I know it’s been awhile. And, on this blog, there will be plenty of times when it’ll “be awhile,” as I’ve got other shit to do (with the amount of words I’ve wasted on the ULA, I can understand why this may seem impossible to believe). However, in any case, this blog will remain standing, even when not updated, as a testament to the biggest waste of time since rap metal.
First things first, before I get to the “anti-ULA blowhard screed,” in my next post, we’ve got to talk about our friend one final time in this one. I have to admit, until this point I figured getting into the occasional back-‘n-forth with the person who dedicated a blog to doing my retinal scans was a pretty harmless pastime.
Then, after being shunned by his King, he said this: “King, if you’re reading, I am sorry if I’ve caused you any angst. If I felt I could add something to your movement, I’d join it.”
Yikes. The two saddest sentences in the history of the ULA and all things tangentially related. I don’t think I can ever really process anything “Chilly” says again without thinking about it. Do you know the feeling, usually when you don’t really dig a person to begin with, when something happens where your distaste is transformed into pity…but that sort of pity that’s tinged with revulsion? “Holy shit, that’s what this was all about.” And you feel a little nauseous, maybe, but you can’t really get any enjoyment out of giving that person a hard time anymore. I’d like to say I’m being sarcastic…but Jesus, Charlie. Seriously. It’s not too late to erase those sentiments, you know, just go to “edit post,” it’s really user friendly.
Please do that. For your own sake, baby. Then you can just pretend I made it up, which is a cross I’m certainly more than willing to bear to help you out a little bit. By the way, before I go cold turkey on giving you a hard time, let me very, very gently chastize you on one point (and please, no weepy apologies for causing me angst necessary, I'm sure): I understand your bewilderment at my numbered confession, but that's because it was meant for King. You just drew it out of me, Torquemada.
Next Time, Whenever That Is: The Intellectual Infantilism of the ULA.
First things first, before I get to the “anti-ULA blowhard screed,” in my next post, we’ve got to talk about our friend one final time in this one. I have to admit, until this point I figured getting into the occasional back-‘n-forth with the person who dedicated a blog to doing my retinal scans was a pretty harmless pastime.
Then, after being shunned by his King, he said this: “King, if you’re reading, I am sorry if I’ve caused you any angst. If I felt I could add something to your movement, I’d join it.”
Yikes. The two saddest sentences in the history of the ULA and all things tangentially related. I don’t think I can ever really process anything “Chilly” says again without thinking about it. Do you know the feeling, usually when you don’t really dig a person to begin with, when something happens where your distaste is transformed into pity…but that sort of pity that’s tinged with revulsion? “Holy shit, that’s what this was all about.” And you feel a little nauseous, maybe, but you can’t really get any enjoyment out of giving that person a hard time anymore. I’d like to say I’m being sarcastic…but Jesus, Charlie. Seriously. It’s not too late to erase those sentiments, you know, just go to “edit post,” it’s really user friendly.
Please do that. For your own sake, baby. Then you can just pretend I made it up, which is a cross I’m certainly more than willing to bear to help you out a little bit. By the way, before I go cold turkey on giving you a hard time, let me very, very gently chastize you on one point (and please, no weepy apologies for causing me angst necessary, I'm sure): I understand your bewilderment at my numbered confession, but that's because it was meant for King. You just drew it out of me, Torquemada.
Next Time, Whenever That Is: The Intellectual Infantilism of the ULA.
posted by Bryan Guski at Tuesday, May 02, 2006
10 Comments:
Well, at least you admit you're wasting your time. (And mine!)
Of course, you really don't want the ULA to go away-- otherwise you'd realize that I draw energy from those who attack me-- it's been one of my prime motivations.
(Question: What else would I be doing besides the ULA anyway?
As it is, my colleagues and I are having a lot of fun stirring up things-- bringing some needed noise while doing it to the dead zone of the literary scene.
The lethargy we encountered inside Miller Theater: amazing. The people were sleeping with their eyes open. We jarred them awake.)
Re our Paris Review encounter: kind of curious that you're aware of this. Even most ULAers now don't even know their own history! you seem to have well-studied us-- or something.
They point about our debate wasn't the presence of the Paris Review staff-- who made good punching bags, as you know-- but the old legend George Plimpton.
Only one of us had any interest in the staff-- the pathetic no-esteem individual who tagged along with the brainless trust-funders afterward. But you already know this.
The question I have is: Why are you hiding your identity?
Isn't it a sign of no self-esteem on your part? No confidence in yourself and in what you say?
Am I wrong?
Well, then tell us what you're doing. You're obviously a writer yourself-- otherwise you wouldn't feel free to make judgements about who can or can't write (as fallacious as your judgements are).
I'd wager that you have some talent as a writer but otherwise know very little about writing-- about form, rhythmn, sound, and the entire toolbox of techniques which are available.
ULA writers not good enough for your taste?
I'm looking to promote writers. That's what I do, if you haven't figured it out yet-- and am always looking for new talents to put out there. Those, of course, who really want to be writers.
You don't-- or you wouldn't be hiding.
(Yeah-- Frank Walsh on WNYC. Wasn't that amazing? It could've been you in that spot, Chump.)
No, I really do want you to go away. Hard to believe, I know.
Yes, my name really is Bryan Guski. Is it really that clever of a pseudonym? This Tim Hall shit is kind of played out, but I'll tell you why it's not only okay with me, but quite humorous: when you guys spend time catering your insults directed at me to Tim Hall's biography, it not only doesn't bother me, but half the time I wonder aloud: "wha?". Do you understand? If I came after you with lines like "and on top of that, King, you're the worst Secretary of Defense ever!" it would seem a little dumb, wouldn't it?
And no, I'm not a writer. I feel like my tired analogies and styleless verbosity might have given that away. I'm just a reader. I know, so impossible to believe, right?
I have no problem with you promoting writers, King. As I've said a million times, it's not up to me to determine whether your stable of all stars can get a readership. You could strike gold tomorrow, and there's absolutely nothing I could do about it. My problem is that your argument makes no sense (which I'll delve into next time), your methods are awful, and your product isn't nearly as awe inspiring as you would need it to be for points a. & b. to be rendered irrelevant. I'll get into that soon.
By the way, did you accept your Protector's apology? He's sorry he caused you angst, and would join your group if he thought his said li'l self had anything to offer. I think you should accept it.
By the way, I'll never understand the sense of shock that's displayed when I actually know about something you wrote about repeatedly on your site, in posts and comments.
Like, for example, to demonstrate my uncanny knowledge once again, the uber-poet MDG is dedicating several posts to his dislike for you. Can you admit NOW that he's a really shitty poet, or what? No promotion needed anymore, right?
Your obsession with someone you don't know is curious, to say the least.
Sorry, I don't at all buy the idea that you're B.G. Just how stupid do you think I am, anyway?
Besides, you've given yourself away on enough occasions. . . .
(One would have to have no understanding of human nature to say that you're not a writer.)\
Likely-- probably-- you're an ex-ULAer.
Can you name all eight??
Anyway, here's a question you haven't asked about Charlie:
He's addressed just about everything regarding Tim Hall's life. Has he addressed the split between Tim and Noah Cicero-- what brought that about? (If so, I haven't seen it-- but then I just became aware again of his blog only recently, when someone clued me in to what you were doing.)
What happened to their book deal?
(For that matter, what were the circumstances behind their leaving the ULA. I never received much of an explanation.)
Why isn't "Charlie" asking these questions?
Why aren't you?
Re MDG: My opinion of him doesn't change the fact that he's one of the best open mic readers in the country. He was (in L.A.) before I met him.
Your posts (very strange coming from a complete stranger) on such things reveal how screwed up your too-big head is.
Example: Please give me a before-and-after example, for either Tim or Noah, showing how my opinion of their work changed after they left the ULA?
If you do the kind of research you love to do, you'll find my remarks about Tim's novel, whether on my blog, or later on the Tao blog, remained the same-- that it's an accurate portrayal of NYC people, well-written. That's a true statement; not necessarily a compliment coming from me, because I look in writing for other things, such as depth and soul.
I've never said that Noah wasn't a uniquely talented writer, and wouldn't say it today.
I've maintained a high opinion of some writers who never stopped attacking me. In this regard I'm more consistent than you think.
(When Grover was IN the ULA I remarked in a Philly poetry newsletter I wrote here briefly about his propensity toward practicing his routines. it doesn't change the fact that he's a good reader.)
Your lack of objectivity gives you away.
You have in your head that I'm somehow out to "exploit" writers. Why would a non-writer think that?
(The facts of course contradict this idea strongly. Should we examine them sometime point by point?)
Again, you still have your head up your ass.
I'm not an ex-ULAer, I'm not a writer. You'll never believe it, it's fine, but it's also true. The only reason I continue to insist on even bringing it up in the first place is that I think it's important to know that not everyone who thinks your organization is bullshit has a personal grudge against you due to a borrowed 5 dollars or a girl.
But you'll never believe it, so there's nothing else to say about it. The only part I have difficulty believing is that I could come across as a writer, because I know I have no talent at all. But thanks for the sort-of, insult-as-an-addendum compliment, I guess.
Okay, I was a little dishonest there. There is a personal grudge, of sorts. The reason I even became aware of the ULA in the first place was that one of your minions insulted someone in writing I know rather well. This person isn't a power-wielding publisher, nor are they a big time writer. They haven't done anything to you, and if it took you a million years of searching through every scratch of paper you insulted someone on, you'd never figure it out.
So, that was my introduction. But at the end of the day, everyone can clumsily insult someone they don't know from a hole in the wall...that's a pretty easy thing to do. You could have still been a worthwhile and intelligent organization, of course.
You weren't.
PS: We're talking about the same Michael Grover, right? "Torn"? Taste is a funny thing, I guess.
I hyped MDG as a spoken word artist. He has a great voice and puts on a good show. I prefer poetry as performance art to the boredom-on-a-page sort.
You're doing a good job of trying to get me off your trail, but I don't buy it.
You know you're not Guski, and I know you're not, so why the games?
Your biggest problem has always-- always-- been your complete dishonesty. You've never shaken that.
Now: the eight ex-ULAers. You've studied our history quite thoroughly, know everything about us (are even tracking Grover!). Let's list all eight names and start eliminating possibilities.
Who knows: We may even find Charlie among the eight.
After so much prodding, I took a look at MDG's blog. Kind of sad, really-- but indicative of the kind of problems people have had with me, you included of course. (You actually have a great deal in common with Mr. Grover.)
A few points.
There seems to be a bizarre problem with the fact of myself. It can't be with me, because I'm just a very ordinary guy, so I guess it must be my voice, my only real attribute. (I didn't have it in NYC recently-- must've been tired-- until I entered the hall.)
There seems to be an inability to accept human failings from people, particularly from me. Well, I'm not perfect. Newsflash!
Finally, there's a complete ignorance about how publicity works and how it's obtained. Grover, like you, has not a clue on the subject.
Did I have any control over the Black Book article? Oh yeah, I was right in the editor's office. Duh!
All I could do in that instance was get some writers in front of the journalist and camermen who showed to interview us. It's noteworthy that I made a big effort to get other ULAers to that great opportunity-- including "#2"-- and had to recruit the two local poets at the last moment.
From the beginning of the ULA I've put a tremendous amount of time and effort into the publicity angle. In our early press I was put at the forefront of the coverage, for two reasons:
1.) I had a reputation in NYC already. My first write-up in a NYC gossip column was way back in 1993. If the media covered us at all, it was in large part due to the groundwork I'd laid over many years in this area-- that I was already known.
2.) Throughout and to this day I was the one doing the work in this area-- I was the one the media was hearing from or hearing about.
I've always been usually the only one available to be interviewed.
Media coverage is about a.) location; b.) speed of response.
We've lost a lot of press coverage over the years because of slow response.
The original ULA had three strong personalities who were intended to qucikly/eventually become the faces of the ULA movement. All three fled from the very idea. I remained the face of the ULA mainly out of default.
We'll see if this happens again. I don't think so. The two characters I have to promote here-- Walsh and Jelly Boy-- at least behave like pros. If I tell Walsh to be home at such and such time to be interviewed by phone, he'll be there. This is a refreshing change from the compleat amateurs I tried to help when the ULA was starting out.
Who makes in this world has less to do with pure talent and more with pure will and willingness. Putting oneself out there is never easy.
Crashing events isn't easy. Once you're in that hall, it goes against all sense to speak out-- as Pat Hall noted to me about our recent events. By the way, I wasn't even supposed to go into the theater-- we had "The Student" scheduled for that-- but he bailed at the last minute, so I filled in, and did quite well, if I say so myself.
Etc etc. Again, if you don't know what's involved in publicity, the work, the utter lack of control on the part of those receiving it, you shouldn't even speak on the subject, or assume you know what my motivations are. Ignorance piled upon ignorance.
(The fact that neither you nor Grover could ever get a smidgen of attention on your own only illustrates this.)
It gets disgusting dealing with such folks. I probably should've chucked the whole thing over a long time ago-- and took a 200 thou job for a conglom as a publicist.
My lies continue:
I don't need publicity, because I'm not a professional writer and don't aspire to be one.
My problem with the ULA goes far beyond a "personality conflict" (perhaps not the best term because, although I know this fact is simply impossible to believe, I've never met you. My problems with the ULA are a total rejection of their core beliefs. Perhaps you have former members like that, but perhaps they should double up on their scizophrenia medication if they feel like that but joined anyway.
I know this has taken forever, but today will most likely be part one of the glorious explanation as to why your organization makes no fucking sense.
Signing off, (Whoever You Say I Am)
But I know exactly who you are. So why do you keep wearing the mask?
Re Grover: I could example of the frustration I feel in dealing with such people.
Note what an egotist he is, completely clueless about his position in this society-- or even in literary society.
I mean, who the fuck is he? Not a pimple on anyone's ass.
Yet the Black Book magazine thing wasn't good enough. They didn't include a photograph of the great Michael D Grover. Sure, in his mind he should've been the centerpiece.
Surely you identify with this guy.
Poor MDG will never get close to such coverage again.
His rival Frank Walsh meanwhile was on WNYC-- and his photo was prominently displayed with the Associated Press story.
(We're still learning, you see. If Walsh had been colorfully dressed for the Black Book thing they would've used his photo.
Did Black Book readers really want to see a photo of MDG?? I was bad enough!)
I await your next flimsy post-- but I won't be playing this game much longer. Resolve your ambiguity and indecisiveness or go away.
Actually no, I don't identify or sympathize with Michael Grover. In fact, I think he's pretty much the worst poet I've come across.
Denouncing the ULA does require, at times, a certain amount of hyperbole can be useful. Therefore, a boring piece of crap written by one of the Bloggin' Revolutionareez!(tm) becomes the "biggest piece of shit, ever." But in the case of Michael Grover, he really is that bad.
The fact he clearly thinks he's the voice of his generation makes it all the sadder.
And, on top of all that, I could never sympathize with someone who thinks spousal abuse is a "social stigmata." No, I'm not joking about that.
But Karl, if it's so abundantly clear who I am other than the one person I've ever claimed to be, why don't you just come out with it? You rightly conclude that this blog doesn't have an audience. So just pretend like we're having a candelit conversation at your favorite Italian joint and whisper it into our carafe of Pinot Grigio? I won't tell anybody, I promise.
Post a Comment
<< Home