Jay Rubin

Alehouse Press—Free Speech in Peril!

Literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor.
—Chief Justice William O Douglas

Alehouse Press (College of Alameda) operates as a modern-day LITERARY CENSORING ORGANIZATION akin to the Catholic Church of yesteryear which put together the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Democracy continues its downward spiral thanks in part to the democracy-indifferent, literary, academic, censoring manager Professor Jay Rubin, publisher of Alehouse Press.

The purpose of publishing the latter's correspondence is educational because it illustrates the general mindset of the tenured poet professor today—not all of them, but likely the vast majority—which accords "proper tone" far more importance than substance and truth telling. In fact, lack of "proper tone," which is rarely if ever defined (same goes for "good taste"), is an excuse to censor ideas out of the agora. The correspondence began with my submission of a a critical book review and several essays, one a critique of Whitman's famous preface. The correspondence was fairly lengthy and ended with a short email by Rubin: "Get a life. Get out of mine." And that was the end of vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy.

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:26:54 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>

Hi Jay,
Okay, I've attached them... probably a bit too tough, but who knows?
G. Tod

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: todslone@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:58:34 -0800
Subj: Alehouse Submissions

Hi G Tod

Thanks for sending in your submissions. I won't have any time to consider them till next week as I'm off to AWP tomorrow. Since we consider all queries via email, please resend the essay and review as email attachments, and I'll look them over once I return.

Thanks,

Jay Rubin
Editor, Alehouse Press

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 22:31:38 -0800
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions

Hi G Tod,

Thanks for sending those electronic versions along. I've taken a look at them, and I've got to admit that I agree with your overall point -- that some critical thinking going on today isn't all that critical. It's all too often safe, civil, professional, lacking that edge that often makes art an ax.

But your essays, while perhaps "edgy" in tone, are not quite the opposite of what you argue against. That is, your essays are not necessarily clear examples of critical thinking. They are, however, the opposite of safe, civil and professional. In a word, they are rude. Their tone comes off like a petulant child determined to embarrass her parents in public.

If that's your intent, I applaud your efforts. But that might explain why the Quebec Poetry festival canceled your presentation. What they termed "discourteous" might have merely been a euphemism. From what I gather, they may have spared you some embarrassment.

Having said that, I'd like to see you draft up a new essay for Alehouse, one that supports your thesis 100%. To do that, though, a more respectful and courteous tone might be necessary. Such a tone would help invite your readers to consider and adopt your position. Such a tone would add more ethos to the narrator.

I suggest structuring a new essay this way:

Begin with Soyinka's quotes, stressing the importance of a critical (but not discourteous) discourse in order to preserve freedom.

Give one clear example of good critical thinking, and how that critical expression helped preserve freedom (maybe Churchill speaking out against Hitler). Give one example of poor critical thinking and its result (maybe Chamberlain playing nice with Hitler).

Give some examples of good critical thinking from the history of English-language poetry. Did Wordsworth's Prelude amount to a critical view of post-revolutionary poetry? Was Pound's modern movement a critical expression of Victorian norms? If so, these critical perspectives altered the course of poetry. That's powerful. (Were they polite or rude?)

Then give some examples of what passes for current critical thought in literary criticism, especially in regards to poetry. Your examples, I presume, would amount to samples of sycophantic praise. But are there no current examples of positive critical thought? Point them out. (It's not enough to point out the culprits. You've got to point them in a new direction. You've got to show them a model to follow.)

You may then want to discuss Codrescu's book, discussing the four good essays, pointing out why they stand out among the others. Then you could briefly explain why the other twenty fail to match them in quality. It's enough to point out that only 20% of the book's content was good. Keep the focus on the positive examples.

Finally, offer some solution to the problems of careerist and politically correct critical discourse. Maybe the solution is to discuss non-PC issues in a non-aggressive tone. Perhaps you could model that with your essay.

I'd be glad to work on such a project with you. If you'd like to try and draft up another version, please let me know. And please let me know how soon I could see something.

Thanks again for sending in these essays. They've certainly given me a lot to think about.

Best,

Jay Rubin
Editor, Alehouse Press

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:49:42 -0800 (PST)

From: George Slone

Subject: Alehouse Submissions

To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>

Hi Jay,
Very kind of you to write a lengthy email. Thanks, seriously. BTW, I am a HE, not a SHE, or is SHE some kind of odd pol-correct phraseology? You mention that my essays are “rude” and come off “like a petulant child” without presenting a precise example to back that statement. What precisely is “rude” and childlike? Is it simply anything that you personally find offensive? Is not uncomfortable truth by definition “rude”? Yesterday, I handed a flyer to an elderly English professor and smiled courteously, yet I could not help but feel rude because of the very nature of the flyer. In other words, I was certain she would feel implicated by its contents (e.g., discourse on professors who did not “go upright and vital”). Certainly, the poets and academics tend to view uncomfortable truths as “rude.” And is not that the very word used by Emerson in his famous statement: “that I shall go upright and vital, and speak the RUDE truth in all ways”? As for “tone,” I find the very word diversionary and anti-truth in nature. A poet ought not to seek to write in the correct “tone,” whatever the hell that might be. HE ought to be concerned with writing truth, no matter what “tone” that truth might be perceived to be in. Ah! Now that would make a good short essay in itself: tone. It is my experience that uncomfortable truths are ALWAYS in the “wrong tone.” Clearly, that principle applied to the Quebec poesy fest. Unlike the 150 other invited poets, I had the audacity to “go upright and vital” (Emerson) at that festival. I criticized the bourgeois nature of it, amongst other things. You mention they might have spared me some “embarrassment.” Not at all. I am not easily embarrassed. Show me I’m wrong and I will rectify the wrong, rather than wallow in embarrassment over the error.

The entire discourse on “tone” befuddles me, though perhaps not, if one considers the evident diversionary nature of it. Again, can you give me one precise example of my incorrect “tone”? That would be helpful.

I don’t agree with you that one must focus on the positive. After all, that is what 99.9% of the others do. It is important that some of us focus on the negative. By the way, I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. What I do is speak the truth as I see it and that is my duty as a citizen and human being. My duty is not to speak in the correct “tone.”

I’m not sure I could write an essay as you propose it. In a sense, I’d no longer be me if I could. Allow me to attach a few other essays, though I suspect you’d also find the tone deficient. Oddly, I wrote a poem on the very topic ages ago. I’ll also attach that. Thanks again for the dialogue. Below is a most pertinent quote to our discussion taken from yesterday’s Chronicle of Higher Education.
T.

Civility is a very important value, but discussions of civility in the university setting are sadly too often code for wanting to shut down discussions that may offend students or administrators. It would be a great service to students if it was explained to them when they begin college that, although politeness may be nice, it is of miniscule importance as compared to robust discussion. As we often joke, being offended is what happens when you have your deepest beliefs challenged, and if you make it through college without being offended, you should ask for your money back. On a serious note, a look at the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence will demonstrate that the government cannot require civil speech or mandate conventions of decency (take a look at Cohen v. California or Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, to name just a few). That being said, colleges and universities can *encourage* students to dialogue civilly; they simply cannot *require* it.
—Constitutional lawyer Greg Lukianof

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:11:59 -0800
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions

Dear Mr Slone,

I conclude from your email below that you are less interested in engaging in rhetorical discourse -- that is, discourse intended to lead others to accept your points of view -- than you are in offending for the sake of offending.

Yes, while some people might consider any negative criticism as rude simply because it is not positive criticism, that's not what I'm suggesting -- and I think you know it. There's a way of expressing negative criticism that helps the criticized hear the critique. Your tone seems unaware of that fact. That's what I've objected to, not to your ideas.

If, for the sake of example, your neighbor was allowing his dog to poop on your lawn, you might point this out to your neighbor, respectfully, asking your neighbor to please be kind enough to see that his dog pooped somewhere else. Such a tone might, in fact, cause your neighbor to avoid your lawn. You, however, seem to purposely avoid this civil tone in your writing. Instead, you seem to prefer to mock your neighbor, to insult your neighbor, to pick up his pooch's poop and throw it in his face. That's what I meant by petulant. And I don't think it encourages people to consider your point of view.

It seems to me that, to extend the metaphor, you're not interested in having your neighbor's dog poop somewhere else. In fact, I get the impression you actually may prefer that your neighbor's dog poops on your lawn. That gives you cause to sling your insults up and down the street. That, I surmise, is the actual rhetorical purpose of your writing -- to offend, much as you've been offended by the throngs of politically correct sycophants.

To that, I say: Two wrongs don't make a right.

