Karl Wenclas Interview

BEFORE taking on editorial duties at New Pop Lit, Karl Wenclas helped run the notorious writers group, Underground Literary Alliance. A group which embodied Indie literary culture and the philosophy of Do-It-Yourself. In-line with what many in the music business had been doing– for years. No sucking-up to the giant conglomerates– EVER!

Say what you will about the ULA, but it was a group of writers who never sold out. (Were so in-your-face that, contrary to some false stories still making the rounds, they never had the chance to.)

Anyway, a pair of ex-ULAers, Patrick King and Wred Fright, have been documenting and preserving some of the history of that historic literary group. Included in this effort are a series of interviews with leading ULA personalities. Including this interview:

Garage rock? How about garage lit! Given the growing power of monopolies of all kinds in recent years, groups like the Underground Literary Alliance are more necessary than ever. Time for a comeback?

Who Creates the Writer?

ALL-TIME AMERICAN WRITERS TOURNAMENT

(Photo: Michael Jackson wax figure.)
***
“Who Creates the Canon?” Part Two

THE CURRENT VERSION of pop music is generic dance music first performed in the 1970’s, perfected in the 1980’s by the charismatic likes of Michael Jackson and Madonna– but the real creators were record producers on the order of Tommy Mottola. Today the creativity of the artist takes place within narrow parameters. All sounds are studio originated, created by studio engineers as much as studio musicians. All distribution, marketing, promotion, needless to say, is performed by the conglomerate to which the artist-or-face-of-the-product belongs.

PUBLISHING
For the world of publishing, of “literature,” the question is how major a role is played by the writer.

(Pictured: Raymond Carver.)
TAKING the Gordon Lish – Raymond Carver association as example, the answer is that the writer is thought of, in the conglomerate book business, as a necessary but interchangeable piece to be plugged into a tidy spot within the production process. A hired hand, whose work can be altered, even rewritten, at whim.

Gordon Lish has stated, in a Paris Review interview, that if not for him, Ray Carver would never have been published. This is a true statement.

But what does this say about the “Big Five” publishing industry?

Ray Carver proved in the final years of his life that he was a talented writer. That he could create literary art without the intrusion of an editor. How many equally talented writers are out there who’ve never found publishing success, because they were less willing to abase themselves– to have their vision, their work, mutilated– as Carver was?

Was Carver’s early work truly unpublishable? This commentator has been on both sides of the question, as a literary novice having had his work severely edited in the 1990’s by editors. Yet now many years later, as New Pop Lit editor, having taken out portions of submitted work on occasion to make, in his view, the piece stronger.  (We’ve also left in writing that we knew– we knew– other editors would’ve taken out.) There’s a line there to be crossed, or not crossed.

The story is that Gordon Lish didn’t just edit Carver’s stories– he rewrote them. He saw them as mere raw material for he, powerful editor at Esquire magazine, to do with as he wanted.

We know the arguments on his side. Lish took that material and improved it, by drastically gutting it. This doesn’t change the facts of the process itself. (Lish claimed he performed similar surgery on the work of a host of well-known writers.) The Lish-Carver story affirms that within the bounds of official literature now, the writer has no power.

Is this relationship unavoidable; intrinsic to the publishing process?

When the reading public buys a book, they see the author. The face on the back of the dust cover, precisely posed and photographed. Nowhere are there photographs of the agent, editor, publisher, publicist, newspaper reviewers, or the rest of those involved.

The author carries the reputation. What lies behind it?
*******

(One of the motives behind the DIY movement in music and writing was to return control to the artist. To the visionary. The creator– to whom other talents should act not in superiority, but support. The idea behind the DIY-spawned Underground Literary Alliance was to make writers an active part of the editing and publishing process. A quixotic project.)

The Last Underground Poet

WHEN in Philadelphia recently, we touched base with old friend and colleague Frank D. Walsh. His work is hard to come by online, so when I say he’s the best poet Philly has produced in the last 40 years, you might not believe me. As quick evidence I can give only a link to a few poems at an Irish literary site, including this one:

http://www.deaddrunkdublin.com/poems/frank_walsh/complaynt.html

What makes a master at the poetic art?

