I read Chen's essay, and although I'm very much against Netanyahu and Israeli apartheid, I didn't think the essay warranted being taken down. It was a personal essay about someone trying to be empathetic to her Israeli and her Palestinian friends. She concludes it is difficult but she is determined to continue.
Our culture has become frighteningly intolerant of any opinions that are not pre-formulated and absolute. Social media seems to require outrage that can be quickly relayed in 280 characters. There is no space for nuance and no time for reflection. Condemn absolutely and slam the door behind you seems to be the law of the land.
My goodness, this is fascism, plain and simple. The essay is a literary jewel - made compelling by great writing and stunning translations. It is honest and opens up readers to experience what the writer experiences — whether the reader sees the world as the writer does or not. Guernica - and ALL literary journals should prioritize how great writing is an empathy engine. The editors who threatened to resign are propagandists and, as Timothy Green says, “art is the opposite of propaganda.”
Quoting X.P. Callahan: Not only did Guernica cave to a posse of Church Ladies, it beclowned itself, in its subsequent notice to readers, with an egregiously pompous use of the word “fulsome.”
Yes, agree but these are not church ladies per se. They're fascists and are too stupid to realize how ridiculous they actually are in most cases. And boo to Guernica for the cave.
I am devastated at the blatant hatred of Israel espoused by Guernica's former editors. Clearly, if you do not portray all Jews as horned monsters you have no right to be heard.
I read the essay on Guernica. It didn't flow with the "you're either against all Israeli Jews or against all Palestinians" current, which has expanded in places to be broad-brush anti-semitic rather than anti-Zionist. The essay may have been poorly timed, in this atmosphere, but it seemed a view from someone who has felt caught in the middle for a long time, someone who questions her identity, and who is trying to help. I think the controversy is over how it "came off" to the "either you are with us or against us" minds and, importantly, in the midst of terror and genocide, than what the author wrote and intended.
I want to add that it seems at least some resignations came not only in reaction to the essay in question, but from biases some editors perceived as recurring problems at the journal. I can't speak to that at all.
Doesn't it always seem to go that those who speak loudest about freedom of speech are also often those in the front line of cancel culture. Shame on Guernica for buckling, let alone apologising.
What I'm reading in a number of places is that polls are showing that a lot of younger people are for limitations on speech - so I'm not convinced that these people resigning are generally supportive of free speech. Perhaps the editors of Guernica have championed free speech previously, and I'm just not aware of it. In any case, Nate Silver's analysis of the state of people's thoughts on free speech is pretty sobering, and you may find it interesting: https://www.natesilver.net/p/free-speech-is-in-trouble.
This desire to limit speech is one reason I no longer call myself progressive. I think I'm probably just an old-school liberal - or maybe just old.
Thanks, Clare. I don't think age has anything to do with free speech. You have to wonder what other freedoms the cancel culturati will attack after they've ditched your country's First Amendment. ;-)
Let's begin with the word "fulsome." Fulsome does not mean "complete." The phrase "fulsome praise," for example, means "exageratedly flattering praise." I think the editors mean "complete." They will publish a complete explanation. But their inability to distinguish between the word "full" and "fulsome" is inexplicable and inexcusable. My take is that if an editor cannot use words precisely, that person will be unable to understand ideas precisely and think clearly.
Per Merriam-Webster, "fulsome" has been used to mean "abundant" and "full and well developed" since early in the twentieth century, and this meaning goes back to the 14th century, when it meant "abundant, copious." My 1954 unabridged Merriam-Webster says "fulsome" means "offensive" and gives "fulsome praise" as an example of that - though it says the offensiveness can stem from insincerity.
My own take is that it's easy to be wrong about an individual word's meaning, editors are allowed to make vocabulary mistakes, and that in itself doesn't tell you anything about a person. My take on the editors of Guernica is that they're cowardly and their actions are reprehensible whether they use words correctly or not.
No, cooks are not allowed to serve burned food to restaurant diners, police are not allowed to trample on suspect's rights, and editors are not allowed to misuse language. There are professional standards. I do agree, Clare, that editors should also have standards of courage and justice in their work. Please, both are important.
