Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Becky Tuch and The Review Review


A Review of Becky Tuch and Her Review Review
Well, I was looking through NewPages.com and bumped into "The fastest growing literary magazine in the PNW, Belletristmagazine is 'breathtaking, a joy to read!' (The Review Review)."  Breathtaking... oh, yeah!  Vaguely, I recalled having a mano a mano with Mme Review Review.  So, I checked to see if I'd done a cartoon with her regard.  Sure enough I had (see  https://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2012/10/becky-tuch.html). 

 Below is Becky Tuch's 2010 review of The American Dissident (and comments), unsurprisingly not very positive.  The bold print is mine.  After the review is the brief exchange I had with Tuch, who then essentially did not respond to any of the points made in my critique of her review.  

 Ideologues generally never respond to point-by-point counterarguments.  For them, there is no room for REASON that challenges their ideology and certainly no room for VIGOROUS DEBATE.  Clearly, Tuch learned her lesson:  it is best not to respond when one does not have any cogent responses.  For ideologues, there is plenty of room, however, for broad nonsensical groupthink echo-demonization epithets as in RACIST!  ISLAMOPHOBE!  NAZI!  NEOCON! HATER! WHITE NATIONALIST!  If you do not agree with the Tuchs, then you are automatically branded with a scarlet letter A, or rather R for right-winger...
..............................................................................................................
Politics, Poetry, Propaganda
Review of American Dissident, Winter 
2010
Rating: 
pastedGraphic.png
G. Tod Slone has a bone to pick. With academia, the literary establishment, state cultural councils, and with many editors of literary magazines. Thus his literary magazine American Dissident pays tribute to his ideals, publishing poetry, cartoons, correspondences and essays which treat themes of injustice and corruption, both within the literary establishment and elsewhere.
Slone’s effort is an admirable one. As someone whose favorite summer pastime was Bread and Puppet—a giant puppet show in Vermont which united puppeteering with politics—I love to see the worlds of art and activism converge. I agree when Slone says there isn’t nearly enough of this happening in literary communities, and it is trenchant of him to observe that academia has turned many a would-be-activist into a tenure-seeking-hand-shaker.
Yet when it comes to the arguments put forth by much of the poetry in American Dissident, I am not in agreement. Nor do I find much of the poetry particularly moving. The language is often prosaic, the message as clear as a bludgeon to the head. In some cases, the politics offended me. In other cases, it was grammar mistakes and/or spelling errors which offended. 
But, the good: Lauren Fleck-Staff’s “What Would They Say” is a lovely reflection upon the disconnect between global atrocities and academic comfort—“And who am I to stick out my lip/considering famine/ between lunch and dinner?” Similarly Mather Schneider’s poem “Social” admirably addresses the flaws of health care: “It was the end of an 11 hour day and I was thinking/ the only way to get health insurance/ is to be either wealthy/ or DIRT poor.”
It’s important to note that instead of the usual cover letter with a list of qualifications and publishing credits, Sloane invites submitters to describe a time they dissented in public, fought for free speech, or, as Sloane is fond of saying, spoken “the rude truth to power.”
I think this is a neat endeavor. I love the idea of caring more about writers’ activism than about their credentials. I certainly enjoy reading about people’s personal lives more than about where they went to school. In a particularly personal note, Rosalyn Becker writes that she “took tranquilizers and sleeping pills to force myself to work a job I hated—telephone operator for Ma Bell.” And Doug Draime tells of us his lifelong struggle to be a poet, giving up, starting over, giving up again, starting over again.
But mostly the poems in this journal celebrate individualism. Lauren Horth’s “Why Is It” ends with a plaintive cry for “free speech,/ individualism, reality.” Marina Sanot’s “Outsider” tells the reader that “You don’t have to do what they say/ Or believe what they think or/ Listen to their knowledge that/ they force upon you.” The editor’s own poem, “Poem #3 for a Hack of Bourgeois Hegemony” begins, “For democracy,/ I stood alone.”
Is the best way to combat political corruption by standing alone? By asserting one’s individualism? American Dissident seems to think so. Thus while the journal seeks to celebrate “literature, democracy and dissidence” it often reads as little more than libertarian propaganda.  
Or, in some cases, right-wing diatribe. Andrew Cook’s “Freedom” might find a suitable audience at a Republican rally with its nostalgia for a simpler time in America, its use of the pronoun “we” to assume an audience of alienated whites, as in “We are immigrants in our own country.” This poem's nostalgia for an old-fashioned America is both offensive and naive, as are its narrow-minded racial remarks. And it is sloppy with its grammar—“Chain-link fences and barred windows/have replace white picket fences” (italics mine.)
I found Doug Draime’s “Writers Writing Graven Images in Time” similarly offensive, but in a different way. Draime writes, “what is truth never changes/ never alters/ never stops being/ and is the only thing/ that is real.” This emphasis on the “truth” as being fixed and immutable is utterly ridiculous. Whose truth? Whose reality? Is the poet really claiming that there is one fixed truth which does not change, and is this not the very sort of claim used to justify social oppression for centuries? 
Comments
Posted by Ron (not verified) on Dec 21, 2010 at 7:06AM
Hate speech by its very nature self-immolating. Someone who descries not having health care insurance under an oppressive capitalism should not then rail against it because it is part of a socialist takeover. It is a blind infuriating fury that is expressed by these dissidents, no self-awareness of contradictory rhetoric, no logical development of a coherent ideology, just rancorous rage and paranoia at anyone who disagrees with them. If you don't publish their poetry you are part of a power structure that does not recognize their greatness, if you reject their ideas you are oppressing them and marginalizing them, if you don't take their fliers you are holding back the TRUTH that is the greatest truth of all truthfulness, the truth that is truest of all truth, their Truth. In psychology they call that delusional paranoia.
Posted by Ian Thal (not verified) on Dec 21, 2010 at 11:07AM
Ron, you are correct that one aspect of G. Tod Slone's on-going tirade against corruption is how his work isn't being published, how he isn't receiving grants, and how people are dismissive of his views. All of these things, to him, pointed towards a conspiracy.
This was manifested in his rage against the people associated with the (now discontinued) Foetry website, which had proved itself to be quite effective at identifying genuine corruption within the most high-profile poetry competitions.
Posted by Ian Thal (not verified) on Dec 20, 2010 at 11:26PM
Hi Becky,
Thanks for alerting me to your review. I too have noted in my exchanges with Slone that his "dissidence" seems mostly motivated by his personal paranoia and that he often toys with extremist rhetoric (though I haven't delved into it as deeply as you have-- simply due to lack of interest in spending any more time on him.) My back-and-forth with Slone is recounted here:
I've also had my own experiences with Bread & Puppet and found a similar tone of extremist ideology lurking in the background of the idealism that originally attracted me, so given that similar background, you may find this of interest:
#4 B&P 
Posted by TheReviewReview on Dec 21, 2010 at 11:00AM
Ian,
Thanks so much for your comments. I will have to check out your blog on Bread and Puppet. I was going when I was a teenager, so of course didn't think too deeply about what views might be lurking under the surface. But it's always good to consider everything carefully before being too quickly swayed by a point of view...or by puppets!...Thanks again for reading the review, and best of luck with your own work.
Posted by Ian Thal (not verified) on Dec 21, 2010 at 11:19AM
You're very welcome. Becky.
For a couple of years, I became quite notorious in Bread & Puppet circles and that particular blog entry developed into a series of analyses and interviews.
I enjoyed my time working with Bread & Puppet, but quickly came to see Schumann's frequent heavy-handedness defeating his more poetic tendencies-- and as a consequence some of the same tendencies we see in The American Dissident make themselves manifest. Of course, a major problem is that Schumann never really got over the fact that Germany lost WWII-- and every now and then this will come up in an interview, or more subtly in his art.
........................................................................

