An Excerpt from “Molasses” by Bud Sturguess

Of course I laughed at the memes. Just about all of us did. There’s no shame in admitting you had a good chuckle when you saw a meme lampooning the Titan submersible disaster. Especially the ones that were Spongebob themed; those were the best.

I suppose we felt it was okay to laugh because the guys on the submarine were so filthy rich. It was kind of telling, the mood of the average citizens, that we were so disdainful of the wealthy that we didn’t hide our giddiness when they embarked on such a typical “rich guy thing” and imploded. I guess it’s part of that “eat the rich” mentality we’ve harbored so long. We even told ourselves it was okay to laugh despite the fact that among the five dead was a 19-year-old kid, the son of one of the rich guys, who hadn’t done anything harmful to anybody with his wealth (that is, his parents’ wealth). Then again, I don’t know that his parents did anything wrong by anybody with their wealth either. But, just being rich was sinful enough for us.

Coming Soon to NEW POP LIT!

“tear past it” by Ken Kakareka

NEW POETRY

i did
a small mag
interview
where the editor
asked me
what advice
i had
for writers
starting out.
i brewed
for a minute.
when you feel
like you’re at
the finish line,
tear past it.
we’ve all
been there –
that’s when
the good stuff
comes out.

XXX

Ken Kakareka’s latest novel is Summer of Irresponsibility (Alien Buddha Press, 2023). His words have appeared or are on their way in numerous rags including Gargoyle Magazine, The Gorko Gazette, and A Thin Slice of Anxiety. A list of selected publications can be found at kenkakareka.com.

Four Fears of Literary Critics

WHAT’S WRONG WITH AMERICAN LITERATURE PART IV

FIRST FEAR: MIDDLEBROW

Many years ago, ridiculously-overrated English novelist Virginia Woolf wrote a defensive letter over a criticism of her work on a radio show(!) in which she scorned her critics as “middlebrow.” Her husband had her letter published in a collection of her writings after her death. Since then, established literary critics on both sides of the Atlantic have lived in fear of being thought of, or thought to be encouraging, or in any way associated with, “the middlebrow.” An excuse, really, for disconnecting themselves from the general public in order to remain in an artistic bubble.

In practice this has meant not aiming for the center, for a wide audience– and that writers like Ernest Hemingway who attained a wide audience despite their literary skill and intelligence have been downgraded as a result. The outcome for literature as an art form has been disastrous.

The fear is most pronounced among those critics who come from conformist middle-class backgrounds. Which means: all of them.

SECOND FEAR: SENTIMENT

To avoid sentiment and melodrama, authors have eliminated strong passion and emotion from their works. Subtle effects only. In practice: works which are restricted. Constipated. To instead be operatic in scope, expression, and theme? Nope. Can’t have it.

BUT the novels of Charles Dickens thrive on sentiment. Or what does one do with “the best worst movie ever,” 1967’s Valley of the Dolls? The flick has a bad screenplay, bad writing, bad direction, bad acting– its fans know this yet compulsively view it again and again. Why? Because of its over-the-top emotion, which strikes deep chords, despite all else, in we human beings.

No: Avoid sentiment. Play it safe. The result: More disaster.

THIRD FEAR: POP

Pop elements are also forbidden. Any of them. Anything too colorful, dramatic, or entertaining is not wanted. The approved literary reader is not supposed to be entertained. Speed and excitement? No. Action? NOT! “Lit-ya-chur” is serious business, made for committed slogs through densely written tomes while wearing determined frowns.

FOURTH FEAR: POLITICS

Finally, there’s the biggest fear: politics. Unless the politics is strictly in-line with an approved narrative issued by proper mandarins from on high. In practice this has meant an avoidance of ideas. No thrilling verbal exchanges expressing intellectual conflict. “One can’t use characters as mouthpieces for ideas,” I was told more than once by prominent literary personages. Uh, why not? “Fiction must never be polemical” founding Paris Review Editor George Plimpton himself told me in person more than twenty years ago, when we sat at a table at CBGB’s after a literary debate, drinking beer. (Which, brahmin New Englander that he was, he pronounced “be-ah.”) Did ol’ George have an agenda? Perhaps.

