So, first, some history: The group before OWC was GOW, which stood for the Guild of Outsider Writers. It was formed by five members of the Underground Literary Alliance, three of which were Canadian (I’m leaving that part in, though I have no idea how it’s relevant). The goal was to branch off and do our own thing, take the things we liked from the ULA (community, promoting undergrounders, etc) and leave the things we didn’t (“ballyhoo,” playing heels, constantly trashing writing programs and their graduates, etc).
Mostly as a way of distancing ourselves from the ULA, we dropped “underground” and replaced it with “Outsider,” figuring it meant much the same thing.
At various times, most recently at the end of last year, I’ve dropped out of the organization I helped to start. Each time, the name of the group was partly responsible, though the main reason each time was my fragile mental state, which has a habit of disintegrating on me at seemingly random times.
Why does “Outsider” bother me sometimes? I think it’s best summed up in an e-mail I wrote recently to OWC co-founder Caleb J Ross:
Caleb,
I definitely see what you’re saying. But, to me, it’s about not limiting ourselves….I think that the first reaction to something is a powerful thing, and having the title “Outsiders” automatically sets us in opposition to something (either the Colin Wilson definition of the word or as a synonym (sp?) for underground or indie.) I’d rather have the thing defined by what it is, rather than what it’s not. Does that make sense? I really couldn’t articulate why it bothered me until recently, but I think that’s why.
Now that I think of it, we could probably just come up with another name entirely. Or I could just get over it and have a slice of pizza.
Well, the domain renewed, so we have it for another year, so there’s no reason to rush anything. But just out of curiosity, if you had your druthers, what kind of name would you pick?
Shortly after I wrote that e-mail I Googled “underground writers” or something like that, to see if I could get some perspective on the whole thing. A blog post by Keith Gessen of N+1 magazine was one of the first to come up. Man, I really dug the article, even though I thought the description of Karl “King” Wenclas, the founder of the ULA, was quite snarky, misleading, and ultimately unfair. I mean, Karl isn’t “indiscriminate in his opposition to all published writers, no matter the content of their books.” That would be absurd, considering the that ULA had it’s own press for a while.
But the essence of the article, that the “underground” is somewhere that nearly all writers have to go through, is something I can certainly dig on. And I felt like his description of the types of underground writers was spot-on.
There seems to be several layers to the thing, right? Several different types of writers in the underground.
1) There are those who don’t want to spend any more time in the underground than they have to. They want out as quickly as p0ssible.
2) There are writers who want to stay in the underground long enough to build up some (imaginary?) “street cred” before moving on.
3) There are some who love the underground so much that they don’t want to be anywhere else. They want to stay at a place where art is put before profit, a place where they feel understood. They have no desire for any sort of mainstream success.
4) There are writers who both love the underground AND wouldn’t mind having mainstream success. That is to say, they have a genuine love for underground books and writers and love being published by small presses. But if there was a chance to leave it, to get exposed to a wider audience, they would take it.
I think for the most part, OWC writers are in the fourth category, though we definitely have some who are in the third.
There’s also the humor part, that I mentioned in Lynn’s last post, as well as the fact that we DO love underground literature and take it seriously, even though we very often don’t take ourselves too seriously.
Also, for the most part, we’re less formally experimental than some places, though we do have a small share of linguistically experimental stuff on here. Where we usually experiment is in the content, the types of subjects we address through our poetry and prose. As for our fiction, we seem to get the idea that “plot based” and “character based” stories are not mutually exclusive.
Finally, as David Blaine said in Lynn’s last post, we can’t represent all Outsider Writers. There’s just not enough resources for that.
It just seems to me that there’s this thing we have have that’s waiting to be defined in a more specific way than what we have right now. There’s a sort of essence of this group that Outsider Writers Collective just doesn’t seem to describe.
I’m not proposing that the name be changed if people don’t want it to (I’m still not sure I even want it to change. There is “branding” to consider), and I have no idea what specific terminology would be appropriate if it did change.
These are just some concerns I’ve had over the years. I wanted to run ‘em by ya’ll, see what you think.
I do love the underground, though. Absolutely love it. Thanks, Keith Gessen, for reminding me. I needed that.
OK, here’s a picture of an evil clown:
Disco photo credit:
Evil Clown photo credit:
Pat you bring up a lot of great points, and as you know about me- I am an avid point bringer-upper. Never hurts to toss it out there.
