Web Hype
HELP US PENETRATE THE ORIGAMI FORTRESS
It has come to our attention that Karl “King” Wenclas (disambiguation here) has written a post (essay?) about HTMLGiant on something he (charmingly?) refers to as his “premium” blog. What this means is that we can’t read it, but he has announced (let slip?) that it is called “Paper Tiger.” Does anyone out there have access to this thing (?) and if so please pass it along to us because we are just dying to read it (possibly out loud to each other while we eat caviar and rub each others’ feet (with caviar)). Also, though I’m writing in advance of having read the doubtless thorough (and sweeping?) insights in the “King”‘s presumably awesome^3 post, and therefore in a state of complete ignorance, I would like to suggest that the “King”‘s thesis is incorrect. HTMLGiant is not a paper tiger. We are a lego dinosaur.
Tags: King Wenclas, paper tiger, ULA
as in here: http://kingwenclas.blogspot.com/2010/04/html-giant-assessed.html
as in here: http://kingwenclas.blogspot.com/2010/04/html-giant-assessed.html
Thus begins our very special “Kingwatch!” feature.
Thus begins our very special “Kingwatch!” feature.
thanks, JC
thanks, JC
Is there any chance HTMLGiant is a rock lobster?
Is there any chance HTMLGiant is a rock lobster?
:-(
:-(
[…] a 10,000 word essay outlining, in intricate and long-winded form, every single evil that the blog HTML Giant has committed. The proprietors have molested several of my closest friends and have had sexual […]
Hey! We have that same Lego dinosaur in our house! It IS a conspiracy!
Hey! We have that same Lego dinosaur in our house! It IS a conspiracy!
I love the word premium when applied to a blog. It feels special.
I love the word premium when applied to a blog. It feels special.
Can we add the word “premium” to our description? “The premium internet literature magazine blog of the future”?
Can we add the word “premium” to our description? “The premium internet literature magazine blog of the future”?
I had a premium post response to this thread but you will have to paypal me 50 cents to read it.
I had a premium post response to this thread but you will have to paypal me 50 cents to read it.
Yes, but that’s not where it goes: “The internet literature magazine blog of the premium future.” Because the future, like everything else, is both pay-to-play AND register-to-enter.
Yes, but that’s not where it goes: “The internet literature magazine blog of the premium future.” Because the future, like everything else, is both pay-to-play AND register-to-enter.
Who cares about some random dude’s post? Or this comment? Or anything?
Who cares about some random dude’s post? Or this comment? Or anything?
This guy is a drone, a hobgoblin. The essay is not worth your attention.
This guy is a drone, a hobgoblin. The essay is not worth your attention.
How many readers to you think Wenclas’s “premium blog” has? I’m surprised he has a “premium blog.” It seems uncharacteristic for him. What’s the point of a polemic essay if the people it’s directed at can’t even read it?
How many readers to you think Wenclas’s “premium blog” has? I’m surprised he has a “premium blog.” It seems uncharacteristic for him. What’s the point of a polemic essay if the people it’s directed at can’t even read it?
Here’s the post:
Paper Tiger
Re HTML Giant.
1.) EXAGGERATED HITS. The hits on their site have been overstated, based on response to a provocative comment I posted on their blog April 1. My comment and followups were accompanied by a blog link. Increased traffic to that blog was modest. But perhaps HTML’s readers are so mind-stunted they have no curiosity.
2.) MORE OF SAME. There’s nothing new about these writers and their work, which is inward-looking. They’re holding events at the AWP Conference in Denver—as status quo as you can get. HTML’s young writers seem to have little imagination. Or, they were born old.
3.) INFRASTRUCTURE? This is the same weakness as the ULA’s, but moreso. There’s nothing lasting, nothing substantial, just an endless series of blog posts forgotten within a week.
4.) DIFFUSION. Another ULA weakness. Many of HTML’s staff and writers are scattered around the country. Maybe, though, their home base is New York—the situation if HTML Giant is merely a subset of the Big Money Boys.
Here’s the post:
Paper Tiger
Re HTML Giant.
1.) EXAGGERATED HITS. The hits on their site have been overstated, based on response to a provocative comment I posted on their blog April 1. My comment and followups were accompanied by a blog link. Increased traffic to that blog was modest. But perhaps HTML’s readers are so mind-stunted they have no curiosity.
2.) MORE OF SAME. There’s nothing new about these writers and their work, which is inward-looking. They’re holding events at the AWP Conference in Denver—as status quo as you can get. HTML’s young writers seem to have little imagination. Or, they were born old.
3.) INFRASTRUCTURE? This is the same weakness as the ULA’s, but moreso. There’s nothing lasting, nothing substantial, just an endless series of blog posts forgotten within a week.
4.) DIFFUSION. Another ULA weakness. Many of HTML’s staff and writers are scattered around the country. Maybe, though, their home base is New York—the situation if HTML Giant is merely a subset of the Big Money Boys.
Wow. Awesome. How to say nothing in four points. Premium, even.
Wow. Awesome. How to say nothing in four points. Premium, even.
that was illuminating
that was illuminating
man, this is a gawlden turd, much better than i expected, good work disco dave!
i take back everything i said yesterday about not giving a shit
man, this is a gawlden turd, much better than i expected, good work disco dave!
i take back everything i said yesterday about not giving a shit
I don’t understand Wenclas. What does he expect from a blog other than an “endless series of blog posts”? What would the ULA do if it had “infrastructure”? Sell an endless series of books (retaining a more fair share of the profits)? If enough ULA people lived in one city, what would they do differently? He seems to have unrealistic expectations for what literature should be and do. What does his utopia look like?
I don’t understand Wenclas. What does he expect from a blog other than an “endless series of blog posts”? What would the ULA do if it had “infrastructure”? Sell an endless series of books (retaining a more fair share of the profits)? If enough ULA people lived in one city, what would they do differently? He seems to have unrealistic expectations for what literature should be and do. What does his utopia look like?
No one gives a shit about “independent literature” except writers, and all they do blog and write emails all day. It’s all useless. I dunno. What does he want?
No one gives a shit about “independent literature” except writers, and all they do blog and write emails all day. It’s all useless. I dunno. What does he want?
Also, Wenclas is like a libertarian or something? What the fuck…
Also, Wenclas is like a libertarian or something? What the fuck…
this can’t be serious. I can’t honestly believe he is criticizing html and its readers just because he didn’t manage to get lots of hits to his blog from giving a link in the comments here. Other parts I don’t really understand, like why having contributers from many different places is a weakness, or what exactly is wrong with enjoying/hosting/attending events at AWP. I guess he stayed home during AWP and drank in the dark or something? I mean, that’s fine, he can do what he wants.
this can’t be serious. I can’t honestly believe he is criticizing html and its readers just because he didn’t manage to get lots of hits to his blog from giving a link in the comments here. Other parts I don’t really understand, like why having contributers from many different places is a weakness, or what exactly is wrong with enjoying/hosting/attending events at AWP. I guess he stayed home during AWP and drank in the dark or something? I mean, that’s fine, he can do what he wants.
Is that the whole post? If so then I’m MAJORLY disappointed. Also, speaking just for myself, “born old” seems to just about cover it, though like Bob Dylan I’m getting younger all the time. Everyone else on this site, however, is actually very young, and also sexually attractive, albeit in the most banal way possible, which is to say, by being people whose sexually attractive bodies you would definitely want to have sex with if you somehow could. So…point for Wanklas, I guess, though this seems to me at least as relevant to “infrastructure” as to “more of same.”
Is that the whole post? If so then I’m MAJORLY disappointed. Also, speaking just for myself, “born old” seems to just about cover it, though like Bob Dylan I’m getting younger all the time. Everyone else on this site, however, is actually very young, and also sexually attractive, albeit in the most banal way possible, which is to say, by being people whose sexually attractive bodies you would definitely want to have sex with if you somehow could. So…point for Wanklas, I guess, though this seems to me at least as relevant to “infrastructure” as to “more of same.”
um… im just here for the drama so if we cld keep the writing talk out of this post i wld appreciate kthx
um… im just here for the drama so if we cld keep the writing talk out of this post i wld appreciate kthx
The literary world has produced the first clear parallel to Geraldo looking into Al Capone’s vault.
The literary world has produced the first clear parallel to Geraldo looking into Al Capone’s vault.
This was great.
This was great.
guys, guys, i think wenclas might be billy vollmann, just saying like, don’t go chasing waterfalls
guys, guys, i think wenclas might be billy vollmann, just saying like, don’t go chasing waterfalls
i’m just kidding, have fun chasing the waterfalls guys
i’m just kidding, have fun chasing the waterfalls guys
Point for Champion.
Point for Champion.
As the kids say, Edward Champion for the win.