The extreme example of polemics and politics in fiction are the novels of Ayn Rand– anything can be pushed too far. But you know what? It worked. Readers for decades have thrilled to her one-sided diatribes and over-the-top plots. Their mistake wasn’t in enjoying the books, but in believing too-well what the characters said.

My own thinking: when you inject ideas, present more than one viewpoint.

As I do in a re-released 2012 ebook novel I’m currently hawking called The Tower. Available here.

(I need more clueless bad reviews of it. Or a few objective ones. Only 99 cents on Kindle. Weigh in!)

XXX

WHY is any of this important? It matters because the fundamental purpose of the New Pop Lit project is to provide a better “UX,” as techies say. A more exciting User Xperience. Literature that’s reader-centric. The only way forward. We’ll examine this further, at this site and elsewhere. Much more to come– in ideas, imagination, and ART.

-K. Wenclas

A Review of Uzodinma Okehi’s House of Hunger

A BOOK REVIEW BY TORI CANNING

I met Uzodinma hosting a reading in Bushwick. He was as charmingly provocative and genuine, as he was at 20, compiling House of Hunger. (If a bit more wise– phew!) I am honored to receive this zine from its writer, with years between us and its conception. 

I’m considering this novella-style zine in the context of youth and growth, from my budding writer vantage. The pertinence and timelessness of early adulthood is reassuring. HoH is an assemblage of moments & memories, cut & pasted, tangible & material. Its format is immediate– even urgent. 

Throughout the cozy, homey, maybe awkward reading, Uzodinma committed to a bit– selling this book, leaning into the salesman, though never lacking realness! An endearing and enduring feat. cha-ching! 

A few weeks passed, as did the books I’d been reading (Twilight and Autoportrait). I grabbed HoH for my subway ride to & fro a dinner date. In my phone notes (a place I often write and am currently writing) I jotted the following–

(excerpts)

photocopy– was it aesthetic choice, or practical way to edit/print? ❤ analogue/digital.

contemporaneous w/ university, or recorded memory?

unconventionally punctuated, yet reads seamlessly. props!!

fave sentence — ‘hands in the air, or not even.’

major takeaway– dichotomy of universality and specificity of youth

anyways, cool book! ttyl. 

he replied generously– 

(excerpts)

No yeah, I started off way back in the early 2000’s making zines, handing them out for free on the subway etc. Had no idea what I was doing… Now that I’m printing my own books, I paste it up, scan the pages and then use indesign to lay it out. Like the best of both worlds.

…I’m almost 50 now, my son is about to turn 17 in a few weeks, so, yeah, it’s interesting watching him, trying to decipher which aspects I can actually remember and identify with, and where’s that separation…

A few years older than young Uzo, a year into luv letters, (my own fragmented blog-style vignettes), I’m encouraged by the undying characteristics of youth-dom. A sense of community in a fleeting time/place. It’s promising and heartbreaking to grow up, flawed & flawless. I feel grateful to be included in the defective, difficult, and developing dynamics of HoH. Thank you Uzo, for your earnestness and humor. 

As I write my own words/worlds, I aspire to be inviting and sincere, documenting time passing, myself growing, my relationships twisting and becoming (and becoming less appealing). Writing is sharing, not upstanding. 

tori canning is obsessed with text and textiles, letters (the shape of) and letters (via mail), books (as object and info), writing, bodies in (and out of) clothing, glue and glitter, music and its movement, labor as dance (dance as labor), sitting at the kitchen table.  She has a silly little BFA from a beautiful Philly art school that she’s admittedly proud of, though has yet to provide fame, glory and riches.