Of course, you do admit to being befuddled by the whole discussion of "tone," so maybe you are genuinely unaware of how your choice of words and phrasings comes across to your reader. Since you're a college instructor yourself, I think you could reread your own essays and find your own examples of rude rhetoric. If you cannot, you might consider resigning from academia and beginning a career on talk radio.

Let me remind you that, in my email to you, I never mentioned that your tone was, as you've stated in your email, "incorrect." Also, you're right: One does not have to focus exclusively on what's right, especially at the exclusion of discussing what's wrong. If you had read my email carefully, you'd have known that that was not my suggestion. Oddly enough, you seem intent on doing the apparent opposite: that is, discussing the negative without accounting for the positive.

In any event, the petulant tone of your essays is not right for Alehouse. I'm happy to help you make the claim that there's too little critical thought in the discourse of poetry, but I'm not interested in permitting you to throw poop inside our alehouse. If you've got a strong claim, the claim itself should be strong enough. So why not say it with respect? If others don't like your claim and call your tone rude, that's their problem. But if you are rude -- and you are -- then you permit ad hominem attacks to undercut your claim. And that's a shame.

Again, I invite you to consider rewriting an essay with a more appropriate tone for civil discourse. Please keep in might that I do agree with your points about lit crit, but not with the manner of your expression. Please take a few days to consider this offer. Of course, if you'd rather not temper your tone, if you'd rather write back to me accusing me of being one of the politically correct standard bearers, feel free to do so. That may be your nature. But that will then be the final words between us.

Best to You,

Jay Rubin
Editor, Alehouse Press

PS: Do you find the tone, as opposed to the content, of this email to be "rude"?

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 06:21:35 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>

Dear Jay Rubin, editor of Alehouse:
Thanks again for your response. Clearly, we are two quite different people, yet we have managed to attempt dialogue. Is that not the beauty of it? What is sad is more people like us don’t make the attempt and persevere. BTW, last month, I was paid $150 by Modern-Review for a 20-page essay you would certainly deem “rude.” Personally, I prefer the term caustic and passionate (see www.theamericandissident.org/ColdPassion.htm).

Now, you didn’t seem to appreciate that highly pertinent statement made by the constitutional lawyer activist Lukianof with regards “tone” (rudeness, offensiveness, insulting, or whatever else you’d like to call it) and its essential irrelevance in the agora of ideas. What is wrong tone for one person may very well be right tone for another, and vice versa. The very crux of Lukianof’s statement was that wrong “tone” should nev er be evoked to prohibit voice to a particular point of view. Yet it is systematically evoked by established-order academics (and literati) to rationalize censorship of uncomfortable ideas. And this is precisely what you will do with regards my ideas. So, just how are you not part of the established order? Oddly, for someone purportedly not of that order, your entire discourse has been nothing but one concerned with correct TONE... whatever that might be. Rather than cater to those with thin skins perhaps you ought to be helping them toughen their skins by attempting to teach them what their parents failed to teach: sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never harm me.

Your dog-poop analogy is sadly ridiculous.

The wrong “tone” argument is an unoriginal tiresome one, one I have heard time and again from established-order proponents in an effort to rationalize censorship. “Please keep in might [sic] that I do agree with your points about lit crit,” yet you will not hesitate to censor them because of their “tone.”

Again, I and others (and the American Constitution!!!) would disagree with you entirely, regarding the wrong “tone,” do-not-offend argument for censorship. If it is offensive to speak the truth, then I agree entirely with you that I am “less interested in engaging in rhetorical discourse -- that is, discourse intended to lead others to accept [my] points of view… than in offending for the sake of offending.”

The American Dissident, the journal I edit, serves as a forum for ideas, writing, etc. that are systematically rejected by the Academic/Literary Industrial Complex. I would have to be very much more egocentric than the average-Joe poet if I thought I could actually change the mental framework of right-tone obsessionists, which is why I mentioned to you that that is not one of my goals.

“Yes, while some people might consider any negative criticism as rude simply because it is not positive criticism, that's not what I'm suggesting -- and I think you know it.” I do not know it. It appears that it is precisely what you are suggesting.

“There's a way of expressing negative criticism that helps the criticized hear the critique. Your tone seems unaware of that fact.” In that poem I sent you, it is clearly stated that the very tone is the message is the tone. Far too much energy is expended in an effort to avoid offending. In fact, expending the energy to be nice or to come off as a nice guy ends up affecting the individual and his ideas. It certainly happens in the higher education milieu where instructors systematically do this in an effort to get tenure.

If I were to expend that energy I would no longer be the person I am (hell, I’d be tenured!) and would no longer wish to “go upright and vital.” I’d rather just be nice and write nice poems and nice essays.

“You, however, seem to purposely avoid this civil tone in your writing.” Your statement is simply not true, but it does not surprise me. In my daily dealings with people, I am a polite person. As mentioned, I handed that flyer to that professor with a smile and a few soft-spoken words. For the second time, I ask you to submit one simple example from my writing that was offensive and rude… and could have been avoided. I am certainly willing to listen and change, if one can convince me. So far, you have failed to sway me at all. Thus, it would oddly seem that “you are less interested in engaging in rhetorical discourse -- that is, discourse intended to lead others to accept your points of view -- than you are in offending for the sake of offending.” And yes, you did write a “potentially” offensive statement with my regard. BUT I am not at all offended by it. Such statements push me to question and challenge, as opposed to be offended and insulted. If you could only comprehend this simple fact.

I too could use your rhetorical tactic and argue you are purposefully rude by stating I am purposefully rude. But that gets no where. What is pertinent is vigorous debate. I doubt very much you’d find one tough writer (e.g., Bukowski, Hemingway, Mailer, Ibsen, Villon, Solzhenitsyn, or whomever) who was worried about being rude. The ideas I attempt to put forth do serve a purpose. And that purpose is to expose uncomfortable truths and shove (uh, expose) them under the snouts of polite, civil herd members.

Personally, I really don’t think you like my ideas at all (they inevitably must be perceived as rude), which would explain your continued argument that I am supposedly rude. “That gives you cause to sling your insults up and down the street.” But what precisely are the “insults” that I am supposedly “slinging”? You fail to provide one, single example.

The following is interesting because YOU make an attempt to insult me. Can you see it or are you “genuinely unaware”? AND I sincerely believe that you are probably “genuinely unaware.” “Of course, you do admit to being befuddled by the whole discussion of "tone," so maybe you are genuinely unaware of how your choice of words and phrasings comes across to your reader. Since you're a college instructor yourself, I think you could reread your own essays and find your own examples of rude rhetoric. If you cannot, you might consider resigning from academia and beginning a career on talk radio.” [Actually, there is probably little difference between the two!]

“Let me remind you that, in my email to you, I never mentioned that your tone was, as you've stated in your email, "incorrect."” Fine, I’ll remove the quote marks. My error. BUT did you not imply most explicitly that it was “incorrect”?

“If you've got a strong claim, the claim itself should be strong enough. So why not say it with respect?” But what is “respect”? You fail to define this highly nebulous concept! Besides, how can I possibly “respect” established-order sycophants, as you term them? I know them far too well. If one is so easily offended and so easily insulted, then one needs to buck up… or perhaps one is simply putting on airs of being offended. Who knows… and who gives a damn? The wrong-tone argument is diversionary rhetoric.

“But if you are rude -- and you are…” Again, you have not given me ONE example to support the claim.

“…if you'd rather write back to me accusing me of being one of the politically correct standard bearers…” Well, I haven’t accused you of that at all. But you certainly do come off like one of them. I do not know you or what your ideas are. All I do know is that you seem particularly sensitive to caustic, passionate writing and that you favor, unlike Ralph Waldo Emerson and others, truth that is not “rude” or uncomfortable. You evidently prefer la forme to le fond.

“In any event, the petulant tone of your essays is not right for Alehouse.” Well, you need to change your name to Milkandcookieshouse. Petulant? If indeed you prefer boring, lackluster, polite, inoffensive, and otherwise dull to petulant, then you share a lot more in common than you think with those standard bearers.

In any case, I am sincerely grateful that you offer me yet another chance to alter my tone to get published in your review, BUT if you read my emails carefully (you’ve insinuated I don’t read yours carefully), then you’d know I’d no longer be me, I’d no longer be seeking to air my ideas for I’d no longer have those ideas, BUT I would at least have the right tone and politeness.

These things said and despite all, I’ve actually enjoyed our little discussion (joust) and remain ever open to continuing it now or in the future. I shall await your underscoring several precise examples from my essays to illustrate your accusation of rudeness. Only then can I agree with you… or not.

