A Conservative Journey Through Literary America — Part 2: A Conversation With Michael Blowhard
by Matt PattersonMichael Blowhard, of 2Blowhards.com fame, describes himself as “…. a blogger who has lived and worked in the NYC arts and media worlds for 30 years, and who worked in and around the NYC trade book publishing world for 15 years.” Surely, I surmised, this is someone who may have some answers. Mr. Blowhard was gracious enough to answer at length a series questions via email.
Do you think that there are fewer conservatives (artistic, political, or both) in the arts generally, and literature in particular?
A two-part answer.
Part one is that I have a super-inclusive view of “culture.” We’re all immersed in culture whether we know it or not, and whether we want to be or not. We clothe ourselves, we watch TV and movies and flip through magazines, we eat, we listen to stories and jokes, we drive cars and have opinions about airports and restaurants … That’s all culture. So from that point of view we’re *all* “in the arts.”
Part two … Deeply-held Zen bullshit to one side … Yeah, in my experience there are far fewer righties in the arts than lefties, and that holds for writing and publishing as much as the other arts I’ve come in contact with. Lefties dominate, and in most ways they dictate the terms that the arts discussion takes place on. At its worst you could say that a common, unspoken assumption in the arts is that being a lefty is a prerequisite for even getting into the field.
All that said, I should add that I’ve always wondered about something, which is how many of the people in the arts who go along with the general-leftie-ism of the the field do so only for public consumption. In other words, how many of them dissent privately? I’d guess that a fair number do. But how will we ever know?
I should add as well that one of the reasons my fellow Blowhards and I blog is to demonstrate that it’s possible to be arts-guys without being party-line lefty. We developed a pretty good-sized readership pretty quickly, so I have to believe that there are numerous people out there who like the arts but who find the official art-world’s leftie-ism off-putting.
Give some examples of conservative novelists/essayists.
Probably the most famous contempo conservative American literary writers are Tom Wolfe and Mark Helprin. Dana Gioia, a terrific poet…is also a conservative. The conservative magazine world is swarming with rightie journalists and essayists. Bruce Bawer and Andrew Sullivan are two of many examples.
Is it some temperamental quality in the conservative mind that pushes away from a literary career? Or is it institutional liberalism in the lit community? Some combination of the two?
Let me take the opportunity to introduce another one of my Zen-ish points, if I can. I think it can be a mistake to over-focus on the self-described “literary” wing of the reading-and-writing worlds. So far as fiction goes, for instance, there’s a huge and dynamic non-literary world of narrative genre writing out there: sci-fi, crime, romance, erotica, and more. In my experience these writers are often far more free-thinking and far less doctrinaire and party-line than the literary crowd is. They’re also just as smart and often far more talented. They create works in modes that everyday people can understand and enjoy, and they do so in what’s often a friendly, accessible, and even businesslike spirit. And it’s a far larger world than the literary world is.
The literary world? Feh — who needs ‘em?
What about politically conservative literary authors throughout history? Did there use to be more? If so, why? What are the historical factors you think would have caused the shift?
You’ll probably want to speak to a real scholar about this. But I can’t resist taking a swing at it anyway. I see three main stages:
- In the late 1800s some writers (Henry James was one) started treating the novel not as a big sprawling entertainment form but as a work of art that needed its own artistic unity.
- Modernist writers responded to the challenge presented by the movies by focusing ever more on “writerly” concerns.
- The post-WWII American boom produced, along with everything else, a boom in colleges and universities. As more people watched TV, book-fiction lodged itself ever more in academia. Eventually what’s often joked about as “the creative writing industry” seized command of the serious-writing wing of fiction-writing.
In other words, where “serious writing” goes, elitism, snobbery, radicalism, and academicism came to prevail.
What advice would you give a political conservative thinking about a career in literature, or the arts generally?
Honestly I’d advise anyone, rightie or lefty, to avoid a life in the arts, at least the arts as conventionally understood: literary-fiction, gallery art, etc. It’s likely to be a very hard one. I’m very serious about that. Money is scarce, success may never arrive, frustration and disappointment are inevitable, breakdowns and suicides aren’t uncommon. And in a country as full of money, space, and opportunity as the U.S., why opt for the hard way?
