Below is my correspondance with editor Scott Douglass, Main Street Rag, in 2007. The cartoon below also sketched in 2007 summarizes it.
................................................................
.....................................................................................
|
Date: |
Thu, 8 Nov 2007 06:40:28 -0800 (PST) |
|
From: |
"George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> |
|
Subject: |
Review query |
|
To: |
editor@mainstreetrag.com |
Hi,
How about an unusually harsh10-page review essay on The Best American Poetry 2007?
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone
www.mainstreetrag.com/How2GetIn.html
|
From: |
"M. Scott Douglass" <editor@mainstreetrag.com> |
|
To: |
"George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> |
|
Subject: |
Re: Review query |
|
Date: |
Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:54:04 -0500 |
The longest reviews we run on ANYTHING is 800 words--but you knew that, of course, because you went to our website and read the guidelines, right?
M. Scott Douglass
Main Street Rag
|
Date: |
Thu, 8 Nov 2007 07:27:34 -0800 (PST) |
|
From: |
"George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> |
|
Subject: |
Re: Review query |
|
To: |
"M. Scott Douglass" <editor@mainstreetrag.com> |
No need to be on the rag, man. It was a review/essay, not a simple review (did you even read my query?) on the pissy state of poetry and poet editors today. Yes, I went to your website, looked at the guidelines, which is why I queried first, rather than send the review.
T.
|
From: |
"M. Scott Douglass" <editor@mainstreetrag.com> |
|
To: |
"George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> |
|
Subject: |
Re: Review query |
|
Date: |
Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:46:00 -0500 |
I'm not on the rag, but I doget solicited 1000 times a month by folks emailing questions that can be answered by simply reading our guidelines.
It may be true that I missed the part of your query that referred to it as an essay. I recall thinking as I responded that it was more of an essay than strictly a review, nonetheless, it is still way too long for our needs and unnecessarily caustic. I added the latter because I've actually read it and while I may agree (in principle) to some of your opinions in regard to the pieces you cited, the manner and tone you used make it unprintable for most publications--mine included.
It's as if you have a chip on your shoulder and to further prove a point you write it in such a way that no one will accept it so you can say, "See, freedom of the press is dead." Freedom of the press is alive and well and capable of deciding for itself what is and is not inflamatory to the point of not wanting to give up that thing we hold most dear as publishers (page space) to print something if it does not fit our guides or our editorial tone.
I'm about as open as you will run into. I've published things that criticize me and totally disagree with my own personal opinion, but your tone in the essay/review is acerbic and serves no purpose other than to criticize. Whether that book appeals to you or not--whether it appeals to me or not--doesn't matter. Whether the poets involved offered a level of risk to satisfy you (or me), is irrelevant. Some people will like it for what it is--regardless of whether they agree with the title. Live with it. It's a subjective world (as your review clearly demonstrates).
As to whether those locked up behind ivy walls have (possibly) lost the actual living experience that might provide more meaningful poetry, I'm with you, but if you really want folks to publish it, write it in a way that will allow for differences in style opinion and taste. You're a smart guy. You obviously spent a lot of time with this book and others. Surely you can say what you had to say in a better way so that publishers would allow it to be shared with their readers.
And by the way, using the word "fuck" is not daring. It's not even risky. I use it 50 times a day--easily.
"It is easy in the world to follow the world's opinions; it is easy in solitude to follow our own, but the great man is he who in the midst of a crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." (Emerson)
MSD
|
Date: |
Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:31:10 -0800 (PST) |
|
From: |
"George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> |
|
Subject: |
Re: Review query |
|
To: |
"M. Scott Douglass" <editor@mainstreetrag.com> |
MSD,
Glad you sent me another response, though I had to force it out of you! As mentioned in the essay, “vigorous debate” is not exactly encouraged in the milieu. Glad to learn you actually read it! But you state it is “unnecessarily caustic” and “inflammatory” w/o of course citing one example to illustrate that subjective critique. At least I illustrate my caustic comments with concrete examples taken from that book. How can one possibly not describe caustically such triteness pushed as the “best”?
Yours seems to be a form response, as if learned in every writing workshop in the nation, for it is “automaton-ically” issued so frequently by established-order literati: “the manner and tone you used make it unprintable for most publications--mine included.”
Why the great abhorrence for “vigorous debate” (the tone serves as a definite sulfur match to instigate vigorous debate) and critical honesty in the milieu? If we can rightfully hammer politicians with the wrong tone and manner, why can’t we rightfully do so with the lit herd?
In essence, however, the very tone of the essay is its very message. In other words, the two are evidently melded. To diminish the harsh tone would be to alter the message—dilute it with polite hypocrisy and “fit-in” prevarication.
You state “It's as if you have a chip on your shoulder.” Ah, good ole ad hominem! But I suppose that’s one way of denigrating somebody who has the courage you apparently lack to say it like it is and not as others want to hear it in order to publish it.
BTW, VOX accepted it… not that that means a damn thing.
No doubt, you are a proponent of censorship and would have done fine with your Rag in the old Soviet Union . You did not respond RE the Academy of American Poets censoring of my ideas.
