tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post116320575437707740..comments2024-03-28T05:13:13.921-04:00Comments on Books, Inq. — The Epilogue: What think you, readers?Frank Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18410473158808750903noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-12727085009098057612023-08-02T10:27:00.838-04:002023-08-02T10:27:00.838-04:00oy vey! oy vey! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163900421040030322006-11-18T20:40:00.000-05:002006-11-18T20:40:00.000-05:00Maxine, given your density, my query- 'Could I be ...Maxine, given your density, my query- 'Could I be clearer?', preceded by my defining the difference between legitimate editorial dioscretion and biased censorship, seems to have gone over your pate.<BR/><BR/>Sadly for your argument, if someone is the editor of a publication, it is up to them to act without bias, not clear favoritism. Add to that deceit about what the censored item is/was, and any reader/contributor should be moved to call the actions for what they were.<BR/><BR/>But keep on tap dancing. With Ben Vereen dead, someone has to make white noise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163880821316609172006-11-18T15:13:00.000-05:002006-11-18T15:13:00.000-05:00Dan, sadly for your argument, if someone is the ed...Dan, sadly for your argument, if someone is the editor of a publication, it is up to them to define what is a valid editorial criterion for that publication, not a potential contributor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163793963269180852006-11-17T15:06:00.000-05:002006-11-17T15:06:00.000-05:00Maxine: 'Like Frank, I am a professional editor. I...Maxine: 'Like Frank, I am a professional editor. I reject many contributions and receive a lot of insults for my pains.<BR/>An editor has to decide when to draw the line.<BR/>I think many of Dan's later comments are completely out of order -- essentially he is insulting Frank for making editorial decisions about his own publication.<BR/><BR/>***Bias and censorship are not valid editorial decisions. There was nothing libelous, defamatory, nor profane that Jess nor I posted. If one cannot be fair and objective, one has no place editing. Editing is based upon the value of the words, and monitoring blog posts is not the equivalent of taking a red pen to ill-wrought verse. This is a classic blog tactic. Someone does something out of bounds- first Balee with her insults and condescension, and when she's called on it the caller is called out of bounds by cronies. Then, when Frank does even worse, censor replies and deny that Balee was out of bounds, if you call him ***shudder*** a censor, then the caller is, again, out of bounds. Solipsism is fascinating, if you're Rush Limbaugh or a PC Elitist.<BR/><BR/>He is then contradicting himself by saying he does not allow comments on his own blog (Blogging 101 rule broken), and that he's removed comments in the past on his own blog.<BR/><BR/>***Maxine. I am not a blogger. Bloggers write poorly worded 'posts'. I write essays and reviews. I do not allow comments because people get nuts and lose the ability to even read basic sentences, as Susan, Kenn, and you, apparanetly, have. Taking down a death threat or a claim of libel, when threatened with a lawsuit by someone is far different than Frank's censoring our posts simply because he's defending a crony, then lying about the reasons why. Could I be any clearer? I do, however, allow essays to be posted that have commented negatively on me and my website. You are free to submit a review on this topic or any other here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.cosmoetica.com/Contact-Submissions.htm#Submission%20Guidelines<BR/><BR/>***Is there anything else that needs clarification?<BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, I would like to log here that as far as I am concerned Frank is the editor and it is up to him to decide what gets posted or not, whether or not one happens to agree, and it is discourteous to insult him for so doing.<BR/><BR/>***If you scroll up, you will see that no one has challenged Frank's right to post or remove things, merely his wisdom and ethics. To call a censor a censor and maintain that such an act and appelation deserves opprobrium is no insult, nor defamation, merely a definition, one instigated by the censor. Could I be clearer?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163770436754816672006-11-17T08:33:00.000-05:002006-11-17T08:33:00.000-05:00Like Frank, I am a professional editor. I reject m...Like Frank, I am a professional editor. I reject many contributions and receive a lot of insults for my pains.<BR/>An editor has to decide when to draw the line.<BR/>I think many of Dan's later comments are completely out of order -- essentially he is insulting Frank for making editorial decisions about his own publication. <BR/>He is then contradicting himself by saying he does not allow comments on his own blog (Blogging 101 rule broken), and that he's removed comments in the past on his own blog.<BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, I would like to log here that as far as I am concerned Frank is the editor and it is up to him to decide what gets posted or not, whether or not one happens to agree, and it is discourteous to insult him for so doing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163643999061962242006-11-15T21:26:00.000-05:002006-11-15T21:26:00.000-05:00Frank: 'I realize perfectly well, Dan, that you're...Frank: 'I realize perfectly well, Dan, that you're always right and you never lie. I realize, too, that the big mistake all of us are making is not to agree with everything you say.