The American Dissident: Literature, Democracy & Dissidence


Contemporary Poetry Review—Free Speech in Peril

Literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor.
          —Chief Justice William O Douglas
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
 
Contemporary Poetry Review operates as one of many modern-day LITERARY CENSORING ORGANIZATIONS akin to the Catholic Church of yesteryear which put together the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Democracy continues its downward spiral thanks in part to the democracy-indifferent, censoring editor of CPR.

The following correspondence with Garrick Davis, editor of Contemporary Poetry Review, was undertaken because I'd sought to become one of Davis' paid associate poetry critics.  Like so many other editors (all of them?) of the bourgeois established order, Davis proved entirely closed to debate and discussion of ideas that questioned and challenged the literary establishment.  Clearly, he had great difficulty comprehending the simple concept I'd presented of poetry written ON THE EDGE, RISKING the wrath of established-order poets and power in general, and stemming from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT, and/or PERSONAL CONFLICT WITH POWER.   Indeed, most poets today cannot seem to comprehend what any of that means. 

Davis found the concept confusing because clearly it implicated him as a poet who would never stand on the edge, risk, and write from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT, and/or PERSONAL CONFLICT WITH POWER.  Davis is particularly reprehensible because he is the editor of a literary review that seeks the opinions of poet-critics, yet excludes those opinions that might challenge or otherwise threaten the literary establishment.

Contemporary Poetry Review is smugly satisfied in presenting an incomplete and otherwise corrupted vision of poetry criticism today.  Note Davis uses the term "STRIDENT" to reject writing that challenges the literary establishment.  Imagine interviewing the editor of Poetry magazine and not even mentioning the $100 million the magazine received from an Eli Lilly drug corporate heir.  Davis did that.  Finally, in my correspondence, you will note I am not impolite, unless of course you are of the opinion that challenging those in power necessarily constitutes impoliteness.
Subj: Poetry critic... of a different kind
Date: 7/1/03 7:46:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: editor@cprw.com CC: Enmarge
Dear Editor:
Please consider me for work as a poetry critic for Contemporary Poetry Review. I'm sure I would stand apart from all your other critics… and wouldn't it be nice to allot space to a really hardcore anti-poetry establishment critic? Do you remain completely independent of poetry publishers? That, of course, would be my first critique. I have been contemplating a new concept in poetry: RISK. Most poets seem to either hate the idea or simply cannot comprehend it… because they do not RISK. In fact, I have not yet received, as editor of The American Dissident, one submission that risked something on the part of the poet. If you'd like I'd be happy to send you an essay on the subject. In any case, there is not much of anything out there poetry-wise, in which I do not find fault. Perhaps only Villon's "Epitre a mes amis" and "Appel au Guichetier Garnier" would leave me speechless… or Jeffer's "Advice to Pilgrims" and "Quia Absurdum." My second Guest Editorial for Small Press Review just appeared this month. You might wish to take a gander. As for me, I have a doctorate from a French university, have taught college 14 years in the USA as gypsy professor and am perpetually unemployed because I believe in poetry that RISKS and speaks truth to power. After all, what good is a poet who bows and kowtows, and otherwise does not "go vital and upright, and speak the rude truth in all its ways" (Emerson)? Finally, I am a cartoonist and have drawn 100+ cartoons in English and French highly critical of poetry and poets. Would you eventually consider publishing my highly irreverent cartoons? I just finished one on Herr Stanley Fish. Well, true, he's an academic, not a poet… or is he? The following essay was published during April in Greensboro's News & Record. It will clearly give you an idea as to whom I am, as opposed to the typical CV of credentials most poets become. I'm not sure what to send you since I've written so much on the subject, including poems. In fact, why not critique in the form of poem? I'd be most happy to send you more essays. Hope to hear from you.
Best, G. Tod Slone, Ed.