That said … If your righty is going to persist in his ambitions despite my warnings … I’d first urge him or her to consider how leftie-dominated the traditional arts are. Do you really want to fight that in addition to all the other battles you’ll inevitably be fighting? Perhaps you might want to think about the new media instead. Website design, for instance, is wide open — you can set up shop, do work, publish, get paid — and there’ll be no institutional crapola you’ll have to wade your way through. I’d also suggest looking into the entertainment business instead of the more highbrow wings of the culture world. If you can do work that connects with a sizable audience, you can work in TV or movies whatever your politics. You’ll also be able to make a decent living.
If your righty persists in his/her interest in the higher-brow arts … I’d suggest finding your way to the righty rebel groups that do in fact exist in at least some of them. In painting, for example: the New York Academy of Art runs a 19th-century academic-style program, and there are people like Jacob Collins (a real giant, as far as I’m concerned) who are the suns around whom many “conservative” painters circle. In poetry, the New Traditionalists and New Formalists (who gather once a year at West Chester College outside Philly) are reviving traditional poetic forms. Frederick Turner is a giant here — a great critic and poet both. In architecture, there are New Classicists at work, and the New Urbanists are tradition-oriented too, though some of them get kind of NPR/PBS soft lefty. Only a few architecture programs (Notre Dame, University of Miami) base their training on tradition, but “a few” is better than none, god knows.
So far as literary fiction goes, I wish I could come up with decent advice. There aren’t any conservative or traditionalist schools or circles around, to my knowledge. Like I say, most fiction writers who care about traditional values go into narrative-fiction fields: movies, TV, or genre fiction. Which leaves lit-fiction almost entirely to the lefties, the schoolmarms, and the radicals. So I’d venture three thoughts: 1) Keep your rightieness to yourself if you can. Or 2) Make a deliberate choice to flaunt it. Make a statement of it. Identify yourself as Mr. or Ms. Defiant Literary Righty right at the outset. There’s a reason why Tom Wolfe wears the White Suit! Or 3) Start up a school or circle of writers and editors and readers who prize traditional literary values and craft, and then endure decades of neglect and abuse.
Thank you for time, Mr. Blowhard.
In the next week’s installment, we will analyze Mr. Blowhard’s response, as well as check in with Pulitzer finalist and Weekly Standard literary editor Philip Terzian.
Read Mr. Patterson’s “A Conservative Journey Through Literary America — Part 1: Introduction”
Matt Patterson is a columnist and commentator whose work has appeared in The Washington Examiner, The Baltimore Sun, and Pajamas Media. He is the author of “Union of Hearts: The Abraham Lincoln & Ann Rutledge Story.” His email is mpatterson.column@gmail.com.







Subscribe via RSS
39 Comments
Excellent piece. As a writer, I've also learned that many in the literary field (agents and editors, in particular) are also willing to chase a trend–even if it means suppressing their liberal tendancies, albeit temporarily, to make a buck. Example: The inspirational genre.
Mr. Blowhard does seem to know a thing or two about all this stuff. Well done. I've just two sniggling comments. Avoid using Andrew Sullivan as an example. The man changes positions like a nymphomanic trying to get through the Kama Sutra before lunch. And I was a "non-traditional" student (enrolled at age 43) in the Univesity of Cincinnati School of Desgn Architecture Art & Planning (DAAP) and the program is traditional & reasonably conservative. And it has been rated in the top five of arch. schools for much of the last 15 years. I didn't see a whole lot of lefties in the faculty. And those who were didn't bring that sort of bent into their instruction. I did things backward. Worked 25+ years in architecture, then got my degree. What do I know?
http://shermansmarch.blogspot.com
Alright, another DAA fellow! In my time it was just DAA…
I yearn for a more genteel time, when nudnicks didn't wear their politics on their sleeve. During the campaign, I was at a booksigning at a major outlet. Several other authors proudly displayed their Obama buttons… hell, the table was set up right next to the scores of books dedicated to the one. So for three hours, I listened to the most nauseating drek. I just shut up and smiled – what else could I do – outnumbered, and alone, I felt like Moses in the desert. But I managed to sell more books that day.
