# Writing > Short Story Sharing >  Let's Smash The Literary World With A Wrecking Ball!

## WolfLarsen

THE WOLF LARSEN MANIFESTO
1. All great Writers should gather at the entrances of the major publishing houses and urinate on their doorsteps!

2. All great Poets should use the pages of the countrys most prestigious literary magazines as toilet paper! 

3. All poets that rhyme should be castrated at once!

4. Poetry and prose should be immoral and blasphemous! If your poetry shocks and offends religious extremists, puritanical feminists, politicians, black nationalists, white supremacists, and everybody else than youre probably doing something right! The paintings of Picasso, the symphonies of Mahler, and the sculptures of Rodin shocked and offended many people too! The last thing the world needs is more boring polite literature!

5. If you write prose just like ten thousand other writers than why bother writing? Garbage men contribute far more to society than writers and poets that write like everybody else! No two authors or poets should read even remotely alike!

6. From this day forward the words Poet, Writer, Sculptor, Playwright, Painter, Composer, and all other Artists should appear in capitals. After all, some guy named god who doesnt even exist appears in capitals and since Artists are greater than god than words like Poet and Artist should be capitalized.

7. There is no god as written in the bible. Rather, every Human Being that lives on earth is a god because Humans are the most creative animals on the planet. Therefore, Artists are gods!

8. Who cares about the rules of grammar? Take a baseball bat and SMASH the rules of grammar into pieces! Language must obey the wishes of the Writer. The Writer should take language and mold it and reshape it as he sees fit just like a Sculptor. 

9. Poets and Writers need to look at the rest of the art world and learn. Poetry and fiction currently appear to be the most backward mediums of the art world. Painting has raced forward like a fast car, jazz music has run forward like a rabbit, even classical music in the last hundred years has left the writing world behind in both innovation and boldness. Writing and poetry are progressing forward at a crawl  just like a snail. All Poets and Writers should think of themselves as wrecking ball operators  we must SMASH the literary world as we know it into bits with a bold and revolutionary writing!

10. The system we live under has nothing to offer but endless wars, prisons, poverty, homophobia, racial and gender discrimination, class oppression, anti-sex puritanism, and human extinction from nuclear war. The literary establishment has nothing to offer us but airport novels, censorship (in the form of political correctness), pretentious literary magazines filled with hack poetry that sometimes even rhymes, and the never ending boring banal well-polished well-crafted literary fiction whose main purpose seems to be to help insomniacs fall asleep. Bartoks symphonies dont help people fall asleep! Igor Stravinskys The Rite of Spring caused a riot when it was first played! Jackson Pollocks paintings can hardly be considered sleepy! Poetry and literature must become explosive, chaotic, alive, exciting, dynamic, etc.  just like the times we live in! 

11. More than anything else remember there is no one else like you on the entire planet! So why should you write like everybody else? Write like nobody else writes! If youre not creative than why should future generations bother reading your writing? Every Writer should be his own literary movement! Every Writer should be his own literary revolution!

Copyright 2004 by Wolf Larsen

----------


## Charles Darnay

I like it. I think mixing in some of your atheistic manifesto is unnecessary, but I definatly agree with some of your points (especially capitalizing Artists.... and urinating on publishing houses). A literary revolution could sure do this world good


The name could probably be a bit better - something pertaining to writing - if you ever wish to take this public.

----------


## RobinHood3000

this believe over been. i Already we've
issue. the mean syntax, I

The fact is, no matter how you split the statistics, there will always be a writing style that becomes the majority. Sort of like religion. Most people don't write like everybody else; they write their own way, much like people that they resemble. Not only that, but most beginners have something of a "default" voice before they develop their own. So, unless you want to "quotation mark" all of the people who could otherwise develop into extremely original and valuable writers, you may want to rethink your position.

What on earth is wrong with rhyme?
It's a helpful way of keeping time
It's highly appealing to the ear
Isn't that what we're aiming for here?
No eunuch jokes, please.


...did you just say that writers should shape language however they want, except properly? What if I want to shape it according to the rules of conventional grammar? Do I get to do it how I want, or how you want?

There's plenty of poorly-crafted, poorly-edited writing out there. You can read it. I'll be over here, enjoying what I read.

Bottom line: I have difficulty believing you're planning to be taken seriously with this essay. Actually, categorize it however you like -- it's your work.

----------


## Kelly_Sprout

The only kind of writing that I can imagine that is capable of offending, infuriating, alienating, disturbing, and overthrowing every possible human being on earth... in other words, the only kind of writing that you would deem to approve, apparently... would be hate speech so confined by vulgarity and pornography that it has no ability to emerge and stand on its own offal, then bedeviled into obnoxious, contradictory, and impossible to comprehend twists of anti-grammatical, non-syntactical nonsense.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> 3. All poets that rhyme should be castrated at once!


Hmmmmmm. Including, for instance, the following (past) persons:

John Donne

William Yeats

Milton

Samuel Coleridge

Robert Frost

Emily Dickinson (we couldn't castrate her, but we could do other stuff)

Shakespeare

Robert Browning




> There's plenty of poorly-crafted, poorly-edited writing out there. You can read it. I'll be over here, enjoying what I read.


Exactly.




> 8. Who cares about the rules of grammar? Take a baseball bat and SMASH the rules of grammar into pieces!


What I find to be so amusing is the fact that you write that sentence in a somewhat coherent fashion (wonderful imperative, BTW).

Why are you obeying the rules of grammar? Please reply, and take good care to disregard the rules of grammar in your response. This will save me the time of trying to determine whether your response is the least bit valid or not.

----------


## WolfLarsen

I find that "proper grammar" suits me at times, and not at other times. The more creative the work, the more that proper grammar seems to get in the way. 


I take exception to what somebody said about hate speech and all that.

----------


## Kelly_Sprout

D' ye, now?

And just how, exactly, d' ye propose t' exclude "hate speech and all that" from this statement of yer own makin':

"Poetry and prose should be immoral and blasphemous! If your poetry shocks and offends religious extremists, puritanical feminists, politicians, black nationalists, white supremacists, and everybody else than youre probably doing something right!"

----------


## RobinHood3000

> Poetry and prose should be immoral and blasphemous!


Really? Well, that's bound to kill the religious poetry market, isn't it?

Question: How do you define morals?




> I find that "proper grammar" suits me at times, and not at other times. The more creative the work, the more that proper grammar seems to get in the way.


...meaning this would be the least creative of his works?

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Emily Dickinson (we couldn't castrate her, but we could do other stuff)


ravishing comes to mind... (cf the other thread..) or possibly female circumcision or whatscalled.. the stuff they do in Africa that lots of human right groups get hyped up about...

well, Wolf... i sure agree that there are lots of uncreative, profit-seeking run of the mill writers around...
but then, shouldn't there be room for lots of different types of literature...*diversity* .. if there was only the kind of literature you advocate, it would be just as boring
what's wrong with a bit of anti-sex puritanism or what you called it? (in books, not in real life I mean).. in my humble opinion, sex in books is only interesting when there is enough space left for the readers imagination to fill in the blanks... when it says crude things like "we f***ed" or gives all the 'sordid' little details etc it's simply not interesting... i think there's a difference btw hard core porn and 'sensual' writing... if it's just gross and reduced humans to h*mping animals it's not interesting to read/ it's intersting to read something like that ONCE but not all the time...
besides, there's lots of books that have plenty of sex in them without being porn....


hum... i don't see how you can write a book that shocks everybody, e.g. white supremacists AND black nationalists.. i mean it's difficult enough to write a book that pleases everybody... ...