Subj: Re: Poetry critic... of a different kind
Date: 7/3/03 1:58:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CPREVIEW
To: Enmarge Dear G. Tod Slone,
Thank you for your interest in reviewing for the CPR. Several points I should mention to you from the start: the CPR maintains a regular staff of contributors, so those who join are required to produce 3-6 articles per year. The CPR does not print short (400-1200 word) reviews generally, and we encourage rather long and considered pieces rather than the truncated micro-reviews which plague the little magazines. We also discourage academic jargon of any kind. As editor, I do not assign material--preferring critics to choose their subjects. All of this has contributed, in my opinion, to the success of the journal. What the CPR offers its critics is a large audience--the CPR is visited by over 700 readers each day. We also have a mirror site on one of the most popular literary websites in the world, Web del Sol. Finally, for each published review the author will receive $50. The CPR purchases first serial print rights, along with exclusive and perpetual rights to web/Internet publication. If you're still interested, please let me know. I have sent your writing samples to an associate editor, and I should hear from him in 1-2 weeks. Currently, we receive 10-15 applications each month and so our ability to respond thoughtfully to such requests has slowed considerably of late. I'm sure that you understand.
Regards, Garrick Davis Editor Contemporary Poetry Review
Subj: Re: Poetry critic... of a different kind
Date: 7/3/03 2:30:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: CPREVIEW CC: Enmarge
Dear Garrick Davis,
Thank you for your response. Yes, I am definitely still interested in reviewing for CPR. In total, I have written about 900 pages of essays and seven 250-page novels. So length would certainly not be a problem for me. Also, I do not tend to write in academic style at all.
Best, G. Tod Slone
Subj: from the CPR
Date: 7/22/03 4:39:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CPREVIEW
To: Enmarge
Dear G. Tod Slone,
Perhaps you could send along some of your other pieces---something less strident in tone?
Regards, Garrick Davis Editor Contemporary Poetry Review
Subj: Poetry critic of a different sort
Date: 7/23/03 2:10:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: CPREVIEW CC: Enmarge
Dear Garrick Davis:
I shall try to find something less "strident in tone," but am not sure that I have anything at all, for it is often visceral anger regarding some injustice, hypocrisy or obsequiousness to literary celebrity that tends to push me to write in the first place… and that ineluctably tends to set the tone. Just the same, I shall attach two essays, one on the Pulitzer, published by a British magazine, and the other on Poetry in America, published by Northwoods Review. Both would have to be updated and revised somewhat to be perfected. I have an excellent cartoon regarding the former, which I shall also attach. I have often received similar comments regarding my "tone" to the extent that I created a poem around the theme quite some time ago. See attached. As stated previously, I simply thought that it might add a new dimension to CPR if in fact you were to permit one of your many contributing reviewers to write in, an apparently highly unusual, "strident" tone. After all, poetry and criticism thereof ought to include non-strident as well as "strident" tones, n'est-ce pas? Too much civility will inevitably push mediocrity and serve to bury truth. The seeming automatic censorship of anything "strident" has become an important problem in American poetry and writing today, at least in my humble opinion. Did not the foremost literary critic of his time, Ralph Waldo Emerson, argue in favor of "strident" as opposed to non-strident tone by declaring in his most famous essay, "On Self-Reliance," that we ought "go vital and upright and speak the rude truth in all its ways"? Hmm. As my poem states, the tone IS the message IS the tone. I believe that that is the undeniable reality. In order to get published, I have attempted to diminish the tone by excluding four-letter words in my writing. Yet apparently that has not diminished the tone sufficiently. True, I have not excluded the naming of names. But did not Villon and Solzhenitsyn, amongst others, name names in their writing? Besides, the names I generally denounce tend to be celebrities who should be criticized and not simply praised ad infinitum. Voltaire understood more than most the stagnation of a forced ambiance of praise: "Les eloges ont un parfum que l'on reserve pour embaumer les morts." Note that the "strident in tone" essay I sent on poetry was published by the News & Record, the daily newspaper of conservative, Bible-belt Greensboro, North Carolina. Finally, I hope that you might discuss with your panel of decision-making readers the points I make here in this letter. I hope that you are open to such discussion. In a nutshell, it is more than evident that "strident in tone" or "wrong tone" has become a common euphemism for "rude truth" a la Emerson in matters of poetry and literature in general. An analysis of any college literary textbook would most probably support this point. The "tone" comment permits one to simply not address the issues evoked. It enables one to kill the messenger and ignore the message. It enables one to avoid debating issues that need to be debated. It enables one to turn off the brain and not even attempt to determine if in fact the message was truth or not.
