The American Dissident: Literature, Democracy & Dissidence
Rattle: Poetry for the 21st Century
Winter 2006. Alan Fox, Editor-in-Chief. Timothy Green, Editor. Megan O’Reilly, Assistant Editor, Stellasue Lee, Editor Emeritus. Studio City, CA.
N.B.: Editor Timothy Green (see his comments below after the review) brought to my attention several minor errors in this particular review, which I have since rectified. Clearly, however, those errors did not effect the fundamental premise underscored in the review that the poetry published in Rattle was essentially no different from that published in most other literary journals and, in that sense, was quite establishment-friendly. Of course, Green refuses to acknowledge that point. Also, he noted it took several attempts to get me to rectify those errors and inferred that, because of them and the unfounded hearsay accusations of John Amen, editor of Pedestal (see cartoon below on the right), my writing could simply not be trusted.
In your long preamble (where you expect us to trust the authenticity of your recreated dialogue with editors), John Amen accuses you of slander, along with the nihilism addressed below. It’s the slander that matters to me – slander is why I’ll never be able to publish any of your essays or reviews, at least until we grow so large as to afford a team of fact-checkers. I don’t trust you.
Green's is a disturbing statement, especially if one considers that it was based on the hearsay accusation of one person, who, by the way, refused to back his claim of slander with even one example. Whether or not Green or others trust the "authenticity" of my dialogue is immaterial because it can be proven with documentation that the dialogue is in fact authentic. But Green is not interested in documentation at all. What interests him is hearsay, innuendo, and gossip. The dialogue inserted in my essays is done so because it serves as damning evidence, not because I don't like someone or have hatred in my heart. In fact, it appears the evidence is so damning that Green refuses to believe it, preferring instead the fairytale-land of innuendo. See the long email below that I wrote addressing each of Green's comments. As for the entire dialogue de sourds, consult it if you like. A "team of fact-checkers" will hardly be necessary at all.
Evidently, Green and so many others like him prefer engaging in ad hominem rhetoric because it serves to divert attention away from the issues at hand, including the rejection of vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy, not only by the literary established-order, but also by the sheeplike multitudes of litterateurs content with propagating its icons and hovering around its feed trough of prizes, anthologies, grants, invitations, recognition, and accolades.
...........................................................................................................
“Rattle is the ultimate in contemporary literature,” blurbs Denise Duhamel. “Consistently exciting, surprising and provocative, Rattle is the poetry journal that the 21st Century has been impatiently awaiting,” blurbs David St. John.
Criticism ought to open the doors to dialogue and improvement, as opposed to the ostracizing, silencing, and ridiculing of the rare critic who dares actually criticize. Clearly, as an ardent poet-critic, I am an oddball of sorts in the poetry milieu because, for one thing, I do not believe in publishing self-serving statements of praise regarding literary journals or books. But more importantly, I am an oddball because I sincerely believe that above all else, including being a faithful literary-society member or collegial-faculty member, a poet should be an individual of courage who dares speak rude truth.
Of the eight reviews published in Rattle, each was positive, leading me to believe only positive reviews were accepted for the print journal. However, the editor explained that for some reason reviews would no longer be appearing in the print journal. Rattle is to be praised for at least leaving the door ajar for negative commentary on its website and despite several literary battles I've engaged in vis-à-vis the editor, it has not removed my review of Best American Poetry 2006 (www.rattle.com/ereviews/bap2006.htm). In any case, the editor kindly sent me a copy of the print journal as “payment” for the online publication of that review. Because I’ve written this critique, one could easily conclude that besides being an oddball, I must also be impolite? My bent is certainly in that direction, but only when being polite necessitates the suppression of critical thought and ideas. Sadly, most critics tend to be polite and suppress the latter.
In any case, America is run by large corporations. Lobbyists and huge corporate donations have assured that politicians of both political parties, for the most part, serve as their puppets. With the exception of Hillary and Bush fanatics, few citizens would probably disagree with that assertion. Corporations and their “cultural foundations” seem to be behind just about everything today, including poetry. How, for example, can a thinking individual deny the influence of corporate money on Poetry magazine, which received a $175,000,000 gift from Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals? The huge amounts of money being funneled into poetry by corporations will, in the long run, probably succeed, just as it has in politics, to castrate the genre.
Entertainment serves to deflect attention away from what the corporations really do and are seeking to do. It is thus logical that the entertainment industry would seek to co-opt (and castrate) literature. Evidently, corporate money wants poetry to serve as diversionary entertainment. An assessment of Rattle, at least the current issue, would lead a thinking poet to classify it as a diversionary-entertainment (or corporate-friendly) literary journal.
Most of the poems in this issue of Rattle appear to be well written by intelligent wordsmiths, but most of them are also highly lacking in purpose… with the exception of writing for the sake of writing, which is really a non-purpose. “I write because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing,” wrote George Orwell (“Prevention of Literature”). Most, if not all, of the poets in this issue do not write for the reasons Orwell wrote… and their poems, certainly for the most part and probably for that very reason, do not burn with the intense passion of vivid personal experience and/or conflict. One exception, however, is Ed Galing, who does write poetry highly critical of the way how some senior citizens in America are treated. Indeed, he writes to expose that lie.
None of the poets in this issue really RISKED anything in the particular poems published, certainly not the ire of the academic/literary established-order. Sadly, most poets tend to write cutesy, witty poems like the one Heather Abner wrote on her dog Diesel, the poem that appears first in this issue of Rattle.
After his bath and haircut
at the groomer each month,
Deez sports a kerchief
that would look good
at MOMA […]
Of course, this would be a valid criticism of MOMA, but upon reading the rest of the poem, it becomes evident it was not meant to be. If it were, the poem probably would have been rejected.
Most of the poet biography statements in this issue are troubling because of their essential vacuity. How to be vacuous while simultaneously cliché-extolling poetry? Peggy Alsworth’s statement provides a good response: “Poetry is my Pequod. It carries me into the wildest of seas where I wrestle in the deep, hoping others will find the journey contagious.”
In fact, the bio statements constitute the most interesting writing in Rattle because they mirror perhaps the state of the poet mind in America today. Compare the following examples with Orwell’s statement above. “I think I write poems to try and discover what I feel,” writes Sally Bliumis-Dunn. “I am an alien who was abducted by humans,” writes Linda Bosson. “On my home planet, the poems are alive and we herd them like sheep” (perhaps she meant “poets,” not “poems”). “I write because it feeds me, and it is in my vein,” writes Patrick Carrington. (Perhaps Carrington is one of those lucky Guggenheim or MacArthur Foundation fellows, chomping away on Gug and Big Mac checks.) “I write to please and amuse my lover,” writes James Doyle. “I play with words the way my son plays with Legos,” writes Terry Godbey.
Such entries are the rule, not the exception. Not one poet, out of the roughly 80 poets published, notes as a reason for writing the improvement of society and democracy via the Emersonian “rude-truth” exercise of free speech.
Jack Conway writes: “I teach my students at both Bristol Community College and the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth that the genre of poetry is a ‘big tent’ with room beneath it for many different forms and styles. I also teach them that there are many people with measuring tapes out there in the world of poetry today trying to measure American Poetry for a coffin and to beware of them.”