You state: “I'm about as open as you will run into.” Well, that’s a crock, isn’t it?! That’s just like Bush stating how he wants peace. How easy it is, eh?
Sadly, you and the established-order herd are transfixed with TONE, not with TRUTH. You state: “but your tone in the essay/review is acerbic and serves no purpose other than to criticize.” Uh, the essay, was a critical essay. It’s very purpose was to criticize! Is that not permitted today by the established order?
You state regarding the anthology: “Some people will like it for what it is--regardless of whether they agree with the title. Live with it.” Well I do and have been living with it and it nauseates me, which is why I periodically stand up and criticize it. Evidently, you live with it, but instead have permitted it to bludgeon you to the point where you’ve become a proper herd member.
You state: “As to whether those locked up behind ivy walls have (possibly) lost the actual living experience that might provide more meaningful poetry, I'm with you but if you really want folks to publish it, write it in a way that will allow for differences in style opinion and taste.” But you’re not at all with me, not one tiny bit! How can you actually make such a statement? You seem to miss the point entirely. I do not write to get published. I write to tell the truth as I see it and will not water down that truth in order to get someone like you to publish me. Herd members do what you suggest.
Your quote of Emerson is indeed sad. Try this one from Orwell: “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 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.”
Well, at least you stood up on your hind legs for a second and responded…
G. Tod
|
Date: |
Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:50:42 -0800 (PST) |
|
From: |
"George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> |
|
Subject: |
Always the inevitable breaches in logic... |
|
To: |
"M. Scott Douglass" <editor@mainstreetrag.com> |
PS: The only reason I sent the essay-review query to your mag was your evidently hypocritical statement: “Pissing off politicians, corporations, zealots, and/or lawyers is acceptable and, in fact, encouraged.” Perhaps you need to eradicate it or at least put a caveat next to it: “It is not, however, acceptable to piss off academics, poets, editors, and/or publishers of the mainstreet variety.” Ah, guess I got you there, eh?!
BTW, there are people out there who appreciate the TONE (i.e., SUBSTANCE) in what I write, who like the fla mes and sparks, because they believe the milieu merits such critique… just as you believe the politicos do! One professor at a local college invited me to read and discuss The American Dissident in front of one of his classes. He’s going to publish me in the college lit journal he edits. Students were very receptive! I’ve just been interviewed by a young person for a journal that goes out to libraries.
Ah, but I think you merit a cartoon. Yes, I’ll have to do one on you. Do you have a photo you could send?
|
From: |
"M. Scott Douglass" <editor@mainstreetrag.com> |
|
To: |
"George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> |
|
Subject: |
Re: Review query |
|
Date: |
Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:03:14 -0500 |
I didn't read your entire response because I only needed to read a couple sentences to realize you know absolutely nothing about me, MSR, what we publish. I'm sorry I wasted my time earlier. Won't happen again.
MSD
|
Date: |
Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:13:16 -0800 (PST) |
|
From: |
"George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> |
|
Subject: |
Re: Review query |
|
To: |
"M. Scott Douglass" <editor@mainstreetrag.com> |
That’s right, shut those doors to the agora of ideas. Hit yourself in the head for having opened them for a second… and upset your cocooned comfort for a moment.
If you could only see just how much you and your mag resemble all the others...
T.
|
Date: |
Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:33:41 -0800 (PST) |
|
From: |
"George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> |
|
Subject: |
Re: Review query |
|
To: |
"M. Scott Douglass" <editor@mainstreetrag.com> |
Found a photo! Sell out hippie like Hillary and Bubba? Probably. Anyhow, I'll contemplate a cartoon idea.
|
From: |
"M. Scott Douglass" <editor@mainstreetrag.com> |
|
To: |
"George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> |
|
Subject: |
Re: Review query |
|
Date: |
Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:29:27 -0500 |
Further demonstration of what little you know. Probably didn't occur to you that there are folks in the world who value their time above anything else and hate to waste it on someone who's so volitile. I, for one have much better things to do with my time. It has nothing to do with ideas. It has to do with who's offering them.
And you've never seen Main Street Rag. You're looking online and I place less than 5% of the contents online. Again, what little you know.
MSD
From their website: http://www.mainstreetrag.com/How2GetIn.html#anchor199611
“Any style, any subject, emphasis on edgier material, but we're not interested in the graphic details of your love life and we do enjoy a good laugh now and then--so just send your best and let the rest sort itself out. What we are least likely to accept is "garden" poetry, poetry about poetry, or the often over-used wading pool of Greek and Roman mythology. We prefer work that is alive with the poet's own experiences. While we do not publish much in the way of formal poetry in our magazine, we will consider it and we like to see poems that maintain the integrity of the form without becoming stiff, uninteresting or losing their vitality.”
*** Cover letters and bios are unnecessary. Submissions are considered on the basis of the quality of the work -- nothing else.
Not interested in anything derogatory on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious persuasion. Pissing off politicians, corporations, zealots, and/or lawyers is acceptable and, in fact, encouraged.
No comments:
Post a Comment