As I was the one to bring the existence of this “post” to the attention of my fellow contributors, I now agree to put on a fake mustache and do a little song and dance routine as an apology.
As the kids say, Edward Champion for the win.
As I was the one to bring the existence of this “post” to the attention of my fellow contributors, I now agree to put on a fake mustache and do a little song and dance routine as an apology.
This guy is a broke ass James Patterson. And he’s got like, twelve different blogs with the same whiny observations on modern lit. and “pop shorts” that aren’t very short or popular.
This guy is a broke ass James Patterson. And he’s got like, twelve different blogs with the same whiny observations on modern lit. and “pop shorts” that aren’t very short or popular.
The core of my world has been turned into jello and sipped through a straw—what a rebuttal!
The core of my world has been turned into jello and sipped through a straw—what a rebuttal!
Wow. I guess you’ve told me off, huh?
What I find amusing is that you sat around for many hours wondering what I said, when all you had to do is ask for access. The door was unlocked. You simply needed to turn the knob.
What did you expect from that post? I didn’t build it into a 10,000 word essay. You did.
Yes, I sit around wondering how to change literature– specifically how to change it in terms of strategy and tactics, because, as you seem to admit, today’s writers aren’t reaching anyone other than themselves. When people told me that HTML was the future, how many hits you get, etc, I investigated, for my own knowledge and that of the limited number of people who read that blog. I was legitimately curious. The ULA had been an ambitious project, one which ultimately failed. I thought, maybe these guys have the goods.
I find that your ambition with HTML extends no farther than this blog. It’s not a stepping stone toward anything larger. I thought it might be.
(I’m sure you’re all individually ambitious. Fifteen years from now most of you will have modest positions in academia, where your hostility toward contrary ideas will fall on your students. If you’re defensive reactionaries about contemporary literature and the current lit world now, what will you be like later??)
The way you handle criticism is revealing.
Think about it. One person not of your crowd or type wanders onto your site, disagrees with you– and you get into a flurry over it, to the extent of digging up an outdated and highly inaccurate article about me from seven years ago. Over one contrary voice, who made comments on three of your posts– four including this one. That’s all.
The arguments I made about the herd mentality are well proved.
Just my one-and-a-half cents worth.
Wow. I guess you’ve told me off, huh?
What I find amusing is that you sat around for many hours wondering what I said, when all you had to do is ask for access. The door was unlocked. You simply needed to turn the knob.
What did you expect from that post? I didn’t build it into a 10,000 word essay. You did.
Yes, I sit around wondering how to change literature– specifically how to change it in terms of strategy and tactics, because, as you seem to admit, today’s writers aren’t reaching anyone other than themselves. When people told me that HTML was the future, how many hits you get, etc, I investigated, for my own knowledge and that of the limited number of people who read that blog. I was legitimately curious. The ULA had been an ambitious project, one which ultimately failed. I thought, maybe these guys have the goods.
I find that your ambition with HTML extends no farther than this blog. It’s not a stepping stone toward anything larger. I thought it might be.
(I’m sure you’re all individually ambitious. Fifteen years from now most of you will have modest positions in academia, where your hostility toward contrary ideas will fall on your students. If you’re defensive reactionaries about contemporary literature and the current lit world now, what will you be like later??)
The way you handle criticism is revealing.
Think about it. One person not of your crowd or type wanders onto your site, disagrees with you– and you get into a flurry over it, to the extent of digging up an outdated and highly inaccurate article about me from seven years ago. Over one contrary voice, who made comments on three of your posts– four including this one. That’s all.
The arguments I made about the herd mentality are well proved.
Just my one-and-a-half cents worth.
You are not telling the truth, “King.” Maybe none of the htmlgiant people asked for access, but I requested permission to access the site a few days ago and you have still not granted me access, and have still not responded to my email. Plus, if “the door was unlocked,” why require your permission in the first place?
You are not telling the truth, “King.” Maybe none of the htmlgiant people asked for access, but I requested permission to access the site a few days ago and you have still not granted me access, and have still not responded to my email. Plus, if “the door was unlocked,” why require your permission in the first place?
You, “Blackheart”? And who are you? I receive anonymous emails every day, and file them appropriately.
As I’ve said, the title of my main blog refers to ‘you demi-puppets that by moonshine do the green sour ringlets make.”
There’s a striking timidity among lit people. Few will risk– what, exactly?– by signing the petition to PEN I initiated, as a way of testing the cred of that organization. You were too timid, any of you, to request access to one of my blogs through an actual identity. Is dealing with “the Other” in the person of myself that off-putting? Will your Literary World membership card be taken away?
I guess because I worked in a real world environment before becoming a “writer” I’m too used to dealing with other people “man-to-man” (or woman); i.e., as human beings.
You, “Blackheart”? And who are you? I receive anonymous emails every day, and file them appropriately.
As I’ve said, the title of my main blog refers to ‘you demi-puppets that by moonshine do the green sour ringlets make.”
There’s a striking timidity among lit people. Few will risk– what, exactly?– by signing the petition to PEN I initiated, as a way of testing the cred of that organization. You were too timid, any of you, to request access to one of my blogs through an actual identity. Is dealing with “the Other” in the person of myself that off-putting? Will your Literary World membership card be taken away?
I guess because I worked in a real world environment before becoming a “writer” I’m too used to dealing with other people “man-to-man” (or woman); i.e., as human beings.
just stop.
just stop.
p.s. This will sound quite mundane, but I tested the idea of a “premium” blog after reading a book on Internet marketing which suggested it, in part as a way to add to yr email list. A rather weak suggestion, granted– but from a marketing standpoint it’s a way to build curiosity or interest. We have to admit this was achieved in a limited way. It’s also true that I built an extensive opponent’s list, you could say, during my days fronting the ULA. I feel more relaxed, with one of my blogs, discussing strategy for a small audience of like-minded people away from prying eyes. (“Disco Dave” of course a mild disappointment.)
p.s. This will sound quite mundane, but I tested the idea of a “premium” blog after reading a book on Internet marketing which suggested it, in part as a way to add to yr email list. A rather weak suggestion, granted– but from a marketing standpoint it’s a way to build curiosity or interest. We have to admit this was achieved in a limited way. It’s also true that I built an extensive opponent’s list, you could say, during my days fronting the ULA. I feel more relaxed, with one of my blogs, discussing strategy for a small audience of like-minded people away from prying eyes. (“Disco Dave” of course a mild disappointment.)
It’s not timidity. Your freely available writing is of such a starkly low quality that it doesn’t generate interest in your premium writing.
It’s not timidity. Your freely available writing is of such a starkly low quality that it doesn’t generate interest in your premium writing.
I, like many of my Republican brethren, believing strongly in the Providence and Courage of man, and the action and Manly Courage shown by the armies of the Union, believe that “strategy” is a lesser idea, one of cowardice and foolishness, an idea born from the “West Pointers” and their like, meaning only to demean the Strength inherent in Man. What the men need is leaderships and Courage and a belief in their everlasting Lord in Heaven; that, by that righteous belief and the Manly Honor bestowed upon all Northern Men in this time of War by the Lord their God, we may prevail, through Courage and charges forthwith straight against our enemy, without these lowly “strategies” the cowardly West Pointer Democrats like General McClellan so do love to go on about.
I, like many of my Republican brethren, believing strongly in the Providence and Courage of man, and the action and Manly Courage shown by the armies of the Union, believe that “strategy” is a lesser idea, one of cowardice and foolishness, an idea born from the “West Pointers” and their like, meaning only to demean the Strength inherent in Man. What the men need is leaderships and Courage and a belief in their everlasting Lord in Heaven; that, by that righteous belief and the Manly Honor bestowed upon all Northern Men in this time of War by the Lord their God, we may prevail, through Courage and charges forthwith straight against our enemy, without these lowly “strategies” the cowardly West Pointer Democrats like General McClellan so do love to go on about.
“The Other in the Person of Myself” would be a great title for a shitty book.
“The Other in the Person of Myself” would be a great title for a shitty book.
a little early for secret santa!
a little early for secret santa!
I actually kind of like that, for a title. Very Whitmanish.
I just wrote it into my journal. If I ever use it, please don’t sue me.
I actually kind of like that, for a title. Very Whitmanish.
I just wrote it into my journal. If I ever use it, please don’t sue me.
um.. i agree w/ everyone else on this blog that you suck balls (thats what we’re talking about right?)
um.. i agree w/ everyone else on this blog that you suck balls (thats what we’re talking about right?)
um… how old is everyone in here… i dont want to get “to catch a predator”ed
um… how old is everyone in here… i dont want to get “to catch a predator”ed
who cares about everything anythings worthless and nothings worth doing
who cares about everything anythings worthless and nothings worth doing
That wikipedia entry about the Christmas song is outdated and highly inaccurate? FUCK.
