American Dissident Strikes Again!

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.

Copley Square Farmers' Market, 2003

This is an excerpt from Spaces/Places: Voiced Reflections a program presented by Somerville Community Access Television in 2003 to coincide with The Windows Art Project. Lisa Smith produced and Doug Holder was the host.

My piece, Copley Square Farmers' Market, which was originally published in Poesy Magazine, comes in at about 1:30. Because there was a long line of presenters who were mostly reading from the page, the studio was set up in such a manner that I had to modify what was then my performance style to be done from a seated position (yes, that's a green screen in the background.)

Thanks to Chad Parenteau for uploading this. Chad gives a strong reading in this clip.

February 15: Arlecchino in Salem/Change of Schedule

Ryan Travis informs be that there will be a change in the previously announced bill for the Sunday, February 15th Witch City Poetry show. Su Red has had to cancel. This means that I will be the solo feature performer. Otherwise nothing else has changed. There will also be an open mic as well.

Sunday, February 15th, 6:30pm - 9:30pm:

I'll be performing as half of a double feature at the Gulu-Gulu Café in Salem, Massachusetts as part of the Witch City Poetry series hosted by Ryan Travis.

I will be performing Arlecchino Am Ravenous along with three or four shorter pieces from my repertoire. Mostly touching on my usual topics of trains, super-heroes, mysticism, memory, Greek mythology, and jazz--most certainly including "A Child's Trip Through the Underworld" which Doug Holder once called a "...a Whitmanesque romp through Brooklyn..."

I created a Facebook page for the event if you happen to like using that service.

Gulu-Gulu Café
247 Essex Street
Salem, MA

View Larger Map

"Stalinist Clown" Strikes Back!

[Notice: George Tod Slone and The American Dissident do not have permission to quote this blog or any other writings of mine in either digital or print editions without either proper citations or links to the appropriate URL. Due to Slone’s improper usage of quotations, I will no longer be responding to him via email or any other non-public forum. I will only respond to G. Tod Slone either through this blog or through a venue moderated, edited, published, or archived by a third party.]

Part I

This past week, Doug Holder handed me a copy of the latest print edition of The American Dissident (Issue 15, Summer/Fall 2007) a publication and website published by Professor G. Tod Slone. Slone reproduced an email criticizing a cartoon he produced under the pseudonym of “P. Maudit” in which he referred to poets Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Andrei Codrescu as fascists. He also reproduced his initial reply and accompanied it with the URL of the cartoon in which he lampooned me.

However, even though I had allowed him to post to my blog, he did not provide a URL for my reply to the cartoon, nor did he acknowledge that this was part of a longer conversation, nor that I had rebutted many of his claims. This is intellectual dishonesty on his part.

As of this writing he has posted some of the correspondence in which I critique his cartoon of me, however, he does not provide a link to my full response nor is this correspondence mentioned in the print edition. He also states that I "[come] off as a rather passionless eunuch" though this photograph indicates that I am neither.

Due to Slone’s unwillingness to give an accurate account, and his tendency to take quotations out of context, twist them often until they have become non-sequiturs, I will no longer be responding to Slone except on my blog or in public fora that provide transparency. Slone is free to submit posts to my blog. If he chooses to continue quoting me, however, it will be with the understanding that he will provide proper citations to either a URL or to a print publication.

While Slone does not appear to think me qualified to criticize him or his work, he has spent much time being quite vague as to which of my criticisms he finds disagreeable. To reiterate, I contend that:

a.) Slone’s cartoons are often poorly drawn.

b.) Slone’s cartoons are rarely funny, unlike the work of Jim Behrle, whose material cuts much closer to the bone of the contemporary poetry scene.

c.) Slone deliberately takes quotations out of context.

d.) Slone makes slanderous claims i.e. "Andrei Codrescu and Lawrence Ferlinghetti are fascists" yet refuses to substantiate this when asked for evidence.

e.) Slone does not substantiate his claims of corruption within the academic-literary world with concrete evidence as done by the now defunct foetry.

