G. Tod Slone, publisher and editor of the small press literary journal, American Dissident, now has a blog and has decided to repost some of his older cartoons which mostly aimed at poets whom he thinks are complicit in whatever it is he's against.
I once criticized a cartoon of his that had been forwarded to me by Doug Holder, so as a consequence, Slone felt the need to lampoon me in this cartoon that he has reposted here along with his addendum 
I'm not sure what the point of the cartoon is "Look! That Ian Thal guy is clown!" which is a pretty non-controversial claim as I freely admit to being a clown. Perhaps Slone can elaborate:
The cartoon was created because poet clowns or court jesters serve the established order by rendering poetry PG smiley-faced. And PG smiley-faced is the kind of poet to whom the established-order likes to award prizes for evident reasons. The logic is egregiously present, though perhaps not for a poet clown. You are a clown for the established-order, whereas I am a critic against the established order. (G. Tod Slone, January 22, 2010, in the comments to "Ian Thal, Poet Court Jester."
Three years ago I told the story about how I earned Slone's ire, and expressed my dismay that I haven't been lampooned by a better cartoonist. I'm not sure what the "dot comedy" sign has to do with anything, or why I'm portrayed doing stand-up comedy. I'm also not sure why he has pictured me with a mangled hand since this was a year before I ever performed Arlecchino Am Ravenous but then again, maybe I ought credit him with the inspiration. When I brought the cartoon's faults to his attention, Slone complained that it was not his skills, but a lack of a better photo reference.
So that you may judge for yourself these are the two images I believe Slone to have used: one a photograph of Ben Beckwith and myself that appeared in a 2004 article in the The Boston Globe:
And another photograph that was used for a poster for a 2002 performance at Club Passim:
If only I had better enemies.
16 comments:
Ian, No!
IT'S A TRAP!
I know, but anytime I spar with Slone, there's an uptick in web traffic to my blog. Maybe these folk will stick around and actually read about what I do.
Nice to know Slone does SOME research regarding his work on dissecting other poets. I stopped amusing myself going to his website a long ago. It's such an eye sore with such a quagmire style of writing.
As near as I can tell, he doesn't do much research beyond using Google image search to find photo references.
He once portrayed Charles Coe as faceless and made that the whole gag of his cartoon. When asked about this, Slone confessed it was simply because he couldn't find a photo reference via Google.
I wonder how Sloane resolves the idea in his head that these poets represent the "Man," working as media moguls to keep poets down, when they don't even have a media presence online or anywhere else. You'd think that contradiction would have to get resolved somehow. Then again, if he has done this, I don't think I want to read and find out how anyway.
The only logic we can expect from Slone is the logic of the persecution complex. Anyone who criticizes him, or loses patience with him, or simply doesn't publish him, is either censoring or persecuting him, therefore he must be the one lone speaker of the truth.
Note that while he claims to be fighting against the corruption in the poetry establishment, he has complete contempt for Alan Cordle and company from the former foetry.com-- possibly because they went after real corruption, and actually won a few battles.
In the case of those two people, Sloan and Alan Cordle, it was like a fight between the kettle and the pot, with onlookers hoping both get melted down in the end.
Had no direct experiences with Cordle or really heard anything negative about him except from Slone. My point is that Cordle and company were able to document actual corruption (in terms of nepotism and conflicts of interest) in the world of poetry contests, and thus affect change, while Slone is mostly busy making unsupported accusations about people whom he feels have slighted him.
Cordle seemed to luck out completely in terms of getting one of their charges to stick. Sloan made A point now and again when I read him. Both were cases of the "Broken-Clock-Right-Twice-A-Day" syndrome.
I wouldn't say Cordle "lucked out." He had actual research to back up his statements, and in a couple of cases he forced people to step down from their positions and he forced a good number of these competitions to operate with a great deal more transparency and oversight than had once been the case.
Not saying he won every battle, but he and his crew did make the poetry competition circuit a hell of a lot more honest.
