|
In the Samizdat Tradition of Writing against the Machine |
|
Critical Reviews of
The American Dissident
In antipodes, reviews appearing in The American Dissident tend to be negative and serve as a counterweight to the hyperbolic reviewers run amok in the nation like smiley-faced rats in 15th century cargo ships. At times, perhaps often, these rats are friends of the writers and editors they review. At times, those reviewed end up writing glowing reviews for those who wrote glowing reviews for them. With hesitation, thus, the editor includes all the reviews of The American Dissident. What spurred me to put them up on this site was a conversation with a local librarian (Westford, MA), who informed me her library only considered subscribing to journals that had been reviewed. It should also be noted that a number of reviewers have simply refused to review The American Dissident because of its critical stance. Below are reviews effected by The Review Review, Counterpoise, Zine World, and The Midwest Book Review. It should also be noted that now that The American Dissident has been reviewed, the local librarian mentioned above will still not subscribe. She mentioned a review by Library Journal would be best. Yet that journal refuses to review The American Dissident and will not even respond to my queries.
The Review Review Becky Tuch’s December 2010 review of Issue #20 of The American Dissident follows and also appears on Tuch's site (www.thereview review.net/reviews/politics-poetry-propaganda). My truncated response follows (the original was posted on Tuch’s site).
Politics, Poetry, Propaganda Review of The American Dissident, Winter 2010, by Becky Tuch 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?
Warning: Offensive,
Offensive, Offensive!
First, quote Wendy Kaminer, though she ain’t gonna get Tuch to think, nor for that matter will I. “Condemning it as ‘hate speech’ is a mindless, reflexive way of saying you're offended or simply that you disagree; and when you label speech hateful, you justify, or even demand, its censorship.” Replace “hate” and “hateful” here with “offensive,” Tuch’s term of predilection. Interestingly, Tuch contacted me 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
"Great work!” Yes, I like that. But Tuch begins her review on a thinly-veiled negative phrase: “G. Tod Slone has a bone to pick.” Yet could a thinking citizen actually not have a “bone to pick,” given the intrinsically corrupt nature of our society? Only a non-thinker or perhaps thinking ladder climber, who’s learned the fine art of turning a blind eye and muzzling herself, would not have a “bone to pick.”
“Nor
do I find much of the poetry particularly moving,” notes Tuch. “In some cases, the politics offended me,” she notes. As I tell my university students, include an example or two to back such vague statements. I also tell them to buck up and not be so easily offended! What precise politics were so offensive? Tuch would not inform me. “In other cases, it was grammar mistakes and/or spelling errors which offended,” she states. 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. Her implication is botched reportage. In fact, she misspelled my name several times. Should I therefore be offended and conclude that her reviews are riddled with offensive spelling errors? “Is the best way to combat political corruption by standing alone?” she notes regarding her belief that that’s my belief. Yet never do I state such a thing… anywhere. On the contrary, the best way is likely in a group and via compromise and that means compromising 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 alone way, evidently my 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. Speaking the truth as I see it, as opposed to how Tuch would like 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 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. “Thus while the journal seeks to celebrate ‘literature, democracy and dissidence’ it often reads as little more than libertarian propaganda,” writes Tuch. “Or, in some cases, right-wing diatribe.” She of course fails to present a precise example of “libertarian propaganda.” But, well, sure, I’m libertarian! I’m for LIBERTY! She’s for PC DOGMA. No thanks, baby! Her one example of “right-wing diatribe” is not clear. Of course, one would have to ask what her definition of right-wing might be? Does she 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? Her accusation only serves to divert attention from truth. It would be pertinent if she underscored a precise example of a LIE appearing 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 neocon or radical left. The question is not whether or not I RAGE or BLUDGEON. Criticize the left, and it 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. After all, I detest the corporations Obama snuggles with, the wars Obama wages, and the lack of transparency Obama surrounds himself in (thanks Wikileaks!). I also detested those things when they involved Bush. I’ve never voted for a Democrat or Republican in my life. I did vote for Ralph Nader. Is he now viewed as a right-winger because he upset Gore? I wouldn’t be at all surprised. Also, 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 Tuch right-wing, since, if she favors illegal immigration, she must also favor the corporate-feeding frenzy. Ideologues can never reason with clarity. Am I automatically racist because I criticize Obama? Is that how Tuch thinks? Wasn’t her remark on “alienated white people” a racist remark against whites? She writes as if the Republican Party had no black members at all! Is it right-wing to note that the death of Teddy 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? Tuch used the PC-leftist mantra “offensive” three times in her review. Should I conclude therefore that she is a PC leftist? Can a few spelling errors actually “offend” her? What did her mother teach her? 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 unecological jets, while parading around as greenoids. Tuch notes that “narrow-minded racial remarks” are present in The American Dissident, as if the journal were a racist review. But I do not publish racial negativity… unless TRUTH. Besides, what precisely are those remarks? Tuch would not stipulate. She simply wished to truncate debate, cornerstone of democracy. Her final email is the following. She addresses only one point noted in this review: her spelling error. I don’t think she understood why I even evoked it. I did not bother responding to email. I know a brick wall when I bludgeon one.
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
Yes, take care…
Counterpoise for Social
Responsibilities, Liberty, and Dissent
(2007). For
Counterpoise front-cover interview with the editor, see
Interviews.
(Double click on the squares
for larger, readable text)
Zine World (2007) The American Dissident #14: "A Literary Journal of Critical Thinking." Tod has an axe to grind, ever since he was banned by court order from Fitchburg State College. He calls for submissions "on the edge with a dash of risk, and stemming from personal experience, involvement, and/or personal conflict with power." When he doesn't get the hard-hitting essays he asks for, he bellies up to the keyboard himself. American Dissident is an exceptional collection of literary grade poetry, with some comics and prose mixed in. Paperback bound booklet. G. Tod Slone, 1837 Main St., Concord MA 01742, www.theamericandissident.org, todslone@yahoo.com [$8, $16 for 2 56S 1:00] –Jack
The Midwest Book Review (2005) www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9111754_ITM.
The
American Dissident: a semi annual Literary Journal
Laurel Johnson
[See also the MBR interview]
|
