(Edit: before I decided to start moving posts from the PN days to WordPress, I reposted this under “Why Ubu, Redoux” in October. )
So… why did I pick such a weird name as “Ubu” to post under, anyway? What the hell kind of name is that?  Well, I got my start posting comments over at the Rottweiller and hey, it was a dog's name. Actually, it was a TV production company's name.  At the end of every episode of Family Ties they'd show the company's logo and go “Sit, Ubu, Sit!” Their logo was a dog, and he'd bark.  And hey I needed a name to post under and it was the o­nly doggie-themed name to come to mind.  Well other than Lassie or Old Yeller, and I am definately not a girl, nor rabid, dammit. 

Well, I'm not a girl anyway.   It was much later that I Googled the name and found out it has a history…

The plays of Alfred Jarry are considered by many to be the first dramatic works of the theatre of the absurd. They are credited with a great number of literary innovations and are seen as major influences of the dada and symbolist movements in art. Ubu Roi (translated as King Ubu and King Turd) is Jarry’s most famous work… In his book Jarry: Ubu Roi, Keith Beaumont detailed three accusations that were made against Ubu Roi by spectators and critics in the aftermath of the outrageous performance. The first focused o­n the play’s ‘‘alleged’’ vulgarity and obscenity. Secondly, perhaps in view of the political atmosphere of the time, critics condemned the play and its performance as the theatrical equivalent of an ‘‘anarchist’’ bomb attack and as an act of political subversion. The third accusation leveled against the play and its performance was that they in no way constituted a ‘‘serious’’ piece of literature or of theater but rather a gigantic hoax. 

(read more….)

First, the “'alleged' vulgarity and obscenity.” Well, as we all know, times change. Ubu Roi today would be considered little more than a fairly mild avant garde play, instead of a precursor to the coming of the Antichrist. And as readers will note, I'm not much for avoiding profanity or vulgarity. When I'm writing a thoughtful and rational post, I'm not likely to engage in it much. But when shit like Kelo vs. Scum of New London comes along, I go for the Anglo-Saxon gutterals. (Or as Bujold has her character Ingrey remark in Hallowed Hunt, “What, you don't know all those short words?”) Additionally, the whole blogsphere, inasmuch as it compares to the “Professional Journalist,” is an obscene and vulgar undertaking.  In their all-important view anyway.

Second, the “anarchists” of the 1880's and 90's are o­ne of the most distorted bits of our history, and o­ne case where I actually agree with the idea of revisionist history. (As in, it needs revising). Because of the poor state of our schools today, I've got to explain this o­ne a bit. Bluntly, the increasing urbanization and industrialization of Europe and America resulted in (and from) a huge social upheaveal, in which the robber barons made their fortunes by exploiting workers. “Workplace safety” and “fair wages” didn't even exist as a joke. It was in this atmosphere that Marx wrote his Manifesto, and the U.S suffered a spate of terrorist bombings and even the second ever assassination of a president. The “powers that be” labeled the bombers “anarchists” and ignored their social and political commentary. Worse, they tried very hard to discredit their less radical brethren, especially among the disreputable “muckrakers” in the press — although they were never entirely successful in doing so. So the metephor of “tossing an anarchist bomb” at the powers that be (in a literary, not literal, sense) through my writing appeals to me. This is the single best parallel to me, and the o­ne that made me decide to keep it.

Then there's the last o­ne: “The third accusation leveled against the play and its performance was that they in no way constituted a ‘‘serious’’ piece of literature or of theater but rather a gigantic hoax.” To me, this circles back to the words theater of the absurd. Which is exactly what our politics are today, with a media that is far to the left of the country it serves; reporters and producers trying to throw presidential elections, and spinmeisters printing the verbatim talking points of o­ne political party. It doesn't get more absurd than the reporters of facts thinking they are the shapers of opinion. (I am so reminded of Gulliver's Travels, o­nly substitute the press for the functionary with the feather and bladder.) Well, Houblog is no hoax, but hey, anyone who thinks of it as a “serious piece of literature” is either highly deluded, or … well, very highly deluded.

I think I'm going to start going with Ubu Roi more, to see if people start catching the reference.

–Ubu Roi
9/16/05