Earlier this month, a poet had had her poems removed from a literary magazine.
What prompted the removal was a tweet from a writer in which the writer “tagged” (Tweeter speak for including someone in a conversation) a literary magazine. Why, the writer asked, was this magazine “publishing transphobic ‘poets’”?
The journal editor responded, saying he was “unaware of any transphobia on the part of D…” In other words, nothing within her published story itself appeared to express any kind of bigotry.
A short time later, the editor removed D.’s work from his magazine.
“Yesterday we removed a story from our main page. The story itself had become irrelevant; we were in a position where in effect we had to choose between two principles.
We could say that a journal has no business evaluating the public profiles that its authors create for themselves.
Or we could listen to our readers, who saw us as aligning ourselves with rhetoric that targeted people in the non-binary community.
It wasn't a choice I liked making. But especially in our current cultural environment, I can't think of many things that are as important as showing and enacting full support for non-binary people.”
The substance of D.’s tweets, whether or not they ought to be construed as “rhetoric” or as targeting specific members of a community, is a matter I will leave for readers to decide.
My questions, some of which I have asked before, have to do with this practice of un-publishing writers, i.e. de-platforming them, based on what they say in other contexts.
Should a writer’s statements in one venue--their Facebook posts, their Tweets, other writings —be a factor in deciding not only whether or not to publish the writer but whether to remove that writer’s already published work from a magazine?
If so, on what grounds should editors make these evaluations?
Do they let the public decide?
If yes, what new problems arise when editors begin removing otherwise unoffensive creative work because the public has deemed that writer’s speech in other contexts unacceptable?
Finally, what does it say about the state of lit mag publishing when an editor not only un-publishes work in response to outcry but states openly that those works are “irrelevant”?
A friend of mine, an academic who is familiar with publishing in scientific, philosophical and historical academic journals, was stunned when I discussed all this with him. In his field, the thought that a published paper would be retracted from a journal solely because of views the author expressed outside the context of the journal and wholly unrelated to the work itself, was unthinkable.
Nonetheless, in the world of lit mags, de-platforming has become increasingly common.
Here is a poet who had two poems taken down after a skirmish with other editors and writers.
Here is a poet whose poem was removed after people voiced complaints about the poet’s other writings and online presence.
One journal tweeted that “if it should come to our attention that one of our writers has themselves published hateful material elsewhere…we will be happy to remove their poems from our website…”
This journal removed a contributor’s work and blacklisted them from future issues after receiving “some troubling information.” The editors were shown “screenshots & other evidence of this contributor's racism & bigotry on twitter & other platforms.”
This lit mag announced: “Please know that if it ever comes to light that someone we've published is a racist/abuser, we will remove their work...”
What do you make of this?
Are these important and necessary steps in the fight for social justice?
Or does all this create a chilling atmosphere of surveillance and speech-policing?
With terms such as “hateful material” never precisely defined, should writers worry that they might see their work un-published after voicing support for a particular political party? Could a poet have their poems removed for speaking out against a war? For attending a protest? For criticizing public policy?
Sounds impossible.
And yet.
My friend G., a fiction writer, told me recently:
Cancel culture is horrifying. I don’t speak my deepest convictions. In a literary culture so close to empire, with such a narrow code of acceptable opinion, your deepest humanity can get you in trouble. It’s intolerant of dialogue and debate. It’s not permissible to speak outside an already sanctified, codified position without being called out as being dangerous, terror-adjacent, right-wing, etc. I was listening to Born in the USA and thought if the song ran today, Bruce Springsteen would probably be vilified for being anti-war, for criticizing the government…
My friend, A., a poet, novelist and literary critic, put it this way: “Nobody can utter a word of truth in any public forum anymore…We are at the point of zero discourse now.”
An editor I recently interviewed cited this atmosphere as a reason why fewer people are writing hard-hitting literary criticism. “Everyone is afraid to speak.”
But here’s the thing: It’s even more than that.
Among all the writers I have mentioned here who have been de-platformed, not a single one was ever accused of sexual assault or physical violence. Nor have any of them had their tweets reported for stoking or advocating violence.
Meanwhile, this latter claim cannot be made about the people who have sought to have these writers de-platformed. In other words, the very public who wishes to de-platform a writer for unacceptable speech itself often engages in vitriolic attacks and violence.
One writer told me:
“I was identified as having a "wrong"…belief...I didn't do anything wrong, though…I've never abused or harassed anyone who has a different opinion than me…
Dozens of people immediately defriended me. I had work removed from publications afraid to be associated with me. People I knew [in real life] publicly denounced me on social media…I received physical threats of violence from several different people who threatened on social media to come and find me. Another individual called for others "to chase me" on social media and find other information about me.
…When the dragging and dogpiling first happened to me, I was so depressed and cried every day for a week. I didn't shower. I didn't leave the house.
…The longer-term effects of this on someone like me: I don't trust people. I stay off social media. I always wonder when the next dogpile will start. The mob never forgets you. They bring your name up along all types of negative words and stereotypes that hype up others to hate you. I feel dehumanized, because they don't see me as human. I don't even want my name on this testimonial for fear of being targeted again.”
Another told me:
“…I have been threatened with violence, and it affected everything. My relationship, my self-esteem…my own mental state. It worsened my depression and anxiety… How do you explain to somebody what that does to your psyche? The paranoia it creates is wild...
One of the most enduring and distressing effects of cancellation for me is the chilling effect it has had on my writing and enjoyment of poetry. It is about fear, and making somebody feel too afraid to engage. As a person with a severe panic disorder, and one long-acquainted with fear, its use to gain power and clout disgusts me. But it works. Cancellation becomes self-cancellation as that fear is internalized. That's the worst part of it for me.”
So here’s another question: When editors take their cues from the public about whom un-publish, are they showing alignment with the public’s rhetoric and behavior?
It's worth mentioning here that not a single one of the writers I’ve cited or talked to here is a powerful person in society at large. They are not college deans, blockbuster authors or Hollywood celebrities, buttressed and protected by elite institutions.
They are working editors, artists and writers. They are young people, struggling to make a name for themselves. They are parents, juggling jobs and bills and trying to find time to write. The original poet, D., is transsexual. One poet is non-binary. One is gay. Two writers here are people of color. All but two are women.
In other words, the people here are the very individuals that de-platforming campaigns are supposedly intended to protect.
What, then, is to be done?
In response to backlash over D.’s story being taken down, one journal editor tweeted something refreshingly reasonable and level-headed:
“…[I] think eds. generally should stand by those they publish. They can invite letters to the editor and publish them; they can say ‘I don't agree with this person's views but I liked the work enough to publish it and I stand by that.’"
Sounds so simple.
Could it be?
Another solution might be found in the securing of Archival Rights, as Johnny Longfellow describes here. "By accepting Archival Rights, what a publisher will be signaling to contributors is that their work will not be subject to deplatforming, nor will they as publishers be subject to voluntary withdrawal...”
At the very least, editors could do more to communicate with their contributors when such incidents transpire.
One poet notes that upon deciding to unpublish his poems, “not a single one of these publications contacted me privately [beforehand].”
Another writer shared with me the following emails she received from editors at two different magazines who were about to publish her work:
“I am writing today to inform you that we can no longer publish [“poem”]. I have refunded your expedited submission fee.”
“Dear [Writer], Thank you for thinking of [Lit Mag] as an outlet for your work. Unfortunately, given the events that occurred online last month, we are sorry to tell you that we can no longer publish [“poem”]. We hope you understand. Best wishes, [Editors]”
In the latter instances, this writer asked for explanation. In one case the writer asked for a chance to tell their side of the story.
The writer never heard from the editors again.
Naturally, I do not have all the answers.
What I do know is this: However well-intentioned editors may be when they decide to unpublish and/or blacklist a contributor, such acts carry consequences far beyond the one magazine and the creative work itself.
The pressure campaigns that lead to de-platforming are themselves often destructive and violent.
When such violence remains ignored while at the same time writers are subject to having their work removed from magazines as a result of views they express in other contexts, we as a community have a lot to think about and discuss.
Speaking on behalf of ONE ART: a journal of poetry. As I (Mark Danowsky), have said elsewhere, I believe if the work is good then the work is good. I will not deplatform poets. ONE ART has a note on our Submissions page stating, "ONE ART reserves Archival Rights for all published materials." This was recently pointed out as a useful way to push back against the request for material to be taken down from ONE ART's website if we/I do not wish to do so. After all, the journal was granted one time, first publication rights. It's essential to remember there is always gray area. As others have pointed out, the lit community needs to be able to have inclusive conversations. We cannot simply shout-down folks who do not share precisely the same beliefs we have *at a given historical moment*. Consider the present situation with book banning. Yes, the canon needs to evolve. No, we should not censor or update older texts that were written in a different time when societal norms were not the same as now. Times change. Context matters. People need to adjust in order to not cause harm. The literary and arts communities are meant to be a safe space for experimentation. Comedians, for example, will tell you that we are living in challenging times. Why? Well, it's pretty obvious, right? It's very easy to cross lines. We live in a time when even the perception of a microaggression can be a reason to attempt to cancel a person. Cancel a person? That is a weighty gesture to say the least. Who is Judge? Who is The Jury? Who is The Executioner? We know. We know exactly how this goes. Together, we can try to find better ways to address bad-actors. Silencing people does not allow for a healthy debate.
Cancel culture is censorship plus shaming, a rather hideous combination. If all artists were judged by their real-life behavior out of the studio, most would fail the litmus tests posited by cancel culture. In an ideal world, the work itself is the only thing to be judged. I suspect that many people who embrace cancel culture are not doing it because of their opposition to genuine issues like fascism, racism, sexism or similar behaviors and prejudices, but because of jealousy that someone who is not "perfect" got published over them. Shouldn't these folks spend their time learning how to be better writers rather than spending their time tearing down others?
As a member of PEN and an ardent foe of the pernicious right wing plague of book banning we are seeing in the US today, I am equally appalled by the Jacobins of cancel culture running wild in the literary community.
One of the most mind-blowing parts of this was touched on, but it is that the targeting and so-called "consequence" never really sticks to big-names. There is a very clear pattern of the individuals targeting artists going after the weak, the small, and the unprotected. It begins to beg the question of if this, maybe, isn't really about "calling out bad behavior" but about individuals who exist subsumed in an "I'm never wrong because I see myself as a victim"-narrative exerting power over those they can manipulate and knock down.
I'm pretty much done with this world. Small press darling to hated villain is a rough ride—a nightmare for anyone who actually wants to engage with the expansive, expanding experience that is being human. I'll go where I am actually wanted and appreciated, which is nowhere near people who clearly should be in serious therapy. Power dynamics exist in every community no matter how big or small. This is simple power, backed by an aggressive, destructive ideology that has utterly captured the arts and most academic fields of study. No thank you.
This is shameful, and the editors who deplatform works they have previously chosen are craven cowards. I would never submit work to any publication whose editors deplatform anyone, and for that reason, I wish those magazines or journals had been named.
Wow. This needs to be discussed. What about folks whose understanding has evolved? Remember when Obama was anti gay marriage and was enlightened by his daughters? Can’t we judge a specific work on its merits? I am all for not accepting homophobic or other negative works, but not for negating work based on someone’s interpretation of the author’s views outside of the work.
Wow, so much to reflect in here. I'm going to say that it seems unfair for editors to deplatform something they didn't find offensive. I'm all for listening to your readers, but I'm also for standing for what you believe in and not caving because others are offended. Now, if members of the editorial team had an issue and posting the piece was problematic, then hey. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
I also agree with others in saying there should have been communication with the writer previous to remvong the piece. Simply removing the piece and claiming it to be "irrelevant" feels aggressive and insensitive.
Dec 17, 2022·edited Dec 17, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch
I don't agree with all complaints about 'cancel culture', as I do believe that de-platforming can be justified, and technically, publishers have the right to do so. Personally, in this case, I found D's rhetoric harmful.
That being said, I think that any publication—at least, one that hopes to be considered professional and treating their authors with basic respect—has the responsibility to do their due diligence. To look into the situation, especially if it's not cut-and-dry, and to ask the author for their side of the story (even under a discerning eye; do they not have that right?). It seems like basic common sense to me. Without these factors, it's not innocent until proven guilty nor is it even guilty until proven innocent. It's a swift decision without any willingness to do the responsible work.
The hard truth is that because the stakes are relatively low for new or small publishers, many will drop a contributor at the slightest allegation. It's so as to avoid any risk of 'associating' with anyone problematic, and it's well-meaning at its core—but in my side-note opinion, publishing is supposed to be challenging, and not wanting any risk of controversy ever will not lead to very interesting work.
Maybe I'm writing this out of anger that it happened to me. Anyway, my biggest issue wasn't even the de-platforming itself. It was how I was spoken to. I'm very afraid to bring this up publicly and it still upsets me to think about, but it just isn't right and I've struggled being silent about so much.
So, firstly, I lost a chapbook deal. The contract had been signed months prior, and the publisher had been holding on to the rights after I'd withdrawn all other submissions. The email I received was as follows: "Hey, I have decided to terminate our publication agreement in light of the recent drama. I don't want [X] to be associated with such, frankly, childlike behavior. All my best, [X]"
At the time, I was in a very terrible place, and drunk and high to cope. I responded with the following: "I respect your decision but can we please talk about this, or can you explain further? tw suicide I have been on the brink of jumping off my balcony for 2 weeks because of some outright lies, rumours, and vile ableism being spread about and toward me and I'd like to at least know which specific behaviour you are referring to. No one will talk to me. Thank you."
I didn't receive a response. It's only later that I noticed I'd been silently removed from an upcoming anthology, and so I emailed again asking to be provided the basic dignity of notice.
I finally received a response, which read in full: "I apologize for not informing you that I dropped you from [anthology]. I never pressed send on that draft. Per our publication agreement, I have provided you with a reason for termination. I am not going to pull out receipts of the behavior to which I am referring. You acted hatefully on your public, professional Twitter—I will not have [X] associated with that."
At this time, I also had lost a staff position at a journal for which I was reading. I received a message from the EIC stating that they felt I was no longer conducive to a 'safe space'; however, I wasn't able to read the message beyond the notification preview, because I'd already been promptly removed from the Slack. I sent them an email simply requesting nothing but to read the full message, so that I could better understand. Still, I never received a response.
Later, upon the release of an issue for which I'd read, I became angry that I wasn't on the masthead for that issue. I understood removing me from the general masthead, but I felt my volunteer labor was being erased, as if I was so disgusting that one had to pretend that I never existed. I DM'd their Twitter account and received a message apologizing and fixing the issue (I highly suspect this was a different member of staff who has been much more professional overall.)
Next, I noticed that I had been nominated for a prize by a publisher (I hadn't been informed by said publisher) then promptly de-nominated (to quote the tweet about me I'd happened on: "We've been informed of abhorrent behavior"). I emailed them asking for more information; overly politely and understandingly, I should say. It was a long email, explaining that I was going through a mental health crisis and that some clarity would help me, that I wanted to apologize to them personally for any hurt I'd caused them. I also noted that there were some untrue, dangerous allegations going around and that I wanted to clarify the situation. I was not asking to have my nomination reinstated.
The response I received:
"Hi, Thank you for reaching out. We regret not contacting you directly about your work prior to our public announcement; however, we will not be moving forward with your BOTN nomination. We wish you the best with your future endeavours. Warmly, [X]".
It's later that I noticed they'd removed the nominated work from their website entirely, as for their review of an earlier chapbook of mine. Again, there was no notice of any kind. It stung, as this was a mental health focused publication.
At this point was fully evident to me that none of these editors actually had any clear idea of what had occurred. And while obviously the de-platforming itself did hurt me, the worst part was feeling swiftly swept away like an insect.Editors whom I'd had good relationships, who seemed to care for their writers, plus friends who knew me and my values well... I was suddenly shit under a shoe. It made me question my reality, my understanding of events, and my worth. My point of view was never asked for, my evidence about the sequence of events was never asked for (even though I offered it in all of my emails, I believe). My journal was name-dropped in even more contextless threads, alongside those of known serial stalkers/abusers. And to be honest, after the equivalent of full-time, unpaid labor I'd put in into building an ethical, supportive publication that has never had a prior complaint... I pretty much broke. I couldn't sleep or eat at this point and I really wouldn't be alive if it weren't for my partner who lives with me.