Perhaps Conway also needs to inform his students that poetry is, or at least should be, much more than “form and style.” It is, or at least should be, also substance. He needs to inform them which “substances” constitute taboos; for example, criticism of the University of Massachusetts and its creative writing professors. Conway needs to challenge his students to break those taboos. Moreover, he might inform them that that coffin is being measured perhaps because of the nation’s poetry professors, including Conway himself.
Alas for literature and democracy, it is the seeming total absence of RISK that has come to characterize American poets today. Rattle’s $5,000 poetry prize-winner, Sophia Rivkin, in her poem “Conspiracy” rightly criticizes the way how many react in the face of someone else’s impending death: “[…] while everyone stands white-faced/ among the white-faced crowd,/ blending in, blending in.” But couldn’t that very critique of “blending in, blending in” be applied to Rivkin herself, as well as most other established-order poets, with regards to not standing apart and risking (e.g., salary, benefits, poesy prizes, invitations, and career) for the sake of truth and democracy?
The kind of phenomenon found in Gary Lehmann’s hagiographic essay on socialite poet Dorothy Parker, appearing in this issue, was critiqued in my review of the Best American Poetry. “If her meal ticket was paid for by her popular essays, now mostly unread, her lasting fame is based on her poetry,” writes Lehmann. “Here we see her at her best.”
Two Volume Novel
The sun’s gone dim, and
The moon’s turned black;
For I loved him, and
He didn’t love back.
If the poem above cited by Lehmann is indeed Parker’s best, why not keep the lid on her coffin and stop writing about her altogether? As for Tom Brokaw’s Greatest-Generation hoopla, this issue of Rattle devotes an entire section to Greatest-Generation poets. Reading the poems, one can quickly note that GG poets are certainly no better than any other generation of poets. By the way, what the Greatest Generation seemed not to do, perhaps more than any other generation, was question and challenge society’s institutions and celebrities. Because the poetry milieu tends to suffocate in hagiography, back slapping and self-congratulations, criticism of it is absolutely necessary for without it that milieu simply continues on its merry way down the road of faux grandeur… as the democracy becomes increasingly unrecognizable as a democracy. Like politicians and pedagogues, poets should not be praised ad nauseum.
Finally, what is perhaps disturbing is that indeed the poetry published in Rattle might very well represent, as the magazine’s subtitle notes, “Poetry for the 21st Century,” which is why it is difficult to believe that, in the words of editor Timothy Green, “We’re continuing to do everything we can to spread great poetry.”
—The Editor
*Tim Green argues: "Here’s your review of RATTLE #26: http://www.theamericandissident.org/BookReviews-Rattle.htm In paragraph 3 you express your opinion that the review didn’t appear in print because it took a negative stance. While this is clearly expressed as an opinion, and thus not subject to libel, it’s worth noting that it was explained to you initially and repeatedly that you submitted your review of BAP 2006 after we’d ceased publishing reviews in print. All of our reviews now appear online; no reviews submitted to us after August 2006 have been published in print (yours was sent in October 2006, after issue #26 had already been sent to the printer). You knew this fact before you wrote the review of RATTLE #26, you were reminded twice after the review was published, and still you’ve printed no correction, retraction, or edit to the review. In the same sentence you make the false assertion that your review of BAP 2006 has been removed from our website. The review was never removed from our website; it’s always been there, you just have the wrong link: http://www.rattle.com/ereviews/bap2006.htm You’ve been notified of this false accusation several times, and have never printed a correction, retraction, or edit to the review."
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:54:49 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
Hi Tim,
Thanks much for the response. But the quote you cite seems a bit hollow and could easily be dissected and challenged. In any case, it is always intellectually enjoyable for me to joust with opposites like you. Most established-order literati are indeed quite amazing with their twisted reasoning and inability to challenge precise ideas put forth with precise logic, fact, and examples. You’ll zero in on something almost entirely irrelevant in an effort, I suspect, to deflect attention away from the pertinent arguments made. How many times have I heard the gutless state how they agree with what I’m saying, but blablabla would never publish it! So, now I’m accused of using dirty “tactics” just like trickie dickie! That’s a good deflective one. I’ll have to note it!
Though I am often criticized via facile ad hominem (rarely if ever are my arguments taken to task), I am still ever dumbfounded by the inventiveness of those in the established-order milieu. Yours is high up there on the inventive scale indeed. “As far as I can tell, you’ve crossed the threshold into a full-blown crisis of credibility,” you note. Now, how can one possibly respond to that?
You mention “our natural instinct is to trust the narrator.” Well, that’s certainly not the way how I operate. How can you make such an all-encompassing statement? That would be the natural instinct of the naïve, certainly not of those who’ve acquired the good habit of questioning and challenging. Do you really think Thoreau, Orwell, Emerson, Solzhenitsyn et al had that natural instinct?
Sadly you imply that I am apt to slander people, left and right, yet to date not one person has pursued me in a court of law for slander. Thus, your argument is null and void. It is in a sense just another facile ad hominem used to denigrate a writer to avoid his argument. It is also an accusation made in an effort to stop people like me who dare name names of actual people, something rarely done in the lit milieu, unless good ole backslapping and self-congratulating.
In America , since you don’t know this, one must be able to prove someone purposefully lied and knew what he said was in fact a lie. Ah, well, you looked up the definition for libel. Now, we’re talking. Few would take the time to do as much. It’s so much easier to simply call someone a slanderer! In any event, cases of slander and libel are very rare in our courts. To dismiss argument by hollering slander is simply a ploy for reducing vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy.
The instance you chose RE libel is laughable. Please take me to court for it! Just the same, since you’ve asked, I have just put a footnote in the review and used your damning comments. So, that takes care of that! And please don’t think I did so because you got me shaking in my boots. I did so because I am interested in truth, not hiding truth, and unlike you and the herd lit crowd, I firmly believe in publishing harsh criticism lodged against me and/or The American Dissident in each issue of the journal. That’s called democracy! I don’t recall the last time you asked me to change anything, though I certainly don’t deny it. Perhaps you did so in a threatening manner? I don’t know. In any case, case closed!
Regarding Violi, I did not “falsely accuse” him of being a tenured professor. I simply erred. There’s a huge difference between the two words. Can’t you see that? But he is a professor nonetheless, isn’t he? Do you see what I mean about focusing in on the almost irrelevant? One little error. And you call it an “accusation” and make it seem like my reviews are therefore riddled with gross errors all over the place! Now, if you’d published that remark, that would be libel, eh?! Well, as I said, the inventiveness of some of you characters can be astonishing.
“Unfortunately, in your writings there’s a lot to be questioned and challenged,” you state. Aren’t you being a little absurd here? Two minor things that alter nothing regarding the overall written pieces in question, and you come up with that statement? Have you never made a little error like the one I made RE Violi? How can I not use your words here to illustrate the incredible hypocrisy of those like you, who would state they agree with much of what I have to say, but never say it themselves?
