Friday, June 01, 2012

Other Thoughts

YET ANOTHER ASIDE

I finally listened to the Bat Segundo interview with Tom Bissell. I have to give Ed Champion a grudging nod for pressing that cut-rate Eggers wannabe on the ULA and the current stagnant literary scene, which the Underground Literary Alliance unsuccessfully sought to change. The interview was interesting to me for a couple of reasons.

I noted Bissell’s innate superiority complex. He actually believes he was doing us a favor by trashing us in the essay—and maybe he was, because the prevalent view was to give us no notice whatsoever. Most of that crowd would rather have kicked us into the gutter. Tom Bissell by contrast threw us a few pennies-- “here, you peasants”—and thought he was being generous. Forget all the distortions in the essay, Tom. “Classocide.” We should be thanking you. Do I exaggerate? Slightly—but notice that the tone is to treat us as the Other-- “from that social milieu”—and not in any way approaching equals. His phrasing accepts, contrary to his misleading essay, the hierarchical power relationships that do exist in the literary world, of which Ed seeks to give his audience a glimpse. Tom Bissell states that I’d be impossible “to negotiate with,” because I’d “never be satisfied,” whatever that means. That I’d expect to be treated not as a hat-in-hand beggar, but an equal? That’s not how that world operates. “Negotiate.”

Bissell goes on to claim that one could “negotiate” with others of “that” milieu. Yet no one negotiated with the ULA after I broke with the team. An alternative outsiders group was created by former ULAers expecting to be accepted by the lit scene with open arms, once they were free of evil me. Boy, were they disappointed. They’re still waiting for their negotiation, I think. At least four individual ULA writers left the ULA in hopes of cutting a deal. There’s no point in naming them. They’re quite sad stories. Their rewards/payoffs were ridiculously minor. One of them was allowed to place a fawning essay on an insider website. Another is the token poor guy someplace. That kind of thing.

Tom Bissell and Ed Champion at least implicitly recognize that the world consists of leverage and power, where terms do need to be negotiated. The premise of the ULA recognized this—that only by creating leverage, by applying pressure, would we be allowed any kind of a voice. It’s the way of the world. The altruistic empathy of characters like the Dave and his various low-priced Bissell knockoffs is a pose for the gullible, nothing else.

p.s. A small correction to the interview. George Plimpton didn’t invite the ULA to an event. We invited him—to debate us at CBGB’s in New York City. To his credit, the establishment literary warrior showed up. Unlike all others of his breed, George Plimpton was fearless. He and his preppy staff were badly out of their depth, of course. Like throwing well-groomed poodles in with pit bulls. The Underground Literary Alliance then was the most exciting lit group on the planet. After the debate George and I, as respective leaders of our teams, had a polite chat over beers, while the old dog’s eyes popped-out at the see-through dress of our at-the-time zeen babe. George and I had an interesting talk, in which he probed my commitment to the ULA’s ideas. Not quite the way it’s portrayed. There were other dynamics going on. The real story is more interesting than a third-hand hearsay version. 

Have a good day!

9 comments:

King Wenclas said...

Ever see the classic movie western "Shane"? The brief chat I had with Plimpton, in retrospect reminds me of the scene when the ruthless cowboy leader tries to negotiate with the hapless but determined farmer Shane is working for. In the background stands the hired gun, Wilson, who the rancher is ready to bring into the fight, if his uneven terms aren't taken. Someone like Bissell can be put in the sociopathic Wilson role.
Any "terms" ever offered me, or by extension, the ULA, consisted of one term. One line. As I've stated elsewhere, it was simply this: "You lose; we win."
I never accepted those terms.

JeffOYB said...