Uzodinma Okehi Your number 10-shirt, your Afrobeat black president, circa 1994. House of Hunger, available now at: bokoye.com

Canonical Conformity

ONE THING I learned during the period of my life I spent teaching in high schools is the educational system weeds out the rebels. Often, the most creative, nonconformist members of a class are the delinquents. Usually the leader of the delinquents.

(This was the case in 1960s to 80s England. See this book):

At every stage, more individuals are filtered out as the most obedient climb the institutional ladder: those raising their hands at the front of the class– not bored sleepers at the back.

THE INSTILLED ATTITUDE becomes that of any bureaucracy: “Go along to get along.” The canon of approved literary models becomes unquestioned– even if those models were daring choices at the time they originally were celebrated and canonically included. (Can’t dare anything today!)

Which led to the creation of the god of gods in the literary realm: High Modernism.

Never mind that most of the High Modernist canonical novels connect with few people and are in fact not very good. (Gregor Samsa waking up as a giant insect? Okay, we get the point. We’re hit over the head with it. Now do we still have to read the entire story?)

Aesthetic satisfaction: nil.

c/o pandoraoutletofficialstore

WHY do approved literary intellectuals (see photo) celebrate– nay, require– vagueness and “difficulty” (a favorite term)? The reason is obvious when you think about it. They’ve climbed to high station after an intensive weeding-out process. Understanding difficult, poorly-constructed novels is part of the process. They’re like government bureaucrats pushed upward according to how well they understand obscure regulations– the more obscure, the better. They need to be few. Justifies their position. “Literature” isn’t for everybody! Not just anybody can appreciate those High Modernist guys.

-KW

Movie Review by Nick Gallup

A REVIEW OF THE 2017 NETFLIX MOVIE HOSTILES

For those of you who are reading-challenged, I watched a thought-provoking morality movie on Netflix called “Hostiles” the other night. It’s a western, set circa 1878 just after Custer was killed and the Indian wars were ending. An Army captain, hardened by years of fighting and days away from retirement, is ordered to escort a group of Indians back to their sacred grounds in Montana. He hates Indians and is not happy about the assignment. The movie makes no attempt to disguise how abysmally the Indians had been treated, so it’s not your typical John Wayne fare. Along the way they pick up a woman whose family has been massacred by renegade Indians. Won’t tell you any more than that, other than to say that there are some very graphic fighting scenes which will probably turn off squeamish or possibly more discerning viewers. Beautiful photography, shot mostly outdoors. Slow moving, but in an enticing way, as it takes its time for character development. Battle scenes were very realistic, as there was none of that quick draw pulp fiction and the captain misses more shots than he makes. A beautiful English actress, Rosamund Pike, plays the massacre survivor. I fell in love with her when she played Jane, the eldest sister in the Kierra Knightly version of “Pride and Prejudice.” (It’s one of my favorite movies. If you haven’t seen that version, then you haven’t seen the best version of P&P ever made.) Rosamund’s a little out of place at first, but she’s such a good actress she makes it believable. Christian Bale is the captain, and he does a credible job portraying a weary, lonely soldier who realizes too late he may have been on the wrong side of the fight. And, yeah, amidst all the adventure and chaos there’s a predictable, but satisfying love story. Ain’t movies great? Reading is better, though.

-Nick Gallup

Interview: Joshua Vigil

1.)  Have you known women like the character in your story, “Straight and Narrow”?

I think everyone shares morbid desires similar to the woman’s, whether we admit to it or not. Certainly I see myself in her just as much as I do in the narrator. But do I know anyone who has gone out and done what she’s done? I don’t think so. Though, I guess, who’s to say? Perhaps I do and I just don’t know.

2.)  Who are your favorite writers, present or past?

Rebecca Curtis is one of our best living writers, in my opinion.

Other writers I return to often: Barry Hannah, Amy Hempel, Mary Gaitskill, Denis Johnson.

Also, Amie Barrodale’s collection is perfect.


3.)  Have you written a novel, or do you plan to?

