Main Street Rag Scott Douglass

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>  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert
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>  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert
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>  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert
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>  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert
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>  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert
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>  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert
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>  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert
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>  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert
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>  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert
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>  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert
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.

Michael Finch

The following essay I wrote in 2015.

..................................................

Let No Act of Censorship Go Uncriticized

FrontPage, an online right-wing journal, had rightfully been denouncing the increasing incidents of left-wing assaults on freedom of speech, especially with regards the shutting down of debate and creation of safe spaces and speech codes, on college campuses across the country from Yale to Missou, Smith,  Vasser.  

Hypocritically, its moderators (i.e., censors) also shut down debate.  Indeed, they refused to post my critical comment regarding a glowing review written by Mark Tapson, Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, of a book of poetry written by Michael Finch, Chief Operating Officer also at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.  The egregious hypocrisy of that act of censorship left me fully disgusted.  And not one person at the Horowitz Freedom Center would respond.  

What had provoked me to comment, in the first place, was the very crux of the review, as clearly stated by the reviewer:  “But as many conservative writers such as Andrew Klavan and myself have noted for years, reclaiming America means reclaiming the culture, and that means engaging in the arts.”  Contrast that statement with the rather innocuous verse presented by the reviewer, as if somehow that verse would help in “reclaiming the culture.”  Mind-boggling!

         In my initial comment, I criticized the crux statement as insufficient.  Indeed, mere “engaging in the arts” would accomplish little if anything.  What was needed was active questioning and challenging of the “arts” machine, which I’ve come to term the academic/literary establishment. The poem fragments taken from Finding Home:  Poems in Search of a Lost America clearly did not even remotely attempt that.  Note, for example:  

My mind remembers a soft, warm wind,

Sweet earth scent, and billows of clouds

In a wide prairie sky of youth’s eternal hope.

Where have you gone?

Now, how might those lines help the right-wing in “reclaiming the culture” in an effort to establish its particular forms of censorship, let alone expose the lack of objectivity, egregious hypocrisy, and especially visceral knee-jerk rejection of any criticism regarding the left-wing “arts” machine?  Here’s another verse presented by Tapson:  

Years from now when the winds blow again,

When you stare at the midnight’s blue of

The setting sun, lined mountains black against

A cobalt sky, do one thing for the one who loved you:

Think of me when your eyes gaze at the wondrous sky,

Your eyes searching the heavens for one,

When the breeze blows one last time through your hair,

Do one final thing. Think of me.

Another big problem with the “arts” machine is the M.O. of egregious backslapping and self-congratulating.  In that sense, Tapson partakes in it, promoting the poetry of his admitted “friend.”  What else is new, eh?  Frank Kotter, whose comment was not censored by the moderator censors, sums up the inanity confronting poetry today.

I have not heard such touching and meaningful prose since Paul de Lagarde. May this also usher in a new era in our nation's consciousness just as those have who come before you.  I have ordered but am disappointed to see it is not offered in hard cover—A shame as this book will be cited in history books in centuries to come.

More often when an unknown/unconnected person like me questions and challenges the “arts” machine (i.e., the academic/literary establishment), the latter will respond with proverbial deafening silence.  Imagine, for example, I had the gall recently to question and challenge the new poet laureate of Boston, Professor Danielle Legros Georges, who, as the Boston Globe headline stated, “wants to make poetry comfortable for all.”  Of course, by simply mentioning that fact here, I greatly lessen my chances of getting this essay published because it contravenes the first commandment of the “arts” machine:  thou shalt not criticize the poets!    

Because I’d sent my q&c to the student newspaper editors of Lesley University, Legros Georges’ employer, and only cc’d it to her, she called me “cowardly” in her response and wrote that if I really wanted debate then she was ready for it.  So, I wrote with that regard… and received no response!  Then days later, I wrote again, asking what happened to her will for debate.  And again, no response was ever received.  In essence, that deafening silence was the reason I’d chosen to write the student newspaper.  Deafening silence was the norm for academics when challenged.  Sadly, it was also the norm for student newspaper editors.  Considering the innocuousness of the poem fragments illustrated in Tapson’s hagiography (for the entire piece, see 

www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260860/finding-home-poems-search-lost-america-mark-tapson),  Michael Finch should have no problem at all getting published in “arts” machine magazines like Agni, Ploughshares, and Poetry.  