As an actor, I can attest first-hand that the arts community is abundant with lefties. Our acting community is relatively close-knit, and everyone knows–or at least has met–everyone else within. I'm one of the very, very few conservatives, or at least, I'm one of the few who are "out." I'm regarded as an amusing novelty, and am therefore tolerated. (Somewhat like the harmless elderly aunt at Christmas, who thinks she was Pope Pius I in a former life, or something, and no one has the heart to tell her otherwise.)
As a writer, I'm convinced more and more that the best advice for Conservatives who write lit-fiction is figure out a way to get into entertainment, show your work has an audience, and then use that as the basis to sell your novels to publishers.
Either that, or start your own publishing company. Or self-publish through iUniverse or some other place and then work your butt off trying to sell it.
[...] Are you following the serial interview with “Michael Blowhard” over at Big Hollywood?? You should be. Category: Uncategorized | Comment (RSS) [...]
I guess saying 'dap' sounded better than saying "daaaaaa".
So, architect? Int. Des.? Ind. Des.? Urb. Pln.? What?
It's arfticles like this one that makes reading here worthwhile. Thanks!
Simply to write a work that does not display leftist attitudes is by default conservative.
We no longer have critics of any intelligence who will review a book with honesty. Young writers need the tools to approach their work, and good critics can give these aspiring writers courage and insight. Many people know that a book is bad but cannot say why. Reviewers are in the same boat; they have not had the education that would help them separate bad from good if even they had the courage to do so.
There are many sorts of fiction; quest stories, action/adventure narratives, social and relationship novels. Writers need to know the differences and what techniques help. Dirty Harry did a great series on how to write a script. Same applies to a novel. Conservatives have deserted the critical field as well as the 'literary novel' field.
My unsolicited advice: strive for excellence above all. Talent and originality don't count for much unless the execution is impeccable.
The night is always darkest before the dawn. I have to disagree with the conclusion that serious artists who lean conservative/"right" should steer clear of "highbrow" arts if they are so inclined. Of course, the distinction itself carries all sorts of ideological baggage, and don't get me wrong: the conclusion is perfectly rational based on present conventional wisdom… but the stars are aligned for a major cultural revolution that, once underway, will cast pro-individual/conservative artists working right now as trailblazers and visionaries. This is the same kind of environment that people like Martin Luther and Galileo faced: a seemingly unshakable intellectual, economic and cultural hegemony, backed by powerful interests eager to suppress dissent, and almost 100% WRONG about everything. These kinds of conditions always produce foundation-shaking revolutions, and if this holds, we're presently looking down the barrel of the complete and permanent rejection of socialistic thinking. What's on the other side will be largely determined by today's serious conservative artists and thinkers.
True, Sully's a bad example. It's not that he doesn't hold a few conservative ideas, it's that he can't seem to decide what the hell he is overall — conservative, liberal, libertarian, moderate.
If I had to pin him down, I'd say he's a squishy-center libertarian with a passionate interest both in gay rights and in attacking anyone, liberal or conservative, who appears to be infringing on them.
[...] A Conservative Journey Through Literary America — Part 2: A Conversation With Michael Blowhard by … [...]
Maybe one road to take is a middle ground; e.g. instead of highbrow literature, go more for the best selling action thrillers a la Vince Flynn or Tom Clancy. If you hit it reasonably big, it would be very lucrative and you would get your message across to more folks as well. All in all, this was nicely informative and I look forward to your analysis.
Industrial Design 81'.
Great point about critics, tom the piper's son. They are the tail that wags the dog, as they are the first line of promotion. As for genre fiction, yep, that's where you'll see flyover characters and flyover thinking aka "normal." How to take the playground back from the leftists bullies? I don't know. Start a new playground called the internet? Having spent many years in the arts, I'd say the #1 problem, if you will, is that art which is not popular art is thought best when it has shock value – hence tell-alls about girls sleeping with their fathers, etc. Are shock value and conservatism compatible at all? I don't think so. Let's define art as shedding light on the human condition, not popular conditions.
Tom Wolfe is one of my favorite authors because he got the combination right–cutting-edge writing, interesting topics, thoughtful insight, works of popular interest, and all with a conservative's eyes. He first got me with The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamiline Baby collection. I loved cars, and I was a recent graduate of the schools of the absurd '60s, so I probably read the stories originally for all the wrong reasons. But he got me anyway. He stayed up with the times, adapted his writing as necessary to remain near the head of the pack. He was among the first, if not the first to use the expressions "mau-mauing" and "radical chic." His writing never got any less interesting as I moved from the left to the right, which is a tribute to his ability to attract a wide audience. He always remained just damned good at what he did (and I hope continues to do). I don't know where or how we get more like him, but we really need them.