I DMed one past contributor who expressed unexplained remorse for associating with us, apologizing and asking for clarity... and you guessed it, I received no response. Yet for this person, and others mentioned above, to continue to interact with me on social media after the pressure not to do so had faded out, it made me sick. My one stalker actually reached out to apologize/own up to intentionally driving a 'smear campaign' (their words), but they refused to acknowledge it publicly and so it doesn't even matter.
Publishers: if you really want to de-platform a writer, that's your right (unless otherwise contracted). They might not be your contributors any longer, but they are still human beings. Except for the big cases where it was clearly a means of staying safe, I'm frankly concerned by the ease and quickness some people are shut out.
And let me be clear: not every journal is like this. I'd also like to thank the editors who have shown me such kindness and understanding both recently and throughout the years.
Edit: I forgot! A small press editor (former friend) also said they'd be 'temporarily' removing my book from their website, in their words for "optics" just so they didn't get 'attacked', as well.
Becky, I agree with you completely that such unthinking de-platforming is wrong. The editors could add a disclaimer at the bottom of a controversial poem ("Some readers claim XXX; here's what the author had to say: YYYY.) But simply taking it down without discussion or investigating the claims of that reader (who may have their own axe to grind), and especially without notice or asking the author for clarification, is inexcusable. Especially when the theoretically offensive comments were not in the published work itself, and have never been verified! This is the worst of the Salem Witch Trials (based on rumor alone) come home to roost. I wish you would publish the names of those literary mags so we could know where not to send our work! That would serve them right.
Many times a publication which has as its main purpose to publish poetry has a relatively small subscriber base. Consequently it often is very sensitive to the criticism of its paid members. However censorship based on financial viability rather than editorial integrity defeats the very reason for its existence.
When an author is banned solely because of printed work published elsewhere then the so-called free press is just as intolerant as any dictator.
Thank you for writing this. Writers need to be free to be brave and explore. Editors and publishers need to be courageous and stand by what they accept. Orwell has many essays on how conformity to ideology creates bland and sterile art, especially in literature. Thank you for speaking and standing up for freedom of creativity and expression, and trying to improve this situation.
Great topic, Becky. I'd need the space of a law review article or something similar to fully flesh out my thoughts on this, but a couple things come to mind. Folks who bemoan cancel culture seem to me to be often from groups that typically are privileged, that is to say, they don't need the protections afforded by the so-called cancel culture because the slings and arrows aren't usually headed their way, and the statements of that crew are often hyperbolic. Springsteen would cancelled if Born in the USA came out today? Hardly. Also, what some folks call cancel culture is often just someone reaping the natural consequences of their bad behavior or actions and crying "ouch!" Bad behavior should be called out. At the same time, Black folks and others have had to deal with problematic literary and other folks from American time-immemorial -- from America's enslaving founding fathers to the founding fathers of Modernism. Take Eliot's description of the great Mississippi where he writes "Like the river and its cargo of dead negroes." Are the bodies of Black folks cargo? What do Black folks, specifically Black writers, do in the face of racism in literature or its practitioners? We take what we can use and we leave the rest behind. Was Eliot a racist MF? It wouldn't surprise me in the least, but does that mean I won't read and learn from Four Quartets? Why would I cut off my nose to spite Eliot's face? You take what you can use and leave the rest behind. It seems there has to be some separation between the thing and the thing's creator. If a poet or writer is a racist or transphobic MF but none of that shows up in the work itself? I'd be inclined to let it ride. Let that poet or writer take the hit in the public square, but de-platforming seems weird because it too closely aligns the work with its creator. The work is the child of the poet; it is not the poet. Why let the sins of the father be visited upon the child? Genius is rare. Most work will die a natural death and be forgotten and its creators forgotten. Let the work fight for its survival in the literary marketplace. The work that survives will do so despite the narrow-mindedness of even the most flawed creators. But do I cry for writers given a hard time for their knucklehead, harmful views expressed outside the page? I do not.
Great column, Becky. It’s amazing to me that the same political class that has been railing about “fascism” all these years is now engaging in fascism themselves in the publishing world. The Left used to scream about the evils of book burning, but what is “de-platforming” if not the digital equivalent of book burning?
The problem, Justine, is the labeling without evidence. Everyone today is called a "Nazi" for simply disagreeing with another's point of view. Labeling (and social death as a result) is just an accusation without evidence and that's unfair. Being charged without option to defend your reputation is not American. That's why magazines should do their vetting first, not de-platform. If the accusation is true, the publication should out that person and say why specifically and let readers--we can decide for ourselves!--choose if we want to continue to read that writer. I wouldn't, and expect publications to do that vetting before they publish. Smearing a writer by de-platforming without explicitly saying why is why I will never submit to the journals that de-platformed people (which, by the way, are mostly not very good anyhow, based on what's on their websites. The following publications de-platformed (took down) work by writers accused by readers of some social infraction, without author permission or editor comment, etc. I am so sick of cancel culture. How is this different from book burning, Justine?
Here's the list of De-platforming publications in the original post:
This is absurd. I don’t like the idea of canceling someone’s unrelated words -- writing and narrative are pathways to intellectual and spiritual growth. How does negating another’s humanity ever help one heal? If the literary community can’t accept humans are flawed... I don’t know. That’s a depressing state of affairs.
The editor of the journal is question, that is, the original subject, was wrong, even cowardly. If journal editors don't have the courage to defend works they accepted on their literary merits, then what use is it even submitting manuscript to journals or even for magazines to exist. Are we going to remove all the Picasso paintings from museums because he was an asshole to his wives? Are we going to cancel Eliot and Pound for their antisemitic views? Yes, misogyny and antisemitism are evils in our world, but the nature of creative work is that the moral logic of form, meaning and function transcend those principles.
I am a self identified, left wing, anti-fascist person. "Cancelling" is, in the form you've so carefully detailed, fascist.
I have two issues in my own discourse about this that I find problematic and I've not resolved.
1) The right wields the moniker "cancel culture" as a cudgel to dismiss anyone who calls out their excesses. The term is tainted for me to the point I can't use it without feeling I've become co-opted by the right-wing grievance machine.
2) I think there are limits that as an editor, I'd be sensitive to. If I published a poet who had physically threatened or systematically harassed someone (or promoted this same), I would consider disassociating my journal from them.
The virulently anti-clerical 18th century French philosopher Voltaire is reputed to have said, 'I do not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
Voltaire was anti-government as well as anti-clerical and was sent to prison for his writing. We should heed his willingness to listen to his opponents.
I encourage Becky and other editor/publishers to consider running articles where they tell us who the publications are that mistreat authors, or treat them with disrespect, when these issues OUTSIDE their work come up.
I feel like there must be a way to do this so it’s not punitive or hostile. Rather, it’s the secretiveness I object to, when a person with some small bit of power shuts out an artist. I say that if they are doing this, all of us who are creative or are consumers ought to know they are doing it.
If it’s morally right to do it, as they are implying or (sometimes) bragging, they should not object to it being public knowledge that they are doing it.
I apologize for being redundant here; I wanted to make this point with brevity in a stand-alone comment.
I think we often talk about deplatforming work without context. From a purely intellectual standpoint, it seems harsh and punitive. It seems anti-intellectual.
There are some heinous stuff out there. Some people show no restraints in their hate. You cannot have a healthy debate about whether another human being should be dehumanized, threatened and abused. Yet this is far too common on social media.
Instead of a binary yes or no answer, I think publications should be clear up front if there are considerations that would make a story unpublishable. If the publication is going to be tagging authors, you would want to make sure that they are not pointing to a social media account that demeans and degrades other people. I would not point my readers to social media accounts that promoted hate. To be clear, that does not mean voting for and supporting a different political party. If you have been on Twitter a lot (or almost any other platform) you must be aware of how low the bar is.
Our literary journal has never deplatformed anyone. We are relatively new and small and would fall under the radar (most likely). We also value our relationships with writers and connect with them on social media prior to publication. I hope we are never faced with this dilemma.
For those writers that were deplatformed without discussion, i feel like that is also unacceptable. I believe in facing difficult conversations with openness. Sounds like in several of the cases, things were misconstrued.
Great that you’ve raised this issue again, Becky, and the comments are very thoughtful. I wish there were something we could DO about this problem besides discuss it and maybe disengage from supporting lit mags, one by one, that foster cancel culture and virulent wokeism. It’s exasperating to be up against censorship coming from the crowd that considers itself enlightened and intellectual.