<BR/>However, I'll follow Jessica's lead and sign off on this for good - and I intend to continue posting links to Jesica's poems. So there.'<BR/><BR/>Sigh**** Frank, it's not about me being right or wrong, intellectually. It's about you being wrong ethically, as well as the few others, who have tried to slant things, and, yes, outright lie- as in the case of those who claim scatology or blatant sexual references. But the worst is to remove things that you simply disagree with, and claim manifestly false reasons for doing so. I simply called you on it. So there, deux.<BR/><BR/>By trying to offhandedly slough off your responsibility with a snarky quote like 'you're always right and you never lie,' you are again trying to evade your actions by implying childishness on our part.<BR/><BR/>Yet, the very remark, and the very lack of admission of the harm that such bias and curtailing of speech brings is itself childish.<BR/><BR/>It was Susan, then Kenn, and others, that always started in with the personalized gibes, waving about of degrees, and psychobabble. Yet, even with such claimed imprimaturs, they still were not capable of simple straightforward honesty and logic. Is ethics not covered in most college curricula thse days?<BR/><BR/>And left untouched, this exchange will stand, and people with smarts and humor will see how positively smallminded and petty you and the others have been. There are even a few now, apparently. That's a good sign.<BR/><BR/>The very reason my site is popular is because I get all the folks who crave real discussion of arts and literature. Save the hacks and appratchiks, the Roger Eberts and Donald Halls, the Amy Tans and Dave Eggerses for the bad sites, which numner in the millions. That fact alone is why with, perhaps an online literary audience of a third or a half of a percent of all online readers, I dwarf many other sites. Being part of the problem, even if tacitly and softly, may make you, or Susan, or Ken, or whomever, feel good, but it only lessens the reading experiences for all of us.<BR/><BR/>To the original point- consider how it was Susan's emotionalism that sidetracked everything, and the answer as to why the dearth of quality fictionists who are female is obvious.<BR/><BR/>As for humor- Rudyard, Finland is the Black Hole for me, or maybe Pakistan. The people I've known from those two countries have generally been nuts. The Finns because of the lack of winter sunlight, and the Pakistanis because of an inferiority complex next to Indians. They are Asia's Irish.<BR/><BR/>Ohmygod, now I'm rippin' on the Micks!<BR/><BR/>Rus: I had no choice with the emails I used to post, for when lawyers get involved all speech is patently not free. In this nation the rich are the only free ones for only they can afford to buy the truth. Or, if you own a blog and an eraser.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163641875613678502006-11-15T20:51:00.000-05:002006-11-15T20:51:00.000-05:00I realize perfectly well, Dan, that you're always ...I realize perfectly well, Dan, that you're always right and you never lie. I realize, too, that the big mistake all of us are making is not to agree with everything you say.<BR/>However, I'll follow Jessica's lead and sign off on this for good - and I intend to continue posting links to Jesica's poems. So there.Frank Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410473158808750903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163637241197333512006-11-15T19:34:00.000-05:002006-11-15T19:34:00.000-05:00No interest in Bermuda. It's the Dark Continent fo...No interest in Bermuda. It's the Dark Continent for me from here on in. All the rancour reminds me of a poem I wrote called It or On or something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163635917802296482006-11-15T19:11:00.000-05:002006-11-15T19:11:00.000-05:00Frank & Everyone-This is my last post. But I want ...Frank & Everyone-<BR/><BR/>This is my last post. But I want to say: <BR/><BR/>I don't hate you. (Frank) I was angry, but whatever. I said my points in my last post so I won't say them again. <BR/><BR/>You're the one of the few editors who actually consider online writers' stuff, and I'm thankful for all the times you've linked to my blog in the past. So that hasn't changed. But these references to shit/masturbation/ whatever... I don't have a clue where that's coming from. I think I said the word 'jack shit' and 'give a shit' or something in that post, but nothing in reference to bizarre fetishes. More than anything, to Susan I was just tweaking her. I think far worse has been said about me in these last few exchanges. <BR/><BR/>Now people are throwing in references to me being on meds, which is getting too personal here. I never told Susan to get 'on meds' or off meds, or whatever. <BR/><BR/>I mean, really, you all can say what you want about me. I think the comments speak for themselves. And I've heard far worse. I've had death threats and harassment in the past, (Art Durkee knows all about it) so I'm kind of hardened to it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stick around and listen to it anymore. It's boring. <BR/><BR/>So with that, I'm outta here. If Dan wants to stay in the game then that's his choice. I thought there was some interesting discourse in the beginning about writers but it's gotten to be much, and anything I say is fruitless and will be twisted around. <BR/><BR/>But I can only speak for myself, here. Anyhow, had I known this crap would have blown up into what it's become, I never would have even posted anything to begin with. It just gets nowhere. So with that, some of you- Rus, Steven, a few of the women here, I've enjoyed some of your exchanges. Funny too, amid all this, some were still actually trying to discuss literature. <BR/><BR/>So Good Night, Good Luck, Best Wishes & Such. <BR/><BR/>Jessicaunarexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16899161531166793753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163633823836920612006-11-15T18:37:00.000-05:002006-11-15T18:37:00.000-05:00Jesus, Dan. You didn't delete an entire forum, di...Jesus, Dan. You didn't delete an entire forum, did you? <BR/><BR/>I've been considering a forum myself, btw. I want a particular kind of argument to be applied, pretty broad, but that all responses would need to follow the premised guidelines of how to bring the specific poem or artwork along. With that focus, it fairly well precludes any discussion that does not quite apparently have such a good intention. (Nice "Hello's" or "Didn't you get my e-mail" or "Will you be going?" messages are fine.) I won't further develop the idea here. <BR/><BR/>The point is that I will reserve the right to delete. No one will be posting MLM vitamin advertisements in the critical essay or photography sections. Or making threats. This way, I will be able to keep the foum alive without it either exploding into a miniature nova, or imploding into a black hole of death.<BR/><BR/>RusRus Bowdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08412920154921512774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163631680394127272006-11-15T18:01:00.000-05:002006-11-15T18:01:00.000-05:00Kenn: 'How anybody could have read those posts and...Kenn: 'How anybody could have read those posts and thought them brilliant and funny, much less the product of a civilized mind, is beyond me. Jessica, at least, showed a willingness to engage in civilized discussion. Then, unfortunately, her medication apparently wore off.'<BR/><BR/>So, Frank, you see where your pal's snippiness has led? Another brilliant mind distorting things that cannot be disproved. Put back the original posts and let people see'em. Unless Kenn's meds have been shared.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163631502122519702006-11-15T17:58:00.000-05:002006-11-15T17:58:00.000-05:00Rus, the very reason I do not allow posts on Cosmo...Rus, the very reason I do not allow posts on Cosmoetica is because when i did, early on, it quickly descended into death threats and worse- and not even towards me, but people I barely knew, toward each other.<BR/><BR/>Online, people let their ids roam. However, any read of my posts clearly show humor. Wilde was famous for this- as were Twain and Mencken. By the standards you advocate, they would all be hatemongers, or worse.<BR/><BR/>As for dialectic or crit, I always seek to enlighten. However, when Susan started off down the road to, to borrow the Clintonian phrase, 'the semantics of personal destruction' she has to be mature enough to know there will be people smarter and better with words than her.<BR/><BR/>She is a bully. Period. Bullies need to be dressed own. If Frank chooses not to reign in a colleague or pal, that's his choice, but again, the removal of the posts suggests things not within them.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous: 'Bad writers are liked by people with bad taste.'<BR/><BR/>Thanks, at least you recognizre that. However, my love of Godzilla films is not for bad taste, but for their relevance to a time when I was young. It's not the liking that is bad taste, but the liking without awareness of why.<BR/>Again, I like Richard Brautigan's crap poems, because they are spoofs of the serious poetry of a Donald Hall and other Dead White Males. But, they are BAD.<BR/><BR/>Steven: 'I like Dan's posts because they are so funny, he said something about academics being a flaccid penis or something; that's hilarious okay' <BR/><BR/>You get it too. On Cosmoetica I do small reviews of poems called This Old Poem, a play off the PBS house fixing series. Small minds rail that I rip a Bukowski or Wanda Coleman or Donald Hall, but they are intendedly funny because were one to take the bad poems seriously one would cry. The very diff between my and Susan Balee's posts is that she is 'serious', stolid, and utterly arid where humor is concerned. I not only beat her at her 'serious' game, but tweaked her.<BR/>There is nothing that the ignorant in any field get more indignant than knowing a foe is right; unless that foe makes fun of their wrongness. I'll do that, because education should be fun, not dry.<BR/><BR/>Frank: 'I would hope you would take me at my word when I say that I am sure Susan did not mean to insult you - though I do understand how you could construe her remarks that way.<BR/>But wouldn't it be possible for us all to arrive at some sort of truce'<BR/><BR/>Sure- restore the two deleted posts and admit you were wrong. As much as I think Susan is a sciolist and insecure, her silliness is magnitudes less serious an offense against dialectic and fredom than your censorship.<BR/>Frank, it is you- not Jess, me, nor even balee, who went FAR over the line. W/o simple recognition of this fact all the rest id piffle.<BR/>But, to say that Susan did not mean to be condescending. How cd you know that if not cronies? And, cd you not see the humor in my replies?<BR/><BR/>A: 'Jess and Dan are contemptuous of formal education, but one of the several things that an education conveys is discipline, which they have unfortunately missed out on.'<BR/><BR/>Where do you get this? Humor requires far more discipline than mere staright on dialectic. I think education is great, if you use it to advance your mind, not puff up your ego. People like Susan can quote their resume all they want, but when they list Amy Tan as a writer of worth, well, All My Children has better writers, and such a resume is revealed as worthless.