Howard (Hughes) & Henry (Darger)

Here is Howard Hughes, the rich crazy man, pacing in his penthouse in Las Vegas. He doesn't know what to do with himself. His efforts at being "creative" were not nothing--he made real Hollywood movies with real Hollywood stars. But that life is behind him now. Mostly he takes prescriptions drugs, eats ice cream and watches "Ice Station Zebra" (reportedly 150 times).






Here is Henry Darger. He is a mentally challenged (no one was sure exactly how) janitor for a church in Chicago. He lived alone in a cheap apartment where he created massive amounts of paintings, drawings and a 1000+ page book about a strange fantasy kingdom involving little girls (some with penises) who were at war with the forces of evil who sometimes captured and tortured them. At the time of his death no one knew he was an artist. Since his death he's become quite famous, his works sell for many thousands of dollars, and he might be the best known name (and biography) of the "outsider" artists (now a subfield with its own network of galleries, collectors and its own convention The Outsider Art Fair in New York, an annual event.)

One man has money, time, staff, but he's totally wacko. The other man, arguably wacko though apparently harmless, lived a lonely but intensely creative life, though his creativity was never acknowledged (or really appreciated) in his lifetime.

Why do these two men interest me, or rather, why does putting them side by side interest me?
What if Darger had money (or a sponsor like in the Renaissance)--what would have happened to him? to his art? Would he have been "denounced" for the overtly sexual (borderline perverse) content? How would he have defended his "honor" against such an attack. As a Catholic with a fairly feeble social persona--could this have destroyed him? [What would "destroyed" mean?]
And for Howard. What would it have been like if Howard had been truly creative in this way, letting his 'deomans' out in art? How would the art world have responded to a rich (though nutty) man creative quirky personal work. [I'm picturing him doing something along the lines of Darger.] Would it be taken as evidence of his 'insanity'? Would any effort to show/market such work while he was alive be seen as a foible of the wealthy, like "celebrity painters" with their (quasi-respectable) shows in nifty little West Hollywood galleries? [Did you know Pierce Brosnan and Sylvester Stallone were painters? What about Anthony Quinn, Tony Curtis, Tony Bennett, Anthony Hopkins, and Peter Falk? All painters!

Note: Martin Mull is a pretty darn interesting "low brow" artist. See Carl Hammer gallery.

Fiction and Politics (Why Fiction is Dying)

When you google "political fiction" or "politics in fiction" you get directed to articles and books that are (literally) about political figures, political intrigue, Washington dramas or maybe even Tom Clancy stuff. That's not what I'm thinking about at the moment.

My thought was this: that LIBERAL politics infuses (nearly) all "literary" fiction with it's message, assumptions, earnestness, and morality. "Good" people in literary fiction tend to me against War, against "the" war (of the moment), against Republicans, conservatives and "fundamentalist" Christians. They tend to assume we all agree that global warming is the biggest threat, that the war on terror is built on exaggeration and racism, that "green" is good (unless Republicans are involved), that one's essential "goodness" is in line with "progressive" politics. They tend to be against business, against hunting, suspicious of "macho" activities and personalities, positive about women's issues, gay rights issues, etc.

Of course this is logical.
Literary fiction is supported primarily by higher education where you'd be hard pressed to find a conservative (or even centrist) in an English or literature department. The writers that are attracted to these programs, the ones that survive and get the good marks, are in tune with their professors views. Sure there can be differences but they tend to be "within the family" for example, how much drug use is permissive, is S&M acceptable in sexual relationships, and is it acceptable to kill an abortion doctor. OK, I'm stretching with that last one, but you get the point.

Our literary writers are products of the university system, but so are the agents and minions at the publishing houses. These are English majors who got "practical" and found themselves in the book business not unlike the (shocked) fine arts majors who end up working retail at Dick Blick Art Supplies. Even when their publisher bosses (scornfully referred to as "the accountants") prod them to be even more practical (i.e. consider books that will make money even if they might appeal to creationists or Republicans) they hold grudges. They remain vigilant for that new "Zadie Smith" type--a woman of color, preferably sexually ambiguous, though beautiful and brilliant. Harvard or Oxford educated is good, but the "zadie" should retain an immigrant or underclass authenticity that brings beauty of language and the progressive eye to some diverse corner of the world demonstrating how cruel and stupid people like Thatcher and Bush et al are.

I conclude that it is difficult to find literary writers that do not wear their progressive politics on their sleeve. One that comes to mind is Cormac McCarthy. He's given a pass because he's an apocalyptic, i.e. thinks we're imminently ruining the world (see "The Road") by our greedy antiecological lifestyle. He might (we don't know) disagree on some aspects of the progressive agenda like pacifism (one wonders after reading "Blood Meridian" if he doesn't believe humans are essentially natural killers) but since progressive auteurs of Hollywood like the Coen Brothers have canonized him, any disagreement the liberals have with him can be chalked up to his "cranky individualism."

