..............................................When I sit down to write a book, I do not say to myself, 'I am going to produce a work of art.' I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing.
―George Orwell, "Why I Write"
By the Editor
Criticism, real criticism, seems to be absent—inexistent—within the writing industry/community in the same darkness as in the arts industry/community. When the chambers of commerce and tax-payer money-distributing state cultural organizations support those industries, evidently that is indicative of a certain writers/artists castration and cooptation. To criticize, really criticize, those industries and their diverse cogs is essentially a prohibited activity, punishable usually by ostracizing, rejection of debate, and perhaps a little sprinkle of ad hominem.
The Cape Cod Writers Center brochure, which I picked up at one of the Cape libraries, incited me to write this essay. First, however, it provoked me to sketch a satirical cartoon on the Center and its Keynote Speaker. And, of course, as I usually do, I sent it to the targets who, as they usually do, chose not to respond. Silence is golden for those who detest debate (i.e., democracy).
As a Cape Cod washashore writer and cartoonist, who never took a writing workshop course and whose writing is almost always provoked by vacuous statements issued by “esteemed” and “distinguished” writers of the emerita ilk, I have been excluded (fully ostracized) on the Cape, so I sure as hell know what “inclusion” really means. In essence, it simply means thou shalt not criticize (question and challenge) the elite hypocrites manning the diverse cultural helms and usually bellowing Diversity, Equity… and, of course, Inclusion. My lengthy list of bona fides of DEI-Exclusion, besides the Center, includes Mid-Cape Cultural Council, Cape Cod Poetry Review, Cape Cod Times, Provincetown Arts, and the Cultural Center of Cape Cod.
In 2012, I’d written and disseminated a free-speech broadside, “CAPE COD WRITERS CENTER: Proponent of Censorship, Ostracizing, and Banning.” Unsurprisingly, it did not elicit a response, nor did the tract distributed in 2014, “J’accuse Cape Cod Poets, Writers, Artists, Journalists, and College Instructors for Grotesque Apathy Regarding Issues of Basic Human Rights and Democracy.” Again, silence is golden for those who hate debate (i.e., democracy).
In any case, the writing statement of privileged Keynote Speaker/Yale University English Lecturer Verlyn Klinkenborg, part of which was highlighted in the cartoon, was amazingly anodyne and was, essentially, the opposite of George Orwell’s statement above, which reflects why I tend to write and, of course, explains my being DEI-excluded. Sadly, writing has largely become another arm of the establishment industry. The writing workshops, writing professors, writing conferences, writing agents, writing scholarships, grants and awards, writing degrees and courses, writing magazines like Poets & Writers and Book Pages are integral parts of it. Few writers dare criticize the writing industry and those making careers out of it. Do so… and be prepared for full ostracizing. Below is Klinkenborg’s full statement, as it appears in the Center’s brochure on page 3.
Why Write
We assume the answer is somehow implicit and that it’s a question barely worth asking. We write to express ourselves, of course, to join the global conversation of writers. We write because it’s culturally acceptable and desirable – an approved activity – and because good writers seem to accrue respect and admiration. But if you let the question – “why write?” – sit with you, you begin to realize there’s something strange and almost indecipherable in it. It’s a radical question – a troubling one that’s always been worth thinking about. My hope in my keynote talk is to look closely at this question – and in doing so, perhaps trouble you in ways you may find useful.
Why write, according to Klinkenborg, is “a question barely worth asking,” and yet he asks it. His response likely reflects the writers at the helm of the Center: “to join the global conversation of writers.” Yet that is certainly not why I write. And so somehow I am not part of Klinkenborg’s all-inclusive term “we.” My first criticism thus would be for writers like Klinkenborg to avoid that term, used perhaps by most political hacks. As far as those like him, I am certainly not part of the “conversation,” not part of “we.” The most absurd part of his statement is that “we” (all writers) somehow write to become acceptable, desirable, and approved. Orwell must surely be rolling in his grave. I sure am… and yet I’m not even dead… yet. Soviet-State Poet Gorky must surely be clapping in his grave. Recall he praised Stalin’s gulag concentration camps.