<BR/><BR/>'Also, a formal education simply makes one more observant and, and also, less obviously, willing to call things by their proper names....This is another element of a disciplined education that Dan and Jess seem to have missed out on: a sense of proportion, reasonableness, and balance.'<BR/><BR/>And this is from a doctorate? It is often the tactic of those who have a prejudice and do not want to have it explicitly bared, that they masque objectivity behind faux reasonableness. <BR/><BR/>'am concerned that those who missed the posts may not be aware that they were not presenting cutting, triumphant arguments that had to be suppressed to hide their brilliance. They centered on explicit references to Susan regarding shit, flaccid genitalia, and masturbation.' <BR/><BR/>Au contraire, there was no 'explicit' refernce, no more than Wilde used. But, knowing that Frank deleted the posts you know that your characterization cannot be disproved. That you would reference a tweak over the verbal maturbatory references by Susan into my resorting to scatology is what the term 'pathology' is all about. And no doctorate is needed to defeat such deceits.<BR/><BR/>Frank: 'Neither Jessica nor Dan can reasonably claim not to have had their say.<BR/>I also feel I should add that I pretty much agree with A.'<BR/><BR/>Which sort of nullifies your earlier, 'But wouldn't it be possible for us all to arrive at some sort of truce'. Nice, but sad. And, if you agree with A, then technically, are we verging on mass delusion, and not mere pathology?<BR/><BR/>Rudyard: Have you ever been to Bermuda?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163630069866978782006-11-15T17:34:00.000-05:002006-11-15T17:34:00.000-05:00Steven said... I don't see why it's necessary to d...<I>Steven said... <BR/>I don't see why it's necessary to delete posts even if they are condescending...</I><BR/><BR/>You either missed the point, or else you're a loyal friend of Jessica and Dan's. Frank did <B>not</B> delete condescending posts. Susan's snippy <I>kiddos</I> are are still there, as far as I know. What he did delete, and properly so, were the weirdly violent and strangely lock-step posts about flaccid penises and masturbation and shit.<BR/><BR/>How anybody could have read those posts and thought them brilliant and funny, much less the product of a civilized mind, is beyond me. Jessica, at least, showed a willingness to engage in civilized discussion. Then, unfortunately, her medication apparently wore off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163624031233323272006-11-15T15:53:00.000-05:002006-11-15T15:53:00.000-05:00Anyway, all women writers are crap, and as for the...Anyway, all women writers are crap, and as for the women readers.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163618731229726172006-11-15T14:25:00.000-05:002006-11-15T14:25:00.000-05:00I hadn't noticed that Dan thinks I've compromised ...I hadn't noticed that Dan thinks I've compromised my integrity by doing what I said I would do after I said I would do it. As I pointed out to Jessica, I let stand intact the comments that arrived prior to my announcement in a later post that any further insulting posts would be deleted by yours truly. Susan didn't whine to me about it at all. She did say she thought it was getting out of hand. She didn't ask me to do anything. I looked at the thread and - perhaps this will come as a surprise - made up my own mind as to how to proceed. As I explained to Jessica, on this blog, the buck stops here. Neither Jessica nor Dan can reasonably claim not to have had their say.<BR/><BR/>I also feel I should add that I pretty much agree with A.Frank Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410473158808750903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163615033806436752006-11-15T13:23:00.000-05:002006-11-15T13:23:00.000-05:00I would like to weigh in (at some length, sorry) o...I would like to weigh in (at some length, sorry) on the fight between Susan and Jessica/Dan. This has gone from the absurd to the bizarre, and beyond. It has been decried in this blog that there has been a coarsening of educational standards, but why has no one noted that there has also been an unfortunate coarsening of decency? Here I am not talking about “civility,” a civilized word; I’m talking about immaturity, crudeness, and lack of self-control. First, I think it’s obvious that “She started it,” is a cry we try to train out of children, but more to the point, an adult needs to know when to stop. Sure, Susan’s comments can objectively be called condescending and snippy, as Jessica charges, but the rage and scatology that greeted this was simply out of control.<BR/><BR/>Jess and Dan are contemptuous of formal education, but one of the several things that an education conveys is discipline, which they have unfortunately missed out on. When reading to oneself, it’s easy to find confirmation of any prejudice in any written material; when one has spent years defending one’s ideas to a smart (even if biased) professor and smart fellow students, one generally concludes that one’s own ideas may be the best, but they are not inarguable. A blog such as this can serve a similar function, but in either a classroom or a blog, the presumption that anyone who disagrees with you is doing so because he’s part of the old-boy, crony network, functions as a wall to protect one’s own inflated (and generally mistaken) ideas.