Frances Madison is a lovely person, and it's grand for her to defend her friend. Unfortunately, she says nothing about him that distinguishes him as a critic except his colorful talent for invective, sometimes including obscenity. Telling women what to do with their "slimy passage" may or may not be misogynistic, but it doesn't qualify as insightful literary criticism, either.
I share her misgivings about the "pile on" – I didn't realize the scope of the counterattack when I replied briefly to a Twitter query about my own experiences with him a few years back – but surely people have a right to defend themselves against professional and personal attack. I don't know how to balance the two fairly.
I didn't realize at the time I replied that he had bullied and intimidated so many other writers, most of them women. Whatever his talents, he seems to have personal issues that overwhelm his professional judgment and his writing. In this tight marketplace all of us, alas, are disposable. I wish him well, and hope he gets help.
Cynthia: You clearly have not read my comment in the previous thread. I have not threatened anyone. I have never heard any such charges against me in more than ten years of kicking around the literary world. These are defamations and untruths spread by Jessa Crispin, Jane McGonigal (who, contrary to her false assertions, I have never contacted once, save for a few playful @ replies challenging her to a debate: I also never advertised myself as a "real fan," as she claimed), and Maud Newton. They cannot produce the correspondence. I have every email that I have ever sent and received. I have records of everything that I have said, even when I crossed the line. And when I was somewhat excitable in my language or my intent was misinterpreted, I have offered my sincere apologies. Quite frankly, I have been in the receiving end of far worse communications than what these people claim that I've done. And I have screenshots, IP logs, and other assorted evidence.
You were especially nasty and insulting in that "Brideshead" comment and I riffed on your "I get the feeling" construction to give you a sense of what it felt like to be on the other side. The exchange was surely not "insightful" on BOTH sides, I'm sure you will agree.
People certainly have the right to defend themselves. And people can have any opinion they like of me. But an opinion must be predicated upon facts and evidence. We can debate the merits of whether or not "slimy passage" is misogynistic. That's fair game. But if you feel "threatened" by language, this is not the same as being actually physically or verbally threatened. You willfully fed the fire of an untruth that you believed without a doubt because your immaturity allowed you to latch onto an online sleight from 2012. You are utterly irresponsible for claiming that I have "bullied and intimidated" other writers when you don't have a scrap of evidence. For someone who claims to be a "scholar," I see nothing more than an accusatory and inhumane sycophant who would sign up for an OX-BOW INCIDENT style lynching on automatic pilot.
(And sorry to leave this comment, Frank. I've been trying to keep a low profile. But these accusations are completely out of line.)
Thank you for your kind words, Cynthia. They mean a lot coming from you.
For the record, I just read Ed's...uh..."apology" on edrants, and I'd like to add: I said Ed isn't a misgynist, and I stand by that. But I never said he isn't incorrigible.
Frances Madison is a lovely person, and it's grand for her to defend her friend. Unfortunately, she says nothing about him that distinguishes him as a critic except his colorful talent for invective, sometimes including obscenity. Telling women what to do with their "slimy passage" may or may not be misogynistic, but it doesn't qualify as insightful literary criticism, either.
ReplyDeleteI share her misgivings about the "pile on" – I didn't realize the scope of the counterattack when I replied briefly to a Twitter query about my own experiences with him a few years back – but surely people have a right to defend themselves against professional and personal attack. I don't know how to balance the two fairly.
I didn't realize at the time I replied that he had bullied and intimidated so many other writers, most of them women. Whatever his talents, he seems to have personal issues that overwhelm his professional judgment and his writing. In this tight marketplace all of us, alas, are disposable. I wish him well, and hope he gets help.
Cynthia: You clearly have not read my comment in the previous thread. I have not threatened anyone. I have never heard any such charges against me in more than ten years of kicking around the literary world. These are defamations and untruths spread by Jessa Crispin, Jane McGonigal (who, contrary to her false assertions, I have never contacted once, save for a few playful @ replies challenging her to a debate: I also never advertised myself as a "real fan," as she claimed), and Maud Newton. They cannot produce the correspondence. I have every email that I have ever sent and received. I have records of everything that I have said, even when I crossed the line. And when I was somewhat excitable in my language or my intent was misinterpreted, I have offered my sincere apologies. Quite frankly, I have been in the receiving end of far worse communications than what these people claim that I've done. And I have screenshots, IP logs, and other assorted evidence.
DeleteYou were especially nasty and insulting in that "Brideshead" comment and I riffed on your "I get the feeling" construction to give you a sense of what it felt like to be on the other side. The exchange was surely not "insightful" on BOTH sides, I'm sure you will agree.
People certainly have the right to defend themselves. And people can have any opinion they like of me. But an opinion must be predicated upon facts and evidence. We can debate the merits of whether or not "slimy passage" is misogynistic. That's fair game. But if you feel "threatened" by language, this is not the same as being actually physically or verbally threatened. You willfully fed the fire of an untruth that you believed without a doubt because your immaturity allowed you to latch onto an online sleight from 2012. You are utterly irresponsible for claiming that I have "bullied and intimidated" other writers when you don't have a scrap of evidence. For someone who claims to be a "scholar," I see nothing more than an accusatory and inhumane sycophant who would sign up for an OX-BOW INCIDENT style lynching on automatic pilot.
(And sorry to leave this comment, Frank. I've been trying to keep a low profile. But these accusations are completely out of line.)
Thank you for responding, Edward.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind words, Cynthia. They mean a lot coming from you.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I just read Ed's...uh..."apology" on edrants, and I'd like to add: I said Ed isn't a misgynist, and I stand by that. But I never said he isn't incorrigible.
Meds can't fix that.
A sad affair.