f.) Slone routinely redefines words like "fascist" and “Stalinist” to a point where they begin to lose meaning.

g.) Slone’s constant use of terms like "fascist", and "Stalinist" to describe his critics, use of the word, "dissident" to describe himself, frequent accusations of conspiracy between his critics and other perceived enemies, claims to speak "the rude truth," et cetera closely resemble the rhetorical devices of political extremists.

h.) Slone’s coulrophobia (irrational hatred of clowns—specifically directed towards me) indicates that he has a major gap in his understanding of Western literary and theatrical traditions. To which I have had to point out to him that William Shakespeare, Molière, Fredrico Garcia Lorca, and Dario Fo, all wrote for clowns and at least two (possibly all four) of them performed as clowns.

Part II

To summarize the current status on my disagreement with G. Tod Slone (something he will not honestly reproduce or refer to in his own account in the pages of either the print or on line editions of The American Dissident. I will publish an email I wrote on April 24th, 2007 in response to an email Slone wrote earlier that day. Quotations are from that email. Bracketed glosses are my own to enhance readibility. Links have been added.

Professor Slone:

To begin: I suggest you refrain from attributing to me view-points that I do not espouse. Strawman arguments only work when the intended target is incapable of responding.

> how do you explain that my [Codrescu and Ferlinghetti] cartoon
> provoked such hostility on your part?

I would hardly call my comportment towards you "hostility", but since you ask why I so objected to your cartoon regarding Codrescu and Ferlinghetti, I will spell it out again:

1.) I have been engaged in an examination of European political extremism in general, and fascism in particular.

2.) I consider fascism to be an ideology [hostile] to the basic democratic institutions that I value.

3.) While it is important to identify fascist ideology and policies where they exist, it is irresponsible at best and slanderous at worst to accuse individuals of being fascists or espousing fascist when nothing in their behavior indicates this.

4.) You accused Codrescu and Ferlinghetti of being fascists.

5.) You have not once provided evidence to substantiate your claims, despite multiple requests.

Such willy-nilly labeling of anyone one does not like as "fascist" is a rhetorical strategy used on the extreme left. Essentially, I viewed that cartoon as an unethical smear.

Furthermore, your immediate response to my criticism was to liken me to a "Stalinist"-- which, interestingly enough, is a rhetorical strategy generally used by the extreme right when facing criticism.

This is not to say that you are of the extreme right or of the extreme left, as I do not get the impression that you have a clear ideological position.

In fact, you appear to redefine the word "fascist" to conveniently mean whatever suits you at any given moment, which undermines your credibility to speak on political matters.

Again, this is the crux of my argument with you. All other tangents are of your creation-- and I regard [them] as just that: tangential.

In fact, most of the interest I have in your case is as a "control sample" that I can use in comparison to political extremists, in that you use the similar rhetorical strategies but are largely lacking in any coherent ideological content. I am able to examine your rhetoric and never run the risk of being offended by anything but your affronts to logic and evidence.

> I don't think I
> ever met you at those Stone Soup gatherings,

To my knowledge, we never met, and I do not believe I became aware of you until long after I parted ways with Stone Soup. I have stated as such. In fact, I only became aware of you because Doug Holder is a fan of your cartoons and likes to show them to people.

> To mix clown and poet to form clown-poet can
> only diminish the poet part.

Evidently, you are unfamiliar with the work of William Shakespeare, Molière, Fredrico Garcia Lorca, and Dario Fo, to name but a few. It is sad that a learned man such as yourself is so ignorant of Western theatrical and literary traditions. You are too sanctimonious and self-serious to be a good comedian-- so it's for the best that you have never played the clown.

> what is your foet connection?

I read the website at times. I mostly confine myself to the articles that document conflict of interest and cronyism, and have twice (to my memory) read the forums. I do not recall ever posting there. Sorry to bust your bubble, Foetry happens to provide more information about cronyism and patronage in the literary-academic establishment than The American Dissident.

> Why do you keep your blog blocked for members only?