Did you really think I thought you would publish that review I just sent on Best American Poetry 2007? If so, I don’t know what to say. Of course, I didn’t think so!
“Given your operating procedure, I fully expect a few quotes from this email to be copied out of context, and pasted into some new rant,” you state. Give me one example of comments taken out of context to make a person look bad! Ah, will you, can you? It’s interesting you refer to my writing quite unoriginally as “rant,” yet mention how you agree with so much of it. Perhaps you forgot to take Logic 101?!
“As John was addressing with his nihilism comment, your tactics are only successful in achieving your own irrelevance,” you state, ignoring the entire argument I made with regards the equating of nihilism with fervency for democracy. It is not at all a question of my “tactics” (e.g., speaking “rude truth,” where most others don’t have the balls to do so). It is a question of what I say that perturbs you fellows and renders me “irrelevant” in your circles! And indeed if ever I were to become relevant in those circles, clearly it would indicate I’d softened terribly.
All of you fail, time and again, to disprove the statements I make. You simply focus in on a little detail or call me names (ad hominem) like little children. That’s how sad literature has become in America today.
“Most literary editors in America know by now not to take you seriously,” you state. It’s interesting that you know how “most literary editors” feel about me. Did you take a survey? Nonetheless, to be taken “seriously” by them and you, one must clearly never question and challenge them and you! Don’t you get it?
“Whether it was The Pedestal or NewPages or Rattle, you’ve attacked us all,” you state. I suppose I could say, boo hoo hoo. But it’s not attack, it’s questioning and challenging. There’s a big difference. Anyhow, Ibsen keenly noted, and any thinking INDIVIDUAL would agree, “The majority never has right on its side. Never, I say! That is one of these social lies against which an independent, intelligent man must wage war.” And that is what I do. So, okay, if you like, I’ll bend, we’ll call it “attacks.”
If you fellows were not simply publishing oil of roses all the time, but in fact published oil of vitriol too, I wouldn’t have needed to question any of you. If you weren’t constantly boasting right and left how great you were or how unique you were or that you published great people all the time, I wouldn’t have needed to question any of you. Democracy demands oil of vitriol, man! But you fellows don’t. That’s the key.
“Contrary to your perception that we’re all scared to publish you, lest we risk missing out on some ‘literati award’, the truth is, you have no effect at all,” you state. Ah, yet you state how you agree with a lot of my assertions. That’s pretty good for someone who has “no effect at all,” another paltry ad hominem by the way. Wow, you can’t help it, can you!
Good point: “Rattle published your review of BAP 2006, and then promptly had a poem appear in BAP 2007.” However, it is also very possible Lehman didn’t see it. Or, it is a possibility that he might actually be a rare open-minded person in the milieu, though I doubt it. Just the same, my review of BAP 2007, I’m sure you’ll agree, is a hell of a lot more potent and risky. It’s 12 pages long! The other was one or two pages.
“Obviously, there’s no black list,” you state. Well, it sure seems like you’ve just put me on one!
By the way, you fell for my “one-note concerto” (ah, the old ad hominem), not out of naivete but for the power in the argumentation presented in it. Obviously, my review on Rattle must have really rattled you (how do you guys come up with these lame titles for literary journals?). If you do respond, please respond to each point made, as I’ve done with your missive.
....................................................
The following dialogue de sourds constitutes the verbatim exchange I had with Tim Green, editor of Rattle: Poetry for the 21st Century. Note Green insisted I include the exchange on The AD website, though absolutely refused to include it on Rattle's website. Of course, I could have simply ignored his request. Just the same, I was going to include it with or without his request. Note also that Rattle and its editor are financed by a wealthy real-estate agent, who happens to like poetry. Big money will continue diluting the genre until fully castrated. Green and so many other editors like him play their see-no-evil, hear-no-evil roles quite well and some are paid quite well for doing so...
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:07:08 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: timgreen@rattle.com
Tim,
I wrote the following to John Amen (Pedestal). It is equally pertinent to you. Please, if you feel like it’s time for you to “go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways” (Emerson), publish the attached essay on Best American Poetry 2007. It will shake up or rather rattle up Rattle.
Best,
G. Tod
John,
It just hit me tonight. How odd it was for you to call me a nihilist. If you looked at The American Dissident website and had read my correspondence carefully you’d know I was an ardent proponent of vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy. In other words, when I perceive something that doesn’t appear to be truthful, then I stand up and question and challenge it. Shouldn’t all citizens be encouraged to do that? Apparently not.
My whole argument has been based around the evident lack of will for vigorous debate in the academic/literary established-order milieu. Sadly, you and Pedestal, amongst so many others, continually prove that point. Why should the milieu be permitted to operate autocratically, especially when it is funded with public money? That’s the question I’ve been raising. But you dismiss me and it as nihilist and nihilism. The answer however to that question is quite clear. It is permitted to operate thusly because that renders it innocuous or rather a “player” with regards the increasingly metastasizing corporate current undermining democracy in America today.
How can you so easily dismiss fervent proponents of democracy as nihilists? Are you against democracy? Perhaps that’s the case. Literati, the ones not tied to academe like you, remind me so much of professors and literati tied to academe, because you and they avoid vigorous discussion and free speech like the plague. Why? Evidently, you and they are afraid of offending readership (subscribers) and, especially, literary power (e.g., contest organizers, NEA grant accorders, Pushthecart Henderson, Best American Poetry Lehman, Poetry Foundation Wiman, canon icons Pinsky, Simic, Gluck, Snyder et al, Academy of American Poets, Poetry Society of America, etc., etc.). In other words, what we have today is a literary autocracy cancerous in the heart of the American democracy. And you remain silent...
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident, a Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence
A 501 c3 nonprofit organization providing a forum for vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy www.theamericandissident.org
1837 Main St.
Concord, MA 01742
From: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
To: "'George Slone'" <todslone@yahoo.com>
CC: pedmagazine@carolina.rr.com
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:01:43 -0800
Dear G. Tod—
I continue to find you one of the most amusing contemporary literary characters, and I still agree with many of your fundamental criticisms. So it gives me no pleasure to point out that you have a serious problem. You like quotes, here’s a quote:
“Without trust, words become the hollow sound of a wooden gong. With trust, words become life.” –John Harold
As far as I can tell, you’ve crossed the threshold into a full-blown crisis of credibility. A funny and often dangerous thing happens when we see words in print: our natural instinct is to trust the narrator. Often that narrator is a total stranger, and we trust him anyway – not necessarily to be unbiased or objective in his argument, but not to be deceptive or duplicitous. Dangerous as it is, this assumption is necessary for communication to exist. Words are symbols, meaningless without their referents. No signifiers without the signified, only babble. And so out of necessity we deem writers innocent until proven guilty.
Appearing first as an unknown figure, G. Tod Slone is given the benefit of the doubt; we take you at your word, and engage your discussion of the “literary milieu”. But shortly thereafter you prove yourself, and as you become more and more a known quantity, your reputation precedes you.