Your problem is not that you’re an Outsider, it’s that you’re a child. It probably speaks ill of me to admit this, but at the risk of disgracing myself by association, I will admit that I spent some time on your site yesterday, and actually read your PEN post. It is, bar none, the dumbest pig-ignorant thing I have read, heard or otherwise encountered on the internet this year, and when I say that I want you to keep in mind that the big topics on this blog just yesterday were (1) an ICP song that included the words “Magnets, how the fuck do they work?” and (2) a woman having her vagina decorated like the lid of a fifth grader’s pencil case.
That wikipedia entry about the Christmas song is outdated and highly inaccurate? FUCK.
Your problem is not that you’re an Outsider, it’s that you’re a child. It probably speaks ill of me to admit this, but at the risk of disgracing myself by association, I will admit that I spent some time on your site yesterday, and actually read your PEN post. It is, bar none, the dumbest pig-ignorant thing I have read, heard or otherwise encountered on the internet this year, and when I say that I want you to keep in mind that the big topics on this blog just yesterday were (1) an ICP song that included the words “Magnets, how the fuck do they work?” and (2) a woman having her vagina decorated like the lid of a fifth grader’s pencil case.
“I guess because I worked in a real world environment before becoming a “writer” I’m too used to dealing with other people “man-to-man” (or woman); i.e., as human beings.”
The biggest yawn line ever.
You actually believe writers haven’t been DuPont assembly line workers, Mercedes assembly line workers, bricklayers, registered nurses?
This is ONE writer. I held all four jobs for years.
Please.
“I guess because I worked in a real world environment before becoming a “writer” I’m too used to dealing with other people “man-to-man” (or woman); i.e., as human beings.”
The biggest yawn line ever.
You actually believe writers haven’t been DuPont assembly line workers, Mercedes assembly line workers, bricklayers, registered nurses?
This is ONE writer. I held all four jobs for years.
Please.
well not to upstage you sean lovelace btu i was a civil engineer, a glass blower, a motor vehicle operator, a town drunk, a hobbit, and a mexican itenerant laborer at the same time since i was born and i still manage to write 10 pages/day before putting my three children to sleep and banging my smoking hot wife and mistresses
well not to upstage you sean lovelace btu i was a civil engineer, a glass blower, a motor vehicle operator, a town drunk, a hobbit, and a mexican itenerant laborer at the same time since i was born and i still manage to write 10 pages/day before putting my three children to sleep and banging my smoking hot wife and mistresses
Brent, you aren’t upstaging me. You prove my point, assuming you are not tongue-n-cheek.
Which you might be.
But I’m just honestly stating my work history. Period.
The artists as removed from hard labor is a self-pity urban legend.
An MFA can follow years of crawling under apt buildings to rip out copper wiring to sale.
I did it.
And not the first. Or last.
People talk shit, but don’t live it, is my point.
Brent, you aren’t upstaging me. You prove my point, assuming you are not tongue-n-cheek.
Which you might be.
But I’m just honestly stating my work history. Period.
The artists as removed from hard labor is a self-pity urban legend.
An MFA can follow years of crawling under apt buildings to rip out copper wiring to sale.
I did it.
And not the first. Or last.
People talk shit, but don’t live it, is my point.
I would say HTMLGIANT is indeed forward-looking, Good King Dub. They were the only blog I remember seeing at AWP this year. (Yes, publishers and journals with blogs were there, but not in blog-only form, so far as I could tell.) And they were a significant presense both at the bookfair and at evening readings/stuff. Is the merging of two mostly incompatible realms not a forward-looking thing? Isn’t it impressive that these folks have turned a blog into a successful venture, both financially and artistically?
Also, none of them know me or had any reason to know me, but when I approached the booth at AWP I was treated much more kindly than at many others, and there was a genuine sense of interest and companionship with the people behind the table. I also saw them interact with many other authors, and this seemed to be the usual case. They actually seemed to care about peopel writing and trying to spread the word about writing and etc. Nice feeling. Just saying.
Last, I am curious about what you would have them do? Is it a matter of not having the right folks on staff (writing unoriginal work, apparently)? Or have they not approached the blog in the correct way? Do they need a more physical presence? Would it be beneficial for them to all cohabitate and live in a big old house together and have readings and teach workshops?
I am curious about these things.
I would say HTMLGIANT is indeed forward-looking, Good King Dub. They were the only blog I remember seeing at AWP this year. (Yes, publishers and journals with blogs were there, but not in blog-only form, so far as I could tell.) And they were a significant presense both at the bookfair and at evening readings/stuff. Is the merging of two mostly incompatible realms not a forward-looking thing? Isn’t it impressive that these folks have turned a blog into a successful venture, both financially and artistically?
Also, none of them know me or had any reason to know me, but when I approached the booth at AWP I was treated much more kindly than at many others, and there was a genuine sense of interest and companionship with the people behind the table. I also saw them interact with many other authors, and this seemed to be the usual case. They actually seemed to care about peopel writing and trying to spread the word about writing and etc. Nice feeling. Just saying.
Last, I am curious about what you would have them do? Is it a matter of not having the right folks on staff (writing unoriginal work, apparently)? Or have they not approached the blog in the correct way? Do they need a more physical presence? Would it be beneficial for them to all cohabitate and live in a big old house together and have readings and teach workshops?
I am curious about these things.
Oh, I’ve lived what I talk about.
If, as you say, there are all these writers with lived experience, where is it reflected in their work?
Why is it that we see, for instance, in literary story after literary story, the domesticated viewpoint?
Why are readers fleeing the short story in droves?
Is it possible that the MFA homogenization process does something to writers and their work?
One need only to read the stories of O. Henry or Jack London to see the difference.
O. Henry worked on a sheep farm, and knew also how to bring one to life, to place an image of one before the mind’s eye– maybe because he wasn’t burdened with the need to ‘write well.” He was writing, after all, not for a creative writing instructor, but an audience.
Two examples:
1.) Ray Carver. Beaten-down working class writer, but you never saw why he was so beaten-down. Only the result. No wonder the brat pack Jay McInerneys and Susan minots loved him so. There was never a larger context. No one could ever be blamed for the evident trauma. It just was. It dropped in from nowhere. it was “inferred.” The boss, anger, strikes, conflict– all nowhere to be found. Carver knew America, but his depiction of America was always interior. The MFA programs he embraced narrowed his viewpoint. Gordon Lish later minimalized his art further.
We live in a vast, tumultuous, great, awful civilization. Who’s portraying it in the way it deserves?
2.) Mary Gaitskill. When Gaitskill burst on the scene in the 80’s with her tales of gritty East Village life, when the East Village was still something to write about, there was no better story writer around. Since then her art has become gradually but inexorably worse, resulting in her recent endless tale of a bourgie trip to Africa to adopt a child which could’ve been written by Anjelina or Madonna.
Given different circumstances, that kind of thing might work, but Gaitskill never leaves for a moment the bourgie mindset, and that’s all that we get in literary story after literary story, that same mundane dwelling place, the bourgie mind, New Yorker story after New Yorker story and the hundreds of New Yorker-wannabe imitators.
If a person’s been around, as you have, what is there of possible interest in that?
What thrill is there reading a story ten times more boring than one’s own life?
Even here– the art promoted by this site; the narrow coffeeshop hipster viewpoint, done again and again, over and over.
Do you enjoy reading it? Truly?
Oh, I know. You like the way they’re written, the pleasing pitter-patter of words.
Oh, I’ve lived what I talk about.
If, as you say, there are all these writers with lived experience, where is it reflected in their work?
Why is it that we see, for instance, in literary story after literary story, the domesticated viewpoint?
Why are readers fleeing the short story in droves?
Is it possible that the MFA homogenization process does something to writers and their work?
One need only to read the stories of O. Henry or Jack London to see the difference.
O. Henry worked on a sheep farm, and knew also how to bring one to life, to place an image of one before the mind’s eye– maybe because he wasn’t burdened with the need to ‘write well.” He was writing, after all, not for a creative writing instructor, but an audience.
Two examples:
1.) Ray Carver. Beaten-down working class writer, but you never saw why he was so beaten-down. Only the result. No wonder the brat pack Jay McInerneys and Susan minots loved him so. There was never a larger context. No one could ever be blamed for the evident trauma. It just was. It dropped in from nowhere. it was “inferred.” The boss, anger, strikes, conflict– all nowhere to be found. Carver knew America, but his depiction of America was always interior. The MFA programs he embraced narrowed his viewpoint. Gordon Lish later minimalized his art further.
We live in a vast, tumultuous, great, awful civilization. Who’s portraying it in the way it deserves?
2.) Mary Gaitskill. When Gaitskill burst on the scene in the 80’s with her tales of gritty East Village life, when the East Village was still something to write about, there was no better story writer around. Since then her art has become gradually but inexorably worse, resulting in her recent endless tale of a bourgie trip to Africa to adopt a child which could’ve been written by Anjelina or Madonna.
Given different circumstances, that kind of thing might work, but Gaitskill never leaves for a moment the bourgie mindset, and that’s all that we get in literary story after literary story, that same mundane dwelling place, the bourgie mind, New Yorker story after New Yorker story and the hundreds of New Yorker-wannabe imitators.
If a person’s been around, as you have, what is there of possible interest in that?
What thrill is there reading a story ten times more boring than one’s own life?
Even here– the art promoted by this site; the narrow coffeeshop hipster viewpoint, done again and again, over and over.
Do you enjoy reading it? Truly?
Oh, I know. You like the way they’re written, the pleasing pitter-patter of words.
Here we have an example of a writer congenitally incapable of viewing literature and himself within context. The AWP– associated Writing programs– is a given. Yet what it is, is a bureaucratic institution devoted to the professionalization of writing. They represent the institutional view.
What this means, for the writer, is goiong into humongous debt (working four jobs at once etc.) in order to get that precious credential which certifies one as a “writer” in the same way the Scarecrow gets a brain at the end of The Wizard Of Oz merely because a diploma says he has one.
Ya know, in the 90’s I was writing a newsletter– real samizdat– in which I examined pillars like AWP. An expose I did outlining the incestuous relationship between AWP and NEA, and how grants were awarded, the buddy system etc, was one of the more striking issues.
The attitude by lit people, then as now, was “Don’t tell me! I don’t want to know!”
No indeed. these pillars just ARE, you see. One doesn’t question them. The thought of questioning them never enters one’s head. Meanwhile your $50,000 tuition bill for last semester is due. You want to be a writer– don’t you?!
(Now up at my blog: “Literature’s Herd,” which might be more along the lines of what people here were looking for.)
Here we have an example of a writer congenitally incapable of viewing literature and himself within context. The AWP– associated Writing programs– is a given. Yet what it is, is a bureaucratic institution devoted to the professionalization of writing. They represent the institutional view.
What this means, for the writer, is goiong into humongous debt (working four jobs at once etc.) in order to get that precious credential which certifies one as a “writer” in the same way the Scarecrow gets a brain at the end of The Wizard Of Oz merely because a diploma says he has one.
Ya know, in the 90’s I was writing a newsletter– real samizdat– in which I examined pillars like AWP. An expose I did outlining the incestuous relationship between AWP and NEA, and how grants were awarded, the buddy system etc, was one of the more striking issues.
The attitude by lit people, then as now, was “Don’t tell me! I don’t want to know!”
No indeed. these pillars just ARE, you see. One doesn’t question them. The thought of questioning them never enters one’s head. Meanwhile your $50,000 tuition bill for last semester is due. You want to be a writer– don’t you?!
(Now up at my blog: “Literature’s Herd,” which might be more along the lines of what people here were looking for.)
you seem to be ‘wildly unpopular, or something,’ Mr. King man, and perhaps for good reason, i don’t know, i haven’t read the majority of your comments, and haven’t clicked on your link, so i have only limited context, but uh, i like some of your points here. what i take away from it, and i may be distorting what you said a bit, but what i take away is that people don’t ‘keep it real’ enough, and most short stories are boring as fuck. i would agree with those 2 sentiments if they are implied in your comment.
i would take it a step further though, and say that even if one likes the ‘pitter-patter of words,’ and i do, if i’m understanding what you’re saying as referring to like the aesthetics of prose, i do appreciate aesthetically-pleasing prose, but i would say most stories i read are not aesthetically-pleasing to me, in their prose. i wouldn’t cite any examples because they are too numerous and that would be hater-ish of me, but just to be honest, the vast majority of short stories i read online or in print are ‘nice enough, i guess,’ but boring/unappealing, in content, form, and prose. that seems very harsh and unkind, but i only say so because i want very much to not feel that way as a reader.
you seem to be ‘wildly unpopular, or something,’ Mr. King man, and perhaps for good reason, i don’t know, i haven’t read the majority of your comments, and haven’t clicked on your link, so i have only limited context, but uh, i like some of your points here. what i take away from it, and i may be distorting what you said a bit, but what i take away is that people don’t ‘keep it real’ enough, and most short stories are boring as fuck. i would agree with those 2 sentiments if they are implied in your comment.
i would take it a step further though, and say that even if one likes the ‘pitter-patter of words,’ and i do, if i’m understanding what you’re saying as referring to like the aesthetics of prose, i do appreciate aesthetically-pleasing prose, but i would say most stories i read are not aesthetically-pleasing to me, in their prose. i wouldn’t cite any examples because they are too numerous and that would be hater-ish of me, but just to be honest, the vast majority of short stories i read online or in print are ‘nice enough, i guess,’ but boring/unappealing, in content, form, and prose. that seems very harsh and unkind, but i only say so because i want very much to not feel that way as a reader.
i hardly think HTMLGIANT is part of the “professionalization of writing” or the “institutional view,” even if it attended AWP. it’s a means to an end, obviously, ‘good king wence.’ if htmlgiant shows up there and networks there, more ppl find out about this site and more people buy the books of the contributors to the site. and they get to like meet george saunders and hang out and meet the ppl they usually only see online, and they get to party. don’t be such a killjoy, or something. there’s hardly a need for “exposes.” you don’t think blake or whoever is fully aware that AWP is “way ‘industry'”?
i hardly think HTMLGIANT is part of the “professionalization of writing” or the “institutional view,” even if it attended AWP. it’s a means to an end, obviously, ‘good king wence.’ if htmlgiant shows up there and networks there, more ppl find out about this site and more people buy the books of the contributors to the site. and they get to like meet george saunders and hang out and meet the ppl they usually only see online, and they get to party. don’t be such a killjoy, or something. there’s hardly a need for “exposes.” you don’t think blake or whoever is fully aware that AWP is “way ‘industry'”?
update: good king wenclas appears to be ‘annoying.’ nevertheless, i do seem to enjoy a disturbingly low percentage of stories i read.
update: good king wenclas appears to be ‘annoying.’ nevertheless, i do seem to enjoy a disturbingly low percentage of stories i read.
Where do you get off calling him Ray? He a friend of yours?
Where do you get off calling him Ray? He a friend of yours?
King Wenclas, do you know me? I don’t know you.
King Wenclas, do you know me? I don’t know you.
I don’t understand what this has to do with my questions. But apparently you have decided you know all about my intention in visiting AWP, and apparently I have a big tuition bill due. (I’ll have to figure out where this came from.) Also you think I am a writer, which I suppose is understandable given the forum here. I am fascinated by this, but still looking for answers to my questions.
(I am not in disagreement with you about what AWP is; but please don’t assume you know my intentions and opinions where they have not been stated.)
Still interested to hear your answers. And I would appreciate less anger on your part; I am actually interested. Really. Truly. Not trying to pick fights. Not sure how I can make this more clear.
I don’t understand what this has to do with my questions. But apparently you have decided you know all about my intention in visiting AWP, and apparently I have a big tuition bill due. (I’ll have to figure out where this came from.) Also you think I am a writer, which I suppose is understandable given the forum here. I am fascinated by this, but still looking for answers to my questions.
(I am not in disagreement with you about what AWP is; but please don’t assume you know my intentions and opinions where they have not been stated.)
Still interested to hear your answers. And I would appreciate less anger on your part; I am actually interested. Really. Truly. Not trying to pick fights. Not sure how I can make this more clear.
moreover, ‘wence,’ if raymond carver ‘knew america,’ he knew his one single experience of it, and expressed it in his one single way, with the guidance/(strong influence, ooh! scandal….) of his editor, whatever, and if you’re point is that ‘no one’s seeing the “real america,” it’s just all a bunch of bourgeois glad-handing,’ then you ought to realize that the ‘real america’ is a hodgepodge, and some parts of the podge are bourgeois, and some of them like to write, and each writes in his or her own way, and but so just chill out and get back to working on your premium blog, bro.
*your point, oops
moreover, ‘wence,’ if raymond carver ‘knew america,’ he knew his one single experience of it, and expressed it in his one single way, with the guidance/(strong influence, ooh! scandal….) of his editor, whatever, and if you’re point is that ‘no one’s seeing the “real america,” it’s just all a bunch of bourgeois glad-handing,’ then you ought to realize that the ‘real america’ is a hodgepodge, and some parts of the podge are bourgeois, and some of them like to write, and each writes in his or her own way, and but so just chill out and get back to working on your premium blog, bro.
