|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Holy Grail: Charles Bukowski and the Second Coming Revolution
For other
reviews, consult
BookReviews.
Well, I did it. I bought that damn Holy Grail book by A.D. Winans. The best I can say about it is Dustbooks got my order to me in record time. And the physical production is all right. I think I only noticed 2 typos. I don't even know where to start, and I'm a little ashamed to be wasting time talking about it. But, I know you've read the book too, and might be interested. It’s funny. He’s obviously talentless. The style is simple enough, readable, but it's as if he's writing with a broom stick up his ass. The general tone is of a snide and envious stoner. He writes like a man who never smiles. What really gets me is that this book is anything but insightful into Bukowski. He only gives us what is already common knowledge from Buk's letters and other works. Even the photos of Buk are ones I've seen a hundred times! And all the dreary anecdotes: that whole thing about the girl who got her airfare from Buk, but she was going to fuck A. D., not Buk, but maybe she'd fuck Buk in some other city, or maybe she already had, and anyway she was going to use them both as some kind of literary pole vault. The woman never succeeded in becoming famous, which makes the story even more irrelevant. He only uses her initials: JW. He throws Buk under the bus (now that Buk's dead and can't defend himself) at least 3 dozen times, but he won't even give us this bitch's real name. Maybe he'll give us her real name after she's dead. Who cares about this anyway? How many pages did he waste on the self-vaunting yarns that all seemed to point to his equality with Bukowski? The whole book seemed to say: "I'm just as good as Bukowski, but nobody wuffs me." He tells a story about going to L.A. to do a reading and then giving Buk a cold call from a payphone and asking to come over and visit. Buk refuses and Winans hypothesizes that Buk gave him the cold shoulder because he didn't like Winans bringing his poetic talents to L.A., intruding on Buk's "turf". Hardy har har. It never occurred to him that it was simply annoying to a person like Buk to have people call and suddenly want to drop by and hang out. Winans tells that story about going to jail. Boooring. Poor baby. And all that COSMEP claptrap. Go to hell! Buk kept telling him to quit with the organizational crap and just try to write great works, but he never listened. He couldn't! And what's up with the photo with Bobby Kennedy? I don't believe that photograph was even mentioned in the goddamned book! He starts his book by saying all the other books about Buk worship him, such as Richmond's Spinning Off Bukowski (which in my mind was far superior). So Winans writes this book where he bashes Buk at every turn, but who does he think he's fooling? He's the one who's still obsessing about Buk all these years later. He's the one who wants to suck every bit of juice from that very minor relationship he had with Buk. It's almost as if Buk blew his mind, literally. Or maybe Winans is a little slow? He kept repeating himself. He would tell us something on page 45 that he already said on page 22, sometimes in almost the exact words. I think he even used the same quote a couple of times, as if we'd forgotten. Is he medicated? From the picture on the back of the book, which is quite large, he looks like a real dipshit. Nice shades! Maybe it's just pure marketing. Jesus! There's that story about Winans' sexual experience with a 3-some, which he's so proud of. Naturally the 3-some was made up of a girl and 2 GUYS. Urpppch. Pardon me while I hurl. Then, after relating this single episode, he says: "For all the publicity it got, I don't think Hank's love life (love life, haw!) was any more bizarre than mine." Waaaahh! The jealousy seeps out of him like puss! What the fuck is he talking about? The very fact of Buk having sex at all is bizarre! Besides this, Buk was a writer, not a porn star. His power is in his dozens and dozens of books, beautiful books, funny books, great books. The best Winans can do is work nine years on this 187-page clubbing of a dead man. It's like Winans just can't forgive Buk for surpassing him on every front. And then to get his precious book published by his old friend Len Fulton! It's sad. Every so-called myth-busting point that Winans makes is completely irrelevant. He tells us twice that he believes Buk had a bankroll from his father's house to fortify him when he quit the post office. So what? So Buk had a little money, big deal. Winans acts as if he's uncovered Watergate! At least twice Winans tells us he complained to Buk about having abdominal pain. Did Winans think Buk was a doctor? Why throw these little bits of info in, except to milk pity and try to put himself on a level with Buk. Winans plays the horses, Winans drinks too much, Winans has insomnia, Winans has abdominal pain, Winans writes poetry. God damn, Winans is just as good as Buk! Why deny it? How did we miss it all these years? This brings me to a paragraph which I think illustrates Winans’ Prozac style: "It was around this time I began experiencing severe abdominal pain and thought I might have an ulcer. My worst fear was the pain might be a sign of stomach cancer. I began having trouble keeping food down. When I expressed my concern to Hank, he wrote back and said, 'Spit your stomach out and forget it. Hospitals have become billing factories, flown doves and shrimp assholes.' Hank said he had given a reading for a thousand dollars, the most money he had ever received for a performance. He said in the future his minimum reading fee would be $500 plus expenses." How seamless! What the hell does his abdominal pain have to do with Buk's reading fees? Probably over my head… And all that whining he does about Buk refusing to do an intro to his book. Winans only wanted to make money off Buk, but he paints himself as some kind of humble saint, and Buk as an ogre for not cooperating. It never occurred to him that Buk might not have liked his poetry that much because Buk had offered him a compliment, once, while drunk, somewhere, long ago. And in the end Buk finally gave him a waffling quote, which has probably been on every book Winans has ever published and is of course right there on the back of The Holy Grail. Pathetic. Boy, he drops all the right names, doesn't he? I get so sick of Micheline and Kaufman and all those others. In Winans' world people are constantly being "infuriated." Someone reads an uncomplimentary poem about him and he is "infuriated." Someone isn't invited to a party and he is "infuriated." It's all very cute. The language is edgeless. His rhythms are like the sullen clopping of a menopausal mare walking through her own crap. He's always using words like "lovemaking" and "incurred" and "suffered" and "haunts." Winans tells us he never saved any of his letters to Buk, a statement designed to uphold his holiness. But, he just happened to make a zerox copy of a single letter to Buk, once long ago while working in a hospital, and of course he includes the entire letter in his book (along with several poems of his own which I feel don't belong). The letter has no life, naturally, and is kind of kiss-ass, but the funny thing is in this letter he goes to the trouble of telling Buk that he doesn't sell Buk's letters, and he doesn't keep carbons of his own letters to Buk. How fortuitous! Wow! It reads like a lawyer's statement. And Winans says he made a copy of this letter "for some reason." Hmmmm, I wonder why? So he figures it's ok to make money on a book with Buk's name on the cover since he never made a dime on those letters, and he even told Buk this, and he even made a copy of the letter so the world would know too. What an angel. I see one of his poems in the book is also in The AD, the one about the submission process. Nice to know he's constantly writing new, fresh poems. No sir, I don't like it. P.S. I want you to know that I keep a copy of every letter I write you, in the hopes that some day they will be worth lots of money.
This page includes the review I
did, which I did in the form of a letter, and Winans' response to it.
After a week of heated email exchange, Winans demanded the exchange be
truncated. I obliged. After all, there's no point in writing a
letter if someone has told you he won't read it.
Here are my
initial reactions to the book. I’m of course open to altering statements and
opinions. BTW I actually meant I was doing a toon on Jack Hirschman not Jack
Micheline. I don’t know anything about the latter except what was in your
book. Hirschman takes over as poet laureate of your city… as I’m sure you
know. I had a minor battle with him about five years ago and don’t recall about
what. Overall, I found the book to be a good read, BUT like Bukowski books I
felt I didn’t gain much of anything… and in that sense it is entertainment
writing. In general, I perceive it as a sort of idolatry and am against that
kind of thing. Despite your pointing out the shortcomings, I still get the
impression that Bukowski was a kind of Jesus for you. Most people need that
kind of thing. I’m one who doesn’t. I’ll wait for your response. Take your
time. Please don’t get pissed off. Dialogue. My next read is on the South
African poet Dennis Brutus.
A. D. Winans. Dustbooks. 2002. 189 pp. $9.95.
Dustbooks Paradise, CA 95967 www.dustbooks.com
Since Al Winans sent me poems and I decided to finally publish him in the literary journal I publish after several years of several batches of submissions—I am firmly against publishing known poets for in my innards I cannot help but think they must have somehow sold out to become known—I write this review as a letter, which I did first send to the author.
Al,
The Holy Grail seems more like your autobiography… wrapped up in a Bukowski book cover. And indeed you do state that it is a “memoir.” What turns me off are the self-serving comments peppering it. Only a worshipping dupe would believe that since Bukowski made the statement of praise, it must therefore be accurate. “Winans, you write a letter like a man who knows where it’s at.” “A.D. Winans is one of the few writers […] That’s rare and so is A.D.” These statements come off as blurbs. In fact, the last one was a blurb Bukowski sent you for one of your books. How I’ve grown to dislike blurbs. Let the reader make the determination if you do indeed write a letter like a…” I hate being told by second parties how wonderful someone is on book jackets or inside books like yours. I’ve had people tell me how much they like the lit journal I edit, as well as my writing, cartoons, etc. But you’re not going to read those comments in that journal. I’ve made it a point only to publish the critical. It just sickens me somehow to see blurbs. It’s time that shabby institution be abolished.
Regarding the pages on baseball, for me, the worship of ball heros is dumb-founding, especially in literature. Today, even the women are on that bandwagon. We’ve sure come a long way since the 60s… backwards, that is. I can’t stand team sports. For me, they’re intellectual training grounds for corporate America and its team-playing infrastructural horseshit. I used to teach with an English professor at a highly corrupt institution of higher learning (Elmira College). His big thing was poems about baseball. Well, I shook his ass up by publishing poems about the corrupt college and him in the student newspaper. He was my designated faculty mentor. Yeah, Bukowski was into that horseshit. But maybe it’s time we stood out and said bullshit to it. Why wasn’t Bukowski able to see it for what it was? Was he so desperate to fit in, despite the myth? Did that blind him? Let’s face it, you ain’t gonna fit in if you don’t know or give a hoot about the leading ball players.
BTW, I don’t really want to alienate you, BUT I’m really turned off by small-press and mainstream lit canon icon boosting, pushing, bloating, and flaunting… Ginsberg was the best at it! And you rightfully note that in your book. It’s why I’m so turned off by him. Christ, if I ever get to the point of being a small-time icon, then I’ll know for damn sure I failed at my job as poet and no doubt ceased heeding Villon’s refrain “Estoit-il lors temps de moy taire?” But I seem to see it in your book, especially in the photos. I would have thought Len Fulton to be more flaccid looking, considering the flaccid responses I’ve obtained from him regarding the highly critical writing I’ve been sending him over the years—a seeming total indifference on his part… perhaps because I do not form part of the small-press lit fame crowd. If he is still chief of COSMEP, one would have expected him to have at least suggested I look into joining that organization.
Why the photo of Ferlinghetti if in fact he was an “asshole,” as you wrote me? Don’t you help push him by publishing it? The same goes for Cherkovski who I think little, if anything at all, of (dangle it!). BTW, I read Bukowski’s Pulp when it came out and found it to be deplorable in every aspect. It was the only Bukowski book that really sucked and I’ve read almost all of them. How surprising to read how many thought it was good, yourself included, if not great.
Again, watch out for self-serving blurbs as in Library Journal describing your lit mag (Second Coming) as “one of the best.” Since when the hell did librarians know anything about tough, rude-truth writing? I’ve had so many battles with Concord and other librarians to have any respect for them at all. Fame was perhaps Bukowski’s downfall… as you rightfully imply. But why are you thus also trying to fall down? I’m sickened by all the brouhaha around the Beats… and it’s getting that way regarding Bukowski. It is like stifling gas of flatulent variety. Ginsberg’s poem is barely readable today, so run on. Sure, it is a good historical piece. And what other poems are there besides “Howl”? All we have are the icons. We don’t seem to even give a damn what they wrote, preferring instead their diverse poses in black and white photos. Are they not advertising high-class Vodka today like James Dean? They have been entirely co-opted by corporate America… thanks largely to Ginsberg himself.
In the long run, I fault Bukowski for not standing up and out as an ardent critic of America. He was given a platform and failed to use it. He simply used it to stand on and be seen with others with platforms, Mailer, Penn, etc. Sadly, Bukowski seems to have become a model (an excuse) for others who do not want to battle the system, seeking base co-optation instead. Call that fame if you like. What Bukowski was a proponent of is writing for the sake of writing. Yet is not writing for the sake of writing destroying writing today? Isn’t that what corporate America wants?
Time for a second XXX and chapter III. And yet somehow I’m led to believe that Bukowski did like that “endless crowd of poets who frequently knocked at his door.” That was his fraud. The purported loner always surrounded. I think the measure of ones success is not the number of people praising you, but perhaps the opposite. Not the number of followers. That’s popular success. And the “people” in America are clearly not independent thinkers and caustic criticizers. Contrary to your assertion or implication (as in writing for the common man, as if for some reason that’s good), the common man is not necessarily good. I think he’s probably bad, which probably explains why the system is bad.
You mentioned jazz and the Beats. Well, I think jazz has really become a bourgeois affair altogether, entirely co-opted. And look at the psychedelic rockers of the 60s. They disgust me today, at least those who are still alive. The Stones, the Beatles. What a crock of shite the 60s turned out to be today. It disgusts me because I was part of it. Bill and Hillary say it all.
Your book, unintentionally perhaps, makes it all seem like a fool’s game: each poet promoting himself and his friends. The winner gets posterity. It seems Bukowski ended up surrounding himself with lackeys or at best those who dared not bring up certain things. (“We didn’t talk about what he said to the crowd at the Café Trieste. I somehow sensed this wouldn’t have been the appropriate thing to do.”) I’d much rather surround myself with critics, those who dare bring up my shortcomings. How else to grow?
Ah, now we’re talking RE Plymell’s description of Ginsberg! Thanks for that. Funny anecdote on Bukowski in the Chinese restaurant. I laughed aloud. But why should Stafford have deserved more respect from Bukowski? For the simple reason that he was a poet… and known? You mention you read Bukowski in your junior high classes? But could junior high kids actually be used as determiners of great poesy? And to think how much he has to be censored when read in college classes for fear that some twat will complain. Yeah, man, that’s how it is in academe. BTW, I was recently fired for upsetting several twats in my online class. They didn’t like my “rude truth” way about teaching. I was fired just like that after two years of faithful service. Actually, those gals shouldn’t be blamed for such limited free expression at that institution. The administrators bear that responsibility.
At times, perhaps most of the time, The Holy Grail is like reading a tabloid or Entertainment Today on the movie stars, spats with each other, etc. I cannot help (hope!) but think that this chitchat stuff about who said what to whom will prove irrelevant in the long run. I hope poets won’t want to read this shite and prefer reading great poems, no matter who wrote them. Of course, we get into the question of what precisely great means in poetry. I no doubt would not agree with your definition, nor you with mine. It is a nebulous concept at best.
“Broken through.” Yes, but broken through what or into what? Perhaps Bukowski and you ought to have contemplated that. Does gaining popularity necessarily mean breaking through? And when you’ve broken through, where the hell are you? What have you become… if not further mind-numbed by popularity? By the way, when I mentioned you were a “known poet,” I simply meant I recognized your name like that of Lifshin or Locklin. Actually, I had never read anything written by you except the poems you’d sent a year or two ago, so I wasn’t aware of your ideas or what you stood for or that you were, as your bio boasts, a “key figure in American literary life”… whatever that means.
I do find Bukowski’s response to Richmond somewhat pitiful and all too reminiscent of attacks I’ve personally received. He does not fall back on logic and reason, but pitiful name calling. I don’t think he could fall back on logic because it wasn’t there to fall back on. Again, what the hell is great? He himself hated the word genius, yet great is really the same thing. What is great art and literature? It is that which the academics will deem… down the road. Like it or not (wrongfully or rightfully), they will determine if Bukowski (or you) shall remain or not. Just the same, I don’t think his remark was “cruel and vicious.” It was simply ignorant and essentially meaningless. It was the remark of someone who did not have logic on his side.
You looked so clean cut there in that photo with Bobby Kennedy. Did he make you shave? I hate the thought of poets sitting together with lifer politicians… and I don’t care how purportedly liberal the latter. Was Hugh Fox a woman or is that actually a man with a cowboy hat on?
A review you received in Library Journal bringing in several hundred subscriptions? Wow! I can’t imagine so many. Thanks for the tip. I’ll have to send them a copy of my lit journal. Libraries just don’t want to subscribe. Hell, I can’t even interest the Boston Globe to review it. All I could get was an ignorant email response from a full-time columnist, Alex Beam.
Reading your memoir, I can’t help but think that so much of the whole damn lit thing is relational, friends writing about friends and friends helping friends to become known. KNOWN! KNOWN! Is that all it’s about? Little is written about ideas. It all reminds me of corporate networking. Some if not most of the poems in your book illustrate the point, for they really don’t talk about much else (e.g., “Thanks a lot Hank”). And just how damn important was it to get an intro written by Bukowski for your other book? And if it meant higher sales, then doesn’t that simply illustrate how fucked up things are and how you were willing to go along with that situtation?
Why don’t you use J.W.’s name? Are you afraid of lawsuit? She sure as hell sounds like a despicable networking sort. I’m not sure if I really need to read about your fucking other women. It sounds like you need to expose that fact to bolster a weak ego. Where are the ideas, man? I want to dig my teeth into some good ideas, not into some paltry fuck stories a la Bukowski. That’s the problem with most of his work, that and the boring race horses. But he did write a handful of excellent idea-based poems. Unfortunately, those poems will probably disappear because academics prefer unthreatening, diversionary (corporate-friendly) fuck poems.