In your long preamble (where you expect us to trust the authenticity of your recreated dialogue with editors), John Amen accuses you of slander, along with the nihilism addressed below. It’s the slander that matters to me – slander is why I’ll never be able to publish any of your essays or reviews, at least until we grow so large as to afford a team of fact-checkers. I don’t trust you.
Since you asked, here are a few examples of libel (the written equivalent to slander). [Libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others… While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue.]
Here’s your review of RATTLE #26: http://www.theamericandissident.org/BookReviews-Rattle.htm In paragraph 3 you express your opinion that the review didn’t appear in print because it took a negative stance. While this is clearly expressed as an opinion, and thus not subject to libel, it’s worth noting that it was explained to you initially and repeatedly that you submitted your review of BAP 2006 after we’d ceased publishing reviews in print. All of our reviews now appear online; no reviews submitted to us after August 2006 have been published in print (yours was sent in October 2006, after issue #26 had already been sent to the printer). You knew this fact before you wrote the review of RATTLE #26, you were reminded twice after the review was published, and still you’ve printed no correction, retraction, or edit to the review.
In the same sentence you make the false assertion that your review of BAP 2006 has been removed from our website. The review was never removed from our website; it’s always been there, you just have the wrong link: http://www.rattle.com/ereviews/bap2006.htm You’ve been notified of this false accusation several times, and have never printed a correction, retraction, or edit to the review.
Speaking of corrections, however, we had to publish one for your review of BAP 2006, where you falsely accused Paul Violi of being a tenured English professor. Violi is no such thing.
“In other words, when I perceive something that doesn’t appear to be truthful, then I stand up and question and challenge it.” Unfortunately, in your writings there’s a lot to be questioned and challenged. These are only three examples of dishonesty; I haven’t vetted any of your other essays or reviews, but I have to assume, based on the circumstances, that I would find other mischaracterizations and outright lies. And so I can’t, in good conscience, publish any more.
Given your operating procedure, I fully expect a few quotes from this email to be copied out of context, and pasted into some new rant that you send to 150 editors of other magazines, but at this point the sad truth is that it doesn’t matter at all. As John was addressing with his nihilism comment, your tactics are only successful in achieving your own irrelevance. Most literary editors in America know by now not to take you seriously. Whether it was The Pedestal or NewPages or Rattle, you’ve attacked us all. Contrary to your perception that we’re all scared to publish you, lest we risk missing out on some “literati award”, the truth is, you have no effect at all. Rattle published your review of BAP 2006, and then promptly had a poem appear in BAP 2007. Obviously, there’s no black list. The only regret I have in publishing your review is the mild embarrassment at having been naïve enough to fall for your one-note concerto.
I call this truth a sad truth because it is sad – your behavior undermines valid criticisms that are worth championing, or at the least talking about. Given more open and honest tactics, I’d be on your side. It’s a shame; it’s a waste. Though I’ll admit, a counterproductive voice remains preferable to no voice at all, and I’m sure I’ll continue to enjoy your entertaining diatribes from afar.
All the best,
Tim
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:54:49 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
Hi Tim,
Thanks much for the response. But the quote you cite seems a bit hollow and could easily be dissected and challenged. In any case, it is always intellectually enjoyable for me to joust with opposites like you. Most established-order literati are indeed quite amazing with their twisted reasoning and inability to challenge precise ideas put forth with precise logic, fact, and examples. You’ll zero in on something almost entirely irrelevant in an effort, I suspect, to deflect attention away from the pertinent arguments made. How many times have I heard the gutless state how they agree with what I’m saying, but blablabla would never publish it! So, now I’m accused of using dirty “tactics” just like trickie dickie! That’s a good deflective one. I’ll have to note it!
Though I am often criticized via facile ad hominem (rarely if ever are my arguments taken to task), I am still ever dumbfounded by the inventiveness of those in the established-order milieu. Yours is high up there on the inventive scale indeed. “As far as I can tell, you’ve crossed the threshold into a full-blown crisis of credibility,” you note. Now, how can one possibly respond to that?
You mention “our natural instinct is to trust the narrator.” Well, that’s certainly not the way how I operate. How can you make such an all-encompassing statement? That would be the natural instinct of the naïve, certainly not of those who’ve acquired the good habit of questioning and challenging. Do you really think Thoreau, Orwell, Emerson, Solzhenitsyn et al had that natural instinct?
Sadly you imply that I am apt to slander people, left and right, yet to date not one person has pursued me in a court of law for slander. Thus, your argument is null and void. It is in a sense just another facile ad hominem used to denigrate a writer to avoid his argument. It is also an accusation made in an effort to stop people like me who dare name names of actual people, something rarely done in the lit milieu, unless good ole backslapping and self-congratulating.
In America , since you don’t know this, one must be able to prove someone purposefully lied and knew what he said was in fact a lie. Ah, well, you looked up the definition for libel. Now, we’re talking. Few would take the time to do as much. It’s so much easier to simply call someone a slanderer! In any event, cases of slander and libel are very rare in our courts. To dismiss argument by hollering slander is simply a ploy for reducing vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy.
The instance you chose RE libel is laughable. Please take me to court for it! Just the same, since you’ve asked, I have just put a footnote in the review and used your damning comments. So, that takes care of that! And please don’t think I did so because you got me shaking in my boots. I did so because I am interested in truth, not hiding truth, and unlike you and the herd lit crowd, I firmly believe in publishing harsh criticism lodged against me and/or The American Dissident in each issue of the journal. That’s called democracy! I don’t recall the last time you asked me to change anything, though I certainly don’t deny it. Perhaps you did so in a threatening manner? I don’t know. In any case, case closed!
Regarding Violi, I did not “falsely accuse” him of being a tenured professor. I simply erred. There’s a huge difference between the two words. Can’t you see that? But he is a professor nonetheless, isn’t he? Do you see what I mean about focusing in on the almost irrelevant? One little error. And you call it an “accusation” and make it seem like my reviews are therefore riddled with gross errors all over the place! Now, if you’d published that remark, that would be libel, eh?! Well, as I said, the inventiveness of some of you characters can be astonishing.
“Unfortunately, in your writings there’s a lot to be questioned and challenged,” you state. Aren’t you being a little absurd here? Two minor things that alter nothing regarding the overall written pieces in question, and you come up with that statement? Have you never made a little error like the one I made RE Violi? How can I not use your words here to illustrate the incredible hypocrisy of those like you, who would state they agree with much of what I have to say, but never say it themselves?
Did you really think I thought you would publish that review I just sent on Best American Poetry 2007? If so, I don’t know what to say. Of course, I didn’t think so!
“Given your operating procedure, I fully expect a few quotes from this email to be copied out of context, and pasted into some new rant,” you state. Give me one example of comments taken out of context to make a person look bad! Ah, will you, can you? It’s interesting you refer to my writing quite unoriginally as “rant,” yet mention how you agree with so much of it. Perhaps you forgot to take Logic 101?!
“As John was addressing with his nihilism comment, your tactics are only successful in achieving your own irrelevance,” you state, ignoring the entire argument I made with regards the equating of nihilism with fervency for democracy. It is not at all a question of my “tactics” (e.g., speaking “rude truth,” where most others don’t have the balls to do so). It is a question of what I say that perturbs you fellows and renders me “irrelevant” in your circles! And indeed if ever I were to become relevant in those circles, clearly it would indicate I’d softened terribly.