From: George Slone [todslone@hotmail.com]
To: 99review@gmail.com
Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 10:46:49 AM
Subject: Review of a Review
Hi Becky Tuch,
A friend just told me yesterday that your review of The American Dissident was up on your site.  If you’d told me you’d posted it, I would have responded a lot sooner.  Perhaps you didn’t want me to see it or respond?  After all, your review is a far cry from your initial email sent in October.

Hi Mr. Slone,
My name is Becky Tuch.  I just came upon American Dissident while doing a search for "Literary Industrial Complex." Your journal looks awesome. Of course, I'd seen it before at bookstores, but am especially excited to see all the past essays posted on your site.
I edit a website that reviews literary magazines, The Review Review. I was wondering if you might like to add us to your mailing list? I would love to review an issue of AD, to get the word out to readers about what a great journal it is.
Thanks so much, and keep up the great work,
Becky
“G. Tod Slone has a bone to pick,” begins your review in a rather “offensive” fashion, to use your term of predilection.  Yet could an independently thinking citizen actually not have a “bone to pick,” given the intrinsically corrupt nature of our society, including the academic/literary establishment sector?  Since you live in Massachusetts, are you totally unaware of the intrinsic corruption in state and local government?  Only a non-thinker or perhaps a thinking ladder climber, who’s learned the fine art of turning a blind eye and muzzling herself, would not have a “bone to pick.”  
Anyhow, thanks for the initial compliment, though one-star is not exactly laudatory.  Does every review get at least one star?   Or do some actually get no stars at all?  I’d love to consult a review you gave five-stars.  Now, that would really be fun.  Yes, I’d love to see that poetry!  
You note, “Nor do I find much of the poetry particularly moving. The language is often prosaic, the message as clear as a bludgeon to the head.”  As you likely know, most poets do not write dissident verse.  They tend instead to write anything but.  In fact, that’s why I like to bludgeon.  In that sense, I certainly stand at antipodes to the flowery, court-jestering poet herd.  My message is blindingly clear that way.  Who said poetry had to be obfuscatory and wordy?  Art for art saking is evidently not my purpose.  It’s the purpose of the poet herd.  Who said TRUTH cannot be BLUNT and BLUDGEONING?  Ralph Waldo Emerson did pair the word RUDE with TRUTH ("go upright and vital and speak the RUDE TRUTH in all ways").  And that makes a lot of sense, at least to me.  The RUDE TRUTH pisses people off… or, in your words, is offensive, prosaic, bludgeoning.  
“In some cases, the politics offended me,” you state.  As I tell my university students, always include an example or two to back such statements.   I also tell them to buck up and not be so easily offended!  What precise politics offended you?  If you remain vague, I can’t possibly counter-argue.  
“In other cases, it was grammar mistakes and/or spelling errors which offended,” you state.  Reading that statement, one would think The American Dissident to be loaded with botched grammar and spelling errors.  I know that not to be even remotely true.  Your implication is botched reportage.  BTW, you’ve misspelled my name several times!  Should I therefore be offended and conclude that your reviews are riddled with offensive spelling errors?  Likely, you’ll ignore that riposte.  
 “Is the best way to combat political corruption by standing alone?” you state regarding your belief that that’s my belief. Yet never do I state such a thing… anywhere.   On the contrary, the best way is likely via compromise and that means compromising ones principles.  That’s not my way.  My way is not the best way.  But democracy demands different ways be given voice in the marketplace of ideas.  It demands the possiblity of the RUDE-TRUTH way, which is evidently my way, not your way.  My purpose is to denounce corruption, be it in academe, the public-funding process, and/or in the poetry milieu.  It is to stand up and express myself with as little self-censoring as possible.  I do not filter my writing in order to get published and climb the literary ladder, which seems to be the litmus test for “success” applied by one of your commenters, Ian Thal.  Speaking the truth as I see it, as opposed to how you want me to see it, is what I try to do.   And like others, I too know damn well when opening my mouth might prove detrimental to my literary or career “success.”   However, it is likely that I break the taboos much more often than most poets or artists, you and Thal included, would ever dare.  That’s what makes me different.  That’s what gets me ostracized.  That’s what works against “success.”  That’s what doesn’t get me cultural-council grants.  That’s what did not get me tenure.  That’s what pissed Thal off.  
