RE: [Marxism] My blog [Maggie and censorship, etc.]

["Gilles d'Aymery" <aymery@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On July 4, Margaret Wyles wrote:

Quote:
 Gilles,

With all due respect to your publication and the tremendous effort you
put into it, as one of those "authors," I cannot help but voice my
disagreement.

I no longer write for Swans, nor do at least three others - more
qualified than me - precisely BECAUSE of your editing and
censorship practices.  Swans is Gilles' website - articles and authors
are selected, as is your right, that dovetail with your views.

You have a fine publication.  But it is anything but democratic. And
that is the point.

Best,
Maggie
[July 3, 2004]
Unquote

Ah Maggie, you who used to sign off your e-mails with a tender "love,
Maggie"...

So, you accused me of censorship now....but then you also accused
me of having a retreat in Hawai'i, remember?

In two years of collaboration, November 1999-January 2002, your
total contributions amounted to just about 10 pieces of unequal quality
that required a lot of editing through e-mails and phone calls -- over
260 e-mails for 10 pieces... (People like you are known in the
publishing trade as high maintenance writers -- or would-be writers.)

On Sunday 27, 2002 you wrote:
Quote...I view this all as "for the cause" and don't attach much
of a personal aspect to it.  Bottom line for me is, if you think a piece
will ADD to your publication, if NOT, no need to apologize.  It's really
business to me. . . . . It was my mistake for burdening you with
the editting [sic] process.  I should have waited until I had time to edit and
format it myself, which I will do in the future.Unquote

I'm used to disgruntled would-be writers who go around and bad-
mouth the once much lauded publisher. I'm not used to being
slandered without one iota of evidence presented to the gallery.

I suppose you have in mind your Northern neighbor and his multi-
posting brother when you refer to "at least three others..." Who's the
third one, the roaming plagiarizer?

Now, let's get serious for a minute. Here are *regular* contributors:

Gerard Donnelly Smith: 20 pieces from March 03 onward.
Phil Rockstroh: 30 pieces from May 03 onward.
Louis Proyect: 16 pieces from Feb 03 onward.
Richard Macintosh: 23 pieces from March 03 onward (with a 6-
month hiatus due to a near fatal heart attack).
Philip Greenspan: 45 pieces from Dec 00 onward
Manuel Garcia: 17 pieces from July 03 onward.
Milo Clark: over 130 pieces from May 1996 onward (with a couple
of hiatuses).

I think that should be a sufficient sample. Now, **I challenge you,**
Margaret Wyles, or any other for that matter: Contact any one or all
of these people and ask them whether I have *ever,* *ever*
censored them or refused even one piece from any one of them. I
know of one instance when I refused a piece from a former
contributor -- it had to do with thanking god for all the good things in
life...er, sorry, I've to draw the line somewhere -- and another one
from a current contributor due to really poor quality of the prose (this
contributor keeps sending his work; never felt "censored" or rejected,
or whatever).

Now Jan and I edit all the pieces, whether the author's name is Louis
Proyect or Ed Herman, or, or, or. We edit all the pieces. Period.
(And Jan goes through my pieces, at times, with ferocity...) I think that
over the past 8 years, I've faced editing conflicts with a handful of
people. Those who slammed the door have kept slamming other
doors time and again (I suppose they end up creating their own
blogs!!!) I also have enough testimonials to fill a long post here from
authors that have praised our work, editing included. And yes, I work
*very* hard. And, yes, I do make mistakes. But censorship,
Margaret...what a spiteful slander!

And no, Swans is not *my* site. It's also Jan's site (she pays all the
bills) and it is the collective site of all the contributors, for without them
Swans would not exist at all. From the day of its inception, Swans
was more than me, me, me. Check the archives.

And, no, articles and authors are certainly not selected because they
"dovetail [my] views." What a ridiculous statement! Check the current
issue, read the pieces on the Countdown to 2004, see the opposite
views that are presented and then you tell me how they "dovetail [my]
views!!!!!" And keep in mind that all the contributors are
*volunteers;* they come and go as they please, and as you did (go).
There are a few rules -- check the submission guidelines -- which are
mostly accepted (when they are not, the contributor does not last very
long). Authors choose to be published on Swans. I do not choose
them. That some perdure is testimony to my and Jan's work. That
others do not should not be reason for smear and sheer malice.

A democratic publication, eh? LOL.

I'll leave you with one thought. Oscar Wilde used to say that a certain
type of people kill with a kiss. I'll let you figure out the type.

Finally, in regard to the other pertinent posts:

Hmm, a lot of wind has been blowing around my ears, and my ass
battered with almost Pynchonesque style (almost, I said). Hopefully I
won't get deaf too soon; ageism, dear James -- or should I say
Comrade James to fit the tale? -- is not yet in the picture (but then
how should I know...?); and my ass, thank you Mr. Stephens, can
handle the treatment -- it's been lacerated first by my father in the '50s
(simply said, Eli, you don't compete -- in real actuality!). And, sorry
Mr. Xxxxxx, scholarship is not my province...though, if you care to
look, scholars do appear on Swans; but you are correct: this is a
useless discussion and I too have other things to do.

Certainly, I should have chosen a different time to engage into this
"comradely" conversation -- Jan and I are in the midst of moving and
have a lot on our plate. My mistake...

Sincerely,
Gilles d'Aymery
Swans Commentary





_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism