Capitalism Versus Great Literature

[WolfLarsen]

Capitalism Versus Great Literature
An essay by Wolf Larsen
(Here I am mostly concerned with the ECONOMICS of writing, and how it affects our ability to pay our bills, and how ECONOMICS affects our ability to write what we want to write.)

There is an inherent contradiction between the capitalist system and the creation & dissemination of great literature. When the mind conjures up something great, something creative, something that will make wonderful literature the last thing on the mind should be money. But, the first thing on one's mind in a capitalist society is inevitably money-money-money! Will it sell?? How do I get some money to survive, to live better, to pay my bills, etc.

But what if money had nothing to do with it? What if you were assured a regular income regardless of whether your writing was commercial or not? And what if there was a great repository of literature that insured the survival of your literary works for posterity? Wouldn't that be nice?

What if it were possible to free literature from big business? Keep in mind that capitalism is only a passing phase in human development. Homo sapiens has been around for over 200,000 years. Capitalism has been around for a few hundred. Capitalism is not eternal. Capitalism brings endless war and plenty of social rebellion as well. Perhaps capitalism will bring about World War III and human extinction. Or perhaps, workers will get tired of stingy wages and throw capitalism and the ruling class in the garbage can.

Let us suppose that the human race reaches socialism. The work week is reduced to 30 hours, and many necessities like childcare and medical care are free, while other necessities like housing are affordable. In addition, publishing is no longer run on a profit basis.

So under socialism you put in your six hours of work a day, plus you have two days free to write all day. You have more time to write than ever! As the planned economy advances and becomes more productive, people receive better wages and work less hours as time goes on. (Under socialism everybody has the right to a job.) Eventually, the work week is reduced to 20 hours. Even more time to write! (And no, I'm not talking about Stalinism, although even under rotten Stalinism the standard of living improves for workers, and literacy rates go way up!)

So literacy increases under socialism. Plus, leisure time increases. Plus, the general population becomes more affluent. At present, half the world's population lives on less than two dollars a day. As these people become more prosperous under socialism, they will have more money to buy books. Hence, a larger audience for writers! Perhaps under socialism more writers will be able to live from their literature than ever before and quit the day job.

When the writer is no longer chained to commercial fiction writers become freer than ever to experiment and come up with ever new forms of writing! Why not? If you're not driven by profit and the necessity of making money from your writing, then you're free to write whatever you want! That's because you automatically have a paycheck coming in from your day job – were you work 30 hours a week (or less) for 40 hours of pay.

There is no reason to suppose as technology advances that the book as we know it becomes only one way to read a "book". Why not read off the wall? Project the words on a white wall and read that way? Why not turn reading into a 360° experience that surrounds the reader? Why not turn reading into both a visual and auditory experience? Perhaps reading can become mass events, with people reading together in an auditorium while modern dancers dance how the words make them feel, and musicians play as well? I don't see why mass readings can't be combined with mass orgies (involving mutual consent), especially if there are preventive inoculations for all STDs and infinite forms of birth control. In other words literature can become everything and anything! As the human race becomes more free – so will literature become more free!

As communications become more instantaneous, and as leisure time becomes more prevalent, and as people become less concerned with the struggle for survival, they will have more time and energy to concern themselves with culture. Why not millions of people in the world simultaneously writing a book together? And God knows how many forms that "book" could take! (Well God doesn't actually know, because there is no god.)

Of course, some of this has already been done on a less extensive scale – as you know it's called multimedia. But, when composers and modern dancers and general audiences and writers and musicians and filmmakers and the general public from different parts of the world all simultaneously create a literary work together it will truly be awesome!

The greatest literature of humanity is not in its past, but in its future. And you live at the time of the greatest changes in the literary world since the invention of the printing press. The freedom of literature from economic concerns is in its budding phase. And when literature frees itself from the chains of monetary considerations, that's when literature can truly become great and creative!

Something just occurred to me – why don't we writers set up an author's cooperative? With an author's cooperative we wouldn't need publishers at all. Nor would we need Amazon. The author's cooperative site could sell our books in e-book format for three dollars – two dollars for the author and one dollar for the author's cooperative. The one dollar for the author's cooperative would help maintain the website, the staff, etc. Two dollars for the author is okay because that's about all you get in royalties from a publisher for a book. Once the author dies the book could stay available on the site, and stored also in a special place for posterity. But once the author dies the price could be reduced to just one dollar.

Compared to writers in the past you are lucky – you have more options than any writer that has lived before you. With literary posting boards, with the Internet, with self-publishing and Amazon, with author's websites, with the possibility of bypassing even self-publishers and Amazon.com by letting your works be available to the general public via your website with payment by PayPal, the present looks a lot better for most writers than the past. But the future is far brighter, so tremendously bright for creative literary expression, unless the mushroom clouds destroy humanity first.

PLEASE NOTE: while I welcome debate and differences of opinion, please do not post "politics for the sake of politics" type of discussion, as the moderators won't like it. Try to keep comments related to literature. Thank you.

[kev67]

This reminds me of New Grub Street by George Gissing. That was about a group of people all trying to make a living out of writing. Some refused to compromise their art and lived in penury. Others agonised over the compromises in quality they had to make to earn a living. Others did not agonise. That book was written in the 1880s/90s, but I suspect it must be harder to earn a living solely from writing these days than it was then. Whenever I go into a bookshop, I see so many books I would like to read but will never have the time to. To get your book read, you would have to force some superb writers out of the way.

[cacian]

(Well God doesn't actually know, because there is no god.)
hear hear


So under socialism you put in your six hours of work a day, plus you have two days free to write all day.
I thought we are already under that. work home work home. a socialist despotism run societies. two day free to write.
oh wow. I am most humble at that.
the idea that someone else sets rules for you to be is degenerate if not crazy.


So literacy increases under socialism
no it would not. socialism is ignorant. it does not read it dictates.


The greatest literature of humanity is not in its past, but in its future
I disagree firmly. literature is ongoing. there is not future or past it is self renewing and day to day based.


With an author's cooperative we wouldn't need publishers at all.
publishing should be courtesy of writing it should be automatic. one should publish what one writes.
that is literature. no rules or boundaries about what to write and how to write. writers should have the freedom to exercise their writing skills by exercising the right to publish. the two go hand in hand. the public then decides what they want to read.
Literature does not spoon feed. it is engages the mind to think for itself.

[Pope of Eruke]

Yeah looking back at all your posts, no offense, but you seem like a lunatic.

[tonywalt]

Yeah looking back at all your posts, no offense, but you seem like a lunatic. That's his (only) niche. Check him out on youtube - most interesting.

[WolfLarsen]

Yeah looking back at all your posts, no offense, but you seem like a lunatic.

You see, what is sanity? Is sanity conformity? If everyone else that is conforming thinks your insane than perhaps it is the person who seems insane that is actually far more sane than anybody else. Does the status quo in literature and other things seem very sane?

Innovative people are often thought insane. Perhaps there is a relationship between mild insanity (or being unconventional) and inventing new things whether it be in science or literature or the arts. At any rate, trying to convince writers to write something imaginative and creative does seem insane. Perhaps it's a waste of time? Ha ha ha!

Somebody talked about going into a bookstore and seeing so many books. My response is: so many books, so little variety. So many published authors, but so few with imagination. Or originality.

I do not want to get into a political discussion for the sake of politics. But in relation to the arts and literature the era immediately following the October revolution brought a great flowering of creativity in Soviet art. Later, Stalin crushed this creativity.

The event of the October Revolution (1917) helped artists to think outside the box if you will, I wish I could explain better. I wish I were smarter. I welcome differences of opinion on this or anything else, but please keep the subject matter related to literature. So far so good, thank you guys for keeping the subject related to literature.

There are so many good writers who have nothing to contribute to literature, because they have nothing original or creative in their heads. It's not enough to master the craft of writing. I would argue that any advanced primate, with the proper training, can write a "good" book. If you're twice as smart as I am (which many of seem to be), but you have nothing new to contribute to literature, then why should I read you? Why should anybody read your literature? What's the point of reading something that resembles hundreds of books I've already read?

[illiterati]

FRIENDSHIP UNICORNISM: A MANIFESTO

Under friendship unicornism, each person will have her own individual unicorn, as many as she wants.

When she wants to symbolize her friendship with another person and/or unicorn, she will break the unicorn in two, giving half into her true friend’s keeping, and keeping half for herself.

There is no inherent contradiction in the implied ownership of a friendship unicorn and friendship unicornism itself, qua system of economics. This is because there will be a recessed panel on each half of a friendship unicorn, which opens onto a tiny room inside the unicorn; inside the tiny room, there is another, smaller unicorn, also with a recessed panel; also containing a tiny room with another, tinier unicorn; and so on, ad infinitum.

Under friendship unicornism, the size difference in nested unicorns will not represent a fundamental inequality, because each person will also have installed, through a perfectly safe surgical operation, in her spinal cord a machine that allows her to increase or decrease her size at will.

Nor will the miniaturization, voluntary or involuntary, of a person, for the purpose of equalizing the size economics of nested unicorns, represent a fundamental inequality of persons, because each person’s miniature and/or gigantic self will be coexistent with her regular-size self.

This will be possible because, under friendship unicornism, each person will also have a time machine, which allows her to freeze, accelerate, or slow down time at will, and therefore to exist contemporaneously with her own smaller or more gigantic self(ves).

Under friendship unicornism, no one will have to work anymore. Everyone will have jobs and careers, but the nature of careers, under friendship unicornism, will be like having an orgasm forever. Because they have more time, everyone, under friendship unicornism, will be an artist of exceptional talent. He or she will have tiny Shakespeares implanted in his or her cerebellum, whom he or she may consult at will—mostly to disagree with, and cluck about the backwardsness of Shakespeare’s aesthetic principles, since he or she will be personally an artist whose achievements and talents and unicorns surpass those of Shakespeare by a factor of at least seven.

Under friendship unicornism, everyone—including plants and animals and rocks and seaweed—will also be an artist, and Shakespeare will be translated by tiny scientists who have miniaturized their bodies, but not their brains, to achieve literary-scientific brilliance, into the body-form of animals and plants and seaweed and mythical creatures; and those tiny unicorn-Shakespeares and seaweed-Shakespeares and so forth will themselves be miniaturized and surgically implanted in all the individual seaweed beings and unicorn beings and sentient rocks etc.

Under friendship unicornism, I will split my unicorn in two, offering half to Wolf Larsen, to symbolize our commitment to aesthetic principles. And also friendship.

[WolfLarsen]

Well, even if it's mockery, it's a beautiful mockery, and I don't mind.

And thank goodness somebody wanted to be creative!

I know there's creative stuff on this website, but you have to look for it I guess. Lots of good writers who are not very creative most of the time.

So much thank you's to this illiterate sky, actually that's my voice recognition software getting it wrong again, thank you to this illiterate guy – we more illiterate people like this on this literature website!

Actually, that's supposed to be we need more illiterate people like this on this literature website!

Or how about we more need people illiterate to be on this website of illiterature!

illiterature is to go really the way! Long really the way! All yeeeeaaahh!

[Pope of Eruke]

Well, even if it's mockery, it's a beautiful mockery, and I don't mind.

And thank goodness somebody wanted to be creative!

I know there's creative stuff on this website, but you have to look for it I guess. Lots of good writers who are not very creative most of the time.