It’s the poet with every tool in his poetry toolkit. The person who can throw in offbeat rhymes, multiple allusions in a phrase or word, rhythms of every kind, and give the listener or reader enough wordplay to make the experience fascinating, even wonderful. John Berryman would do this on occasion, as would Ezra Pound. Shakespeare was the master of masters at the art. At his best, Walsh attains that company.

Why Frank Walsh hasn’t received the attention he deserves may have something to do with his integrity. To quote Frank Norris: “I never truckled; I never took off the hat to Fashion and held it out for pennies.” Anyone who’s met Walsh knows his outspokenness– not an advantageous asset in a literary world of cronyism and connections, maintained via backslapping and glad-handing. A poetry world filled with posturing frauds, which Frank Walsh is not.

He’s paid a price for it– lives underground for real– but maintains his optimism. “It’s all material” for his writing, he said about his hardships. A mindset for all writers.

(Photo of Frank Walsh snapped at famed Philadelphia watering hole McGlinchey’s.)

Who I Am

A NOTE FROM KARL WENCLAS

As I find myself chief editor at NEW POP LIT, I’d like to provide readers and supporters information on who I am and what I’m about.

I’ve been involved with all things literary for at least twenty years, when I started writing a literary review newsletter named New Philistine, for which I had many subscribers, and which achieved a portion of notoriety. At the time, I also wrote several essays for established “legitimate” literary publications.

In 2000 I helped form, along with five zinesters, the Underground Literary Alliance, from which I attained more notoriety. I ceased active participation in that endeavor in 2008. During those eight years, I dealt with all kinds of writers and personalities.

Since last year I’ve been involved with this more modest outfit, using a humbler strategy, and milder tactics.

The goal, however, remains the same: to revive literature. To make original artistic reading and writing a mainstream cultural happening.

To achieve that goal I’ll go anyplace to spread pop-lit ideas; will enter any arena. (As I demonstrated last weekend.) I want every person everywhere to read our poems and stories. I’ll take risks, ever aware of the risk-reward ratio; knowing that the potential reward is unlimited: making literary history. An immodest goal, requiring the discovery of amazing talent– but if I’ve learned anything over the years it’s that the status quo isn’t very capable or good and that things can be pushed to the limit. In business or art there’s no halfway. And so I set my goals very high. Even if that means falling on my face on occasion.

How to Create the New Product

We say the new product, not a, because we don’t want to put just one more literary journal out on the market. We want a product so different and exciting it’ll blow people away from the moment they see it– let alone read it.

This means starting with a dynamite cover. Our “packaging.” Nearly all lit journals today have professional-looking cover art. Our task was to best this.

We did this by in-depth research of the best artists, of all kinds, in the Detroit area. We preferred having a Detroit artist A.) for the hipness/edge factor B.) because Detroit is the center right now of an arts explosion; fantastically talented artists gravitating to the coming-back city for the opportunity it provides– and the city’s edgy-jagged atmosphere.

We didn’t limit our search to Michigan folks. We perused work online from as far away as Liverpool– which itself seems to be an arts hub right now.

From graffiti artists to designers of comic books or posters or album cover art, we cast a wide net. We desired not simply good art– but trailblazing art. Several very good options were out there. We settled on the best local young artist, in our humble opinion. Or at least, the artist whose work was the most colorful, most pop, most striking. Most attention getting. It grabbed our attention! That artist was Alyssa Klash.

The cover’s a winner. But what of the “product” itself? The literary journal’s contents?

Aha! For that we had no worries. We’d already published on our web site (www.newpoplit.com) several terrific writers– from Thomas Mundt and Jessie Lynn  McMains to Kathleen Crane and Brittany Terwilliger and Wred Fright. We pushed them to send us stories that were even better than those they’d previously given us. They came through big-time.