*your point, oops
I am going with Jay Electronica on this one: “You either build or destroy / where you come from?”
Fortunately these low signal-to-noise debates do not have any impact on whether or not you’re putting the book you want to read into the world.
I am going with Jay Electronica on this one: “You either build or destroy / where you come from?”
Fortunately these low signal-to-noise debates do not have any impact on whether or not you’re putting the book you want to read into the world.
??? Expressing a different viewpoint isn’t “anger,” though you process it as such. Please don’t confuse interest or passion about a subject with anger.
Also, with “your” I was talking to the HTML reader, not just specifically to you.
Regarding your questions: This is the big question, isn’t it?
At least you’re asking the question– “How do we rescue the art?’ “How do we get public attention for that book we’re putting out?”
It’s a question I asked when I was running the Underground Literary Alliance.
Obviously HTML Giant is having success in creating literary buzz. Readily acknowledged. I was curious about what plans they have to sustain it.
Remember, I’ve been there. The ULA created great buzz from ’01 to ’03. (Seven times in “Page Six”; full spread in Black Book, etc.) What we didn’t do is take advantage of the window of opportunity we had, and didn’t realize it until the window had passed.
HTML is in a different situation, because of the way they’ve positioned themselves. They’ve gone for the sell-out from move one, whereas my goal was trying to create a true alternative to a system I view as moribund. (Yes, James Patterson keeping the whole mess going.)
Still, only a few minor lit “stars” will be created by the HTML project. I don’t think they have the shrewdness– and maybe not the resources– of an Eggers to keep the ball rolling. They probably don’t even want to.
As for myself, I wouldn’t have come back to life if I didn’t have another plan. Still working on it. Don’t expect me to post it here! Get real.
??? Expressing a different viewpoint isn’t “anger,” though you process it as such. Please don’t confuse interest or passion about a subject with anger.
Also, with “your” I was talking to the HTML reader, not just specifically to you.
Regarding your questions: This is the big question, isn’t it?
At least you’re asking the question– “How do we rescue the art?’ “How do we get public attention for that book we’re putting out?”
It’s a question I asked when I was running the Underground Literary Alliance.
Obviously HTML Giant is having success in creating literary buzz. Readily acknowledged. I was curious about what plans they have to sustain it.
Remember, I’ve been there. The ULA created great buzz from ’01 to ’03. (Seven times in “Page Six”; full spread in Black Book, etc.) What we didn’t do is take advantage of the window of opportunity we had, and didn’t realize it until the window had passed.
HTML is in a different situation, because of the way they’ve positioned themselves. They’ve gone for the sell-out from move one, whereas my goal was trying to create a true alternative to a system I view as moribund. (Yes, James Patterson keeping the whole mess going.)
Still, only a few minor lit “stars” will be created by the HTML project. I don’t think they have the shrewdness– and maybe not the resources– of an Eggers to keep the ball rolling. They probably don’t even want to.
As for myself, I wouldn’t have come back to life if I didn’t have another plan. Still working on it. Don’t expect me to post it here! Get real.
1.) Networking at AWP is way incestuous, don’t ya think? HTML already has the attention of these people. I used to sell at street fairs and zeen shows– not to mention street corners.
2.) The thought of hanging out with the likes of George Saunders makes me nauseous.
3.) If the expose is about Insider writers giving money to their buds, which might be better spent on– oh, I don’t know– struggling writers, then there’s a need for it. Not for Blake. I suspect he’ll do okay. But there’s a lot of “broke-ass” writers out there who I would think might care about a Philip Roth getting 40 thou he doesn’t need from a tax-shelter “charity” like PEN.
Do I need to look up that AWP/NEA issue of my newsletter?
I can tell you this– copies of that issue were publicly destroyed by Liam Rector at the summer Bennington Writers Conference while many big name writers looked on. I know this because three writers who were there afterward wrote me about it.
Bennington might be called an Insider nest.
Only a naive person wouldn’t realize that many in the lit-biz are ruthless sharks.
But I understand yr view.
1.) Networking at AWP is way incestuous, don’t ya think? HTML already has the attention of these people. I used to sell at street fairs and zeen shows– not to mention street corners.
2.) The thought of hanging out with the likes of George Saunders makes me nauseous.
3.) If the expose is about Insider writers giving money to their buds, which might be better spent on– oh, I don’t know– struggling writers, then there’s a need for it. Not for Blake. I suspect he’ll do okay. But there’s a lot of “broke-ass” writers out there who I would think might care about a Philip Roth getting 40 thou he doesn’t need from a tax-shelter “charity” like PEN.
Do I need to look up that AWP/NEA issue of my newsletter?
I can tell you this– copies of that issue were publicly destroyed by Liam Rector at the summer Bennington Writers Conference while many big name writers looked on. I know this because three writers who were there afterward wrote me about it.
Bennington might be called an Insider nest.
Only a naive person wouldn’t realize that many in the lit-biz are ruthless sharks.
But I understand yr view.
im curious what you thought of the bissell article (besides your saying it was inaccurate), espeically in response to this bit:
‘Wenclas has one thing wrong. The “real” America is not poor and desperate, just as the real America is not young and wealthy and hip. They are both America, and both can be written about in revelatory ways.’
like, i guess my question is is how is a story about sheephearding any more real than a domsticated story about, like, washing dishes? especially if both stories use the pitterpatter of words to celebrate this vast tumultuous great awful civilazatin.
im curious what you thought of the bissell article (besides your saying it was inaccurate), espeically in response to this bit:
‘Wenclas has one thing wrong. The “real” America is not poor and desperate, just as the real America is not young and wealthy and hip. They are both America, and both can be written about in revelatory ways.’
like, i guess my question is is how is a story about sheephearding any more real than a domsticated story about, like, washing dishes? especially if both stories use the pitterpatter of words to celebrate this vast tumultuous great awful civilazatin.
*meant washing dishes in a suburban house, not in a uh diner or somthing.
*meant washing dishes in a suburban house, not in a uh diner or somthing.
King Wingclas is the Victoria Jackson of htmlgiant
King Wingclas is the Victoria Jackson of htmlgiant
mm, cookies
mm, cookies
seems confusing that “The thought of hanging out with the likes of George Saunders makes [you] nauseous.” everything i’ve ever heard about him, including from my college writing teacher, who is friends/acquaintances with him, make him sound like a humble, down-to-earth, nice guy. so why do you hate him? just because he’s successful and mainstream? what’s the point of being alternative to everything for its own sake?
here is a bookworm interview with saunders:
http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/bw/bw071227george_saunders
if hanging out with that guy makes you nauseous, you must hate/think you’re better than most ppl.
“Ya know, in the 90’s I was writing a newsletter– real samizdat– in which I examined pillars like AWP. ”
Real samizdat? You were passing around illegal government-censored newsletters… about AWP?
Damn! I didn’t know AWP’s power went all the way up to the government! You are a true hero!
I am a writer or a plumber or a unicorn. In fact, you can’t be a writer, plumber or unicorn without going into humongous institutional debt.
seems confusing that “The thought of hanging out with the likes of George Saunders makes [you] nauseous.” everything i’ve ever heard about him, including from my college writing teacher, who is friends/acquaintances with him, make him sound like a humble, down-to-earth, nice guy. so why do you hate him? just because he’s successful and mainstream? what’s the point of being alternative to everything for its own sake?
here is a bookworm interview with saunders:
http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/bw/bw071227george_saunders
if hanging out with that guy makes you nauseous, you must hate/think you’re better than most ppl.
“Ya know, in the 90’s I was writing a newsletter– real samizdat– in which I examined pillars like AWP. ”
Real samizdat? You were passing around illegal government-censored newsletters… about AWP?
Damn! I didn’t know AWP’s power went all the way up to the government! You are a true hero!
I am a writer or a plumber or a unicorn. In fact, you can’t be a writer, plumber or unicorn without going into humongous institutional debt.
Also I am running from a short story right now. I am running from the new collected Lydia Davis and the new Ha Jin and the Raymond Carver originals republished and the short stories I just bought for my iphone (there’s an app for that) and I tripped over Alice Munro’s Booker Prize and into a Wells Tower.
I am stumbling too not just running.
And my running style is premium.
Also I am running from a short story right now. I am running from the new collected Lydia Davis and the new Ha Jin and the Raymond Carver originals republished and the short stories I just bought for my iphone (there’s an app for that) and I tripped over Alice Munro’s Booker Prize and into a Wells Tower.
I am stumbling too not just running.
And my running style is premium.
And you KNOW this, son.
And you KNOW this, son.
yeah, lame and substance-less
yeah, lame and substance-less
I could not find a reply link to your response, but I thank you for it. I’m sure you can understand where my understanding of anger comes from (based on your earlier responses to folks here), just as I can understand where your assumption of me being a writer comes from (based on the forum’s focus). Anyway.