So much thank you's to this illiterate sky, actually that's my voice recognition software getting it wrong again, thank you to this illiterate guy – we more illiterate people like this on this literature website!

Actually, that's supposed to be we need more illiterate people like this on this literature website!

Or how about we more need people illiterate to be on this website of illiterature!

illiterature is to go really the way! Long really the way! All yeeeeaaahh!

You are mad!

[illiterati]

teasing, yes--but also tribute.

certainly those two aren't mutually exclusive.

[WolfLarsen]

teasing, yes--but also tribute.

certainly those two aren't mutually exclusive.

Well, thank you! And thank you to the same crazy people for calling me insane, for that truly proves my sanity in a world filled with insanity, you see you have to be insane to be sane, so if you are sane you are clearly insane, and I wish to be both sane and insane in order to reach the greatest sanity and insanity at the same time!.!?, –) Yes? No?

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!

[Pope of Eruke]

You see, what is sanity? Is sanity conformity? If everyone else that is conforming thinks your insane than perhaps it is the person who seems insane that is actually far more sane than anybody else. Does the status quo in literature and other things seem very sane?

Innovative people are often thought insane. Perhaps there is a relationship between mild insanity (or being unconventional) and inventing new things whether it be in science or literature or the arts. At any rate, trying to convince writers to write something imaginative and creative does seem insane. Perhaps it's a waste of time? Ha ha ha!

Somebody talked about going into a bookstore and seeing so many books. My response is: so many books, so little variety. So many published authors, but so few with imagination. Or originality.

I do not want to get into a political discussion for the sake of politics. But in relation to the arts and literature the era immediately following the October revolution brought a great flowering of creativity in Soviet art. Later, Stalin crushed this creativity.

The event of the October Revolution (1917) helped artists to think outside the box if you will, I wish I could explain better. I wish I were smarter. I welcome differences of opinion on this or anything else, but please keep the subject matter related to literature. So far so good, thank you guys for keeping the subject related to literature.

There are so many good writers who have nothing to contribute to literature, because they have nothing original or creative in their heads. It's not enough to master the craft of writing. I would argue that any advanced primate, with the proper training, can write a "good" book. If you're twice as smart as I am (which many of seem to be), but you have nothing new to contribute to literature, then why should I read you? Why should anybody read your literature? What's the point of reading something that resembles hundreds of books I've already read?

I agree with you, up to a point, creativity is good and your overarching 'concept' makes sense to me. I am new here and when I first looked at one of your threads I was very interested, but as I went back and looked at your previous 'works' it was all a bit much, it seems to me you took some interesting ideas and then took them to a point where it just becomes overly self-indulgent waffle that, for me, isn't really interesting to read. It doesn't strike me as terribly original either, in some ways it's like reading a poor impression of beatnik poets from the 50s. It also seems, to me, that your writing is extremely vulgar just for the point of being shocking, not very interesting in my opinion, and it's been done before (During times when it actually was new and interesting, back to the 50s again, as an example). So although there are interesting elements, it's not as innovative as you think it is (Though what do I know right? It's just my opinion...)

I also think that you argument is a complete contradiction, you want to people to be new and fresh by writing what exactly? What you want them to write? Hmmm... No I don't think that is literally what you want, but tell me this. Why should you be the judge of what people are allowed to write? People will write what they want to write that's fine. Sure some of it might be similar, but so what? These traditional 'forms' of books that you seem to hate so much are 'traditional' for a reason. Whether you mean they are un-original in their content, or in their style. In terms of their content, maybe, but I'm certain you could still find something you want to read and maybe it is true that there is "nothing new under the sun" after all. I think that's an exagerration but it is true that it is hard to come up with a story, or idea that doesn't seem similar to something that has been done before, there are only so many ideas and naturally everyone is going to be influenced the literature that has come before even if it is just to a small degree. In terms of the style, everyone writes in their own way within the confines of the language, and in a way that makes sense. I don't see what grounds you would have to complain there. Sure some have employed experimental styles like stream of consciousness and the like, those are very interesting and I like SoC, but there is a reason that these things are 'experiments' that are enjoyed by only a few people, they are difficult to read for the most part. There is certainly a place for both and while I don't read much modern literature either, but writing what seems like a random free-writing excercise just to appear 'original' or 'innovative' doesn't break any ground for me to be honest.

[Pumpkin337]

You need help. Especially if you think the illiterate, incomprehensible, foul mouthed nonsensical garbage you spew out like vomit is wonderful literature. Any moron can spew forth obscenities - just look at any subway or toilet wall - but literature this is not.

Take the time to learn how to write, in one of those highly successful and enduring styles you deride and then lets see if you actually have something worthwhile to say.

Unfortunately you are so immured in your arrogance you take criticism as encouragement, which is quite possibly your greatest flaw.

[illiterati]

I actually went and read two of Wolf's poetry books--Eulogy for the Human Race and Yippee!

Pope--Could you specify what Beat writing you're thinking of, in light of which Wolf's work is a lame imitation? I'm not seeing it. First off, Wolf tends towards closed forms--the prose poem, more than anything--which flies in the face of the truly innovating formal achievements of the Beats (New Americans, more broadly) in terms of open form. His emphasis on the sentence as unit of composition reminds me more of the Language poets who followed in their wake. As to obscenity: obscenity and vulgarity, for the New Americans, tended towards a completely different function than in Wolf's work. For them, obscenity was the content-equivalent of sincerity, authenticity, breaking with academic censorship of actual human thought / speech. For Wolf, it's more like a stylized repetition-compulsion in language.

Yes, a lot of the time it's too much for me, too--windy, pointlessly vulgar, etc. But I do read pretty widely in 20th century American poetry and contemporary poetry, and I can say that Wolf's commitment to imagination and innovation achieves some fresh notes that I haven't seen elsewhere. I cite the poem below, first posted in personal poetry:

I Penis the Sky with Raspberries
a poem by Wolf Larsen

I penis the sky with raspberries
I flow like sewers through my words
I conquer each page with my neuroses
I explode my neuroses with every phrase going pop-Pop-pop like Southside bullets
I explore other universes with my words
I create new brains with my poetry
My poetry rampages across the page like conquering armies
Each phrase of my poetry is a cannonball smashing through the literary world
I create each poem with the blood of the conquered
I incite the words to new revolutions
because the literary world is a cesspool which I defecate upon
I am a blue-collar god
I turn all your neo-classical edifices or orifices into bordellos
I turn all your prestigious literary magazines into toilet paper
I launch my phrases of poetry into outer space with a screaming mouth larger than the universe
My sledgehammer smashes all tradition into dust
Upon this dust I build a future madness
Because madness is greatness!
Because greatness is innovation!
Because the greatest literature ever made is in our future!

Copyright 2014 by Wolf Larsen

[Pumpkin337]

lets see - its pointless, meaningless and vulgar, not to mention self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant and overweening oh yes and dangerously self-deluded with regard its own brilliance? I can read wittier vulgarities on the back of a public restroom door.

[WolfLarsen]

People should write whatever they want to write. I've written four books of conventional literature. While I write conventional prose when it suits me I think it's repetitive to write ONLY in a conventional style.

Write any way you want to write. And I'll read what I want to read. But when I see thread after thread of conventional monotony on the Internet it's kind of boring – no matter how well written it is – unless of course the story is very EXCITING. If someone was a boy soldier in Africa, or someone worked on crab boats in Alaska, or someone worked in a whorehouse then probably their conventionally written story is interesting.

Pablo Picasso painted in a conventional style in his childhood. As an adult he moved on to bigger and better things. You too can be a Pablo Picasso of literature if you want to, but maybe you don't want to. It's up to you. Granted, if you are a Pablo Picasso of literature it probably will not be very helpful to your "literary career", as the publishing conglomerates prefer conventional writers.

I'm not telling anybody how they should write. But I will say one thing: I feel a sense of joy when I click on a thread and the whole story or poem or whatever is unique. I mean the WHOLE THING is unique, unlike anything I've ever read before, and not just a phrase or two. I feel joy! I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've seen stuff on the Internet way better than anything Shakespeare ever wrote. And sadly, they will probably die in obscurity, and their wonderful manuscripts will probably wind up in some landfill.

If we are all writing in just one manner – conventional or otherwise – I think it will get very boring very fast. If everyone painted like Pablo Picasso or Jackson Pollock or Turner or Bosquiat then it would be horribly boring. But, if everybody writes or paints in their own style then I think it makes the world a more interesting place. And then if you don't like Wolf Larsen's writing – it doesn't matter – because there would be a zillion other people who each have their own style of writing. You can't possibly argue that everyone has their own style of writing. Most people don't. And it's boring to read something that resembles a zillion other works of literature, no matter how well it's written. Imagine if every building in every city on the planet had the same style of architecture – how boring!

I think if more people had their own style of writing more people would read literature. Maybe there's a reason why so many people find reading literature boring. And maybe conventional writers and publishing conglomerates that favor conventional literature are partly to blame for this.

But please write whatever you want to write. But don't expect me to read something that resembles an infinite variety of stuff I've already read. And don't expect future generations to bother reading it either.

[Pumpkin337]

And I shall continue to maintain that any illiterate idiot can write vulgarities. It takes neither intelligence nor wit nor any special talent. Doing so does not make you look cutting-edge or avant-garde or different - it just makes you look stupid. Vulgarity is what people who lack the education and vocabulary to express themselves adequately use. If you wish to be ignored because you resort to the expressions of the masses and the toilet door and the subway tunnel and the overpass, then by all means, just don't expect to be taken seriously.

Real talent lies in being able to take 100% recycled words (as Terry Pratchett put it) and re-arrange them into something new and meaningful.

[stlukesguild]

There is an inherent contradiction between the capitalist system and the creation & dissemination of great literature.

Is there? Is this contradiction any more inherent than it was under a theocracy, an aristocracy, fascism, communism, etc...?

When the mind conjures up something great, something creative, something that will make wonderful literature the last thing on the mind should be money. But, the first thing on one's mind in a capitalist society is inevitably money-money-money! Will it sell??

I don't know, but as a visual artist, I rarely ever think about money while creating.

How do I get some money to survive, to live better, to pay my bills, etc.

As an artist, do you assume the world owes you a free ride unlike the rest of these peons?

But what if money had nothing to do with it? What if you were assured a regular income regardless of whether your writing was commercial or not? And what if there was a great repository of literature that insured the survival of your literary works for posterity? Wouldn't that be nice?

Nice? Perhaps... but you haven't addressed the problem of who gets to have this cushy life as a writer or artist or musician and who gets stuck cleaning toilets. If all creative artists are assured a steady income, room and board... who wouldn't want to be part of this... and who is stuck doing the day to day labor required to keep this system running?

What if it were possible to free literature from big business? Keep in mind that capitalism is only a passing phase in human development. Homo sapiens has been around for over 200,000 years. Capitalism has been around for a few hundred. Capitalism is not eternal. Capitalism brings endless war and plenty of social rebellion as well. Perhaps capitalism will bring about World War III and human extinction. Or perhaps, workers will get tired of stingy wages and throw capitalism and the ruling class in the garbage can.

And what will replace it? Will it necessarily be better? War and struggle for power has been around long before modern capitalism... and will likely survive after it.

Let us suppose that the human race reaches socialism. The work week is reduced to 30 hours, and many necessities like childcare and medical care are free, while other necessities like housing are affordable. In addition, publishing is no longer run on a profit basis.

So under socialism you put in your six hours of work a day, plus you have two days free to write all day. You have more time to write than ever!

Again... what motivates the individuals who make this writer's Utopia possible? Why should they not all want to be poets or musicians or painters as opposed to plumbers, sanitation workers... or the physicians offering your free health care after 10 or 12 years of college?

As the planned economy advances and becomes more productive, people receive better wages and work less hours as time goes on. (Under socialism everybody has the right to a job.)

You still haven't addressed the issue of motivation and how we select who shall be awarded the position of writer, poet, artist, musicians as opposed to something less savory.

(And no, I'm not talking about Stalinism, although even under rotten Stalinism the standard of living improves for workers, and literacy rates go way up!)

So the standar of living in the Soviet Union under Stalin was greater than in the US and the rest of the West? Really?

So literacy increases under socialism.

How so? Do a little on-line research; the US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, most of Western Europe rank at the top of world literacy rates. Russia is quite high... but CHina is a good bit behind... and countries like Afghanistan and many other Middle-Eastern and African nations are the least "literate". Of course I'll assume by "literacy" you mean the ability and desire to read "great" literature... however you define that, but I doubt the Russians or Chinese are any more literature than us good old capitalists in that.

Plus, leisure time increases. Plus, the general population becomes more affluent. At present, half the world's population lives on less than two dollars a day. As these people become more prosperous under socialism, they will have more money to buy books. Hence, a larger audience for writers! Perhaps under socialism more writers will be able to live from their literature than ever before and quit the day job.

The capitalist Western nations are the most affluent in the world. They enjoy more leisure time than anyone else. Their literacy rate is the highest in the world. This has resulted in a greater audience than ever for books, films, music, etc... but it hasn't guaranteed that these works of art are "good" let alone "great". You assume a mass of intellectuals and sophisticated art lovers. The reality would likely be more trash novels and reality TV shows.

When the writer is no longer chained to commercial fiction writers become freer than ever to experiment and come up with ever new forms of writing! Why not? If you're not driven by profit and the necessity of making money from your writing, then you're free to write whatever you want! That's because you automatically have a paycheck coming in from your day job – were you work 30 hours a week (or less) for 40 hours of pay.

On the other hand... it may just as likely result in lazy writing... after all, I'm gonna get paid no matter how bad my crap is, right? From what I recall, Shakespeare had to write to meet the demands of the audience and the marketplace. I hear he didn't do too bad.

There is no reason to suppose as technology advances that the book as we know it becomes only one way to read a "book". Why not read off the wall?

Graffiti, posters, billboards, LED screens?

Project the words on a white wall and read that way? Why not turn reading into a 360° experience that surrounds the reader?

There are conceptual artists that have done as much. The reality is that such work crosses into the realm of theater and the visual arts and abandons the intimate nature of reading.

Why not turn reading into both a visual and auditory experience?

Umm... theater? film? poetry recitals?

Perhaps reading can become mass events, with people reading together in an auditorium while modern dancers dance how the words make them feel, and musicians play as well? I don't see why mass readings can't be combined with mass orgies (involving mutual consent), especially if there are preventive inoculations for all STDs and infinite forms of birth control. In other words literature can become everything and anything! As the human race becomes more free – so will literature become more free!

Ummm... yeah.

As communications become more instantaneous, and as leisure time becomes more prevalent, and as people become less concerned with the struggle for survival, they will have more time and energy to concern themselves with culture. Why not millions of people in the world simultaneously writing a book together?

Collaborative art. Sometimes the result is great. Think the Gothic Cathedrals or certain films. Sometimes its not so great. Think a lot of TV shows... or certain films.

Of course, some of this has already been done on a less extensive scale – as you know it's called multimedia. But, when composers and modern dancers and general audiences and writers and musicians and filmmakers and the general public from different parts of the world all simultaneously create a literary work together it will truly be awesome!

Or a chaotic mess.

The greatest literature of humanity is not in its past, but in its future. And you live at the time of the greatest changes in the literary world since the invention of the printing press. The freedom of literature from economic concerns is in its budding phase. And when literature frees itself from the chains of monetary considerations, that's when literature can truly become great and creative!

You've convinced yourself of this. I guess that's a start.

[stlukesguild]

Pablo Picasso painted in a conventional style in his childhood. As an adult he moved on to bigger and better things. You too can be a Pablo Picasso of literature if you want to, but maybe you don't want to. It's up to you. Granted, if you are a Pablo Picasso of literature it probably will not be very helpful to your "literary career", as the publishing conglomerates prefer conventional writers.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've seen stuff on the Internet way better than anything Shakespeare ever wrote.

Have you spoken to a medical expert about these hallucinations?

If we are all writing in just one manner – conventional or otherwise – I think it will get very boring very fast. If everyone painted like Pablo Picasso or Jackson Pollock or Turner or Bosquiat then it would be horribly boring. But, if everybody writes or paints in their own style then I think it makes the world a more interesting place... You can't possibly argue that everyone has their own style of writing. Most people don't.

Maybe there's a reason why so many people find reading literature boring. And maybe conventional writers and publishing conglomerates that favor conventional literature are partly to blame for this.

The great writers have always developed their own unique voice. This is not limited to something as simplistic as mere novelty. How many writers do we have that are like Lawrence Sterne, Lewis Carroll, James Joyce, Fernando Pessoa, J.L. Borges, Georges Perec, Julio Cortazar, Apollinaire, Andre Breton, etc...? The reason so many find literature boring is that they lack the patience and discipline that challenging literature often demands. Or they aren't interested. They'd rather watch TV or sports. What makes you think that your Socialist Utopia would result in a world of literature lovers? It likely would result in more time spent drinking beer and watching baseball, football, basketball, etc...

[illiterati]

lets see - its pointless, meaningless and vulgar, not to mention self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant and overweening oh yes and dangerously self-deluded with regard its own brilliance? I can read wittier vulgarities on the back of a public restroom door.

It might not be your bag, Pumpkin, but this strikes me as a lazy reading. The poem is narcissistic, but performatively, playfully so: "I launch my phrases of poetry into outer space with a screaming mouth larger than the universe." The narcissistic (self-deluded) element of the poem "a screaming mouth larger than the universe"--the part that presents itself as larger than life, undercuts itself everywhere: the "mouth larger than the universe" is comically launching phrases of poetry into outer space--something contained inside the universe--so that the narcissistic grandiosity is at the same time playfully aware of its narcissism, the ways its bigness exists only on the smaller terrain of its own mouth. Same with the grandiose metaphors of poetic conquering, which--hyperbolic, huge, overweening--are also unanimously metaphors of disenfranchised, in their own way impotent, forms of social violence: "pop-Pop-pop like Southside bullets," "neuroses," "a cannonball." There is also the poem's running awareness of its exclusion from socially legitimated avenues of aesthetic expression: "the literary world," "prestigious poetry magazines." I might add that all of the poem's violence and vulgarity is poetic and metaphorical: we're not talking about actual conquering armies, Southside bullets, or cannonballs; we're talking about "words," "each page," and "phrases of poetry."

The sum effect is a poem that understand in every line the impossibility and absurdity of its grandiosity, and more importantly, understands the absurdity of asserting such grandiose claims on behalf of poetry--but asserts them nonetheless: "Because the greatest literature ever made is in our future!"

You simply cannot make such claims for poetry without devolving into naivete and triteness--without, in short, being excluded from "the literary world." But this is the marginalized terrain the poem claims and celebrates, and in finding a way to do that, refashions a space to make such big claims for poetry. Vulgar it may be, but its vulgarity works in the service of a kind of euphoric, literary innocence.

[Pope of Eruke]

People should write whatever they want to write. I've written four books of conventional literature. While I write conventional prose when it suits me I think it's repetitive to write ONLY in a conventional style.

Write any way you want to write. And I'll read what I want to read. But when I see thread after thread of conventional monotony on the Internet it's kind of boring – no matter how well written it is – unless of course the story is very EXCITING. If someone was a boy soldier in Africa, or someone worked on crab boats in Alaska, or someone worked in a whorehouse then probably their conventionally written story is interesting.

Pablo Picasso painted in a conventional style in his childhood. As an adult he moved on to bigger and better things. You too can be a Pablo Picasso of literature if you want to, but maybe you don't want to. It's up to you. Granted, if you are a Pablo Picasso of literature it probably will not be very helpful to your "literary career", as the publishing conglomerates prefer conventional writers.

I'm not telling anybody how they should write. But I will say one thing: I feel a sense of joy when I click on a thread and the whole story or poem or whatever is unique. I mean the WHOLE THING is unique, unlike anything I've ever read before, and not just a phrase or two. I feel joy! I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've seen stuff on the Internet way better than anything Shakespeare ever wrote. And sadly, they will probably die in obscurity, and their wonderful manuscripts will probably wind up in some landfill.

If we are all writing in just one manner – conventional or otherwise – I think it will get very boring very fast. If everyone painted like Pablo Picasso or Jackson Pollock or Turner or Bosquiat then it would be horribly boring. But, if everybody writes or paints in their own style then I think it makes the world a more interesting place. And then if you don't like Wolf Larsen's writing – it doesn't matter – because there would be a zillion other people who each have their own style of writing. You can't possibly argue that everyone has their own style of writing. Most people don't. And it's boring to read something that resembles a zillion other works of literature, no matter how well it's written. Imagine if every building in every city on the planet had the same style of architecture – how boring!

I think if more people had their own style of writing more people would read literature. Maybe there's a reason why so many people find reading literature boring. And maybe conventional writers and publishing conglomerates that favor conventional literature are partly to blame for this.

But please write whatever you want to write. But don't expect me to read something that resembles an infinite variety of stuff I've already read. And don't expect future generations to bother reading it either.

Good ideas here, I think you have nice ideas but are a tad over the top with it. I also agree with Pumpkin to a degree, it doesn't take much to just write a bunch of vulgarities, though I think some of what you write is reasonably interesting.

[WolfLarsen]

Those that complain about the vulgarity are deluding themselves that I am trying to do this on purpose. In fact, those that complain about my so-called "vulgarity" give my intelligence too much credit! The fact is, what pops into my head goes on the page. It's stream-of-consciousness, or automatic writing like the kind Andre Breton advocated, and like every primate on this planet I am horny. By the way, I practiced automatic writing before I'd even heard of Andre Breton.
If I don't write down the sexual imagery then I am blocking the poem from proceeding in my head. I need the poem to proceed! The poem in my head is usually racing so fast – faster than the voice-recognition can get it down. It's bad enough dealing with voice recognition
Speaking of the devil voice-recognition software just crashed. Anyway when I used to type I had the same problem – how to get the poem down on the page as soon as possible because the images and phrases of poetry were galloping so fast!
Of course, later when I'm editing it things go much slower. There is no intent to be vulgar. I am merely trying to get the poem down from my head onto the page.
What I think is happening is that many readers are sexually repressed.
Or it could that I am not as sexually repressed as most people because my older brothers grew up during the time of the sexual revolution, and I was exposed to things and ideas, and any rate I believe sexuality is natural. To me the censorship that is obscene.
But if I don't put down the sexual imagery then I am blocking the poem.
What I found was interesting is that when I censored sexual imagery from my poetry they were more likely (much more likely) to get published in literary magazines. Some literary magazines did publish my stuff with sexual imagery in it, but many published the censored version. 0h by the way, when there was a line in the word censored was through it, they wouldn't publish it because they had a policy against censorship. But when the censorship occurred without me saying it was censored it was much more likely to get published. That's when I stopped submitting the literary magazines. Not all of them are puritanical, but many of them are. The literary world is puritanical as hell. I find that obscene!
Stukesquild made comments. Now this guy is smart! He knows his stuff. But he didn't read so carefully. I said that everybody would be working 30 hours a week. So there's no need to select. With more free time people will be able to write more, if they so choose. Others will choose to do less intellectual things. That's true. The seed will fall where it may. But at least smart people will have more free time and more education than ever before to produce great literature, if they so choose. And Cuba (even though it is a deformed Stalinist system) has the highest literacy rate in Latin America.
Anyway, it seems to me that capitalism encourages the masses to be as stupid as possible. They educate people no more than necessary to do the tasks they need them to do. The ruling class pushes sports, because sports are a distraction. The ruling class puts endless mindless garbage on television, to keep the people as mindless as possible. It's easier to control them that way. After all, you don't want them thinking. They might think: "why do I work so hard for so little?"
Anyway, it's good that so far the posters have kept this related to literature. As long as the debate about economic systems is related to literature I think we'll be okay, that is I don't think the moderators will mind. I hope not. Because if we can't discuss the environment that literature is created in then we'll be stuck arguing where the, goes and the; goes and so on. That is, we’ll be debating correct grammar which is much more boring.

Voice-recognition software is creating too many problems for me to go back and fix them all. So if there are errors my apology.

[Pumpkin337]

It matters, it always matters, to name rubbish as rubbish ... to do otherwise is to legitimize it.

- Salmon Rushdie

[illiterati]

My point is precisely to legitimize aspects of what Wolf Larsen is doing. We don't need to buy the whole thing, hook and sinker, to acknowledge there are some interesting and productive elements.

[Pumpkin337]

'There is one born every minute'

- attributed to PT Barnum

[WolfLarsen]

'There is one born every minute'

- attributed to PT Barnum

Hello pumpkin.

I encourage debate – I think it's great that you disagree with my ideas and you're willing to discuss them.

But try to stick to ideas – and don't attack people – because the moderators don't like that.

Just trying to help you. You don't want them taking away points.

You're new, so you didn't know. I say all of this openly so that hopefully nobody will have any problems with the moderators.

But it's a good thing that we debate ideas, no?

And welcome to online lit!

[Pumpkin337]

I'm not going to give you any more attention as it just gives you a further platform on which to pontificate.

[WolfLarsen]

That's fine with me pumpkin. Please have a pleasant weekend. And by the way, I was just trying to be helpful.

[WolfLarsen]

Some questions we might ask ourselves:

Is the literary world a good place for great literature? Or is the literary world in its present form an obstacle for the creation and dissemination of great literature?

What is great literature? Is great literature always conventional? Or in contrast is great literature always creative?

Should the literary world uphold tradition at the expense of new creative ways of expressing ourselves with words?

Should literature confine itself to the novel, the play, the poem – in other words – should literature confine itself to forms that already exist? Or should writers try to invent new forms of literature? What if these new forms of literature spontaneously form in the writer's head? What if the confines of the old forms (the novel, the play, the poem, the short story) become obstacles to what the writer is trying to express?

If we create new forms of literature how do we get these new forms of literature to the general public? If the traditional publishing conglomerates and the prestigious literary magazines and the literary world in general are mostly hostile or indifferent to creative literature, then how do we go around these obstacles to reach the general reading public?

Is the general reading public hostile to creative literature? Or is the general reading public merely unfamiliar with creative literature because the publishing conglomerates only publish a small amount of creative literature?

Since the vast majority of writers will never be traditionally published how do these writers reach the general public? Outside of the existing venues to reach the general public, can we invent new venues to reach the general public?

Will creating new forms of literature that never existed before help make the general public more excited about reading? (Particularly those that have become bored with traditional literature.)
If a book is not traditionally published does that mean that the book is bad? If a book is "good" does that mean that it will automatically get traditionally published? And even then, if it gets traditionally published, will it stay in print?

What is "good literature"?

Should writers always use correct grammar? Or should they experiment with incorrect grammar?
Should writing be intellectual? Or should it be instinctual?

Does a great writer have to be intelligent? Perhaps stupid people can be great writers too?
When voice-recognition software becomes A LOT BETTER, what role will illiterate people play in the creation of books? Can illiterate people write great books?

Now that English has become the number one world language, and many are writing in English as a second language, what role does non-standard English play in English literature? Perhaps non-standard English has a great role to play in creative literature? Perhaps non-native speakers should use non-standard English to further creativity. For example, other languages put adjectives in different places, and even use verbs in different ways, could not contemporary literature gain from this? Perhaps native English speakers can become inspired by non-native English speakers to do more creative things with the English language?

Should we attempt to smash the barriers of contemporary English to find ever more ways of expressing ourselves? Would this include making up words? Should we invent new forms of punctuation?

Should we dispose of a perhaps anal obsession with correct grammar in our communications with each other? Should we dispose of correct grammar in both our verbal communications and literary communications? Okay, medical books should have correct grammar, so should mass media like the New York Times or government publications – but why should we talk to each other in correct gramma?r for example, the? In the middle of that word was not on purpose, so? Maybe even mistakes can help one to be more creative. Look at your thumb, that was once a mistake. Your thumb was originally a birth defect of some primate, and that birth defect turned out to be a great advantage!

Of course, people may argue that using non-standard English and incorrect grammatical forms may make it harder for the reader to understand. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But this brings up another question. Why should literary works always be understood in a traditional sense? Is it really necessary to "understand" a literary work any more than it is to "understand" a painting or "understand" a symphony?

[YesNo]

Do you consider yourself a writer of "avant=garde" poetry?

The reason I ask is there's a poetry contest here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?79288-Avant-Garde-Poetry-Contest-2&p=1263754&viewfull=1#post1263754

I'm trying to get some examples of "narrative" poetry that is also "avant-garde". If you win, you get to run the next contest.

[WolfLarsen]

Do you consider yourself a writer of "avant=garde" poetry?

The reason I ask is there's a poetry contest here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?79288-Avant-Garde-Poetry-Contest-2&p=1263754&viewfull=1#post1263754

I'm trying to get some examples of "narrative" poetry that is also "avant-garde". If you win, you get to run the next contest.

I read the thread.

There was somebody on the thread posting an avant-garde poem which was supposed to be a mockery of avant-garde poetry – and ironically it was the best poem of his I've ever seen! Reminds me of a certain pop-artist whose name escapes me at the moment, anyway this artist made some works mocking high art and those turned out to be his best artworks ever!

Here's my entry:

A Poem with 4 Different Titles
A word-orgasm by Wolf Larsen

First title of poem: My Favorite Intergalactic Dildo – alternative title for this poem: 6,184 Planets Running around the Pinball Machine – second alternative title for this poem: How I Lost My Virginity to a Buzzing Inanimate Object – third alternative title for this poem: Going on a Date with Charles Manson's Clone During World War 3

DING-DONG-CRAAAAASH!!

Ka-DOOPLE!! Circus sireeeens! Eloquent fish-fiiiish-fiiiiish!!

BING-BANG-BONG! Where's my bonging words to invent??

Mustard!

Sky WOW! Neon-vagina-soup!! Where's my zero gravity???

Help! Penis!

Dip! Pong! 0000000ppeeeeee!! Lost my winking!!

Strawberry! Help!

Shakespearean-fast-food-yoga! Yugoslavia! Dok piiiiing! Lucifer winking!

Penis! Anus! Penis! Anus! Penis!

harrrooooo0000! ! !

Tomorrow? Tomorrow!! Tomorrow? Tomorrow!!

SLAM! Boom! CRASH! Boom!

Hairpins! Charles Manson imagination factory!

Boom! BANG! Boom! BANG!

Ha Ha Ha he heee heeeeeee!

Big vagina! Orgasm! Coca-Cola!

Hello! BOOM! Bang! Hello! BOOM! bang!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

?/*(!), BANG! Marijuana-caffeine-roller-coaster! Magical-Toaster ovens of Scilly-do-bop!!

Where's tomorrow? I'm swallowed by too many verbs-verbs-verbs!!!

CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASH

Where's my penis?

Penis-my pen is-pe N iS-(pen)is-peNis-pEniS-peNis! (!,/Okay? Okay! CRASH

CRASH!

C R A S H !

Where?

W h e r e ?

Copyright 2014 by Wolf Larsen

[YesNo]

Thanks! I've logged your entry by linking to this page.

For what it's worth I enjoyed this string of words: "Tomorrow? Tomorrow!! Tomorrow? Tomorrow!!"

[cacian]

Ok I see.....LOL how do I begin
so it is a string of words?? a narrative.

[WolfLarsen]

Ok I see.....LOL how do I begin
so it is a string of words?? F narrative.

Basically, I feel that avant-garde poetry is that you do whatever you want. You don't worry about grammar or tradition or convention. You SMASH any boundaries they get in the way of your individual expression. To me, avant-garde poetry is about INDIVIDUALISM and SELF-EXPRESSION. There is no right way to write avant-garde poetry – except that avant-garde is different than conventional poetry. Avant-garde poetry is like dancing to disco music or house music – there is no correct way to do it – and no two people dance exactly alike. Conventional poetry – on the other hand – is like the waltz or the jitterbug – there are established norms and everybody is pretty much dancing the same or writing in the same style.

There are those who will argue that there is a certain formula to avant-garde poetry. They are entitled to their opinion. But I disagree. I say do whatever you want. Throw boundaries away. Think outside the box.

I feel that the moment you get some kind of formula for avant-garde poetry then you defeat the purpose. Of course, you will find opposing opinions if you Google avant-garde poetry.

[Pope of Eruke]

Read that Mein Kampf poem wolf, it was ok, I can see where it is similar to yourself though.

[WolfLarsen]

Read that Mein Kampf poem wolf, it was ok, I can see where it is similar to yourself though.

Perhaps artistically it wasn't great. But I still love the poem. The title is too much. But like I said before if anybody has the right to give a poem that title it would be a Jew, and its author was Jewish. I'm not politically correct. But I hate that title. But I love the poem.

When I was talking about avant-garde poetry being like dancing to disco or house music may I add something: it is like imagine the most out-there disco or house music you've ever heard and everybody dancing doesn't give a flock and everybody's dancing to their own crazy internal imagination, and no two people are dancing even remotely alike, each dancer is dancing to his or her our own personal expression to the most craziest disco or house music you've ever heard.

Amusingly, the voice recognition software put whorehouse instead of house music. I had to keep correcting whorehouse, and replacing it with house music.

[stlukesguild]

C'mon Wolf. I can write better than this and I'm drunk outa my ****in' mind...

... and that profanity began with "F".

[WolfLarsen]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;1264686]C'mon Wolf. I can write better than this and I'm drunk outa my ****in' mind...

... HUOTE]

Then you should. I have very little doubt that you are far more intelligent than I am. But, I've never seen an example of your writing. If you wrote something better – and more creative – than anything I've written – I would be overjoyed. I love reading creative stuff – particularly when it's well done.

