viscerally touched nobody.
What's called literary "avant-garde" today is merely window dressing. Despite the sums of money behind it, it's moved no place. It exists to displace the real thing. It's one more part of a stagnating literary present whose other manifestations-- Cecily von Ziegasar's "Gossip Girl" and its offshoots; literary flagship The New Yorker's still publishing John Updike and Updike wannabes, or John Ashbery and Ashbery wannabes-- show status quo literature to be reactionary, regressive, and dead.
This is the situation in America today, where two undergrounds exist side-by-side. One is the authentic version, grass roots "zine" publishing, a spontaneous activity sparked in reaction to the oppressive dominating noise of the media monopolies. Genuine roots art; an organic cultural happening.
The Fake Underground is a Frankenstein monster produced in university and government laboratories; part of a reactionary move begun in the 1950's to misdirect the American literary mainstream. Its funding has come from various sources; from NEA grants to big-money foundations to, yes, in some instances, the CIA. (See post below this one.) Study where the support comes from for what's handed us by anonymous posters on this blog as "avant-garde" and you'll see it comes from the highest levels of society.
Locating the financial sources isn't easy, as they often operate through many layers. One of the players today is the "progressive" Creative Capital Foundation. Further digging shows CCF is funded by giant tax shelters like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the J.P. Morgan Chase Foundation.
In the 1990's, for my zeen I looked into the takeover of the U.S. version of Critique by the Jeane Kirkpatrick-run Heldref Foundation. (Kirkpatrick was a notorious neo-con ideologue.) Connected with this, curiously enough-- perhaps innocently-- was noted "avante-garde" lit figure and FC2 editor Larry McCaffery.
I covered a more recent takeover, of a small press organization, for the ULA. Check the Monday Report archives at www.literaryrevolution.com
Throughout the Substitute Underground (straight out of Orwell's 1984, by the way) are the fingerprints of the wealthiest, most powerful individuals in this country.
I consider it a reactionary phenomenon. For a similar occurrence one can look at the art world of the 1950's when the Rockefeller family, stung by an encounter with populist Mexican artist Diego Rivera-- who created works of striking social relevance-- went in the opposite direction with their enormous financial backing and promotion of abstract art. American art connecting with the people was shoved aside for art representing a heavily Europeanized elite, art which by its very nature viscerally touched nobody.
What's called literary "avant-garde" today is merely window dressing. Despite the sums of money behind it, it's moved no place. It exists to displace the real thing. It's one more part of a stagnating literary present whose other manifestations-- Cecily von Ziegasar's "Gossip Girl" and its offshoots; literary flagship The New Yorker's still publishing John Updike and Updike wannabes, or John Ashbery and Ashbery wannabes-- show status quo literature to be reactionary, regressive, and dead.
A Crazy Tale
This is right out of my "Plutocracy USA" story at Literary Mystery.
Yale poet WWII vet Cord Meyer won an O. Henry Prize in 1946 for best first-published story. He became President of the United World Federalists, "which envisioned a globe under the calm and rational dominion of one government." In 1951 he joined the CIA. "He would rise to become the number two man in the agency's clandestine operations. . . ." "Along the way, he secretly financed labor unions, youth groups, writers' organizations, and literary journals."
This info is from a 2007 bio of the Kennedys, Brothers by David Talbot, former editor of Salon. Elsewhere in the book, Talbot mentions that by 1977 there were over 400 U.S. journalists considered "assets" by the CIA. Do any remain? (We know that CNN's Anderson Cooper worked for the CIA after Yale.)
Yale poet WWII vet Cord Meyer won an O. Henry Prize in 1946 for best first-published story. He became President of the United World Federalists, "which envisioned a globe under the calm and rational dominion of one government." In 1951 he joined the CIA. "He would rise to become the number two man in the agency's clandestine operations. . . ." "Along the way, he secretly financed labor unions, youth groups, writers' organizations, and literary journals."