All of you fail, time and again, to disprove the statements I make. You simply focus in on a little detail or call me names (ad hominem) like little children. That’s how sad literature has become in America today.
“Most literary editors in America know by now not to take you seriously,” you state. It’s interesting that you know how “most literary editors” feel about me. Did you take a survey? Nonetheless, to be taken “seriously” by them and you, one must clearly never question and challenge them and you! Don’t you get it?
“Whether it was The Pedestal or NewPages or Rattle, you’ve attacked us all,” you state. I suppose I could say, boo hoo hoo. But it’s not attack, it’s questioning and challenging. There’s a big difference. Anyhow, Ibsen keenly noted, and any thinking INDIVIDUAL would agree, “The majority never has right on its side. Never, I say! That is one of these social lies against which an independent, intelligent man must wage war.” And that is what I do. So, okay, if you like, I’ll bend, we’ll call it “attacks.”
If you fellows were not simply publishing oil of roses all the time, but in fact published oil of vitriol too, I wouldn’t have needed to question any of you. If you weren’t constantly boasting right and left how great you were or how unique you were or that you published great people all the time, I wouldn’t have needed to question any of you. Democracy demands oil of vitriol, man! But you fellows don’t. That’s the key.
“Contrary to your perception that we’re all scared to publish you, lest we risk missing out on some ‘literati award’, the truth is, you have no effect at all,” you state. Ah, yet you state how you agree with a lot of my assertions. That’s pretty good for someone who has “no effect at all,” another paltry ad hominem by the way. Wow, you can’t help it, can you!
Good point: “Rattle published your review of BAP 2006, and then promptly had a poem appear in BAP 2007.” However, it is also very possible Lehman didn’t see it. Or, it is a possibility that he might actually be a rare open-minded person in the milieu, though I doubt it. Just the same, my review of BAP 2007, I’m sure you’ll agree, is a hell of a lot more potent and risky. It’s 12 pages long! The other was one or two pages.
“Obviously, there’s no black list,” you state. Well, it sure seems like you’ve just put me on one!
By the way, you fell for my “one-note concerto” (ah, the old ad hominem), not out of naivete but for the power in the argumentation presented in it. Obviously, my review on Rattle must have really rattled you (how do you guys come up with these lame titles for literary journals?). If you do respond, please respond to each point made, as I’ve done with your missive.
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident, a Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence
A 501 c3 nonprofit organization providing a forum for vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy www.theamericandissident.org
1837 Main St.
Concord, MA 01742
From: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
To: "'George Slone'" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:20:26 -0800
Well I flagged this to look at it later, I’ve got a lot of work to do, but I want to say that I appreciate you adding the footnote to the review. I’m not sure why it took three reminders for you to do it, but as a forgetful person myself, I can certainly understand if it was in error, and respect your owning up to it.
Tim
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:09:25 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
Hopefully, you will respond to each point made in my previous email. Hopefully, you will also come to reason and realize that your insults regarding my person were not well founded at all. In other words, your decision to disregard my entire work as "rant" et al due to the one simple error of calling a professor tenured when he didn't have tenure and that little point regarding my critique of your little journal. Hopefully, but I fully doubt it.
G. Tod
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:36:36 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
Tim,
BTW, I’ve just rectified that Rattle review once again. You might wish to see what I’ve done and if you like give me feedback. In essence, however, mistakes or not, the fundamental premise underscored in that review was not altered one iota.
By the way, my sending the review of Best American Poetry 2007 (as well as that questionnaire RE censorship effected by the Academy of American Poets) to over 130 literary journals, which you so disparaged, was an experiment to test the waters of democracy in the sphere of literature. Evidently, the conclusions drawn from that experiment support the hypothesis that vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy, is not welcome in that sphere.
On another note, why would anybody not want their words to be quoted, unless that is, those words ring falsely. There is no need whatsoever for me to take any words out of context. You failed to present one single example of my having done such a thing. Yet you accuse me of doing that all the time. What is wrong with your reasoning… and that of so many of your colleagues? I do hope you grasp my argument on ad hominem.
T
From: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
To: "'George Slone'" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:20:00 -0800
Hi Tod,
I’m not going to be drawn into one of your sparring matches, where I say this is my last response over and over again as I gobble up the bait. This really is the last time I respond to this topic – if you want to talk about something else, fine, but you can have the last word here. Life’s too short.
You wrote: “it is always intellectually enjoyable for me to joust with opposites like you. Most established-order literati are indeed quite amazing with their twisted reasoning…” This is the kind of false assumption, or “little error,” that seems to comprise a significant portion of your writing. I don’t know what my qualifications for being the established-order literati would be – I don’t have an MFA or PhD, have never been a professor, haven’t even published a book yet (though one is forthcoming in the fall). Before stumbling into this really cool job, I was an overnight counselor at a group home, who happened to enjoy and write poetry. Similarly, the magazine I run was founded independently by a real estate man who happened to enjoy and write poetry. We may publish a large number of professors, but it’s not because we pay attention to CVs; we don’t even publish credits in our bios. We just read the poems.
Now you could accuse us of being naïve, of not knowing much about the literary establishment, of not knowing enough about poetry to justify our position as gatekeepers to our little nook of the literary community – and you might be right. But you can’t accuse us of being “established-order literati” and not have it damage your creditability. That’s the last thing we are. We should be your compatriots, not your opposites.
You wrote: “How many times have I heard the gutless state how they agree with what I’m saying, but blablabla would never publish it!” We did publish it. Your review of BAP 2006.
In response to my comment on narrative trust, you wrote: “Well, that’s certainly not the way how I operate. [sic] How can you make such an all-encompassing statement?” I called narrative trust a dangerous tendency – I was merely critiquing what I see as your position in the literary milieu, because I see the same general plot transpire every time I read one of your sparring matches as in my own experience. Off the top of my head, your interactions with Jon Andersen and John Amen might be illuminative examples. Your general complaint, that much of modern poetry is infected with academic careerism and cronyism, is valid, and certainly worth talking about. The first time an open-minded person comes across one of your arguments, we can respect and agree with much of it. The assumption is that you’re genuine and rational. But as we encounter more and more of your writings, we begin to see that your arguments never change, regardless of who or what you’re railing against. The critique never changes; there’s no nuance. Everyone is part of the “established-order literati”, whether they really are or not. And we begin to see your “tactics,” how you pester even those friendly to your cause until they lash back at you, and then post their “ad hominem” attacks to your website. How you revel in it, how you play the martyr, how you spin your incessant needling as “vigorous debate.” There’s an adage within online message boards: “Don’t feed the trolls.” What I mean when I say we lose trust for you is that you quickly become the literary equivalent of an online “troll.” And that’s a sad thing for those who tend to agree with your fundamental premise.
