 |  |  |  |  |
| Read the current Monday Report below! |
The ULA Monday Report!
This week's report by STEVE KOSTECKE
with UKULA magazine's ROSIE AIELLO
UKULA Interview with
ULA Co-founder
The international culture e-mag UKULA recently
interviewed Underground Literary Alliance members
Steve Kostecke & Jeff Potter. This is the full
unabridged interview w/ Steve. Part Two with Jeff
Potter will be online next week.
1. Who exactly are your targets for criticism and why?
SK: A few specifics would be: Ricky Moody (an already-wealthy
writer) for applying for and accepting a $35,000 Guggenhiem
grant (which he cluelessly had no qualms about accepting);
McSweeney’s Quarterly Concern (a literary magazine, not a
zine) for being awarded Best Zine by the Firecracker Alternative
Books Awards; the National Endowment for the Arts for
awarding Jonathan Franzen (a very wealthy writer) $20,000
(which he admitted he shouldn’t have applied for and, because of
this, claimed to give the money to an artist friend – in violation of
NEA rules); Grant foundations like the Guggenheim and NEA
that declare “monetary awards are not based on financial need”;
David Eggers for anonymously slamming the ULA at amazon.com
by accusing us of making anonymous negative critiques of his
friends’ books (which the ULA does not do – we do nothing
anonymously), but a glitch revealed who he was and he ended
being the one guilty of the accusation (this story was reported by
the New York Times); and there are many others that can be
accessed at our website, literaryrevolution.com.
2. What is the purpose of your protests/ criticisms?
SK: Besides righteous indignation, to get attention. We have no
connections and no money. We’re a group of nobodies daring to
get in the face of the controllers and make demands.
3. What inspired you to take on the cause of fighting corruption
in the literary mainstream? Was there a specific event/events?
SK: Originally the ULA was meant to be a literary/aesthetic
movement that brought the zine scene up into the
corporate/mainstream press. Karl Wenclas was the one who
turned the members on to the corruption that was happening at
the upper echelons of the publishing realm. Once we discovered
that Rick Moody was awarded $35,000 in 2000, we met together
and signed a protest against this. We sent the petition throughout
the zine/underground community and the literary mainstream
(writers/editors) for further signatures. Only
zinesters/undergrounders signed it.
4. Have you ever been or tried to be part of the literary
mainstream? Were you burned by corporate/academic
publishers?
SK: Before I knew about the zine scene, I sent a book out to
several publishers. One of them asked for the entire manuscript
but after that they had no further interest. This isn’t an example
of “getting burned” – it’s just run-of-the-mill rejection. A knee
-jerk accusation the ULA often gets is that we’re on a personal
vendetta because the big-time publishers are too blind to perceive
the brilliance of our writings. The thing is: the more you learn
about corporate publishing, the more you understand the
rottenness at its core. A society can’t have a literature – or any
art, for that matter – that has to get approval from MBA gate-
keepers programmed by profit margins. Books have always had
their business side, but since the nearly complete
conglomeratization of publishing over the past couple decades,
books of quality or significance are no longer allowed to be
underwritten by big- sellers. The result has been: you end up
with a lame, stagnant, professionalized lit.
5. Do you think the writing coming out of underground zines are
better than that that is commercially published? Why?
SK: This was why we decided to organize the literary zine scene
in the first place. Yes, a lot of zines are better – when they are
better. There’s a lot of crap in the zine scene, but when they’re
good they’re so much better than what you can experience from
the tomes displayed on the front table at chain bookstores. But it
also comes down to: what do you want from your literature? Do
you not want to be taken one step outside of your “comfort
zone”? Do you not desire for the boat to get rocked? If so, stick to
the commercial stuff which has already been sifted through and
approved for your consumption.
6. What would happen to underground literature if it were to
become mainstream?
SK: It would be time to drop it, let the imitators perpetuate it
(that’s what MFAs in Creative Writing are all about), and move
on to whatever’s next.
7. What are the advantages of Independent publishing over
corporate/academic publishing?
SK: You’re able to put out exactly what you want in the indie/do-
it-yourself press – in other words, it’s expression in its purest
form.
8. What, specifically, is wrong with contemporary mainstream
literature (perhaps explain what the ULA means by the
irrelevancy and lack of integrity in literature)?
SK: By “irrelevancy” we mean that the lit realm has become far
too elite and focused on viewpoints from those at the pinnacle of
the pyramid (or to viewpoints internalized by those at the peak).
The mainstream is far too top-down and we want to make it much
more bottom-up. By “lack of integrity” we mean the nature of
awards (which are given to the well-off), the awards process
(writers sitting on panels and awarding their friends), the content
of what’s being produced (writings stemming from the
hermetically- sealed world of first-world suburbia), and the
character of the writers themselves (like Eggers and his
anonymous attack on us).