<BR/><BR/>Also, a formal education simply makes one more observant and, and also, less obviously, willing to call things by their proper names. I recall my brother describing an incident: he was on a ferry and noticed a guy mumbling to himself at the railing. A man standing near my brother remarked, “That guy’s crazy.” My brother responded in the standard, PC, form to the effect that, well different strokes, etc. “No,” responded the man, I’m a psychiatrist and I know. That guy’s nuts.” When debating the quality of literature, there may well be some merit to the flaccid, academic assumption that in a heated argument, the truth is probably in the middle, with extra credit given to the person who argues most heatedly and at greatest length. However, in arguments attacking people personally, there is not only a right side and a wrong side (and both can be on the wrong side), there are gradations that can be much more important than “who started it,” “who won,” and even, “who is right.” This is another element of a disciplined education that Dan and Jess seem to have missed out on: a sense of proportion, reasonableness, and balance. Dan and Jess have explicitly compared their remarks in the deleted posts to Susan’s condescension, and Frank to a Nazi censor. I am concerned that those who missed the posts may not be aware that they were not presenting cutting, triumphant arguments that had to be suppressed to hide their brilliance. They centered on explicit references to Susan regarding shit, flaccid genitalia, and masturbation. I mentioned earlier that this argument had gone beyond the absurd and the bizarre. What it has gone to deep immaturity, disturbance, and pathology. And yes, I do know what I’m talking about, Jess and Dan. I have the doctorate in psychology to prove it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163609594429368232006-11-15T11:53:00.000-05:002006-11-15T11:53:00.000-05:00Hi Jessica,Thanks for the response. I explained so...Hi Jessica,<BR/>Thanks for the response. I explained somewhere in one of these threads that I read right over the "kiddo" because I've heard Susan use it so often with me - I just took it for granted. I will concede that you, not knowing that, might take it amiss. <BR/>As for how I would have reacted to it, had I been you, well, my wife has noted that I have an almost sociopathic lack of affect when it comes to criticism from readers. I just don't have any emotional reaction usually to even the most vitriolic communications - and thanks to Richard Dawkins I have lately received some of the most viriolic ever.<BR/>But that's me, not you. I suppose what I would like to get across is that anger is not the only way to respond to a perceived insult, nor is it necessarily the best way to respond (though in all honesty, as I have also suggested here. I have in the past found it satisfying - though those were things that happened in person, not in writing). I would hope you would take me at my word when I say that I am sure Susan did not mean to insult you - though I do understand how you could construe her remarks that way.<BR/>But wouldn't it be possible for us all to arrive at some sort of truce in which we acknowledge (all of us, me too) some slip-ups in tone and attention to tone, let bygones be bygones, and resume the discussion with the aim of coming to a greater understanding of the subject? If we can't arrive at a civilized solution to a literary quarrel - well, we can certainly see why the rest of the world never gets around to giving peace a chance.Frank Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410473158808750903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163609222464902372006-11-15T11:47:00.000-05:002006-11-15T11:47:00.000-05:00I don't see why it's necessary to delete posts eve...I don't see why it's necessary to delete posts even if they are condescending...if people can read the posts they can make up their own mind I think, although I understand the feeling that it is to try to preserve people's feelings from being hurt...I think if people read a post that is insulting or condescending they will realize that that condescension hurts the argument rather than strengthening it...so it is not necessary to actually delete it, by the time someone gets to just insulting they are usually losing their credibility anyway so it is self-defeating I think.<BR/><BR/>Earlier Susan said this:<BR/><BR/><I>Doubtless I shouldn't have mentioned that I have a Ph.D., since it seems to have so utterly freaked you out (talk about insecure!); I did it to emphasize that when it comes to 19th-century British lit, *I* know what I'm talking about. I've studied it for years, I've read it, and I've published numerous essays about it</I><BR/><BR/>My posts were an attempt to challenge Susan by discounting the quality of 19th-century British literature and challenging the English language as well which is almost never done...even though she says she knows what she's talking about I was trying to offer a different view, maybe to help expand her mind or perspective...am I 'qualified' to do this; probably not, I'm twenty-two years old and work in a hotel, I read literature and do translations myself in my spare time, I'm not an academic I just read the books myself and base my own opinion off looking at them that way without being influenced by critics...