Are you capable of good creative writing? To be blunt, I'm not interested in reading anything conventional. I've read way too much conventional. I'm bored of conventional. So bored.

I'm not interested in a personal contest. But the more great creative writing I see the happier it makes me. And the more people that write creative writing better than me the merrier!

[WolfLarsen]

Why should literature be confined to the four squares of the page? Why not write literature on walls? Why not write literature on bathroom walls? Why not write literature on the sky?

Why shouldn't literature dash from one part of the world to the other as it's being spontaneously created by people on every continent all working together to create a poem/novel/play/whatever?

Envision an earthquake as a poem, envision a hurricane as a poem, envision a black hole in outer space as a poem – and then try to create such a poem! Why shouldn't the poem have the emotions of 7 billion people inside of it? Why not? Why shouldn't a play have the dialogue of 7 billion people in it? Why not? Why shouldn't there be 7 million people as characters in a novel? Why not? Why not write a novel/play/movie/poem/painting/sculpture/modern dance/architecture? I have! If I can do it why can't you?

I wish I could be nicer in this essay, but I must speak my mind. Why do you (you meaning most writers) hide behind your conventional stories and your conventional grammar? Is your mind incapable of imagining anything else? Or are you just too lazy to push yourself into doing something different? Or maybe you're content with writing like 10,000 other people. Good for you!

Anyway, why should letters be confined to their present form? (I'm speaking of letters like ABC, not the letters you send by mail.) Look at the letters of some of the pre-Colombian "Indians" in the New World, whose letters were beautiful. And look at Arabic calligraphy, Chinese characters, and graffiti murals to see how beautiful/creative letters & words & phrases can be. What if we could make our computers make letters like that? What if our books were more beautiful – more Baroque – more everything – than the wonderfully beautiful manuscripts illustrated by the medieval monks? You've seen how beautiful those medieval Bibles are. Why couldn't we write orgies with such beautiful engravings of words?

And why shouldn't we write orgies? What's wrong with orgies? We are told that pornography is bad. No it's not! Pornography is wonderful! Why not write wonderful Baroque-Rococo works of pornography? Why not prove that pornography can be artistic? Why not prove that pornography can be the greatest works of literature ever created by mankind?! In fact, I have a book of poetry named Pornography! (It has no pictures.) Look at how popular pornography is! The problem is, there's too much bad pornography! What we need is to create wonderful pornography! Creative pornography! The best works of literature should be positively pornographic!

Moving on: why not think of the entire city as one poem? Why not think of poems as living breathing things? Why shouldn't a novel be a living breathing thing? Why do novels need characters? Why do novels and short stories need plots? I'm serious – what for?? Maybe one novel can have 7 billion characters, and the next novel can have no characters, and in the novel after that all the characters could be animals & insects. Oh, wait a minute, I'm an animal, and so are you! I'm a member of the primate family – and chances are so are you!

That's another part of your problem. You forget that you're an intelligent primate. Cultural influences are good, but when you forget that you're an animal (a primate) then you're missing something. You're missing something that will help you create better literature and better art. Don't ever forget that you're an animal! It will help keep your work from becoming boring, dry, and brittle. Be an intellectual, but be an intellectual animal, so that you get the best of both worlds!

In addition, you're not made in the image of some god. There is no god. So why submit yourself to some invisible god that does not exist? Submit to nothing! Do not submit to any god that does not exist, and do not submit to any publishing corporation that thinks it's god! (Well, if you wrote some airport novel that you don't care about, let them do with it as they will if the price is right. But protect your masterpieces from those editors that will rewrite your book!)

The more strong and powerful and omnipresent you are the greater your literature will be! Dream to be great! We intelligent primates are destined for great things! So why do you arbitrarily impose limits upon yourself? (Although some of those limits are the limitations of your resources, your free time, and the limitations of the historical epic you live in). However, 500 years from now literature may have an infinite variety of forms that we can scarcely even imagine today. And the four squares of a page or a computer may be just one form of a "book" amongst thousands of forms!

Why should literature be confined to traditional grammar? Why not make up your own grammar? If 20th century classical musicians could invent the 12 tone scale why can't you do the same with grammar? Why couldn't you invent something called 12 tone grammar? Why shouldn't each one of your works have a different form of grammar? Why not?

You should have mastered basic grammar back in grammar school. I did, and I went to a mediocre grammar school, and I'm not that smart either. I can write perfect grammar when I want to, and I can **** perfect grammar up the *** when I want to. If I can be versatile – why can't you? Anyway, if you haven't mastered grammar by now you probably never will. So just write whatever you want to write – and don't worry about grammar! And if you've already mastered basic grammar then why not invent new forms of grammar – and constantly change them at will! Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!! Why not?

The only limit to the greatness of literature are the limits imposed on it by the lack of imagination of writers. Be great! Be imaginative! Stretch literature beyond its boundaries! Smash all boundaries!

Some people whine about "obscenity". Perhaps these are the same kinds of people that helped get endless works of literature censored and banned in the recent past. Perhaps Puritanism and the obstruction of our natural sex drives is one of the leading causes of so-called "writers block". You block out everything that others may have an objection to – even your own so-called "morality" is perhaps blocking you from writing the great literature you're destined to write! Don't expect to write great literature if you're all repressed! You don't think there's a connection between being repressed and "writers block"? Just write what comes into your head! To hell with what everybody else thinks! I'll tell you one thing: literature is not served by censorship, whether that censorship is from others or from yourself. Stop practicing self-censorship!

Creative writing therefore is a form of confrontation. When you write what you want to write without self-censorship you are confronting all of the ignorance that's holding literature back. The social values of any time in history are merely the social values of that political/economic structure and its ruling class. (The ruling class themselves rarely live according to these "values" – but they expect everybody else to live according to these "values" – especially writers – because writers can be dangerous to the status quo.) Many of these "values" are merely a form of trying to induce conformity, so that the masses are under control and do not threaten the ruling class and its political/economic structure. There is nothing natural about the "values" of the societies of the sick world of today. To hell with these hypocritical "moral values". You have to fight to write what you want to write! And if you don't have to fight to write would you want to write than maybe you're doing something wrong.

Again, I must say something impolite, my apologies. But why do normal people even bother writing? What do normal people have to contribute to literature? If there's nothing unusual about you, if you don't have anything original to say, then why do you bother? I think the best literature comes from those who are unique – or have some unique experiences – or have something unique to say – or have some new unique literature to give to the reading public.

If you're only writing to prove what a well-adjusted normal person you are – whatever normal is in these crazy times we live in – then who the hell cares about what you have to write unless I'm suffering from insomnia and your book helps to put me asleep!

In addition, perhaps "normal" writing about "normal" people helps to maintain the status quo. Perhaps the ruling class that owns the publishing conglomerates does not want too much stuff published that threatens its interests. Reform is one thing, but revolution is quite another. Books can be powerful! The written word can be dangerous.

Honestly, are the thoughts in your head, are the images in your imagination, anything resembling what we are told is a "normal"? Don't lie! Don't lie to me, and most of all don't lie to yourself! You know damn well the most imaginative stuff in your head is not "normal".

Why shouldn't you write all those imaginative things in your head that others won't approve of? (Well, within reason, keep the racist garbage in your head to yourself.) And why should you worry whether it takes the form of good grammar when you write them down?

If we don't use most of our brains (which we don't) then think how much we are not doing with literature! Literature is tied down in a million ways. It's tied down by our lack of imagination. Literature is tied down by the profit motive to publishing conglomerates that could care less about literature, because they could only care about profits. Literature is tied down by your own personal sexual Puritanism. Did you know that studies show that creative people have more sexual partners? Perhaps there is a relationship between creativity and sex? Or perhaps there is a relationship between not being repressed and being more creative? I feel that people who are so close minded that they find virtually everything to be "obscene" are less likely to write great creative literature. Maybe, they would make good grammar school teachers, or good editors for medical books. Medical books should have correct grammar. Most definitely. Convention has its place.

If your conventional stories are VERY INTERESTING than by all means write it down! But if you don't have any interesting conventional stories to tell, then why not reach into your imagination and create something unique and amazing? Or why not write some interesting conventional literature, and some other literature totally unlike anything ever written? Why be only a one trick pony?

If you're different – or if you do something different – people will say you're crazy. But there's good crazy and there's bad crazy. So go ahead and get good and crazy!

It is the "crazy" people that help the human race advance. (I mean the good "crazy" people.) While the conventional people stand by like a bunch of sheep, it is the "crazy" people that show that there is a better way.

Long live INDIVIDUALISM! Long live creativity!

[Pope of Eruke]

http://media1.giphy.com/media/FuvDLFumZKhcQ/giphy.gif

[stlukesguild]

Why should literature be confined to the four squares of the page? Why not write literature on walls? Why not write literature on bathroom walls? Why not write literature on the sky?

My assumption is that writers have found that books have proven a greater medium for reaching their audience than bathroom walls.

Envision an earthquake as a poem, envision a hurricane as a poem, envision a black hole in outer space as a poem...

Not unlike Stockhausen's assertion that the attack on the World Trade Center of 9.11 was the greatest collective achievement of ART? Perhaps Auschwitz was just a big work of performance Art?

I wish I could be nicer in this essay, but I must speak my mind. Why do you (you meaning most writers) hide behind your conventional stories and your conventional grammar?

Perhaps others find no need to break from traditional spelling/grammar. Perhaps they find such to be but mere gimmicks.

Is your mind incapable of imagining anything else? Or are you just too lazy to push yourself into doing something different?

And can we not invert the question and ask why do you find you need to employ literary gimmicks, profanity, and vulgarities? Is your mind incapable of imagining anything else?

Anyway, why should letters be confined to their present form? ... look at Arabic calligraphy, Chinese characters, and graffiti murals to see how beautiful/creative letters & words & phrases can be.

You are speaking of letters/words/text as visual art. Yes, these are all visually spectacular...

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/HonamiKoetsuandTawarayaSotatsu_zpsa6014e4e.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/HonamiKoetsuandTawarayaSotatsu_zpsa6014e4e.jpg.htm l)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/sotatsu_zps43933983.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/sotatsu_zps43933983.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/1411_zpsd0e66d6b.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/1411_zpsd0e66d6b.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/pod94sm_zps1b14b7e2.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/pod94sm_zps1b14b7e2.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/BeFunky_exhib_slideshow_10620-ojpg_zps6af402a3.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/BeFunky_exhib_slideshow_10620-ojpg_zps6af402a3.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/wolfli11s_zps9d3869a0.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/wolfli11s_zps9d3869a0.jpg.html)

-Adolf Wolfli

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/pinturafim2_zpsc3d49c65.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/pinturafim2_zpsc3d49c65.jpg.html)

What you are speaking of is a hybrid Art Form... like opera and other musical theater, the theater itself, film, etc...

There is an entire genre referred to as the "book arts"... a genre in which I worked for a period of some 5 years or so... in which visual artists have toyed with all that you propose and far more. There are artists who deconstruct the book as a sculptural object:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/image25_zps13f0417a.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/image25_zps13f0417a.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/35ee4d90242b11220d0b4882eab2f589_zpsca4489cb.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/35ee4d90242b11220d0b4882eab2f589_zpsca4489cb.jpg.h tml)

The German Artist, Anselm Kiefer has scrawled poems across the surface of his huge paintings...

