The Guild of Outsider Writers

By: DB Cox (Guest) on 06-08-2007 23:15

[-] Collapse comment

By: DB Cox (Guest IP 75.138.60.240) on 06-08-2007 23:15

A pertinent question about this manifesto might be: Where is the clear line between the so-called “outlaws” (an unfortunate label that only seems to further promote factionalism) and the hard-to-define, nebulous “academics”.

One thing that differentiated the avant-garde from the mainstream in the old days was that the regular publishers wouldn’t publish non-conformist writers, and they were more or less a small group. Now you have a situation where a writer as exotic as Donald Barthelme gets published right from the beginning of his career in places like New Yorker Magazine. And the New Yorker is also hospitable to writers like Borges and Gabriel Garcia Márquez.

If the notion of “avant-garde” (or fill in the romantic/outsider label of choice) art means anything, it is defined by its hostility to accepted artistic standards and values. The very success of Publishers such as Grove Press in selling “The Beats” (another meaningless label) hastened the decline of the “avant-garde” by broadening the audience for, and hence increasing the tolerance of, nontraditional art, absorbing it into the tradition, blurring the distinctions between the established literary standard and the works of the counterculture. Another words, the elements of the Beat Generation were absorbed into the mainstream.

The avant-garde has always represented rebellion against convention. As rebelliousness has become more and more commonplace, as conformity has been replaced with more open and unconventional lifestyles (from “the beats” to “the hippies” to “the punks”… etc.), the stark contrast that existed between the outsiders and the insiders has faded to the point of insignificance.

In my opinion, this section of the manifesto speaks in the clearest and most concise voice:

“We will find those like us, and in the end will travel the road together. Looking beyond the shards, we see something deeper, something higher, something enduring. We will find those like us, and in the end will travel the road together. Looking beyond the shards, we see something deeper, something higher, something enduring.”

On the Road with “those like us” looking beyond the shards for something deeper, something higher, something enduring. Factionless—poets all…

hopeless rainmakers
launching strange songs
into bone-white skies
common tones
painted with
smoke & thunder
voodoo illusions
lost in heat-layered
streets of confusion
shadow shakers
dancing naked
in that empty space
between savage
& savior—
wild dogs
howling at the door
of the madhouse

By: Carter Jefferson (Guest) on 07-08-2007 17:21

[-] Collapse comment

By: Carter Jefferson (Guest IP 67.101.123.80) on 07-08-2007 17:21

I couldn't agree more with your sentiments, but I'm so old I've learned one thing: Whatever you want people to know you have get over in a very short sound bite. This is *way* too long. Cut it by two-thirds and maybe people will listen. Maybe. Or dream up a five-word slogan to lead into it. Remember "Workers of the World Unite!"

Best of luck!

By: David Blaine (Registered) on 08-08-2007 04:41

[-] Collapse comment

By: David Blaine (Registered IP 207.69.137.11) on 08-08-2007 04:41

While reading this, while thinking back over a timeline that began before my own birth, while contemplating the past attempts and past failures of previous outsiders, it seems that we are all destined, damned perhaps, to turn into our parents. Of course, some of us may have had great parents. We can only hope.

By: J Tyrer (Guest) on 08-08-2007 09:44

[-] Collapse comment

By: J Tyrer (Guest IP 208.221.166.2) on 08-08-2007 09:44

I am uncertain whether the difficulty is ignorance or philosophical inconsistency, but one should know one\\\'s history if one is to start a movement. Apparently you do not.

You state: Quote

If we are to forge a new counterculture we must reject this slide into factionalism, and follow the example of Thoreau and Emerson, of Ginsberg, Kerouac and Burroughs.

You then state: Quote

We are forewarned that the drug-fixated and cultish short-cuts of the sixties lead only to dead ends

Ginsberg, Burroughs, and Kerouac were immersed in the drug culture. It is impossible to emulate them without being equally immersed in the drug culture.

By: Dave (Guest) on 08-08-2007 10:54

[-] Collapse comment

By: Dave (Guest IP 76.226.76.181) on 08-08-2007 10:54

I think it is possible to emulate someone's good charateristics without embracing their character flaws. We are surely creative enough to come up with entirely new character flaws of our own!

By: R. W. Watkins (Guest) on 08-08-2007 18:10

[-] Collapse comment

By: R. W. Watkins (Guest IP 142.162.80.55) on 08-08-2007 18:10

It is quite fine to produce a manifesto, but first one must have a public educated and attentive enough to comprehend it. I'm willing to bet that AT LEAST 80 percent of the English-speaking population under 45 would not have the attention span and/or reading skills to even get through the first few lines of this little rant.

Oh!--one other thing--Who's going to explain to them who Emerson, Kerouac, Burroughs, etc. are? Has anyone thought about that? Some of you out there must enjoy 'belling the cat'--I have met university students in recent years who have not even heard of The Doors, Jimi Hendrix and The Rolling Stones!

By: David Blaine (Registered) on 09-08-2007 04:36

[-] Collapse comment

By: David Blaine (Registered IP 207.69.137.29) on 09-08-2007 04:36

RW, yes, I think most of the younger generation believe that The Doors, Jimi Hendrix and Che Guevara are companies that produce T Shirts.

By: Dylan L. (Guest) on 09-08-2007 08:18

[-] Collapse comment

By: Dylan L. (Guest IP 82.38.225.166) on 09-08-2007 08:18

Quote

I am uncertain whether the difficulty is ignorance or philosophical inconsistency, but one should know one\\\'s history if one is to start a movement. Apparently you do not...

Ginsberg, Burroughs, and Kerouac were immersed in the drug culture. It is impossible to emulate them without being equally immersed in the drug culture.

'ignorance'?.. 'philosophical inconsistency'?.. Well, in actuality the manifesto text stands up and you've just misinterpreted it. Besides you only need to read the first lines of Howl—by the founding father himself—to realise what's right...

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix..."

By: David Blaine (Registered) on 09-08-2007 09:44

[-] Collapse comment

By: David Blaine (Registered IP 207.69.137.6) on 09-08-2007 09:44

Just a polite reminder that although I'm enjoying the back and forth at it's present tenor, please keep everything civil. I'd rather read what you think and why you feel the way you do than angry retorts. Thanks all.

By: Dylan L. (Guest) on 09-08-2007 12:25

[-] Collapse comment

By: Dylan L. (Guest IP 82.38.225.166) on 09-08-2007 12:25

You're right David, of course. It's a powerful bit of writing, this manifesto—with a quality of seeming more so each time I dig into it; as if it develops in the asides—for any impassioned fire-starting here...