I’m afraid I don’t know the whole ULA story, only the general thrust of it, and a few memorable efforts/acknowledgments. I’ve only been active in the literary realm for a few years, and my research about your own work is incomplete. I will do more. (My first and primary interests are astronomy and physics, and I came to reading literary work much later, so of course there is much I have to learn.)
And yes, I am asking the question. I am glad you are, too. It’s an important question to ask. I, for one, am interested in HTMLGIANT’s approach and the people it’s attracted, and I’ve been sort of lurking for a few months now to see how it shakes out and who it’s influencing and in what ways. I think the art is paramount, and that there has never been and probably never will be a perfect solution to saving and embracing it. But the various attempts intrigue me and I am in support of all of them so long as their purpose is true. And admittedly it often takes me a while to understand whether or not that’s the case. I, too, am curious about what plans they have to sustain things.
Whether or not the names that this site promotes have lasting value is an interesting conversation. If nothing else, they have the platform and more resources than probably 95% of writers have, and I tend to think that any time an artist is given a chance, that’s a good thing. What they do with it is something else. And so I am rooting for them to keep the ball rolling. Which doesn’t mean I think they can do only good, but that the general effect of promoting some writers and giving them the opportunity to succeed is, when I consider it on the whole, a good thing.
I would not expect you to post your solution/plan here. But I hope when it’s formulated that you provide it generally so that all artists/writers will be able to be helped by it. The arts are, unfortunately, one of the last thing society focuses on, yet we as a people will be remembered more for our art than for anything else.
It’s possible that this thread is dying off and will no longer be a suitable place for this discussion, but I thank you for your attention and I wish you well in your efforts.
I could not find a reply link to your response, but I thank you for it. I’m sure you can understand where my understanding of anger comes from (based on your earlier responses to folks here), just as I can understand where your assumption of me being a writer comes from (based on the forum’s focus). Anyway.
I’m afraid I don’t know the whole ULA story, only the general thrust of it, and a few memorable efforts/acknowledgments. I’ve only been active in the literary realm for a few years, and my research about your own work is incomplete. I will do more. (My first and primary interests are astronomy and physics, and I came to reading literary work much later, so of course there is much I have to learn.)
And yes, I am asking the question. I am glad you are, too. It’s an important question to ask. I, for one, am interested in HTMLGIANT’s approach and the people it’s attracted, and I’ve been sort of lurking for a few months now to see how it shakes out and who it’s influencing and in what ways. I think the art is paramount, and that there has never been and probably never will be a perfect solution to saving and embracing it. But the various attempts intrigue me and I am in support of all of them so long as their purpose is true. And admittedly it often takes me a while to understand whether or not that’s the case. I, too, am curious about what plans they have to sustain things.
Whether or not the names that this site promotes have lasting value is an interesting conversation. If nothing else, they have the platform and more resources than probably 95% of writers have, and I tend to think that any time an artist is given a chance, that’s a good thing. What they do with it is something else. And so I am rooting for them to keep the ball rolling. Which doesn’t mean I think they can do only good, but that the general effect of promoting some writers and giving them the opportunity to succeed is, when I consider it on the whole, a good thing.
I would not expect you to post your solution/plan here. But I hope when it’s formulated that you provide it generally so that all artists/writers will be able to be helped by it. The arts are, unfortunately, one of the last thing society focuses on, yet we as a people will be remembered more for our art than for anything else.
It’s possible that this thread is dying off and will no longer be a suitable place for this discussion, but I thank you for your attention and I wish you well in your efforts.
You miss my point, in the same way Bissell missed the point of the ULA. That suburban house (more or less) is all we get! There is little depiction of the Other America. I wrote some tough stuff on my main blog in ’05 about teaching in inner city schools– the kind of thing I’d love to read from better writers than myself. But writers can’t write about something they don’t know.
When non-bourgie topics are covered, it’s still in the “literary” bourgie way of writing, as a read of the Best American Stories collections will show. And so, the topic is defanged. Gaitskill still tries to write about tough topics– catch her story about a train ride in a Pushcart collection, ’09 maybe. But now, she’s the onlooker trying to understand the Other, instead of being the Other herself.
I’m generalizing, sure, and so this argument of mine can be easily taken apart. The problem might be the “pitter-patter.” Prose, originally, was supposed to be prosaic. Now we get poetry that looks like prose, and prose that reads like poetry, to the detriment of both.
The Underground Literary Alliance was a group of noncredentialed writers, who exposed corruption; who felt their interests, as readers and writers, weren’t being served by the lit system as it exists. By asking for access, we were regarded as an affront to people like Bissell. We surely didn’t want to eliminate his kind of writer. We wanted a seat at the table.
Ever see the Brando movie “Viva Zapata”?
Steinbeck screenplay. Some key moments.
Notice the way the peasantry approaches the Overclass with hat in hand.
Zapata gives the counter example in his scene with the moderate politician, to whom he explains the concept of leverage.
Without leverage, the writer without connections, credentials, and resources, carries no weight whatsoever. he’s put in the position of supplicant, whether to the congloms, or lawyer agents who know nothing about literature– or with you.
The ULA was an attempt to create leverage.
The difference between Bissell and myself is that he hasn’t left the reservation. Like Sean, he worked hard to get onto it.
But there are still a handful of wild writers out there, still, part of no bureaucracy, no AWP, no system; as un-understandable to the system writer as to the 1876 American was Crazy Horse.
(I’ll be covering the Bissell essay, or part of it, next week on my main blog.)
You miss my point, in the same way Bissell missed the point of the ULA. That suburban house (more or less) is all we get! There is little depiction of the Other America. I wrote some tough stuff on my main blog in ’05 about teaching in inner city schools– the kind of thing I’d love to read from better writers than myself. But writers can’t write about something they don’t know.
When non-bourgie topics are covered, it’s still in the “literary” bourgie way of writing, as a read of the Best American Stories collections will show. And so, the topic is defanged. Gaitskill still tries to write about tough topics– catch her story about a train ride in a Pushcart collection, ’09 maybe. But now, she’s the onlooker trying to understand the Other, instead of being the Other herself.
I’m generalizing, sure, and so this argument of mine can be easily taken apart. The problem might be the “pitter-patter.” Prose, originally, was supposed to be prosaic. Now we get poetry that looks like prose, and prose that reads like poetry, to the detriment of both.
The Underground Literary Alliance was a group of noncredentialed writers, who exposed corruption; who felt their interests, as readers and writers, weren’t being served by the lit system as it exists. By asking for access, we were regarded as an affront to people like Bissell. We surely didn’t want to eliminate his kind of writer. We wanted a seat at the table.
Ever see the Brando movie “Viva Zapata”?
Steinbeck screenplay. Some key moments.
Notice the way the peasantry approaches the Overclass with hat in hand.
Zapata gives the counter example in his scene with the moderate politician, to whom he explains the concept of leverage.
Without leverage, the writer without connections, credentials, and resources, carries no weight whatsoever. he’s put in the position of supplicant, whether to the congloms, or lawyer agents who know nothing about literature– or with you.
The ULA was an attempt to create leverage.
The difference between Bissell and myself is that he hasn’t left the reservation. Like Sean, he worked hard to get onto it.
But there are still a handful of wild writers out there, still, part of no bureaucracy, no AWP, no system; as un-understandable to the system writer as to the 1876 American was Crazy Horse.
(I’ll be covering the Bissell essay, or part of it, next week on my main blog.)
pitter-patter pitter-patter
pitter-patter pitter-patter
thanks king. i think you are saying not that one kind of experience is better than the other, but that the institutionalization of one kind of story about experience (suburban or whatever) has elevated it above stories about Other expeirences (just paraphrasing so i can understand it in myhead).
im sorry, dont really have a response for now. i dont want to try to pick apart your argument. iam thinking. will prbalby read your bissel thing i fi can remember.
thanks king. i think you are saying not that one kind of experience is better than the other, but that the institutionalization of one kind of story about experience (suburban or whatever) has elevated it above stories about Other expeirences (just paraphrasing so i can understand it in myhead).
im sorry, dont really have a response for now. i dont want to try to pick apart your argument. iam thinking. will prbalby read your bissel thing i fi can remember.
King,
Let’s see your stuff, dude. You claim that the MFA creates clones, robs writers of their originality. Let’s see you write the next wildly strange and innovative and original work of art. Why don’t you rock our silly institutionalized world with your Hamlet, your own War and Peace?—your own Gravity’s R?
Oh wait, you can’t?
Could it be that all your whining about “institutionalization” is in fact your own excuse for avoiding the work of creating authentically original art?