PS: i think this kind of literature is a bit of a dead end.. i mean all this absurd and nonsense stuff about how communication doesn't work, can't work has never worked and will never work... it's all been said before, e.g. by Beckett, expressionist and absurd drama etc..etc... it's interesting enough, but as soon as you grasp the principle, that's it...in my opinion, there's no need for thousands of books of that kind... the point has been made and there's no use in flogging it

----------


## WolfLarsen

Hello.

There are people like male chauvinists, puritanical feminists, homophobic religious fanatics, white supremacists, black nationalists, and war-mongering politicians who engage in a lot of hate speech. I am against this kind of hate speech. I am for the full rights of women, blacks, Jews, Asians, Arabs, immigrants, workers, gays, lesbians, and all others who are persecuted by bigots.

I am against anti-sex censorship. I believe sexuality is natural. 

Cheers,

Wolf Larsen

----------


## RobinHood3000

...but no pity for the mainstream writers, hmm?

----------


## TEND

Oh, Robin you are so amusing.  :FRlol:

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Hello.
> 
> There are people like male chauvinists, puritanical feminists, homophobic religious fanatics, white supremacists, black nationalists, and war-mongering politicians who engage in a lot of hate speech. I am against this kind of hate speech. I am for the full rights of women, blacks, Jews, Asians, Arabs, immigrants, workers, gays, lesbians, and all others who are persecuted by bigots.
> 
> I am against anti-sex censorship. I believe sexuality is natural. 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wolf Larsen


ehem, well, yes.. evidence to the contrary notwithstanding: I got _that_ part..and i completely agree. the _question_ was: precisely how are writers supposed to shock all of these groups at a time? plus, to shock them in a 'meaningful' way, i.e. one that will make them reflect about their views and make them change their way of acting??? would have to be something that shows them that they are all in the same boat.... dunno if plays about orgies can achieve this, really....
you might wish to add the following category of people to your list of bigots:
Sleepy Witches explaining things very slowly, like e.g. English ppl when they talk to foreigners  :FRlol:

----------


## Shannanigan

to this entire thread, I must interject:

 :FRlol:  

And, Robin: I love you!  :Biggrin:

----------


## RobinHood3000

Haha, aww, shucks...  :Blush:  ...

I seem to have that effect on people.  :Cool:

----------


## Syme

Let's not.

----------


## Danika_Valin

I find it surprising that someone, who hasn't yet distinguished himself in the literary world and written something worthy of reverence, can be arrogant enough to create a manifesto and tell others how to write.

It's absurd, or absurd at least to me. Am I alone in this opinion?

----------


## Psycheinaboat

I think WolfLarsen was well-meaning with his manifesto, perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek, too. Of course, if we all listened to him we would lack the creativity and originality of which he spoke.

There is a quote from Bukowski about art that came to mind while reading this thread. I cannot for the life of me remember, but it was something about structure taking shape when the spirit dies. In other words the more structured the writing, the more soulless it is.

----------


## RobinHood3000

The question is, however...which has less structure: that which has no form, or that which is given the lack of form?

----------


## Kelly_Sprout

When I sit down to write more than the wordplay and chatting that I do here on the forum, in other words, when I sit down to write creatively, either storytelling or composing poetry, my spirit flows ahead of my fingers, daring me to keep up. Afterwards, when the rush of chasing my muse wears off, I go back and edit, and edit, and rewrite, and edit some more. In other words, the structure DOES take shape after the spirit has retired. The result is a readable, enjoyable, understandable structure of story and grammar or poetry and poetical tools and devices. My thoughts, my ideas, my vision are the clay but language and vocabulary and structure are the tools that allow the inner art to emerge from the clay.

Quite simply, Mr. Larson is wrong if he believes literary anarchy is superior to design, structure, and careful consideration by the writer to his words.

----------


## Psycheinaboat

I'm with you, Kelly. Everyone would laugh if they knew how long it takes me to finish my product. Each word has been stressed over!

I don't know how the Beats did it!

----------


## Charles Darnay

a lot of drugs?

----------


## TEND

> When I sit down to write more than the wordplay and chatting that I do here on the forum, in other words, when I sit down to write creatively, either storytelling or composing poetry, my spirit flows ahead of my fingers, daring me to keep up. Afterwards, when the rush of chasing my muse wears off, I go back and edit, and edit, and rewrite, and edit some more. In other words, the structure DOES take shape after the spirit has retired. The result is a readable, enjoyable, understandable structure of story and grammar or poetry and poetical tools and devices. My thoughts, my ideas, my vision are the clay but language and vocabulary and structure are the tools that allow the inner art to emerge from the clay.
> 
> Quite simply, Mr. Larson is wrong if he believes literary anarchy is superior to design, structure, and careful consideration by the writer to his words.


Very nicely put!

----------


## SleepyWitch

who said structure and creativity have to be exclusive? to me most anything has structure even if it looks a bit chaotic at first glance... 'structure' doesn't need to mean 'symmetrical'

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Let's not.


heheh  :Smile:  that's a very good argument  :Smile:  the best anyone has given so far.. *I'm serious*

----------


## ktd222

I think we all have writing tendencies during any mode of writing we do, and are these not different forms of writing in different states? I think there can be something said about form existing in any type of writing we do, so then the question is can we, ourselves, identify and keep these states from overrunning the other? I must admit Im not as confident as you, Kelly, when it comes to editing material Id written in moments of inspiration - I always end up second guessing the previous edit and what ends up happening is words from other authors begin creeping into my work. So then is this final version my work or another authors work(I think I said this on the Poem Of The Week thread)?

----------


## RobinHood3000

Ernest Hemingway, on first drafts...

"The first draft of anything is ****."


Words for writers to live by.

----------


## holograph

haha this was highly amusing to read. Writing and reading, Mr. Larson, are as personal in experience as eating or sewing. What, drop the home cooked chicken and mashed potatoes for some pink colored sushi with half a burnt rice ball? No sir.

----------


## MCory1

If I may add my $0.02 into the mix here...

To me, the whole purpose of writing is to have what I write read by someone else. Whether it's as simple as an image or scene that I have in mind that I just want to share with others, or if I have some socio/political message or chunk of worldly wisdom I want to "grace" the world with, its useless if no one ever sees it. I have a sneaking suspicion I'm not the only writer who feels that way; I'm sure one or two other people in this world like to have people read their work.

Going back to your musical example, go out and ask some people on the street who wrote _The Rite of Spring_. Ask them to hum some of Bartok's _Mikrokosmos_ or any of Cage's tone rows. Then ask them who wrote _Ode to Joy_, or to sing a bar or two of the _Hallelujah_ chorus. See if you can find someone who'd recognize _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_ or _Claire de Lune_. If you honestly find more people who are more familiar with the avant garde music than the more common, un-offensive classical music, then let me know and I'll seriously reconsider my beliefs.

People like structure. People like order and rules and logic. People like proper punctuation and capitalization. That's what people expect, and anyone who goes against that is considered too arrogant for most people to waste their time on. At least that's how I am when I read: "You think you're so special that the rules set and followed by countless other people before you don't apply to you? Whatever." 

If used occaisionally, breaking a rule can be the greatest thing in a story or poem; otherwise it's just noise. Like Rite of Spring. Besides, if people start rioting because of my writing then I need to seriously reconsider my target audience--people with that little of a life, to get that worked up because of little ol' me, are not people who should have access to the written word.