In contemporary American literature the Author, which was a strictly liberal/bourgeois creation, is being both limited (under corporatization) and being put on a pedestal (hyper-authorship). Both tendencies are simultaneously in progress, creating much of the confusion between conventional and postmodern concepts of the author. Corporate publishing doesn’t want to end the concept of the author (as Barthes and Foucault would have it) but instead wants to raise and revise it for its own purposes. Thus impersonalization of the work is back in force, breaking the circuit between the author and the conditions of production, which can never be part of the official discussion. At the same time, the personality of the author is back, but only a certain kind, which has been preapproved for publicity purposes.
The author (in the sense of the biography of the author) has in effect become an appendage to the Author (the version promoted in public). The ultimate reflection of this push and pull is in the genre of memoir, which constantly subsumes the author under the compulsions of the Author. Regardless of genre, the Author must be at the forefront of self-promotion, in his appearances as teacher, reader, mentor, conference-goer, blogger, and social media enthusiast. The stabilization of the author-function in the midst of the potential chaos ordered by Web 2.0 is one of the great accomplishments of corporate publishing. Postmodern conceptions of authorship are elaborately refuted, and in this sense it is a very conservative moment.
How does biography fit into this picture? New Criticism had dislodged the author from criticism. This unnatural situation couldn’t last forever. The author had to make a comeback in some form or other. New Historicism has been busy investigating the conditions of authorship in a very prolific way in recent decades. As for popular writing, biographies now read authors as extensions of their writing, not as independent entities. Thus, Blake Bailey on John Cheever, or Tracy Daugherty on Donald Barthelme, construct authors who are of a piece with the oeuvre: suburban dysfunction in the case of Cheever, postmodern avatar in the case of Barthelme. The task of the biographer becomes not so much to burnish the reputation of the dead author but to fill in the gaps between the author and oeuvre, so that it all becomes a unity. Biography tries to make the body of work autobiographical, since to ascribe romantic genius to the author would be to leave inexplicable gaps. A more recent manifestation is D. T. Max’s biography of David Foster Wallace which must simultaneously exalt the author of Infinite Jest (1996), supposedly the greatest avant-garde modern American text, and the tortured life of the author, who failed to produce a follow-up.
Most American authors today deny all knowledge of post-structuralism on the public record. They want to preserve an innocence prior to the claims of Barthes and Foucault, as though theory were a rumor in distant ramparts but had nothing personally to do with their self-presentation as authors which is democratic to the degree that aspirants can assiduously work their way into the club, through hard work, the benefits of mentorship (and writing programs), and acceptance of the codes of the publishing world. Is there a connection between denial of postmodernism and refusal to become public figures? Authors are very uncomfortable taking on such a role, but could it be because the only way to become a serious public figure is to recognize the existence of postmodern modes of thinking which would in turn mean getting away from prescribed notions of authorship? To be an author with a public stance conflicts with being an author as corporate publishing desires it.
The movement in authorship from the middle ages onward has been from anonymity to authorized biography (Samuel Johnson) to impersonality (modernism) to excess of biography today, but whatever the tendency at any given moment it always fits in with larger philosophical themes. The author today is supposed to have no independent personality. He may not be wild, unruly, drunk, addicted, etc. (except as it occurs in memoir, and then only as deviance to be cured or at least overcome in order to become a writer, otherwise the reader wouldn’t have the memoir in hand). Memoir is a genre, then, that formally expunges the deviances of authorship.
American writing today is presumed to be primarily autobiographical, which means that—aside from memoir, which expurgates—anything in life that cannot be written about (the rebellious side as it takes offense against neoliberal political economy) is no good for writing material and must therefore be denied, or at least cannot be recognized as part of the author’s self-conception. That which cannot be dramatized is worthless for writing as lived experience. Therefore, life itself must be constricted, lived within parameters that allow fictionalization. The process becomes self-reinforcing in both directions, which explains the shallow nature of much American writing today. We might think of this as the most refined form of (self-)censorship—and authorship is always intertwined with notions of censorship.
I'm glad I'm an old man as it saddens me to see where the land of the 'free' is going--but then history is a merry go round as human nature never changes-- so now we are going back to the communist show trials when a denunciation = a conviction, then next the enlightened 'woke' will replay the Salem Witch trials, where an accusation was enough to get one burned at the stake, then finally the Inquisition will return where 'wrong thoughts' are punished worse than wrong acts and a small powerful elite literally controlled the world [and mark- this had nothing to do with Christianity as Jesus was clear on 'do unto others', but then 'wokism' has nothing to do with being a decent human being but with being 'superior': evil hides under many disguises!] For all who are younger and love truth and fair play and can see that each person has a soul that they are responsible for [and good luck trying to pull one over on God!], then I would say stand up [as a few famous stand-up comics are]to this form of fascism, because it is all about controlling people. Oh, yeah, an feeling superior whilst you are at it.
It's so sad to hear this tale of writers and editors under attack from a group of people trying to protect themselves from attack, and by so doing actually harming members of the very groups they imagine they're supporting. The fear generated by the state of modern Western culture, at the root of the conflict you so clearly describe, is powerfully evident in the knee jerk reactions of both sides, those hiding behind the anonymous attacks they generate on social media, and those who allow themselves to be cowed by that fearful onslaught. Both responses are futile efforts to resolve the real issue. Kindness and acceptance will never be won through angry attacks over perceived lacks of kindness and acceptance; that only leads to stronger backlash. Instead, self-reflection and mutual compassionate support within both camps, focused on witnessing and moving through anger and grief to discover and grow deeper, wiser communication, using careful, care-filled words, is the only way to build networks of kindness strong enough to break down the barriers to acceptance so powerfully felt by so many in this lonely, angry, fragmented, frightened world. It's easy to attack and much harder to examine and change one's own contributions to the problem, although in the end the latter is far more powerful.
I think as distressing, despicable, disgusting, or...merely uncomfortable (not referring to transphobia, but keep reading....) someone's words and life are, the work should stand on its own. It's hard to say this in the face of the knowledge of someone's non-work-itself life, and it is incredibly difficult to separate ourselves. I do it and have done it myself (I won't go see a Woody Allen movie, for example). However, there is no limit. And there are too many things that become offensive enough that editors use to close out work which would otherwise be acceptable and even celebrated. If we close out transphobia, why haven't we closed out anti-Semite poets? Why isn't it okay to continue closing out for whatever offends us...aging, for example?
I used to worry about offending a family member when one of my personal essays was published. Now, it’s everyone in the galaxy we orbit, in which history is continuously unmade.
So I speak my truth in the pages of my notebook. And pivot to publishing newsletters on non-controversial topics. Like...cooking. And road trips. And nature.
*and yes, I will be literally baking “holiday” cookies today*
To the writer called out for having a "wrong belief" do take heart... it helps to know a little Greek...and a little philosophy. Right belief is what the Greeks called orthodoxy, or some might say, right thinking. The ancients distinguished between belief and truth. Orthodoxy is not the same as truth.
It seems we are living out the final, postmodern stage of the process Nietzsche began describing in his essay, "On The Genealogy of Morality." When society arrives at a point where there are no norms, no truth, no morality, only beliefs, it is a very confusing world. People become lost...they have no bearings...they don't know who they are or where they are going...they let themselves be swayed by the loudest voice...as we see on these related posts. Neither writers nor editors know what is right thinking because it has been destroyed by those seeing to impose their own concepts of it.
Wendell Berry said "If you don't know where you are, you don't know who you are." I feel for all you folks who don't know where you are. You have allowed yourselves to be cowed by the postmodern revisionist crowd's new version of "truth." There are some out here who haven't succumbed to that fate...which begs the question, why would any writer want to take the risk of being published in one of these capricious lit mags in this environment?
As a new writer, writing from a middle of the road political perspective on some issues, should I even try? I think my social media is pretty clean, but is there space for an essayist and memoirist who does not follow strict party line?
I can't even finish reading the newsletter. This infuriates me. A person’s art should be judged separately from their character.
Imagine if de-platforming were as malignant a century ago as it is today. How many great writers, painters, and composers would have been handcuffed, a sock stuffed in their mouths?