Sincerely,
G. Tod

PS: An essay written around our correspondence ought to be interesting to your readers and in fact anyone else interested in literature. It would illustrate to opposite viewpoints. Answer all my points and I’ll gladly write it up and submit it to Alehouse… if you’d be interested. Again, I’m sincerely interested where precisely you found my writing rude. How else might I ever be able to compose in the correct tone? Whew…

PPS: If you are against the idea of a tonal essay, then how about reprinting our correspondence in Alehouse? I give you full permission to do so.

Question: How does one politely ask a herd of careerist academics to muster up the courage to stand up on their hind legs and speak the “rude truth in all ways” (Emerson)? The “rude truth” is of course the uncomfortable truth and the uncomfortable truth is the risky truth about ones immediate milieu (e.g., cronyism, favoritism, pomp and circumstance, image uber alles, censorship, lack of free speech, corruption in hiring and promoting, PR prevarication, and mind-numbing collegiality)?
Answer: I don’t know. Do you?

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 06:26:45 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>

PPPS: In an attempt to get published over the years, I purposefully do not use any four-letter words in my writing. Evidently, that has not really made a big difference. It’s the ideas, stupid! [And I’m calling me stupid not you]

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 06:49:48 -0800
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
Best of luck to you.

Jay Rubin
Editor, Alehouse Press

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 07:56:41 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
If only we could make you see that you are the problem, not the solution.
G. Tod

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:55:48 -0800
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions

Mr Slone,

I've gone back and read through our correspondence. I've also gone to your website and discovered that I am not the only editor you've argued with over the years about your "caustic and passionate" tone. As the proverb goes: One man's meat is another man's poison.

But here's an invitation for you: Why not draft up a 1000-word essay for possible publication in Alehouse about tone in critical essays? You could criticize the polite, professional language of the academy while arguing in favor of a more "caustic and passionate" tone.

By the way, your piece on your arrest and detention at Waldon Pond was hysterical. The image of you--after mouthing off to the park guard and arresting officer--detained alone in a 50-degree cell, shivering in your wet T-shirt and swim trunks, was perfectly presented. Thank you for that.

If you're interested in writing an essay on tone, please send it vial email. If not, again, best of luck to you.

Jay Rubin
Editor, Alehouse Press

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 06:49:58 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
Jay,
Glad you’ve written again. We need more people with thicker skin. Thanks for persevering. Thanks for pushing on that door that wants so much to slam in my face. We need to keep the doors of the agora open. I can bend. You can bend. That is the key.

Yes, caustic and passionate ! Why is that viewed as such a negative by so many academics, poets, and lit editors? I cannot comprehend. Imagine ole Emerson if he lacked causticity and passion and RUDENESS? And ole Solzhenitsyn! Imagine him delivering that Harvard address without causticity, passion, and RUDENESS?

Yes, I would definitely like to write that essay for you… and if you don’t want to publish it… at least I’ll have the essay. I have already begun and will send it to you when done... for critique... of course.

Thanks for the comment on the Walden piece. Actually, I’ve written a 210-page book on my Concord experiences (e.g. with the Chamber of Commerce, Concord Poetry Center, Concord Cultural Council, Concord Book Store, Thoreau Society, Walden Pond State Reservation, Thoreau Institute, Concord Public Library, Emerson Umbrella for the Arts et al). It’s called Suburbanitica. Each chapter is more or less self-contained. I’ve long since given up trying to publish it.

G. Tod

PS: I do make special efforts, now and then, to write positive book reviews; for example, one on the South African poet, Dennis Brutus, and another on Mumia.

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 08:10:51 -0800
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
Great,

I look forward to seeing it when done.

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
JR,
Okay, here it is. In it, I've tried to stick to the theme of "wrong tone." Well, you critique it. If I can dish out, I sure as hell best be able to take it, right? That said, how about publishing my 210 pager related to Concord and Thoreau? Surely, you could sell something like that, eh? Oh, well, just thought I'd give it a whirl. I suck at marketing and selling.
T.

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:07:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
T,

I've gone through the essay. Thanks for drafting it up. Ideally, what we're looking for here is an essay of about 1,000 words. For now, what you've got is fine as it permits us a chance to consider which parts to keep and which to cut.

In the attached draft, I've gone through the essay and given you my comments on what to keep, what to expand, and what to drop -- at least insofar as Alehouse is concerned. The main concern I have, and this is surprising, is that the essay itself lacks the challenging, "rude" and "caustic" and "passionate" tone I was hoping you'd defend and, in part, model.

It would be fun to read a caustic piece that argues for a rude tone, one that challenges with its passionate points, while mocking the PC tone of the status quo. Do you think that's doable? I hope so. And I hope you're not offended by these comments that sort of tear all the stitching out of your quilt.

Finally, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to draw up a few cartoons for Alehouse. If so, I've got some basic ideas we could discuss. Let me know if that's also something of interest to you.

Best,

A Man Who Does Not Drill Well
Notes from a Literary Black Sheep
Every compulsion is put upon writers to become safe, polite, obedient, and sterile.
—Sinclair Lewis, “Letter to the Pulitzer Prize Committee”

I suggest starting out with a caustic, passionate criticism of academic discourse on poetry. Since Alehouse is a journal dedicated to poetry, the evidence and examples you present should focus on your experiences with poets and poetry journal editors as opposed to journalists. Come out swinging with the “rude” tone that Emerson would have you employ. Hold nothing back! As is, surprisingly, the tone of this essay is remarkably polite. You suggest in places that others have perceived your tone as inappropriate, but you give no examples of the tone actually used.

These quotes by Emerson and Thoreau are good, but I’d present them in a third or fourth paragraph as you start to defend your position.

“Go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways,” wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson in his famous essay, “On Self-Reliance.” Underscore the word “rude.” Emerson was no doubt disappointed in his fellow citizens and equated hardcore truth with “rude.” That other literary powerhouse of the 19th century, his contemporary Henry David Thoreau, wrote: “A cross man, a coarse man, an eccentric man, a silent, a man who does not drill well,—of him there is some hope. Your gentlemen, they are all alike. They utter their opinions as if it was not a man that uttered them.” Underscore “cross” and “coarse,” as in “rude.”
Unlike today’s literary standard bearers, Emerson and Thoreau were not obsessed with being polite, but rather with being truthful. Today’s men and women of letters seem, however, to be obsessed with the former, while not with the latter. The result of that obsession seems to be an increase in triviality in writing. Perhaps it would do them well to reread Emerson and Thoreau, though I’m not at all convinced that would help. This example of your dealing with the Thoreau Society doesn’t work for Alehouse. Again, please select some examples more directly related to poetry. As an example, I’ve had numerous dealings with literati affiliated directly with Thoreau Society, Thoreau Institute, Shop at Walden Pond boutique, and Emerson Umbrella for the Arts. Oddly, all proved essentially in opposition to the above attitudes of their purported literary heroes, Emerson and Thoreau—most simply refused dialogue. After all, I was critical and unknown.

The examples in the next paragraph are closer but less specific. And it’s here in this next paragraph that you say they others “perceived” your tone as rude. Since you do not offer the text of your communication to them, your argument is too one-sided. Better, I think, to speak about them in the challenging caustic tone, commenting on how they discounted you based on that Emersonian tone, not on the basis of your ideas.

Over the years, I have received many comments from editors, academics, poets, and literary mandarins accusing me of employing the wrong “tone” in my writing—whatever that might be. Well, the implication is clear: they perceived my “tone” as caustic, rude, impolite, and otherwise lacking in civility—their civility! Never have I been accused, however, of being “safe, polite, obedient, and sterile.” Often—yes, quite often—, I’ve challenged those who have made it known that my “tone” was unacceptable, and more often than not—much more often than not—, they’ve hung up the phone, so to speak.

This next example of the Quebec newspaper isn’t right for Alehouse. Could you replace with an example from a poetry journal editor?

In reply to a letter I wrote criticizing a Quebec newspaper article on poetry, for example, the well-known journalist, who wrote it, responded: “Vous etes impoli!” That ended the dialogue, closed the doors of possible debate, and otherwise terminated me as a person worthy of expressing an opinion. Did I use any four-letter French words in my letter? Not at all. Did I call the journalist names? Not at all. Did I threaten him in any way whatsoever? Not at all. So what did I do? Well, I criticized his point of view. Perhaps I should have been offended by his comment. But his response, at least in my mind, clearly indicated I had hit a nerve; in other words, bull’s eye! Instead of being offended, what I did was draw a cartoon lampooning him and his statement of indignation. Unlike most writers and professors, I am not easily offended and tend to feed on conflict… creatively. Perhaps my mother did a good job instilling the adage that “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me.”