The MFA does not domesticate or homogenize writers. Writers do that to themselves, and they always will. Most people do not want to produce original work; this has always been true. You strike me as a prime example of that.
Stop whining, and effing do your work. It’s what I’ll be doing. See you in 10 years.
King,
Let’s see your stuff, dude. You claim that the MFA creates clones, robs writers of their originality. Let’s see you write the next wildly strange and innovative and original work of art. Why don’t you rock our silly institutionalized world with your Hamlet, your own War and Peace?—your own Gravity’s R?
Oh wait, you can’t?
Could it be that all your whining about “institutionalization” is in fact your own excuse for avoiding the work of creating authentically original art?
The MFA does not domesticate or homogenize writers. Writers do that to themselves, and they always will. Most people do not want to produce original work; this has always been true. You strike me as a prime example of that.
Stop whining, and effing do your work. It’s what I’ll be doing. See you in 10 years.
??? I have a ton of work on-line– including, still, the piece of mine Bissell referenced. There are two recent stories on my ‘Detroit” blog, and my pop experiments, and the ’94 essay linked on my main blog– and the ton of other writing there, which I consider literary criticism, and which is at least as original as such as anything put out by the mainstream.
Your argument is used often, always by anonymous folks, whom experience has shown to be privileged writers protecting their turf from my perceived threat.
The reality is that a lot of original writers do what you suggest– they just write– and because their work is original it’s not published. Have you picked up a standard lit journal? Missouri review– any of them? They contain the same-old same-old. It’s all delicately-wrought “literary” shit. What we have is a circular system– MFA writers trained to write in the “literary” way, who then become editors, and publish what they’ve been brainwashed to believe is good writing. Not only good writing– to them it’s the only good writing. And so we get today’s monochrome literary scene.
There are, of course, variations. I think I distinguished once four or five categories, all tight genres unto themselves, under the broad category of “literary.” The McSweeneyite voice, for instance.
There is nothing original about any of it.
There is nothing original in pointing out that the nature of most workshop programs themselves leads to homogenization. I’ve seen the standard writers-in-a-circle while one of them reads. Little parts of the work will not please this circle-jerk writer, or that one. Edit it, and edit it again. Eventually the voice has been so refined that all life has been taken out of it. Moreover, the writer is trained NOT to bring out an original or provocative voice.
Want proof?
This very discussion over my appearance here is proof. Would your reaction to my words and ideas be different in a workshop, than they are here?
Again, as I point out on my blog, we’re dealing with a herd mindset. That’s what a creative writing program– what the entire literary system– is about. You know what? There’s no getting around it. The herd mentality is intrinsic to the nature of institutions; bureaucracies. Institutionalized anything.
Art is original– it breathes– before it’s institutionalized.
The modernists of 1920’s Paris weren’t debating within the walls of the academy. They were broke bohemians. The result was some of the most original work literature has ever seen.
The final decay of your style of writer– of your mindset– is shown in your calling any dissent, or disagreeable opinion, or contrary viewpoint– including the exposure of real corruption– as whining. Stop whining! It’s what daniel handler told me, via a fake identity (outed through his IP#– there are no secrets on the Internet, ya know) again and again in hundreds of comments to my blog over a couple year period. Why? The dude is worth several hundred million dollars. Within literature’s halls he wields enormous weight. Yet he felt threatened by ONE contrary voice. Why is that, do you think?
It’s a sign of today’s closed literary mind. I’ve had enough encounters with lit folk– including Liam Rector’s destruction of my zine at Bennington– to know that writing profs are themselves herd animals, who get to their stations by “going along to get along.” They did that every step of the way. No one is supposed to speak about any of this.
No. Play the game. Sit down and shut up. Stop whining. Go away. We don’t want to know. Leave us be. Etc.
Meanwhile, the art stagnates.
Just my two cents, which given the declining state of the dollar is hardly worth anything.
??? I have a ton of work on-line– including, still, the piece of mine Bissell referenced. There are two recent stories on my ‘Detroit” blog, and my pop experiments, and the ’94 essay linked on my main blog– and the ton of other writing there, which I consider literary criticism, and which is at least as original as such as anything put out by the mainstream.
Your argument is used often, always by anonymous folks, whom experience has shown to be privileged writers protecting their turf from my perceived threat.
The reality is that a lot of original writers do what you suggest– they just write– and because their work is original it’s not published. Have you picked up a standard lit journal? Missouri review– any of them? They contain the same-old same-old. It’s all delicately-wrought “literary” shit. What we have is a circular system– MFA writers trained to write in the “literary” way, who then become editors, and publish what they’ve been brainwashed to believe is good writing. Not only good writing– to them it’s the only good writing. And so we get today’s monochrome literary scene.
There are, of course, variations. I think I distinguished once four or five categories, all tight genres unto themselves, under the broad category of “literary.” The McSweeneyite voice, for instance.
There is nothing original about any of it.
There is nothing original in pointing out that the nature of most workshop programs themselves leads to homogenization. I’ve seen the standard writers-in-a-circle while one of them reads. Little parts of the work will not please this circle-jerk writer, or that one. Edit it, and edit it again. Eventually the voice has been so refined that all life has been taken out of it. Moreover, the writer is trained NOT to bring out an original or provocative voice.
Want proof?
This very discussion over my appearance here is proof. Would your reaction to my words and ideas be different in a workshop, than they are here?
Again, as I point out on my blog, we’re dealing with a herd mindset. That’s what a creative writing program– what the entire literary system– is about. You know what? There’s no getting around it. The herd mentality is intrinsic to the nature of institutions; bureaucracies. Institutionalized anything.
Art is original– it breathes– before it’s institutionalized.
The modernists of 1920’s Paris weren’t debating within the walls of the academy. They were broke bohemians. The result was some of the most original work literature has ever seen.
The final decay of your style of writer– of your mindset– is shown in your calling any dissent, or disagreeable opinion, or contrary viewpoint– including the exposure of real corruption– as whining. Stop whining! It’s what daniel handler told me, via a fake identity (outed through his IP#– there are no secrets on the Internet, ya know) again and again in hundreds of comments to my blog over a couple year period. Why? The dude is worth several hundred million dollars. Within literature’s halls he wields enormous weight. Yet he felt threatened by ONE contrary voice. Why is that, do you think?
It’s a sign of today’s closed literary mind. I’ve had enough encounters with lit folk– including Liam Rector’s destruction of my zine at Bennington– to know that writing profs are themselves herd animals, who get to their stations by “going along to get along.” They did that every step of the way. No one is supposed to speak about any of this.
No. Play the game. Sit down and shut up. Stop whining. Go away. We don’t want to know. Leave us be. Etc.
Meanwhile, the art stagnates.
Just my two cents, which given the declining state of the dollar is hardly worth anything.
Let me be the first to suggest his soon-to-be classic, “Fake Face” story.
Let me be the first to suggest his soon-to-be classic, “Fake Face” story.
sorry another question king, since youve been open to talking here. ive seen the phrase ‘herd mentality’ often recently, in refernc to htmligant and to like mfaprograms and so on. i dont know mcuh about ula, but you seem to say eralier that you are done with ula? or that is failed? i wondered if this herd mentalitycan apply to outsider collectives as well. like, ula eventually suffered from herd mentality? or, if not, what caused you to leave it (and others to leave; wasnt noah cicero involved in ula early?). like, im again thinking of the bissel article, which i think at points spoke kindly of certain individuals within ula, but was critical of ula groupacritvity. im wondering: ula activity re: art/writing as another form of instituionalization. ula was, as i understand it, a decentralized organization, that had some form of beuracracy right, with titles/positions (you were formerly the uh marketing guy?). the mordernists of 1920s paris werent officially instituionalized, but certianly they had their favorite meetings pots, parties, gatherings, in which they disccussed, etc. some institutions do share these sorts of procedures (though i dont want to suggest that they are the same at all; just that there is some little overlap there in process)? like, i guess i disgree with the implication (not saying you said this explicitly, i just seem to have inferred it) that herd mentality is only inherent to insider/pc/approved/rich institutions and that outsiders/poorwriters/andso on are free of it. and im not disgreeing, i think there are aspects of herding in mfa programs,blogs,whatever and so on. but i dont hink its as all or nothing as you say.
also, im confused by this statment of yours:
Moreover, the writer is trained NOT to bring out an original or provocative voice.
Want proof?