Thank you for your efforts. It would be great if they could get some traction! So, how to get that to happen? Anyway, I went and found that interview (it's part 2). Sheesh! Patronizing pedants! Astounding. Talking about "those people." And daring to say that you wreck things without even giving an example about how. Very, very weird! Total CLASSISM. Embarrassing and gouche. People say we're boors. Look in the mirror! Nudges and winks don't work. No one would be allowed to talk like that about any other group or "kind of person." You know, "those" people. Heck, we're not even named beyond being the ULA. They don't deign to say "undergrounders" or "folk writers" or "DIY writers" or zinesters -- that would expose them. And the vague reference to boorishness. Ya know, just as in the Believer article, I think that what they say creates more interest in us, in the Unsaid, than they show they are worthy of themselves! They're so DULL. But these undescribed boors, hmmm, there's a whiff of zest about them, at least! ...Unspeakables. Untouchables. When Bissell quoted Jack Saunders in his essay before declaring him "bad," at least then anyone could see that the quote was GOOD. If you liked that sort of thing, anyway. We never claimed to be for the stylizers. We assume the mantle of Steinbeck, not DFW. We're about expanding markets, not poaching on The Dave. They don't have to like us. But undergrounders, realists, surrealists and so many others who are not cleverly ironic snobby detailists ARE writers. They have readers and something to say. And could make a splash if they weren't prejudiced/prevented/censored/biased-against by those who claim to cover the scene. (When Chad writes "MFA vs. NYC" and says "We're all MFA's now" he misses the entire DIY sector. There's an elephant in the room!) In this interview they don't bother with any stories or evidence. I wish they had! Just a smidge. It woulda sealed the deal! Maybe they could've said "Like the time they said McSweeney's wasn't a zine! How dare they!" Or "And how about when they interrupted a quiet reading with a loud question about the relevance of chewing gum and trees and asked if we ever hear any writing about the war that had just been declared?" Or "Yeah, and can you believe they stood up in front of the administrators at the HOWL ceremony and howled? The nerve!" All that jive about "badness." How bad? How passe'! Those dudes were talking like old fart judges going on about how they'd knew obscenity when they saw a Henry Miller book! Whew! Bissell says he came from the sticks and made it in NYC without knowing anyone. Did he do it his way or their way? Did we ever say that selling out wasn't possible? Did he make a place there for a hinterlands voice and way? Or did he change to fit in? And how does that speak to anyone where he was from? KW, you say the only good thing now about the ULA would be the bars. I'm getting the old site out of hock (webmeister lost his job) and back online -- anyone can call it nostalgia if they like -- I call it more interesting than their stuff. And, ya know, we didn't kick anyone out. Anyone could join the party. As themselves. To not do so would be unseemly, if not illegal.

King Wenclas said...

Yeah, the room-wrecker comment is bizarre. I promoted numerous readings and events. I've read at many other events, such as poetry open mics, scores of them. As you know, Jeff, I'm actually very good at getting along with a diverse collection of people. But what does Bissell know? He hasn't met me, or any ULAer. What he's good at is talking out of his ass while presenting himself as an authority.
He's not an honest person. He better than anyone knows this.
His essay on us is so skewed and ignorant, it causes me to question strongly his other efforts. One can only wonder at how many distortions he created for his Kaplan essay, for instance. I've already spent more words on him than he deserves. But can we allow falsehood about us to stand? I had to speak up and correct the record, though against the likes of the NY Times, my words are little heard.
The point is that the ULA represented writers who followed in the real stream of American letters. A populist stream. As I've pointed out, the crowd that controls virtually all organs of literary publicity in this society in fact represent a very narrow slice of American writing. Refined and irrelevant. As we're seeing with the success of E.L. James, the public doesn't want the "MFA or New York" crowd. They realize the chi-chi literati speak only for themselves.
****************
Every criticism we made about the establishment literary scene has over the past four years been proven correct.

JeffOYB said...

PS: Yeah, "room wrecker"? Sheesh... You put on a dozen wild, fun, exciting events with the ULA, drawing good crowds where everyone had fun and experienced something new in Lit. OK, maybe some of it had Poetry Slam vibes -- but you and the ULA extended that to other types and areas of Lit for the first time. We had a blast! At various shows and zine-cons we tabled at you showed you were great at interacting with folks. Experienced zinesters in general are pretty good at dealing with the public since they've had to deal with so many aspects, from sales to other writers. Sure, nobody is perfect -- you and many other ULAers were under a lot of stress due in large part to this isolation ploy -- but I'd say you're pretty good with a public space! As you say, it seems like the main thing was you weren't willing to be steamrolled, you insisted on equality and on actual give'n'take rather than just give. And, as you say, nobody has even approached other undergrounders, it doesn't seem -- ya gotta work from position of leverage and traction. Gotta be making noise for the other players to reach out for a mutually beneficial project. But this really hasn't fully happened yet. It came close many times for the ULA, though -- thanks to the noisemaking. Actually, the ULA did get rather a lot of respect from many mainstream media outfits. Our buzz was appreciated and it helped create buzz for them. The Literati should learn to join the fray, to step into the Ring, to realize that other artists are indeed their equals AT LEAST. Indeed, the Literati are the minor voice. They are the ones who should accept a minor role. They have less to say. They want to be pretty. Fine! But they should respect their betters! Instead they've claimed the whole field for their irrelevant finery and have emptied the room themselves!