You wrote: “Sadly you imply that I am apt to slander people, left and right, yet to date not one person has pursued me in a court of law for slander. Thus, your argument is null and void.” One of the necessities of a civil suit is that damages have been afflicted upon the plaintiff. The truth is, the only thing being damaged is your own credibility. I can’t imagine you’ve cost us even one subscriber. But if I don’t trust your word, I can’t publish your writing, because I don’t have time to check the veracity of all your claims.
You wrote: “I have just put a footnote in the review and used your damning comments.“ It was a long time coming, but I appreciate it nonetheless, and it’s the first step in restoring that trust.
You wrote: “It’s interesting you refer to my writing quite unoriginally as “rant,” yet mention how you agree with so much of it.” Well, what’s the definition of rant? To speak in a wild or vehement way? To paraphrase you from another rant I read yesterday, that’s my opinion as a reviewer of your work, and from my perspective the label is justified, if unoriginal.
You wrote: “It is not at all a question of my ‘tactics’ (e.g., speaking ‘rude truth,’ where most others don’t have the balls to do so). It is a question of what I say that perturbs you fellows and renders me ‘irrelevant’ in your circles!” I believe this is faulty reasoning on your part. I’ve seen several people explain (and “how often have you heard it!”) that, while they agree with your general complaints, your approach in addressing them seems counterproductive. I don’t know what evidence you have that it’s your message that marginalizes you. As far as I can tell, it’s mostly your behavior.
You wrote: “It’s interesting that you know how ‘most literary editors’ feel about me. Did you take a survey?” I think I’ve seen a representative sample, given the universality of their reactions, but I’ll admit that I overextended myself with that statement.
You wrote: “Anyhow, Ibsen keenly noted, and any thinking INDIVIDUAL would agree, ‘The majority never has right on its side. Never, I say! That is one of these social lies against which an independent, intelligent man must wage war.’” This might be the perfect quote to serve my point. This isn’t logical reasoning or critical thinking you’re talking about; this is dogma. Any thinking individual would engage a situation on its own merits, and not revert any blanket statement about truth.
You wrote: “Democracy demands oil of vitriol, man!” Something I actually agree with; just thought I’d note it.
You wrote: “Well, it sure seems like you’ve just put me on [a black list]!” I might say that you put yourself on mine, by failing to acknowledge those factual errors, but then you’ve removed yourself by posting the correction. Only there never was a black list – if you sent me something that knocked my socks off, and didn’t require fact-checking, I’d publish it on the spot. I still think your concerto is merely one note ad nauseam, but you’re more than free to prove me wrong.
You wrote: “Obviously, my review on Rattle must have really rattled you…” Another false assumption on your part. The rude truth is, I love you as a character, and I’m glad you’re on the scene. Arguing with you is a kind of indulgence, like chocolate – an empty treat, but I’m consuming time instead of calories.
For that reason, as I said before, I won’t respond again, unless the topic changes. You can have the last word. But please post this email in its entirety.
Thanks,
Tim
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:57:31 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
Tim,
The bottom line is you lack courage and individual spirit. I don’t care how many people you have in your choir who agree with the things you say about me. The majority is never right! Ibsen knew that. But you don’t. I do what you and so many others dare not do, which is why you are compelled to belittle me. It’s quite that simple. I overtly question and challenge the authorities, you agree with what I say, but of course would never say aloud what I say. That’s called cowardice or, if you must, careerism.
Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy, but not in the established-order milieu! Again, someone proves the point: YOU. And it does sadden me. And you, like they, will come up with all the lame excuses imaginable to help quell the questioning and challenging, to keep it on the margins. So, you will not respond! Fine.
Again you nitpick and divert the discussion away from pertinent points. Established-order milieu is anyone and anything not against it. Are you really against it? Do you readily question and challenge it in Rattle and in your published writing? Or do you gloat having one of your poems appear in one of its anthologies? Besides, you’re on the real-estate agent’s payroll! Isn’t that established-order? Nobody’s paying me to be Mr. Editor. Certainly not a wealthy realtor.
“We should be your compatriots, not your opposites,” you state. Now, that’s a good one. Are you studying to be a stand-up comedian next?
“We did publish it,” you state. But I suspect you regret it. Otherwise, you’d be eager to publish the 2007 review. Ah!
“Your general complaint, that much of modern poetry is infected with academic careerism and cronyism, is valid, and certainly worth talking about,” you state. But my argument goes much further than that. It includes the multitudes of non-academics like you who eagerly enjoin in it.
“But as we encounter more and more of your writings, we begin to see that your arguments never change, regardless of who or what you’re railing against,” you write. But why should my arguments change? Railing is a pejorative term. It diminishes the importance of free speech and vigorous debate. Indeed, it serves to eliminate those accused of “railing.” But you surely would not be able to fathom that.
This is your horseshit, not mine: “Everyone is part of the “established-order literati”, whether they really are or not.” There are others out there. ULM , for example, fights the fight just as I do. Struggle does in its way too. But clearly we are relatively few.
“How you pester even those friendly to your cause until they lash back at you,” you state. Who is friendly to my cause? You are certainly not, nor is Amen. “Pestering” is another one of those cowardly words used to diminish debate and argumentation. To date, you have not even taken the time to state that poem x or poem y that I criticized RE Rattle or Best American Poetry 2007 was in fact a great or best poem. You have not done that. Why? Because you do not have the balls to state openly in protest in an effort to effect change that those poems do indeed suck. That is the key. My tone or my tactics or whatever you want to call it is immaterial. And that is the key!
“And then post their “ad hominem” attacks to your website,” you state. And why the fuck shouldn’t I? They prove the point. I believe in backing up what I state with examples. Evidently, you do not.
“How you revel in it, how you play the martyr, how you spin your incessant needling as “vigorous debate,” you state. Play the martyr? Is that it? Give me a fuckin break. Well, shit, if I must, I’d rather play the martyr than the literary coward who actually thinks he has guts. And you know damn well deep down in your heart that you are a coward. I’m certain of that. Again, you NEED to put me down because I dare do what you lack the balls to do. Amen. Or should I rather say John Amen.
Here you go again: “And that’s a sad thing for those who tend to agree with your fundamental premise.” What the fuck is the fundamental premise you agree with? And if you do agree with it, why the fuck do you keep your mouth shut about it? Ah, careerism as a little amorphous literary editor of yet another amorphous literary journal without any concrete focus except poesy for the sake of poesy!
As for your troll horseshit, I don’t blog. BUT, if it came down to it, I’d rather be a troll than a ball-less literary editor with no passion. So, go ahead, call me a troll. And I’ll call you a passionless, ball-less literary editor. Touche!
Now, this is highly inventive for weaseling out of that ad hominem RE slanderer: “One of the necessities of a civil suit is that damages have been afflicted upon the plaintiff. The truth is, the only thing being damaged is your own credibility. I can’t imagine you’ve cost us even one subscriber. But if I don’t trust your word, I can’t publish your writing, because I don’t have time to check the veracity of all your claims.” In other words, therefore, I am not guilty of slander! Come on, man, think about what you’re saying here!
“It was a long time coming, but I appreciate it nonetheless, and it’s the first step in restoring that trust,” you wrote. But that trust will never be restored. How can it be restored? Again, it boils down to what you fail to have the courage to do. Restoring the trust would be an admission of that fact. And you are in severe denial.
