I Gotta Take a Piss
Published April 9th, 2011 | 
My friend Cindy Rosmus emailed me today about a disgruntled writer who was bent out of shape by a recent rejection of a story she had sent Cindy for her ezine, Yellow Mama. The writer upset Cindy with a snarky reply to the rejection:
Hi, Cindy
Unfortunately, after reading a story in your latest edition that began with a urination I cannot submit any more work to you. There are some lines we don’t cross in life and even if I weren’t disgusted by that story, I cannot damage my literary reputation becoming associated with . . . I think you know what I’m saying. If you had accepted my story I would have had to withdrawn it anyway. I am telling you this because you seem sincere and helpful; I strongly suggest you rethink your low standards.
Sorry,
Steph
Yeah . . . Okay . . . <sigh>.
This is amusing on several levels. First, if we take the writer’s assessment of Cindy’s ezine at face value (and we shouldn’t because YM is a pretty good ezine if you’re into horror and hardboiled fiction), then what does it say about “Steph” that she wasn’t even good enough to get into a publication with such “low standards?”
Second, what fucking literary reputation? Are there parlors of literary gossip in which a bunch of literary types are sitting around in smoking jackets sipping brandy chatting about what a fine, upstanding talent this woman is? And if she were a fine, upstanding talent AND the sudden appearance of one of her stories in Cindy’s mag would sully her appeal to the dignified brandy-sippers, why the bloody fuck would she submit a story there in the first place?
The woman’s argument doesn’t hold water. And here’s another thought: If she cares about her rep, she should reconsider responding to rejections — especially with snotty crap like she sent Cindy, else the only reputation she will have is for being a stupid, stupid cunt (yes, I said it).
I’ve received a number of similar replies from rejected writers over the years, so I can sympathize with Cindy. Cindy is one of the nicest editors a writer is likely to encounter (which is probably why Cindy is upset by one of these kinds of messages since it’s so undeserving), but trust me when I say, it doesn’t matter whether you reject writers gently or hit them straight between the eyes, some writers simply cannot handle rejection of any kind. I’m sure that woman probably has sent similar messages to the fiction editor of the New Yorker when he rejected her (because I imagine she gets rejected a lot).
Mark Twain Doesn’t Live Here Anymore
Published January 15th, 2011 | In America – as elsewhere – free speech is confined to the dead. — Mark Twain
So they are planning to remove the the “N” word from Huckleberry Finn. Samuel Clemens is rolling in his grave, I’m sure.
On one hand, this is not that big of a deal because the novel is in the public domain and, as such, the same freedom that allows these arrogant, misguided nitwits to revise Twain also makes it impossible for them to censor all editions of the book.
On the other hand, it’s an assault on art, common sense and education. Just as you wouldn’t say that a piece of costume jewelry has the same value as real jewelry, you can’t just trample on the creation of an artist and expect your perversion of it to have equal value as art or as an educational tool.
Here’s the deal: The “N” word — the word “nigger”, offensive though it be, is a word that carries the weight of our history. An ugly, albeit true history that cannot be buried or denied. One of the key purposes of great art is to illuminate those truths, however brutal and bring them to light. When you attempt to whitewash the language of that truth from our art, you do a disservice to everyone.
Jane Austen Would Probably Laugh About This
Published October 26th, 2010 | I’m going to let you guys in on . . . well, I’m not sure that it’s a secret, but a tidbit that some would not believe about me: I read Jane Austen. Yes, it’s true. I adore Jane Austen. So it is with a measure of both fascination and silent horror that I read this headline in The Telegraph: "Jane Austen’s famous prose may not be hers after all".
To even suggest that Jane Austen didn’t write her books is something close to sacrilege in the literary world. Of course, when I actually read the article, it wasn’t nearly all that. Leave it to mainstream journalism to sensationalize the smallest things to attract readers. No, the “controversy” here, is spawned by an academic who studied some early drafts of Austen’s novel and came to the conclusion that — gasp — Jane Austen must’ve had an editor. See, in Austen’s early drafts she misspelled some words, used unorthodox grammar and didn’t always break passages into paragraphs.
A few things about this:
1) I’ve always imagined that Austen wrote her stories in something of a fever. So, it really doesn’t surprise me that she initially laid her story down without regard for convention.
2) Name one writer who can spell. Even I’m not the ace speller I was back in the fifth grade.
3) Jane Austen is Jane Austen not for her ability to break things up into paragraphs, but for her memorable characters and for her insights into the social mores of her time.
4) Does Professor Katherine Sutherland really imagine that novels are published without being edited? I know in this day and age it must be hard to imagine but come on!