Here you refer to your “problematic” tone, but there’s no real example of that tone.   This Ibsen quote is good, but it may be too much for this essay. I’d stick to Emerson and Thoreau, at least for our immediate purpose.

Just the same, if so many have underscored my “tone” to be a problem, their perceptions must have been accurate, right? Not necessarily! Ibsen warned perceptibly against majority opinion: “The most insidious enemy of truth and freedom among us is the solid majority. Yes, the damned, solid, liberal majority—that’s it! The majority is never right. I say, never! That’s one of those social lies that any free man who thinks for himself has to rebel against” (An Enemy of the People).

In the next paragraph, it’s fine to report on the names you’ve been called, but you should also provide evidence of “a literary celebrity” voicing their “rude” opinion and not being denigrated. It would be good to show how one critic allowed a celebrity to get away with a critical tone that you are then criticized for.

If one prides oneself in seeking and speaking truth as one sees it, one will likely be criticized via denigrating epithet, unless of course one is a literary celebrity. For example, I have been labeled, amongst many things, “egocentric,” “petulant,” “bitter,” “angry,” “pandering,” “self-promoting,” “strident,” and “anarcho-raté.” And the denigration of my person has not been restricted to single words. Note, amongst other things: “This bantering outside of closed windows to neighbors who wish you would move away”; “You smell of someone who burns bridges faster than you can light the matches and it is a shame”; “Your defense of your own greatness absolutely diminishes your critique;” “Even if you are the center of the known universe [...] your chest thumpings…”; “If you're such a goddam [sic] brilliant poet etc, where's this poetry and the brilliance?” and the “plague of the small press.”

This next paragraph seems to undercut your position by admitting that you attempt to be curteous knowing that impolite discourse often serves as red herring to ignore your argumentative points. If your point is that we need more “rude” discourse, then let’s argue for it by employing it, modeling it as an example of what Emerson would appreciate.

Because I’ve been the target of facile name-calling so many times, I make a continuous, conscious effort to avoid doing the same thing, for I’ve become all too aware that such shoot-the-messenger rhetoric constitutes a pervasive, diversionary defense mechanism that needs to be exposed and challenged, particularly because it serves, more than anything else, to truncate dialogue, close the doors of the agora of ideas, and protect frail egos from unapproved critique. In literature, it of course also serves to keep the status quo of celebrity and canon in tact and otherwise unchallenged.

This next paragraph attempts to define what the herd considers critical etiquette. Suggesting non-existent literature on the subject is a cop-out. You should, in this paragraph, define exactly the type of discourse the sycophants prefer.

Barring implied threat and threatening words, what therefore constitutes the wrong “tone,” the one that makes uncomfortable so many editors, poets, professors, and other miscellaneous cultural apparatchiks? It is important to attempt to comprehend what precisely constitutes their particular etiquette, for if one doesn’t conform to their mannerisms, they’ll censor and otherwise ostracize you. But to conform to their mannerisms, one must study those mannerisms, which are probably more implicit than explicit. Unfortunately, the literature on the subject might very well be inexistent, though I suspect one word might sum it all up: sycophancy. Let’s not forget that the more vague the rules, the more power to the rulers. Just the same, it would seem that one might be able to learn those mannerisms, for example, in an MFA program. If you’ve been part of an MFA program, you can make this claim, so long as it’s backed by evidence. Otherwise, you might want to drop it and, instead, focus on the Faustian deal many poets make to become professionals in an otherwise corrupted field. But who but a person willing, if not eager, to make a Faustian deal would consciously conform to mannerisms, especially when they might conflict with truth telling? If one does attempt to conform to those mannerisms, won’t one become quite like “them” and won’t the edge of ones uniqueness as a poet or writer dissipate, as if one never even had an edge to begin with?

What precisely is the “tone” that will provoke them to knee-jerk truncate dialogue? Use of capital letters perhaps? Well, I’ve been accused of “hollering” in my writing, because I do, amongst other things, now and then, use caps to emphasize certain words or phrases. But it must be more than that, right? Forget the bit about capital letters. That’s not the point. Instead, keep the focus on how others react when, as you say in the following sentence, they are overtly challenged. It has been my experience that the more I question and challenge overtly, the more I am accused of being rude, impolite, uncollegial, and uncivil. Is there not a concrete relationship between the two? Can it be therefore that no-holds-barred questioning and challenging has become in itself rude and impolite today? “However, you assume that ‘truth-telling’ and collegiality are mutually exclusive,” wrote a professor regarding an article I’d written highly critical of professors. “This may be why other faculty are not on your bandwagon.” To a certain extent, he is right. “Truth-telling” (e.g., no-holds-barred questioning and challenging) constitutes an inevitable breach of collegiality.

Cut the next paragraph or refashion it to discuss the specific hiring of poetry professors.

(By the way, “collegiality” in higher education has become a sad, prime criteria for hiring new professors. Without three letters of recommendation (i.e., certified as testimony of a candidate’s collegiality), a professor will not be able to find a job in higher education, unless of course the hiring committee is lazy and does not check references. It is sad because the prime criteria do not include a candidate’s likelihood to “go upright and vital.”)

In the next paragraph you might suggest how today’s poetry critics, with their tendencies to be politically correct, might have addressed Stalin. Then, contrast it with what Emerson might have said to Stalin.

Thus, the very subject matter of a piece of writing could be deemed rude if it questions and challenges those doing the deeming. The logic is clearly there. Just open your eyes a tad and examine it. Emerson certainly saw it: one cannot speak the “rude truth” without being rude. Indeed, for Emerson the very term “rude truth” constituted a pleonasm. How, for example, could one have said to Stalin in a polite way, that is polite as perceived by Stalin himself, that he ought to stop interning and murdering millions of his compatriots? How could one say to the chief organizing autocrat of the annual poetry festival, in a polite fashion as perceived by that organizer, that he was diminishing the very power of poetry by only promoting poetry that fits in comfortable bourgeois settings?

Unless you’ve got a specific example, for instance, of a particular poet responding directly to your criticism, this next paragraph should go. Of course, if poets and professors are indeed easily insulted and offended, you should have no trouble finding a good example. In any case, cut the bit about the Court.

What is truly sad is that poets, professors and others, for the most part, are so easily (conveniently!) insulted and offended. What is sad is that they tend to knee-jerk reject criticism of their work and modus operandi. To call anything that displeases as rude and impolite is a travesty, for rude and impolite by their very nature must be subjective, which is why the Supreme Court for example has over and again sided with the censored against the rude and impolite proclaiming censors.

This next paragraph sets up a good conclusion, but it lacks the rationale. That is, why would a more “rude” tone be beneficial to the general discourse. It would certainly be more lively and entertaining, but is there another more important reason why?

What our democracy needs is more citizens, especially professors and poets, who possess the inner strength to not only brave shallow subjective accusations of rudeness and incivility, but who will “go upright and vital” and otherwise prove much more interested and concerned with exposing, underscoring, and dealing with uncomfortable truths, than with correct “tone.” What it needs is more citizen heretics who will manifest the courage to “speak the rude truth” in the nation’s increasingly conformist milieu— educationist, literary, or whichever. This next point is very good and important. Far too many poets and writers, for example, muzzle themselves in order to get published and one step further to achieving fame. Keep the following focus on the academy and the world of poetry, not democracy in general. The problem confronting our democracy today has become severe because truth telling is systematically suppressed by those obsessed by the fear of offending. It is my humble opinion as poet and professor that the entire business of civility has clouded, if not buried, that of open dialogue and rude truth.

The following three quotes are good, but perhaps add too much length to the essay, at least for our purpose. Rushdie’s point, as coming from a writer, might be more appropriate than Lukianoff’s. Brutus, as poet, should definitely be included.

Salman Rushdie once mentioned he’d learned a pertinent lesson while he was studying at Cambridge: “You are never rude to the person, but you can be savagely rude about what the person thinks.” As for constitutional lawyer Greg Lukianoff (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), he has stated that “It would be a great service to students if it was explained to them when they begin college that, although politeness may be nice, it is of miniscule importance as compared to robust discussion.” But their professors are evidently not likely to do so. He also noted: “As we often joke, being offended is what happens when you have your deepest beliefs challenged, and if you make it through college without being offended, you should ask for your money back.”
South African anti-apartheid poet Dennis Brutus argued that “If you see something that is wrong, don’t be polite. Don’t be nice to us. If you think something is going wrong you have an obligation to give us your solidarity, but it has to be critical solidarity.” Well, I’ve tried my best not to heed Brutus in this essay, but you be the judge. Have I been polite? If so, will this essay better convince those obsessed with civility to become a little less obsessed with it, while a little more concerned with the truth? Well, I know the answer to that question. Do you?