I think poets ought to be more of the loner variety. But of course such poets would never become known. The poets depicted in your book seem like anything but. The rehashing of name-brand poets recalls all too much the marketer Ginsberg. Poetry has become fucked up because the bulk of poets want to become known… like you’ve become. I think a real poet ought not give a goddamn about posterity or becoming known. No matter what you say, I doubt you could convince me that you or any of those mentioned in the book were not driven to become known. Certainly, expounding ideas was not the driving force. It seems Bukowski and others spent so much time and energy playing cat and mouse boyfriend girlfriend horseshit games to enhance their ‘literary careers.” It does make me think of Bukowski in a much lesser light. Did you make it big in the small presses? I’m not tuned into that sort of thing, so really have no idea.
The best part of The Holy Grail was the interesting discussion on the NEA, patronage, and general corruption. nepotism, and the Congressional hearings that followed, though didn’t result in much at all. I recall it taking three months for me to get an email response from the NEA. Of course, today, a small mag has to be officially nonprofit 501 3-c status before it can even apply for a grant. That status costs about $500. In Massachusetts, a small mag can’t apply for funds unless it has over a $10,000 annual budget. What’s wrong with these organizations?
On another note, how was the Second Coming (i.e., the lit mag you edited, starring Bukowski) revolutionary? Things seem worse today than back when the supposed revolution. How to explain that? The amount of small-press crap published today is enormous. Where’s the revolution? It’s like the 60s… mirage of revolution… a revolution in clothing maybe or superficial language. Is not the Holy Grail thus the quest for fame… which when achieved is really nothing at all? I think Bukowski put it down nicely in a poem he wrote near his end, one I partially inserted in a poem I wrote:
Society’s Treadmill Like dogs, we poets and writers struggle, in the great sea of senselessness, to achieve renown. Then, the very few, upon reaching that goal, prefer to still fool themselves, selling verse, like used goods at the local Salvation Army or Good Will, for the mirage of immortality, like Ginsberg to the New York Public Library or Creeley to the University of Massachusetts, while others, perhaps less vainglorious, though more likely shoved into veracity for but a moment, remark, as Bukowski had
“how did it ever come to this, this senselessness staring me down. all my books don’t help. my poems don’t help either. nothing or nobody helps. it’s just me alone, waiting, breathing, pondering. there’s nothing even to be brave about. there’s nothing here at all”
realizing he and they were still swimming, no matter how famous, in the great sea of futility, set up like suckers, for wont of anything else, to run for their lives on society ‘s treadmill…
Finally, George
Orwell’s famous critique on Mark Twain could in some respects apply to Charles
Bukowski for didn’t Bukowski also become a sort of “licensed jester,” though
perhaps not for businessmen? “Mark Twain, except perhaps in one short essay
‘What is Man?’, never attacks established beliefs in a way that is likely to get
him into trouble. Nor could he ever wean himself from the notion, which is
perhaps especially an American notion, that success and virtue are the same
thing. […] [Mark Twain] who might have been a kind of rustic Voltaire became the
world’s leading after-dinner speaker, charming alike for his anecdotes […] [Mrs.
Clemens] may have made his surrender to society easier, but the surrender
happened because of that flaw in his own nature, his inability to despise
success. But most people who have studied his work have come away with a
feeling that he might have done something more…"
Date:
Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:50:27
GMT
WELL YOU CERTAINLY HAVE A WRONG READ ON IT IN REGARD TO ME. FIRST IT MUST BE READ WITHOUT SEEING IT AS A BUKOWSKI BOOK. BUK WAS NO JESUS TO ME. I WROTE MORE THAN ONE POEM LAMBASTING HIM, WHICH RESULTED IN OUR CEASING ALL CORRESPONDENCE. YOU ARE THE FIRST ONE TO COME AWAY WITH THIS IMPRESSION. I AM NOT PISSED-OFF. I JUST THINK MAYBE YOU ARE READING IT WITH A BIAS AGAINST BUKOWSKI. IT CAN'T BE READ THAT WAY AND MAYBE SHOULD NOT BE REVIEWED IF YOU CAN'T DIVORCE YOURSELF FROM THOSE FEELINGS.
BEST,
A.D.
Date:
Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:21:51
-0700 (PDT)
Hi Al, The book was a good read. I did spend lots of time reading the book, so definitely did not run through it skipping pages. Yes, in the book you did mention poems you wrote lambasting Bukowski. I’m not really biased against Bukowski at all. I’ve always loved reading his books. If I were biased against him, I wouldn’t have read most of his books from cover to cover. BUT I do not wear blinders, so do not see Bukowski as a Jesus. I did find him to be quite entertaining; in fact, almost only entertaining, which is why I criticized him for that. And it is true you did criticize him in your book. There were a number of other points I made in the review that you simply didn’t address, which is fine. I’ve added a final paragraph to the review. It’s below. G. Tod
Finally, George
Orwell’s famous critique on Mark Twain could in some respects apply to Charles
Bukowski for didn’t Bukowski also become a sort of “licensed jester,” though
perhaps not for businessmen? “Mark Twain, except perhaps in one short essay
‘What is Man?’, never attacks established beliefs in a way that is likely to get
him into trouble. Nor could he ever wean himself from the notion, which is
perhaps especially an American notion, that success and virtue are the same
thing. […] [Mark Twain] who might have been a kind of rustic Voltaire became the
world’s leading after-dinner speaker, charming alike for his anecdotes […] [Mrs.