I do not. My blog is set so anyone can comment. Before answering your question, I even checked to see if I had unintentionally blocked it. If you are having technical problems, it probably has to do with your computer or your ISP. However, I will check with blogspot.com tech support to see if there is an error on their end.

[Note: There appeared to be no such error at work, and Slone was able to post.]

> It is quite simple and the evidence that 50 lit journals
> rejected that manuscript of mine is, like it or not,
> definitely a form of proof of that assertion [that
> academic literati are entirely closed to critique.]
> If the manuscript was so bad, as no doubt you would
> declare, why would a stranger have paid $150 to
> publish it? That also, like it or not, is a form
> of proof.

My studies of political extremism also shows that non-academic presses are very happy to pay for articles that fit their own ideological preferences especially when the author claims to have been persecuted or censored by the establishment. However, these articles are often not supported by either a coherent argument or a convergence of evidence-- and thus would not be considered for publication in an academic journal, which is seen as proof that the author and the non-academic press that publishes the work are the targets of a conspiracy amongst the 50 academic journals. 50 is a rather large statistical sample of literary journals and it would seem that if the article was of merit, it would have been accepted for publication is at least one journal. I find it more believable that the article was either sent to the wrong journals or seriously flawed.

Again, I have no reason to believe that you are a political extremist. You just use similar rhetorical strategies.

> I accept your criticism of that cartoon,
> though evidently, it cannot be an objective
> critique since you are its very object.

My criticisms were:

1.) That the technique was lacking,

2.) The quote was out of context,

3.) There were far more interesting options that could have been taken had the cartoonist had greater technical prowess (indeed I pointed out that some of the choices you made appear to be to "make up" for your lack of technique.)

4.) That I was not insulted.

1.) and 2.) are objective. 3.) is a matter of aesthetics, and so not objective.

Trust me, I wasn't offended by anything other than the disappointment that it was not a better cartoon.

Ian Thal

Re: Should Somerville Have a Poet Laureate?

After some debate over whether such a position should exist in the first place, Allen Bramhall has declared himself Poet Laureate of Boston. Across the river, Cambridge is also toying with the idea. While here in Somerville, Doug Holder has begun to campaign for Somerville to have its own Poet Laureate on both his blog and his column in The Somerville News.

[Note: the fellow pictured in Holder's blog is not a 'villen at all, but a Briton named Luke Wright.]

Holder quotes me as saying:

Ian Thal (Poet/Mime/Performer): “The question should be: ‘Would having a poet laureate serve Somerville in a manner that the Somerville Arts Council does not already?’ The Somerville Arts Council does a better job than most cities in Massachusetts supporting the arts/artists (certainly better than Boston). The laureate position should add something to what is already there.”

Just to clarify my statements: Outside of the experience of having my poems in Boston City Hall (the poems were written and submitted while I still resided in Boston), I have found that most of the support I have received for my art inside of Boston has been from artist-run organizations like Mobius or Artists at Large, Inc. while the Cambridge Arts Council and the Somerville Arts Council are very visible in the community, the result being a friendlier and supportive environment for artists relative to the situation on the other side of the river. My experience of Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville are school systems in which the arts are integrated into the curriculum, while in Boston, arts education exists only at the discretion of visionary administrators at specific schools.

The point being that anything Boston might do to raise the status of any art form would be a great improvement while Somerville's proposed laureate position should come with a mandate to further enhance Somerville's efforts.

Walt Whitman and I

Last June, Doug Holder, in his review of Alexander Levering Kern's anthology Becoming Fire: Spiritual Writing from Rising Generations refered to my poem "A Child's Trip Through the Underworld" as "...a Whitmanesque romp through Brooklyn...". So I simply could not resist this pairing the following November, as I visited The National Portrait Gallery with my family .


I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you,

Whitman, "Song of Myself"

Photo credit: Jay Thal

Bagels with the Bards

Several months ago, I joined a crew of local poets who meet on Saturday mornings for coffee and baked goods. The group, founded by local poets Doug Holder and Harris Gardner, are a boisterous bunch of coversationalists with whom to swap stories and talk shop.