It is aberrant that an educated person like Klinkenborg would argue that so-called “good writers seem to accrue respect and admiration” without wondering or noting by whom. Clearly, the admirers tend to be the privileged establishment academics and other cultural apparatchiks with voice who deify writers, as laureates, honorable, and acclaimed. If a writer is openly highly critical of the writing/money machine, he or she will certainly not be respected and admired by machine cogs like Klinkenborg. Most writers learn to obey the prime writer’s taboo: thou shalt not criticize the hands that feed (e.g., the distributors of tenure, grants, invitations, publications, awards, etc.). And in the absence of hardcore criticism, as in “let your life be a counterfriction to stop the machine” (Thoreau), the writing machine (e.g., Cape Cod Writers Center) will prosper and continue to co-opt and castrate writers… in the darkness of “selling more books on Amazon.”
Klinkenborg states, “But if you let the question — ‘why write?’ — sit with you, you begin to realize there’s something strange and almost indecipherable in it.” In reality, perhaps it is something the “we” cannot contemplate, but it is not really strange at all, at least no stranger than why we exercise, why we travel, why we watch the news. Death obnubilates everything, which is why society (the establishment) likes to ignore that fact. In essence, I write because writing helps me deflect from the reality that death is indeed waiting around the corner to annihilate me and everything I’ve ever written. Society depends on death denial and the rule of insanity.
The Center has a definite stench of elitism, which reflects that of writing and art in general. Its 2023 conference, for example, takes place at “The Resort and Conference Center at Hyannis.” Self-glorification seems to have become its m.o., as in “our distinguished faculty,” “acclaimed authors teachers,” and “vibrant, nationally recognized literary organization.” A thinking individual would, of course, wonder who made the “distinguished” and “acclaimed” designations and why. Twelve Conference “faculty” designates and three “agents” have been chosen to teach the courses.
As for the monetary aspect of the Center, pages 17 and 18 of its brochure inform that to attend, the cost is $80; and to listen to Klinkenborg, the cost is an additional $30. The writing courses are as high as $170 (for three sessions). For a one-hour manuscript evaluation by a chosen “mentor,” the cost is an additional $150. The Center is financed partially, if not largely, by public tax dollars via the Mass Cultural Council and the Arts Foundation of Cape Cod. The Cape Cod 5 Cents Savings Bank is also a funder. A few of the course titles that stand out, at least for me, include “Selling More Books on Amazon,” “Query Killers,” “Agent Panel,” and “Poetic Form: Thinking inside the Box.” The last one seems to sadly incarnate poets and writers today. As for “Tone in Poetry,” another course, I wrote the following poem a decade ago. Do you think the Center would like it? Do you think it would like me to read it at the Conference and discuss the need for real criticism and debate in the field of writing? Well, I sent this essay to the Center. No response was ever received…
The Tone Is the Message Is the Tone
I like what you’re saying but
you’ve got the wrong tone,
wrote an editor, then
another and another and another.
Grab a flap of flab from the belly literati,
twist and tug, twist and pull,
bring forth hesitant, repressed indignation.
If you want to increase your congregation,
replied yet another… tin soldier
of the vast ocean army of invincibility,
you’ve got to smoothen out
the wrinkles in your voice.
Speak rude truth, and rage, rage
through the dying light of the establishment,
and educe ineluctably
the buried anger of crushed individuality.
I’d like to publish some of your work,
wrote another tin man, though
disguised in mask of freethinker.
You make some very interesting points,
but I don’t think our niche of readers
would appreciate your peculiar bluntness.
With the ax, fall revenues,
with the sword, tumble advertising dollars,
with the shotgun, shrink subscribers,
with the right tone, wane truth and justice,
with the pen of thin skin, butchery behind charade.
I’d like to see more of you in our publication,
wrote another editor,
but your discourse needs to be more civil.
It even makes me feel a bit uncomfortable,
so I could imagine our audience might also feel that way.