This info is from a 2007 bio of the Kennedys, Brothers by David Talbot, former editor of Salon. Elsewhere in the book, Talbot mentions that by 1977 there were over 400 U.S. journalists considered "assets" by the CIA. Do any remain? (We know that CNN's Anderson Cooper worked for the CIA after Yale.)
"Burning Mansions"
SPARE ME your lectures,
your trivialized posing
snooty condescension
chi-chi descritpions
of the swanky parties
of bohemian millionaires
Sedaris clown entertainment
snot-filled pastry dishes
white powder trays of sandwiches
clinking wineglasses
at the Benefit for the African tourist
flash photo taken with the guests
to show they're generous progressives;
Saturday smiles of glowing teeth,
boob jobs and face lifts.
They return home
comforting digs--
million dollar--
take off their ties and party dresses
to hand to the maid
head-bowed and silent immigrant.
Then the Overdogs open
laid out on the mahogany end table
neatly-stacked envelopes
counting the profits
of their global investments,
perfume-tinged,
smelling of sanctity
of the convent of their untouched
conscience.
your trivialized posing
snooty condescension
chi-chi descritpions
of the swanky parties
of bohemian millionaires
Sedaris clown entertainment
snot-filled pastry dishes
white powder trays of sandwiches
clinking wineglasses
at the Benefit for the African tourist
flash photo taken with the guests
to show they're generous progressives;
Saturday smiles of glowing teeth,
boob jobs and face lifts.
They return home
comforting digs--
million dollar--
take off their ties and party dresses
to hand to the maid
head-bowed and silent immigrant.
Then the Overdogs open
laid out on the mahogany end table
neatly-stacked envelopes
counting the profits
of their global investments,
perfume-tinged,
smelling of sanctity
of the convent of their untouched
conscience.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Letter to PEN
Text of an e-mail I sent to the PEN organization in New York two days ago:
To PEN staff, officers, and board members:
It's heartening to see your progressive stance in support of dissenting writers in distant countries.
What's your public stance regarding dissenting writers in the United States-- including those who criticize the cultural establishment?
Also, given that American literature is dominated by the upper classes; and that those scattered or token lower class writers who are allowed into the party have to aggressively conform to tightly regulated standards, with little to no control over their own work (see the career of Raymond Carver), what steps are being taken to democratize your organization; to bring in as officers or board members writers from outside the literary establishment-- including voices of American literary dissent?
I look forward to your reply.
Thank you.
-Karl "King" Wenclas
(I await a response.)
To PEN staff, officers, and board members:
It's heartening to see your progressive stance in support of dissenting writers in distant countries.
What's your public stance regarding dissenting writers in the United States-- including those who criticize the cultural establishment?
Also, given that American literature is dominated by the upper classes; and that those scattered or token lower class writers who are allowed into the party have to aggressively conform to tightly regulated standards, with little to no control over their own work (see the career of Raymond Carver), what steps are being taken to democratize your organization; to bring in as officers or board members writers from outside the literary establishment-- including voices of American literary dissent?
I look forward to your reply.
Thank you.
-Karl "King" Wenclas
(I await a response.)
The Island
The sad fact is that the literary establishment lives on an isolated island. Nowhere is this more striking than in the poetry realm, where the stripped-down Bennington-style of verse is completely disconnected with the Beat-or-hip hop-influenced stylings coming from the lower classes, heard in dive clubs or on streetcorners. (The best underground poets do a synthesis of types, mixing in the knowledge of an Eliot or a Pound.)
The remarks here of Moody-mouthpiece "Harland" shows how out-of-touch the status quo's prose masters are as well; desperately clinging to a stale "avant-garde" left over from the days of Robert Coover and others of his ilk, with Gordon Lish/Thomas Pynchon wordplay thrown in. All very tiring. Overintellectualized; meant only for the pseudo-intellectual crowd. The Conformity factories known as universities continue preaching old dogma, while hundreds of DIYers outside the Ivy-covered walls are breaking the rules and the boundaries.
