Talk:Underground Literary Alliance

I think Emerson's edits mischaracterize the criticisms of the ULA on alt.zines and slant them in Karl and the ULA's favor. I know he is a member of the groups and is definitely the one to be filling out their goals and history, but perhaps he should consider limiting his editing on the section of criticism of the group so it doesn't appear so biased?

I do realize I was one of the biggest critics ULA when they were more active on alt.zines a few years ago and really shouldn't be the person to present that section as well, but it's frustrating when I attempted to present the feelings that were aired on alt.zines to find them so severely edited in the ULA's favor. Maybe a more neutral party at some point could read through the fairly lively discussions and summerize the criticisms from other zinesters? It was certainly a lot more than just of "the organization's stated emphasis on spin and ballyhoo" and I don't even have a firm grasp on what "openly narcissistic post-modern writing" even means :) --Dan Halligan

I thought your edits were overtly biased, and I think the standing version is more neutral. For the record, I am listed as a "supporter" of the ULA (not a "member"), and I'm not interested in using this space to make them look good. If you examine the edits, you'll noticed I toned down Steve K's rhetoric much more than yours. Edameron 18:41, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

You are listed on their Membership Roster on this webpage and have a profile there: http://www.literaryrevolution.com/members.html Believe me, I checked before making any comment. I really think there were a lot of legitimate criticisms of the ULA from many members of the zine community that you reduced to something very trivial. While years later it doesn't really matter, I didn't even know they were still around, but I'd hate for history to be rewritten incorrectly. --Dan

Trust me, Dan, I don't care about protecting the ULA's image here. I just want the wiki to be as neutral as possible, not a soapbox for one party or the other. I thought you and Steve K both went overboard on making your personal positions known. I tried to focus the "criticism" section more on the facts of the debates and less on your assumptions about the ULA's motives and expectations. If you want to re-write it, go ahead, it's all yours. I've already invested all that this is worth to me.

If you can't parse "narcissistic postmodern writing," I direct you to a much simpler Italian expression: "All smoke, no meat." I think that saying, coincidentally, sums up a lot of people's denunciations of the ULA (if not yours): "The ULA is all smoke (hype) and no meat (writing)." Edameron 19:00, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

I gave it one more edit, which I hope you won't find dismissive. Your move, Dan. Edameron 19:13, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

Hey, boys. I just wanted to let you know that my name appears as a recent edit on the Criticisms section because I corrected a spelling error. I promise I didn't sneak any bias into that "n" that I inserted. Actually, I wanted to add that, as a non-biased reader (which I am -- feel free to Google my name, Dan, to make sure I'm not a sneak; I'm quite unaffiliated), I think the section is absolutely neutral as is. It's succinct and seems to fairly treat all parties. As you were. Kate 18:53, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Neutral? The ULA post is hardly neutral from my standpoint-- a few real slams at me. What does it mean when the Wiki entry on the ULA is more unbiased and impersonal than the Zinewiki version? So be it. I'm well used to such. (There are some tremendous misconceptions about the ULA here in this discussion which I'm tempted to go into.)

I'll admit most of the ULA happenings were "before my time" in the zine world, so it is hard for me to seperate, that's why I left it up to Dan and Emerson, and every other registered visitor, to fix the unfactual statements. ZineWiki is brand new, (launched less than a month ago) so we don't quite have the editorial team that Wikipedia does. Feel free to make any appropriate edits to the article and we'll go from there. Alan Fall of Autumn 10:48, 8 August 2006 (EDT)

Disregarding the existing zine scene? How is this possible when the ULA always was PART of the existing zine scene? Yes, our strategy was different from that of many. So what? Our focus was naturally on building our movement. At the same time we continually welcomed zinesters into our ranks. This is how the ULA grew from a handful of writers to an organizatiuon of over forty people! (That we didn't kowtow to existing self-designated zine authorities is a different story.) The posts which were added to the ZineWiki entry in fact exemplify our history. The ULA posts positive statements about ourselves; on alt.zines; on many places. Then people rush to criticize them. Why? I can't say I get it. I've never attacked Dan's operations, his way of doing things. I've been too busy trying to promote the ULA. I've said countless times, "Do your own thing." Think of the time I've wasted advocating within the underground, within the ULA itself, which would be better spent advocating the cause of the underground and underground writers to the outside world. (I'll address some misconceptions about the ULA when I have the time. Thanks.)-King.

The entire "criticism and controversy" section, if I'm not mistaken, was inspired by a six-year-old alt.zines debate that would be irrelevant in Wikipedia but has thusfar been deemed relevant here. It's a fact that some people in zines have a negative view of Karl Wenclas and the ULA. The "criticism and controversy" section attempts to document and elucidate that fact. Ideally, the entire article should be as unbiased, accurate and comprehensive as possible. Dan thought the original article was pro-ULA propaganda, so he changed it. If Karl thinks Dan's changes are anti-ULA propaganda, Karl can change Dan's changes to Steve. Then Dan can change Karl's changes, and someone else can change those changes. The night is young, and I'm finished meddling. Edameron 12:45, 8 August 2006 (EDT)