<BR/><BR/>I like Dan's posts because they are so funny, he said something about academics being a flaccid penis or something; that's hilarious okay, if you are being seriously published you can't say stuff like that, I wish Dan had his own magazine or something where people wrote like that all the time...Dan I wish you would get interviewd by The New Yorker or something and call people flaccid penises, I bet like sales would go up 500% and everyone would call you an asshole...it'd be awesome like the Sex Pistols or something<BR/><BR/>Does anyone read n+1 or the Believer, it is so serious 100% of the time, especially if they call someone a 'comic' novelist it is even like 100% serious and not funnyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163607907578023042006-11-15T11:25:00.000-05:002006-11-15T11:25:00.000-05:00Anonymous: 'He says that this is different than "l...<I>Anonymous: 'He says that this is different than "liking" something, but is there a "great" writer who is not liked at least by someone??'<BR/><BR/>Is there not a bad writer at least liked by someone, lest they'd not be known? Thus, like is irrelevant to excellence. You answered your own question.<BR/><BR/>'As for Woolf, there is "pretention" in Woolf - because of her background. But she was not pretentious on purpose. It was natural to her. Sure she had some bad sentences. But you have to see the forest for the trees.' This quote is so humorously unaware of its own irony it's precious.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm more aware of my irony than you think. :) <BR/><BR/>I still haven't made up my mind on Woolf. I think she has a little more merit than you give her credit for, but not as much as she is given by the PC institution.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Bad writers are liked by people with bad taste. This is where things get tricky.<BR/><BR/>Warm regards,<BR/>Same anonymous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163603860677280722006-11-15T10:17:00.000-05:002006-11-15T10:17:00.000-05:00Frank-I think your bias here is obvious. How anyon...Frank-<BR/><BR/>I think your bias here is obvious. How anyone can think that is quote said to me FIRST by Susan is not snippy and condescending, is really dumb. <BR/><BR/><BR/>'Oh, my. I think you need to take a nineteenth-century literature class, kiddo. Names you might, and certainly *should*, know:<BR/>Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Emily Bronte, Elizabeth Gaskell, George Eliot (the only one you know and like, perhaps because Mary Ann Evans knew she'd better make up a male pen name), Mary Elizabeth Braddon (her novel, _Lady Audley's Secret_, was the best-selling novel of the entire 19th century), Louisa May Alcott, and on and on. This is just off the top of my head; there are lots more.<BR/>I fear you don't really know what you're talking about'<BR/><BR/>You're telling me that if someone wrote this to you, you would not defend yourself and react back? Then to go and say that I have the temper, when my reaction is a mere response to her childishness? <BR/>Her arguments are pulp, and I pointed that out, and likewise, what happened was that she got 'hurt' by what I said in the post you censored, and thereby you took it down because she's a pal of yours. But by doing that, you make it seem like I cursed her out or said something libelous, when all I did was defend myself, saying that she couldn't come close to writing what I've written in poetry or prose. No degrees from any university, no awards, can buy insight, and she needs to learn this. I was merely pointing that out. <BR/>If you were going to censor, then you should have gotten her on the start, from the very first time she called me 'kiddo' and telling me to 'take a class' you should have instructed her that such behavior was not appropriate, if you didn't want the arguments to lead elsewhere. Because I don't buy your excuse. For if that were the real reason, you would have taken 'action' upon the first time she muttered 'kiddo'. <BR/>I'm saving these posts to put on my blog in the chance that you choose to censor them. A lot of young people from universities read my blog and I think they need to be aware of such cronyism, and the signs to look for when their prof is a hack. (But sort of an oxy-moron there, or just moron). <BR/>I think Dan's 2 posts said it best, so there's really not much else to say, since it's clear that you'd rather do selective censorship, than be fair minded.unarexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16899161531166793753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163603766755604362006-11-15T10:16:00.000-05:002006-11-15T10:16:00.000-05:00Hi Dan,I mentioned that I thought Jessica was deal...Hi Dan,<BR/><BR/>I mentioned that I thought Jessica was dealing with unfair odds. I read it as more than just Susan, but that Jess had to deal with the "kiddo" thing and try to maintain focus on how others were disagreeing. And I don't disagree with you on the smote/smite thing. Ultimately, that is an emotional way to make a point.<BR/><BR/>Not too many onlookers didn't get the hurt part. I don't think you missed it either.<BR/><BR/>One problem with flames is the amount of energy and focus they take. They can destroy forums.<BR/><BR/>If you were in charge, you may not have deleted anything on principle. But you revert to the sulfuric instead. Yet, this would flame your own forum into oblivion. People would find out quickly that this is where the free-for-all really takes place.<BR/><BR/>CE Chaffin had posters besides the flamers, coming in and selling home remedies--just before the forum that had been thriving and focussed, lost valuable participants and closed on, probably some principle.<BR/><BR/>I like Evelyn Aker. Haven't communicated with her in years now.