Vikram linked to this piece this morning, and I posted the following comment:
The article says that Ed's piece is "immediately remarkable for its misogynist lens: he charges 'white women who are almost totally in the dark about their privilege, many bolstering a blinkered neoliberal feminism' with assaulting the very foundation of literature (as he understands it)." How is this misogynist? Would it have been misogynist if directed at oblivious privileged white women bolstering a blinkered conservative anti-feminism? (Are women obligated to be feminists? I have never felt an urge to be a masculinist, which I guess would mean basing an ideology of some sort on my evolution-given gender. I have more respect for Almighty Evolution than that.)
The question is, "Do such people exist or not, is Ed's taxonomy correct or not?"
But even if it were misogynist so what? Next thing you know, they'll be banning misanthropes. (I should have added that, judging from this piece, Emily Gould's own reaction has been fairly classy.)
Yes, but I know from own encounters, Ed can be abrasive and difficult. I understand why people would react negatively and critically. He invites that kind of reaction. Perhaps he savors it.
ReplyDeleteAggressive and obscene, too. I hope he gets help.
ReplyDeleteIf what is written in this piece is true, it might be a good idea for him to switch off for a while. Nothing is more important than peace of mind.
ReplyDeleteI meant the piece I linked to. Sarah's piece is perhaps the best thing to emerge from the mess.
ReplyDeleteI enter the public eye with some caution, but I'd like to ask Cynthia Haven, who has gone out of her way to impugn me on Twitter ("We live in an era when pie-throwing is taken for wit, & theatrical self-promotion is genius. He is its flowering, I guess."), why she seems to be such an authority on (a) the notion of obscenity, (b) my mental health, and (c) what's good for the literary world. Jessa Crispin has proffered outright defamation on Twitter, claiming that I sent her threatening emails in 2003 and on Saturday (both charges are false and can be backed up with evidence -- given that I have saved every bit of correspondence I have ever sent or received: my only email to her on Saturday was a respectful one, asking her to take down the prevarications: she then claimed I sent her a "threatening" email) and that I stalked John Freeman at every event he hosted in New York (another false claim: I attended a grand total of one Freeman event and wrote about it here: http://www.edrants.com/nbcc-panel-report-save-our-book-reviews/). I am not especially interested in catering to standards of morality, but, given Ms. Haven's desire to promulgate libel against me, if she wishes to consider obscenity, then she would do well to look in the mirror.
ReplyDeleteEd, an eloquent rebuttal, to be sure. You and I have had disputes long ago -- and I am sure you have forgotten them -- but I think you have set the record straight in this kerfuffle. Well done.
DeleteRT: Thank you for your generous response. I don't know what disputes we've had, but I'd certainly be happy to listen and patch things up. If you like, you can email me at ed@edrants.com.
DeleteEd, I do not think it was anything serious. Either you said something at one my former blogs, or I said something at yours, and then things spun out of control due to hubris and impatience on both sides. Frank Wilson assured me you were a fine fellow. And I then accepted his assurances. That meant the dust-up, whatever it was about, was over. Drop by Beyond Eastrod now and then if you have a mind to do so. Perhaps we can set off another "dispute" now and then -- but all in good humor and good spirit this time.
DeleteLink - http://beyondeastrod.blogspot.com/
Despite my own altogether minor differences with Ed, I defend his seriousness of purpose and denounce the way social media can be used to approximate a witch hunt.
ReplyDelete