Slone, on the other hand, doesn't research anything and has done little more than make himself the subject of ridicule.
Cordle's research resulted in one breakthrough (with ramifications), but that was belllied by umpteen hundred other empty accusations and flunkies who were stirring up pots and going after people who did not deserve any scruinity.
The Editor of 3 Candles Press, Steve Mueske, related such an attack, opening emails from a Renata D___, a poet who took it upon herself to ask "hard questions" in support of Cordle, who at the time still had a hidden identity. I wish Steve hadn't taken down that blog. It was fascinating reading the emails of an attack justified only by the fact that Steve was a new publisher holding his first or second contest. And by a poet whose only agenda was allowing some chance to have her own poems considered (and the poems were awful). Funny that the one statement you never hear form poets trying to "change" the system is that maybe their poems aren't good enough.
Cordle's early blog (which he did his best to supress, but I and others have records) showed an animosity to Jorie Graham. Little reason to figure out why Cordle's gun only seemed to have one bullet with her name on it. After all that, it just devolved into poets screaming "Why not me?"
Sure, you can applaud a man who shoveled shit and our direction and struck oil, but you still have to ask what the hell he was thinking.
Slone has a similar non-agenda, but at least he always had his name and face up front, even if little else. I respect that more than I respect Foetry.
Still, even if Cordle had a pre-existing vendetta against Jorie Graham, Graham had a genuine ethical problem. The point is that the rumors that preceded the investigation was confirmed by the evidence.
Slone simply doesn't even have evidence; he just decides to have a vendetta based on the most minimal of interactions.
Of course, more importantly, Slone's cartooning is just tedious, and I think that both you and I, Chad, as fans of the comic form, understand that Slone has no sense of comic panel grammar. After all, Jim Behrle, who arguably has an even more primitive technique than Slone, is actually a better cartoonist, because he understands the grammar of both the panel and the strip: which is why is cartoons lampooning the literary scene a.) hit home; and b.) are actually funny.
Nothing I really disagree with in your last post. I just have a lower opinion of people who hide in anonymity. Even a fool who charges you thinking a paper towel roll is a sword is braver than the backstabbers who hide their faces and names.
Of course, I haven't had that fool whack me with the pretend sword the way he has you, so maybe I shouldn't talk. Maybe for me, it's a good thing he is so out of date with who does what in the local scene.
I'm inclined to accept pseudonymous sources if the charges are independently verifiable.
Cordle, when he was operating pseudonymously (keep in mind, that this is very different than "anonymously") , was doing so to protect his wife from retribution. I'm okay with that because, as I said, the charges he laid out where well-researched and verifiable. It's just that no one had dared to research this alleged corruption before precisely because there was a fear of career-ending retribution within academia.
It's all a matter of how anonymity is used. After all, was there really anything Cordle said when he was pseudonymous that he doesn't own up to now?
Anyway, I find it ironic that someone who shares my appreciation for the "costumed adventurer" genre would have such a problem with "secret identities." Heh.
The difference between an masked adventurer and a sniper is razor thin, I guess. Cordle took swipes at everyone when anonymous, whether the facts added up or not (which leads me to believe that Graham's exposure was merely luck. For every accusation that stuck, there were 20 others that simply did not and were simply sour grapes), even going so far as to label Jim Behrle--a natural ally at first, second, and third glance--as an enemy. Once exposed, Cordle was far less brave as a personality and even said he would close down foetry when first exposed. And of course he ran out of steam at that point, despite having an army of other anonymous sources who were still behind him. But once the exposure happened, the bravado ended.
Hell, even Spider-Man had more grace after revealing his identity before the "One More Day" storyline.
(I can be fanboyish, just chose not to be).
Yeah, the "Back in Black" storyline that preceded it in Spider-Man was much better than "One More Day."
As for Behrle, he was clearly the victim of a rumor campaign by the Stone Cold Poetry Bitches!
Post a Comment