<BR/><BR/>Yours,<BR/>RusRus Bowdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08412920154921512774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163601743507707442006-11-15T09:42:00.000-05:002006-11-15T09:42:00.000-05:00Rus, You're a nice guy. I recall how, years back, ...Rus, You're a nice guy. I recall how, years back, on the Atlantic Monthly forum you similarly tried to play peacemaker with types like Susan- there was a gal named Evelyn Aker who was similarly uninformed, rude, and condescending.<BR/><BR/>So, when you state 'he king of acid cleansing in lit' in regards to me, it shows that you are again being oblivious to what started the negative trend here. Her name is Susan Balee. Note, it took several posts before Frank took down our posts. Again, nothing said was libelous, defamatory, nor even profane. <BR/><BR/>This is always the simpering sort of reply whenever someone starts something and cannot finish it. Yes, Frank has a right to control his blog, but he should be fair. He also should be called out on his actions. In the literaray world a censor is a murderer, rapist, or pedophile, in terms of destroying intellectual exchange.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, Jess got under Susan's skin because years of classroom antics and worship from students did not prepare her for a challenge to her wan beliefs. But, bitchiness, especially when carrying a popgun, can often get a cannon volley.<BR/><BR/>If you don't wanna be smote, don't start the smiting. If Frank wants to steer, then he should have warned Susan with her first 'Kiddo' to Jess, and her, 'You really need to take a class/ read' or 'I'm a PhD, you're nothing' jive. Since he did not, it shows that he has a bias toward certain people.<BR/><BR/>I've argued many times on political blogs, and this is always how it goes. The top blogger shows bias, deletes or bans those he does not like or disagrees with, then pompously says it's not censorship, and that the person banned was uncivil. Anyone reading the thread will se that Susan started going off topic. <BR/><BR/>Rus, read the thread, if you cannot see it was Susan who started this, them there's nothing more to say.<BR/><BR/>Your last bit on 'hurt' only confirms what I thought, that Susan likely whined to Frank that she was hurt, and that big bad jess and Dan should be 'dealt with', because she was out of bullets.<BR/><BR/>Now, Frank can deny that, but since he's already compromised his integrity, any reply has to be taken with a grain of salt. Whoops, cliche- gotta love it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163600877282680212006-11-15T09:27:00.000-05:002006-11-15T09:27:00.000-05:00Hi Dan,When it seemed there were odds to deal with...Hi Dan,<BR/><BR/>When it seemed there were odds to deal with, when Jess who had entered the discussion in an earnest love for the subject, then seemed to get the business you noted--I heard the rumblings. I could not imagine that the king of acid cleansing in lit, if you caught wind of this, would not come in and show how to pour unwatered sulfuric on an argument. Some may believe that Jess simply went and got the big guns. I believe that all you had to do is say, "What's wrong, Jess," and everything that followed, had to follow.<BR/><BR/>You say:<BR/><BR/><I>if Frank was gonna stop the thread, he should have stopped it when Susan started scrambling her hormones. To do so where he did, when nothing we said was worse than what she said shows that he is biased and hypocritical. It also implies that our posts were a) libelous- NOT, or b) profane- NOT.<BR/>Put them back and let others decide.</I><BR/><BR/>That was not my take. No one here has control over the posts beside Frank. It's his forum. What he did was to try to steer, at the point he felt it necessary. That's how a forum works. CE Chaffin's Melic RT went up in flames, in good part by his refusal to ever delete on principle. Not that that's what you're saying, but someone has to steer. <BR/><BR/>In fact, this is off topic. If he feels it should be deleted, I will understand. But I think more important than whether something is off topic, is if people are getting hurt--and emotional hurt counts. I do not think the arguments counted as much as the hurt.<BR/><BR/>Yours,<BR/>RusRus Bowdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08412920154921512774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163599282799156312006-11-15T09:01:00.000-05:002006-11-15T09:01:00.000-05:00Frank,You have engaged in censorship, and censorsh...Frank,<BR/><BR/>You have engaged in censorship, and censorship with bias.<BR/><BR/>Susan started the attcks with her condescension: 'Oh, my. I think you need to take a nineteenth-century literature class, kiddo. Names you might, and certainly *should*, know:<BR/>Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Emily Bronte, Elizabeth Gaskell, George Eliot (the only one you know and like, perhaps because Mary Ann Evans knew she'd better make up a male pen name), Mary Elizabeth Braddon (her novel, _Lady Audley's Secret_, was the best-selling novel of the entire 19th century), Louisa May Alcott, and on and on. This is just off the top of my head; there are lots more.<BR/>I fear you don't really know what you're talking about'<BR/><BR/>Jessica and I merely beat her at her own game. You removed links to posts I had that were merely posted to show that Susan, in a million years, could never achieve such a thing.<BR/><BR/>Censors often hide behind the 'My superiors made me do it.' Nuremburg's lessons lost agian, especially since we were no more insulting than Susdan, merely better at it, and w more evidence, It's clear that she's a crony of yours, and you have a right to ne cronies, but you show that you're part of the problem when you censor, not part of the solution.<BR/>When you side with the ignorant and malicious you demean not only your intellect but your integrity.