----------


## ktd222

> Ernest Hemingway, on first drafts...
> 
> "The first draft of anything is ****."
> 
> 
> Words for writers to live by.


I disagree.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Why is that?

Well, at any rate, it's held true in my experience. I look back on the things I wrote at age 13 and I am absolutely appalled that I had the audacity to make people suffer through reading it, and shamed that they had the charity to call it "umm...nice."

----------


## SleepyWitch

> To me, the whole purpose of writing is to have what I write read by someone else. Whether it's as simple as an image or scene that I have in mind that I just want to share with others, or if I have some socio/political message or chunk of worldly wisdom I want to "grace" the world with, its useless if no one ever sees it. I have a sneaking suspicion I'm not the only writer who feels that way; I'm sure one or two other people in this world like to have people read their work.
> ..........
> 
> If used occaisionally, breaking a rule can be the greatest thing in a story or poem; otherwise it's just noise.


very good points MCory1  :Smile:

----------


## ktd222

Pleaseyou dont write for other people do you? Im sure you felt your writing was true to you at the time - and as far as Im concerned thats all that matters. 

I do not feel the first draft of anything is bleep. I think the first draft of anything you write, in part, has in it your own unrestrained, true style, that cant be edited for fear the exuberance in which it was written be lost.

----------


## RobinHood3000

I DO write for other people -- writing for me is not so much a form of self-expression (although it's that too) as it is a presentation art.

Unfortunately, there's a difference between "exuberant/unrestrained" and "good," at least when writing fiction. The human subconscious moves and thinks through far too many steps (compared to how fast the human mind reads) to be easily understood, at least when you're trying to express a cohesive plot (I usually write short stories, so being understood and well-expressed is critical). Pacing, characterization, and setting all demand careful and deliberate consideration to be effective.

----------


## ktd222

I find that false as well. I can easily write something cohesive that's sparked by a moment without needing to continually revise to suite the mysterious standard of "effective."

----------


## Kelly_Sprout

> I find that false as well. I can easily write something cohesive that's sparked by a moment without needing to continually revise to suite the mysterious standard of "effective."


And how much did you say that your technique earns you per year? I must have had my mind somewhere else when you mentioned it the first time.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> I find that false as well. I can easily write something cohesive that's sparked by a moment without needing to continually revise to suite the mysterious standard of "effective."


And for how long does it continue to feel cohesive?

Myself, I've found that words that make wonderful sense when I write them are absolutely formless and blithering later.

----------


## ktd222

> And how much did you say that your technique earns you per year? I must have had my mind somewhere else when you mentioned it the first time.


It has earned me nothing except good grades so I'm willing to accept that for now. I'm sure money is the measure of success for the great writers of the world.  :Wink:

----------


## Kelly_Sprout

Making arguments about our writing skills or techniques based on our own perceptions of our skills and techniques is a very subjective way of analyzing writing. Worse still is to put words into the mouths of our fictionalized, sterotypical readers.

"Hi. I'm Tim Leary. My readers think that my best writing is done while I'm high."
"Hi. I'm Earnie Hemmingway. My readers think that my best writing is done while I'm drunk."
"Hi. I'm Wolf Larsen. My readers think that my best writing is done while I'm horny."
"Hi. I'm Robin. My readers think that my best writing comes while I'm editing."

Some, all, or none of these might be accurate because we here in this discussion are making claims for what our readers think, when in fact, not one of us dwells inside the minds of even one of our readers. Therefore, these claims, no matter how instinctive they might feel to us, are nothing more than subjective opinions.

Money, on the other hand, comes from readers. If readers like it, they buy it. Money becomes a rather objective way of confirming or refuting your claims, my claims, Robin's claims, Wolf's claims, Hemmingway's claims. Perhaps what flows out of you in the moment of feverish scribbling while the inspiration is fresh actually does earn you A's. Who am I to say? But does it, will it, can it, should it earn you money? Do you have readers? Robin does. I do. Hemmingway did. I have no idea about the others in my list. So, all I've heard is subjective opinions, including my own, I dare say.

----------


## Kelly_Sprout

PS. I just edited my last post. I changed one word. That one word completely reversed the meaning of the sentence it appears within. That one sentence was weak, difficult to read, and when taken apart grammatically, nonsense. It is probably the way I would have _spoken_ that sentence, but it needed to be edited. My meaning is now much clearer than it otherwise would have been. Damn that obtrusive grammar! My spontaneous creativity has now been forever besmirched. For thousands of years, High School teachers will point to my writing as a example of a failed literary machine! Ah, the sorrow and the grandeur of it all.

----------


## ktd222

> Making arguments about our writing skills or techniques based on our own perceptions of our skills and techniques is a very subjective way of analyzing writing. Worse still is to put words into the mouths of our fictionalized, sterotypical readers.
> 
> "Hi. I'm Tim Leary. My readers think that my best writing is done while I'm high."
> "Hi. I'm Earnie Hemmingway. My readers think that my best writing is done while I'm drunk."
> "Hi. I'm Wolf Larsen. My readers think that my best writing is done while I'm horny."
> "Hi. I'm Robin. My readers think that my best writing comes while I'm editing."
> 
> Some, all, or none of these might be accurate because we here in this discussion are making claims for what our readers think, when in fact, not one of us dwells inside the minds of even one of our readers. Therefore, these claims, no matter how instinctive they might feel to us, are nothing more than subjective opinions.


Ok, I agree with this. I don't know where your going but sure, I agree with this. I was just disagreeing with some of you.




> Money, on the other hand, comes from readers. If readers like it, they buy it. Money becomes a rather objective way of confirming or refuting your claims, my claims, Robin's claims, Wolf's claims, Hemmingway's claims. Perhaps what flows out of you in the moment of feverish scribbling while the inspiration is fresh actually does earn you A's. Who am I to say? But does it, will it, can it, should it earn you money? Do you have readers? Robin does. I do. Hemmingway did. I have no idea about the others in my list. So, all I've heard is subjective opinions, including my own, I dare say.


My mom always gets first crack at reading my stuff.  :Tongue:  . She always says she'd be the first one in line to buy my book of poetry when it comes out so let me go and finish college first, okay?

----------


## ktd222

> PS. I just edited my last post. I changed one word. That one word completely reversed the meaning of the sentence it appears within. That one sentence was weak, difficult to read, and when taken apart grammatically, nonsense. It is probably the way I would have _spoken_ that sentence, but it needed to be edited. My meaning is now much clearer than it otherwise would have been. Damn that obtrusive grammar! My spontaneous creativity has now been forever besmirched. For thousands of years, High School teachers will point to my writing as a example of a failed literary machine! Ah, the sorrow and the grandeur of it all.


My eyes are starting to swell with tears...oh the Unnamable days...

----------


## ktd222

> And for how long does it continue to feel cohesive?
> 
> Myself, I've found that words that make wonderful sense when I write them are absolutely formless and blithering later.


Definitely it feels more cohesive on the first draft than any proceeding drafts, which I feel gets more rigid and long winded rather than making things clearer. I'm not saying editing doesn't have its place in writing, I'm just horrified at the prospect of losing the moment and feeling in which these words were created by using my editing eye.

----------


## RobinHood3000

More long-winded? Whenever I get into editing, it's more often merciless trimming than anything else, although translations from description to dialogue (the mildly clichéd "show, don't tell" maxim) are the changes I make second most often.