I believe that in the future, opinions will only be expressed alone, hiding under a blanket with a flashlight and a diary, because many people will be afraid to publicly express their views for fear of repercussions.
So my question is simple. These magazines that are taking complaints from people...how many people have to speak out against a writer that the editors feel they need to de-platform the writer? Is it fewer than 10? (Then simply write those 10 people and tell them they are more than welcome to turn the page and NOT read that particular poet.) It seems to me that these Editors are simply gutless. They should respond to these complaints the same way they respond to submissions by writers, "we'll get back to you in about six months"...and by then, everything will have blown over.
I just wanted to say thanks for pointing out--from a non-conservative viewpoint --how and why cancel culture is a real problem. You point out that it is hurting those it putatively protects. And even if it did not, it would still be wrong because it's authoritarian and anathema to intellectual culture.
Except for Custer, there isn’t a lot of specificity here about what these writers were deplatformed *for* specifically, the comments from individual writers at the end.
When identity becomes the most crucial aspect of creative writing, then online dogpiles and cancellation culture will inevitably occur. Maybe we need to focus on literary quality (whatever this means to individual editors) more than on an author's identity. When I read Amanda Gorman's awful poem published in "The New Yorker," I knew po-world was in trouble.
Ok… so I see where the author here is coming from. But this article felt like a lot of white people bullshit. All these people being like “OH NOOO THIS IS CENSORSHIP I CANT SAY ANYTHING ANYMORE THIS IS SUPPRESSION” is so silly to me. That is just SO FAR from the truth. It gives me reactionary, white fragility vibes. Like grow up, your life is not that hard and literally you get away with so much. Don’t be upset that you can’t be as racist on facebook anymore. It's like, do you have no understanding of the implicit violence and racism in the things these people are saying?
I don’t really care if an author says something sexist or whateverphobic, but racism is where I draw the line. Like obviously, if some guy says “women are annoying” after publishing a poem it shouldn’t be taken down. If someone tweets something transphobic I don’t think we should dogpile on them and unpublish their poems. And we have to acknowledge that deplatforming can actually perpetuate existing systems and end up harming BIPOC writers and writers of other marginalized identities.
But I think any time a white author PUBLICALLY says something explicitly racist? Of course there needs to be consequences for that! I don’t feel discomfort with deplatforming those authors.
Also, the writer saying that “oh these people who haven’t done any violence are getting deplatformed” doesn’t acknowledge the violence behind some of the racist things people are saying. I would argue that some of these tweets are in fact violent.
And white privilege is crazy so let’s not pretend that these authors can pick themself back up after this. I’m sorry, if you’re going to say something like this on a public account you can’t expect there to be no consequences.
My favorite take on this is from Paisley Rekdal. Rekdal says it best in her book Appropriate:
"These readers’ disagreements do not mean that they are against free speech, but that they are interested in larger questions around freedom, which is the right of particular communities to control their stories and to demand that the majority no longer has autonomic access to any subject matter it likes. This freedom may at times feel to you like censorship. But censorship occurs when someone, usually a government, agent of the state, or powerful institution, actively suppresses information or media. Censorship is a programmatic response to a speech that offends, that is perceived as volatile, false, or harmful to a community’s security. In this nation with its liberal publishing laws and its constitutionally protected freedom of speech, with its myriad self-publishing houses and blogs and web-sites, only you have the power to censor yourself. My criticism, your classmates’ disdain, the agent’s reluctance to represent you, your editor’s ambivalence-- all these things can be navigated if you so desire. As you’ve seen yourself in class when someone questions the nature of your work, that’s not censorship or criticism."
Speaking on behalf of ONE ART: a journal of poetry. As I (Mark Danowsky), have said elsewhere, I believe if the work is good then the work is good. I will not deplatform poets. ONE ART has a note on our Submissions page stating, "ONE ART reserves Archival Rights for all published materials." This was recently pointed out as a useful way to push back against the request for material to be taken down from ONE ART's website if we/I do not wish to do so. After all, the journal was granted one time, first publication rights. It's essential to remember there is always gray area. As others have pointed out, the lit community needs to be able to have inclusive conversations. We cannot simply shout-down folks who do not share precisely the same beliefs we have *at a given historical moment*. Consider the present situation with book banning. Yes, the canon needs to evolve. No, we should not censor or update older texts that were written in a different time when societal norms were not the same as now. Times change. Context matters. People need to adjust in order to not cause harm. The literary and arts communities are meant to be a safe space for experimentation. Comedians, for example, will tell you that we are living in challenging times. Why? Well, it's pretty obvious, right? It's very easy to cross lines. We live in a time when even the perception of a microaggression can be a reason to attempt to cancel a person. Cancel a person? That is a weighty gesture to say the least. Who is Judge? Who is The Jury? Who is The Executioner? We know. We know exactly how this goes. Together, we can try to find better ways to address bad-actors. Silencing people does not allow for a healthy debate.
Cancel culture is censorship plus shaming, a rather hideous combination. If all artists were judged by their real-life behavior out of the studio, most would fail the litmus tests posited by cancel culture. In an ideal world, the work itself is the only thing to be judged. I suspect that many people who embrace cancel culture are not doing it because of their opposition to genuine issues like fascism, racism, sexism or similar behaviors and prejudices, but because of jealousy that someone who is not "perfect" got published over them. Shouldn't these folks spend their time learning how to be better writers rather than spending their time tearing down others?
As a member of PEN and an ardent foe of the pernicious right wing plague of book banning we are seeing in the US today, I am equally appalled by the Jacobins of cancel culture running wild in the literary community.
One of the most mind-blowing parts of this was touched on, but it is that the targeting and so-called "consequence" never really sticks to big-names. There is a very clear pattern of the individuals targeting artists going after the weak, the small, and the unprotected. It begins to beg the question of if this, maybe, isn't really about "calling out bad behavior" but about individuals who exist subsumed in an "I'm never wrong because I see myself as a victim"-narrative exerting power over those they can manipulate and knock down.
I'm pretty much done with this world. Small press darling to hated villain is a rough ride—a nightmare for anyone who actually wants to engage with the expansive, expanding experience that is being human. I'll go where I am actually wanted and appreciated, which is nowhere near people who clearly should be in serious therapy. Power dynamics exist in every community no matter how big or small. This is simple power, backed by an aggressive, destructive ideology that has utterly captured the arts and most academic fields of study. No thank you.
brb gonna bake cookies
I'm so against cancel culture that if a magazine unpublishes or deplatforms a writer I refuse to pick up that magazine ever again... oh wait...
This is shameful, and the editors who deplatform works they have previously chosen are craven cowards. I would never submit work to any publication whose editors deplatform anyone, and for that reason, I wish those magazines or journals had been named.
Wow. This needs to be discussed. What about folks whose understanding has evolved? Remember when Obama was anti gay marriage and was enlightened by his daughters? Can’t we judge a specific work on its merits? I am all for not accepting homophobic or other negative works, but not for negating work based on someone’s interpretation of the author’s views outside of the work.
Wow, so much to reflect in here. I'm going to say that it seems unfair for editors to deplatform something they didn't find offensive. I'm all for listening to your readers, but I'm also for standing for what you believe in and not caving because others are offended. Now, if members of the editorial team had an issue and posting the piece was problematic, then hey. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
I also agree with others in saying there should have been communication with the writer previous to remvong the piece. Simply removing the piece and claiming it to be "irrelevant" feels aggressive and insensitive.
I don't agree with all complaints about 'cancel culture', as I do believe that de-platforming can be justified, and technically, publishers have the right to do so. Personally, in this case, I found D's rhetoric harmful.
That being said, I think that any publication—at least, one that hopes to be considered professional and treating their authors with basic respect—has the responsibility to do their due diligence. To look into the situation, especially if it's not cut-and-dry, and to ask the author for their side of the story (even under a discerning eye; do they not have that right?). It seems like basic common sense to me. Without these factors, it's not innocent until proven guilty nor is it even guilty until proven innocent. It's a swift decision without any willingness to do the responsible work.
The hard truth is that because the stakes are relatively low for new or small publishers, many will drop a contributor at the slightest allegation. It's so as to avoid any risk of 'associating' with anyone problematic, and it's well-meaning at its core—but in my side-note opinion, publishing is supposed to be challenging, and not wanting any risk of controversy ever will not lead to very interesting work.