“Thus while the journal seeks to celebrate ‘literature, democracy and dissidence’ it often reads as little more than libertarian propaganda,” you write.  “Or, in some cases, right-wing diatribe.”  Again, you fail to present one precise example of “libertarian propaganda.”  And your one example of “right-wing diatribe” is not at all clear.  Of course, one would have to ask what your definition of right-wing might be?  Do you define “right-wing diatribe” as anything critical of the left-wing?  If so, then, yes, certainly accuse me of “right-wing diatribe”!  But who cares?  Your accusation only serves to divert attention.  It would be a lot more pertinent if you’d point to one precise example of a LIE in The American Dissident.  Where precisely have I, as editor, prevaricated?  That’s the real question, not whether or not I’m right-wing or libertarian or tea party or neocon.  The question is not whether or not I RAGE or BLUDGEON.  
Criticize the left, and the left will ineluctably dismiss the criticism as “right-wing diatribe,” no matter how true.  That’s been my experience.  That’s become both the shame and weakness of the left.  Just the same, I am certainly not right wing.  I detest the corporations that Obama snuggles with.  I detest the wars that Obama wages.  I detest religions:  christian AND muslim.  I detest the lack of transparency that Obama surrounds himself in (thanks Wikileaks!).   Yes, but I also detested those things when they involved Bush.  I’ve never voted for a Democrat or Republican.  I did vote for Ralph Nader in 2000.  Is he now viewed as a right-winger because he upset Gore?  I wouldn’t be at all surprised.  I am against the corporate feeding frenzy on illegal CHEAP labor.  Since that is not the PC-party line, does that automatically make me a racist or someone who publishes racists?  Or perhaps that makes you right-wing, since, if you favor illegal immigration, you must also favor that corporate-feeding frenzy.  Ideologues can never reason with clarity.  Am I automatically racist because I criticized Obama?  Is that how you think?  Wasn’t your remark on alienated white people a racist remark against whites?  You write as if the Republican Party had no black members at all!  Oh, yes, those aren’t blacks, they’re Uncle Toms.  Is it right-wing to note that the death of Ted Kennedy’s DOG was front page news in the Cape Cod Times recently, while the deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan in the same paper were listed on the last page?  In what sands do you bury your head, Mme Review Review?  I’m really curious!  
You’ve used the PC-leftist mantra “offensive” three times in your review.  Should I conclude therefore that you are a PC-leftist?  Can a few spelling errors actually “offend” you?  What did your mother teach you?  Mine taught me, “sticks and stones…”  In other words, she taught me to toughen up and build spine.  The PC-left wants everyone to wimper down, not to question and challenge, so it can control and live in un-ecological mansions, drive in un-ecological limos and fly in un-ecological jets, while parading around as green.  No thanks!  And who gives a damn if you’re offended… by the TRUTH?  I for one certainly don’t.  
You note that “narrow-minded racial remarks,” are present in The American Dissident as if the journal is a racist review.  But I do not publish racial negativity… unless TRUTH.  Besides, what precisely are those remarks?  Are they made throughout the journal?  
As for your two commenters, Ron Anonymous sounds like his mind is also anonymous.  He puts all dissidents into one narrow “rancorous-rage” basket.  How easily bourgeois.  For him, I quote Leonard Weinglass, Defense Attorney for dissident Daniel Ellsberg:  “And the psychiatrist said to us you don’t want on this jury men of middle age because these are people who in the course of their lives might possibly have sacrificed principle for the sake of career, for the sake of family, and they live with that compromise and they will have and they will have a lot of disdain, even contempt for two men who did it for the sake of principle and took the risk.”   