I find that my writing is driven far more by mood than by emotion -- what kind of writing do you usually do?

----------


## MCory1

> Pleaseyou dont write for other people do you? Im sure you felt your writing was true to you at the time - and as far as Im concerned thats all that matters.


Write _for_ other people? No, personally I write _for_ myself. But I write with the intent of having other people read what I write--otherwise it's just a diary (or journal) entry, and any literary value it may hold is purely coincidental.




> I find that false as well. I can easily write something cohesive that's sparked by a moment without needing to continually revise to suite the mysterious standard of "effective."


I give you kudos then, or praise, or mad props, or however you want to call it. I'm only able to churn out a handful of paragraphs--maybe a page or two--at one sitting that doesn't need to be revised, and even then I normally leave something vital out, misspell half the words, or used some phrasing/wording that sounds like crap because I was trying too hard to just get what I had in mind down on paper.

About the only thing I write that I don't go back and revise, snip, or extend, are poems that I write for cathartic purposes. Most of those are crap that I wouldn't waste anyone's time with--even rereading them myself they mean nothing, and I know what my inspiration was when I wrote them.




> I'm not saying editing doesn't have its place in writing, I'm just horrified at the prospect of losing the moment and feeling in which these words were created by using my editing eye.


It's been my experience in the world of art--both as a writer and a musician--that the impromptu "seat-of-your-pants" style of creating will get you nowhere on its own. It's great practice, but you need to learn to keep the moment across the span of many sessions (be it days, weeks, hours, whatever.) I have a very short attention span; if I don't finish something in one sitting, odds are it won't get done. What you say implies that you're similar--maybe not quite as extreme, but for whatever reason, when you write "The End", you feel your work is done (or at least you force your work to be done.)

That's a really bad habit to get into. Sometimes "the moment" can really cloud you up, and you aren't able to look at your work objectively enough to see what's broken and what's not. I've gone back over many things I've written--literature and music--that I left as "complete" because any further work would have lost the original feeling. Almost all of it was terrible reading/listening to it after the fact, because I didn't go back and put that extra polish on it when my mind had cleared a little.

That's what editing is supposed to be--that extra polish, not a reworking of the piece. If you find yourself completely changing the story, or losing the emotion, or just turning it into crap when you edit it, then stop editing and start again on a fresh copy of your draft. All you're trying to do is fix the typos and make sure it makes sense (ie decent grammar, most of the vital details are explained, etc.) 

Okay, I think I've done more than enough to keep this thread off topic  :Smile:

----------


## SleepyWitch

> It's been my experience in the world of art--both as a writer and a musician--that the impromptu "seat-of-your-pants" style of creating will get you nowhere on its own. ......................
> 
> That's a really bad habit to get into. Sometimes "the moment" can really cloud you up, and you aren't able to look at your work objectively enough to see what's broken and what's not. .................


even the Romantics and other writers who believed in 'genius' did not in fact blurt out whatever came to their mind, even though that's what they proclaimed in their manifestos
although the _effect_ of their poems etc was to look like a "spontaneous overflow of emotions" (???) the process of writing them was not impromptu!

"Sometimes "the moment" can really cloud you up" yep, I've made this experience, too... I started writing on a novel a couple of years ago (still haven't made much progress) and i had this stupid chapter, where there's a voice inside a girl's head. at first, it's not clear who this voice is and it will only become clear at the end of the book. BUT the voice belongs to another character in the story who's the narrator at the same time..... (this will also become clear later and it's important for understanding the novel). so obviously, seeing as it's not a science fiction novel and the girl is not crazy, there needs to be an explanation how the voice got there... are you still with me???  :Smile:  hehe, after this chapter, the voice leaves the girls mind and never comes back again and we learn about the girls life during the 20 years following this chapter (which is narrated in a pretty tradiotional way, no voices and weird shifts of perspective).. sooooooooooo, the girl does not acknowledge that she heard voices inside her head by the way... and also, this whole voice thing is not actually about what the girl feels, but it's about the other character..... of course, the very simple, immature and a-10-year-old-could-have-come-up-with-this background is that the character who the voice belongs to is having a nightmare (i.e. that she is stuck inside the girls body and mind). but the nightmare ends after this chapter and from that point on we get the girl's real life.... on the other hand, i want there to be some confusion... coz the voice is from the future and IF she could be inside the girls head, she could give her advice and the girl would avoid some stupid mistakes.... but of course this isn't possible... nevertheless, the voice must be there because it makes you think: what if the girl could have heard the advice and listened to it?
ehrerhm....
soooo, what i did first was I had a dialoge between the girl and the voice... and the voice could even influence the girl's behaviour a bit...
but i didn't like this... so i just took a break from writing for a couple of months  :Frown:  and yesterday i had a new inspiration: i will make the voice talk to the girl, but the girls reactions will be ambiguous.. they could either be things she would have done anyway or reactions to what the voice tells her to do... and she will not talk to the voice directly....

i think this is much better and fits in almost perfectly with what i want to express but it took LOTS of time to figure out....
i mean, most of the time, when I don't revise it's because I'm lazy or feel inferior and think "well, if i can't just jot something down and then there's my great novel with drums and alarums, it's because i have no talent"... but that's not true at all... i think most great writers had talent + were willing to work hard and revise a lot

----------


## ktd222

> It's been my experience in the world of art--both as a writer and a musician--that the impromptu "seat-of-your-pants" style of creating will get you nowhere on its own. It's great practice, but you need to learn to keep the moment across the span of many sessions (be it days, weeks, hours, whatever.) I have a very short attention span; if I don't finish something in one sitting, odds are it won't get done. What you say implies that you're similar--maybe not quite as extreme, but for whatever reason, when you write "The End", you feel your work is done (or at least you force your work to be done.)
> 
> That's a really bad habit to get into. Sometimes "the moment" can really cloud you up, and you aren't able to look at your work objectively enough to see what's broken and what's not. I've gone back over many things I've written--literature and music--that I left as "complete" because any further work would have lost the original feeling. Almost all of it was terrible reading/listening to it after the fact, because I didn't go back and put that extra polish on it when my mind had cleared a little.


Sheesh! I never said to never edit, just be careful not to ruin the moment during the process of editing. Did you know James Wright penned this poem 
on the way back to Minneapolis after stopping off the highway to observe a pair of ponies fenced off from the them(Bly and Wright). 
[Bly, American Poetry]

_ A Blessing

Just off the highway to Rochester, Minnesota,
Twilight bounds softly forth on the grass.
And the eyes of those two Indian ponies
Darken with kindness.
They have come gladly out of the willows
To welcome my friend and me.
We step over the barbed wire into the pasture
Where they have been grazing all day, alone.
They ripple tensely, they can hardly contain their happiness
That we have come.
They bow shyly as wet swans. They love each other.
There is no loneliness like theirs.
At home once more,
They begin munching the young tufts of spring in the darkness.
I would like to hold the slenderer one in my arms,
For she has walked over to me
And nuzzled my left hand.
She is black and white,
Her mane falls wild on her forehead,
And the light breeze moves me to caress her long ear
That is delicate as the skin over a girl's wrist.
Suddenly I realize
That if I stepped out of my body I would break
Into blossom._

You think all of the words that create this beautiful imagery could have been been better written in a moment of recollection and editing? Just because we disagree doesn't me wrong.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Did he publish it in its original form?