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/KIEFER-2012-Oh-Halme_zpse6d74dba.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/KIEFER-2012-Oh-Halme_zpse6d74dba.jpg.html)

... created books of lead pages inscribed with astronomical/astrological star charts and Cabalistic texts...

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/kiefer5_zps0b51c3a3.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/kiefer5_zps0b51c3a3.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/387072_com_steigend-kiefersm_zps611c80be.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/387072_com_steigend-kiefersm_zps611c80be.jpg.html)

... even created "books" encased under glass filled with clothing, plants, even earth from Egypt and the Middle East:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/anselmkeifer40ago28329sm_zps55218ba6.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/anselmkeifer40ago28329sm_zps55218ba6.jpg.html)

The artist Adolf Wolfli (see above) was far more audacious than our beloved Wolf. While a patient in the Waldau Psychiatric Institute he created an autobiographical epic of some 25,000 pages employing collage, drawings, paintings, text, musical scores (utilizing his own invented method of scoring), etc...

Get with the program, Wolf. Book Artists have experimented with a range of approaches to the book and text that you have not even begun to imagine.

And why shouldn't we write orgies? What's wrong with orgies? We are told that pornography is bad. No it's not! Pornography is wonderful!

Didn't Cacian and I already have this discussion? How do you define "pornography"? The dictionary definitions of "pornography" vs "erotica" read as follows:

The "erotic" (from the Greek ἔρως, eros—"desire") is defined as that which causes sexual feelings, as well as a philosophical contemplation concerning the aesthetics of sexual desire, sensuality and romantic love. Pornography (derived from the Greek words πόρνη [pornē "prostitute"] and πορνεία [porneia "prostitution"] and and the Greek word γράφειν (graphein "to write or to record", or illustrate/draw). Pornography involves the explicit representation of sexual display or sexual acts. The Erotic need not. Some may find certain clothing, music, a person's voice, scents/perfumes, images that do not involve involves the explicit representation of sexual display or sexual acts to be "erotic".

By these definitions Art History is laden with "pornographic" art. There are endless examples by the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Indians, Renaissance, 18th/19th/20th century Europeans/Americans.

Why not write wonderful Baroque-Rococo works of pornography?

John Wilmot, Pierre Louÿs, L'Ecole des Filles, Dialogues of Luisa Sigea, Sodom, or the Quintessence of Debauchery, Thérèse Philosophe, Fanny Hill, the Marquis de Sade, The Lifted Curtain or Laura's Education, etc... And there are endless examples of "pornographic" paintings and prints of the Rococo period.

Why not prove that pornography can be artistic? Why not prove that pornography can be the greatest works of literature ever created by mankind?!

Sometimes it is. One need only look at Titian's Venus d'Urbino, Japanese Shunga, or the Khajuraho temples in India.

In fact, I have a book of poetry named Pornography! (It has no pictures.) Look at how popular pornography is! The problem is, there's too much bad pornography!

And there is just as much bad art and literature of a moral/ethical/religious nature... or of any genre you can think of.

What we need is to create wonderful pornography! Creative pornography! The best works of literature should be positively pornographic!

Every artist SHOULD only create that which he or she desires and believes in. If you believe in creating artistically wonderful pornography... then that is what you should be doing.

Why do novels need characters? Why do novels and short stories need plots?

Certainly there are novels, short stories... "fictions" as J.L. Borges referred to them... that stretch and challenge about every standard of traditional fiction. Have you read Lawrence Sterne, J.L. Borges, Julio Cortazar, Fernando Pessoa, Cesar Vallejo, etc...?

Why should literature be confined to traditional grammar? Why not make up your own grammar? If 20th century classical musicians could invent the 12 tone scale why can't you do the same with grammar?

Have you listened much to Schoenberg, Berg, Webern and their heirs? Personally I find much of it hard-going and not all that pleasant to listen to.

Why couldn't you invent something called 12 tone grammar? Why shouldn't each one of your works have a different form of grammar? Why not?

You've heard of James Joyce, right?

Some people whine about "obscenity". Perhaps these are the same kinds of people that helped get endless works of literature censored and banned in the recent past.

At last! Something I fully agree with.

Perhaps Puritanism and the obstruction of our natural sex drives is one of the leading causes of so-called "writers block". You block out everything that others may have an objection to – even your own so-called "morality" is perhaps blocking you from writing the great literature you're destined to write!

Don't expect to write great literature if you're all repressed! You don't think there's a connection between being repressed and "writers block"? Just write what comes into your head! To hell with what everybody else thinks! I'll tell you one thing: literature is not served by censorship, whether that censorship is from others or from yourself. Stop practicing self-censorship!

Again... there is some truth to this. I turn to a work of art to read/listen to/see the strong, unique "voice" of an individual... not a voice curtailed out of fear of not being acceptable. I suspect self-censorship is far more detrimental than external censorship. Many older writers, poets, musicians... think of early Jazz and Blues musicians... created diamonds under the pressure. Compare the witty and creative double entendre or hidden meanings of the lyrics by the old Blues singers to the endless stream of "f***" and "b****" by many of today's rappers who are free from censorship.

Creative writing therefore is a form of confrontation. When you write what you want to write without self-censorship you are confronting all of the ignorance that's holding literature back. The social values of any time in history are merely the social values of that political/economic structure and its ruling class. (The ruling class themselves rarely live according to these "values" – but they expect everybody else to live according to these "values" – especially writers – because writers can be dangerous to the status quo.) Many of these "values" are merely a form of trying to induce conformity, so that the masses are under control and do not threaten the ruling class and its political/economic structure. There is nothing natural about the "values" of the societies of the sick world of today. To hell with these hypocritical "moral values". You have to fight to write what you want to write! And if you don't have to fight to write would you want to write than maybe you're doing something wrong.

OK. Agreed. The Artist should create that which comes to mind... that which he or she is obsessed with and passionately believes in. This need not always be vulgar or pornographic or violent... but it should not exclude urges which one fears others might find unacceptable if these are what one truly desires to express/convey.

Again, I must say something impolite, my apologies. But why do normal people even bother writing? What do normal people have to contribute to literature? If there's nothing unusual about you, if you don't have anything original to say, then why do you bother? I think the best literature comes from those who are unique – or have some unique experiences – or have something unique to say – or have some new unique literature to give to the reading public.

Of course the question becomes, how do you define "normal"? There are any number of examples of individuals who on the surface appeared wholly "normal"... yet had truly unique voices or visions as artists. At the same time... the art world is full of poseurs putting on the facade of "weirdness" or being the "outsider" who achieve little or nothing as artists.

OK... this dialog has gone on long enough. I need to get up early... and spend the day in my studio... painting 7 foot tall "pornographic" paintings. :lol:

[Lykren]

The universe is already nothing but meaningless nonsense anyway. Doing something thoughtfully is therefore more rebellious than doing something carelessly.

[WolfLarsen]

Man, St. Luke's Guild is one smart poster. This guy knows his shipped. (Funny thing is, the voice recognition software I use doesn't want to say shipped, it always says shipped.) This voice recognition software doesn't say any of the best words in English language – another example of the Puritanism I've been talking about. Apparently, St. Luke's Guild and I have at least some agreement in that area.

We don't agree about Schoenburg & Weben. I love them! I still have about 100 CDs of 20 century classical music. (Yes, CDs! Maybe books will go the way of the CD. Maybe.)

St. Luke's Guild talks about some creative writers, some which I was familiar with and others not. When St. Luke's Guild talks about examples of creative writers I usually go check them out as soon as I have time. St. Luke's Guild knows a lot of stuff!

However, the fact remains these creative writers are exceptions to the rule. Mostly, what the literary world is good for is turning out endless airport novels. Airport novels and more airport novels and more airport novels... And then there's endless aspiring airport novelists. They're a dime a dozen. Most of them are very talented at putting the commas and periods in the right place. But if they have an exciting story to tell well why not read it? But there's still no creativity there.

There'll always be exceptions. There'll always be creative people doing something unique. St. Luke's Guild gave us some examples.

Another problem is creative people who write creative stuff that's dry and boring. There's no shortage of that either. Yawn!

I looked up St. Luke's Guild on the Internet. Pretty cool.

[WolfLarsen]

Sex and Literature
An Essay by Wolf Larsen

WARNING: STOP READING NOW IF YOU ARE A PURITAN. A PURITAN IS SOMEBODY WHO IS AGAINST SEX. IF YOU ARE AGAINST SEX PLEASE STOP READING NOW. IN ADDITION, THE MAYFLOWER IS DEPARTING BACK TO ENGLAND IN THE NEXT HOUR. ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE STOP READING IF YOU ARE AGAINST SEX. AND FEEL FREE TO PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH AND NOT HAVE SEX. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. FOR THE THIRD TIME – STOP READING NOW IF YOU ARE AGAINST SEX! GO READ SOMETHING ELSE INSTEAD IF YOU ARE AGAINST SEX!

The page is an open legged slut begging for the writer's words! Your pen is a phallus! If you are a woman think of your pen as a strap-on dildo! Have sex with the page! **** and **** and **** the page! Think of the words on the page as your spermatozoa! Think of the words on the page as your pussy juices!

Writing is a sexual experience! Writing is best done when you are in a state of abandonment that is closer to sex than anything else! Writing is best when you let your inhibitions run wild!

The time has come for orgies at poetry readings! Let sex open up all the channels of creativity! Let sex be our greatest inspiration! Sex and writing and writing and sex!! Let's have massive orgies in the streets! The orgies in the streets can be the inspiration for our poetry and our literature! We should paint massive erotic murals of words on every empty wall of every building in the universe! Let these erotic murals be a combination of images & words & phalluses & anuses & mouths!

All poetry & literature should be drooling in sex!!

There is nothing more inspirational than the naked human body! Celebrate the female nude! Celebrate the male nude! Write naked! The best way to write is to write naked! I'm naked right now! Everybody let's all get naked and write the grand literature of immaculate conception together!

The greatest religion is the religion of sin! The religion of sin & literature & sex should be a menage a trois on every page!

Let's go to the parks and rip off our clothes and write poetry naked together! Let us all write one great obscene poem together! Let's run through the streets naked and scream out poetry! Let saxophone players play their jazz naked! Let musicians at Orchestra Hall play Beethoven & Mozart naked! Let all the listeners in the audience at Orchestra Hall be naked while they listen to Beethoven & Mozart!

Moon audiences at poetry readings! Why not? (I did.) If I did it why not you?

Writing is a sexual experience! Poetry and music are twins – and sex and music are twins – the rhythms of poetry is the rhythms of music and the rhythms of music are the rhythms of sex – so therefore the rhythms of poetry are the rhythms of sex! Without sex there is no poetry! Without sexual excitement there is no excitement in poetry! Poetry should be exciting! Poetry should be alive! Poetry should be dripping in sex!

All writers & poets & creative people should have as much sex as possible! Sex is the fountain of creativity! If you don't have anybody to have sex with than have sex with your hands or with a battery-operated toy!

There is no such thing as inappropriate in literature! The more inappropriate the literature the better!! The more inappropriate the literature the more it is not being straitjacketed by the uptight puritanical literary world!