There are hardcore liberal authors like Vonnegut who have expressed libertarian (if not conservative) thoughts (such as questioning egalitarianism as a goal in his short story "Harrison Bergeron") and they are forgiven like William S Burroughs and Hunter S. Thompson are forgiven their penchant for gun play. As long as you sign onto the main tenets of liberalism you can get a bit of wriggle room.

And people wonder why fiction reading is dying.

UNA calls for solidarity strike with Writers Guild

In solidarity with our brothers and sisters in pen at the Writers Guild of America (West and East coasts), by this declaration I hereby call a STRIKE by all UNA members! UNA, Unpublished Novelists of America, may be the largest unofficial union stopping work in sympathy with WGA. Though a virtual community, our numbers are vast indicated by the number of writing classes, MF programs, and spa-oriented writing vacations advertised in Poets And Writers magazine. As a self appointed spokesperson for UNA, I hereby ask all members and affiliate members to cease and desist writing first drafts, tenth drafts or other rewrites, and put on indefinite hold any attempts to market (to agents or publishers) any novels, complete or incomplete. We are asking members to put on hold any actions associated with self-publishing (either print or P.O.D.)
Furthermore, we are working closely with representatives of UPA, Unpublished Poets of America, to expand our work stoppage to include that most ancient and meaningful form, the poem. Though we feel that the impact of our sympathy strike might at first be mistaken as "good news" by those agents and publishers supposedly inundated by so-called "slush," inevitably as the months (and possibly years) tick away, we predict a quiet panic developing in the publishing world. How long can they rely on "already published" authors? How long can the waning market for fiction remain "exciting" without some previously unpublished UNA member breaking out to become the genius of the day? We, who count among our members all FGAFs (Future Geniuses of American Fiction) are as important as any directors or production union sitting home and writing blogs in sympathy with WGA.
Look at it this way: if farm produce could strike wouldn't it also be "funny" if corn went out on strike? Sound like a story in The Onion? Maybe so, but sooner rather than later we'd all feel it, subtly at first (like the impact of ethanol on the price of vegetables), but the discomfort would grow into serious pain. Some joke indeed! Let them laugh all the way to starvation! Did people laugh when the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg joined the Allied Powers to fight against the Nazis in World War II? I think not. So laugh not at UNA (soon to be joined by UPA) and revel in our support!

Why should Gays be Democrats?

I don't understand why gays are liberals. Really. OK, I get it. The 'pubs "hate us" and there's all this fantasy fear of fundamental christians (despite evidence that deep down every 'pub wants his thing worked, but we won't go there...) I suspect it has a lot to do with "If you hate me (i.e. don't invite me to your party), then I'll hate you back. Worse!"
Why do I say this?
Because liberalism isn't a natural fit with gay culture. (I won't speak for lesbians, they probably are "naturally liberal.") Gay culture is elitist, hedonic, and Ayn Randianly selfish. I don't see a lot of "connection" between "helping" the minorities, the poor, or making a larger government and the gay agenda. Well, maybe the underemployed might like unions, minimum wage laws and the idea if the government was bigger there would be more "jobs" in bureaucracy and what not, but still... a bigger government will be more intrusive (albeit "helping") and want more of your (affluent!) money to throw at programs that largely don't work.
And the military. OK, you can still get kicked out for being gay but has that changed since Sparta? Not really. If you're quiet a bit, what a bonanza! And enemies? My god, if you want to hate someone why not hate the people who want to KILL YOU (hint, they're NOT fundamentalist christians!) Gays being against military actions make no sense. We will be the first to "go" when "they" take over. See what's happening in Europe? Hel-l0? Does anyone care? JeeZus.
True the 'dems have always courted the gay vote, claiming their "big tent" is more inclusive, tolerant, blah-blah. But they also court black people and look where it's gotten them. Bad schools, dependency, poor leadership, lack of ideas generally, putting down anyone who's "made it" as white. Great.
I understand why gays HATE republicans, Bush, the military, christians, etc. but is that an excuse for BEING STUPID?
I think not.
I think there should be all-gay combat forces. I'm signing up!