Kill the voice and the word be sameness
Kill the discrepancy and business be usual
Kill the messenger and the message be no longer
I think what you need is to add a little humor,
wrote a friend,
to get more people on your bandwagon, then
you could turn the blade on your laughing readers.
Ever humorless, though, and angry, raucous and uncivil,
fed with the fodder of consistency on how to build a constituency,
I still choose the coffin of anonymity…
The following counter-editorial was written in 2020.
I, Poet Apostate
A Critique of a Sad, Highly Predictable Editorial
In lockstep is the evident modus operandi of Poets & Writers magazine. If in lockstep, you might get published/promoted/publicized in that periodical. Out of lockstep, like me, and you will likely be blacklisted by it. As an obvious arm of the academic/literary establishment, Poets & Writers encourages groupthink, certainly not individualthink!
“Poets & Writers Stands in Solidarity With the Black Community," the editorial in question, is an unoriginal echo of those afflicted with white-guilt and successfully indoctrinated in the black good/white bad narrative. Was George Floyd really a heroic figure, who had cleaned up his criminal past to lead an honorable present? For a factual analysis regarding the BLM martyr meme, examine www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/06/candace-owens-video-i-do-not-support-george-floyd-frontpagemagcom/.
Elliot Figman, Executive Director, and Amy Berkower, President of the Board of Directors, both white, wrote the vapid, virtue-signaling editorial. Regarding the title of the editorial, did they discuss whether or not to use “take a knee” instead of “stand in”? Clearly, they and their magazine serve one purpose: the monetization—cooptation and castration—of poetry and writing. In essence, they and their magazine serve as an ideologically-driven Pravda for the poetry and writing industry. They are not courageous individuals; they are cowardly conformists. Is that what poets and writers should be today? Apparently so. Poets and writers must think CAREER, not bold TRUTH-TELLING—the two can never go together. To do that, they must conform to the reigning ideology in much the same way that poet Gorky, who praised the gulags, had done in the former Soviet Union.
In their editorial, the authors, unoriginally, call for “an end to systemic racism.” But is there really “systemic racism” in America today, or is that simply a mindless talking point of the indoctrinated? Has not Affirmative Action accorded blacks privilege over whites? Why is the accusation of “systemic racism” rarely, if ever at all, supported with factual evidence and statistics? Are inconvenient facts and statistics now simply (simple-mindedly) dismissed as right-wing, Nazi, racist, white nationalist talking points? ALL the evidence should be examined, not just evidence that supports the narrative! “The Truth about Interracial Violent Crime” and "The Truth About Police Violence and Race" present some rather inconvenient (i.e., against the narrative) statistics.
“These killings come during a pandemic that disproportionately afflicts communities of color,” state the authors. Again, no statistics needed when in lockstep with the narrative. The authors do not even address precisely how the virus is somehow in cahoots with “systemic racism.” Are black rioters and looters not social distancing, while somehow white rioters and looters are? Many possible reasons likely exist if indeed blacks are afflicted more than whites. Proclaiming “systemic racism” does not explain everything, and yet for those making the proclamation somehow it does, especially in the Age of Ideology, which has evidently replaced the Age of Reason.
“That members of these same communities [i.e., POC communities] are disproportionately risking their lives as essential workers only adds to the outrage,” argue the authors again without an iota of statistical support to back the assertion! Perhaps we have now also entered the Age of Groupthink Writing. “At Poets & Writers, we are reflecting on how to respond to these injustices. This begins with the acknowledgement that, although we have a diverse staff, most of our leaders and Board members are white,” state the authors. But why should the right skin color be more important than courageous truth telling, black or white-skinned? Rare truth-tellers, black or white-skinned, who question and challenge those of the in-lockstep herd, are far more interested in speaking the “rude truth” than holding on to their writing careers. “I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions,” declared Ralph Waldo Emerson. “Every decent and well-spoken individual affects and sways me more than is right. I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways.” Well, clearly Poets & Writers is one of those “dead institutions” and definitely “capitulates to badges and names”!