Best, G. Tod Slone, Ed. The American Dissident www.geocities.com/enmarge
PS: I shall send the attachments separately.
Subj: From The American Dissident
Date: 7/24/03 11:14:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: CPREVIEW CC: Enmarge
Dear Garrick Davis:
I do hope that you do not think my response an act of war. It was not meant to be. It was simply meant to be a desperate attempt to open the closed doors or better yet widen the restricted agora. Some critics might favor poetry that exudes a clever use of rhyme or witty word play. I don't. And hopefully others might not either. I favor poetry that has something to say, something that might confirm a particular truth, one especially not in favor, not easily uttered. Who is to say what good poetry is or ought be? Should would we merely passively accept the dictates of ideological cocktail sippers with plenty of coterie friends to help them obtain prizes and grants? Or should we open the doors to contemplating perhaps the opinion of an unemployed loner somehow gifted with the ability to think with clarity through the literary shams and modes of the day?
Best, G. Tod Slone, Ed. The American Dissident www.geocities.com/enmarge
Subj: CPR
Date: 8/13/03 12:08:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CPREVIEW
To: Enmarge Dear G. Tod Slone,
Could you send me your additional writing samples in the boday of an email, rather than as attached files? As for your email, "war" has not been declared. Your tone--whether strident or desperate or angry--is not disagreeable so long as the tone has authority, in the true sense--authority in terms of right reason, proper judgment, and so forth. Well, I will wait to read these next samples and comment afterward.... Sorry in advance for these hasty remarks....
Garrick Davis Editor Contemporary Poetry Review
Subj: Re: CPR
Date: 8/13/03 9:48:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: CPREVIEW CC: Enmarge
Dear Garrick Davis:
I include several essays on poetry in this and the next email. If you would like a third and/or fourth, just let me know. The first essay, I've just sent to the Atlantic. When not sent as an attachment, there is usually a problem with accent-marked words. I appreciate your intelligent thoughts on "tone."
Best, G. Tod Slone
Subj: Re: CPR
Date: 8/26/03 8:45:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CPREVIEW
To: Enmarge Dear G. Tod Slone,
I'm sending these last two essays along to one of our associate editors for a second opinion. I'm still digesting them myself, but check back with me in about two weeks---we'll discuss them in detail then.
Regards, Garrick Davis
Subj: Re: CPR
Date: 8/27/03 9:40:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: CPREVIEW CC: Enmarge Dear Garrick Davis, Ed.
Often, I have received criticism in the form of facile epithets, the whole gamut, including angry, jealous, "full of personal animus," "chest thumpings, "your pandering and self-promotion," "this bantering outside of closed windows to neighbors who wish you would move away," impolite, and even "strident in tone." According to sociologist C. Tarvis, it is typical behavior by those in power to attempt to discredit the messenger via epithet and simply ignore his message. My experience forces me to agree with Tarvis. Rarely have I ever received an effort to invalidate, point by point, my arguments. I find this sad because many of the epithets come from established poets, academics, and editors, who ought welcome dissent, different viewpoints, and criticism, instead of typically and viscerally rejecting it. My last job as professor last year at an all black women's college in NC permitted me to experience first-hand a lot of un-intellectual behavior on the part of supposed intellectuals. And yes, as a fervent advocate of the First Amendment, I spoke out in the local paper, student paper, and elsewhere. The reaction to my criticism was typical and visceral rejection. One of my colleague professors told me point blank regarding the flyer, critical of the college president, which I had to keep posting on the Humanities bulletin board because a person or persons kept removing it: "They have as much right to tear it down as you have to put it up!" We should not, as intellectuals, be angered by valid criticism, as opposed to epithets, but rather use it to improve and grow. In fact, I tend to obtain much creative material from those who criticize what I have to say. By the way, I never did expect you to take me on as one of your associate editors. Mine is an evident challenge. That's what I do. From personal experience and involvement, I am well aware that the poetry and "ivory tower" establishments viscerally reject unapproved criticism. But I continue to challenge the established, just the same,… and often the established does get quite angry. But my challenges come in the form of concrete questioning of facts and modus operandi, not in the form of epithets. By the way, I do possess another personal experience (well I actually have many) article that I am working on regarding my presence as an invited poet at an international poetry festival in Quebec. Out of 150 paid poets, I was the only one daring to openly criticize the organizers of the festival, who of course will never invite me back. That is a concrete example of the RISK I speak about in one of the essays that you are reviewing. I am translating the article into English because I wrote it in French. You can find the French version on my website (right column, Quebec). I will be quite interested to read what you have to say regarding the two essays. Thank you again for your attention and consideration of me as a potential associate editor.