To those returnees we added newbies (for us) like Robin Dunn and Terry Sanville, and the quirky/crazy lit phenomenon Alex Bernstein. In addition, we had a very strong interview with purveyor of DIY everything Delphine Pontvieux, AND a series of art/prose pieces by Dan Nielsen, who has since joined the staff of this fledgling-but-ambitious project. (More about him in another blog post.) Who are we leaving out? Our token poet, Colin James. One poem– but it’s a good one, holding its own with the dynamite stories around it.

We don’t exaggerate about the stories. You’ll see when you read them. They’re as good as any stories being published anywhere. (We believe two of them are better than any stories being published anywhere.) Moreover, they fit our aesthetic. We designed this journal for the new reader. The stories are fast, fun, and have punch. They are NOT for people with endless time on their hands to dawdle for hundreds of pages over going-nowhere prose from the likes of a Jonathan Franzen or Hilary Mantel. Our stories are too good, too exciting, for the mandarins of a collapsing literary establishment. Our stories are for people on the move themselves, living in the NOW. For people who themselves are creating excitement, and will not settle for less than the best in beer, brunches, styles, or literary products. (Yes, our new literary journal has style.)

Not that we didn’t have difficulties putting our hybrid new animal together. Formatting it took longer than we expected. Not to worry! We WILL have a limited number of preview copies at the Allied Media Conference coming up. A chance to grab an advance look at what the literary future looks like. If you’re attending, get to our table early!

-K.W.

NEW POP LIT Print Issue #1 Is Coming!

WHAT will the print version of New Pop Lit look like? We’re not sure! All we know is that Detroit’s most kickass young artist, Alyssa Klash, has done the cover for us. We also know that the issue will contain dynamic– no, nuclear– writing of the like you’ve never seen. We guarantee it!

Underground legend Jessie Lynn McMains has provided a story about two young women that’s stronger than anything by Mary Gaitskill at her best.

Chicago’s best story writer Thomas Mundt has given us as bizarre and well-written a tale as you’ve ever read.

A host of other fantastic writers will be presented; talents like Terry Sanville, Kathleen Crane, Robin Dunn, Colin James, Wred Fright, Brittany Terwilliger, Dan Nielsen– each writer unique; exploring the idea of pop literature in an original way. And more.

We intended our first issue to be unlike any literary journal ever seen. A new direction. Literature produced with a DIY attitude and a zine edge.

NEW POP LIT The Print Version will debut in Detroit June 19th at the Allied Media Conference. Watch for it!

Spinning Ursula K. Le Guin

Media accounts of Ursula K. Le Guin’s speech at the recent National Book Awards portrayed it as a full-out assault on Amazon and new publishing. They also gave the impression that the speech was received with general acclamation.

Watching the speech, one sees that Le Guin’s remarks were as much an attack on Big Five publishing as against any alternative. She mentions “all the writers who were excluded from literature” (Underground Literary Alliance, anyone?) and speaks of “the producers who write the books.”

Well, yes! The writers ARE the chief value in literature. DIY publishing is one way to give the writer full control over his-or-her art, which isn’t the case in legacy publishing. The old way of doing things puts the writer as supplicant, subservient to the agents, editors, and others who wield power in the Manhattan skyscrapers.

Le Guin spoke of “writers who can remember freedom.” We’d argue that writers OUTSIDE the established publishing system have more freedom over their words. There’s no “go-along-to-get-along” game playing involved in Do-It-Yourself.

Even Le Guin’s much-talked-about critique of capitalism might be better understood as an attack on old-fashioned crony-style capitalism; gigantic oligopolies like publishing’s “Big Five” than on individual entrepreneurs– those who use Amazon merely as delivery system for their art. Should Amazon ever try to exercise the monopoly power they’re accused of having, fresh alternatives would quickly be found. As Amazon itself likely knows better than anyone. This is a changing world– where power belongs to the artist. If said artist is willing to take it!

It must also be said, in looking at the video of Ursula Le Guin’s speech, that audience response during the speech was nervous; the applause when it was over, tepid. Members of the apparatus aren’t as brave as they portray themselves– certainly not when their bosses are in attendance!

We’ll give the final words in this post to Ursula Le Guin, adding only that truer words couldn’t be spoken: “–resistance and change begin in art, and often in our art.”

-K.W.