Maybe I'm writing this out of anger that it happened to me. Anyway, my biggest issue wasn't even the de-platforming itself. It was how I was spoken to. I'm very afraid to bring this up publicly and it still upsets me to think about, but it just isn't right and I've struggled being silent about so much.
So, firstly, I lost a chapbook deal. The contract had been signed months prior, and the publisher had been holding on to the rights after I'd withdrawn all other submissions. The email I received was as follows: "Hey, I have decided to terminate our publication agreement in light of the recent drama. I don't want [X] to be associated with such, frankly, childlike behavior. All my best, [X]"
At the time, I was in a very terrible place, and drunk and high to cope. I responded with the following: "I respect your decision but can we please talk about this, or can you explain further? tw suicide I have been on the brink of jumping off my balcony for 2 weeks because of some outright lies, rumours, and vile ableism being spread about and toward me and I'd like to at least know which specific behaviour you are referring to. No one will talk to me. Thank you."
I didn't receive a response. It's only later that I noticed I'd been silently removed from an upcoming anthology, and so I emailed again asking to be provided the basic dignity of notice.
I finally received a response, which read in full: "I apologize for not informing you that I dropped you from [anthology]. I never pressed send on that draft. Per our publication agreement, I have provided you with a reason for termination. I am not going to pull out receipts of the behavior to which I am referring. You acted hatefully on your public, professional Twitter—I will not have [X] associated with that."
At this time, I also had lost a staff position at a journal for which I was reading. I received a message from the EIC stating that they felt I was no longer conducive to a 'safe space'; however, I wasn't able to read the message beyond the notification preview, because I'd already been promptly removed from the Slack. I sent them an email simply requesting nothing but to read the full message, so that I could better understand. Still, I never received a response.
Later, upon the release of an issue for which I'd read, I became angry that I wasn't on the masthead for that issue. I understood removing me from the general masthead, but I felt my volunteer labor was being erased, as if I was so disgusting that one had to pretend that I never existed. I DM'd their Twitter account and received a message apologizing and fixing the issue (I highly suspect this was a different member of staff who has been much more professional overall.)
Next, I noticed that I had been nominated for a prize by a publisher (I hadn't been informed by said publisher) then promptly de-nominated (to quote the tweet about me I'd happened on: "We've been informed of abhorrent behavior"). I emailed them asking for more information; overly politely and understandingly, I should say. It was a long email, explaining that I was going through a mental health crisis and that some clarity would help me, that I wanted to apologize to them personally for any hurt I'd caused them. I also noted that there were some untrue, dangerous allegations going around and that I wanted to clarify the situation. I was not asking to have my nomination reinstated.
The response I received:
"Hi, Thank you for reaching out. We regret not contacting you directly about your work prior to our public announcement; however, we will not be moving forward with your BOTN nomination. We wish you the best with your future endeavours. Warmly, [X]".
It's later that I noticed they'd removed the nominated work from their website entirely, as for their review of an earlier chapbook of mine. Again, there was no notice of any kind. It stung, as this was a mental health focused publication.
At this point was fully evident to me that none of these editors actually had any clear idea of what had occurred. And while obviously the de-platforming itself did hurt me, the worst part was feeling swiftly swept away like an insect.Editors whom I'd had good relationships, who seemed to care for their writers, plus friends who knew me and my values well... I was suddenly shit under a shoe. It made me question my reality, my understanding of events, and my worth. My point of view was never asked for, my evidence about the sequence of events was never asked for (even though I offered it in all of my emails, I believe). My journal was name-dropped in even more contextless threads, alongside those of known serial stalkers/abusers. And to be honest, after the equivalent of full-time, unpaid labor I'd put in into building an ethical, supportive publication that has never had a prior complaint... I pretty much broke. I couldn't sleep or eat at this point and I really wouldn't be alive if it weren't for my partner who lives with me.
I DMed one past contributor who expressed unexplained remorse for associating with us, apologizing and asking for clarity... and you guessed it, I received no response. Yet for this person, and others mentioned above, to continue to interact with me on social media after the pressure not to do so had faded out, it made me sick. My one stalker actually reached out to apologize/own up to intentionally driving a 'smear campaign' (their words), but they refused to acknowledge it publicly and so it doesn't even matter.
Publishers: if you really want to de-platform a writer, that's your right (unless otherwise contracted). They might not be your contributors any longer, but they are still human beings. Except for the big cases where it was clearly a means of staying safe, I'm frankly concerned by the ease and quickness some people are shut out.
And let me be clear: not every journal is like this. I'd also like to thank the editors who have shown me such kindness and understanding both recently and throughout the years.
Edit: I forgot! A small press editor (former friend) also said they'd be 'temporarily' removing my book from their website, in their words for "optics" just so they didn't get 'attacked', as well.
Becky, I agree with you completely that such unthinking de-platforming is wrong. The editors could add a disclaimer at the bottom of a controversial poem ("Some readers claim XXX; here's what the author had to say: YYYY.) But simply taking it down without discussion or investigating the claims of that reader (who may have their own axe to grind), and especially without notice or asking the author for clarification, is inexcusable. Especially when the theoretically offensive comments were not in the published work itself, and have never been verified! This is the worst of the Salem Witch Trials (based on rumor alone) come home to roost. I wish you would publish the names of those literary mags so we could know where not to send our work! That would serve them right.
Many times a publication which has as its main purpose to publish poetry has a relatively small subscriber base. Consequently it often is very sensitive to the criticism of its paid members. However censorship based on financial viability rather than editorial integrity defeats the very reason for its existence.
When an author is banned solely because of printed work published elsewhere then the so-called free press is just as intolerant as any dictator.
Thank you for writing this. Writers need to be free to be brave and explore. Editors and publishers need to be courageous and stand by what they accept. Orwell has many essays on how conformity to ideology creates bland and sterile art, especially in literature. Thank you for speaking and standing up for freedom of creativity and expression, and trying to improve this situation.
Great topic, Becky. I'd need the space of a law review article or something similar to fully flesh out my thoughts on this, but a couple things come to mind. Folks who bemoan cancel culture seem to me to be often from groups that typically are privileged, that is to say, they don't need the protections afforded by the so-called cancel culture because the slings and arrows aren't usually headed their way, and the statements of that crew are often hyperbolic. Springsteen would cancelled if Born in the USA came out today? Hardly. Also, what some folks call cancel culture is often just someone reaping the natural consequences of their bad behavior or actions and crying "ouch!" Bad behavior should be called out. At the same time, Black folks and others have had to deal with problematic literary and other folks from American time-immemorial -- from America's enslaving founding fathers to the founding fathers of Modernism. Take Eliot's description of the great Mississippi where he writes "Like the river and its cargo of dead negroes." Are the bodies of Black folks cargo? What do Black folks, specifically Black writers, do in the face of racism in literature or its practitioners? We take what we can use and we leave the rest behind. Was Eliot a racist MF? It wouldn't surprise me in the least, but does that mean I won't read and learn from Four Quartets? Why would I cut off my nose to spite Eliot's face? You take what you can use and leave the rest behind. It seems there has to be some separation between the thing and the thing's creator. If a poet or writer is a racist or transphobic MF but none of that shows up in the work itself? I'd be inclined to let it ride. Let that poet or writer take the hit in the public square, but de-platforming seems weird because it too closely aligns the work with its creator. The work is the child of the poet; it is not the poet. Why let the sins of the father be visited upon the child? Genius is rare. Most work will die a natural death and be forgotten and its creators forgotten. Let the work fight for its survival in the literary marketplace. The work that survives will do so despite the narrow-mindedness of even the most flawed creators. But do I cry for writers given a hard time for their knucklehead, harmful views expressed outside the page? I do not.
Great column, Becky. It’s amazing to me that the same political class that has been railing about “fascism” all these years is now engaging in fascism themselves in the publishing world. The Left used to scream about the evils of book burning, but what is “de-platforming” if not the digital equivalent of book burning?