“Our silence [regarding alleged racism] has compromised our mission,” state the authors. “We serve writers because they help us understand ourselves and our times, deepen our capacity for empathy, and imagine a better future.” And yet the writers they tend to publish serve them and their writing industry. “A better future”? A future of what? More groupthink? More groupchant? More in lockstep? More white-shaming and more black victimization? Sounds like a nightmare!
“To accomplish our mission, we must heighten our understanding of the unique struggles that Black writers face in the publishing industry and literary world due to racism and implicit bias,” argue the authors. And yet always there are black-skinned writers featured in Poets & Writers magazine. Never are there counter-narrative rude truth-telling writers! How does that constitute “unique struggles” by black writers “in the publishing industry and literary world”? America has had black poet laureates, black prize-winning writers, and black university writing professor racists. Cite laureates Rita Dove, Maya Angelou, Robert Hayden, Joy Harjo, Gwendolyn Brooks, Langston Hughes, Derek Walcott, etc. But then there’s the confession: “most of our leaders and Board members are white.”
So, why then haven’t the two white authors, Figman and Berkower, volunteered to step down, so that two black-skinned people, competent or incompetent (“What difference does it make?”), can take their places? Money!
“Poets & Writers is committed to becoming an anti-racist organization that models the principles of equity and inclusion,” contend the two authors. Sadly, equity in today’s PC-Orwellian world means inequity, while inclusion means exclusion. Certainly, I have been excluded from commenting by the P&W equity and inclusion censors! Ah, but I am white, therefore insignificant in the new age of skin-color is more important than anything else. Nevertheless, I, poet apostate, dare choose TRUTH over career, TRUTH over skin-color predilection, and TRUTH over publication in Poets & Writers magazine. Now, would the latter publish this counter op-ed as an opportunity for debate? Will it even respond to it? The likelihood of that is close to nil… and that in a nutshell is the crux of the P&W problem, not a paucity of correct skin color on its Board of Directors…
..............................
From: George Slone
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 7:09 PM
To: elliot@pw.org <elliot@pw.org>; aberkower@writershouse.com <aberkower@writershouse.com>
Cc: editor@pw.org <editor@pw.org>
Subject: Your astonishing editorial
To Executive Director Elliot Figman and President of the Board of Directors Amy Berkower, as well as Editor in Chief Kevin Larimer, Senior Editor Melissa Faliveno, Assoc. Ed. Dana Isokawa, Poets & Writers Inc.:
Below is my counter-essay vis-a-vis your astonishing editorial. Please publish it in the next issue of Poets & Writers. If not, then I shall try other literary brick walls. Please do let me know of your decision. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone (PhD—Université de Nantes, FR), aka P. Maudit, Founding Editor (1998)
The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence
www.theamericandissident.org
wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com
todslone@hotmail.com
217 Commerce Rd.
Barnstable, MA 02630
NO RESPONSE!
Editorial
Censorship Now!
Freedom of Expression… in Higher Ed
Unfortunately, tenure has led to the ossification of American education. The hiring, promotion, and tenure system has institutionalized sycophancy toward those in power.
—Camille Paglia, Tenured Professor, University of the Arts
The rise of hate speech threatens… or so they say. But what is hate speech?… or so they don’t say. Well, criticism is/can be hate speech. So, I say, let hate speech rise! Banning it is an act of censorship and a violation of the First Amendment. Banning serves to kill inconvenient truths, hurtful to hacks with thin skin, haters themselves who hate freedom of expression. “Censorship now!” would be a slogan too truthful, too transparent. And so the haters supplant it with calls to remove disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation…
Searching for some grist, I came across an ad (see store.chronicle.com/products/fostering-students-free-expression?variant=42345778348229?cid=cs-che-cdp-2022-section-front-footer-11) in the Chronicle of Higher Education for a book written and published by the Chronicle of Higher Education. The front cover of this issue, “The Chronicle of Higher Indoctrination,” thus resulted. Since the author of the book description was not indicated, I depicted the top honchos of the publication, Editor-in-Chief Michael G. Riley, as well as a few of the other editors and managers (see www.chronicle.com/page/contact-us).