Clemens] may have made his surrender to society easier, but the surrender
happened because of that flaw in his own nature, his inability to despise
success. But most people who have studied his work have come away with a
feeling that he might have done something more…
Date:
Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:00:39
GMT
It seems to me that you have very little say in a "positive" way. I am not referring to the book itself, but comments you have made to me over time, and from what I have read in your magazine. You seem to relish being on the "attack," as if this somehow confirms your position of being an "outsider." One might say what you have written here is suspect of "self promotion" on your own part, ending with your poem. You ask a lot of questions, but provide no meaningful answers. You make a lot of assertions without any facts to back them up. I could answer each section piece by piece, but it would do little good, and take up way too much of my time. Approaching 71, I feel it is more important for me to spend more time on my own writing and less time defending it. You damn all politicians. I think there is a case for that today. But I happened to like what Robert Kennedy stood for, and don't need to defend that to you. I am well aware of his faults, but I also believe he was touched by the plight of the poor people. As for baseball, I grew up loving the game. I wanted to be a ballplayer until I tore up my knee playing in Panama. I think I mentioned that in my book. Your dislike for baseball is irrelevant. I find that you put yourself into your own analysis of this and that. A lot of people would consider that self-serving. Enough said. You have your believes and I have mine. I do take issue with you about your implying I began writing with the intention of "making it." Being recognized in the so called "littles" is not in my opinion "making it." I write out of a need to write. A lot of what I write has been published. AmI supposed to be guilty about that? You complain all the time about not having your own work widlely published, and attributre this to your outspokenness. Why not rest that theory? Write under a pseudo name and see if the work is then published. The truth is that you know nothing of me. You even admit to having never read anything I wrote except for the poems I have sent you over time. My poems are by and large my life, and had you read an extensive amount of them, you might have an idea of where I am coming from. By the way, Second Coming's overall contribution to literature will not be determined by you, me or Brown University, but by history, and we will both be long gone by then. As for Library Journal, it is my understanding they no longer review small press magazines. I thought I should mention this. This is not being edited, I am sending it to you the way it comes off the keyboard here. a.d. winans P.S. You have my permission to publish this response at the end of your review, which really isn't a review as much as a letter, which you acknowledge.
Date:
Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:02:43
-0700 (PDT)
Al, Regarding literature and academe, there’s not much positive to say. And you’re right. If you’re looking for positive, feel good stuff, The American Dissident is definitely not for you. It is a highly (unusually) caustically critical literary journal. There are not many, if any, journals out there like it. But my subscribers like. “Relish being on the ‘attack’”? Hmm. Yes, I do like it, especially when I’m “attacking” things/people that/who need to be attacked, including lit icons, flaccid lit journals, cultural organizations, university professors, university programs, National Poetry Month, poet laureates, etc. For me it is quite stimulating intellectually. That’s why I spend much time at it. “One might say what you have written here is suspect of ‘self promotion’ on your own part, ending with your poem,” you write. Good point. That is why I made certain not to mention The American Dissident in the review. I did however think the poem appropriate. But your comment in itself is an empty one because any piece of writing I or YOU put out there would easily fall into the same category of self-promotion. Your book is certainly a hell of a lot more self-promotion than that little poem I inserted in the review. Think about it. I’m not sure how you could possibly disagree. “You ask a lot of questions, but provide no meaningful answers,” you write. The questions were raised for you to respond. It would have been nice for you to include ONE example. “You make a lot of assertions without any facts to back them up,” you write. Such statements are empty, unless backed by at least one concrete example. Name one such assertion… please. Otherwise, I can’t respond to that “attack.” “I could answer each section piece by piece, but it would do little good, and take up way too much of my time. Approaching 71, I feel it is more important for me to spend more time on my own writing and less time defending it.” Well, I hope I don’t end up that way in 13 years (I’m 58). Why not simply state “more important for me to spend more time on my own self-promotion and less time defending it”? “Your dislike for baseball is irrelevant.” It isn’t in the context of my discussion of it in the review. “I find that you put yourself into your own analysis of this and that. A lot of people would consider that self-serving.” Well, I don’t care what “a lot of people” think. That might be your problem as a former cultural functionary, but it’s not mine. Again, a precise example would have been helpful. Otherwise, I can’t respond. The statement is too general and in itself self-serving because it serves you as a deflection away from the crux of the argument. Sorry, but I’m down on the Kennedys, especially Teddy, who has hogged the senate seat for over 40 years as if it were his own. How does that mesh with democracy? “Being recognized in the so called ‘littles’ is not in my opinion ‘making it’." Well, I just read the bio in the back of the book: “key figure in American literary life.” That means “making it” in literature, doesn’t it? “You complain all the time about not having your own work widlely published, and attributre this to your outspokenness.” On the contrary, I do not “complain” at all. It is simply a fact and one I do not state “all the time.” Certainly, my “outspokenness” has something to do with it. My absolute unwillingness to exchange rude truth for lit networking and wide publishing also has something to do with it. Just the same, I couldn’t have done it any other way because my writing, unlike yours, has never been and could never be writing for the sake of writing. This is where I differ in a fundamental sense from you and Bukowski. “Write under a pseudo name and see if the work is then published.” But it has nothing to do with my name at all. I’m not known. I’m not rejected because of my name. The only way your experiment would work is for me to create work that isn’t my work and then send it out. But I’ve already carried that experiment out, though it wasn’t an experiment. For example, I sent a hagiographic piece to the newspaper and it was published immediately. I sent highly caustic pieces and they were not published. That says it all. The truth is I have much more interesting and intellectually stimulating things to do than read an “extensive amount” of your poetry. What I’ve read does not compel me to seek more. And I’m sure you could say the same about my poetry. But I’ve never suggested you should read an “extensive amount” of my writing. Why should? The review is a review of your book, not of your poetry per se. Reading the book has already given me a very good idea where you’re “coming from.” “By the way, Second Coming's overall contribution to literature will not be determined by you, me or Brown University, but by history, and we will both be long gone by then.” I never wrote I’d be the determiner. How absurd! By the way, I’d love to know the story behind your entering Brown U’s archives. No implication here… well, just the networking kind… isn’t networking the determiner of American literature today? “This is not being edited, I am sending it to you the way it comes off the keyboard here.” Perhaps it would best that you did edit. I always reread my letters, poems, essays, etc. I let them stand for a day or two, then reread again. It’s all part of the truth seeking process. I’m not quite sure how to incorporate your comments into the review. I’m not even sure if I can get the review published because the book is already four years old. But no doubt I’ll put it up on my website with your emails and my responses. Nothing will be altered to make you look bad. That is not my purpose.
Best,
Al, Regarding literature and academe, there’s not much positive to say. And you’re right. If you’re looking for positive, feel good stuff, The American Dissident is definitely not for you. It is a highly (unusually) caustically critical literary journal. There are not many, if any, journals out there like it. But my subscribers like.