Your “rant” ad hominem is a load of horseshit. It’s a coward’s way of avoiding a sincere point by point examination of somebody’s writing. To date, not one of you “rant” accusers have done that with my Best American Poetry 2007 review. In fact, not one of you picked out one little poem I criticized and showed in some logical manner why it was the “best.” Your whole ploy is diversionary. DIVERSIONARY!!! It is a ploy to keep my damning review out of the milieu. Well, it was published by VOX, but I suspect VOX has a very small circulation. Just call me an asshole or ranter and dismiss the review. How facile! How established-order! Here’s a poem for you on my “wild and vehement way.” I prohibit you from publishing it next to all those flaccid poems without vitriol in Rattle!
Oil of Vitriol
What a blessed world of snivelling nobodies we live in! Oil of vitriol must be applied.
—Ralph Waldo Emerson
Besides “excellence”—oh, but of course!—,
the editors often boast, in chorus, how open
they are
to style, theme, and subject matter.
One of them wrote, however, critical of my theme,
if not approach, that “there was a difference
between vigorous debate and vitriol or slander.”*
Yet nobody had ever sued me for defamation;
while for the other denigration, a Chief Justice**
had argued convincingly that the First Amendment
was designed to “invite dispute, induce a condition
of unrest, and even stir people to anger.”
But unlike the First, that editor’s magazine was,
in the Chief’s own words, “fashioned as a vehicle
for dispensing tranquillizers to the people.”
…………………………………………………………………
*John Amen, Chief Editor of Pedestal Magazine, further rationalized his annulment of my desire for open debate by labeling me a “nihilist”
**Chief Justice William O. Douglas also noted that the “prime function” of the First “was to keep debate open to ‘offensive’ as well as to ‘staid’ people.”
This is the kind of bullshit one would expect from a coward: “while they agree with your general complaints, your approach in addressing them seems counterproductive. I don’t know what evidence you have that it’s your message that marginalizes you. As far as I can tell, it’s mostly your behavior.”
The key is that my message as you call it remains on the margins. But why therefore don’t you, since you agree with it, present it in a polite, limp-wristed manner to get it more into the center of things? Ah, how could you possibly respond to that? The key is, as I’ve often stated, the message I seek to enter into the agora of ideas, cannot be presented in bourgeois “good taste.” Don’t you get it? To do so would inevitably alter the message entirely. I don’t think you can understand this. Maybe one day? Who knows?
Good for you! An admission of fault! I didn’t think I’d ever see it! Regarding what I wrote (i.e., “It’s interesting that you know how ‘most literary editors’ feel about me. Did you take a survey?”). “I think I’ve seen a representative sample, given the universality of their reactions, but I’ll admit that I overextended myself with that statement.”
But again, why can’t you comprehend that the “universality of their reactions” does not in any way whatsoever prove that what I say is incorrect or, in your words, rant? Think of Galileo, for chrissakes, and many others! Take the shittiest poem in that Best review. Show me it’s best! But you won’t. The “universality of their reactions” won’t touch it. Why? That’s the real question and it has not a fucking thing to do with me at all.
You contradict yourself regarding what I wrote: “Democracy demands oil of vitriol, man!” You state: “Something I actually agree with; just thought I’d note it.” One must wonder why you have a need to agree with such a statement. Oil of vitriol is rant. Don’t you get it? No, you don’t. And you sound just like the Amen coward. He said the same thing, yet like you only tends to publish poetry of oil of roses.
If my “concerto is merely one note ad nauseam,” then your concerto is clearly one note of cowardice… ad nauseam! Are you actually telling me that those poems you published in the issue of Rattle I reviewed “knocked your socks off”? Wow! Especially that one on the dog?!!! What do you wear for socks, man?
I love your compliments—thinly veiled insults! What else could I expect? Chocolate that actually tasted good and satisfied? That’s the kind of chocolate I eat. Maybe you’ve been eating cheap Walmart chocolate!
Keep in mind, friend, the long “ranty” email response from you tends to prove that truths exist in my verb. If not, you wouldn’t have replied.
Sure, I’ll post your email… if you post mine!!!
Sincerely,
G. Tod
From: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com> Add Mobile Alert
To: "'George Slone'" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:01:46 -0800
Wow. So you call me out on your website, asking me to respond your email, and then when I do you don’t post it, so that it looks like you left me speechless. That’s low, Tod. Now I really am speechless.
Tim
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:27:19 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
I don't think it's possible to "talk with" you--your sense of logic is horrendous! Again, I'll gladly post your letter on The AD website, if you post mine on the Rattle website. Now, how's that for an even, fair deal? But, no, you're left "speechless." That's low, Tim.
G. Tod
From: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
To: "'George Slone'" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:56:53 -0800
I’m not the one posting emails. Rattle isn’t the forum for “vigorous debate” on the current literary system; we don’t care about the current literary system one way or another, we just care about poems. But posting only your half of a conversation is even more disingenuous than I’d given you credit for. Congratulations.
Tim
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:07:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
No, you just care about poems that do not upset the established-order. There's a difference!
T.
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:39:37 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
Thanks to one of your comments, I've decided to replace established-order with simply the literary milieu. That way you too are encompassed. Also, I've changed the title of the essay and a number of other items.
G. Tod
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:51:41 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
As you'll note I added a couple of your comments to that essay. BTW, I can't trust you either. You're about as trustworthy as a common politico with tons of money and tons of friends. No guts, no hardcore principles... like so many other poets in America.
T.
From: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com> Add Mobile Alert
To: "'George Slone'" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:43:05 -0800
In your second reply, you wrote, “There is no need whatsoever for me to take any words out of context. You failed to present one single example of my having done such a thing.”
And now I do. You’ve cherry-picked my comments, and are too cowardly to post the whole thing, even on the webpage where you’re posting your own entire email challenging me to respond.
In my new cameo within your BAP 2007 essay, you pick the weaker of my two complaints about the Rattle review – I’d already admitted your false assumption about why you didn’t appear in print wasn’t a big deal. What bothered me more was your false claim that the BAP 2006 essay had been removed from our website, spun to suggest we didn’t have the courage to leave it up – and then including a bad link so that your readers could see the false claim “confirmed” – when really the essay has been online the whole time.
Furthermore, I never accused you of slander. I simply referred to John Amen’s accusation, and then explained why I don’t trust you NOT to slander. There’s a big difference, which should be plain for any reasonable person to see. Explaining why you’ve lost credibility in my book is a far from a “slanderous accusation.”
And this exchange proves that lack of trust is justified. More false accusations and partial quotes to prop them up. You continue to outdo yourself.
Tim
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:03:54 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
T,
Don’t you read what I write? You publish mine and I shall gladly publish yours. That’s the third time I’ve written that (oh, oh, was it the fourth? Is he going to nitpick and call me a liar?!) You are the COWARDLY one, not I. You refuse to publish my comments on your site. I offer a fair exchange! You DO NOT.