9. More importantly, what are these failings of mainstream lit.
doing to society?
SK: They snuff out the alternative and progressive voices/choices
that are essential to a democratic society – especially as regards
this phase of democratic society that we currently find ourselves
victim to.
10. What is the purpose of literature? (Is there room for an
author to be self-gratifying in his work?)
SK: The ULA has an aesthetic based on intense vicarious
experience and social change. We praise writers like Bukowski,
Steinbeck, Hemingway, Frank Norris, and a whole host of other
“red-skins.” Any writer is free to write whatever she or he wants,
though, for whatever purpose. The ULA doesn’t seek to exclude.
What we want is to be included.
11. In A Room of One's Own, Virginia Woolf (though a feminist
herself), argued that the women's movement was counter-
productive to women's success in literature: women writers spent
their time ranting about their disadvantaged position and gender-
based injustices, rather than devoting that time and energy to
developing their craft. Do you think there is merit in this
statement, and do you think it applies in any way to the ULA?
SK: If she’s saying that a woman’s success in literature outweighs
the Women’s Movement, that’s like saying – in today’s slant –
that it’s more important for a specific category of person to have
success in the lit realm than for humanity as a whole to benefit
from the Global Justice Movement. These movements are far
more important than whether or not a certain gender/race gets
the go- ahead from a pack of bean-counters at the headquarters
of a conglomerate. One of the most important writers today,
Arundhati Roy, knows this: she became the darling of the
literary world and could have easily kept cashing in on her
accolades and fame but instead set off on a course of the highest
worth. The ULA supports progressive cultural change as well,
since we perceive that the current corporate culture is at the root
of too many problems (read Karl “King” Wenclas’s blog for
more on this at kingwenclas.blogspot.com).
12. For what are the members of the ULA known best?
SK: Probably for our bravado and brouhaha. We’re aggressive
self-promoters and have no intentions of backing down.
===============================================
UKULA magazine: www.ukula.com
Steve Kostecke is ULA editor and a founding
member. Check out his new book, Wasted Angels:
http://outyourbackdoor.com/article.php?id=952
===============================================
CLICK HERE TO READ THE PREVIOUS MONDAY REPORT!
GO HERE TO ENTER THE MONDAY REPORT BOX.
This week's report by STEVE KOSTECKE
with UKULA magazine's ROSIE AIELLO
UKULA Interview with
ULA Co-founder
The international culture e-mag UKULA recently
interviewed Underground Literary Alliance members
Steve Kostecke & Jeff Potter. This is the full
unabridged interview w/ Steve. Part Two with Jeff
Potter will be online next week.
1. Who exactly are your targets for criticism and why?
SK: A few specifics would be: Ricky Moody (an already-wealthy
writer) for applying for and accepting a $35,000 Guggenhiem
grant (which he cluelessly had no qualms about accepting);
McSweeney’s Quarterly Concern (a literary magazine, not a
zine) for being awarded Best Zine by the Firecracker Alternative
Books Awards; the National Endowment for the Arts for
awarding Jonathan Franzen (a very wealthy writer) $20,000
(which he admitted he shouldn’t have applied for and, because of
this, claimed to give the money to an artist friend – in violation of
NEA rules); Grant foundations like the Guggenheim and NEA
that declare “monetary awards are not based on financial need”;
David Eggers for anonymously slamming the ULA at amazon.com
by accusing us of making anonymous negative critiques of his
friends’ books (which the ULA does not do – we do nothing
anonymously), but a glitch revealed who he was and he ended
being the one guilty of the accusation (this story was reported by
the New York Times); and there are many others that can be
accessed at our website, literaryrevolution.com.
2. What is the purpose of your protests/ criticisms?
SK: Besides righteous indignation, to get attention. We have no
connections and no money. We’re a group of nobodies daring to
get in the face of the controllers and make demands.
3. What inspired you to take on the cause of fighting corruption
in the literary mainstream? Was there a specific event/events?
SK: Originally the ULA was meant to be a literary/aesthetic
movement that brought the zine scene up into the
corporate/mainstream press. Karl Wenclas was the one who
turned the members on to the corruption that was happening at
the upper echelons of the publishing realm. Once we discovered
that Rick Moody was awarded $35,000 in 2000, we met together
and signed a protest against this. We sent the petition throughout
the zine/underground community and the literary mainstream
(writers/editors) for further signatures. Only
zinesters/undergrounders signed it.
4. Have you ever been or tried to be part of the literary
mainstream? Were you burned by corporate/academic
publishers?