This very discussion over my appearance here is proof. Would your reaction to my words and ideas be different in a workshop, than they are here?
can you explain that a little more? like how does your being discussed (and partkaking in a discussion) prove that mfa writers, or writers in any instituion, are trained to shutdown their original voice?
sorry another question king, since youve been open to talking here. ive seen the phrase ‘herd mentality’ often recently, in refernc to htmligant and to like mfaprograms and so on. i dont know mcuh about ula, but you seem to say eralier that you are done with ula? or that is failed? i wondered if this herd mentalitycan apply to outsider collectives as well. like, ula eventually suffered from herd mentality? or, if not, what caused you to leave it (and others to leave; wasnt noah cicero involved in ula early?). like, im again thinking of the bissel article, which i think at points spoke kindly of certain individuals within ula, but was critical of ula groupacritvity. im wondering: ula activity re: art/writing as another form of instituionalization. ula was, as i understand it, a decentralized organization, that had some form of beuracracy right, with titles/positions (you were formerly the uh marketing guy?). the mordernists of 1920s paris werent officially instituionalized, but certianly they had their favorite meetings pots, parties, gatherings, in which they disccussed, etc. some institutions do share these sorts of procedures (though i dont want to suggest that they are the same at all; just that there is some little overlap there in process)? like, i guess i disgree with the implication (not saying you said this explicitly, i just seem to have inferred it) that herd mentality is only inherent to insider/pc/approved/rich institutions and that outsiders/poorwriters/andso on are free of it. and im not disgreeing, i think there are aspects of herding in mfa programs,blogs,whatever and so on. but i dont hink its as all or nothing as you say.
also, im confused by this statment of yours:
Moreover, the writer is trained NOT to bring out an original or provocative voice.
Want proof?
This very discussion over my appearance here is proof. Would your reaction to my words and ideas be different in a workshop, than they are here?
can you explain that a little more? like how does your being discussed (and partkaking in a discussion) prove that mfa writers, or writers in any instituion, are trained to shutdown their original voice?
Why is it that the literary Tea Baggers who deride the “elitists” running the literary world are always the most boring and unoriginal writers?
Can’t you at least be a tad unique, King Wenclas?
Why is it that the literary Tea Baggers who deride the “elitists” running the literary world are always the most boring and unoriginal writers?
Can’t you at least be a tad unique, King Wenclas?
p.s. Okay, I’m gone after this post. I’ve made my point.
But to answer the demi-puppet’s challenge, and to offer one of my own, here are links to a fictionalized account of substitute teaching, which I posted in three parts. I used a fictionalized setting, because I still had that shitty job when I wrote this and I needed it.
http://www.kingwenclas.blogspot.com/2005/08/zytron-journal-forbidden-zone.html
http://www.kingwenclas.blogspot.com/2005/08/forbidden-zone-part-ii.html
http://www.kingwenclas.blogspot.com/2005/08/forbidden-zone-conclusion.html
Or just go on the 2005 archive of my blog, then Auguest, but this story is posted in reverse order.
You tell me if I can write. I don’t know– maybe I’m not a writer. Maybe I have no value, and am not qualified to speak at all to all you wonderful (and wonderfully certified) talents.
BUT, I’d also like to see from you, demi-puppet, some of your own work.
I’d say that’s fair.
p.s. Okay, I’m gone after this post. I’ve made my point.
But to answer the demi-puppet’s challenge, and to offer one of my own, here are links to a fictionalized account of substitute teaching, which I posted in three parts. I used a fictionalized setting, because I still had that shitty job when I wrote this and I needed it.
http://www.kingwenclas.blogspot.com/2005/08/zytron-journal-forbidden-zone.html
http://www.kingwenclas.blogspot.com/2005/08/forbidden-zone-part-ii.html
http://www.kingwenclas.blogspot.com/2005/08/forbidden-zone-conclusion.html
Or just go on the 2005 archive of my blog, then Auguest, but this story is posted in reverse order.
You tell me if I can write. I don’t know– maybe I’m not a writer. Maybe I have no value, and am not qualified to speak at all to all you wonderful (and wonderfully certified) talents.
BUT, I’d also like to see from you, demi-puppet, some of your own work.
I’d say that’s fair.
zzzzzz
zzzzzz
My question is, why would you even WANT a seat at the table with people you clearly loathe? Back to my James Patterson dig– that man has zero illusions about what he does. He writes quick, “fun” airline reads. It’s cookie-cutter and disposable. He’s cashing in. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of him bitching about not being “in” with the lit. crowd (Stephen King has complained about awards, I believe). I wouldn’t know, I don’t pay that much attention to him. He was just the first “pop” writer that came to mind.
You perceive that somehow those who disagree with you are afraid of you, but honestly, what’s there to be afraid of? Sure, you might be telling nuggest of truth here and there, but your stories lack all the things you accuse the “lit. demi-puppets” of lacking. Voice? Humor? Point it out to me. Because If you tried to tell me one of those stories orally, I’d probably try to move the discussion to hookers and booze.
Someone disagrees with you, and they are “demi-puppets” or likely established writers who are anonymously trying to kill your movement. Paranoia? Grandeur? It’s all there, man. No one here is nearly as powerful or in lockstep with the system as you seem to believe they are.
Could you name 10 American books from the last 10 years with published books who you think are original?
Curious what you are defining as “herd” literature and what you think is original breathing art.
My question is, why would you even WANT a seat at the table with people you clearly loathe? Back to my James Patterson dig– that man has zero illusions about what he does. He writes quick, “fun” airline reads. It’s cookie-cutter and disposable. He’s cashing in. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of him bitching about not being “in” with the lit. crowd (Stephen King has complained about awards, I believe). I wouldn’t know, I don’t pay that much attention to him. He was just the first “pop” writer that came to mind.
You perceive that somehow those who disagree with you are afraid of you, but honestly, what’s there to be afraid of? Sure, you might be telling nuggest of truth here and there, but your stories lack all the things you accuse the “lit. demi-puppets” of lacking. Voice? Humor? Point it out to me. Because If you tried to tell me one of those stories orally, I’d probably try to move the discussion to hookers and booze.
Someone disagrees with you, and they are “demi-puppets” or likely established writers who are anonymously trying to kill your movement. Paranoia? Grandeur? It’s all there, man. No one here is nearly as powerful or in lockstep with the system as you seem to believe they are.
Could you name 10 American books from the last 10 years with published books who you think are original?
Curious what you are defining as “herd” literature and what you think is original breathing art.
Or just five
Or just five
“I have a ton of work on-line”
—so speaks the true original!
You are inventing false opponents because you don’t want to believe that the stuff you’ve written might be as pathetically conventional as the typical MFA story. “It’s not my writing that’s not effective, -they- just can’t see it!”
Christ, man, grow up. Put on your big-boy pants. Conventional writing is always the result of a conventional mind. This has very little to do with whatever institution one abides in. If you have not yet studied, read, listen, written, lived, and experience to such a degree that your mind has shed its conventional trappings, then you as a writer are pretty much fucked.
Like the typical narcissistic overpampered MFA student, you are not yet willing to surrender yourself to your art. And if you’re unwilling to do this—to surrender yourself to life, to art—then you will never develop an original way of seeing. So, you know, keep on blowing that horn: your attitude makes you a part of the biggest herd going: the Me-People, those so invested in their precious selves that the idea of total surrender to anything is akin to blasphemy.
Meanwhile, the world would love to have have great art from you. We would love to see what the oldest and most original parts of yourself have to say. But it won’t happen if you keep blocking its way.
As for my work, I freely admit that I have not yet produced anything original. In fact, it’s possible that I have not even come close. However, if I work hard and live generously for the next 10-20 years, I may be lucky enough to eventually do so. We will see.
“I have a ton of work on-line”
—so speaks the true original!
You are inventing false opponents because you don’t want to believe that the stuff you’ve written might be as pathetically conventional as the typical MFA story. “It’s not my writing that’s not effective, -they- just can’t see it!”
Christ, man, grow up. Put on your big-boy pants. Conventional writing is always the result of a conventional mind. This has very little to do with whatever institution one abides in. If you have not yet studied, read, listen, written, lived, and experience to such a degree that your mind has shed its conventional trappings, then you as a writer are pretty much fucked.
Like the typical narcissistic overpampered MFA student, you are not yet willing to surrender yourself to your art. And if you’re unwilling to do this—to surrender yourself to life, to art—then you will never develop an original way of seeing. So, you know, keep on blowing that horn: your attitude makes you a part of the biggest herd going: the Me-People, those so invested in their precious selves that the idea of total surrender to anything is akin to blasphemy.
Meanwhile, the world would love to have have great art from you. We would love to see what the oldest and most original parts of yourself have to say. But it won’t happen if you keep blocking its way.
As for my work, I freely admit that I have not yet produced anything original. In fact, it’s possible that I have not even come close. However, if I work hard and live generously for the next 10-20 years, I may be lucky enough to eventually do so. We will see.
Read more, write less.
Read more, write less.
[…] HTMLGIANT / HELP US PENETRATE THE ORIGAMI FORTRESS […]