----------


## ktd222

> More long-winded? Whenever I get into editing, it's more often merciless trimming than anything else, although translations from description to dialogue (the mildly clichéd "show, don't tell" maxim) are the changes I make second most often.
> 
> I find that my writing is driven far more by mood than by emotion -- what kind of writing do you usually do?


Yes, I end up forcing words in replacement of initial words that better captured the moment for the sake of _thinking_ it's better. It makes what I write sound mechanical and I don't like that.

On my own time just poetry.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Well, if words don't fit as well, why put them in? I know that's probably an oversimplification, but ultimately, you're in control of the editing process.

----------


## ktd222

Because when I edit I'm in a different state of mind.

----------


## RobinHood3000

I take it, then, you find it difficult to get into a similar state of mind?

Isn't some poetry meant to convey the state of mind in which one was in when one wrote it?

----------


## ktd222

Yes, its not like snaping a picture and looking at it whenever you want, but being witnessed and surrounded by it. 

Is there a catagory, I don't know?

----------


## WolfLarsen

> how are writers supposed to shock all of these groups at a time? plus, to shock them in a 'meaningful' way, i.e. one that will make them reflect about their views and make them change their way of acting??? would have to be something that shows them that they are all in the same boat.... dunno if plays about orgies can achieve this, really....


So said Sleepy Witch

My response is that while I do not set out to offend bigots. I always find that they are offended when I act and write like me. The same is true for many other creative people. 

I am not trying to teach bigots anything. I throw what's in my mind on the paper and if the bigots and puritans are offended I figure I'm doing something right.

Cheers,

Wolf Laren

----------


## Charles Darnay

> So said Sleepy Witch
> 
> My response is that while I do not set out to offend bigots. I always find that they are offended when I act and write like me. The same is true for many other creative people. 
> 
> I am not trying to teach bigots anything. I throw what's in my mind on the paper and if the bigots and puritans are offended I figure I'm doing something right.



I don't get it - bigots are creative peoples now? And you're point doesn't make sense nor does it add to your argument about WHY literature should offend. You saying that YOUR literature happens to offend becasue you are writing what's on your mind.... well, can't people still write how they feel like, what's on their mind, without having to offend. I myself usually write what is on my mind, I haven't perfected the art of writing what is on someone else's mind (that would be cool), and personally, my writing is not all that offensive... maybe a satirical comment here or there, but nothing shocking.

Anyways, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this "bigots are creative people" bit

----------


## RobinHood3000

I think he means that, because his writing offends people, so should everyone else's -- hence the manifesto.

----------


## WolfLarsen

Oh yes - another thing - I do not understand why some literary magazines are considered prestigious and others are not. Often - but not always - when I open a "prestigious" "widely-respected" literary magazine I find horrible "poetry" that rhymes.

However, many excellent literary magazines that publish exciting innovative work are not given the kind of publicity and support that they deserve. 

How unfortunate. 

Cheers,
Wolf Larsen

----------


## RobinHood3000

Poetry that rhymes -- oh, how horrid. What has the world come to, when words _rhyme_?? Oh, the huMANity!!!

----------


## Jean-Baptiste

That is what is called funny, RobinHood. Yes, often a poet will use rhyme schemes as a means of making connections between concepts that are either similar or contradictory, but are in danger of being missed in the reading. It can add an entire layer to the piece, plus the layer that was in danger. Some of my favorite poems contain no rhyme scheme, but I'm often impressed by a multilayered rhyme. I actually discovered this technique first in Ezra Pound. In addition to this, his manner of reading his own poetry is like nothing I have ever heard. At first I just wanted him to stop, because I thought he was screwing it all up, but his stresses and accents brought out an entirely different version and meaning for me. But, if Mr. Larsen would like to admit with his own brand of humility that he far surpasses Pound in technique and knowledge of poetry, I'll listen.

----------


## WolfLarsen

A homeless Poet on the street recited a poem of his own to me a few weeks ago that was better than anything I've read by Ezra Pound. Lots of Poets are better than Ezra Pound. Just because much of the academic establishment sings his praises doesn't make Ezra a good Poet.

Cheers,

Wolf Larsen

----------


## RobinHood3000

And of course, we have all come to trust Mr. Larsen's impartial judgment concerning the quality of poetry.

----------


## WolfLarsen

Too many books in the bookstore are so much alike. If you pick up a book of prestigious literary fiction by a respected author and you compare it to one of Louis L’amour’s books there often doesn't seem to be much difference in the style of writing - it's like the publishing conglomerates are selling us the same kind of writing under different packaging.

The literary world is a sham. Many people in the literary world only care about money and prestige. Exciting innovative literature is the last thing on the minds of many in the literary world. 

I was sitting in a coffee shop recently when I heard one writer say to another writer, “The major publishing conglomerates are nothing but whorehouses, and the literary agents are pimps – they’re literary pimps – and many authors are nothing but whores!”

“What a hypocrite you are!” exclaimed the other writer, “You have a literary pimp - and one of your books was published by one of the six whorehouses!”

“I know! I’m a whore!” responded the first writer.

I laughed (quietly). 

Cheers!

Wolf Larsen

----------


## RobinHood3000

> Many people in the literary world only care about money and prestige.


That "many" people care so is obvious. That "most" people care so is less obvious.

Is that to say that you are motivated out of a love of humanity and the goodness in your heart?

Even if you could presume to divine the motives of the literary world, there's nothing wrong with caring about money and prestige.

----------


## Jean-Baptiste

Thanks for your thorough rebutal, Jamesian. I enjoyed reading the post; I agree with your views.

----------


## Nightwalk

Hello WolfLarsen, excellent thread, groundbreaking in fact in such a forum  :FRlol: . Judging from your manifesto and your writing I could tell that we perhaps read and appreciate the same kind of books. Unfortunately, most of the posters who responded to the thread are cut off a different cloth, much to our amusement and condescension.  :Biggrin:  

Although conventional writing is the standard by which all literature is based, an intelligent and open-minded reader will appreciate profoundly the literary mavericks who push literature as far as it can go, opening vistas and new avenues for expression which did not exist before. It frees the mind to explore and experiment with other modes of artistic endeavor which may more accurately illustrate the artist's state of mind and emotion.

As to the relevance of experimental, non-mainstream art to that which the masses patronise, here's my take on it: James Joyce may not be as well-known or as much read as your Stephen King's, Dan Brown's, and Danielle Steel's, but anyone who is aware knows who the better writer is, much more the one who will be remembered and respected in posterity.  :Smile: 

ktd222: More success to you and your writing, you're on the right track. Who knows, you just might come up with another _The Waste Land_ which will bridge the then from the now.  :Cool:

----------


## paradisefound

It all depends on how you measure art. 

Would you agree that the best art moves someone intent on remaining unmoved?

Do you think that stupid masses generally reject anything worth being called art?

Then art ought to be measured by how many dumbfcuks can be moved. It would certainly be reflective of how the work affected society, since we all know that society is largely driven by dumbfcuks working from manuals written by non-dumbfcuks.

This generally implies financial gain, though it seems crass to mention it.

Why do I choose to measure art by dumbfcuks instead of educated cynics? Because while a cynic can deduce what the artist meant him to feel, a dumbfcuk either feels, or he does not.

This does not perhaps, apply to art of a more intellectual strain. That art can only be measured by time - by whether it endures and becomes the subject of multitudinous inferior imitations attempting to reflect a glimmer of genius, or whether it does not.