Best, G. Tod Slone, Ed.
Subj: CPR
Date: 9/15/03 10:32:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: CPREVIEW CC: Enmarge File: Cold Passion.doc (40448 bytes) DL Time (28800 bps): < 1 minute
Dear Garrick Davis, Ed. CPR:
Well, it is over two weeks now, so I am checking back with you to discuss my essays in detail as you suggested on August 26th. BTW, I am of course still quite interested in writing for CPR as an alternative voice. I have since slightly altered the essay on poetry and risk and sent it to six other entities, including P&W, Sewanee Review, Virginia Quarterly Review, Antietam Review, and Boston Review, not that I expect any of them to manifest any interest whatsoever. I sent it so that I could at least prove that point. Attached is the revamped essay. Looking forward to reading your comments. On another note, I was a paid online columnist for maincampus.com several yeas ago and did meet my obligations without exception, that is, one column critical of academe per week.
Sincerely, G. Tod Slone, Ed. The American Dissident
Subj: Thoreau and Henry Miller
Date: 9/25/03 11:11:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: CPREVIEW CC: Enmarge
Dear Garrick Davis, Ed. CPR:
Well, it's been well over a week since I sent you my email. I suppose you're quite busy. Just the same, if you have time, and before you make your decision regarding me, that is, if you already haven't, please contemplate what two great writers, Thoreau and Henry Miller, had to say about editors. Hopefully, you are different from those they, and I, have encountered in unusual proliferation.
Best, G. Tod Slone, Ed. The American Dissident
"Look at your editors of popular magazines. I have dealt with two or three the most liberal of them. They are afraid to print a whole sentence, a round sentence, a free-spoken sentence." Thoreau "Here in America 'to be different' is almost tantamount to being a traitor. Though our publishers will tell you that they are ever seeking 'original' writers, nothing could be farther from the truth. What they want is more of the same, only thinly disguised. They almost certainly do not want another Faulkner, another Melville, another Thoreau, another Whitman. Henry Miller
Subj: PS: Nice interview with CW et al...
Date: 9/25/03 6:40:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: CPREVIEW CC: Enmarge
Dear Garrick Davis, Ed.
I read your interview of CW and was somewhat surprised... pleasantly. I liked this question the most: "It seems that the institutional patronage networks have, in some sense, co-opted poetry-or, at least, poetry criticism. A system designed to sustain and recognize artists has, in many ways, been perverted into its opposite. For example, with so many first book awards, aren't all of them consequently diminished? Hasn't the whole system, from the Pulitzer to the smallest press award, become ridiculous?" I liked what CW said here: "A critic should be somewhat detached and objective. A poet-critic should be passionate, partisan, maybe even a bit crazed." But apparently you did not like the passion I manifested in my essays. "Too strident," that is, too passionate. Well, that was CW's comment, not yours. I also liked what CW said here: "Contemporary poetry criticism seems to me so obviously anemic, incestuous, timid, and dull that any voice with a trace of authentic passion and authority comes as quite a shock." I believe that my passion is quite authentic, if not somewhat unique. Once again I hope that you may reserve a little corner in CPR for a poet/critic not an integral part of the Academic/Literary Industrial Complex, including Poetry Magazine, and willing to "speak the rude truth in all its ways," especially in his way. By the way, I am a highly critical literary cartoonist, so critical that not many will publish my cartoons. Would you be interested in seeing some of them? I could easily jpg them to you. In fact, I did one of you a while back.
Best, G. Tod Slone, Ed.
Subj: Re: PS: Nice interview with CW et al...