No, Harland; zeensters aren't submitting to literary journals whose focus is on the well-polished sentence while ignoring the deeper impetus of a work. These journals, like you, are micro-focused. It's not working. The answer for the art is to take a larger view, in so doing deciding upon a work's-- and literature's-- real goals, then adjusting the style accordingly, creating new styles which live. The answer for literature is right in front of us, has always been right in front of us, but no one can see it. Peace. Out.
The remarks here of Moody-mouthpiece "Harland" shows how out-of-touch the status quo's prose masters are as well; desperately clinging to a stale "avant-garde" left over from the days of Robert Coover and others of his ilk, with Gordon Lish/Thomas Pynchon wordplay thrown in. All very tiring. Overintellectualized; meant only for the pseudo-intellectual crowd. The Conformity factories known as universities continue preaching old dogma, while hundreds of DIYers outside the Ivy-covered walls are breaking the rules and the boundaries.
No, Harland; zeensters aren't submitting to literary journals whose focus is on the well-polished sentence while ignoring the deeper impetus of a work. These journals, like you, are micro-focused. It's not working. The answer for the art is to take a larger view, in so doing deciding upon a work's-- and literature's-- real goals, then adjusting the style accordingly, creating new styles which live. The answer for literature is right in front of us, has always been right in front of us, but no one can see it. Peace. Out.
Poem
Those looking in on my "McCartney at Starbucks" poem at www.happyamericawriting.blogspot.com,
please be aware that I wrote it last year. I stepped into a Starbucks the other day and there was no McCartney, but instead a horrendous cd by Carly Simon was playing; a lethargic parody of her best work. I fled.
NEXT WEEK: I debut an all-new review blog with a movie review, "Iron Man and the Imperialist Mindset." Stay tuned here for more info.
please be aware that I wrote it last year. I stepped into a Starbucks the other day and there was no McCartney, but instead a horrendous cd by Carly Simon was playing; a lethargic parody of her best work. I fled.
NEXT WEEK: I debut an all-new review blog with a movie review, "Iron Man and the Imperialist Mindset." Stay tuned here for more info.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Points of Agreement?
Here are ten points that possibly we all can agree on.
1.) The position of literature in American society has declined.
2.) There are no larger-than-life personalities in the writing game.
3.) The U.S. literary world is centered in, and largely controlled from, New York City.
4.) The literary system is hierarchical.
5.) The system is dominated by those from the upper levels of American society.
6.) The trend in book publishing, distribution, and sales is in the direction of monopoly.
7.) Writers without connections are excluded, except for those who go to the great expense of obtaining MFA degrees, whose main purpose is to create connections for the writer.
8.) Conformity and manners, in the writing and the writer, are valued over excitement.
9.) The style and premises of writers and their writing have scarcely changed in fifty years.
10.) Dissent to things-as-they-are isn't tolerated.
1.) The position of literature in American society has declined.
2.) There are no larger-than-life personalities in the writing game.
3.) The U.S. literary world is centered in, and largely controlled from, New York City.
4.) The literary system is hierarchical.
5.) The system is dominated by those from the upper levels of American society.
6.) The trend in book publishing, distribution, and sales is in the direction of monopoly.
7.) Writers without connections are excluded, except for those who go to the great expense of obtaining MFA degrees, whose main purpose is to create connections for the writer.
8.) Conformity and manners, in the writing and the writer, are valued over excitement.
9.) The style and premises of writers and their writing have scarcely changed in fifty years.
10.) Dissent to things-as-they-are isn't tolerated.
Defenders of Corruption
Every established order will have its defenders, its reactionaries, those so heavily invested in the present they'll frantically fight to stave off the smallest moves toward future change. It's what we've been witnessing-- the favorite tactic being to focus on myself; to caricaturize the critic, so that at the end of the day I'm such a bad writer I can hardly string three words together; I'm merely "bitter" because I'm not one of the special elite, etc. etc., while my points, arguments, and evidence are avoided.
With Bennington, I located a sensitive spot on the Beast. If nothing else the place is a good example of the Buddy system.