Principle vs. Career.  Yes, they’ll hate you if you choose the former!  I do not sacrifice my principles for a dubious literary or academic career.  As for Ian Thal, he ought to focus on that quote.  I decried his nonsensical courtjester poet stage act.  Does poetry really need more jesters on the stage?  Christ, Thal even dresses up like a jester during his performances!  In any case, he too needs to support his general dismissal of me with a concrete example or two.  How else can I defend myself against his “tirade” of  my purported “on-going tirade against corruption”?  Thal too lives in Massachusetts.  Can he be blind to Democrat-party corruption in state government?  Is it a “tirade” that PEN New England (“defending freedom everywhere”… except in New England) refuses to respond to my criticism?  Is it a “tirade” that the Massachusetts Cultural Council refuses to respond to my criticism?  Is it a tirade that Doug Holder, Ian Thal, Charles Coe, Joan Houlihan, Fred Marchant, and others in the state refuse to open their doors to vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy?   They shamefully reject criticism of their incestuous milieu.  
And how does Thal know I am not being published?  I’ve had things published and without doubt much more than he.  The list of my publications runs well over 10 pages long, single spaced, New Times Roman 10 pica.  But I don’t broadcast those things every time I write!  In fact, I never do… unless I have to defend myself against unfounded accusations like Thal’s.  A new book of my caustic cartoons will soon be published (and not by me or a friend).  Recently, I had a bilingual book of poetry (French/English) published by Gival Press, and a chapbook published by Petroglyph.  Why does Thal insist pushing the lie that I’m not published?  Does my being published break his stereotypical view of me?  My cartoons are published on National Free Press’ website (see www.nationalfreepress.org/cartoonists) and the Camel Saloon recently did a special on them (see http://camelsaloonmaudit.blogspot.com).  I’ve even had highly dissident essays published (and not by friends).  But these things will not change Thal’s view.  Slone is not published.  That’s all Thal’s mind will accept.  It doesn’t matter how much proof is thrown before it.  Hell, I’ve even got a doctoral degree from a French university and wrote a 335-page thesis in French, a language I worked my ass off to learn.  What the hell does Thal have?  I’m fluent in French and Spanish, and read in Italian and German.  In fact, almost every day I read through the headlines (and articles of interest) in Der Spiegel, El Pais, Le Monde, Le Devoir, and Il Corriere della Sera.  
The public-grant according machine is corrupt and generally run by PC-leftists who practice viewpoint discrimination.  I will never get a grant from the MCC or NEA as long as such leftists favor bourgeois-type art and literature with the PC-stamp of approval.  There is indeed a kind of conspiracy against critical art and critical literature.  But it is not the kind of conspiracy where people sit together in a dark room.  It is a general conspiracy of dogmatism.  Thal can keep his head buried in the sand if he likes.  That’s his problem, not mine.  All Thal seems capable of is ad hominem insult.  Just call it “rage”.  How facile.  No need to disprove any points made.  Just dismiss it as “rage” or “personal paranoia.”  For the cartoon that ENRAGED Thal and provoked him to carry an interminable grudge with my regard, see http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2010/01/ian-thal-poet-court-jester.html.  
Now, these things said, Becky, is my “effort” still “an admirable one”?  If so are you still going to do that interview, so we might get into a little more than Thalian name calling?  We could deal with some facts and I can show you actual documents, although it seems the paranoid do not have actual documents.  Yes, I can show you the no-trespass order issued by the Watertown Free Public Library without due process or the no-politcal culture regulation created by the Concord Cultural Council to keep me from funding or the letter from the NEA refusing to provide any concrete examples of why it designated The American Dissident as “low” and “poor” or the email from Doug Holder stating he would stand up on his hindlegs to insist that all viewpoints have voice in the Massachusetts poetry scene.  Sadly, Holder never did stand up.  His friend Harris Gardner refuses to allow my voice at his National Poetry Month festival in Boston.  Do you care?  Of course not!  There’s more of course… if you’re at all interested.  You might wish to look at the syllabus I created for a course in literature, democracy and dissidence, a course that so far not one college will permit me to teach.  Or how about the director of the Cape Cod Cultural Council arguing that art in the public library, which she also directs, must be “family friendly” and that there is a thin line between provocative and offensive.  Perhaps you know each other since you both seem to favor the knee-jerk, PC-offensive mantra.  
It would be interesting to discuss what a poet ought to be.  Perhaps for you a poet is an adept juggler of words, someone who fits in.  But for me, a poet should be much, much more, as should his poetry.  In any case, hope to hear from you soon and hope you have a little spine and will not be offended by this review.