The problem, Justine, is the labeling without evidence. Everyone today is called a "Nazi" for simply disagreeing with another's point of view. Labeling (and social death as a result) is just an accusation without evidence and that's unfair. Being charged without option to defend your reputation is not American. That's why magazines should do their vetting first, not de-platform. If the accusation is true, the publication should out that person and say why specifically and let readers--we can decide for ourselves!--choose if we want to continue to read that writer. I wouldn't, and expect publications to do that vetting before they publish. Smearing a writer by de-platforming without explicitly saying why is why I will never submit to the journals that de-platformed people (which, by the way, are mostly not very good anyhow, based on what's on their websites. The following publications de-platformed (took down) work by writers accused by readers of some social infraction, without author permission or editor comment, etc. I am so sick of cancel culture. How is this different from book burning, Justine?
Here's the list of De-platforming publications in the original post:
Blanket Sea Magazine
Half Mystic
Identity Theory, out of Nevada
The Journal, a Literary Magazine (Ohio State U)
Longleaf Review
Moonchild Magazine
Poetry magazine, (Donald Share ed. Resigned)
Rust and Moth
Sundress Publications
Wigleaf, (very short flash), Scott Garson, editor
Being reminded of all this makes for chilling reading. One does feel muzzled. And the banning of books in schools is unthinkable, but here it is.
This is absurd. I don’t like the idea of canceling someone’s unrelated words -- writing and narrative are pathways to intellectual and spiritual growth. How does negating another’s humanity ever help one heal? If the literary community can’t accept humans are flawed... I don’t know. That’s a depressing state of affairs.
The editor of the journal is question, that is, the original subject, was wrong, even cowardly. If journal editors don't have the courage to defend works they accepted on their literary merits, then what use is it even submitting manuscript to journals or even for magazines to exist. Are we going to remove all the Picasso paintings from museums because he was an asshole to his wives? Are we going to cancel Eliot and Pound for their antisemitic views? Yes, misogyny and antisemitism are evils in our world, but the nature of creative work is that the moral logic of form, meaning and function transcend those principles.
I am a self identified, left wing, anti-fascist person. "Cancelling" is, in the form you've so carefully detailed, fascist.
I have two issues in my own discourse about this that I find problematic and I've not resolved.
1) The right wields the moniker "cancel culture" as a cudgel to dismiss anyone who calls out their excesses. The term is tainted for me to the point I can't use it without feeling I've become co-opted by the right-wing grievance machine.
2) I think there are limits that as an editor, I'd be sensitive to. If I published a poet who had physically threatened or systematically harassed someone (or promoted this same), I would consider disassociating my journal from them.
The virulently anti-clerical 18th century French philosopher Voltaire is reputed to have said, 'I do not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
Voltaire was anti-government as well as anti-clerical and was sent to prison for his writing. We should heed his willingness to listen to his opponents.
I encourage Becky and other editor/publishers to consider running articles where they tell us who the publications are that mistreat authors, or treat them with disrespect, when these issues OUTSIDE their work come up.
I feel like there must be a way to do this so it’s not punitive or hostile. Rather, it’s the secretiveness I object to, when a person with some small bit of power shuts out an artist. I say that if they are doing this, all of us who are creative or are consumers ought to know they are doing it.
If it’s morally right to do it, as they are implying or (sometimes) bragging, they should not object to it being public knowledge that they are doing it.
I apologize for being redundant here; I wanted to make this point with brevity in a stand-alone comment.
I think we often talk about deplatforming work without context. From a purely intellectual standpoint, it seems harsh and punitive. It seems anti-intellectual.
There are some heinous stuff out there. Some people show no restraints in their hate. You cannot have a healthy debate about whether another human being should be dehumanized, threatened and abused. Yet this is far too common on social media.
Instead of a binary yes or no answer, I think publications should be clear up front if there are considerations that would make a story unpublishable. If the publication is going to be tagging authors, you would want to make sure that they are not pointing to a social media account that demeans and degrades other people. I would not point my readers to social media accounts that promoted hate. To be clear, that does not mean voting for and supporting a different political party. If you have been on Twitter a lot (or almost any other platform) you must be aware of how low the bar is.
Our literary journal has never deplatformed anyone. We are relatively new and small and would fall under the radar (most likely). We also value our relationships with writers and connect with them on social media prior to publication. I hope we are never faced with this dilemma.
For those writers that were deplatformed without discussion, i feel like that is also unacceptable. I believe in facing difficult conversations with openness. Sounds like in several of the cases, things were misconstrued.
Thanks for bringing it up.
This conversation has me thinking.
Great that you’ve raised this issue again, Becky, and the comments are very thoughtful. I wish there were something we could DO about this problem besides discuss it and maybe disengage from supporting lit mags, one by one, that foster cancel culture and virulent wokeism. It’s exasperating to be up against censorship coming from the crowd that considers itself enlightened and intellectual.
In contemporary American literature the Author, which was a strictly liberal/bourgeois creation, is being both limited (under corporatization) and being put on a pedestal (hyper-authorship). Both tendencies are simultaneously in progress, creating much of the confusion between conventional and postmodern concepts of the author. Corporate publishing doesn’t want to end the concept of the author (as Barthes and Foucault would have it) but instead wants to raise and revise it for its own purposes. Thus impersonalization of the work is back in force, breaking the circuit between the author and the conditions of production, which can never be part of the official discussion. At the same time, the personality of the author is back, but only a certain kind, which has been preapproved for publicity purposes.
The author (in the sense of the biography of the author) has in effect become an appendage to the Author (the version promoted in public). The ultimate reflection of this push and pull is in the genre of memoir, which constantly subsumes the author under the compulsions of the Author. Regardless of genre, the Author must be at the forefront of self-promotion, in his appearances as teacher, reader, mentor, conference-goer, blogger, and social media enthusiast. The stabilization of the author-function in the midst of the potential chaos ordered by Web 2.0 is one of the great accomplishments of corporate publishing. Postmodern conceptions of authorship are elaborately refuted, and in this sense it is a very conservative moment.
How does biography fit into this picture? New Criticism had dislodged the author from criticism. This unnatural situation couldn’t last forever. The author had to make a comeback in some form or other. New Historicism has been busy investigating the conditions of authorship in a very prolific way in recent decades. As for popular writing, biographies now read authors as extensions of their writing, not as independent entities. Thus, Blake Bailey on John Cheever, or Tracy Daugherty on Donald Barthelme, construct authors who are of a piece with the oeuvre: suburban dysfunction in the case of Cheever, postmodern avatar in the case of Barthelme. The task of the biographer becomes not so much to burnish the reputation of the dead author but to fill in the gaps between the author and oeuvre, so that it all becomes a unity. Biography tries to make the body of work autobiographical, since to ascribe romantic genius to the author would be to leave inexplicable gaps. A more recent manifestation is D. T. Max’s biography of David Foster Wallace which must simultaneously exalt the author of Infinite Jest (1996), supposedly the greatest avant-garde modern American text, and the tortured life of the author, who failed to produce a follow-up.
Most American authors today deny all knowledge of post-structuralism on the public record. They want to preserve an innocence prior to the claims of Barthes and Foucault, as though theory were a rumor in distant ramparts but had nothing personally to do with their self-presentation as authors which is democratic to the degree that aspirants can assiduously work their way into the club, through hard work, the benefits of mentorship (and writing programs), and acceptance of the codes of the publishing world. Is there a connection between denial of postmodernism and refusal to become public figures? Authors are very uncomfortable taking on such a role, but could it be because the only way to become a serious public figure is to recognize the existence of postmodern modes of thinking which would in turn mean getting away from prescribed notions of authorship? To be an author with a public stance conflicts with being an author as corporate publishing desires it.
The movement in authorship from the middle ages onward has been from anonymity to authorized biography (Samuel Johnson) to impersonality (modernism) to excess of biography today, but whatever the tendency at any given moment it always fits in with larger philosophical themes. The author today is supposed to have no independent personality. He may not be wild, unruly, drunk, addicted, etc. (except as it occurs in memoir, and then only as deviance to be cured or at least overcome in order to become a writer, otherwise the reader wouldn’t have the memoir in hand). Memoir is a genre, then, that formally expunges the deviances of authorship.
American writing today is presumed to be primarily autobiographical, which means that—aside from memoir, which expurgates—anything in life that cannot be written about (the rebellious side as it takes offense against neoliberal political economy) is no good for writing material and must therefore be denied, or at least cannot be recognized as part of the author’s self-conception. That which cannot be dramatized is worthless for writing as lived experience. Therefore, life itself must be constricted, lived within parameters that allow fictionalization. The process becomes self-reinforcing in both directions, which explains the shallow nature of much American writing today. We might think of this as the most refined form of (self-)censorship—and authorship is always intertwined with notions of censorship.