Do you recall the questions of plagiarism raised about Harper's magazine? One of the writers involved was one of our Bennington friends. To defend the person, albeit indirectly, MacArthur grant "genius" winner Jonathan Lethem later wrote a long essay, full of sophistry, for Harper's, explaining how everything is plagiarism. After all, we all use words, and SOMEONE somewhere has used these same words before at some time. Had to have! (This is a variation of the chimps at typewriters writing "Hamlet" idea.) Lethem defined the word plagiarism out of existence, which for Harper's was quite convenient!
THIS is what qualifies as literary genius in this age-- demonstrations of originality in defense of the corruption of the mainstream. The game-show bell rings. "Come on down! Let's give this man some money!"
And now another of the Bennington Buds in the person of "Harland" is here defending the System's reputation. Examples of corruption? Can't be worried! Let's discredit the critic instead. Make sure to hide your identity, literary assassin. Oops! The mask is slipping out of place.
Know this, readers. These are extremely mendacious people with not a speck of character or integrity. It's how they achieve and maintain their station. Their facile, tactical brains are employed to defend the apparatus which sustains them. They have no vision of what literature can and should be. Their focus is at ground level, defending the perks, the sinecures, the positions; the incoming awards, advances, and grant money. The "art" itself-- skillfully empty posturing-- is merely an excuse for the process; a necessary inconvenience. Plagiarism, lies, financial venality-- all part and parcel of the established System of literature today.
Which is why that System must be unflinchingly attacked-- intellectually attacked-- and destroyed.
With Bennington, I located a sensitive spot on the Beast. If nothing else the place is a good example of the Buddy system.
Do you recall the questions of plagiarism raised about Harper's magazine? One of the writers involved was one of our Bennington friends. To defend the person, albeit indirectly, MacArthur grant "genius" winner Jonathan Lethem later wrote a long essay, full of sophistry, for Harper's, explaining how everything is plagiarism. After all, we all use words, and SOMEONE somewhere has used these same words before at some time. Had to have! (This is a variation of the chimps at typewriters writing "Hamlet" idea.) Lethem defined the word plagiarism out of existence, which for Harper's was quite convenient!
THIS is what qualifies as literary genius in this age-- demonstrations of originality in defense of the corruption of the mainstream. The game-show bell rings. "Come on down! Let's give this man some money!"
And now another of the Bennington Buds in the person of "Harland" is here defending the System's reputation. Examples of corruption? Can't be worried! Let's discredit the critic instead. Make sure to hide your identity, literary assassin. Oops! The mask is slipping out of place.
Know this, readers. These are extremely mendacious people with not a speck of character or integrity. It's how they achieve and maintain their station. Their facile, tactical brains are employed to defend the apparatus which sustains them. They have no vision of what literature can and should be. Their focus is at ground level, defending the perks, the sinecures, the positions; the incoming awards, advances, and grant money. The "art" itself-- skillfully empty posturing-- is merely an excuse for the process; a necessary inconvenience. Plagiarism, lies, financial venality-- all part and parcel of the established System of literature today.
Which is why that System must be unflinchingly attacked-- intellectually attacked-- and destroyed.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
New York Oz: The Reality
THINK for a minute of the cities of this country as entirely different lands. As Gore Vidal has pointed out, in the global economy our cities are city-states competing as much with one another as against other countries-- competing for investment, jobs, tourists, government funds and political influence. Also culturally.
I live right now in an industrial city-state, surrounded by fresh water lakes, whose industries are near collapse.
Imagine, at the very eastern end of the continent, situated on and around a narrow island, a Babylon-like city of more wealth than any city on the planet. More wealth than any city ever seen on the planet. It's moreover a city of caste, a towering pyramid of hierarchy. At the bottom of the pyramid are the brown-and-black skinned illegals, working in sidestreet sweatshops or serving the rich in some capacity. Substantially up the pyramid are the white ethnic bulldogs who dominate the police and fire departments. Slightly higher, the multi-ethnic political machine bureaucrats. Above them, the much-whiter layer of corporate lawyers, then the rich and ultra-rich investment people.
At the top, culturally and socially, are the trust-fund aristocrats who dominate publishing and the arts. They maintain their own hierarchical pyramids within the pyramid, are sustained by the brightest eager-beaver ladder climbers from the upper levels of other city-states, many educated at nearby "Ivy League" universities, come to the pyramid city to rise higher.
Attend a book party in the pyramid and you'll brush against the elite of the elite, overwhelmingly white, with a surprising number of upper-class Europeans. One stands at such a party with the awareness of being at the uppermost floor of the skyscraper; the highest level of caste. You will witness in the conversation around you utter superficialty, an almost total ignorance of the stark realities of life not only in America, but even in their own city.
Yet, bizarrely enough, these insulated mandarins determine, to a large extent, the culture of the entire nation.
Think of this glittering city-state, with its enormous wealth. Realize that every day many truckloads of books, magazines, and newspapers leave this place to be delivered to other city-states across the continent. (Or, the information to publish an enormous mass of print-media leaves the island.) We who live in other cities are inundated-- inundated-- with the values of this unreal Oz land.
The values expressed in the books and publications, unsurprisingly, are those of privilege and hierarchy; celebrations of wealth; opinions of intellectual mandarin masters; all mirroring the make-up of the pyramid city-state island.
I live right now in an industrial city-state, surrounded by fresh water lakes, whose industries are near collapse.
Imagine, at the very eastern end of the continent, situated on and around a narrow island, a Babylon-like city of more wealth than any city on the planet. More wealth than any city ever seen on the planet. It's moreover a city of caste, a towering pyramid of hierarchy. At the bottom of the pyramid are the brown-and-black skinned illegals, working in sidestreet sweatshops or serving the rich in some capacity. Substantially up the pyramid are the white ethnic bulldogs who dominate the police and fire departments. Slightly higher, the multi-ethnic political machine bureaucrats. Above them, the much-whiter layer of corporate lawyers, then the rich and ultra-rich investment people.
At the top, culturally and socially, are the trust-fund aristocrats who dominate publishing and the arts. They maintain their own hierarchical pyramids within the pyramid, are sustained by the brightest eager-beaver ladder climbers from the upper levels of other city-states, many educated at nearby "Ivy League" universities, come to the pyramid city to rise higher.
Attend a book party in the pyramid and you'll brush against the elite of the elite, overwhelmingly white, with a surprising number of upper-class Europeans. One stands at such a party with the awareness of being at the uppermost floor of the skyscraper; the highest level of caste. You will witness in the conversation around you utter superficialty, an almost total ignorance of the stark realities of life not only in America, but even in their own city.
Yet, bizarrely enough, these insulated mandarins determine, to a large extent, the culture of the entire nation.
Think of this glittering city-state, with its enormous wealth. Realize that every day many truckloads of books, magazines, and newspapers leave this place to be delivered to other city-states across the continent. (Or, the information to publish an enormous mass of print-media leaves the island.) We who live in other cities are inundated-- inundated-- with the values of this unreal Oz land.
The values expressed in the books and publications, unsurprisingly, are those of privilege and hierarchy; celebrations of wealth; opinions of intellectual mandarin masters; all mirroring the make-up of the pyramid city-state island.
Backwards
The sure mark of a demi-puppet is to view all literary situations ass-backwards; so that, for instance, the most powerful and connected writers in America need their protection, and stray dissenters to the monolithic mindset of the status quo become a threat. An example of this is the self-described publishing person who has posted comments on this blog. The individual's words bolster my case: the disdain for writers, like myself, who are too outspoken, who aren't submissive. The kind of undomesticated writer they so badly need, who can attract attention to the art. "You've received enough attention already," this bureaucratic snob said in dismissal.
Oh, really? How did this happen? Was the attention granted me through the generosity of overdogs; the standard operating procedure? Or did I not earn the attention through my own p.r. efforts?
What the apparatchiks overlook, enclosed as they are in their insular world, is that I'm not JUST a writer of the kind they so easily and regularly control or dismiss. I'm first a unique noisemaker. With no funds, I've outdone entire conglomerate publicity departments.
