Often, an ad hominem insinuates that there is a connection between the character traits of a person and the ideas or arguments that the person is putting forward; it is an attempt to discredit a proposition by discrediting the person who articulates it.  It involves pointing out characteristics of the person being attacked that the audience, real or assumed, will tend to perceive negatively, and then concluding that because of these negative traits, the person's arguments and ideas, especially those which were the object of discussion, are also toxic. [...]  When an ad hominem is committed, this pertinent link [between the person and his ideas] does not exist. 

This page is devoted to critics of The American Dissident and the editor (scroll down).  Nearly all of the criticism received has been ad hominem (shoot-the-messenger-to-avoid-the-message non-argument).  Sadly, such rhetoric is commonly used by academics and poets too intellectually lazy or incompetent to counter-argue with convincing logic.  In fact, it is so common that one ought to be disturbed by the trend.  Below are only a few of the many instances incurred with my regard.  So, who is the angry one "full of venom"?  Not I, my friends, not I!  For I am simply a truth teller, one who openly argues against a society where backslapping, flattery, networking, and collegiality have all but replaced truth.

Very few literary journals publish negative critique. Instead, they tend to publish self-congratulating commentary. Below is a sampling of such critique received from educated poets, editors, academics, etc.  Perhaps it is the shock of sudden, unexpected, and inhabitual criticism that deadens their reasoning.  By the way, the editor has never stated nor implied that he is a revolutionary, great writer, or brilliant poet.  It is amazing the things people will say when one simply stands up and speaks his mind.  As for egotistical, any writer who puts up a website, publishes a literary journal, or sends out his or her writing could easily be accused of it.  That epithet is as vacuous as the rest. 

Because the editor dares choose to question and challenge the established-order milieu in much of his writing, those who do not question and challenge it, and in that sense form part of it, often take offense and reply not with logic and fact, but rather with vacuous ad hominem rhetoric, as if somehow that made them better.  Each of the persons listed below was informed of his or her use of ad hominem and challenged to find one point the editor had made and counter it, not with typical empty-headed ad hominem but with logical argumentation and fact.  Unfortunately, each refused to do what the editor suggested.  BTW, the editor has taken the liberty to broaden the definition of ad hominem to include calling the argument itself names, as in "rant."   Note also that he tends to create from negative feedback such that some of the individuals listed below actually inspired poems.  A few examples of the poems are included after the ad hominem commentaries.  Finally, one might easily fall into the trap of thinking that if so many people have thus dissed the editor, then maybe they're right.  But cite Henrik Ibsen (“An Enemy of the People”):  "The majority never has right on its side.  Never, I say!  That is one of these social lies against which an independent, intelligent man must wage war.  Who is it that constitute the majority population of a country?  Is it the clever folk or the stupid?  I don’t imagine you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over."  The following will be augmented periodically.

Quit spamming us, you loser. (10/20/08)

You're a dullard who imposes himself unwanted on strangers.  (10/21/08

          —Professor William Nelles, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

do you really think that insulting and reviling the faculty is the way to persuade us to read your publication? (10/16/08)
          —Professor JT Skerrett, Jr., University of Massachusetts, Amherst

you give dissidents a bad name, asshole. (10/08/08
          —Poetry Bay, An Online Poetry Magazine for the 21^st Century 

untalented writer
retard
retarded douche bag
            —Justin Evans, Nevada college instructor (see utahpoet.blogspot.com/2007/07/tod-slone-retard-you-be-judge.html)

We searched and searched but couldn't find any actual work in your work. Just anger
We don't do rants, which is what your piece reads like to me.  It's really self-involved and paranoid
self-indulgence
juvenile
You are hysterical

megalomaniacal ranter
George "Skippy" Slone

            —Joel Whitney, MFA co-editor of Guernica Magazine (regarding my essay critical of the NEA)
 
But call yourself a nihilist, not a rebel or devil's advocate or outsider or whatever else. It's hard to work with a nihilist; a curmudgeon or skeptic is one thing; but a nihilist ends up tearing down even the thing he's "working for." You're just not going to get a lot of people to get on board with the kind of bashing you're inclined to give...
I'm not really sure what you're complaining about, all said and done. I mean, why would someone invite another person into his house if he knows that the person's mission is to trash the place?

            —John Amen, editor of Pedestal magazine
..................................................................................................................

GET OVER YOURSELF!
Pretty paranoid stuff...