However, I do agree with WolfLarsen about pissing on the doorsteps of major publishing houses. But only because in the world of dumbfcuks, pissing on something is a necessary sign of respect before entering.

----------


## Nightwalk

Hello paradisefound, welcome to the forums.




> Would you agree that the best art moves someone intent on remaining unmoved?


That may be, but not always. The greatest work of art can be totally insignificant to someone who just can't care for it. It depends on the individual.




> Do you think that stupid masses generally reject anything worth being called art?


Not always. If the stupid masses respect Shakespeare even if they haven't seen a single letter of his works then that's good as the great bard certainly deserves it ( moreso with his poetry ).




> Then art ought to be measured by how many dumbfcuks can be moved. It would certainly be reflective of how the work affected society, since we all know that society is largely driven by dumbfcuks working from manuals written by non-dumbfcuks.


Have mercy! Not everyone is a dumbfcuk as you call it and if art is going to be based on your suggestion then we'll all be forced with material of a _Star_ and _Hello!_ standard!

----------


## RobinHood3000

What's wrong with Shakespeare, other than that he rhymes?

----------


## SleepyWitch

> As to the relevance of experimental, non-mainstream art to that which the masses patronise, here's my take on it: James Joyce may not be as well-known or as much-read as your Stephen King's, Dan Brown's, and Danielle Steele's, but anyone who is aware knows who the better writer is, much more the one who will be remembered and respected in posterity.


oh... so you've been talking Dan Brown all this time? Why didn't you say so?  :Eek2:  I thought you were talking about literature  :Biggrin:  Well, I completely agree that Dan Brown and Stephen King are cr*p writers. 




> Too many books in the bookstore are so much alike. If you pick up a book of prestigious literary fiction by a respected author and you compare it to one of Louis Lamours books there often doesn't seem to be much difference in the style of writing - it's like the publishing conglomerates are selling us the same kind of writing under different packaging.


who's Louis L'amour? 
I haven't had that experience myself... I admit there often aren't any definite differences between writing styles. But on the other hand, there are only so many ways to write a novel, for example, so what do you expect? If you lump together all non-absurd styles into one category and oppose them to the kind of style you like, you're not likely to be sensitive to finer distinctions.
In fact, I've often been suprised at the amount of variation between different (contemporary) quality writers' style... e.g. John Irving, Philip Roth, Jeffrey Eugenides, Kazuo Ishiguro, Vikram Seth, Louise Doughty, Saul Bellow (sorry, I only know a handful of contemporary writers).. I don't think they all read the same

----------


## Kelly_Sprout

> Hello WolfLarsen, excellent thread, groundbreaking in fact in such a forum . Judging from your manifesto and your writing I could tell that we perhaps read and appreciate the same kind of books. Unfortunately, most of the posters who responded to the thread are cut off a different cloth, much to our amusement and condescension.  
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> As to the relevance of experimental, non-mainstream art to that which the masses patronise, here's my take on it: James Joyce may not be as well-known or as much-read as your Stephen King's, Dan Brown's, and Danielle Steele's, but anyone who is aware knows who the better writer is, much more the one who will be remembered and respected in posterity.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't James Joyce write poetry that (gasp!) *rhymes?*

----------


## AllisonForbes

Wolf, 

Your writing appears to do just what you suggest. Boldly go where most won't. I think unique should be the watchword of writers, indeed, if it's not then how does it appeal to anyone? 

However, being unique does not smash the traditions of excellence before it, rather it assimilates and builds upon it. We tend to stand on the shoulders of the great authors, just as they stood on the shoulders of the classic authors before their time. 

I think more than striving to be unique, one should say something of value. It can be said within any genre or any manner of writing you want, but there must be something that corresponds to the human spirit. The fears, the joys, the love, the wars, all of that is worthy of writing about in a compelling manner.

----------


## WolfLarsen

Hello everybody.

Sleepywitch stated:




> ...there are only so many ways to write a novel, for example, so what do you expect?


With all due respect you are wrong. Of course, there are only so many ways to write a novel that will be published by the traditional publishing industry. In addition, there are only so many ways to write a novel that will be respected by academia.

In the old days if you wrote a wildly creative novel it would rarely if ever find its way into the bookstore. This is still true today. 

Academia, with its emphasis on the classics and excellence in tradition, is usually hostile to innovation in the literary world. 

The publishing conglomerates, with their single-minded pursuit of profit are only concerned about money. And they certainly aren't going to risk money by publishing innovative literature.

My guess is that the greatest and most innovative literary works of mankind ended up in the garbage. My guess is that the celebrated classics of "excellent literature" that are part of the canon are NOT the greatest works ever written. Why did the greatest works of literature probably end up in the garbage? For the same reason that Vincent Van Gogh's paintings would have ended up in the garbage if he didn't have an appreciative brother named Theo who later pushed Vincent's Van Gogh's work after he died.

Today writers do not have to be slaves to academia and the publishing conglomerates. With print-on-demand, the Internet, and Amazon.com Writers do not need the publishing conglomerates or academia or a review in the New York Times or any of that.

In addition, with word processing Writers are also freer to be creative and experiment than ever before. 

The time is ripe for a revolution in literature. In this revolution there is no need for isms as in cubism or impressionism. In this literary revolution every Writer will be his own ism - every Writer will be his own literary movement - every Writer will be his own literary revolution. 

Cheers!

Wolf Larsen

----------


## RobinHood3000

Completely coincidentally, there is also at least a googolplex of ways to write absolute garbage.

----------


## Kelly_Sprout

I thought I would contribute some samples of the kind of creative writing produced by liberal creative freedom and the abandonment of the rules of grammar. These are actual examples copied and pasted from a broad spectrum of other forums (NOT LitNet).



> as i sit here staring at this blank computer screen, my fingers aren't moving but my mind is talking flight. thinking not of the topic at hand rather of the world and the people in it. this simple life of mine is quite complicated and hard to express, but i'll give it a shot in the dark before i switch gears for my third shift role at the store.





> My Writting Space?
> 
> It's 2 desks adjacent to each other in a small corner by an open door with my tie dyed blue curtains tied up each side in our lounge/artists studio.
> 
> The clutter on the desk is as if an atom bomb just struck!!
> There are various pictures on the wall of my drawings, Rick's paintings and an old black and white print of an ancient photo of my grandparents at a fancy dress party somewhere in the Orient with other members of "Eastern Extension" of Brittish Cable & Wireless. A painting of a Russian church in Novgorod done by the daughter of a Russian correspondant that I hear once in a blue moon!
> 
> A butterfly about, sometimes monarch caterpillars climbed up on Rick's painting. A frying pan clock that resembles bronze and isn't. A calenday with gardening hints etc...
> 
> ...





> She was a young lady,
> 
> little more than a Girl
> 
> he was a strong young man and not much more
> 
> did he know about the world
> 
> She was evrything He adored 
> ...

----------


## WolfLarsen

The traditional publishing industry: endless books that are too much alike and low paid workers putting in loooong hours.

I do not blame people working in the traditional publishing industry for the fact that too many books are too much alike. Even if an editor personally LOVES a manuscript it does not matter if the work is not commercial. If that manuscript does not have STRONG commercial potential none of the major conglomerates will publish it.

I do not envy editors and other workers in the traditional publishing industry. They often put in very long hours. Their jobs are very demanding. They are often paid low wages that don't go far in expensive New York City where many of them live.

There is no job security. Employee turnover is high. 