I’m a little superstitious and so all I will say is: Yes. If nothing comes from it, I’ll trash it and try again. And then again? And then again? Probably one day I’ll give up actually. Maybe get into gardening. Birdwatching.

NOW read Joshua’s story, “Straight and Narrow.”

A Political Novel

RATE THIS EBOOK!

CAN ONE MERGE LITERATURE AND POLITICS?

The Tower is a novel I wrote over the course of about five weeks in 2012, while I was living in Philadelphia. I wrote it as a prototype political novel– with pop elements– wanting to express my thoughts about the recent Occupy protests in Philly and elsewhere, but also drawing upon my experiences with an activist writers group in the previous decade. The chief subject of the book, however, was the city itself (which I was to shortly move from), presented in an unnamed, thinly-disguised version.

I posted the novel as an ebook at Amazon and Barnes & Noble, and then more-or-less forgot about it. Forgot about, because of the uncertain nature of my life– living out of a duffel bag in low-rent apartments– and because I quickly moved on to other literary experiments, including with various attempts at fast-paced multi-dimensional fiction. (The first of those being an ebook novella titled Assassination of X.)

Forgot about, that is, until I noticed a notably negative “One Star” review of The Tower at Amazon, posted in 2019. From one of the critics of that activist writers group I mentioned?

Now, The Tower is assuredly not a Five-Star novel (few outside Tolstoy’s War and Peace are), but neither is it a One-Star book. Based on the clarity of writing and the clash of ideas alone, I’d think it’d qualify at least for Two Stars from any fair-minded reader! (More about that review and the person or persons potentially behind it in a later post.)

I’ve decided to correct some typos in the book, added one sentence, and have dropped the price to the lowest that Amazon allows– $0.99 U.S.– and reissued it. Why? Because I’ve realized this 50,000-word prototype is at least as relevant today, at the end of 2023, as it was in 2012. The world if anything is even more chaotic; the gap between rich and poor today even more extreme.

CAN I then get a few honest reviews of The Tower, anonymous or not? I’ve always enjoyed debate and the clash of ideas. I also wish to know the work’s actual flaws– I assume they’re many– so I can avoid such missteps in future experiments. There are many things I’d do differently with the novel myself. So: fire away! Let’s get those Two-or-Three Star reviews going.

For those interested, click on the link: here.

Thanks!

-Karl Wenclas

Interview: Bela Seitz

1.)  Is New York City as crazy as you depict it in your story?

Last week in Central Park, I walked by a man covered in what looked like dozens of raccoons who, amidst their striped fur and beady black eyes, lifted up a gloved hand and pointed at me to ask: “Do you want to help me feed them?” Many people might find that crazy but that was simply my Tuesday morning commute.

2.)  Who are your literary role models?

To name a few: Toni Morrison, John McPhee, David Sedaris, Edgar Allan Poe and Edith Wharton.

3.)  What motivated you to become a writer?

Everything.

XXX

NOW read Bela’s story at New Pop Lit: “Give the People Guns.”

What’s Wrong with American Literature Part III

WHAT HAPPENED?

(Those who most need to read this, won’t.)

LITERARY INTELLECTUALS became too caught up in their own intellects. They lost sight of what matters most: That authentic art is of, by, and for the people. IS a part of a society’s every day life. HAS meaning within that context.

The same phenomenon stagnated classical music. It became burdened by the art’s own intellectuals: music critics and academic pontificators who added to the form a heavy legacy of profound and-or pretentious thought, when all that mattered was the emotional connection between music and listener. Those notes or chords, or voices– those moments which went deep into a person’s soul and were beyond thought.

New fiction in this culture today especially should be playing chords deep within us, not merely impressing us with some Gaddis Foster-Wallace Knausgaard exhibition of disconnected intelligence.

Dickens and Dumas in the 19th century were wildly popular for reasons. Jack London’s tales have been translated into every language in every culture on the planet and loved by readers for over 100 years for reasons. Literature as an art form needs to get back to those reasons if it expects to be central to this society’s culture once again.

-KW