"Muddled controversialist" would perhaps be more appropriate, given your general outlook on your fellow literati and academics.
          —Bradley Buchanan

The following is a critical blog entry regarding The American Dissident created by Bradley Buchanan, "amateur gerontologist" with a PhD from Stanford.  It was created because of my rejection of Bradley's rather banal anti-Bush and anti-war poems.  I receive tons of such poetry.  Too bad Bradley did not inform me of the blog's existence and invite me to respond.  Evidently, he's lacking in the courage department.  Despite his PhD, he is entirely incapable of grasping the focus and guidelines of The American Dissident and of understanding that his so-called "work" was rejected not because "the whole point of the journal [is] to reject work by poets who make a living as teachers, and who manage to find things outside the "academic/literary industrial complex" that are politically relevant."  First, I have and do publish professors and teachers.  Second, I would have published poems from Bradley on the war in Iraq if he had been in Iraq.  The journal seeks, as the guidelines clearly stipulate, writing "stemming from EXPERIENCE, CONFLICT WITH POWER, and/or INVOLVEMENT."  How can a PhD from Stanford not comprehend that simple statement?  Bradley was also utterly confused by the guidelines request that he include a "cover letter containing not credits, but rather personal dissident information and specific events that may have pushed you to reject indoctrination..."  Bradley sent a hackneyed list of publication credits.  "Pretty paranoid stuff, I think you'll agree," he argues with regards indoctrination.  Indeed, how could an established-order indoctrinee possibly fathom that request?  Why, one must wonder, did he even submit poetry to a journal like The American Dissident?  Publishing credits!  Ugh.  Bradley's the kind of fellow who wouldn't even hold an anti-war sign in public, but would quickly write an antiwar poem to hopefully get it published in an antiwar anthology like the one published by Copper Canyon Press. I wrote Bradley the following email.  He never did respond. 

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

Date:  Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:03:42 -0700 (PDT)

From:  "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>  

B,
My experience has underscored the impossibility of trying to make someone who never takes risks understand the concept of risk taking.  Thus, I should avoid trying to explain it to you.  That would be futile and end up in puerile riposte, as in your implication that I believe that all poetry must risk or it is bad poetry, something I of course have never stated.  It is your inherent need to belittle me in order to avoid the concept, which is of course the very reason for ad hominem.  The parrhesiastes concept of risk, once upon time in Ancient Greece, was in fact revered.  Evidently, in America , where so many poets live the buffered comfy collegial life of absence of conflict, like you I suspect, the herd tends to deride it as you seek to do. 

The AD simply seeks to publish poems that risk, as opposed to Agni, for example, that seeks to publish poems that do not risk.  Of course, I write many poems that do not risk, but do not publish them in The AD.  Again, it is futile for me to tell you these things because you are compelled to deride no matter what information you may or may not receive.   

T.

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

Bradley's blog entry follows:

Thursday, February 01, 2007 http://miracleshirker.blogspot.com/2007/02/american-dissidence.html]  

American Dissidence?

I got an interesting rejection notice in the mail last week, and I thought I'd share it with whoever chances upon this blog. I'd sent a few moderately political poems about Iraq, the President etc. to a magazine called "The American Dissident" run by a gentleman called G. Tod Slone. Here's what he wrote back to me:

"As a poet (untenured!) myself, I hate to tell you this—or maybe actually I love it—but your cover letter listing your miraculous publications credits + your poems mirror many other professional submissions I've received. In other words, it is an easy thing to criticize afar, while a RISKY and tough thing to criticize near as in the English Department [...] Capiche? Dwell, reflect, the try me again if you have any COURAGE. Careerism vs Truth and Real Excellence!
Best, G. Tod"