Rather than close with this personal take on your own essay, I suggest making one last caustic shot at the status quo. Also, stay clear of the second person in the essay – that’s just a general editorial preference for Alehouse.

In all, I’d suggest restructuring the essay so that you open with a “caustic, passionate” criticism of contemporary critical discourse of poetry. Mention and give examples of how you’ve been maligned by critics who disapprove of your own criticism. Then support your choice of tone by citing Emerson and Thoreau. After that, begin explaining how polite tone is a detriment to poetic discourse and why a “rude” tone would be more beneficial. To close, cite Rushdie and Brutus and give one last parting shot at your own critics whose polite protection of the status quo you find more offensive than the rude truth of reality.

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
Hi JR,

Are you a professor by chance? How long was my essay? I figure 250 words per page, no? I guess not. Well, in the essay, I simply laid out the case for “rude truth.” I suppose this sort of becomes comical now. At first you didn’t want rude and impolite… now you do. Che posso fare? Part of what makes a piece caustic is naming actual people in it. BUT I figured you would have been against that, since most are. Should I name the people in it who made those comments? Anyhow, I will look through your comments later since I don’t have time right now. As said, I wouldn’t be disappointed if you dump it for I was happy to get down to writing it. I’d sort of been meaning to do so for a while now.
In my piece, you’ll note I note that I am rarely offended, that I feed off critique… and that is true. So, I won’t be offended.
Yes, I would definitely be interested in sketching out some cartoons for Alehouse. Send the ideas along. I’ll get back to you later on your comments.
T.

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
JR,

"You suggest in places that others have perceived your tone as inappropriate, but you give no examples of the tone actually used."
This is a good point, BUT I have yet to have an accuser point out a precise example of rudeness. Recall I even asked you to point out a precise example in my essays that you found rude, BUT you did not respond.
T.

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
JR,
"Better, I think, to speak about them in the challenging caustic tone, commenting on how they discounted you based on that Emersonian tone, not on the basis of your ideas."

By that comment, I have to conclude you've missing the point of the expose entirely. The Emersonian tone, as you call it, IS the idea (criticism) itself. If you could only pick out one example from the essays I sent you, the ones you called rude. Perhaps you can't, which brings us back to the ideas (criticism).

"Here you refer to your “problematic” tone, but there’s no real example of that tone."

Again, it is my thesis that the "problematic" tone is nothing more than the criticism itself. The tone is the criticism is the tone.

"In the next paragraph, it’s fine to report on the names you’ve been called, but you should also provide evidence of “a literary celebrity” voicing their “rude” opinion and not being denigrated."

I cannot, so I shall have to eliminate that phrase.

"If your point is that we need more “rude” discourse, then let’s argue for it by employing it, modeling it as an example of what Emerson would appreciate."

This is not my point at all... unless "rude" is equated with particular critique, which is my point. Your comments clearly indicate that you do not follow me here. In other words, it is "rude" to simply state, for example, that to become a poet laureate one must learn how to be a sycophant. Or it is "rude" to simply state that most poets are afraid to be critical of the poetry infrastructure or anything else apt to feed them.

BTW, I do like your insistence on evidence for claims made. BUT you have yet to provide evidence for your claim that the essays I sent you were "rude." How do you explain that?

I liked your comments, but again, please provide one example of my rudeness. Thanks.
G. Tod

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:26:34 -0700
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
GT

Let me take some time here to give you some feedback on a few things you wrote in “Truth Taboo.” These examples from your essay, though not all “rude,” may explain why others find your writing to be—for lack of a better word—offensive. Not because of the truth you attempt to tell but because of the way you attempt to tell it.

Regarding contemporary academic freedom, you described it as “a vacuous Orwellian concept.” This, as you well know, is an opinion, not a fact. It cannot be proved nor disproved. Also, typically, when one describes something as “Orwellian,” a compliment is not being made. Therefore, your remark is inferred by your reader as a criticism that cannot be logically disproved. That puts the critiqued at a very unfair advantage. If you’re making your claim to make the critiqued feel uncomfortable, you succeed. But if you’re making your claim to engage discussion so that, as you seem to wish, academic freedom could become truly free, it might be better off to begin with a few rhetorical concessions, if only to draw in your audience and make them comfortable, comfortable knowing that you at least understand their situation. I may be the only one who thinks so, but starting off with an insult is not a good way to win friends and influence people.

To make matters worse, ending your opening paragraph, you write: “Indeed, the concept has sadly been reduced to groupthink, orthodox blather, egregious backslapping, and ubiquitous self-congratulating.” The language you use is over the top. The terms are charged with negativity. In short, you wind up relying on pathos, on emotional reactions to words, to make your points. Groupthink and backslapping are both clichés. The tone of “orthodox blather” and “ubigquitous self-congratulating” sound arrogant. A more accurate and original description of the problem would be more effective.

Then there’s the problem of all your self-centered anecdotes. While these aren’t exactly rude to include, most academic discourse, I think, would eschew such personal discussions unless they were the absolute point of an essay-complaint. You seem to be telling the anecdote to support your point. But by doing so, by allowing your individual example to stand as a standard for the whole is outrageous. Some people, having sat down to read your “academic” argument may feel betrayed that you’ve turned it into a personal rant. They may feel as if you’re wasting their time with your troubles. Here’s one of your anecdotes.

"Just the other day, an acquaintance informed me she’d been offered a position as Associate Professor of PR. I had no idea such positions existed and thought how Orwellian not to label them Associate Professorships of OP and IE (Official Prevarication and Image Exaggeration). But their existence is logical given that truth, rarely if ever, starts at home for the professorate."

In this example, you resort to exaggeration. It’s really not appropriate because the general charge you make, that the academy is corrupt, is a serious charge and calls for serious discussion. For you to make jokes about acronyms is not appropriate for the rhetorical situation. This may cause some to stop taking you seriously—even if they wanted to. And, I suspect, people will want to.

Here’s another anecdote paragraph:

“In fact, after nearly two years as a faithful online instructor in English with Davenport University (MI), I was 'terminated,' though not in those words, but rather in the highly civil (i.e., untruthful) terms '[we want] to thank you for teaching for us; however, this message is to inform you that we will be unable to assign courses to you in the future as our needs have changed.' Because a few students had complained I was being much too truthful regarding their writing, I would be offered no further courses to teach.”

You seem unable to equate truth with civility. While the fact may be that Davenport University fired you due to student complaints, does it matter what language they used to communicate their intentions. Is there something inherently untrue about their statement? They were “unable to assign courses to you in the future as [their] needs [had] changed.” That sounds like the truth to me. After some students complained, they no longer needed you on the faculty. Are you suggesting that, because they did not “fire” you in caustic and passionate language, that they were being dishonest? What would you have had them say? Should they have listed all their reasons, presuming there were many? If they left one out, would they be not telling the truth?

I realize, and I apologize, that I have not had time to read through your essays looking for more “rude” language. Perhaps it’s not the language at all that’s rude. Perhaps it’s the arrogant tone that resorts to exaggerated name-calling. Perhaps it’s the egotistic narrator turning a serious academic discussion into a personal rant. Perhaps, when I referred to your writings, it was a holistic feeling that I got after reading your website. I found some of your responses to other editors are very rude and offensive. But if you don’t think so, if you need more examples to understand what I’m saying, then I am the wrong person to be discussing this with.

So, back to your essay for Alehouse. I originally got the impression that your preference was to write in a “caustic, passionate” tone, that perhaps Emerson was suggesting that spirited debate was the best course for getting at the truth. If that were the case, then I was hoping you’d write a true Emersonian essay, with all its inherent exaggerations and self-indulgent ranting. I thought that would be interesting. I think you’re an interesting person because you seem to be a literary gadfly, one buzzing about pointing out hypocracy wherever you find it. In the courts of European kings, the only ones previledged to talk that way (without getting their heads chopped off) were the official court fools. I see you a self-appointed fool, someone willing to shock and offend in order to reveal the truth. If that were the case, if you were that kind of brave fool, then I’d like to see an essay in that brave fool’s voice.

But I may have been mistaken.

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
JR,
Well, glad to hear from you. As I reflected I thought perhaps I was a bit “offensive/rude” with a comment in my previous email: “By that comment, I have to conclude you're missing the point of the expose entirely. The Emersonian tone, as you call it, IS the idea (criticism) itself.” Yes, I could have probably softened those two sentences. BUT you were tough enough to brave the offense. Bravo! Are your “civility-obsessed” colleagues not as brave as you?