I'm glad I'm an old man as it saddens me to see where the land of the 'free' is going--but then history is a merry go round as human nature never changes-- so now we are going back to the communist show trials when a denunciation = a conviction, then next the enlightened 'woke' will replay the Salem Witch trials, where an accusation was enough to get one burned at the stake, then finally the Inquisition will return where 'wrong thoughts' are punished worse than wrong acts and a small powerful elite literally controlled the world [and mark- this had nothing to do with Christianity as Jesus was clear on 'do unto others', but then 'wokism' has nothing to do with being a decent human being but with being 'superior': evil hides under many disguises!] For all who are younger and love truth and fair play and can see that each person has a soul that they are responsible for [and good luck trying to pull one over on God!], then I would say stand up [as a few famous stand-up comics are]to this form of fascism, because it is all about controlling people. Oh, yeah, an feeling superior whilst you are at it.
It's so sad to hear this tale of writers and editors under attack from a group of people trying to protect themselves from attack, and by so doing actually harming members of the very groups they imagine they're supporting. The fear generated by the state of modern Western culture, at the root of the conflict you so clearly describe, is powerfully evident in the knee jerk reactions of both sides, those hiding behind the anonymous attacks they generate on social media, and those who allow themselves to be cowed by that fearful onslaught. Both responses are futile efforts to resolve the real issue. Kindness and acceptance will never be won through angry attacks over perceived lacks of kindness and acceptance; that only leads to stronger backlash. Instead, self-reflection and mutual compassionate support within both camps, focused on witnessing and moving through anger and grief to discover and grow deeper, wiser communication, using careful, care-filled words, is the only way to build networks of kindness strong enough to break down the barriers to acceptance so powerfully felt by so many in this lonely, angry, fragmented, frightened world. It's easy to attack and much harder to examine and change one's own contributions to the problem, although in the end the latter is far more powerful.
I think as distressing, despicable, disgusting, or...merely uncomfortable (not referring to transphobia, but keep reading....) someone's words and life are, the work should stand on its own. It's hard to say this in the face of the knowledge of someone's non-work-itself life, and it is incredibly difficult to separate ourselves. I do it and have done it myself (I won't go see a Woody Allen movie, for example). However, there is no limit. And there are too many things that become offensive enough that editors use to close out work which would otherwise be acceptable and even celebrated. If we close out transphobia, why haven't we closed out anti-Semite poets? Why isn't it okay to continue closing out for whatever offends us...aging, for example?
I used to worry about offending a family member when one of my personal essays was published. Now, it’s everyone in the galaxy we orbit, in which history is continuously unmade.
So I speak my truth in the pages of my notebook. And pivot to publishing newsletters on non-controversial topics. Like...cooking. And road trips. And nature.
*and yes, I will be literally baking “holiday” cookies today*
Feeling righteous and certain is very pleasant. Art ruins that every time.
To the writer called out for having a "wrong belief" do take heart... it helps to know a little Greek...and a little philosophy. Right belief is what the Greeks called orthodoxy, or some might say, right thinking. The ancients distinguished between belief and truth. Orthodoxy is not the same as truth.
It seems we are living out the final, postmodern stage of the process Nietzsche began describing in his essay, "On The Genealogy of Morality." When society arrives at a point where there are no norms, no truth, no morality, only beliefs, it is a very confusing world. People become lost...they have no bearings...they don't know who they are or where they are going...they let themselves be swayed by the loudest voice...as we see on these related posts. Neither writers nor editors know what is right thinking because it has been destroyed by those seeing to impose their own concepts of it.
Wendell Berry said "If you don't know where you are, you don't know who you are." I feel for all you folks who don't know where you are. You have allowed yourselves to be cowed by the postmodern revisionist crowd's new version of "truth." There are some out here who haven't succumbed to that fate...which begs the question, why would any writer want to take the risk of being published in one of these capricious lit mags in this environment?
As a new writer, writing from a middle of the road political perspective on some issues, should I even try? I think my social media is pretty clean, but is there space for an essayist and memoirist who does not follow strict party line?
I can't even finish reading the newsletter. This infuriates me. A person’s art should be judged separately from their character.
Imagine if de-platforming were as malignant a century ago as it is today. How many great writers, painters, and composers would have been handcuffed, a sock stuffed in their mouths?
I believe that in the future, opinions will only be expressed alone, hiding under a blanket with a flashlight and a diary, because many people will be afraid to publicly express their views for fear of repercussions.
Oh, wait—we already live in that world.
So my question is simple. These magazines that are taking complaints from people...how many people have to speak out against a writer that the editors feel they need to de-platform the writer? Is it fewer than 10? (Then simply write those 10 people and tell them they are more than welcome to turn the page and NOT read that particular poet.) It seems to me that these Editors are simply gutless. They should respond to these complaints the same way they respond to submissions by writers, "we'll get back to you in about six months"...and by then, everything will have blown over.
Thank you for tackling this and providing links. Many scary stories. I am going to read the comments and see what I think when I am better informed.
Bah! Humbug!
I just wanted to say thanks for pointing out--from a non-conservative viewpoint --how and why cancel culture is a real problem. You point out that it is hurting those it putatively protects. And even if it did not, it would still be wrong because it's authoritarian and anathema to intellectual culture.
No one is even mentioning that people's lives were threatened. Where is the love?
Except for Custer, there isn’t a lot of specificity here about what these writers were deplatformed *for* specifically, the comments from individual writers at the end.
When identity becomes the most crucial aspect of creative writing, then online dogpiles and cancellation culture will inevitably occur. Maybe we need to focus on literary quality (whatever this means to individual editors) more than on an author's identity. When I read Amanda Gorman's awful poem published in "The New Yorker," I knew po-world was in trouble.
Ok… so I see where the author here is coming from. But this article felt like a lot of white people bullshit. All these people being like “OH NOOO THIS IS CENSORSHIP I CANT SAY ANYTHING ANYMORE THIS IS SUPPRESSION” is so silly to me. That is just SO FAR from the truth. It gives me reactionary, white fragility vibes. Like grow up, your life is not that hard and literally you get away with so much. Don’t be upset that you can’t be as racist on facebook anymore. It's like, do you have no understanding of the implicit violence and racism in the things these people are saying?
I don’t really care if an author says something sexist or whateverphobic, but racism is where I draw the line. Like obviously, if some guy says “women are annoying” after publishing a poem it shouldn’t be taken down. If someone tweets something transphobic I don’t think we should dogpile on them and unpublish their poems. And we have to acknowledge that deplatforming can actually perpetuate existing systems and end up harming BIPOC writers and writers of other marginalized identities.
But I think any time a white author PUBLICALLY says something explicitly racist? Of course there needs to be consequences for that! I don’t feel discomfort with deplatforming those authors.
Also, the writer saying that “oh these people who haven’t done any violence are getting deplatformed” doesn’t acknowledge the violence behind some of the racist things people are saying. I would argue that some of these tweets are in fact violent.
And white privilege is crazy so let’s not pretend that these authors can pick themself back up after this. I’m sorry, if you’re going to say something like this on a public account you can’t expect there to be no consequences.
My favorite take on this is from Paisley Rekdal. Rekdal says it best in her book Appropriate:
"These readers’ disagreements do not mean that they are against free speech, but that they are interested in larger questions around freedom, which is the right of particular communities to control their stories and to demand that the majority no longer has autonomic access to any subject matter it likes. This freedom may at times feel to you like censorship. But censorship occurs when someone, usually a government, agent of the state, or powerful institution, actively suppresses information or media. Censorship is a programmatic response to a speech that offends, that is perceived as volatile, false, or harmful to a community’s security. In this nation with its liberal publishing laws and its constitutionally protected freedom of speech, with its myriad self-publishing houses and blogs and web-sites, only you have the power to censor yourself. My criticism, your classmates’ disdain, the agent’s reluctance to represent you, your editor’s ambivalence-- all these things can be navigated if you so desire. As you’ve seen yourself in class when someone questions the nature of your work, that’s not censorship or criticism."
Just curious if you would be confident in writing this over someone who had posted something racist.