Sex is good! Profanity is good! Literature should be as profane as possible! Life is a huge profanity! This green & blue vomit of our planet is nothing but a bunch of profanity! Literature filled with profanity is nothing more than a reflection of a world filled with profanity! Fill the world with your Jism! Fill the world with your poetry! There's absolutely no difference between Jism & poetry! There is absolutely no difference between pussy juices & poetry! They are one and the same!

We should spray paint poetry on all the walls of all the buildings around us! We should spray paint poetry on all of the moving objects – cars, trains, trucks, airplanes, space satellites – so that everything will be a constantly moving poetry! This way, we can turn the highways & streets & outerspace into a constantly-changing-spontaneous-everything-poetry!

Poetry should be an outerspace experience! Poetry should create the universe! Poetry should create all the stars & planets & sons & moons in the universe! Phrases of poetry should fly out in outer space and swim around the planets!

Everything is sex! Literature is sex! Outerspace is sex!

The best place to write your literature is on bathroom walls!

The best place to write poetry is on your genitals and on the genitals of others! The best place to write poetry is on our naked bodies and on everyone else's naked bodies! We should all attend poetry readings naked! Everyone that works in bookstores should be naked! It should be mandatory to take your clothes off and be naked when you enter a bookstore or library!

Libraries feel dead! The time has come to change the ambience of libraries! First of all, all the employees of all the libraries in all the world should be naked while inside the library! Regardless of whether they are ugly or pretty or handsome or old or young or fat or skinny everyone in the library – including the patrons – must be naked! And most of all, orgy should be held in libraries, to make knowledge & reading sexy!

Everyone must be naked when they attend literature classes in university! This is the best way to understand literature! Naked naked naked! Having sex with fellow students at literature lectures should be optional – that is it should be based on mutual consent – whether this mutual consent is between two or 200 students!

The best way to understand literature is to read advant-garde literature while people have massive orgies! It is imperative to combine sex & literature! Otherwise – without sex – how do you expect people to understand literature? Look at the Puritans! Puritans don't understand literature! Literature should include the freeing of all the imagination & animal desires & demons & everything else inside of you! Throw it all on the page like one great big orgasm of words!
Puritans don't understand literature! Puritans think that literature is some dry, straitjacketed, Lysol, bacteria-free, spermatozoa-free, pussy juices free zone – and they're wrong! Literature is ideally filled with spermatozoa and penises and vaginas and anuses and sex and hormones! The Puritans are doing more to destroy literature than even the corporate publishing houses! The biggest enemies of great literature are inside the literary world! These Puritans are like a Trojan horse inside of the world of literature!

There is no reason not to include our household pets in literature! Household pets should be welcome to participate in literary events! In fact, there is no reason not to include sheep & wild animals in literary events! There is no reason not to butcher a calf at literary events – because literature should be a sexual pagan event! Let's eat our dogs & cats at literary events! Yummy!

We should build temples of literature where he sacrifice animals to the gods of literature and where we have lots of sex & poetry & novels & literary graffiti! We should have human sacrifices to the greatness of literature! Human sacrifices & whips & S&M dungeons & poetry & music & cannibalism!

There is no reason not to make literary events more delicious! As literature is being read out loud there is no reason why we can't eat exotic foods and smear exotic foods all over our bodies and write poetry all over each other's naked bodies with exotic foods! Literature should taste good! Eating and sex and literature are all the same thing! And we should have live music! And drugs! And alcohol! And we should have painting! Literary events should be absolutely pornographic!

All politicians should be ordered to stop making political speeches at once! Instead, all politicians when they address the nation should speak in abstract poetry! When the president of the United States of America gives his State of the Union address he should do so while completely naked, and he should only speak abstract poetry. The less the poetry actually makes sense the better!

It should become absolutely mandatory that literature make absolutely no sense! The less sense that a book or poem makes the better!

The time has come to charge the fortress of Puritanism! We should all jump naked on our horses and with our pornographic literature in our hands we should assault the puritanical literary world! We should gather outside the walls of the puritanical literary world and use catapults to catapult pornographic literature & dildos & blowup dolls & everything else sexual into the literary world! We should smash down the walls of the puritanical literary world and then we should smash the puritanical world into rubble and on the dust of the puritanical literary world we should have a giant orgy called literature!

Literature is an orgy of words! Puritans should be fed to the lions at once!

Disclaimer: I do not actually advocate human sacrifices, cannibalism, or feeding anyone to the lions.

[YesNo]

You won the avant-garde poetry contest: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?79288-Avant-Garde-Poetry-Contest-2&p=1265165#post1265165

What's the next avant-garde theme? I've got a couple poems I'd like to submit if they fit. I suppose you could have the next context right in this thread.

[WolfLarsen]

Thank you!

Maybe not in this thread. I kind of want to keep this thread open to debate on literature.

I'll send you a private message soon.

[Oedipus]

Wolf, for someone so against grammer and punctuation you sure are fond of exclamation marks

[WolfLarsen]

If You Can't Beat Them, Then Why Not Join Them?
An essay by Wolf Larsen

WARNING: PURITANICAL PERSONS WHO ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ANYTHING SEXUAL MAY WISH TO CLICK OFF THIS THREAD RIGHT NOW! Thank you for your understanding.

I have often joked that the big publishing conglomerates are nothing more than big whorehouses, and that literary agents are really literary pimps. But then what does that make many writers?

Well, that depends what you're writing, no? Hey, if some big publishing corporation offered me a big advance to write an airport novel, I'd whore myself out to them. (Wouldn't you know it but the voice recognition software I use doesn't wanna write whore or flock. I have to take extra time to spell it out.)

So, since the revolution isn't exactly going to happen tomorrow morning we starving writers have to make a living somehow under this capitalist system. And, looking to the five whorehouses for inspiration, I mean the five sisters, or the five publishing conglomerates for inspiration – I'm thinking why shouldn't we writers open a whorehouse of our own? That way, we could compete with the five publishing conglomerates on equal terms.

Now when I say whorehouse I mean that in every sense of the word. And I Wolf Larsen will be happy to represent you all as your literary pimp. Just think how hard it is these days to get a literary pimp – also known as literary agent – so I'm sure many of you will be thankful to me for pimping you out. (Guess what? This voice recognition software doesn't wanna say pimp either. What Puritans!)

Now going back to this whorehouse of ours. This could be a very profitable business venture! Especially for me, your literary pimp, because I'm going to collect 15% of all proceeds. Now what I was thinking is that attractive members of the writing community could be engaged in certain types of business activities in our publishing whorehouse. Less attractive members of our writing community could also be engaged in similar business activities, but behind a wall with a hole in it. Others could be involved in cleanup and sanitation activities. Still others in security. And still others in serving drinks and whatnot.

This very profitable venture could finance our publishing activities. Now of course, some books will be more profitable than others. And of course, as your literary pimp I will take 15% from this end of the business as well. However, in this manner everyone can be respectably published from a traditional publisher. The establishment of our publishing whorehouse conglomeratcy would also have the benefit of reestablishing the number six – as in the six sisters or the six publishing whorehouses.

What would we do with the profits? Well here I would also take 15%. Because I'm your literary pimp. However, some of the profits could be shared amongst the prostitute-writers. Another part of the profits could be used to promote books, and others to promote our publishing whorehouse conglomeratcy.

I think that we should give our publishing whorehouse venture some kind of respectable Anglo-Saxon name, just like the other five publishing whorehouses. Or we could simply call it the Wolf Larsen Literary Pimping Agency and the Writers Publishing Cooperative Whorehouse.

The Wolf Larsen Literary Pimping Agency is now taking submissions from aspiring prostitute-writers.

[HCabret]

I read the thread.

There was somebody on the thread posting an avant-garde poem which was supposed to be a mockery of avant-garde poetry – and ironically it was the best poem of his I've ever seen! Reminds me of a certain pop-artist whose name escapes me at the moment, anyway this artist made some works mocking high art and those turned out to be his best artworks ever!

Here's my entry:

A Poem with 4 Different Titles
A word-orgasm by Wolf Larsen

First title of poem: My Favorite Intergalactic Dildo – alternative title for this poem: 6,184 Planets Running around the Pinball Machine – second alternative title for this poem: How I Lost My Virginity to a Buzzing Inanimate Object – third alternative title for this poem: Going on a Date with Charles Manson's Clone During World War 3

DING-DONG-CRAAAAASH!!

Ka-DOOPLE!! Circus sireeeens! Eloquent fish-fiiiish-fiiiiish!!

BING-BANG-BONG! Where's my bonging words to invent??

Mustard!

Sky WOW! Neon-vagina-soup!! Where's my zero gravity???

Help! Penis!

Dip! Pong! 0000000ppeeeeee!! Lost my winking!!

Strawberry! Help!

Shakespearean-fast-food-yoga! Yugoslavia! Dok piiiiing! Lucifer winking!

Penis! Anus! Penis! Anus! Penis!

harrrooooo0000! ! !

Tomorrow? Tomorrow!! Tomorrow? Tomorrow!!

SLAM! Boom! CRASH! Boom!

Hairpins! Charles Manson imagination factory!

Boom! BANG! Boom! BANG!

Ha Ha Ha he heee heeeeeee!

Big vagina! Orgasm! Coca-Cola!

Hello! BOOM! Bang! Hello! BOOM! bang!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

?/*(!), BANG! Marijuana-caffeine-roller-coaster! Magical-Toaster ovens of Scilly-do-bop!!

Where's tomorrow? I'm swallowed by too many verbs-verbs-verbs!!!

CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASH

Where's my penis?

Penis-my pen is-pe N iS-(pen)is-peNis-pEniS-peNis! (!,/Okay? Okay! CRASH

CRASH!

C R A S H !

Where?

W h e r e ?

Copyright 2014 by Wolf Larsen

This is amazing!!!!!!! A love poem for the MDMA Generation!

[HCabret]

Why should literature be confined to the four squares of the page? Why not write literature on walls? Why not write literature on bathroom walls? Why not write literature on the sky?

Why shouldn't literature dash from one part of the world to the other as it's being spontaneously created by people on every continent all working together to create a poem/novel/play/whatever?

Envision an earthquake as a poem, envision a hurricane as a poem, envision a black hole in outer space as a poem – and then try to create such a poem! Why shouldn't the poem have the emotions of 7 billion people inside of it? Why not? Why shouldn't a play have the dialogue of 7 billion people in it? Why not? Why shouldn't there be 7 million people as characters in a novel? Why not? Why not write a novel/play/movie/poem/painting/sculpture/modern dance/architecture? I have! If I can do it why can't you?

I wish I could be nicer in this essay, but I must speak my mind. Why do you (you meaning most writers) hide behind your conventional stories and your conventional grammar? Is your mind incapable of imagining anything else? Or are you just too lazy to push yourself into doing something different? Or maybe you're content with writing like 10,000 other people. Good for you!

Anyway, why should letters be confined to their present form? (I'm speaking of letters like ABC, not the letters you send by mail.) Look at the letters of some of the pre-Colombian "Indians" in the New World, whose letters were beautiful. And look at Arabic calligraphy, Chinese characters, and graffiti murals to see how beautiful/creative letters & words & phrases can be. What if we could make our computers make letters like that? What if our books were more beautiful – more Baroque – more everything – than the wonderfully beautiful manuscripts illustrated by the medieval monks? You've seen how beautiful those medieval Bibles are. Why couldn't we write orgies with such beautiful engravings of words?