Again, I actually enjoy dialogue with those who do not agree with me. Most likely, I’ll never see one of my articles published in Alehouse, so evidently that is not really my prime goal at all… dialogue is. Your demands regarding my prose seem increasingly impossible, if not implausible. Neither of us seem apt to bend to impossibilities. You favor civility, while I truth.

Fear of being “offensive” is of course the big thing in American society today and of course it conveniently acts, left and right, to block the truth I and others favor. For some reason, you seem quite against the very idea, if not possibility, that “truth hurts,” that “rude truth” exists and there is nothing one can do about it. What you are asking me to do is present a “truth” that is painless. And unlike you, I am not convinced it can be done at all. Thus, you shall simply end up preferring to bury the truths I’ve exposed or underscored… in order that your particular code of civility be left untarnished. Clearly and sadly, your attitude is the majority’s.

You note: “But if you’re making your claim to engage discussion so that, as you seem to wish, academic freedom could become truly free, it might be better off to begin with a few rhetorical concessions…” My claim is not at all what you state. It seems you have an impervious blind spot to the point I’ve made over and again: “rude truth” as a pleonasm. On the contrary, given the current autocratic infrastructure, academic freedom can simply not be “truly free.” As long as academics cherish their pocketbooks, “truly free” will be an impossibility… and indeed at times I do ask myself: why therefore bother? The logic is clearly there as are the facts regarding it. Academics, like poets, know precisely what they should not talk about… if they want to “succeed.” Of course, their hoped for “success” is really nothing but a Faustian deal and a true failure: careerism vs. truth. I make it a point to talk about those taboos; for example, questioning the faculty meeting prayers at the public university employing me today. I can well imagine the names I’ve been called behind my back at that university: egotist (well, that’s one you’ve used, eh?), old hippie, crazy, and “fool” (there’s another one you’ve used!). One of my students called me “crazy” to my face… but in a nice way… as in, “you’ve got balls, Dr. Slone.”

It is ind icative of the times and the state of the nation when students would think a professor crazy for simply expressing his opinion out loud, especially when the student doesn’t really think it’s crazy but lucid. It reflects negatively on the professorate as a whole: Professors do not normally express their opinions.

Sure, I can agree with you: “I may be the only one who thinks so, but starting off with an insult is not a good way to win friends and influence people.” And sure, I’d like to gain a few friends. If I didn’t care, I never would have sent you those essays. But again “insult” for you and others in the herd might very well be synonymous with “rude truth.”

Now this is very good: “Indeed, the concept has sadly been reduced to groupthink, orthodox blather, egregious backslapping, and ubiquitous self-congratulating.” The language you use is over the top.” So, how to come up with euphemisms for those very terms? At first, glance, I can’t think of any without making the terms worse by rendering them comical. Can you? No, I didn’t think so. Thus, your argument really becomes a non-argument.

You state that “Groupthink and backslapping are both clichés.” And so what? That is precisely what occurs in the academic milieu, cliche-behavior, of second and third tier universities. I do not have any experience in first-tier institutions.

You state: “The tone of “orthodox blather” and “ubigquitous self-congratulating” sound arrogant.” Perhaps you’d be surprised how many professors might actually agree with me regarding those very terms and their milieu, for many might actually think they were not targeted in the essay. I wish you would have offered alternative euphemisms. I can’t really think of any.

You state: “Then there’s the problem of all your self-centered anecdotes.” Well, they also underscore that the writer has personally experienced what he is writing about and that he wishes the essay to have a personal tone to it. Clearly, that essay was not written as a scholarly paper, but rather as an opinion piece and in such pieces it is permissible to punctuate points with personal anecdotes. Yet you critique it as if it were written as the former. I haven’t written a scholarly paper in ages and hope never to do so again.

You state: “…you’ve turned it into a personal rant.” I disapprove of the highly negative term “rant” for it is used often to denigrate valid critique. It is shoot-the-messenger rhetoric. In your writing to me, you constantly use terms to describe me and my writing that you would clearly criticize me for using. Think about that.

You’ve completely lost me regarding my anecdote, the one you cited regarding Assoc. Prof of PR. The position actually exists and says a great deal about the state of academe. Rendering the title more honest was an effort at injecting a little humor into the absurd Orwellian concept of a professor of PR.

This is true: “You seem unable to equate truth with civility.” And you seem unable to equate truth with rude. Regarding the second anecdote you mention, I was indeed pissed off by the “sterile civility” of the dean’s email. After all, higher education ought not to be equated with corporation/business. Today, that is the direction of higher ed. It will affect (and has already affected) negatively democracy in the USA . The dean behaved not as a truth teller but as a business executive. It seems that you would prefer the latter to the former. I’m certain we could find similar emails written to Enron employees.

Regarding the dean who fired me: “Is there something inherently untrue about their statement?” Definitely. The whole statement was grotesquely false. How could you have missed it? I do hope for your sake that you do not actually support the kind of fraudulent faux-civil prose used by that dean. Can you not comprehend that, for me, it is anything but civil?... that falsity cloaked in any kind of clothing could never please me? In fact, it certainly tends to have the opposite effect.

You state: “What would you have had them say?” Hmm. How about: Given that pleasing the clientele [i.e., the students] is the only real concern of our university, we cannot keep employing an instructor like you who places truth on a much higher level than making students happy with self-esteem inflating faux-critique.

Can you really be blind to this? Or are you simply “playing me” as in devil’s advocate? Lukianoff noted: “As we often joke, being offended is what happens when you have your deepest beliefs challenged, and if you make it through college without being offended, you should ask for your money back.”

But for you and that dean, it’s rather: If you are offended, then you should complain to the dean, and we will fire the offending professor. Yes, I do believe that this is what you believe… and I am saddened for you and higher education because your belief is certainly the prevalent one in higher ed.

So now, you back off from calling my language rude to labeling it “name calling.” Yet I rarely name call because as mentioned to you in a prior email I am all too aware that it is the most common response of truth-offended poets and academics. It is certainly not something I want to engage in, which is why I consciously avoid it. This is name calling: “egotistic narrator.” Anybody who attempts to get published could easily be considered egotistical. Using the term as you do is thus to engage in vacuous name-calling. Besides if I were exceptionally egocentric like so many other poets and writers, I wouldn’t be writing about general issues like corruption in academe, corruption in the literary milieu, and our failing democracy. Instead, I’d have a webpage with my CV, photo, and poems on it and nothing else.

So, now I am a “court fool”? Who is the name caller, you or I?

You state: “In the courts of European kings, the only ones previledged to talk that way (without getting their heads chopped off) were the official court fools.” And that statement is the crux of my argument! In America , heads are not chopped off and men are not sent to gulags, which is why in America academics, poets, and editors (like you) afraid to play the “court fool” ought to be ashamed of themselves.

It is odd to me why you place civility on a much higher level than truth and why you simply ignore Lukianoff’s excellent statement on the subject.

Once again I repeat: Truth is rude. Truth hurts. Truth turns away readers, as in Alehouse Press readers.
So, if you’re not interested in truth, simply do not publish my essays. Publish more civil discourse and more civil poesy… and collect more civil grants and increase your readership with more civil readers…

Sincerely,
G. Tod

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:56:40 -0700
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
"You favor civility, while I truth."

This is where you are completely wrong in your entire approach to the acaedmy and all discourse. You seem unable to realize that truth can, in fact, be delivered in a civil matter. In fact, your statement above, by suggesting that, because I believe in civility, I do not believe in truth, is just plain wrong. And for you to assert it so boldly only demonstrates your inabilty to hold a real discussion.

So without having to read your entire response, I recognize that you have no intention to work in collaboration. In fact, you seem to believe that your opinions -- and that's all they are -- are fact, are truth, and that's where you're dead wrong.

The fact is, the truth is, I've now spent more than enough time trying to be fair and reasonable with you. As you say, you're not interested in being published in Alehouse. You're only out for discussion. It's all about you, isn't it? It's all about what you want. At some point, you'll have to realize that working with people, even if comprimises must be made, is more productive than constantly working against people.

Maybe you'll never realize that. The truth is, you don't seem to care.