Thanks to the efforts of Molly Lynn Watt (editor) and Steve Glines (designer), we now have Bagels With The Bards: Bagel Bard Anthology, Volume 2 available at lulu.com. The work of over fifty poets, including myself, are represented.

Bagels With The Bards:
Bagel Bard Anthology, Volume 2
Introduction by Afaa Michael Weaver
Edited by Molly Lynn Watt
Designed by Steve Glines

American Dissident outs Stalinist Clown!

Due to many years spent in school, first as a student, and later as a teacher, I have been the subject of a number of informally distributed cartoons and caricatures. I have even caricatured myself at times, however, for the first time to my knowledge, I have been the subject of a cartoon that another illustrator has seen fit to post to the web.

Since the cartoon first appeared I have been stopped on the street by someone who believed that I was the illustrator. Another thought I had been "outed," apparently as a wearer of red shoes.

A lie, I say; I have never owned a pair of red shoes.

(But now the thought seems ever so tempting!)

I have seen fit to respond in four parts:

Part I: In which I say the cartoon is not well drawn.

First, let us examine the cartoon:

P. Maudit is a nom de plume of George Tod Slone, Founding Editor of The American Dissident, which he describes as "A Literary Journal of Critical Thinking In the Samizdat Tradition of Writing against the Machine."

To call the artwork in a simple cartoon bad is akin to shooting the messenger in order to avoid or divert attention from the message.
- G. Tod Slone, in an email dated February 14, 2007

Maudit/Slone's cartoon is crudely drawn and clearly based on two separate photographic sources: the first is a photograph that appeared in The Boston Globe in 2004 in which I was clad and made up as a mime; The second was a portrait of me that was used as a poster for a 2002 performance at Club Passim. Oddly enough he portrays me with four fingers and a thumb on my right hand yet only three fingers and a stub on my left hand, though as of this writing, I have all ten of my digits.

Yeah, that hand sucked.
- G. Tod Slone, ibid.

Slone's inability to render the human form (even a caricature of the human form) is an inability to illustrate me engaged in a genre in which I do perform. I am a mime, a clown, and a commedia dell'arte performer: essentially, my ability to control my body is just as much, if not more, important to my stagecraft than my oratory skills. However, due to his miniscule technique, Slone/Maudit is reduced to portraying me using a microphone at a stand-up comedy venue.

Though I have nothing against stand-up comedians, imagine the comic possibilities if the cartoon portrayed me engaged in my typical stage antics! We could have seen:

1.) Ian Thal in a knot as twisted as his logic!

2.) Ian Thal manipulating an object in an inappropriate manner as he utters a mixed metaphor, non sequitur, or illogical statement!

3.) Ian Thal debating a hand puppet!

4.) a hand puppet agreeing with Ian Thal!

5.) Ian Thal engaged in any of the stereotypical mime routines such "trapped in a glass box" or "tug-o-war" just to show that his arguments are illusionary!

6.) Ian Thal in tights—thus allowing some vulgar humor about his buttocks or "package"!

7.) Ian Thal in a dress!

These are but several suggestions. There are many other possibilities that more talented cartoonists would have chosen had they wanted to lampoon me.

Part II: In which I refute any doubt that I am a clown.

Because the cartoonist represents me speaking as a book critic (something I have not done for a few years) while dressed as a clown sans make-up, one can only conclude that the humor is meant to hinge on the incongruity of being a clown and a critic.

I for one find it pitiful that a poet would choose to masquerade as a clown. It simply emphasizes what little respect Thal holds for the métier…
- G. Tod Slone, ibid.

I do not masquerade as a clown. As anyone familiar with my performances can attest: I am a clown. I am proud to be a clown. I am a serious about clowning, its history, and traditions. In my stage work, I hope to honor the many great clowns who came before me: the countless zanni of the commedia dell'arte, Shakespeare's fleet of fools, and kitchen servants, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers, Bill Irwin, Mump & Smoot, Dario Fo, and (despite a recent matter that resulted in my quitting a production) Peter Schumann.