But I am also practical, as are many people here. Nobody judges a dentist who charges to fix a tooth for fifteen minutes and I don’t think recognition, compensation, etc. should be looked on as dirty words, sell out words, bad things. I think many of us would do it anyway, and DO. With or without rewards. Maybe that’s another discussion.
A name is a name, I know some of the history you have outlined from you and others and I can understand how groups split when the activities reflect different priorities. “Activism” has it;s place but I think many people in the general public are of the mind that it is less about a goal and more about the publicity of the activist or worse- “sour grapes”.
The name issue to be quite frank reminds me of the way women who want to look better do the easy thing- cut their hair or dye it as opposed to a change that takes longer with slow versus quick results. Yes, you might need to pin point a few core things. Yes, you might need a little trim.
But ultimately what I think makes the independent versus corporate (I say corporate because it is more accurate to me) is not the name or whether or not you have street cred. The difference IS community, the willingness to do that favor, help that friend lay out a chap or tweak a website, the sharing of resources as opposed to saying “survival of the fittest” or profit above all.
When I’ve engaged in literary activism, it’s been to advance more than one objective at once– which is the great thing about it.
1.) You do it for the rightness of the action itself– such as protesting real corruption in the lit-world: corruption which continues to exist whether we choose to ignore it or not. I’d think that writers who come from the lower levels of this society, as I do, should at least– at least– have a level playing field. It’s not too much to ask.
2.) At the same time, activism can be amazingly effective in getting the word about outcast writers and their work. For those without credentials, degrees, connections, or resources, it’s often the only way to get the word out. It’s a way to level that unfair playing field. There’s nothing wrong with getting publicity! The name authors have million-dollar publicity departments and publicity agents doing it for them. Are we supposed to NOT compete?
For every activist who ever lived, from Jesus through Mao, I’m sure there were plenty of status quo aristocrat types disdaining the noise as “sour grapes.” Reaction to action is expected.
Re underground. I’ve been an outsider just about all my life. It hasn’t really been by choice– there’s no choice but to embrace the concept, which I’ve done, and turn that outsider status into an asset.
Yes, I choose #4 also. Every writer should want to be read!
I’m really glad you wrote this piece. I think I may even link it on our “about” page as it does so much to lay out the debate while also offering a few notes on where OWC stands. Quite nice.
I happen to agree with the publicity point and mean to refer to some of the perceptions out there about it, not necessarily my own.
People can be cynical and suspicious.
I think that complicates it, because perception enters into it.
There are times when I think we could stand to do more as far as stunts and antics. They don’t have to be harmful or destructive (I’m a hippie type) but certainly we could be putting our heads together more to- as they say- “think outside the box”.
The street performers you see at protests and rallies, from Raging Grannies to Billionaires For Bush, have the right idea I think.
For the record, I like the OWC name – it has a nice ring to it, and captures the mindset well.
As I followed Lynn’s post and this seems related I think that I will throw my two pence worth in.
NB: I am not grinding an axe nor will I spring some piece of writing on you. I was just thinking.
It seems to me that the name has a slight flaw in being broad enough to to be inclusive, yet separatist, almost anti-elitist (if you will allow me that). The essence that you describe as needing definition seems partly covered by Lynn’s comment:
1.
2.A distinction that makes me interested in OW over many other groups is that there is an effort to reach out to people who truly KNOW the meaning of outsider, or being “marginalized”. Now I don’t mean just people who feel apart. I mean people who are historically kept apart: inmates at prisons, the psychiatrically and physically disabled, the homeless, the poor, LGBT, and so on.
That seems a pretty good place to start, and ‘Outsiders’ is perfect for that. Except that people who belong in those groups (which I do) may not want to always want to feel that they can only exist on or belong to an ‘outside’ world, like circus freaks or Frankensteins. The novelty wears off after a while. Likewise perhaps people who ‘feel apart’ as Lynn said might not want to associate with such groups
Then there is the the writing angle. Getting something down in print and read, something that is equal to anything that the insider press can offer by any measure you care to apply; that perhaps ought to be the goal, individually and as a group. Nothing to do with advertizing or monetary success, nor really about being in and staying in the underground.
Ultimately the name hardly matters though; like Pat said there is branding and the name is the sizzle, the content the sausage, to use a worn out phrase.
What’s that girl from the Subway ad doing at the top of this anyway?
Hey-
Really_Cool_Cats_Who_Are_Going_To_Be_A_Wheel_Someday(dot)Org
isn’t registered to anyone at the moment.
Just sayin’
,;-)