Can it happen again? Don't bet against it.
The question isn't who I'm pissing off, but who's pissing off myself. I know my own value. I do the lit world a favor by posting my ideas. They can listen to them or ignore them as they like.
Oh, really? How did this happen? Was the attention granted me through the generosity of overdogs; the standard operating procedure? Or did I not earn the attention through my own p.r. efforts?
What the apparatchiks overlook, enclosed as they are in their insular world, is that I'm not JUST a writer of the kind they so easily and regularly control or dismiss. I'm first a unique noisemaker. With no funds, I've outdone entire conglomerate publicity departments.
Can it happen again? Don't bet against it.
The question isn't who I'm pissing off, but who's pissing off myself. I know my own value. I do the lit world a favor by posting my ideas. They can listen to them or ignore them as they like.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Who's Harland?
A VARIATION OF THE "WHERE'S WALDO?" GAME.
"Harland," to me, appears fairly transparent. He first appeared recently on an old post of this blog which people from Bennington were finding when googling for info about one of their dead colleagues. Several new comments were added to the thread-- all from Bennington folks. We can assume Harland is in some way a Bennington person as well, and since he hid his identity-- unlike the others-- likely of greater stature, or at least someone known to myself. He's not a poet, has not responded to poetic aspects of the discussion, confining his attention to novelists. This narrows the field somewhat.
Why would Bennington be hyper about what I say? It's the home of two main antagonists of my campaign, one of them being the overmuch mentioned Poster Boy of Literary Corruption, known to all.
Who's the other guy? Someone who has writing skill combined with personal ambition and an extremely narrow outlook on literature-- always concerned, like so many of his kind, that writers follow the arbitrary "rules" of the game. When he wrote an essay about the ULA several years ago, he excerpted a piece of mine written in a Kerouac/Hubert Selby style-- and made sure to point out all necessary commas and such which were supposed to be there. This was a sign of his well-trained obedience, his anality, which is one of the first things the Rebellion is designed to overthrow. We wish to change the literary mentality itself, of which he's an exemplar.
Beyond this is a refusal not only to look one step ahead-- to see what literature can and should be in this culture-- but even to see it as it is now; the tool of huge, enormously funded institutions, from conglomerates to universities to foundations, which working together have imposed upon the art and its practitioners an institutional mindset. And so, in the essay, he made absurd remarks, such as no writers in the past criticized the literary system because it's always been so fragile.
Well, if literature today is so fragile-- and I don't dispute this-- then WHY IS THIS? Given the enormous expenditure, the hundreds of writing programs, the billions of dollars being spent to, one would think, make it a vibrant, ongoing concern; as healthy in society as it once was, why hasn't this worked? Isn't this something which we should be looking at? The second point to be made is that the institutions which control literature aren't fragile at all. They include monstrous Time-Warner, Murdoch, etc.: media giants with enormous power. The literature of the past never faced this kind of control.
A gross ugly beast has its slimy, dragon-like paw around a delicate, ever-withering flower. I'm trying to slay the dragon to release the flower; to plant it back in the ground so it can reconnect with its organic roots and become healthy and beautiful once more.
(Please keep up with other aspects of this discussion at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com, or really, all of my blogs.)
"Harland," to me, appears fairly transparent. He first appeared recently on an old post of this blog which people from Bennington were finding when googling for info about one of their dead colleagues. Several new comments were added to the thread-- all from Bennington folks. We can assume Harland is in some way a Bennington person as well, and since he hid his identity-- unlike the others-- likely of greater stature, or at least someone known to myself. He's not a poet, has not responded to poetic aspects of the discussion, confining his attention to novelists. This narrows the field somewhat.
Why would Bennington be hyper about what I say? It's the home of two main antagonists of my campaign, one of them being the overmuch mentioned Poster Boy of Literary Corruption, known to all.