THERE ARE WRITERS OUT THERE WHO HAVE NOT SOLD OUT AND HAVE VALUES THEY ADHERE TOO. CRITICISM IS FINE IF IT IS NOT MEAN SPIRITED FOR THE SAKE OF PUTTING DOWN SOMEONE.
“Relish being on the ‘attack’”? Hmm. Yes, I do like it, especially when I’m “attacking” things/people that/who need to be attacked, including lit icons, flaccid lit journals, cultural organizations, university professors, university programs, National Poetry Month, poet laureates, etc. For me it is quite stimulating intellectually. That’s why I spend much time at it.
AGAIN, OK. IF IT IS NOT FOR SAKE OF ATTACK ONLY. NOT ALL LIT ICONS ARE EVIL. BUT I AGREE THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY FLACCID LIT JOURNALS. AND I DON'T CARE FOR LIT ORGANIZATIONS OR 99% OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSSORS. THE LIT PROGRAMS ARE JACK OFF PROGRAMS. I DON'T CARE FOR NATIONAL POETRY MONTH, AND WHEN SOMEONE WANTED TO NOMINATE ME FOR POET LAUREATE OF SF, I FLAT OUT SAID. NO. SO YOU SEE WE ARE DISGUSTED WITH A LOT OF THE SAME PEOPLE AND THINGS. IT'S JUST THAT I BELIEVE IN ALSO GIVING DUE CREDIT WHEN CREDIT IS DUE.
“One might say what you have written here is suspect of ‘self promotion’ on your own part, ending with your poem,” you write. Good point. That is why I made certain not to mention The American Dissident in the review. I did however think the poem appropriate. But your comment in itself is an empty one because any piece of writing I or YOU put out there would easily fall into the same category of self-promotion.
I THINK MAYBE THE DISTINCTION IS WHETHER THE PERSON PUTTING IT OUT THERE IS DOING SO AS SELF PROMOTION. I CAN'T CRAWL INTO YOUR MIND, OR YOU INTO MINE, TO KNOW THE INTENT.
Your book is certainly a hell of a lot more self-promotion than that little poem I inserted in the review. Think about it. I’m not sure how you could possibly disagree.
AGAIN, IT IS A QUESTION OF INTENT. IT'S A MEMOIR. A MEMOIR RELATES THE WRITERS LIFE AT LEAST TO A LARGE EXTEND. YOUR DEFINITION WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO WRITE ANYTHING WITHOUT BEING ACCUSED OF SELF PROMOTION.
“You ask a lot of questions, but provide no meaningful answers,” you write. The questions were raised for you to respond. It would have been nice for you to include ONE example.
WELL CURSED WITH CHRONIC INSOMNIA THAT SURELY WILL PUT ME UDNERGROUND EARLIER THAN MAYBE I WOULD WIND UP THERE OTHERWISE...I RESPONDED MORE OR LESS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, AS I AM DOING HERE. SPONTANEOUS CAN SOMETIMES BE GOOD, HOWEVER. “You make a lot of assertions without any facts to back them up,” you write. Such statements are empty, unless backed by at least one concrete example. Name one such assertion… please. Otherwise, I can’t respond to that “attack.”
THEN DON'T RESPOND. I SLEPT 2 HOURS LAST NIGHT AND NOT IN THE MOOD TO GO BACK AND READ ALL THE EARLIER STUFF AGAIN, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS UNLIKELY WE ARE GOING TO AGREE.
“I could answer each section piece by piece, but it would do little good, and take up way too much of my time. Approaching 71, I feel it is more important for me to spend more time on my own writing and less time defending it.” Well, I hope I don’t end up that way in 13 years (I’m 58). Why not simply state “more important for me to spend more time on my own self-promotion and less time defending it”? I'LL IGNORE THAT REMARK AS IT HAS NO MERIT AND AS I SAID, MY LIFE DOES NOT NEED DEFENDING TO YOU OR OTHERS. I KNOW WHERE MY WRITING COMES FROM AND I HAVE NO MOTIVE OTHER THAN TO WRITE WHEN THE NEED ARISES. “Your dislike for baseball is irrelevant.” It isn’t in the context of my discussion of it in the review. THAT'S A MATTER OF OPINION. “I find that you put yourself into your own analysis of this and that. A lot of people would consider that self-serving.” Well, I don’t care what “a lot of people” think. BUT I THINK YOU DO.
That might be your problem as a former cultural functionary, but it’s not mine.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM IN THIS ARENA AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN ABOUT CULTURAL FUNCTIONARY. I WAS ATTACKING THE SYSTEM LONG BEFORE YOU DID AND CONTINUE TO ATTACK IT. Again, a precise example would have been helpful. Otherwise, I can’t respond. The statement is too general and in itself self-serving because it serves you as a deflection away from the crux of the argument. YOU SEEM TO FIND ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING AS SELF-SERVING. I SUPPOSE GOING TO THE STORE FOR A LOAF OF BREAK TO FEED YOURSELF IS SELF SERVING UNDER YOUR DEFINITION.
Sorry, but I’m down on the Kennedys, especially Teddy, who has hogged the senate seat for over 40 years as if it were his own. How does that mesh with democracy? YOU PAINT WITH TOO LARGE A BRUSH. YOU BRING UP TEDDY. WELL I DON'T RESPECT TEDDY, NOR LIKE HIM, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME BILLS HE PUSHED THAT WERE GOOD ONES. I MARCHED WITH ROBERT KENNEDY IN THE GRAPE BOYCOTT. I LIKED HIM.
“Being recognized in the so called ‘littles’ is not in my opinion ‘making it’." Well, I just read the bio in the back of the book: “key figure in American literary life.” That means “making it” in literature, doesn’t it? WELL THAT WAS NOT MY FURNISHED STATEMENT. WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY IS THEIR OPINION. PERSONALLY YOU HAVE TO TAKE EVERYTHING PEOPLE SAY IN THE LIT WORLD WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.