Best,
    
G. Tod Slone, Founding Editor
The American Dissident, a 501 c3 Nonprofit 
Journal of Literature, Art, Democracy & Dissidence
217 Commerce Rd.
Barnstable, MA 02630


From: Becky Tuch <99review gmail.com="">
To: George Slone
Sent: Tue, January 4, 2011 1:12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Review of a Review
Hi Tod,
Thanks for your in-depth reply to my review. Your comments are much appreciated.
It is true that my initial email to you was upon first discovering AD. I had a lot of excitement over what I thought the journal was, or could be. Alas, upon taking a more careful look at its contents, I found myself to be in strong disagreement with many of the expressed sentiments and values contained within. I have already stated my beliefs in my review, and don't think they need to be reiterated here.
As for the misspellings of your name, I made the appropriate corrections.
Take care,
Becky



From: George Slone
To: 99review@gmail.com
Sent: Fri, March 4, 2011 12:42:14 PM
Subject: The Amer Diss
Becky,
Your review appears in the current issue of The American Dissident followed by my revised rebuttal.  You inspired me.  Inflexible minds always seem to inspire me.  And so many there are out there!  I wrote a poem.  You can read it and see your name here:  
http://thecamelsaloon.blogspot.com/2011/01/frozen-in-mind-donkeys-vs-elephants.html.  I know you probably won’t understand it.  No matter.  You’ve also inspired me to do a cartoon/aquarelle on you further inspired by a Goya print.  It too appears in next issue.  Please do not think I am angry or think that I think that you’re angry.  I am a satirist a la Juvenal and Daumier.  En avant!
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone
at

No comments:

Post a Comment