Who's the other guy? Someone who has writing skill combined with personal ambition and an extremely narrow outlook on literature-- always concerned, like so many of his kind, that writers follow the arbitrary "rules" of the game. When he wrote an essay about the ULA several years ago, he excerpted a piece of mine written in a Kerouac/Hubert Selby style-- and made sure to point out all necessary commas and such which were supposed to be there. This was a sign of his well-trained obedience, his anality, which is one of the first things the Rebellion is designed to overthrow. We wish to change the literary mentality itself, of which he's an exemplar.
Beyond this is a refusal not only to look one step ahead-- to see what literature can and should be in this culture-- but even to see it as it is now; the tool of huge, enormously funded institutions, from conglomerates to universities to foundations, which working together have imposed upon the art and its practitioners an institutional mindset. And so, in the essay, he made absurd remarks, such as no writers in the past criticized the literary system because it's always been so fragile.
Well, if literature today is so fragile-- and I don't dispute this-- then WHY IS THIS? Given the enormous expenditure, the hundreds of writing programs, the billions of dollars being spent to, one would think, make it a vibrant, ongoing concern; as healthy in society as it once was, why hasn't this worked? Isn't this something which we should be looking at? The second point to be made is that the institutions which control literature aren't fragile at all. They include monstrous Time-Warner, Murdoch, etc.: media giants with enormous power. The literature of the past never faced this kind of control.
A gross ugly beast has its slimy, dragon-like paw around a delicate, ever-withering flower. I'm trying to slay the dragon to release the flower; to plant it back in the ground so it can reconnect with its organic roots and become healthy and beautiful once more.
(Please keep up with other aspects of this discussion at www.happyamericaliterature.blogspot.com, or really, all of my blogs.)
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Victory Denied?
I've had some time to think about ULA strategy, its successes and failures. I realize how close we came to collapsing the whole shitty mess of the literary elite on more than one occasion.
My question: Why did people on the other side exaggerate our threat, giving us power we didn't have-- the ability to shut out privileged writers? Because that's how they saw us, a sign of their own weakness.
ACTIVIST CAMPAIGN
Isolating just the activist campaign-- one of four legs of the original strategy-- one can see how in its early stages it worked beautifully. Targeted was not the entire literary establishment-- always unnecessary-- but a few isolated pressure points. We struck inside the very heart of the beast. The main part of our total campaign-- in-person protests and shows combined-- in 2001 lasted a grand total of six weeks before the ULA itself split in half, yet the momentum we generated carried through 2003.
Until 2004 a few core remaining members did enough to keep the momentum rolling, despite our limitations. Establishment response was inept, best exemplified by Dave Eggers caught posting anonymously against us on Amazon, as spotlighted in the New York Times. Still, we had a short window of opportunity before the establishment solidified its opposition and sealed its walls at all points against us. Speed versus time.
Later demonstrations of the campaign, notably the Howl Protest, were probings of status quo strength-- necessary reminders that the ULA campaign was ongoing. Through vehicles like this blog, ULA pressure never ceased.
One mistake we made was to underestimate status quo weakness. Panicked mad reaction, as we faced; hostility and blackballing; is no sign of strength.
The essence of a guerrilla insurgency campaign is to wait for openings, then exploit them. Opportunity was granted early in 2007 with the Paris Review/CIA revelations. Yes, it's a low circulation publication, but has always had tremendous influence within inner circles of New York decision making. (Look at the names on its masthead sometime.)
We didn't notice ENOUGH Paris Review's failure to address the CIA question. (We also didn't recall the quick failure of another lit journal, when it was caught printing a fake letter purporting to be from me.) We didn't recognize the huge ongoing embarrassment of the CIA matter being openly discussed, including on Paris Review's Wikipedia entry, or the panicked flurry of e-mails from ex-PR co-editor James Linville, and his panicked flight from London to New York to consult with the current Paris Review team.
We felt the pressure ourselves as we generated it. Within the circles of the Paris Review and their allies it had to be greater. As the ULA ship vibrated from its own assault, the ULA member with closest contacts to the New York scene bailed, taking four other ULAers out the door with him. Our direction was turned. Attack engines shut down.