“You complain all the time about not having your own work widlely published, and attributre this to your outspokenness.” On the contrary, I do not “complain” at all. It is simply a fact and one I do not state “all the time.” WELL I AM SURE THERE ARE MANY WHO SEE IT AS COMPLAINING.
Certainly, my “outspokenness” has something to do with it. My absolute unwillingness to exchange rude truth for lit networking and wide publishing also has something to do with it. Just the same, I couldn’t have done it any other way because my writing, unlike yours, has never been and could never be writing for the sake of writing. This is where I differ in a fundamental sense from you and Bukowski. YOU WRITE FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU WRITE AND I DON'T PUT THAT DOWN. I WRITE FOR MY REASONS WHICH IS A NECESSITY. I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THIS. JUST ACCEPT IT AS I ACCEPT YOUR REASONS.
“Write under a pseudo name and see if the work is then published.” But it has nothing to do with my name at all. I’m not known. I’m not rejected because of my name. The only way your experiment would work is for me to create work that isn’t my work and then send it out. But I’ve already carried that experiment out, though it wasn’t an experiment. For example, I sent a hagiographic piece to the newspaper and it was published immediately. I sent highly caustic pieces and they were not published. That says it all. I DON'T KNOW IF IT SAYS IT ALL, BUT IT DOES SAY SOMETHING. The truth is I have much more interesting and intellectually stimulating things to do than read an “extensive amount” of your poetry. What I’ve read does not compel me to seek more. And I’m sure you could say the same about my poetry. But I’ve never suggested you should read an “extensive amount” of my writing. Why should? The review is a review of your book, not of your poetry per se. Reading the book has already given me a very good idea where you’re “coming from.”
I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE SLIGHEST IDEA OF WHERE I AM COMING FROM. MY POETRY AND MY LIFE TO A LARGE EXTENT ARE ONE AND THE SAME, THUS THE REASON FOR MY REMARK. YOU SAY WHAT YOU HAVE READ DOES NOT COMPEL YOU TO SEEK MORE. BUT YOU READ A MEMOIR AND OTHER THAN THAT NOTHING BUT THE POEMS I HAVE SENT YOU. A QUESTION, WHY ARE YOU PUBLISHING THE POEMS YOU PLAN TO PUBLISH IF YOU THINK SO LITTLE OF MY WORK? “By the way, Second Coming's overall contribution to literature will not be determined by you, me or Brown University, but by history, and we will both be long gone by then.” I never wrote I’d be the determiner. How absurd! By the way, I’d love to know the story behind your entering Brown U’s archives. No implication here… well, just the networking kind… isn’t networking the determiner of American literature today? THERE IS NO STORY TO TELL. THEY WROTE ME AND SAID THEY WANTED TO PURCHASE MY SECOND COMING ARCHIVES AND I SOLD THEM TO BROWN BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN TO HAVE TWO OTHER PRESSES I HAVE RESPECT FOR. MY OWN ARCHIVES WERE THROWN IN GRATIS. “This is not being edited, I am sending it to you the way it comes off the keyboard here.” Perhaps it would best that you did edit. I always reread my letters, poems, essays, etc. I let them stand for a day or two, then reread again. It’s all part of the truth seeking process. I EDITED FOR 17 YEARS, BUT WITH POEMS AND ESSAYS, I DO GO OVER THEM. I’m not quite sure how to incorporate your comments into the review. I’m not even sure if I can get the review published because the book is already four years old. But no doubt I’ll put it up on my website with your emails and my responses. Nothing will be altered to make you look bad. That is not my purpose.
Best,
IT IS AN OLD BOOK NOW AND CURRENT TRENDS ARE NOT TO REVIEW OLDER BOOKS. AND WHILE I DON'T MIND YOUR POSTING ALL THIS ON YOUR WEB SITE, AS AN EDITOR YOU DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO LET PEOPLE KNOW YOU PLAN TO PUT THEIR COMMENTS ON YOUR SEB SITE. LIKE I SAID, I DON'T CARE, BUT IT IS A PROFESSIONAL COURTESY.
AL
ANOTHER BEAT POETRY FESTIVAL
I don't trust
these poetry organizers
Al,
I’m not “putting you down” as you state. I’m simply questioning and challenging you. There’s a world of difference. Are you so weak as a person to be so easily offended? I don’t think you really are because you have responded. Your choice of the word “evil” is a perversion. I’ve never used it, nor would I. It is much too strong a term. Just the same, I doubt most icons have the intense passion to be “evil.” There, you see, we do agree on some things. I’m proud of you for not going for the poet laureate thing. But then again I must wonder how you rose to the point of being a possible nominee for such a (normally) spineless position. No matter. You rejected it and rightfully so. A poet should not be a smiley-faced ambassador… in my humble opinion. Let the politicians, college administrators, and lit festival organizers be thus. Could you imagine Villon or Rimbaud in that position? I’d add Jeffers, but I’m not as certain after having read his lit correspondance. Recall that you accused me of self-promotion, not vice versa. I simply wanted you to understand that everything you or I do could fall into that category, like it or not; so the accusation in itself is meaningless. I noticed how you skirted the issue of your book, which clearly promotes you as a “key literary figure,” as an EGREGIOUS example self promotion. “WELL THAT WAS NOT MY FURNISHED STATEMENT.” But it was in your book. If it had been I, I would have insisted the statement not be included. BTW, you avoided my discussion on the blurbs and other self-serving statements in your book. You seem to simply avoid the truth when the truth