JeffOYB said...

Buddy Guy on NPR right now: "I didn't learn anything in school. I would just shut up and open my eyes." If he was a fiction writer, would there be a place for him in our world today? Outside the underground, that is. Jack Saunders often writes that "the writer is beneath the jazz musician." Yeah, writers are writers. They're out there, working at toll booths, as ever. But some are also academics or corporate employees -- how does that affect their work? How did they have to change their work? Did they leave out anything relevant to get those careers? Again, the work is separate from the job. We of the ULA don't label writers as "underground." That's just where they end up if they want to be real writers. It's fun to study examples, so let's see 'em if I'm wrong! Let's see those exceptions and see if there's any rule in there.

JeffOYB said...

PS: If an academic or corporate writer were candid wouldn't they have to say that getting those jobs has hurt their work? And that they've had to cut back on the meaningfulness of their work and its relevant to keep those jobs and please their bosses? Wouldn't "academic writing" ALWAYS be worse than just "writing"? How not?

JeffOYB said...

pps: I suppose every job affects one's art. Obviously! The question is how. Does the reaction help make the work more or less relevant to everyday folk. The closer the art is to the job and the more the boss sees the art it seems the greater would be the catering to the boss, working to please the boss. They might as well be called Team Writers and the boss is the Coach. Bissell and Champion do talk about how bad things are in publishing in their interview -- this is probably one of the bad aspects of writing for a boss (chairman, editor, publisher). In this light, writing as a secret life -- while being a janitor, window-washer, desk-jockey, or toll-booth collector -- might have a better influence on the work even though such conditions still may well bring on suffering. So it's actually MFA vs NYC vs *OTHER*. They really shouldn't leave out the Other like they do.

King Wenclas said...

Good points, Jeff. But note that those who oppose us refuse to engage our arguments. They're literary priests trapped inside their various institutions, which together act as an unthinking unit to destroy any threats to things-as-they-are. The idea of the ULA represents living literature-- not the rigid and unmoving institutionalized thing they're selling.
They would've been better off accepting our populist message, because that would've renewed serious literature and at the same time kept American literature relevant. What's happened instead is that a general public starving for readable lit has embraced whatever's available-- meaning, the escapist fantasy of George R. Martin and his like.
We wanted lit to be popular but also tied into American life.
The funny thing is that the literary establishment embraces the trappings of pop literature-- note the cover of the New Yorker's sci-fi issue-- but their writers don't have a clue how to write in a pop style. So it's still the same-old-same-old overwrought draggy and unexciting "literary" effort. The heart of Michael Chabon, for instance, is in the right place, but as a writer he's been overtrained. His work never moves. Chad Harbach's much-beloved MFA style is embedded into his head and he can't get it out.
*****************
Anyone can read my pop books, including The Tower, and immediately see the difference.
But then, I'm not trying to bullshit the reader, or impress the reader with how "well" I can write. I tell my story. I get right to the point. No postmodern pretentiousness-- yet, strangely enough, more ideas and more intelligence than anything the system can produce.

JeffOYB said...

"Same-old-same-old" -- what a pity! We live in such a rich, diverse world!

I remember reading each of the ULA novels for the first time. They might be "bad" as Bissell says, but I also remember that each one was totally different from anything else I'd ever read, both in style and in substance. They ALL went NEW and DIFFERENT places. Nolan, Robinson, Wright, Blackolive, Saunders, McElderry -- all one of a kinds! Not a SHRED of "same old" with ANY of them! Each blows away the reader in a new and different way. You think you've already been startled, shocked, provoked, tweaked or shown some of the reality of the world in all the good, relevant ways? Ha! Oh, there are other great writers out there. (And I think the ULA has always left room for quality on the delicately detailed fluffy bon-mot front. We haven't denied the MFAers. Populism isn't everything. We just insist that the whole range of writerly talent is admitted, discussed, acknowledged -- especially the DIY/indie writer.) The ULA writers just bring that level of talent into the 70s, 80s, 90s eras. They contribute to the storytelling of the world. If the New Yorker is "same-old" can it say the same?