SK: Before I knew about the zine scene, I sent a book out to
several publishers. One of them asked for the entire manuscript
but after that they had no further interest. This isn’t an example
of “getting burned” – it’s just run-of-the-mill rejection. A knee
-jerk accusation the ULA often gets is that we’re on a personal
vendetta because the big-time publishers are too blind to perceive
the brilliance of our writings. The thing is: the more you learn
about corporate publishing, the more you understand the
rottenness at its core. A society can’t have a literature – or any
art, for that matter – that has to get approval from MBA gate-
keepers programmed by profit margins. Books have always had
their business side, but since the nearly complete
conglomeratization of publishing over the past couple decades,
books of quality or significance are no longer allowed to be
underwritten by big- sellers. The result has been: you end up
with a lame, stagnant, professionalized lit.
5. Do you think the writing coming out of underground zines are
better than that that is commercially published? Why?
SK: This was why we decided to organize the literary zine scene
in the first place. Yes, a lot of zines are better – when they are
better. There’s a lot of crap in the zine scene, but when they’re
good they’re so much better than what you can experience from
the tomes displayed on the front table at chain bookstores. But it
also comes down to: what do you want from your literature? Do
you not want to be taken one step outside of your “comfort
zone”? Do you not desire for the boat to get rocked? If so, stick to
the commercial stuff which has already been sifted through and
approved for your consumption.
6. What would happen to underground literature if it were to
become mainstream?
SK: It would be time to drop it, let the imitators perpetuate it
(that’s what MFAs in Creative Writing are all about), and move
on to whatever’s next.
7. What are the advantages of Independent publishing over
corporate/academic publishing?
SK: You’re able to put out exactly what you want in the indie/do-
it-yourself press – in other words, it’s expression in its purest
form.
8. What, specifically, is wrong with contemporary mainstream
literature (perhaps explain what the ULA means by the
irrelevancy and lack of integrity in literature)?
SK: By “irrelevancy” we mean that the lit realm has become far
too elite and focused on viewpoints from those at the pinnacle of
the pyramid (or to viewpoints internalized by those at the peak).
The mainstream is far too top-down and we want to make it much
more bottom-up. By “lack of integrity” we mean the nature of
awards (which are given to the well-off), the awards process
(writers sitting on panels and awarding their friends), the content
of what’s being produced (writings stemming from the
hermetically- sealed world of first-world suburbia), and the
character of the writers themselves (like Eggers and his
anonymous attack on us).
9. More importantly, what are these failings of mainstream lit.
doing to society?
SK: They snuff out the alternative and progressive voices/choices
that are essential to a democratic society – especially as regards
this phase of democratic society that we currently find ourselves
victim to.
10. What is the purpose of literature? (Is there room for an
author to be self-gratifying in his work?)
SK: The ULA has an aesthetic based on intense vicarious
experience and social change. We praise writers like Bukowski,
Steinbeck, Hemingway, Frank Norris, and a whole host of other
“red-skins.” Any writer is free to write whatever she or he wants,
though, for whatever purpose. The ULA doesn’t seek to exclude.
What we want is to be included.
11. In A Room of One's Own, Virginia Woolf (though a feminist
herself), argued that the women's movement was counter-
productive to women's success in literature: women writers spent
their time ranting about their disadvantaged position and gender-
based injustices, rather than devoting that time and energy to
developing their craft. Do you think there is merit in this
statement, and do you think it applies in any way to the ULA?
SK: If she’s saying that a woman’s success in literature outweighs
the Women’s Movement, that’s like saying – in today’s slant –
that it’s more important for a specific category of person to have
success in the lit realm than for humanity as a whole to benefit
from the Global Justice Movement. These movements are far
more important than whether or not a certain gender/race gets
the go- ahead from a pack of bean-counters at the headquarters
of a conglomerate. One of the most important writers today,
Arundhati Roy, knows this: she became the darling of the
literary world and could have easily kept cashing in on her
accolades and fame but instead set off on a course of the highest
worth. The ULA supports progressive cultural change as well,
since we perceive that the current corporate culture is at the root
of too many problems (read Karl “King” Wenclas’s blog for
more on this at kingwenclas.blogspot.com).
12. For what are the members of the ULA known best?
SK: Probably for our bravado and brouhaha. We’re aggressive
self-promoters and have no intentions of backing down.
===============================================
UKULA magazine: www.ukula.com
Steve Kostecke is ULA editor and a founding
member. Check out his new book, Wasted Angels:
http://outyourbackdoor.com/article.php?id=952
===============================================
CLICK HERE TO READ THE PREVIOUS MONDAY REPORT!
GO HERE TO ENTER THE MONDAY REPORT BOX.
| Questions, Comments, Submissions? Email to: report@literaryrevolution.com |