<BR/>THe quote from the above post by Susan shows that Jess got under her skin, and subsequent posts show only an increasingly hostile demeanor. Jess defended herself. Frank, if you cannot see that in the words, then you've no place as a books editor, or anything else to do with the written word.<BR/>Also, the blithe attitude of other posters in not being upset over the censorship shows how far the narcotization of the lit-loiving culture has come.<BR/>The only plus side is you've given me another great example for the upcoming essay I'm doing on the state of Am deliterature.<BR/><BR/>Art: Huck Finn, Tree Geows In Brooklyn, the best of Steinbeck, and other lit fiction is as good as Moby-Dick. There is no single towering work of art. I recall a poetaster telling me once that no one else ought to write poems because Yeats cd never be surpassed.<BR/>The pointy is a genre is a de facto blinder, so the vision can never be as broad and deep as plain fiction.<BR/>Rus- if Frank was gonna stop the thread, he should have stopped it when Susan started scrambling her hormones. To do so where he did, when nothing we said was worse than what she said shows that he is biased and hypocritical. It also implies that our posts were a) libelous- NOT, or b) profane- NOT.<BR/>Put them back and let others decide.<BR/>Censors always fear real discussion for it can often show up the folly of their arguments. To be consistent, Frank, I ask you to remove Susan's rude comments, as I showed above, plus all her other snide refernnces. I realize if you do, you'll only further damage your credibility as a censor, and if you don't you'll only enhance your status as a biased hack- but it's your bed, choose the sheets.<BR/>Art- as for syphilis, it's the ONLY thing unexplored by Joyce scholars, and only thing that parallels his slide from Dubliners to Finnegans wake.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous: 'He says that this is different than "liking" something, but is there a "great" writer who is not liked at least by someone??'<BR/><BR/>Is there not a bad writer at least liked by someone, lest they'd not be known? Thus, like is irrelevant to excellence. You answered your own question.<BR/><BR/>'As for Woolf, there is "pretention" in Woolf - because of her background. But she was not pretentious on purpose. It was natural to her. Sure she had some bad sentences. But you have to see the forest for the trees.' This quote is so humorously unaware of its own irony it's precious.<BR/><BR/>Frank: 'This is my blog and I do it under the aegis of the newspaper I work for. I am the editor here. I am not obligated to publish every comment posted. I certainly think we all know how you feel and what you think regarding what has been under discussion. What I honestly don't understand is why you are so angry. We're just talking about books, books written mostly by long-dead authors who couldn't care less what we think.' Exactly, so why did Susan get so condescending when Jess simply beat her at her own game? And why are you defending her arrogant snipes and taking down what Jess and I wrote in response. The irony is, Oscar Wilde was mentioned several times in this thread, and you took down the only reply, ine, with a Wildean wit, which again shows that, back then, you'd've been on the side of the prudes that sent him to Reading Gaol.<BR/>And, logically, as the editor, you are defined by the choices you make, and you have chosen to be a censor as well as biased toward deliterate Academia. All I say is, be proud of demeaning yourself. At least be consistent in that aspect.<BR/>Given that a real discussion of the merits and demerits of women writers seems impossible here, is that too much to ask?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10178279.post-1163562144701352912006-11-14T22:42:00.000-05:002006-11-14T22:42:00.000-05:00Ezra Pound's "Cathay" is pretty bad, in my opinion...Ezra Pound's "Cathay" is pretty bad, in my opinion. He didn't know Chinese, and he relied too much (as did some others of his time) on the slightly weird theories of Ernest Fenellosa about idiograms as visual poetry. Then again, while I have always acknowledged Pound's influence on Modern poetry, I have never particularly liked Pound's writings.<BR/><BR/>Sam Hamill gives a succinct, and I think accurate, overview of the translation and influence issue of Chinese poetry on American poetry in that essay I already mentioned, "An Answering Music," in his book "A Poet's Work."<BR/><BR/>As for India, I grew up there. My experience of India was that most Indians I knew thought of the British Empire as something very much imposed on them, and since they already had several thousand years of civilization by then, well, shucks. *shrug* As for why many Indian writers write in English, that IS because of the British Empire, yes: namely, there are so many linguistic groups on the Indian subcontinent, that English is their only common language. It is still the language of law, commerce, and contracts, because it binds together the country in a way that it isn't bound together by other languages.<BR/><BR/>I am the LAST person to think everything good was written in England, or even in English. These days I mostly read novels in translation, because there is such a dearth of interesting novels being written in English by Americans. At least, that's my opinion, based on experience.<BR/><BR/>I do strongly agree that more influence from everywhere makes for better overall quality. Travel broadens, reading in translation also broadens.Art Durkeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463180236975988432noreply@blogger.com