After getting this remarkably self-congratulatory missive, I revisited the submission guidelines for "The American Dissident," and found that the journal is intended, to "amongst other things, provide a forum for examing [sic] the dark side of the academic/literary industrial complex".  Well, I thought, no wonder he is so delighted to have the opportunity to reject my work! That's the whole point of the journal, it would appear—to reject work by poets who make a living as teachers, and who manage to find things outside the "academic/literary industrial complex" that are politically relevant. I just wonder what "other things" Mr. Slone wants his supposedly "engaged" publication to deal with, besides his personal grudge against the academy he no doubt feels has somehow snubbed him. My big mistake, clearly was in overlooking his (entirely reasonable if somewhat peculiar) demand that poets who submit to his journal should include a "cover letter containing not credits, but rather personal dissident information and specific events that may have pushed you to reject indoctrination..." By indoctrination, he seems to mean higher education, since for him the "academic/literary industrial complex" apparently acts as "Ministry of Information and Entertainment for the nation's ruling families, Republican and Democrat, white black and Hispanic." Pretty paranoid stuff, I think you'll agree, and possibly motivated by the fact that (as the flier he included with his note complains) "The NEA, NEH and Massachusetts Cultural Council have all refused to accord the American Dissident grants." Sad, no doubt, but sadder to see another self-professed poetry lover confuse official rejection with political relevance or artistic integrity. My advice to Mr Slone, should I write back to him (I'm still debating that) would be (and I borrow his majestic all caps): "GET OVER YOURSELF!"

Nevertheless, I was moved to read over the enclosed flier touting the journal's agenda and immediately composed a haiku using some of Mr. Slone's favorite epithets:

Happy-faced fascists
hogging the copy machine;
God, I'm radical!

That seemed like a rather thin poetic offering for this month's blog, though, so I'll tack on another Iraq poem, sort of a sequel to last month's offering. I'm not sure if it has COURAGE or not, but here goes.

Saddam Hussein at the Gallows



I approve of the noose you placed around my neck.

It has long been anticipated.

I approve of the trial you offered me,

where I could match your lies with mine,

where I could shout, “Long live the nation!”
and “God is great!” as you read out my sentence.

I approve of the fact that you captured me,

and I offered no resistance.

I approve of the speed with which you convinced

yourselves that you had defeated me,

and then forgot the power I will possess in death.


Everything you thought were my mistakes

were moves in a much greater game

than you could possibly understand.


You will notice that I am the only one

on this platform without a mask.

Everything has been explained to me;

I will stand where you want me to stand

and test the strength of your rope with my weight.

If it holds—and why should it not?

I trust you are not quite incompetent—

I will die in the manner I would have chosen

for myself some time ago, if given the chance.



Perhaps my approval will give you pause,

and make you question your vengeful ways,

but do not stop the procedure now;

I would be less prepared to go with each interruption,

each show of human decency,

and I might even begin to pity
those who are doomed to execute me,

and that would scarcely befit a man

such as you have made me, such as I will become.

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

You, however, seem to purposely avoid this civil tone in your writing.
Their tone [i.e., of the essays submitted to Alehouse] comes off like a petulant child determined to embarrass her parents in public.
Then there’s the problem of all your self-centered anecdotes. 
you’ve turned it into a personal rant. 
Perhaps it’s not the language at all that’s rude.  Perhaps it’s the arrogant tone that resorts to exaggerated name-calling. 
I found some of your responses to other editors are very rude and offensive.
While you are certainly rude in your discussions -- i.e., socially incorrect in behavior, lacking civility or good manners, characterized by simplicity and (often) crudeness, and lacking in refinement or grace -- and proudly so, it's no wonder you've never made tenure. 
Your writing isn't very good. 
your poor critical thinking skills.
But for my journal, my aesthetic inevitably shines through.
Get a life.  Get out of mine.
            —Jay Rubin, Alehouse Press editor and tenured college professor, Pomona College, March 2007
 

But the "egregious contradictions" you stand by aren't even contradictions, nevermind "egregious."

This is just more sloppy hyperbole on your part.

Have you carved out a nice little niche for yourself as a crank...

While you may be wrong a lot of the time, you certainly seem sincere.
But it seems you've let your bitterness cloud your logic. 
I'm sad that you're so venemous [sic] and illogical in your assaults.  Yes, assaults, not critiques. 
George, trust me on this, buddy, most people would react the same way.  I'm not AFRAID of you.
I would appreciate no more contact from you, especially if it's the kind of groundless, border-line violent hate mail you sent me last time.
            —Jonathan Andersen, tenured high school teacher, February 2007

Your published correspondence with editors and the like just makes you look petulant.
Your defense of your own greatness absolutely diminishes your critique [...] and just makes it all seem self-serving.
You have confused the revolution with your own ego gratification.
I think most of your writing is just embarrassing and sad
            —Jim Hannon, college professor, 7/06 (N.B.:  Hannon approached me, noting how much he loved reading The American Dissident in the Concord Free Public Library... and sent me a submission.  I published one of his poems.  He then went apeshit because I mentioned in his bio that he taught at Anna Maria College in Massachusetts.  His great fear was that someone at that college would read his poem.  Academics are such a cowering lot!  I know.  I've worked with them for over 20 years.)