Date: 9/29/03 3:24:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CPREVIEW
To: Enmarge
Dear G. Tod Sloane,
A poet-critic should be partisan, yes, but in your latest essay ('Cold Passion') I'm not quite sure what you're favoring. It sounds less poetical, than political or social, this rebellion that all poets should embrace---and sometimes it sounds rather like self-promotion: "As for me, periodic unemployment and intellectual challenging of colleagues, poets, editors, journalists, cultural council members, amongst others, have thrust me sporadically on the edge. I know what on the edge is… and sometimes, when really bad, it does not favor writing at all." If we both agree that MFA poets turn out crap, as a rule, then what poets would you replace them with? You seem to be arguing for your brand of poetry--which is fine, as long as your brand is better than theirs. Is it?
Regards, Garrick Davis
Subj: Sad, if not downright hypocritical?
Date: 9/29/03 5:20:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: CPREVIEW CC: Enmarge
Dear Garrick:
Am I to take your email as a rejection RE my seeking to be one of your associate poet-critics? You do tend to be quite laconic in your responses. I'm sure you're busy. You did not respond to some of my questions. Apparently, you do not wish to look at the satirical cartoon I sketched on CPR. Personally, I like to be criticized. It helps me reflect, grow, and even create. I feed on criticism. I have a very difficult time comprehending those, including the seeming bulk of academic poets and professors, who detest criticism and prefer to ignore it with silence, so they may go about their comfy business as usual. Regarding "Cold Passion," I am astonished that you are not clear as to what I am "favoring." How is that possible? Did you really read the essay? I am favoring or encouraging poets to speak truth to power, to RISK offending, to be courageous in their lives and to write truth, to say something pertinent in their poems. How did you possibly miss that? Below is a text that comes from my revised flyer. It ought to help clarify you regarding my goal and poetry. You mention RE what I am favoring: "It sounds less poetical, than political or social." But what does "poetical" mean? Does it mean apolitical and asocial to you? I favor incorporating sociopolitical subject matter on a more personal level stemming from personal involvement and RISK… in poetry. Clearly, my essay stipulates that there must be another alternative to the Pinsky-Collins-Gluck academic safe, diversionary, smiley-face poetry. When you mention "self-promotion", clearly, anybody who writes anything and seeks to publish it is guilty of "self-promotion." You are guilty of it by publishing CPR. Are you not? Why do you pin that on me and not on the fellow you interviewed, for example? Can you, will you, answer that? I simply wanted the readers of that essay to know that its author actively engages in what he writes about. You conveniently label that "self-promotion." At least the poet who speaks truth to power, though guilty of self-promotion, speaks truth, upsets, and deranges the corrupt, even if slightly, and hopefully gets readers to think and even act. Hmm. Is it possible for an academic-type poet to even comprehend what I am talking about? I'm really beginning to have severe doubts. I did not write "MFA poets turn out crap, as a rule." I do not necessarily agree with you on that observation. In reality, I have rarely read MFA poets, professors or students, so could never make such a statement and have never ever done so. I have, however, examined poetry anthologies. What I clearly wrote in that essay was that I doubted that MFA professors encouraged their students to question and challenge all things literature, including the very professors themselves. What poets would I replace "MFA poets" with? It is clearly a matter of personal taste. In fact, our whole argument is nothing but a matter of subjective, personal taste. For me, I want to read a poet who has something profound to say, as opposed to a poet like Muldoon who likes to play with words, etc. Personally, I am moved by very, very few poets. My essay mentions the poets I've appreciated, including Jeffers, Saro-Wiwa, Neruda, Villon, and Ferre. You mention: "You seem to be arguing for your brand of poetry--which is fine, as long as your brand is better than theirs. Is it?" Again, this is a matter of personal taste. I'm not going to say yes or no. But why should my personal taste be shut out from what academics consider to be poetry? Why would you keep my idea of poetry out of CPR, which seeks to illustrate the diverse ideas and criticism regarding poetry? If indeed you would exclude my idea and criticism, which are evidently quite very different, then I find that sad, if not downright hypocritical. Hopefully, you will prove rare… and sufficiently courageous to include my viewpoint in your pages.
Best, G. Tod
PS: As an example of a poem I just wrote and sent to the Thoreau Institute and hung up on the Concord bulletin board, please open the attached in my next email.
Subj: Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. (Thoreau)
Date: 9/30/03 10:05:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: CPREVIEW CC: Enmarge
Dear Garrick:
Here are a few post-scriptum thoughts that you will probably not like at all. I hope that you will have the courage to read them. It dawned on me last night out of the blue that it is perhaps likely that you focused on that one sentence taken from my essay because it clearly implicated you personally and your life. Your suggestion that my real purpose is perhaps base "self-promotion" constitutes but an example of what sociologist C. Tarvis termed avoiding debate by "killing the messenger by character assassination." ["To those in power, all whistle-blowers, dissenters and boat-rockers are obnoxious, at least while they remain lone rebels... The ideas that rebels expound tend not to be attacked by those in power. The latter are inclined rather to kill the messenger by character assassination. For example, one rebel was said to be a womanizer... bitter... disloyal... and even, in the words of one accuser, dangerously mentally ill."] My experience is that poets and writers and editors of the "machine," that is, the Academic/Literary Industrial Complex, tend overwhelmingly to react thusly when criticized. In fact, I have compiled a rather large list of epithets used by the latter in lieu of logical argumentation to support this assertion. It seems that you would equate truth-telling (as in speak truth to power) in poetry as self-promotion, an equation which clearly serves the status quo, that is, the "machine." By the way, contrary to Pinsky, Gluck or any known poet, my photo or CV and list of publications do not appear on my website or on the Internet. Please comment on the "self-promotion" of the rich and famous poets. But you won't, will you? You seem to hold double standards, which by their very nature must block logical argumentation. Clearly, you and the immense bulk of writers of the Academic/Literary Industrial Complex shun the tradition established by the likes of Orwell, Emerson, Thoreau, Ibsen, and others whose very writing and thinking served as "a counter friction to stop the machine" (Thoreau). Clearly, the bulk of poets, that is, those of the Academic/Literary Industrial Complex, let their lives, that is their writing and thoughts, serve rather as lubricant to keep the machine moving. That of course is called "selling out." It is evident that the writing, essays and criticism of a poet like me, who dares question and challenge the "machine's" multiple taboos, must ineluctably implicate and incense the lubricants, that is, those who do not dare. This is common logic. Finally, since I am a person who enjoys debating issues and thoughts, I find it most difficult to accept, that is, comprehend, intellectuals who avoid such activity, unless deemed familiar and safe. Poetry has become a perverse enterprise in America with its egregious backslapping and self-congratulating, laureates, prizes, publication credits, grants and engagements. I'm not sure how a thinking man can ignore the evident co-optation of poetry by business. Though I'm quite certain you can and do. Why, for example, did you not even mention in your interview the mass of corporate money given to Poetry magazine? Why did you not ask that editor how so much money will inevitably contribute to pervert the genre? My writing and thoughts offer an alternative to the perverse enterprise. It is evident to me why you would participate in their suppression.
Best, G. Tod
Subj: The decorous and prudent rage...
Date: 10/1/03 7:56:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: CPREVIEW CC: Enmarge
Dear Garrick:
So, war it is… as I suspected a month ago when I suggested twas war. Conformist literati have yet to surprise me when criticized, questioned and challenged. It is more than evident that your censure of my HERETICAL essay stems from the essay's inevitable censure of you as an intellectual who does not dare RISK, who does not dare "go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all its ways" (Emerson), and who generally conforms to the literary milieu. You need to examine some of the great works of, amongst others, Ibsen, Emerson, Thoreau and Orwell, then you need to look at yourself in the mirror. Study Emerson's "Self-Reliance," by God! Surely, you are not beyond hope. Well, I shall cease corresponding. I know what a brick wall is. Hell, I've spent most of my working life in academe. By the way, I shall devote a page on my website to our CPR correspondence. I harbor no grudges, just disappointments, one after the next. Here is an interesting quote from "Self-Reliance" for you: "It is easy enough for a firm man who knows the world to brook the rage of the cultivated classes. Their rage is decorous and prudent, for they are timid as being very vulnerable themselves."
Best, G. Tod Slone, Ed. The American Dissident