“I’d already admitted your false assumption about why you didn’t appear in print wasn’t a big deal.” Oh??? You made it a big deal… in fact, THE BIGGEST DEAL! So, what are you talking about?
“What bothered me more was your false claim that the BAP 2006 essay had been removed from our website…” It was not a purposefully false libelous (to use your favorite word) claim at all. For some reason, you changed the link and never informed me. That link I used came directly from you. And now you’re accusing me of having fabricated the link to fool my readers! Wow, you’re out of WHACK!
“Furthermore, I never accused you of slander. I simply referred to John Amen’s accusation, and then explained why I don’t trust you NOT to slander.”
“In your long preamble (where you expect us to trust the authenticity of your recreated dialogue with editors).” So, you think that was “recreated”? If so, why did you bother citing it? Man, your logic is out of whack! It reminds of the other fellow who said he agreed with me but what I wrote was rant. In other words, he agreed with rant. Who in their right mind agrees with rant? Well, he does… and apparently you do too!
I’ve just checked Amen’s emails, but below are indeed your words, not his… or am I wrong? If so, tell me they’re Amen’s words and I’ll make the change. No problem. As you know, I make changes!
“It’s the slander that matters to me – slander is why I’ll never be able to publish any of your essays or reviews.”
The above to me, my friend, if they are your words is a clear accusation of slander. What else could it be, even if indirect?
This makes no sense to a “reasonable person”: “Explaining why you’ve lost credibility in my book is a far from a “slanderous accusation.”
In other words, explaining that I slander people is not an accusation of slander? Give me a fucking break! I slander nobody! You have yet to prove it. Perhaps we should use LIBEL. That’s a better word, since nothing is being verbally said.
Thus, your false accusation that I love to print false accusations is FALSE!
I’m glad we’re communicating and that you decided against your decision to cease communication (or am I wrong there too and you never wrote such a thing?).
T.
From: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
To: "'George Slone'" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:35:49 -0800
Last try. The difference is between slander, and fear of slander. I cited three examples of either dishonesty or faulty fact-checking on your part. As I said, none of them represent slander itself, because there were no damages, but what they represent is a tendency toward slander. They were three false assertions that you didn’t bother to check. As a responsible publisher, I shouldn’t publish anything without checking the facts first, but as one guy running a fairly large magazine, I don’t have the capacity to do that. I have to rely on the writers I publish not to be dishonest.
I don’t know why I’m arguing this anymore, it’s pointless. The only reason I’m responding at all is because I want you to publish my full email response to your full email calling me out. You call yourself a forum for vigorous debate, but you can’t post the whole debate, only your half of it. I don’t have to tell you what that demonstrates; you know.
And I’m never going to publish an email exchange on Rattle. Rattle is a poetry journal, not a forum for vigorous debate about the literary establishment. Our target audience cares even less about the literary establishment than I do. You think some nurse on the night shift really cares about the literary milieu? You think students in Tanzania are worried about who has tenure? Give me a break. You champion an important topic, but you forget there’s a whole world out there full of people who just love poetry.
Tim
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:31:16 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
T,
No new info from you at all. I am all too aware that the large majority of poets and professors don’t give a fuck about democracy, (you and Amen included, I suspect), which is why I’ve been taking you and them to task. Ciao.
T.
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:56:38 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
Tim,
As an editor, you’re not even your own person. You’re on a wealthy-realtor capitalist’s payroll. From that issue of Rattle, I reviewed, you publish mostly, if not entirely, poetry not apt to upset a wealthy-realtor capitalist or the corporate system in general, which is currently displacing democracy.
As mentioned, I am all too aware that the large majority of poets and professors don’t really give a damn about democracy, (you and Amen included, I suspect), which is why I’ve been taking you and them to task. The American Dissident is also a poetry journal. All such journals, especially when funded by public monies, should be open to vigorous debate. Yet almost all are not. That’s the point I’ve been making regarding poetry journals, the point which you cannot comprehend because I think it implicates you, who actually state your interest points I make, yet would never have the individual initiative and courage to publish anything of the sort.
Are you receiving public monies? The American Dissident, to date, has received no such money, though it has applied.
“You think students in Tanzania are worried about who has tenure? Give me a break,” you state. But what is the pertinence of that statement? Besides, you were the one who fixated on that error regarding tenure, not I. Just the same, my focus is on America , not Tanzania . Is yours another thinly veiled ploy to divert attention?
“Our target audience cares even less about the literary establishment than I do. You think some nurse on the night shift really cares about the literary milieu?” you state. On the contrary, your target audience cares a hell of a lot about the lit establishment! It is ever trying to get published in its journals, win its prizes, praise its icons et al! How can you make such a statement? “Some nurse on the night shift” (isn’t Hillary on the nightshift too?) ought to care about it, especially when it cares not about democracy… unless of course she doesn’t give a shit either.
T.
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:57:52 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
Tim,
By having no real focus at all, except poetry that doesn’t rattle the powers that be, Rattle, Pedestal and the bulk of poetry magazines serve the corporations and oligarchies (Republican and Democrat) that have been willfully destroying democracy in America bit by bit. Yes, you publish poetry as if its intrinsic purpose were solely diversionary, as in the cinema (for the most part!), fait divers, and entertainment magazines or, should I rather say, poetry magazines. Villon, Saro-Wiwa, Jeffers, and others (not that many, of course), however, would have argued that poetry could and should be much more.
This is why, it is so difficult for me to understand poets like you, John Amen, Bledsoe et al, who on the one hand argue that what I write is needed or that vigorous debate is important, while on the other hand you do absolutely nothing but publish poesy for the sake of poesy and in so doing not only serve the corrupting forces, but continue diluting poetry as a potential force.
The reality is indeed that you serve those corrupting forces, but also that you do not really believe in the importance of vigorous debate in the literary milieu or in any other sphere. What you believe in is the type of hollow, if not fake, debate pitting a Hillary against an Obama or a Pinsky against a Simic.
“You champion an important topic, but you forget there’s a whole world out there full of people who just love poetry,” you state. Again, you do not think it to be an important topic! Your actions and the reality of Rattle prove the point. How can you state that I “forget”? Yes, of course, there’s a whole world of people out there who love Brittney Spears, Paris Hilton, OJ, and poetry. I shall compose a poem RE this email.
G. Tod
From: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
To: "'George Slone'" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:37:59 -0800
“Unlike most journals, The AD not only brooks but encourages criticism. Anyone critiqued on this site or in the journal should respond! The AD will publish the response!”
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:07:50 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
Yes, yes, it shall be placed on the website. And yes, yes, unlike most journals like Rattle...
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:13:21 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
To: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
Tim,
Case closed. Read it and if you don't like it, tell me why. Otherwise, if some day your eyes suddenly open up, please do contact me. I harbor no grudges and no hostility toward you whatsoever.
Sincerely,
G. Tod
From: "Tim Green" <timgreen@rattle.com>
To: "'George Slone'" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:39:50 -0800
Thanks, Tod. I don’t know why anyone would want to read the whole exchange, but now those who might, have the opportunity. No grudges or hostility from here, either. Keep up the fight, I know you will.
Best,
Tim