Clowning is serious business, it is the theatrical art of absurdity, be that the absurdity of our existence, our passions, our endeavors, or our society. Indeed, I find nothing incompatible with my roles as a clown and those of poet, or critic.

Since Slone likes cartooning, I would recommend Joe Lee's The History of Clowns for Beginners. The illustrations are excellent.

So while the insult intended, the bolt has missed the targeted fool.

Most importantly, though, the quote is completely out of context.

Part III: In which I do recount a quarrel upon a lie seven times removed.

How is it that I came to be the subject of Doctor Slone's wrath?

Doug Holder, publisher of the Ibbetson Street Press, brought my attention to a cartoon in which Slone, as "P. Maudit", labeled poets Andrei Codrescu and Lawrence Ferlinghetti as "fascists." I recognized this as a slur, and malicious untruth.

Fascism is an extremist nationalist ideology that celebrates unchecked authoritarianism, a conception of masculine sexuality defined by militarism and violent potential, populist rhetoric combined with contempt for democratic institutions, and contemptuousness for Enlightenment traditions of human dignity and rational inquiry. In the aftermath of the Second World War and the Spanish Civil War, fascism has become such a despised ideology, that even politicians and pundits with fascistic leanings will refuse to be known as "fascists."

(I highly recommend Umberto Eco's essay "Ur-Fascism" which is a discussion of the fascist ideology and the family resemblance between different fascist regimes, as viewed by someone whose childhood was spent under one such regime. Note, that it is not a description of how such regimes govern—but the culture of fascists.)

Obviously, calling either Ferlinghetti or Codrescu “Fascists” is an alarming claim, as nothing in their biographies indicates anything other than anti-authoritarian and anti-militarist tendencies, and so I said so to Holder (in terms perhaps more vehement than necessary), who passed my comments on to Slone, who in turn responded by email on January 28, 2007:

It is the very attitude of the Ian Thal leftists that is destroying the left. In other words, THOU SHALT NOT CRITICIZE THE LEFT! If we heed this ban on critique of the left, how can the left possibly improve? Without criticism, there are no problems, and if there are no problems, there is no need to improve. Sounds like a good Stalinist line, no?

So rather than substantiate his claims that either Codrescu or Ferlinghetti were fascists, he likens me to a Stalinist for defending the reputation of two poets who happen to be leftists. Also note that rather than responding to criticism, he accused me of attempting to censor him. I take freedom of speech so seriously, in that I believe it includes the freedom to criticize the speech of others.

Slone claimed that both Codrescu and Ferlinghetti receive fifteen thousand dollars per speaking engagement and then, while accusing me of hero worship, quoted his own pantheon of heroes as justification for his endeavors:

…life be a counter friction to stop the machine.
- Henry David Thoreau, as quoted by Slone in an email dated January 28, 2007

Go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson, ibid.

Horseshit from the right or horseshit from the left is still horseshit.
- Pierre Falardeau, ibid.

He closed with a demand that I send him a photograph so that he could make the above cartoon. I decided that since there are enough photographs of me on the web, he could simply use Google.

Again, I pointed out to Slone that he had not substantiated his claim that Codrescu and Ferlinghetti were fascists, to which responded with a second email stating that since neither poet had been interested in Slone's criticism of their work, they clearly had fascist tendencies. He then proceeded to claim that Ferlinghetti's Doctorate was an honorary one (Lawrence Ferlinghetti earned his Doctorate from the Sorbonne in 1950, long before he was famous) and continued with his claim that there is a fascism of the left, which I have chosen not to dispute.

That some leftists are also fascists (just as some rightists are fascists) and Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are also both leftists does not necessitate that one conclude that Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are thus fascists. .

- Thal, in an email dated January 28, 2007

Slone turned the discussion to how he had been persecuted by Stone Soup Poets (a literary organization for which I briefly served in an official capacity—though I was not privy of any plans to persecute him), the Lowell Celebrates Kerouac Festival, the authorities at Walden Pond, and apparently the entire literary establishment.

On January 30, 2007 I sent a final email from which the out-of-context quotation in the cartoon appears in the final

Part IV: In which I append the email from which the cartoon takes its quotation.