Finally, Thoreau famously urged:  “Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.”  To that, I’d add left or right-wing machine.   And tis better to chime with Thoreau, than climb the careerist ladder in search of vacuity, that is, fame, limelight, awards, invitations, tenure, and all the other crap serving to muzzle the truly cowardly like left-wing Legros Georges and right-wing Michael Finch.  

Tim Green

The following was created in 2009.

........................................................................................

Joy Harjo

Mary Gannon CLMP

..................................................................

The above cartoon I sketched a year ago.  For some reason, the editor of Provincetown Arts, Chris Busa, who HATES debate and alt-opinions, sent me an email yesterday (2/4/2020) with the Subject:  "{Virus?} RE: Mary Gannon featured in a new essay and P. Maudit cartoon."  No message was included with the exception of "This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection Service. The original e-mail attachment "8119-17893_City_Report.doc" was believed to be infected by a virus and has been replaced by this warning message [,,,]"

So, thanks to Busa I just posted the cartoon and also sent him the following message:  "Yes, definitely a VIRUS, one that will mortally affect your very limited ability to deal with hardcore reality criticism!  By the way, I am not at all violent.  I do not bite.  Ah, but I am a critic, not a publicist disguised as a critic. Do you understand the difference?  Probably and sadly, you likely do not. Anyhow, good to hear from you."

One must wonder how such frail characters like Busa manage to become editors.  Anyhow...

...............................................

Notes from the Literary Landscape:  Hot Air in the Blimp

A Review of an “Interview” (i.e., Literary Advertisement)

The writing establishment was perhaps best reflected by Poets & Writers magazine (P$W), which incarnated perhaps better than any other periodical, even more so than Poetry, the corporate  carcinoma.   For a critic like me, it would be difficult to find just one noteworthy article or interview in any issue of P$W not begging for the sledgehammer.   Indeed, the magazine had proven to be an excellent source of grist.

In its latest issue, my attention was drawn to a photograph of an authoritarian-looking woman, glowing in self-contented grandeur—Mary Gannon, former associate director and director of content for the Academy of American Poets.  In the world of poetry, euphemism had a particularly foul odor.  What was a director of content, after all, if not a director of censorship, a Minerva-goddess gatekeeper?  As an example, the Academy censored (removed) my comments and essentially banned me from expressing my point of view on its publicly-funded website.  The term “censorship” seemed not to have lost its negative tinge, which explained the euphemisms, moderation and director of content. 

Today, Gannon was the new executive director of the Community of Literary Magazines and Presses (CLMP).  Prior to her stint at the Academy, she had been editorial director of… P&W and was (surprise!) married to its current editor-in-chief Kevin Larimer.  Had the interviewer, Cat Richardson, editor-in-chief of Bodega magazine (“Your literary corner store”), somehow presented an objective and critical interview or just another thinly-disguised promotional advertisement?  Imagine if Cat had posed a few tough (i.e., uncomfortable) questions.  Would Larimer have published her interview of his wife?  

So, keep it clean, Cat!  Keep it banal, Cat!  Keep it lit-as-usual, Cat!  And, of course, Cat had no problem at all doing that.  “What is CLMP’s most important role?” was the first question she asked Gannon, who responded:   

Our main role is to help raise the organizational capacity of literary magazines and presses and to support them in whatever way that they need. 

Now, what did “organizational capacity” mean?  Likely, it was corporate-speak for money potential.  CLMP’s website seemed to highlight money and presented CLMP as a publishing business, where membership fees, dues, and more dues form the key to its existence.  

CLMP offers membership to publishers in three categories: Full, Associate, and Chapbook/Zine Publisher.  What all CLMP publishers have in common is a focus on publishing literature and a commitment to doing so ethically.  



What did publishing literature “ethically” even mean?  Was it ethical to publish praise of ones wife?  Or was that a kind of unethical nepotism?  Was it ethical to criticize CLMP and its diverse literary apparatchiks, those self-appointed gatekeepers of ethics?  Was it ethical to buffer an organization spewing nebulous terms like “ethics” and “literary democracy,” as in “Support literary democracy donate to CLMP!”  But what was “literary democracy”?  Sounded nice!  But the reality—the reality of those like Gannon and Larimer—was of course not so nice and not so democratic, but rather undemocratic censorship, banning and ostracizing of those who dared go against the grain of the literary establishment.  It was one of support for poets and writers who chose literary careerism over freedom of expression.

Gannon not only looked like an executive apparatchik, but she talked like one:  “Intentional communication is a really valuable thing to help facilitate.”  Now, what did that mean?  Clearly, my critique was a concrete example of “intentional communication,” but would Gannon help facilitate it?  Would her husband publish it?  Oh, yeah, I forgot fees and dues.  



We want to continue to make those spaces on a national level for members to collaborate, leverage one another’s strengths, and work toward this higher goal of making sure that literature thrives.



In fact, everything Gannon said in Cat’s rather short interview demanded clarification, if not outright challenge.  Sadly, Cat failed royally in that endeavor.  What kind of literature did Gannon want to survive?  Smiley-face lit?  PC lit?  See-no-evil/hear-no-evil lit?  Hagiography lit like the kind her husband adored?  Certainly!  But what about lit that sledgehammered that kind of lit with hardcore, no-holds-barred, unapproved criticism?  Certainly not!  

Cat then posed question #2:  “What are the most significant needs of small presses and literary magazines right now?”  Before I examined the response, I contemplated a possible answer regarding the literary journal I published:  finding rare poets and writers who dared stand up and write against the academic/literary establishment, its icons and organizations… including CLMP.  Now, how did Gannon respond to the question?  Money, money, money?  Well, yes:  “distribution” and “fund-raising.”  Sure, distribution was nice, but I’d reached the point of not really giving a damn about it.  Truth telling.  That was the prime objective of my magazine, not getting on the shelves of Barnes & Nobles and all the libraries that knee-jerk rejected it.  That was certainly something that a businesswoman like Gannon likely could not grasp.  And how sad it was when business (corporate) mentalities took control of poetry and art.  I read through the blather, through her blather, the vacuous elation, and of course the obligatory terms “inclusive” and “diversity” eventually formed part of it. 



Having said that, it’s also a really exciting time for independent and small publishing, because in the wake of the conglomeration of big publishers, it has created space for innovative, dedicated people to put together these projects that connect writers with audiences and make sure that literature is inclusive.  Not to say that the big publishers aren’t also putting beautiful books and magazines into the world, but for a healthy ecosystem you need diversity. And I think that’s where the smaller publishers come into play. 

Now, how “inclusive” were the many magazines that advertised in P$W or in NewPages?  To find one, just one magazine open to a critical essay like this one would have been no less than miraculous!  Ah, but “inclusive” had become Orwellian Newspeak for exclusive, as in “seeking essays from women of all ages, races, and sexual orientations who have experienced bullying” (Anthology:  Relational Aggression in Females), “seeking personal essays from women of all ages” (Change of Life), “ inviting young, female-identified writers and artists” (Girls Right the World), “poetry by students currently enrolled in graduate or undergraduate programs worldwide” (Mistake House Magazine), “seeks submissions of well-groomed poetry” (The Ravens Perch), and “devoted to sharing the literary voice of black women” (Blackberry: A Magazine).  Inclusive? 

The real elephant in the room of “inclusivity” was not sex, age, or skin color, but rather harsh critique, the kind that the local chamber-of-commerce-tourist-industry-cultural-council-literary-festival complex (e.g., the Fine Arts Work Center of Provincetown) could not bear.  Now, if indeed “you need diversity” for a “healthy ecosystem,” then why was hard-core criticism not part of it?  Evidently, the reason was that the lit milieu was one of ubiquitous thin skin and, especially, rampant backslapping and self-congratulating, the kind P$W advertised ad nauseam… 

Casey Hill NewPages

Literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor. 

          —Chief Justice William O. Douglas

..................................................

......................................

Cartoon sketched in 2006.  It is shameful that NewPages.com refuses to list The American Dissident, a 501c3 nonprofit journal of literature, democracy, and dissidence created in 1998 to push back against academic corruption, with the many other literary magazines listed.  Denise Hill and Casey Hill have no backbone at all.  They canNOT bear criticism.  They are like the bulk of thin-skinned poets and professors and journalists today.  Sadly, they are incapable of comprehending the above statement by Justice William O. Douglas.  Sadly, they cannot comprehend the following two statements either.

The selector begins, ideally, with a presumption in favor of liberty of thought; the censor does not. The aim of the selector is to promote reading not to inhibit it; to multiply the points of view which will find expression, not limit them; to be a channel for communication, not a bar against it.
           —Lester Asheim, “Not Censorship but Selection” (Wilson Library Bulletin, 1953)

All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of all censorships. There is the whole case against censorships in a nutshell. 

           —George Bernard Shaw