And why shouldn't we write orgies? What's wrong with orgies? We are told that pornography is bad. No it's not! Pornography is wonderful! Why not write wonderful Baroque-Rococo works of pornography? Why not prove that pornography can be artistic? Why not prove that pornography can be the greatest works of literature ever created by mankind?! In fact, I have a book of poetry named Pornography! (It has no pictures.) Look at how popular pornography is! The problem is, there's too much bad pornography! What we need is to create wonderful pornography! Creative pornography! The best works of literature should be positively pornographic!

Moving on: why not think of the entire city as one poem? Why not think of poems as living breathing things? Why shouldn't a novel be a living breathing thing? Why do novels need characters? Why do novels and short stories need plots? I'm serious – what for?? Maybe one novel can have 7 billion characters, and the next novel can have no characters, and in the novel after that all the characters could be animals & insects. Oh, wait a minute, I'm an animal, and so are you! I'm a member of the primate family – and chances are so are you!

That's another part of your problem. You forget that you're an intelligent primate. Cultural influences are good, but when you forget that you're an animal (a primate) then you're missing something. You're missing something that will help you create better literature and better art. Don't ever forget that you're an animal! It will help keep your work from becoming boring, dry, and brittle. Be an intellectual, but be an intellectual animal, so that you get the best of both worlds!

In addition, you're not made in the image of some god. There is no god. So why submit yourself to some invisible god that does not exist? Submit to nothing! Do not submit to any god that does not exist, and do not submit to any publishing corporation that thinks it's god! (Well, if you wrote some airport novel that you don't care about, let them do with it as they will if the price is right. But protect your masterpieces from those editors that will rewrite your book!)

The more strong and powerful and omnipresent you are the greater your literature will be! Dream to be great! We intelligent primates are destined for great things! So why do you arbitrarily impose limits upon yourself? (Although some of those limits are the limitations of your resources, your free time, and the limitations of the historical epic you live in). However, 500 years from now literature may have an infinite variety of forms that we can scarcely even imagine today. And the four squares of a page or a computer may be just one form of a "book" amongst thousands of forms!

Why should literature be confined to traditional grammar? Why not make up your own grammar? If 20th century classical musicians could invent the 12 tone scale why can't you do the same with grammar? Why couldn't you invent something called 12 tone grammar? Why shouldn't each one of your works have a different form of grammar? Why not?

You should have mastered basic grammar back in grammar school. I did, and I went to a mediocre grammar school, and I'm not that smart either. I can write perfect grammar when I want to, and I can **** perfect grammar up the *** when I want to. If I can be versatile – why can't you? Anyway, if you haven't mastered grammar by now you probably never will. So just write whatever you want to write – and don't worry about grammar! And if you've already mastered basic grammar then why not invent new forms of grammar – and constantly change them at will! Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!! Why not?

The only limit to the greatness of literature are the limits imposed on it by the lack of imagination of writers. Be great! Be imaginative! Stretch literature beyond its boundaries! Smash all boundaries!

Some people whine about "obscenity". Perhaps these are the same kinds of people that helped get endless works of literature censored and banned in the recent past. Perhaps Puritanism and the obstruction of our natural sex drives is one of the leading causes of so-called "writers block". You block out everything that others may have an objection to – even your own so-called "morality" is perhaps blocking you from writing the great literature you're destined to write! Don't expect to write great literature if you're all repressed! You don't think there's a connection between being repressed and "writers block"? Just write what comes into your head! To hell with what everybody else thinks! I'll tell you one thing: literature is not served by censorship, whether that censorship is from others or from yourself. Stop practicing self-censorship!

Creative writing therefore is a form of confrontation. When you write what you want to write without self-censorship you are confronting all of the ignorance that's holding literature back. The social values of any time in history are merely the social values of that political/economic structure and its ruling class. (The ruling class themselves rarely live according to these "values" – but they expect everybody else to live according to these "values" – especially writers – because writers can be dangerous to the status quo.) Many of these "values" are merely a form of trying to induce conformity, so that the masses are under control and do not threaten the ruling class and its political/economic structure. There is nothing natural about the "values" of the societies of the sick world of today. To hell with these hypocritical "moral values". You have to fight to write what you want to write! And if you don't have to fight to write would you want to write than maybe you're doing something wrong.

Again, I must say something impolite, my apologies. But why do normal people even bother writing? What do normal people have to contribute to literature? If there's nothing unusual about you, if you don't have anything original to say, then why do you bother? I think the best literature comes from those who are unique – or have some unique experiences – or have something unique to say – or have some new unique literature to give to the reading public.

If you're only writing to prove what a well-adjusted normal person you are – whatever normal is in these crazy times we live in – then who the hell cares about what you have to write unless I'm suffering from insomnia and your book helps to put me asleep!

In addition, perhaps "normal" writing about "normal" people helps to maintain the status quo. Perhaps the ruling class that owns the publishing conglomerates does not want too much stuff published that threatens its interests. Reform is one thing, but revolution is quite another. Books can be powerful! The written word can be dangerous.

Honestly, are the thoughts in your head, are the images in your imagination, anything resembling what we are told is a "normal"? Don't lie! Don't lie to me, and most of all don't lie to yourself! You know damn well the most imaginative stuff in your head is not "normal".

Why shouldn't you write all those imaginative things in your head that others won't approve of? (Well, within reason, keep the racist garbage in your head to yourself.) And why should you worry whether it takes the form of good grammar when you write them down?

If we don't use most of our brains (which we don't) then think how much we are not doing with literature! Literature is tied down in a million ways. It's tied down by our lack of imagination. Literature is tied down by the profit motive to publishing conglomerates that could care less about literature, because they could only care about profits. Literature is tied down by your own personal sexual Puritanism. Did you know that studies show that creative people have more sexual partners? Perhaps there is a relationship between creativity and sex? Or perhaps there is a relationship between not being repressed and being more creative? I feel that people who are so close minded that they find virtually everything to be "obscene" are less likely to write great creative literature. Maybe, they would make good grammar school teachers, or good editors for medical books. Medical books should have correct grammar. Most definitely. Convention has its place.

If your conventional stories are VERY INTERESTING than by all means write it down! But if you don't have any interesting conventional stories to tell, then why not reach into your imagination and create something unique and amazing? Or why not write some interesting conventional literature, and some other literature totally unlike anything ever written? Why be only a one trick pony?

If you're different – or if you do something different – people will say you're crazy. But there's good crazy and there's bad crazy. So go ahead and get good and crazy!

It is the "crazy" people that help the human race advance. (I mean the good "crazy" people.) While the conventional people stand by like a bunch of sheep, it is the "crazy" people that show that there is a better way.

Long live INDIVIDUALISM! Long live creativity!
Art is art and thats all that matters. Tommorrow? Tommorrow!

[Oedipus]

Wolf, here's a poem I've written about you

He who
Inperceptively; tendentiously, esteems that
rhymes
Denies the time indubitably of a cat
that
Rolls around and stares at limes
Yes
And so it is thus
Up
We go and die
A
Life Undone; -

So,
Die,
Wolf

[Pumpkin337]

Some people whine about "obscenity". Perhaps these are the same kinds of people that helped get endless works of literature censored and banned in the recent past. Perhaps Puritanism and the obstruction of our natural sex drives is one of the leading causes of so-called "writers block". You block out everything that others may have an objection to – even your own so-called "morality" is perhaps blocking you from writing the great literature you're destined to write! Don't expect to write great literature if you're all repressed! You don't think there's a connection between being repressed and "writers block"? Just write what comes into your head! To hell with what everybody else thinks! I'll tell you one thing: literature is not served by censorship, whether that censorship is from others or from yourself. Stop practicing self-censorship!

Perhaps we just have something called 'taste' and don't think that a pointless stream of angry vulgarities amounts to anything more than the cr@p you can read on any toilet door. Actually a toilet door is a good place for it, better still on the piece of toilet paper you will then use and flush.

Any illiterate dickhead can ignore the rules of grammar and string together a bunch of words in any meaningless fashion. Calling it 'avant garde' does not make it worth it anything though.

May I remind you (in case you forgot that there is also a thing called a dictionary in your effort to be free of all convention)

VULGAR

1. lacking sophistication or good taste.
"a vulgar check suit"

synonyms: tasteless, gross, crass, unrefined, tawdry, ostentatious, flamboyant, over-elaborate, overdone, showy, flashy, gaudy, garish, brassy, kitsch, tinselly, flaunting, glaring, brash, loud, harsh; flash, tacky, over the top, OTT, glitzy, impolite, ill-mannered, unmannerly, indecorous, unseemly, ill-bred, boorish, low, low-minded, gross, uncouth, crude, rough; uncultured, uncultivated, unsophisticated, unrefined; illiterate, uneducated, philistine; common, ordinary, low-born, plebeian; malyobbish, loutish, plebby, ignorant.

2. making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude.
"a vulgar joke"

VULGARITY

the state or quality of being vulgar.

synonyms: tastelessness, bad taste, grossness, crassness, lack of refinement, tawdriness, flamboyance, flamboyancy, ostentation, excess, gaudiness, garishness, showiness, flashiness, brassiness, tinsel, kitsch, loudness, harshness; tackiness, impoliteness, ill manners, bad manners, impropriety, grossness, indecorousness, uncouthness, crudeness, coarseness, roughness; commonness, lowness, unsophisticatedness, lack of refinement, lack of sophistication;ignorance.

In other words entirely lacking in any originality or skill.

[HCabret]

Perhaps we just have something called 'taste' and don't think that a pointless stream of angry vulgarities amounts to anything more than the cr@p you can read on any toilet door. Actually a toilet door is a good place for it, better still on the piece of toilet paper you will then use and flush.

Any illiterate dickhead can ignore the rules of grammar and string together a bunch of words in any meaningless fashion. Calling it 'avant garde' does not make it worth it anything though.

May I remind you (in case you forgot that there is also a thing called a dictionary in your effort to be free of all convention)

VULGAR

1. lacking sophistication or good taste.
"a vulgar check suit"

synonyms: tasteless, gross, crass, unrefined, tawdry, ostentatious, flamboyant, over-elaborate, overdone, showy, flashy, gaudy, garish, brassy, kitsch, tinselly, flaunting, glaring, brash, loud, harsh; flash, tacky, over the top, OTT, glitzy, impolite, ill-mannered, unmannerly, indecorous, unseemly, ill-bred, boorish, low, low-minded, gross, uncouth, crude, rough; uncultured, uncultivated, unsophisticated, unrefined; illiterate, uneducated, philistine; common, ordinary, low-born, plebeian; malyobbish, loutish, plebby, ignorant.

2. making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude.
"a vulgar joke"

VULGARITY

the state or quality of being vulgar.

synonyms: tastelessness, bad taste, grossness, crassness, lack of refinement, tawdriness, flamboyance, flamboyancy, ostentation, excess, gaudiness, garishness, showiness, flashiness, brassiness, tinsel, kitsch, loudness, harshness; tackiness, impoliteness, ill manners, bad manners, impropriety, grossness, indecorousness, uncouthness, crudeness, coarseness, roughness; commonness, lowness, unsophisticatedness, lack of refinement, lack of sophistication;ignorance.

In other words entirely lacking in any originality or skill.taste, just like art, is subjective. Remember, the penis mighter!