I agree. Andrew Klavan would be a better example.
As a non-artists and a non-author my opinion may or may not be relavent. The term art in my opinion has been so screwed up as too mean nothing or anything. Also who gets to decide who is an artist. It seems that I meet self described artists all the time who do not have the ability to do anything except appear to be cool. In my own humble opinion there are no artists, there is only art. Art is subjective and the quality of that art is a direct reflection of the skill of the Artisan who made it.
I would argue that Art (and literature) are objective rather than subjective. There are specific requirements and boundaries which a piece must conform to in order to be designated as "Art". If an audience allows that anything is "Art" than, necessarily, everything becomes "Art". And, if it is as inclusive as all that, then the term "Art" becomes meaningless and thus nothing is actually "Art". Your argument follows the lines of "This is my opinion, and because it's mine, it is valid and automatically counts." There is a vast difference between opinion and fact. There is an equal difference between Art and things posturing as Art.
"…changes positions like a nymphomanic trying to get through the Kama Sutra before lunch."
I am so stealing that line!
And to address CBK's point – yes. Self-publish … the meme that some of us are trying to perpetuate is "indy publishing" – as in indy music, indy movies. Same sort of thinking: do the end run around the establishment, get your work out there, work your butt off trying to sell it. And yes, I will acknowledge that a lot of independent-self-published-POD stuff is pretty awful. I've read enough of it as a reviewer for a number of on-line enterprises to know that yes – sadly enough, a lot of them are really lame. As in industrial-strength, Garrison-Keillor-struggling-artist-schtict-lame. But some of them are really, really, really good. As in stay up to midnight, turning the pages cause-you-want-to-find-out-how-it-all ends good. And just about all of those really good writers had a couple of go-rounds with the literary-industrial complex before deciding that a POD publisher and working your butt off was a lot better way to get their books out there.
For the record, I sense that the political beliefs of the IAG members pretty much cover the whole range; every degree of political belief from seriously far-right reactionary to ga-ga liberal. But I don't know any of that for sure; I and the other mods quash any sort of divisive political discussions. It's not about our politics, I keep reminding people – it's about our books, and how to get them out there to a wider audience. Check us out – you might find a lot of encouragement and good hard information there, about a lot of books that don't fit the usual mold.
OMG – another Tom Wolfe fan? Until I read "From Bauhaus to Our House" I knew viscerally that I hated, hated, hated modern architecture with a white-hot passion, but I didn't know why – he put it into a very nice little package. He outlined all the reasons why, and more to the point – let me know that other people hated it also, with a white-hot passion.
Taking Wolfe's lead, when one of my chi-chi friends got into the Bauhaus thing, and tried to duplicate it, I told him he had done something even better–Bow Wow House. He returned the compliment one day on a visit. He looked around my place, and said "You always said you liked the eclectic look, and the cluttered look. You've accomplished both."
There is nothing like great literature to remind us that people could once write. That there was a readership. Nothing like the 'greats' to escape the horrors of the present day.
Grendel ripping people's heads off, Raskolnikov murdering a little old lady, wallowing in the sewers in Les Miserables, Moscow burning in War and Peace, sexual pecadillos of the great in Satyricon, cannibal gangs in The Road, the manic horrible Smallweeds in Bleak House and James Fenimore Cooper's literary offences all invite us to snuggle up in bed at night and escape the televised collapse of western civilization.
Somehow when you drift away in the imagination of a great writer it all makes sense.
"Bruce Bawer and Andrew Sullivan are two of many examples."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Crazy Andy is this man's example of a conservative!?! Perhaps he should add Frank Rich to that list. They're equally conservative at least.
I'm not sure how anyone could list Andy "Trig Truther" Sullivan as a Conservative. I do find that sometimes lib authors make for some of the most interesting reading. Mary Doria Russell's book The Sparrow is an interesting read. The whole book is about an expedition to make first contact mounted by Franciscan monks (may have the order wrong, I don;t have the book immediately handy). Things go horribly wrong and one makes it back doubting his faith. The whole book is one angry complaint against faith in a sense while still affirming it in another; one grand contradiction. You can't stop reading. I was angry after the first read until I read the author's interview in the back where she explained things going on her life. A confirmed atheist having come to grips with a need for faith to help raise her children with values and morals, she had converted to Judaism because their version of God had seemed the least intrusive; that made the anger at God while still keeping faith fall into place for me and the second read was much more satisfying.