becomes inconvenient. It would be much wiser of you to accept the truth and grow from it, rather than to get around it somehow. “YOUR DEFINITION WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO WRITE ANYTHING WITHOUT BEING ACCUSED OF SELF PROMOTION.” Indeed. Or at best it all becomes a subjective determination… just like calling someone an asshole, which is why I try to avoid name calling. Have you tried exercising regularly RE your insomnia? I imagine you have, but I just thought I’d suggest it if not. Clearly, if I cared what everyone thinks or wanted everyone to think positively about me, I wouldn’t be writing what I write. I wouldn’t have created The American Dissident. I’d be writing poems about baseball or Bukowski and hopefully publishing them in Poetry magazine or New York Quarterly, which I think has been overblown by Bukowski and Buk fanoids. I did examine an issue and wrote a review of it. But you’re absolutely right. This is becoming a dialogue de sourds as the French say. We seem not to agree on much of anything. “YOU SEEM TO FIND ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING AS SELF-SERVING. I SUPPOSE GOING TO THE STORE FOR A LOAF OF BREAK TO FEED YOURSELF IS SELF SERVING UNDER YOUR DEFINITION.” That is precisely why I challenged your calling my writing self serving. It’s your term, not mine. You seem to have forgotten that. “PERSONALLY YOU HAVE TO TAKE EVERYTHING PEOPLE SAY IN THE LIT WORLD WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.” Yes, that’s precisely what I’m talking about. But it could be and SHOULD be different, especially if the essential goal of writing were not to become known. “WELL I AM SURE THERE ARE MANY WHO SEE IT AS COMPLAINING.” How do you know what many people see in my writing or criticism? But sure, okay, the many who see it as complaining are the many who can’t stand to be criticized, especially when there’s a lot of truth in the criticism. So, like you, the many avoid that truth and call the person who evoked it a complainer or whiner or asshole. How convenient. But how sad that you a poet would diminish the value of criticism by labeling it thusly. At the moment, I am not convinced if I should publish your poems. Hell, do you really want them to appear in a complaining literary journal like the one I, a common complainer, edit? Please contemplate this. Thanks for the info on Brown U. Yes, it yours is now an old book. Besides, our exchange has gotten too large. So, I doubt it will ever go out as review, but it would be nice on the website. Now and then people from no where do contact me because of an item on the site. I would be curious to see what others think of our exchange. “BUT IT IS A PROFESSIONAL COURTESY.” Well, I’m not a professional writer, you are. So, I think little of “professional courtesy or curtsey.” It has all but destroyed the university today… and poetry too. Let’s leave the “professional courtesy or curtsey” to the corporateers and academics and flaccid poetasters.
Sincerely,
Al,
YOU KEEP MAKING STATEMENTS WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE POEM WAS ABOUT A PAST EVENT MANY YEARS AGO, SO THERE IS NO ONE TO SEND IT TOO. MY CRITICISM OF THE EVENT WAS PUBLISHED IN A NOW DEFUNCT NORTH BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSPAPER, NB BEING THE PLACE WHERE THE EVENT TOOK PLACE. AND I TOLD THE ORGANIZERS WHAT I THOUGHT FACE TO FACE. I COULD GIVE A SHIT LESS WHO I OFFEND. WHAT RISK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I AM ALREADY ON THE NEA BLACKLIST FOR TAKING THEM HEAD ON AND THE LIT DIRECTOR AT THE TIME TOLD ME I'D NEVER GET AN NEA WRITING GRANT. HAD I BEEN GIVEN ONE BACK THEN I WOULD HAVE USED THE MONEY TO PUBLISH OTHER POETS AND WRITERS AND NOT ON MYSELF, AS I DID WITH A STATE GRANT GIVEN TO ME, CHOOSING INSTEAD TO PUBLISH BOOKS BY WOMEN AND PRISON POETS. I AM KNOWN FOR BEING OUTSPOKEN, AND BELIEVE ME IT HAS COST ME MORE THAN ONCE. BUT I DON'T GIVE A SHIT BECAUSE I VALUE INTEGRITY. YOU SEEM TO FEEL THAT YOU AND YOU ALONE ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS THE GUTS TO TAKE THE ESTABLISHMENT ON.
I ADMIRE YOUR SPIRIT AND YOUR DRIVE AND YOUR COMMITMENT TO TAKE THE "POWER INTERSTS" ON HEAD TO HEAD. BUT I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE POWER INTERESTS. IN FACT I HAVE NEVER EVEN SAID I WAS A POET. THERE ARE THINGS IN MY LIFE THAT HAVE CAUSED ME TO WRITE ABOUT THEM. IF PEOPLE WISH TO CALL THIS POETRY, SO BE IT. I SEEK NO HONORS OR FAME. I SPENT CONSIDERABLE MONEY PUBLISHING A SMALL PRESS AND MAG FOR 17 YEARS. I DID IT FOR THE LOVE OF LITERATURE AND NOT FOR ANY GLORY, AS IF ANY GLORY CAN BE HAD FROM PUBLISHING A SMALL PRESS MAG OR BOOK. I SPOKE OUT IN PUBLIC ABOUT FERLINGHETTI WHEN EVERYONE ELSE FEARED TO DO SO. AND YES I DID SEND HIM THE POEM I WROTE ABOUT HIM, JUST AS I SENT THE WHITE HOUSE THE POEM I WROTE FOR BUSH AND THE BUSHY CRIME FAMILY. YOU CAN THINK WHAT YOU WANT OF ME. MY POET FRIENDS ARE NOT FRIENDS BECAUSE THEY ARE POETS, BUT ARE FRIENDS WHO HAPPEN TO BE POETS.
FROM OUR PAST EXCHANGES, YOU CAN SEE THAT I DISLIKE ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU DISLIKE IN THE POETRY WORLD, FROM THE UNIVERSITY WORKSHOPS TO THE "CAREER" POETS.
BUT I DO FIND MUCH OF WHAT YOU SAY TO ME TO COME OFF IN A CONDESCENDING MANNER. WHY SHOULD I CARE WHETHER YOU ACCEPT MY REASON FOR WRITING OR NOT? ANYMORE THAN WHY SHOULD YOU CARE WHETHER I ACCEPT YOUR REASONS FOR WRITING? HOW DID THAT OLD ADDAGE GO, DON'T JUDGE ANOTHER MAN UNTIL YOU HAVE WALKED IN HIS SHOES. SO THINK WHAT YOU WILL OF ME AND SAY WHAT YOU WISH, BUT I KNOW WHO I AM AND WHERE I AM COMING FROM AND I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THIS, IN THE END THIS IS ALL ANY MAN OR WOMAN SHOULD CONCERN THEMSELVES WITH.
BEST,
A.D.
|