I also notice that few traditionally published books bear a "union bug" or union emblem. Perhaps the people printing up the books aren't paid all that well either.

I wonder if workers in the traditional publishing industry are like other workers throughout America - trying to do the jobs of two or three people on half the wages they rightfully deserve.

Cheers!

Wolf Larsen

----------


## brandon w

Who are you to decide what makes for good writing!? You seem to be the type that would TRY and be all those things. No great writer wasted time with what has worked in the past or pretended to know what a “great writer” was. Your "wrecking ball" is more like a massive that slowly oozes down our walls and fills the air with stink. Do you know what we do with that? We do not hate it, we do not bow to it, we do not admire it, we just get a hose and wash it down a drain where it will never be thought of. We will just sweep it aside and leave it as the crap that it was; 

*edited by Logos to remove flames*

----------


## Logos

People are entitled to their opinions but please do not flame.

----------


## aeroport

> I do not envy editors and other workers in the traditional publishing industry. They often put in very long hours. Their jobs are very demanding.


You might perhaps do the COPY-EDITORS a favor, at any rate, by seeing to it that a certain "manifesto" is not allowed into circulation...

Incidentally, I agree with you on a several of these points. I do, of course, agree a good deal with the terse and eloquent PAPAM as well, but that is not of the moment. 

I might add, though, that self-publishing is nothing new. Writers have done it since the dawn of time. And let us not overlook the fact that the average literary consumer who reads the tripe from the "major publishing conglomerates" is really not likely to know good writing anyway - so what makes you think that fantastic distribution for literature that (judging by these standards of yours) would likely not even be understood by such a consumer - or indeed by anyone but yourself - would be of any benefit?

By the way, what's wrong with emphasizing "excellence" in literature? It isn't actually like that's a purely subjective description. There are reasons Henry James is considered "great" and Larsen's Laws are considered gruel - pretty much the same reaons, in fact... I know it is perhaps with these reasons that you've a quarrel, but they are, in fact, even the same reasons that a reader cares about an author who, if nothing else, was considerate enough to mold his thoughts into well-formed, articulate sentences. Respect your reader, or he/she will not respect you. You seem to be articulating, above all else, a desire for everyone to see the validity of inverting the idea of "ends and means". I sincerely believe that it is NOT that you are some kind of misunderstood genius who toils nightly in his writing laboratory, enlaving himself to the production of a masterpiece which the world will never understand, but rather that you are restless and think that if you can come up with a "unique" MEANS of telling your story then somehow you are compensating for a poor story - or none at all. It happens all the time - "Fight Club" totally screwed up the way people look at "original" writing...

----------


## Dry_Snail

There are only 2 types of literature

Good Literature and Bad Literature

If it is good it will find its way...no need to be a propogandist about it...

If it is bad, no Propoganda can help it survive.

----------


## Shalot

> There are only 2 types of literature
> 
> Good Literature and Bad Literature
> 
> If it is good it will find its way...no need to be a propogandist about it...
> 
> If it is bad, no Propoganda can help it survive.


Preach on man

----------


## aeroport

> If it is bad, no Propoganda can help it survive.


Tell that to Dan Brown.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Kelly_Sprout

To the participants on boths sides of this discussion, I'm curious what reactions any of you may have if you do both of the following: (a) Empathetically absorb and (b) intellectually analyze something I've written, which can be found here on the forums at http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=19496


I point it out here because I'm not sure which side will like it more or hate it more vehemently. You see, Larson's "Manifesto" cannot be judged to have meaning unless it is applied to actual created works.

----------


## SleepyWitch

yawn, I'm running out of nasty things to say but I can't help posting in here, it's such fun  :Smile: 

let's all ravish wrecking balls (on a heliport on top of a phallic skyscraper overlooking the city in the sunset, but only when there's a lot of dust blowing up from the fields outside because there's a drought due to global warming). There will be enough wrecking balls to go around for everyone at SleepyWitch's orgy.

----------


## JackShea

"All poets that rhyme should be castrated at once!"

Why not twice?

And what if the Poet happens to be a Poetess?

And I thought you said words such as poet. poetess. etc should all be capitalized?

I am confused...but what else is new?

----------


## HCabret

> 3. All poets that rhyme should be castrated at once!


creativity has no bounds. By telling me not to or youre going to cut off my penis is a very totalitarian position and not one conducive to free expression.




> 4. Poetry and prose should be immoral and blasphemous! If your poetry shocks and offends religious extremists, puritanical feminists, politicians, black nationalists, white supremacists, and everybody else than youre probably doing something right! The paintings of Picasso, the symphonies of Mahler, and the sculptures of Rodin shocked and offended many people too! The last thing the world needs is more boring polite literature!


can i offend communists, socialists, marxists, libertarians, anarchists, or revolutionaries? Or are these off limits? 




> 7. There is no god as written in the bible. Rather, every Human Being that lives on earth is a god because Humans are the most creative animals on the planet. Therefore, Artists are gods!


is there a god as written in koran? Or in the Pali Canon? Or in Walden?




> 8. Who cares about the rules of grammar? Take a baseball bat and SMASH the rules of grammar into pieces! Language must obey the wishes of the Writer. The Writer should take language and mold it and reshape it as he sees fit just like a Sculptor.


another rule?! Dude, you are really limiting my creativity here.

9


> . Poets and Writers need to look at the rest of the art world and learn. Poetry and fiction currently appear to be the most backward mediums of the art world. Painting has raced forward like a fast car, jazz music has run forward like a rabbit, even classical music in the last hundred years has left the writing world behind in both innovation and boldness. Writing and poetry are progressing forward at a crawl  just like a snail. All Poets and Writers should think of themselves as wrecking ball operators  we must SMASH the literary world as we know it into bits with a bold and revolutionary writing!


did i miss something or are you just reading the right books? Finnegans Wake isn't weird enough for you? Or House of Leaves? Or Infinite Jest? Or The Waste Land? 




> 10. The system we live under has nothing to offer but endless wars, prisons, poverty, homophobia, racial and gender discrimination, class oppression, anti-sex puritanism, and human extinction from nuclear war. The literary establishment has nothing to offer us but airport novels, censorship (in the form of political correctness), pretentious literary magazines filled with hack poetry that sometimes even rhymes, and the never ending boring banal well-polished well-crafted literary fiction whose main purpose seems to be to help insomniacs fall asleep. Bartoks symphonies dont help people fall asleep! Igor Stravinskys The Rite of Spring caused a riot when it was first played! Jackson Pollocks paintings can hardly be considered sleepy! Poetry and literature must become explosive, chaotic, alive, exciting, dynamic, etc.  just like the times we live in!


must it also conform to wolf larsen's personal conceptions about the world? Or am i allowed to think for myself independent of wolf larsen? 

11. More than anything else remember there is no one else like you on the entire planet! So why should you write like everybody else? Write like nobody else writes! If youre not creative than why should future generations bother reading your writing? Every Writer should be his own literary movement! Every Writer should be his own literary revolution![/QUOTE]i am going to avoid at all cost writing in same fashion as wolf larsen! I am going to do exactly the opposite of everything he tells me to do!