Good-bye & Good Luck,

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
JR,
You’re not reading clearly what I’ve written. What I wrote is that for you civility is more important than truth, which is why you won’t publish my writing. That’s fairly simple. I do not purposefully write rudely. And you are also wrong with regards my not wanting to appear in Alehouse. After all, I wouldn’t have contacted you. What I did write is that the likelihood of that occurring was slim considering your obsession with civility…. and mine with truth.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, your case regarding the alleged rudeness of my writing was far from convincing. You failed to underscore any real points of rudeness. “Backslapping” is precisely what it is. How else would you call it in an effort to be polite? “Backslapping” is rampant in higher ed and in the world of poesy. And you insist that the phenomenon be called something polite. Well, I can’t think of anything polite to call it… and you can’t either.
You cannot resist shooting the messenger. In each and every email, you’ve proceeded to insult me. In this one, you write: “It's all about you, isn't it?” No, it’s all about truth, not about me. It’s about the egregious crap smothering higher education and literature. That’s what it’s all about. But you don’t care. You just care about civility… while you insult me. Sort of hypocritical, isn’t it?
For the sake of society and democracy, some of us must “go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways.” It is that simple. There are far too many ambassador-politician types more interested in cutting deals than in the truth. I choose not to be one of those types. You choose to be one of them.
Again you insult me with a fool’s statement: “The truth is, you don't seem to care.”
Sincerely,
G. Tod

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
PS: If I were really egocentric I'd set up a webpage just like the following: http://jayrubin.homestead.com/

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:43:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
This response is rude. So you've proved yourself wrong.

Have a Nice Life.

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
JR,
And yet my response is absolutely true! You called me an egotist. BUT why not look at yourself. Your website vaunts you and nothing else but you. Amongst other things you boast about being an award-winning novelist on the site without even having the brains to question and challenge the hand that feeds you (e.g., the award infrastructure and that community college). TRUTH IS RUDE! You have just proven it!
Sincerely,
G. Tod

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:09:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
GTS

I am pleased and priviledged to be among the esteemed rank of poets and professors you have mocked in your cartoons. If only you were able to look at yourself with the same critical eye you reserve for everyone else whom you envy. You might discover why people consider you to be a "creep." It's not because you challenge their beliefs. It's because you're obnoxious.

By the way, how is it that you earn your living? Are you so independently weathly that you can afford to waste your time masking psychological cries for help as academic criticism? Don't bother answering. I'm not really interested. It's just a rhetorical question.

Please feel free to move on and haunt someone else's email in-box.

Best of Luck,

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
JR
You simply ignored the clear logic in my last email and resorted once again to JR name-calling. If you are clearly indicative of the new rank-and-file thinkers in the nation’s universities, then we are in serious trouble indeed. BTW, since you’ve asked, I earn my living as a university professor—untenured, of course! BUT unlike you, I step on to the edge periodically, if not systematically, to “speak the rude truth in all ways.” How could you and others like you possibly appreciate, let alone comprehend, that?
T.

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:53:06 -0700
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
GTS

Since there was no "clear logic" in your previous email, there was none to ignore. Since I am now in direct communication with you, and since this is not an academic forum where civility is appreciated, and since you have clearly set boundaries for discourse that encourage and emphasize rude language, it's no surprise that I've now joined you in rude truth-telling.

While you are certainly rude in your discussions -- i.e., socially incorrect in behavior, lacking civility or good manners, characterized by simplicity and (often) crudeness, and lacking in refinement or grace -- and proudly so, it's no wonder you've never made tenure. And it's no wonder that you cannot seem to hold down a steady job.

Some people, such as yourself, sabotage their opportunities. Perhaps it's highly likely that you suffer from a deep-seated insecurity and inferiority complex. Deep down, you may realize that you're not qualified to be a college professor. Your writing isn't very good. You seem to lack an open, critical mind about your own behavior.

Perhaps, knowing all this, you unknowingly sabotage yourself by challenging the system, hoping for the results you've sowed. With each firing, you are privately reassured of your own incompetence and worthlessness. But rather than acknowledge that incompetence and worthlessness, rather than taking steps toward self-improvement and realization, you attack the very "machine" that had foolishly given you the opportunity to espouse your sophomoric views.

Have you ever considered psychotherapy? It could be very helpful for someone like you -- unless, of course, you are content in your role as a repeatedly rejected professor. Have you got your own Sancho Panza, or do you fight windmills all by your lonesome?

I look forward to seeing the cartoon you draw lampooning me. I trust that you'll have the decency to send along a jpg file when you're done. I'll be happy to post it on my "egocentric" website. I hope, though, it's at least half as funny and intelligent as the cartoons my own students have drawn mocking me.

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
JR,
As mentioned I always obtain creative material from these academic/literary “discussions.” And as you know, I've had many of them. Clearly, you have provided me with material. In fact, you have provided me with the crux: any tenured professor will likely not be able to follow or comprehend (or simply refuse) my argument regarding his or her evident Faustian deal. You couldn’t understand the argument at all. You as a poet should nev er have chosen to make such a deal. Of course, most poets do, which explains the sad state of poetry in America today: Civility uber Truth.

Ours has now become a full-blown dialogue de sourds, as the French say. You will ignore any logic put forth, including the sun is out today.

Your very terminology is suspect in that it is not objective, as in “socially incorrect in behavior.” According to whom? Garp… or you?

The real question (problem!) is: how did someone like you ever get tenured in a purported institution of higher learning? Certainly, your writing is sufficiently highbrow, but your ability to think logically is sadly lacking. Yet one could have also asked how Mr. X became an official of one of the gulags in the former Soviet Union .

“Your writing isn't very good,” you inform… unoriginally shooting the messenger per usual. Of course, that is why you were ready to publish me in your lit journal… because my writing isn’t very good. The proof stands before your own eyes, yet you choose to shut your eyes. AND you suggest I need a therapist! All I would have had to do is tone down my writing and eliminate any discussion of points apt to upset anyone apt to promote you in the poesy game and/or academic one… AND you would have published it. Again, the logic is there and is clearly your worst enemy.

Certainly, you will be informed when I post the cartoon on my website. Well, at least some of your students have maintained the intelligence to see that you ind eed need to be mocked. Will you succeed in indoctrinating them in the need for civility… to bury uncomfortable truths? Let’s hope not.

G. Tod

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:34:25 -0700
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions

As mentioned I always obtain creative material from these academic/literary “discussions.” And as you know, I've had many of them. Clearly, you have provided me with material. In fact, you have provided me with the crux: any tenured professor will likely not be able to follow or comprehend (or simply refuse) my argument regarding his or her evident Faustian deal.

Unfortunately, you begin with the generalization that all poets/professors are part of the problem and have, thus, made a Faustian deal. By beginning with this premise, every poet/professor you meet must be, by presupposition, part of the problem and a friend of Mephistopeles.

You couldn’t understand the argument at all.

I understand: Once one becomes part of the literary/academic machine, one can no longer effectively criticize the machine. Rather, unless one is willing to lose their job or never gain tenure, one must engage in civil, polite, non-threatening, non-challenging, non-combative discourse with the machine and its parts. Am I right? Isn't this essentially your point?

If so, there is some merit to it. It's true: In order for me, even with tenure, to secure my position and standing within the academic community, I must not rock the boat -- at least not too suddenly. Change, as you know, is inevitable. But some boats move slower than others. In my mind, the best way to change the academy is to effect that change from within. It's easy to throw eggs and tomotoes from outside the ivory tower. But to gain credibility from the inside, one must be patient, respectful, and persistently prudent. If not, all good intentions may go to waste.

So I think I do understand your argument, but I respond to it differently from you -- which is one reason I'm on the inside and you're on the outside. If you don't mind being on the outside, if you've got plenty of eggs and tomatoes, great! But if you want to get on the inside, if only to effect change, then you may have to take a different rhetorical tactic -- one you are either unable to make, or one you are still unable to comprehend or appreciate.

You as a poet should never have chosen to make such a deal. Of course, most poets do, which explains the sad state of poetry in America today: Civility uber Truth.

Perhaps the only real problem with American poetry today, at least from your perspective, is that not enough of your poems have been published. I must admit, I don't like all the poetry I see, and some of it I probably dislike for the same reasons you do. That's why I started my own journal, so that I could help promote the type of poetry that I find interesting. You've done the same with AD. You may not like everything that I like, and I may not like everything that you like, but who's to ultimately say what's good and bad? Who's to ultimately say what's true?

Ours has now become a full-blown dialogue de sourds, as the French say. You will ignore any logic put forth, including the sun is out today.

This example of hyperpole is characteristic of your poor critical thinking skills.

Your very terminology is suspect in that it is not objective, as in “socially incorrect in behavior.” According to whom? Garp… or you?

I took those definitions right off the internet, from rhymezone.com. I typed in "rude" and copied the definitions given.

The real question (problem!) is: how did someone like you ever get tenured in a purported institution of higher learning?

