Those who begin coercive
elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters.
Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only a unanimity at the
graveyard.
—Chief Justice Robert H. Jackson
Casey
and Denise Hill, editors of
NewPages.com, are as unoriginal as it gets: they are ardent
proponents of literary censorship... in the name of "good taste." And, no
doubt they're content to join the ranks of other experts in "good taste,"
including the likes of Hitler and, of course, Stalin and the Soviet Writers
Union. They're also proud holders of the hackneyed-American belief that
quantity automatically determines quality. In other words, since their site
receives far more "hits" than this site, they are automatically far better.
Unfortunately, corrupted reasoning will not permit them to carry through with
the logic and conclude Paris Hilton's site must therefore be far better than
theirs. The following is the correspondence initiated by my requesting NewPages.com list The American Dissident. A copy of the journal was
sent.
From: "New
Pages" <newpagesonline@hotmail.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:22:40 +0000
Thanks for the note. We like to see a copy of the magazines we list in our
Guide. Please send the current issue to:
NewPages
PO Box 1580
Bay City, MI 48706
Casey Hill
From: "Denise Hill" <newpagesdenise@hotmail.com>
To: todslone@yahoo.com
Subj: www.theamericandissident.org
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:23:53 +0000
George-Thank you for your interest in New Pages. I'm sorry to say I'm not sure
what constitutes "quite a while ago" from what you said in your letter - I can
tell you we do get backed up on books and listing them on New and Noteworthy
because we receive so many of them. It can sometimes take up to 3 months for a
book we receive to be listed there, if it is selected for listing at all. The
publisher makes that decision and then I post the blurbs on New and Noteworthy
based on what he has given me. If the book is not selected for post, it may not
have met the criteria for the site, which is explained on our FAQ page.
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
To: "Denise Hill" <newpagesdenise@hotmail.com>
Subj: www.theamericandissident.org
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Thanks for the response. So, it might have been rejected and I'll never know the reason why? Sounds very academic... ivory tower too me.
While I'm at it, it also sounds very undemocratic and unAmerican.
From: "Casey Hill" <chill@newpages.com>
To: todslone@yahoo.com
CC: newpages@newpages.com
Subj: www.theamericandissident.org
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:10:12 -0400
Dear Professor Slone.
Denise forwarded your e to me. "Academic... ivory tower." Feel free to
save this lame sort of name-calling in the future. No wait, there will be no
future correspondence (see below). Denise thought you were inquiring about
a book. Thus her response about the long lag time before books arriving and
getting noted. Then we realized it was a magazine you had sent. We get a lot of
magazines in for review here. I do an initial sorting of those that appear worth
the time to pass on to reviewers, and those that do not. Yours most likely fell
into the "do not" pile. I'm not sure as I don't really remember seeing it. It's
just my "academic" guess. It's just the way it goes, Professor. Feel free
to continue sending review copies of new issues. Now that I've heard from you,
maybe I'll run the next issue by a couple of reviewers to see what they think.
If they don't like it, we don't review it. We don't believe in posting negative
reviews just for the joy of it. We want to recommend worthwhile mags to our
readers. I'm guessing you don't agree with our choices, but such is life. We
will not engage in any further emails with you.
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
To: "Casey Hill" <chill@newpages.com>
Subj: www.theamericandissident.org
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Dear Herd Member of the Academic/Literary Industrial Complex, Casey Heil... or
is that Hill, Furher of New Pages: Lame? Lame is running away from challenge.
You run like a frightened poodle. Didn't your mommy ever teach you: sticks and
stones will break my bones, but names will never harm me? No. She taught you:
be offended and seek refuge in the unchallenging comfort of like high-brow
minds. You cannot dialogue like most of those academic and unoriginal lit mag
editors you advertise on your site, each proclaiming itself original and cutting
edge. You and they are a sad joke on the citizenry... on students of English
literature. If you receive money from the taxpayer- funded NEA, you ought to be
held to keep your ivory-tower doors open.. to everyone. Yet anything exterior
to your orthodox mindset automaton-ously becomes highly upsetting for you such
that you must close the doors to discourse (the very agora of ideas)... like a
feeble child. What you seek to do is shameful. By the way, I've had contact
with scores and scores of your ilk... you never cease to disgust me. Your total
incuriosity and febrility never cease to amaze me. Well, New Pages (this
correspondance) will be up on The American
Dissident website shortly. No need to thank me for the link.
Unlike you, I am always open to discourse. Below is a poem I wrote for you and
your ilk.