If the Paris Review-- a key foundation stone of the literary elite-- had been forced to address the legitimate questions raised, this would've been a huge victory for the ULA.
The departure of five ULA members at once was damaging, no doubt about it. The timing was killing. I put on a brave front on this blog, and took full responsibility for the situation. This weakened me irrevocably within the ULA team.
We'd found a vulnerable spot on the establishment dragon-- but you need to push the sword home all the way in order to slay it. The vulnerabilities in the serpent remain.
My question: Why did people on the other side exaggerate our threat, giving us power we didn't have-- the ability to shut out privileged writers? Because that's how they saw us, a sign of their own weakness.
ACTIVIST CAMPAIGN
Isolating just the activist campaign-- one of four legs of the original strategy-- one can see how in its early stages it worked beautifully. Targeted was not the entire literary establishment-- always unnecessary-- but a few isolated pressure points. We struck inside the very heart of the beast. The main part of our total campaign-- in-person protests and shows combined-- in 2001 lasted a grand total of six weeks before the ULA itself split in half, yet the momentum we generated carried through 2003.
Until 2004 a few core remaining members did enough to keep the momentum rolling, despite our limitations. Establishment response was inept, best exemplified by Dave Eggers caught posting anonymously against us on Amazon, as spotlighted in the New York Times. Still, we had a short window of opportunity before the establishment solidified its opposition and sealed its walls at all points against us. Speed versus time.
Later demonstrations of the campaign, notably the Howl Protest, were probings of status quo strength-- necessary reminders that the ULA campaign was ongoing. Through vehicles like this blog, ULA pressure never ceased.
One mistake we made was to underestimate status quo weakness. Panicked mad reaction, as we faced; hostility and blackballing; is no sign of strength.
The essence of a guerrilla insurgency campaign is to wait for openings, then exploit them. Opportunity was granted early in 2007 with the Paris Review/CIA revelations. Yes, it's a low circulation publication, but has always had tremendous influence within inner circles of New York decision making. (Look at the names on its masthead sometime.)
We didn't notice ENOUGH Paris Review's failure to address the CIA question. (We also didn't recall the quick failure of another lit journal, when it was caught printing a fake letter purporting to be from me.) We didn't recognize the huge ongoing embarrassment of the CIA matter being openly discussed, including on Paris Review's Wikipedia entry, or the panicked flurry of e-mails from ex-PR co-editor James Linville, and his panicked flight from London to New York to consult with the current Paris Review team.
We felt the pressure ourselves as we generated it. Within the circles of the Paris Review and their allies it had to be greater. As the ULA ship vibrated from its own assault, the ULA member with closest contacts to the New York scene bailed, taking four other ULAers out the door with him. Our direction was turned. Attack engines shut down.
If the Paris Review-- a key foundation stone of the literary elite-- had been forced to address the legitimate questions raised, this would've been a huge victory for the ULA.
The departure of five ULA members at once was damaging, no doubt about it. The timing was killing. I put on a brave front on this blog, and took full responsibility for the situation. This weakened me irrevocably within the ULA team.
We'd found a vulnerable spot on the establishment dragon-- but you need to push the sword home all the way in order to slay it. The vulnerabilities in the serpent remain.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
More Writing!
For those who claim I'm not a writer, I have more samples up on my blogs to be praised, ripped-apart, or ignored, depending what mood takes you.
An All-New chapter of "Plutocracy USA" is just up at
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
A poem/polemic is up at my new writing blog,
www.happyamericawriting.blogspot.com
And don't forget to read my "Zytron" excerpts about my experience in the teaching game at the August 2005 archive on this very blog.
All-in-all, great variety-- enough there to keep everyone busy.
An All-New chapter of "Plutocracy USA" is just up at
www.literarymystery.blogspot.com
A poem/polemic is up at my new writing blog,
www.happyamericawriting.blogspot.com
And don't forget to read my "Zytron" excerpts about my experience in the teaching game at the August 2005 archive on this very blog.
All-in-all, great variety-- enough there to keep everyone busy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