George, if you weren't in such a rush to pillory me as the devil, if you took the time to really get to know me, you'd probably really like me. You'd certainly be proud of how I earned tenure. Believe me, it wasn't by selling my soul. The truth is, once I was hired on tenure-track, I began to make waves. I refused to be bullied the union president who insisted I follow political directives. I refused to follow the poor pedagogical procedures practiced by others in the English department. For four years, I fought off challenges to my earning tenure. I wrote 20-page single-spaced rebuttals, each well-documented to support my actions, each systematically deconstructing the arguments used in hopes of denyiong my tenure. In the end, I won. But the spoils were a dubious honor. Now I work with colleagues who bear resentment toward me, who continue to practice poor pedagogy, who continue to indoctrinate their students into their own modes of thinking. I just do what I can do. I help students learn the writing process, help them improve their surface language skills, and help students learn to appreciate poetry so that they will want to read more poetry and, perhaps, write some of their own. In short, believe it or not, I'm just the sort of person you'd like to see in the academy. For fun, why don't you go to ratemyprofessors.com, look up my school and my name, and see what students have written about me. You might be surprised.

“Your writing isn't very good,” you inform… unoriginally shooting the messenger per usual.

Criticisms of a piece of writing are not criticisms of the author. Initially, I was not "shooting" the messenger. I was shooting the message, the essay, the text itself -- its language, not its ideas.

Of course, that is why you were ready to publish me in your lit journal… because my writing isn’t very good.

I was interested in publishing an essay by you so that you could present your views. As you are aware, I did not accept your essay. Instead, I offered suggestions to restructure it. The reason I offered the suggestions was because, in my view, the original structure wasn't very good. That's my view, my opinion, no one else's. Another editor might have liked it fine. But for my journal, my aesthetic inevitably shines through. A journal, after all, is not simply a public bulletin board. Its a reflection of the editor as well as the writers within. When I, as an editor, accept a piece of writing, I am essentially vouching for it -- if not its ideas necessarily, then at least its use of language. If you were more open-minded, you might have worked with me on that essay, not against me. You might have taken some time to consider my suggestions. If being published in Alehouse was of interest to you, you would cooperated. In short, I would have been happy to include an essay by you, but not just any essay you throw down on my desk. Is that how you operate at AD? You publish whatever anyone insists is the truth?

All I would have had to do is tone down my writing and eliminate any discussion of points apt to upset anyone apt to promote you in the poesy game and/or academic one… AND you would have published it.

I'm sorry. Perhaps you originally misunderstood me. I did not want you to "tone down" your essay. In fact, quite the opposite. I was hoping that you'd be willing to ratchet up the rhetoric, to make it more challenging, more confrontational -- in short, to make it more "rude," more Emersonian, as I believe you described it. I did not intend for you to eliminate any discussion points that would have upset anyone, even people likely to promote me. I welcomed those points. The reason I would not publish your essay was that it was too meek in tone, too tender, too deferential to the powers that be. So I re-extend my invitation to you. If you'd like to write a 1000-word essay that takes on the establishment, if you want to name names and point fingers, if you want to tell the non-civil, non-polite, combative "rude truth" of Emerson, then I'd be happy to take another look. And then I'd be happy to discuss including some cartoons to go along with it.

Certainly, you will be informed when I post the cartoon on my website. Well, at least some of your students have maintained the intelligence to see that you ind eed need to be mocked.

You have no idea how funny that is! If you could ask my students about their mocking me and my mocking them, you'd know that you have a kindred spirit, not an enemy, in me. Seriously, George, re-consider a rewrite on that essay for Alehouse. Roll up your sleeves and come out swinging. Poke the devil right in the eye. Don't play nice and sweet Ms Daisy.

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
JR,
You make various false assumptions about what I supposedly believe in. Never have I stated that all poets or all professors… It does seem, however, that MOST poets and MOST professors…

Glad and surprised you actually agree with me RE tenure and the professor poet… though only partially no doubt. For I doubt you’d agree that after 3-5 years of sycophancy it is highly unlikely a professor will suddenly, once tenured, begin speaking the rude truth and otherwise rocking the boat. After all, now there is the promotion enticement, the sabbatical enticement, the extra courses for lucrative payment enticement, etc., etc., etc. And of course the whole psycho-defense mechanism of rationalization regarding why one doesn’t rock the boat (as in your imbecilic “some boats move slower than others”) inevitably kicks in to save the fragile ego. Either way you look at it, you have chosen to become a machine cog… and they’ve paid you nicely for your choice. The truth is you won’t effect much if any change at all from the inside, nor will I from the outside. I have no illusions whatsoever. Evidently you do. The defense mechanism of rationalization can do wonders for people… just like believing in heaven. But what I have and you lack is my dignity as a human being. Part of that dignity inevitably must include Emerson’s dictum “go upright and vital…”

Oops, there you go again: “Perhaps the only real problem with American poetry today, at least from your perspective, is that not enough of your poems have been published.” Irrelevant to the discussion! You apparently do not understand how shallow and transparent the ole kill the messenger rhetoric can be! Are you actually denying you frequently indulge in it???????????????

“Who's to ultimately say what's true?” Each and everyone of us! But few of us really dare do so.
If my critical skills are “poor,” yours are absolutely horrendous! Again, you shoot the messenger with denigrating epithets, hardly a skill at all! Try avoiding it! Try actually examining just how many times you lower yourself to employing that shallow rhetorical tacktic… regarding your correspondence with me. Ask yourself why you do it? The answer is clear: you don’t have a logical counter-argumentation!

This is the most asinine, egocentric statement you’ve written to me yet: “George, if you weren't in such a rush to pillory me as the devil, if you took the time to really get to know me, you'd probably really like me.” It sounds pitiful. Tenure is a Faustian deal. You damn well know it… and I damn well no it. And we both damn well know that it is what is fundamentally wrong with higher education. Tenure kills vigo rous debate. And I am certainly not the only one who has criticized the institution.

Examining your website, one would have to conclude that you really do have a problem with egotism. You actually think everyone likes you and that even I, of all people, would also like you. It sounds like a touch of insanity. Hell, I know you wouldn’t like me. You shouldn’t like me for all the reasons I’ve given. I know your game. I’ve exposed it. And you can’t help but see some truth in my expose. That’s what shakes you up. It makes you a lot less than Mr. Teacher Man ought to be. BTW, the essay I skimmed through on your site was frightful, downright teddy-bear, something you could have gotten paid $500 for from Good Housekeeping. Compare that essay with the one on my website, published by Modern-Review. You tell me which had more balls and more substance!!!

Students are generally poor judges of good teachers, which is why my university doesn’t even do student evaluations. The whole institution of student evals is intrinsically corrupt in its inevitable mix with grades and likeability. Shit, I wrote an essay on that in the late 80s. It’s on the Chron of Higher Ed site.

To state that a piece of writing is poor w/o providing specifics is akin to shooting the messenger, calling him a bad writer.

Ah, so now it’s faulty structure! Whatever happened to the initial “rude” idiocy? “the original structure wasn't very good.”

You avoid the truth. The truth is I would have had to completely change who I am, then rewrite the essay in the way one of your civility-obsessed colleagues might write. I couldn’t do that. You proposed an impossibility! Many questions you left unanswered as in “backslapping and self-congratulating” as being a rude statement on my part. Well, how the hell would you phrase this rampant phenomenon?

I do not “ratchet up” or down my “rhetoric.” I write substance. My concern is not with ratcheting rhetoric, for chrissakes. This is short of horseshit, senseless: “too deferential to the powers that be.” The very essay was a hammer in the head of you, yours, and the powers that feed you. One thing, however, I did do in that essay was not mention what sparked it. I shall eventual rewrite it adding your comments to prove my points (e.g., rampant name-calling in the absence of logical argument), then I’ll send it to you.
G. Tod

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:36:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
George,

Actually, don't bother sending me any further emails or essays. Let's just end this discussion of ours by concluding that, yes, you're right about everything and I, like most, if not all on the inside of the machine, am wrong. So congratulations, you win.

Have a Nice Life.

Good-Bye.

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions
To: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
JR,
As stated, the “rude truth” hurts. Now, what kind of example would you be to students, killing debate because you feel offended by my remarks? A good example to students would be 1) avoiding killing-the-messenger rhetoric (i.e., name calling), 2) using logical argument to disprove my arguments, and 3) backing up your arguments with clear examples to illustrate your points. Come on, buck up, man! You won’t get this kind of heated discussion where you work. You’ll just get more of the same: backslapping (oh, you’re so good, Jay), self-congratulating (your website), and overall image distortion.

G. Tod

From: "Alehouse Editor" <editor@alehousepress.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:16:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Alehouse Submissions

Get a life. Get out of mine.

The American Dissident: Literature, Democracy & Dissidence

Alehouse Press—Free Speech in Peril!