Your pandering and self-promotion [...]  This bantering outside of closed windows to neighbors who wish you would move away [...] You smell of someone who burns bridges faster than you can light the matches and it is a shame.
          —John Thompson, Mgr. Ed., Midnight Mind, 7/03

Can you send something less strident in tone?
          —Garrick Davis, Ed., Contemporary Poetry Review, 7/03

More to come!!!!!!!!

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

Poems Inspired by Those Who Prefer Argument by Ad Hominem

A Poem for the Edification of Lit Cogs

Intellectually I sharpen from constant collision

with the established-order—its myriad components

and ubiquitous legions of abnegating proponents.

“I agree with much of what you're saying,” wrote

one such editor,* who then proceeded to argue

that what I was saying was actually

“rant” and “sour grapes.”

But how could an intelligent person agree with that,

I wondered, bringing it to his attention, though in vain;

besides, why should the literary agora be open only

to sweet grapes?

“But if your tone is anything like your tone here, I

wouldn't be interested in it,” he stated with regards

another critical proposal of mine.

Thus, my approach was off, my tone wrong, and

of course my taste not in good taste at all.

But was Villon’s verse written in the right tone or

Solzhenitsyn’s prose or Bukowski’s or how about

Thomas Paine’s?  Was his written in good taste? 

But to that, the constituent simply closed the debate

with a curt “good luck with the browbeating.”

The logic dies, as all too often it does

                                                with

                                                            diehards.

…………………………………………………………

*C.L. Bledsoe, editor of Ghoti Magazine

Poem #2 for the Edification of Lit Cogs

An editor wrote that my “general frustration with

some of the ‘norms’ and ‘protocols’ of the literary

world were well-founded and needed

to be expressed”* and

that he was “really drawn” to my writing. 

“I must say.  I actually agree with a lot

of what

you say.” 

Three months later I wrote him a reminder, asking

if he were still drawn to what I had to say and would

consider publishing something of what I had to say.

But in an unsurprising about face, he responded

“I'm not wanting to out and out burn bridges because,

well we’re a writer-friendly publication.”

Yet how, I wondered, had the prime concern of

literary publishers, apart from excellence—

oh, but of course!—

become apprehension of burning bridges, while

“writer friendly” equated with truth avoidance?

Had the Janus-faced politician turned role model? 

“But I do want to take on (more) controversial issues,

and I do want to give voice to ‘unpopular’ views,”

he proudly declared, as if fence straddling had been

                        elevated to one of the fine arts.

“Some degree of prudence is needed, but not to the

point of sacrificing authenticity and fairness.”

Would he, I wondered, be presenting himself one day

as candidate for the Congress or Senate? 

…………………………………………………………

*John Amen, Chief Editor of Pedestal Magazine

Oil of Vitriol

What a blessed world of snivelling nobodies we live in!  Oil of vitriol must be applied. 

            —Ralph Waldo Emerson 

Besides excellence—oh, but of course!—,

the editors often boast, in chorus, how open

they are

to style, theme, and subject matter. 

One of them, however, wrote with evident

scornful implication and close-mindedness to

my chosen theme, if not style, that there

            was a difference between

            vigorous debate and vitriol or slander.

Yet nobody had ever sued me for defamation;

while for the other denigration, a Chief Justice*

had argued convincingly that the First Amendment

was designed to invite dispute, induce a condition

of unrest, and even stir people to anger.

But unlike the First, that editor’s magazine was,

in the Chief’s own words, fashioned as a vehicle

for dispensing tranquillizers to the people.

……………………………………………………………………

*Chief Justice William O. Douglas also noted that the “prime function” of the

First “was to keep debate open to ‘offensive’ as well as to ‘staid’ people.”

In a Populace of Ad Hominids

(Inspired by Bradley Buchanan and Justin Evans)

When a citizen

actually manifests

the courage to

stand apart

from the herd

and overtly question

and challenge

what it dares not,

the herd will likely

pounce upon him

with ad hominem. 

Evidently, when one

stands up upon

ones hind legs,

one makes herd

ad hominids

look cowardly,

and

nobody likes to look

like a coward,

not even an ad hominid!