Ultimately this is all like any other large business model, reverse pyramid, not trickling down but flowing up. Do I mean to infer similarities between me and a typical Fortune 500 CEO, other than to point out that we both keep at least one step removed from anything that could come back to bite us and that neither of us has ever been plagued by innate honor, much less concerned about our casual reputations? I am not condemning capitalism, just clarifying that my role in it is no less unimpeachable than those considered proper…Well, it can be said that the CEO has the money but not much of a structure for longevity, while I have not done too badly and have maintained a sustaining power base. When you ask who provides something of use, it is apparent which one of us satisfies basic ongoing human needs and which one sells the country, much less the world now, mostly products that none of us really need, but owe their sheer existence to the crutch of advertising. It is an affront when you look at which of us is considered more respectable. And frankly, I would do more business if there were fewer time-passing money-wasting distractions. I am not condemning capitalism, just clarifying that my role in it is no less unimpeachable than those considered proper, and also speaking to the canard that extreme wealth comes from anything but inheritance or thievery, even if the storyline is tidied up for the ancestors. Of course, there are exceptions, but it is typically the Great American Lie that by-the-book hard work and striving by the rules can bolster one’s bank account to the upper tier of wealth. It seems to be the lie that works, though, because people want to believe that it all might be eventually available to them, and that a certain moneyed position makes one serene and impervious to the harsh realities of life and health. Perhaps you look at me, young man, and see a life of sufficient fortunes and limited misfortunes, but it is really no more than luck from the vagaries of life and also keeping my mouth shut. I have never spoken openly before like this, which is out of place in the modern world.

Speaking of, because the subject of acquired wealth is tedious and crude, have you noticed how modernism in literature, at least that which is termed as being modernism or post, has reawakened from its fractured silence, making up for lost time, and becoming perverted to serve as an authoritarian political tactic? Although these are literary techniques and structures that have been utilized for 2,000 years or so, far longer than the relatively recent-by-comparison novel format of the last 150 years to suit a wider audience, it is interesting that they seem less influential on today’s literature, at least in this country, than on culture, politics specifically. I would say for campaigning, except that seems to be happening year round anymore. If you look at, let me check my notes here, okay, eight names, Auster, Bernhard, Borges, Macedonio, Burroughs, Tzara, García Márquez, and Joyce, it is as if an essential stylistic quality of each of these esteemed authors was studied and distilled into being useful for political advantage. Would that we had a modern day Walter Benjamin to explore this. It all seems so stunning to me, not that I truly believe that political stooges have studied these authors for the means of subverting concepts and philosophies of individualism for the capacity of groupthink, but that these scribes were oracles, knights, and reporters of the current to come. That would be a book, wouldn’t it, eight authors in search of an essayist. From the beginning, Auster, the idea that the act of writing can bring about creation, Bernhard, the unleashing of vitriol and vituperation through a monologue, Borges, reality is unclear and shifting, filled with uncertain reflecting variants, from the lips, pen, and penned lips of his teacher, Macedonio, Burroughs, a virus can be introduced to anything to mutate it, the fever of language, as well as the discontinuity inoculation that rose in stock from Tzara, García Márquez, if one could convince an audience to suspend the usual rules of believability by use of detail, then implausible magical realism can inspire rapt attention, Joyce, the raw and culturally challenging stream of consciousness internal thoughts come to life, liberation of vocabulary from the blistered vault, and symbiosis between the narrator and narrated. It all seems so stunning to me, not that I truly believe that political stooges have studied these authors for the means of subverting concepts and philosophies of individualism for the capacity of groupthink, but that these scribes were oracles, knights, and reporters of the current to come.