Authority

I'm finding this "renaissance" in my writing curious. What about "failing" to make it New York is energizing? Is it failing? I don't even know. I know I am sensitive to the "real world" accusation that unless a (writer/artist) is making money they are essentially (playing/masturbating) and the assumption (Calvinist-capitalist) is that this is Bad.
One could argue about the commodification of art, yadda yadda, the Rise of the Amateur (also yadda yadda), but away from the madding crowd the issue is fairly simple: do you have something to say (write) or something you want to show (paint)? Not everyone does. If you do, are are lucky. Whether it's a letter or a quilt (at the unassuming end) or a genius literary novel to be discovered posthumously or a trove of brilliant "outsider" art ditto fame after death, you are lucky if you want to DO something.
Now, the issue of authority.
Not unlike many of my peers (hippies, oi vey) I have struggled with the issues of authority and mentorship, vis a vis the creative arts. [Let's leave the bigger issues of world politics out of it for a moment.] Having come to the conclusion that much of my earlier (marijuana-inspired and sustained) "art" was indeed masturbation (of sorts) I tried (see: Sober Self) to LEARN what it was I was supposed to do. I only did this with writing, however. I learned. I took CLASSES, had MENTORS, the last being a fellow from New York, a good writer, but a rather cautious guy vis a vis one's chances for PUBLISHING. Taking on this person (Daddy?) was a kind of therapy for me, an antidote to the "marijuana days" that produced works so tiny and personal they had no way at all of "getting out" to a larger audience [Once my weak connection to the Black Mountain School was severed--another "interesting" story.]
So...
I did what he said.
And now I'm not.
I always wondered how I would feel to "fail" at publishing. Would it be like what they say about San Francisco, why there are so many suicides there -- it's the last stop for so many and when they fail there, there is only the ocean.

But none of that is happening. I am happily creating, even reviving projects "rejected" by my NY mentor.
Hip Hippie Hooray

Verboten Thoughts

Islam, Women and the West


What is the main reason was Islam is so determined not to be "conquered" by Western culture?
I assume it has something to do with the male-female relationship. If the dominance of men over women is core to this lifestyle and they (the men) can't imagine life with westernized women, then essentially they're fighting for their existence. They'll never be able (in the long run) to co-exist with the west, despite Saudi Arabia's (and the Gulf States) compromises given wealth and fundamentalism.
VERBOTEN THOUGHT: What if in some evolutionary way they are right, that men and women are not happiest in equal relationship? What if their women were "happy"? Is the fear that we go from here to approving slavery (which many of them have also)? Is it our racist-slave-owning past that has created our righteous indignation about lack of equality in gender?

War (is a force which gives us meaning)

What if, as hinted at in Cormac McCarthy's BLOOD MERIDIAN, war is a state of mankind that is neither alien, nor something we can evolve away from? What if it was true that WAR IS A FORCE WHICH GIVES US MEANING? Note: Hedges book is classic anti-war stuff the title is some kind of "irony", but what I'm thinking is what if (that phrase) was "right"?
VERBOTEN THOUGHT: What if cultures that are attuned to militarism are destined to succeed?

Imperialism

Why is fighting for oil so bad? Where did the notion come from that people "own" the resources they happen to historically land on? Why does no one ever mention that Islam is a threat mainly because (1) We [see Lawrence of Arabia] helped create a nation for our own interests at the time, i.e. fighting the Turks in WWI (2) western technology made oil valuable. the Islamic world would be pretty much broke without oil. they had nothing to do with it other than take over oil-bearing lands by invasion in the 7th century, why then are their rights to it
"sacred"?
VERBOTEN THOUGHT: Imperialism will make a come back only the West is too exhausted (morally, too) to participate. It will come from China and perhaps India, perhaps New Russia. Non democratic countries will bring it back. We will be standing on the sidelines, feeling our moral outrage and remembering when England the US were top dogs.

What if the Muslims are right on Gender?

well my recommendations have been TERRIBLE lately
meaning people come back to me and say
Why exactly did you think I'd like that?
so much for "knowing people"

the thing about KNOCKED UP (and SUPERBAD)
i guess i'm partly watching them because is STILL have
teenage (boys) around and want to see what the
influences on them are
and i guess anthropological curiosity
bottom line: they're AMAZINGLY foul mouthed
much of it is funny (putdown to a male: don't hit your vagina on the way out)
i've never known ANYONE even close to this level of verbal raunch
also
these films (could be a hollywood "clique") are WAY permissive
on drug use, 60s throwback, almost treating them as legal already
given the low level of concern about getting busted
but
oddly
maybe not to oddly
they're socially backward.... have NO understanding of women
(other than treating them as vaginas who can't talk as dirty as men)
have poor real world knowledge
no street smarts (maybe that's the joke? nerds?)
in SUPERBAD the main characters are seniors in high school
who've never really had sex.
not the 1950s even.
oh well

sex.
I finally had to "back off" on our ancient
once a week fuck. low level of interest on my part (though
oddly not in "mental sex"... like a teen LOL)
i had to make it clear that my wife had to be the aggressor
(somewhat)
cuts it down to once every month? or less frequent?
i'm ok she blames my age
it's partly true
though i wonder if those muslims don't have
something right: you keep the older wife for
all her duties and bring in a younger one for
you to fuck and her to torture
maybe it's worth fighting for?
(highly un-PC speculation)

Today's such a perfect day

these are the days i live for the cold lonely days when everyone leaves me alone except the dog and i can play and think and write and surf (web) and paint and read and nobody really cares what the fuck i'm doing and history doesn't matter much and even whether there's a god or not doesn't matter much only what matters is you have coffee and heat and wood for the stove and
no one calling, how fucking wonderful!