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
To: "Casey Hill" <chill@newpages.com>
Subj: NEW PAGES: This Month's Cartoon Feature http://www.theamericandissident.org/LitToon.htm
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:27:06 -0800 (PST)
The American Dissident is proud to announce that NEW PAGES.COM is the subject of
this month's Literary Rogue's cartoon feature. BTW, If you choose to comment, I
will post your comment for unlike you I fear not criticism.
From: "Casey Hill" <chill@newpages.com>
To: todslone@yahoo.com
CC: newpages@newpages.com
Subj: He or she who fears criticism will NEVER IMPROVE.
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:33:46 -0500
George. (Or is it Gee Tod?) Stop being such a dork. We don't fear criticism.
When did this ever become about that? Clearly, only in your mind. You obviously
thrive on this image you have of yourself as a) a good writer, and b) a
dissident. (You really cheapen the image I have when I read the word "dissident"
by the way. Would American Pisser and Moaner be a little more accurate?) So I
had no intentions of replying to you. But Denise insisted. Are you suggesting
that *any* criticism from *anyone* will help someone improve? I know you get a
kick out of people writing back to you. Then you get to write back again at
greater length, throw out more of your "un-American" "ivory tower" "censor"
crap. And then you get to post it on your site. And that is about the only way
your writing gets posted on the web. And the small group of your friends will
read it and think you are so clever. We had a group like that come to our door
last night. But Denise tossed a bit of candy into the pillow cases they were
carrying and they said "thank-you" and went away.
We have a bit left over from
Halloween yesterday. If we send it to you, will *you* go away? (Thought not.)
Denise LOVES the
cartoon. Absolutely thrilled with it. We'll be printing it out, framing it, and
hanging it up here at NewPages World Headquarters. If the spirits move you, feel
free to send us a signed print. We're showing our friends. Hell, if we were to
link to it in NewPages.com (which we will not do) you would no doubt get more
hits than your site normally receives in any other month. We have several lit
mags that tell us that after Google and Yahoo, NewPages.com sends more hits to
their site than any other website. That is really what we love to do: send
readers to
websites of quality literary and alternative magazines and presses.
And we've done that over 500,000 times this year. What would you have us do,
George? List every publication? No criteria? No method to our madness? You want
lists that include links to thousands of mags -- well, you are in luck. There
are several. Go spend some time at them. Count the dead links. Count the
websites that come up where the mag hasn't posted anything new in years. Count
the sites that are full of pop-up ads. Count the sites that are just plain
badly designed (I'm sure you
can identify with those).
Then come back
and check out the NewPages Guide to Literary Magazines -Complete Listings. You
tell me which great lit mags we don't list. Maybe they haven't contacted us.
Maybe I just haven't found them. But you give me the names, Gee Tod, and I'll
look at their sites, ask for a sample, and make a decision. In the grand
scheme of things, every mention of NewPages.com on the web contributes in some
small way to our overall page ranking with the major search engines, so thanks
for that too, eh? Because when people find NewPages.com, they'll find links to
the best lit mags being published today. From larger university-based mags to
small, totally independent literary publications. It's what we do. We are a
"filter," although you clearly have more fun with the word "censor." Ha! It is
because we do a good job at filtering that amateur magazines like American
Dissident aren't listed. There are plenty of other places to list your mag. No
wait. It appears that there aren't that many places willing to link to you. (I
just looked at your reciprocal linkpage. A bit underwhelmingly skimpy, and
by the way: you've got some dead links in the short list.) George, look. This
has been fun. I've really wasted a huge chunk of time writing to you, but I can
always blame Denise now. Thanks again for the cartoon. We will get many smiles
out of it. As the toad says: We will not engage in further discourse with you.
I'm sure I could get more pleasure by going outside, finding a big branch that
has fallen & beating myself over the head with it.
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
To: "Casey Hill" <chill@newpages.com>
Subj: RE: He or she who fears criticism will NEVER IMPROVE.
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 09:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Woe to him seeks to please
rather than appall.