Doctor Slone:

I find it amazing that it takes a day and a half to craft such a disorganized response filled with attempts to pin the behavior and opinions of others onto my person.

To answer your question regarding [my former affiliation with] Stone Soup [Poets, Inc.] :

For a literary organization to receive tax-deductible donations, and receive grants for activities such as publishing books (which Stone Soup Poetry would do sporadically) it must comply with the 501c3 regulations for non-profit organizations, grant-giving institutions and private donations are less likely to be forthcoming. Having a board of directors is one of those legal requirements-- it provides a level of accountability with regards to grants and donations.

I was elected to the board of Stone Soup in 2000. I began to dissociate myself from the board and from the organization in late 2001. While I have no interest in describing my reasons for leaving. It should be obvious that I do not want to be affiliated with said organization or the behavior of some of its officers. Obviously, they are not my "buddies."

On neither of the two visits I made to Walden Pond during that time period, [did I] witness any protesters. You and I have, to the best of my knowledge, never met. I am not party with your conflicts with the organization and some of its members and I am frankly uninterested. Far too much of my time and energies were wasted on the organization.

Stone Soup is apolitical as an organization (which it must be as a 501c3 non-profit.) Whatever political stances Jack Powers or John-Paul Pirolli (who uses an assortment of aliases, notably "Buddah" [sic]) may take, their stances do not form coherent political ideologies, and are just as likely to express right-wing sentiments as anything else. Neither of them are leftists, though I am certain you may have heard express leftist sentiments from time to time.

Like you, both men have a tendency to divide the world into "us and them" or often "me and everyone else."

* * *

>>That some leftists are also fascists
>> (just as some rightists are fascists)
>> and Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are
>> also both leftists does not necessitate
>> that one conclude that Ferlinghetti
>> and Codrescu are thus fascists.

> Clearly, that statement is accurate. Yet it is really
> irrelevant to the argument.

It is relevant, because it is the argument that I am interested in making.

I do not use the word "fascist" lightly as it is a name of an extremist ideology, and when applied to an individual who is not strictly a member of a certain constellation of extremist groups, movements, regimes, or ideologue, admirer or imitator of the former, then it closes down any form of free debate, which I consider to be essential to a democratic society.

By that standard, some of the people you name [Hilary Clinton, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, Andrei Codrescu, Lawrence Ferlinghetti] are clearly not fascists in any sense that still gives the word some meaning. Two of the folk, by my count, might be seen as fascistic from a certain point of view (but that can be debated.)

You have failed to substantiate your claim that Codrescu and Ferlinghetti are fascists. You have presented no facts, and your line of reasoning is demonstrably filled with errors.

Your ignorance of even the most commonly known biographical details of Codrescu or Ferlinghetti are laughable.

> Are you actually denying that both celebrities
> receive sizeable cachets?

No. I am just pointing out that it was the only fact that you did present, and thus, assuming it is true, and since you mentioned it, seems more likely the cause of your resentment than these unfounded accusations of fascism.

> you apparently did not read that part of
> my email stating both Codrescu and
> Ferlinghetti closed to critique.

Given the general inability you have demonstrated to state your views logically, substantiate your claims, or even state these views without invoking some self-serving tale of how the-powers-that-be are persecuting you, it gives little surprise that some people choose to ignore you. You contribute nothing to any debate.

However, since I have no details about your interactions with Codrescu or Ferlinghetti, there is nothing for me to address.

I generally address people whom I do not know personally by their title. It is an idiosyncrasy of mine-- nothing more.

It's true that many poets do not appreciate honest criticism. Doug Holder can testify to the number of angry letters that he received when I was a reviewer for Ibbetson Street Press. I don't really mind if my criticism is unpopular, but because I present my arguments in a certain manner, and I substantiate my arguments, I am generally taken seriously, even by those who disagree. I don't take your views seriously.

Make any other contrafactual assumptions you wish about my person. However, I request that you cease from insinuating that I am a Christian.

Ian Thal