Small digression.
My first brush with Wolfe was "The electric Koolaid Acid Test" about Ken Kesey and Neil Cassidy. I read right it after college. At the time, The Grateful Dead had recently released Workingman's Dead and American Beauty, two of my favorites from that era so it was really interesting to read about that whole scene. The writing was phenomenal– I remember laughing out loud in the first couple pages as he described someone having to ask for the key to the men's room at a filling station. The key was attached to a large wooden carving, Wolfe describing it as some sort of "bladder totem." Of course, there were all those great magazine essays as well.
I have read and re-read everything he wrote, with one exception. I read, but didn't enjoy Bonfire of the Vanities. I wonder if there's any connection to the fact that Tom Hanks later starred in the movie version. Maybe I had a premonition–spooky! For a few years, I subscribed to "Esquire" just in case he wrote another article for them.
I'm younger than you so its the first of his works I read, but Bonfire of the Vanities is what made me love Tom Wolfe. The movie stripped its soul and its spirit. Boo.
I didn't really dislike the book, it just wasn't what I expected. But even Wolfe's less stellar performances are head and shoulders above most of the junk that's being passed off as literature today. And if Bonfire got you hooked on Wolfe, that's even better.
–In other words, where “serious writing” goes, elitism, snobbery, radicalism, and academicism came to prevail.
A sad fact of life, Mr. Blowhard. And yet, how many literary masterpieces have a Marxist spirit sustaining them?
Letfwing professors certainly warp many a mind but the best writers manage to produce the stories they were meant to write in spite of them. An author won't find his/her true voice in the mouth of a professor. It comes from within, and some of the best stories come from a mysterious place where politics cannot go.
Excellent.
Great interview. As an amateur photographer in the Seattle area, I have made a lot of friends/contacts via different photography groups and find that I am greatly out numbered as a conservative. I've learned a lot from many of these people, but when spending time with them the talk occasionally leads to politics and then the hate filled rants start spewing. I bite my tongue… Hard, because I know if I say anything, I will be ostracized. Aside from their political views, I really like most of these people, but I can't help but think they wouldn't be so tolerant of me (or my views) if I were to come out of my conservative closet.
Mr. Blowhard makes a point that I've known for some time. If conservatives want to impact the culture through fiction, then they should write genre. I can name numerous conservative / libertarian authors working in science fiction, fantasy, horror, thriller genres. And these books are actually getting read, instead of sitting on bookstore shelves until they can shipped over the to the remainder market.
Who are some of the authors I'm thinking of? Gene Wolfe, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tim Powers, Orson Scott Card, James P. Blaylock, Andrew Klavan, Frank Herbert, S. M. Stirling, Robert Heinlein, Neal Stephenson, Robert Ferrigno, Vince Flynn. I'm sure there are many more that tend more toward the libertarian thought.
If conservatives want to impact readers, they would be well served to not think high-brow, literary fiction. It is as wrong headed as thinking that the only way conservatives can impact the culture is through politics. Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror and Thrillers are what people are going to pick up at the Costco, Barnes & Noble or Borders.
I am curious how do you think new technologies like kindle will affect writers and the literary scene in general. Kindle is for those who don't know an electronic device with a screen that works equally well in all light where electronic books can be downloaded. The device will have its own format with certain safeguards agaisnt copying which in my opinion may become problematic at best.
Essentially this medium may very well become the prefered medium fpr publishing with paper and binder being "old fashioned". This may be several years down the road but in IT terms several years can equate to a few months.
Totally paranoid and speculative. Maybe you suck. Did you ever think of that?
You sound like a total coward. Stand and fight or go whine on the internet.
Mr. Blowhard fails to do anything other than construct Straw Men. Who, exactly, are the "literary elites" and what's so terrible about them? Which prizes do you object to? How, exactly, did you detect the alleged liberalism of an entire class of art without citing even a single example of same?
You must be logged in to post a comment.