How not to question the very title, Fostering Students’ Free Expression. A thinking individual might actually wonder how college professors and administrators might serve to foster that when they themselves have an overwhelming tendency to self-censor. In fact, how might the very editors of the Chronicle do that when no doubt their rise to the top demanded turning a blind eye and team playing, certainly not individual rude-truth telling. Career success (climbing the ladder), in general, depends on such behavior. Evidently, speaking truth and career success do not make good partners.
The book in question is digital and contains 74 pages and was published in September 2023 and also does not list an author. It costs a mind-boggling $179. Might that really be for only one digital copy? The Chronicle states: “Learn more about digital licensing options and request a quote. For group purchases of fewer than 100 users, please refer to our bulk pricing."
n any case, according to the anonymous ad writer, “The pandemic made students feel more isolated and vulnerable. Unending political turmoil has left them frustrated.” Well, how about the profs and administrators? “Many professors say that students are reluctant to tackle tough questions in classroom discussions, and a 2022 survey by Heterodox Academy found that the majority of students who are timid when it comes to sharing opinions in class said they worried about the reactions they might get from peers.” Couldn’t one say the same for the profs and administrators, and if not, why not? After all, conformity is a synonym for team playing, which tends to be obligatory in higher ed.
The description praises professors as “cultivating an environment that encourages discussion of difficult topics—and how administrators can support faculty members who do this work.” Difficult topics, eh? Might they include the higher ed ambiance that encourages team playing at the expense of truth telling and the reality of general professorial apathy to freedom of expression when ideology (e.g., DEI and CRT) demands it? Well, I sent this editorial and the front cover image to the editor/managers in question and asked them to consider publishing both as an example of their purported support for freedom of expression. No response was ever received.
The back cover of this issue, “The Business of Writing,” depicts two GrubStreet leaders, Artistic Director Dariel Suarez and Founder/Executive Director Eve Bridburg. Waiting for my car inspection, I went through the magazines, leafed through Bostonia, the Alumni Magazine of Boston University. “Big Moves at GrubStreet,” written by Grub publicist Joel Brown, grabbed my attention. It focused on Grub's “gleaming new home on the Seaport.” Of course, everything in alumni magazines tends to be glowing wonderment. “GrubStreet always had a sense of inclusion from the very beginning [in 1997],” noted Bridburg, “and we’re trying to create something that is more welcoming, less paternalistic, and more inclusive.” How original! Inclusion! But, of course, NOT inclusion regarding criticism of GrubStreet! “It isn’t just about bringing people in, ‘this is gonna step up our numbers.’ It’s about following through, even in the growth of our staff,” stated Suarez. But perhaps writing should be about truth and free expression, not about increasing numbers. GrubStreet’s website echoes the overwhelming business/money and identity politics aspects of the writing industry today (see grubstreet.org/).
A final comment: The hate-speech attack on free speech has become an establishment weapon of the ruling oligarchy to further We, the In-Lockstep People. Biden failed to embed his Orwellian Disinformation Governance Board into the bureaucracy. But CISA (Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency) has existed since 2018.
CISA defines mis-, dis-, and malinformation (MDM) as “information activities.” This type of content is referred to as either domestic or foreign influence depending on where it originates.
• Misinformation is false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm.
• Disinformation is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.
• Malinformation is based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.
And so, facts must be destroyed if they harm. P. Maudit cartoons are clear examples of malinformation because they openly seek to harm, via facts and logic, buffered cogs of the establishment. How many more terms will be created by Big Gov/Academe in an effort to kill truth and free expression and further control We, the People? Sadly, America is following the European Union in that oligarchic endeavor. Democracy—freedom of speech—is dying, which is why I continue to speak/write rudely and openly. Inevitably, one day in the near future, in America, a journal like The American Dissident will not simply be ostracized—excluded from library shelves and listings of journals (NewPages and P&W)—, but will be strictly prohibited and forced into the realm of samizdat…