----------


## HCabret

> The traditional publishing industry: endless books that are too much alike and low paid workers putting in loooong hours.
> 
> I do not blame people working in the traditional publishing industry for the fact that too many books are too much alike. Even if an editor personally LOVES a manuscript it does not matter if the work is not commercial. If that manuscript does not have STRONG commercial potential none of the major conglomerates will publish it.
> 
> I do not envy editors and other workers in the traditional publishing industry. They often put in very long hours. Their jobs are very demanding. They are often paid low wages that don't go far in expensive New York City where many of them live.
> 
> There is no job security. Employee turnover is high. 
> 
> I also notice that few traditionally published books bear a "union bug" or union emblem. Perhaps the people printing up the books aren't paid all that well either.
> ...


 what does art have to with economics? I mean, of course, if you want it to. Poverty is a virtue, not a sin. Don't demonize poor people, please.

----------


## HCabret

> Hmmmmmm. Including, for instance, the following (past) persons:
> 
> John Donne
> 
> William Yeats
> 
> Milton
> 
> Samuel Coleridge
> ...


Tupac Shakur. Eminem. Biggie. Ice Cube. Dr. Dre. Bob Dylan.

----------


## WolfLarsen

Funny. I don't recall posting this in the short story section.

----------


## AuntShecky

> Funny. I don't recall posting this in the short story section.


Why not? It's fiction, right?

----------


## WolfLarsen

> Why not? It's fiction, right?


That's funny! I was laughing.

----------


## stlukesguild

The problem with iconoclasts, Wolf, is that historically they are far from ever being the great innovators. The greatest innovation in the arts repeatedly come from those who in the words of Stravinsky (one of the greatest innovators in music) "love" rather than "respect" art. Cervantes, James Joyce, William Shakespeare, Picasso, Stravinsky, etc... all smashed previously held conventions... but had the most profound understanding and love of the art of their great predecessors.

----------


## WolfLarsen

> The problem with iconoclasts, Wolf, is that historically they are far from ever being the great innovators. The greatest innovation in the arts repeatedly come from those who in the words of Stravinsky (one of the greatest innovators in music) "love" rather than "respect" art. Cervantes, James Joyce, William Shakespeare, Picasso, Stravinsky, etc... all smashed previously held conventions... but had the most profound understanding and love of the art of their great predecessors.


I am not an iconoclast.

I am not interested in destroying the literature of the past. Nor am I against studying it. I merely support smashing the literary world into pieces with a wrecking ball.

There are some people who think that we should get on our knees and worship the great works of the past. They think that the greatest works of mankind are in the past. Unless there is a nuclear war tomorrow morning they are wrong.

The greatest work of mankind is in its future.

The literary world as we know it is an obstacle to the great potential of literature. Publishing corporations based on profit, self-appointed "guardians of culture" that wish to censor everything, are just some of the obstacles faced by those who want to create a great exciting literature.

It's interesting that many of the individuals you just named were shocking to the more conservative sections of the general public back in their times. Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" actually caused a riot, or rather the ignorance of the more conservative audience members caused a riot. Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" is also one of my favorite pieces of music.

Picasso originally shocked people as well. His painting of women in a whore house is on the cover of one of my poetry books, the one entitled Pornography. My poetry book Pornography is dedicated to Gloria Steinem and Jerry Falwell on their wedding night. I nearly caused a riot myself when I read a poem from that book at the Green Mill poetry slam in Chicago. Of course, mooning the audience probably didn't help. And tonight I'm going to watch one of Shakespeare's plays on DVD. I am not an iconoclast. I want to take a wrecking ball to the literary world as we know it, not the literature itself.

And once again, I don't recall posting this thread in the short story section. I thought I had posted it in the general literature section.

----------


## HCabret

> I am not an iconoclast.
> 
> I am not interested in destroying the literature of the past. Nor am I against studying it. I merely support smashing the literary world into pieces with a wrecking ball.
> 
> There are some people who think that we should get on our knees and worship the great works of the past. They think that the greatest works of mankind are in the past. Unless there is a nuclear war tomorrow morning they are wrong.
> 
> The greatest work of mankind is in its future.
> 
> The literary world as we know it is an obstacle to the great potential of literature. Publishing corporations based on profit, self-appointed "guardians of culture" that wish to censor everything, are just some of the obstacles faced by those who want to create a great exciting literature.
> ...


You're a pervert! A bad one at that. You're good at doling out offensiveness, but god forbid anyone offend the infallible Wolf Larsen. She sure can sing though!

----------


## WolfLarsen

Maybe I am an iconoclast.

Maybe not.

I like to vandalize English literature. What's so great about English literature? It's just a bunch of primates writing in some semi-barbarian ugly language.

I like to think of myself as a horde of barbarians bringing art into the English language. Because the English language doesn't have any art. Because English literature is devoid of art. So the time has come to take my sword or my pen and save English language by destroying it.

Perhaps I was wrong about what I said about the greats of the past. What greats of the past? What was so great about them? They sat on the toilet just like we do. They ****ed just like we do. Shakespeare sonnets are mediocre, but his plays are good.

I would like to do to the literary world what the German tribes did the Roman Empire. I think that would be beautiful. Anybody care to join me? We will have lots of fun saving English literature by destroying it.

----------


## HCabret

> Maybe I am an iconoclast.
> 
> Maybe not.
> 
> I like to vandalize English literature. What's so great about English literature? It's just a bunch of primates writing in some semi-barbarian ugly language.
> 
> I like to think of myself as a horde of barbarians bringing art into the English language. Because the English language doesn't have any art. Because English literature is devoid of art. So the time has come to take my sword or my pen and save English language by destroying it.
> 
> Perhaps I was wrong about what I said about the greats of the past. What greats of the past? What was so great about them? They sat on the toilet just like we do. They ****ed just like we do. Shakespeare sonnets are mediocre, but his plays are good.
> ...


Lets start with the Communist manifesto! Or People's History of the United States (which for some reason starts in 1492, despite the fact that the US was not around until half-way through 1776). Both of these works of literature are in desperate need of vandalism.

----------


## WolfLarsen

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING POST MAY BE UPSETTING TO THOSE WITH A MORE PURITANICAL NATURE, AND SHOULD NOT BE READ BY ANYONE

Isn't it fun to vandalize things  like dead poets for example?

What's so great about English literature anyway?

Perhaps what the literary world needs is an invasion  an invasion by the 10,000 clones of Wolf Larsen.

Are Shakespeare sonnets really all that great? Recently, while reading some of John Milton's poetry, I was thinking some of the people in the canon are not that good. Maybe we should blow apart the canon with a cannon!

Maybe we should bend over Shakespeare & Milton & others in the canon, and afterwards use our penises as pens, and use the **** on our pens as ink.

Something needs to be done about the literary world. It sucks.

It is time for writers to be gods of the page. If you can't be a god of the page then what can you be god of? I am a poet, and that is the same as being a god!

All of us can be greater than Milton & Shakespeare & others in the canon. Why not?

----------


## HCabret

> WARNING: THE FOLLOWING POST MAY BE UPSETTING TO THOSE WITH A MORE PURITANICAL NATURE, AND SHOULD NOT BE READ BY ANYONE
> 
> Isn't it fun to vandalize things – like dead poets for example?
> 
> What's so great about English literature anyway?
> 
> Perhaps what the literary world needs is an invasion – an invasion by the 10,000 clones of Wolf Larsen.
> 
> Are Shakespeare sonnets really all that great? Recently, while reading some of John Milton's poetry, I was thinking some of the people in the canon are not that good. Maybe we should blow apart the canon with a cannon!
> ...


No one likes you! Just kidding you're Borg. A mindless drone controlled by the socialist publishing collective, hell bent on the assimilation of those who resist. Resistance is futile!

----------