—Herman
Melville
Dear Denise and Casey: Thank you for responding. Let Denise stand up as
her own person, rather than as your shadow. The truth is YOU DO CENSOR. You
just call censoring “filtering,” which is the kind of euphemism politicians and
businessmen tend to appreciate as in “spin” and “mismanagement” for “lies.” You
decide which lit journals appear and which lit journals do not appear on your
mega-hit site listing. You should make that clear up front. Why get so uptight
when someone simply states the facts… that you, for example, act as literary
censors. You help determine what lit journals will be given voice the agora of
ideas and literature. Are you ashamed of your role as lit censors? If so, why
do you do it? You write: “We are a ‘filter,’ although you clearly have more
fun with the word ‘censor.’” Yes, and I’m sure I won’t be the only one to get a
chuckle out of that sentence! But how sad and piteous the word “filter.” It
brings to mind the new internet programs that enable parents to “filter” out and
otherwise keep their children from growing up. Thanks to your “filter,” the
(adult) children will only be exposed to smiley-faced PG lit journals. Well,
that would have made a good cartoon too, n’est-ce pas?! You write that you (as
GRAND CENSORS OF QUALITY) will only list “websites of quality literary and
alternative magazines and presses.” Talk about egomania! What are your
qualifications? What makes you qualified to make such determinations? Do you
have a B.A. in business or marketing maybe? What is sad is that the lot of
academic lit editors you list on your site probably don’t even have the sense to
ask such a question. You write: “Count the sites that are just plain badly
designed (I'm sure you can identify with those).” Provide at least one example
of poor design on my site… otherwise your critique is meaningless. What makes
your design better than mine. Besides “design” is but a superficial element.
Compare substance instead! Your site is merely a listing. The site of The
American Dissident is so much more than that—it questions and challenges the
establishment order, the listings et al, while yours simply serves that order.
BTW, try employing a little logic and fact in your argumentation, rather than
immature ridiculing of a person’s name (e.g. , “Gee Tod”) and facile and
meaningless name-calling (e.g., “dork,” “American Pisser and Moaner”) which only
indicate that you have no argument at all. How sad your ilk seems always to
dismiss unapprouved critics (i.e., critics who refuse to toady to the
establishment-order literati machine) as “moaners” and similar unoriginal
epithets. How sad for democracy and how sad for literature… for the unapprouved
critics are the only ones who are going to tell it as it is… and by doing so the
only ones who might effect change directly or indirectly. My comment on your
being fearful of criticism is based on the fact of your knee-jerk reaction to my
suggestion that NewPages.com was censoring and not being democratic. In fact,
NewPages seems more like the same OLD—backslapping and
self-congratulating—PAGES. Yes, I did put that fear of censorship remark in the
subject line of my email to tempt you to respond, for normally your ilk never
does respond because people like you would much rather engage in rampant
backslapping and self-congratulating and otherwise continue life in the ho-hum,
comfy, high-brow lit cocoon. You write falsely: “And that is about the
only way your writing gets posted on the web.” Here’s a couple of examples
(hopefully, you will not remove Rattle from your list for having included my
writing):
www.rattle.com/ereviews.php?id=ereviews/bestamericanpoetry2006.html
and
http://ulabookreview.blogspot.com.
Just the same, it is very difficult to interest literati with websites because
my verb is harsh and does not toady. You attempt to write denigratingly but it
comes off as nothing but childish: “We have a bit left over from Halloween
yesterday. If we send it to you, will *you* go away? (Thought not.)” Literary
forums should be open, not closed to those whose opinions you, as GRAND CENSORS,
do not like… yet that’s how you and your ubiquitous ilk prefer it. Your modus
operandi is undemocratic and harmful to democracy and literature. It is the kind
of orthodoxy I fully detest… the kind that has become rampant in America ’s
institutions of higher education today. You write with American-inculcated
ignorance regarding size and popularity: “[if we listed you] you would no doubt
get more hits than your site normally receives in any other month.” I am not
surprised that you seem to equate quantity and popularity with excellence. My
goal unlike yours is not to enhance the number of “hits” and therefore the
number of advertising dollars. My goal is to question and challenge you and
yours. You write: “every mention of NewPages.com on the web contributes in
some small way to our overall page ranking with the major search engines, so
thanks for that too, eh?” Again, it seems odd to me that anyone with a
questioning and challenging mind would equate quantity with quality. If
anything, one would think the opposite. Besides, literature ought not be a
business, yet that’s how you and so many other business-types want to view and
make it. And indeed you and they have been increasingly successful in that
endeavor. Hopefully, though doubtfully, posterity will look upon you with scorn.
Your letter will appear in the next issue of The American Dissident because it
illustrates precisely who you are and how you are participating in the abasement
of literature today in America , which one day will probably consist only of…
the filtered version. You write: “It is because we do a good job at filtering
that amateur magazines like American Dissident aren't listed.” Yes, indeed…
[No further response was received]
ALL MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS COPYRIGHT ©G. Tod
Slone, 2008, The American Dissident
www.theamericandissident.org.