I agree with you that using language correctly is important if you're in publishing, but all humans make mistakes, and I don't expect perfection of anyone in any field. I've worked in publishing for 25 years now, and I'm glad the mistakes I've made in that time didn't get me fired (the worst was not noticing that the proof spine of a journal came back from the printer blank). In any case, Guernica wasn't wrong about the use of "fulsome," but your "correction" seems to have been, so given your standards, I hope you aren't an editor.
I have no idea why Guernica would pull this essay. Smh. I would expect more from editorial teams who publish writers touching hot topics. I hope another journal picks up the essay.
I always shake my head at these virtuous, noble creatures and wonder how they do not see their own reflections staring back at them. How are they so confident and simplistic in their views of a world whereby history has and will continue to move on without their precious tantrums, evaluations and declarations. Judgment is always a forked road.
Both sides have plunged into irrational bouts of self-indulgent judgement, neither citing no more substantiation than what's been borne on the winds of bandwagon stupidity. A classic case of: Ignorance begets fear begets hate. Gernica's carefully nurtured albiet fragile veneer of literary intellectual elitism is gone!
The Guernica story is all the proof you need that there is no real “diversity” in the lit mag world. Anything opposing the leftist agenda is despised and attacked.
To try, to test, to attempt: the definition of the essay. Note that the definition does not include "to convince," nor, "to demand." Perhaps it is a sign of the times that a literary journal on Guernica's level finds itself pressed to become an idealogical organ - instead of a platform for the exchange (and essaying) of ideas. Preaching to an already shrill choir is one solid step down the path of irrelevance in the self-referential "literary" world.
Follow your conscience and do what you feel you need to do. People in this part of the world have been killing each other's children in the name of their particular old man in the clouds for centuries and until these Bronze and Iron Age fantasies are put to rest there will never be peace, and we'll be right back here later. Netanyahu is a fascist who wants to apply biblical solutions (mass murder) to his problem, and has stood against a solution since before the Oslo Accords, and Hamas thinks rape is resistance and if they get killed they can screw 40 virgins until the cows come home. "Both-sides-ism" is something to say, because as we all know one or the other "sides" is perfect and has never done anything even questionable in the least, at least depending on which right wing faction of that particular tribe you speak with. So by all means, follow where you conscience leads you. You'll get to address the question again.
The EIC of Big Wing Review must have been spying in this forum and overheard a bit of grousing about writing being rejected without the expected "no thanks" note.
Today I received my THIRD rejection note from Kat Sabatini -- for my one and only submission to Big Wing -- saying it was an attempt not to overlook anyone.
* * * Becky Tuch, please take a bow!
Moreover, all that flocking and flapping of Big Wings in this forum inspired me to write a poem about Flaco, Manhattan's iconic Eurasian eagle-owl (March 15, 2010 – February 23, 2023).
I read Chen's essay, and although I'm very much against Netanyahu and Israeli apartheid, I didn't think the essay warranted being taken down. It was a personal essay about someone trying to be empathetic to her Israeli and her Palestinian friends. She concludes it is difficult but she is determined to continue.
Our culture has become frighteningly intolerant of any opinions that are not pre-formulated and absolute. Social media seems to require outrage that can be quickly relayed in 280 characters. There is no space for nuance and no time for reflection. Condemn absolutely and slam the door behind you seems to be the law of the land.
My goodness, this is fascism, plain and simple. The essay is a literary jewel - made compelling by great writing and stunning translations. It is honest and opens up readers to experience what the writer experiences — whether the reader sees the world as the writer does or not. Guernica - and ALL literary journals should prioritize how great writing is an empathy engine. The editors who threatened to resign are propagandists and, as Timothy Green says, “art is the opposite of propaganda.”
https://xpcallahan.substack.com/p/3112024
Oh, I wish you had sent me this link, I would have included a quote from your 'Stack in my roundup! Ah well. Glad you shared this here.
MARVELOUS.
Quoting X.P. Callahan: Not only did Guernica cave to a posse of Church Ladies, it beclowned itself, in its subsequent notice to readers, with an egregiously pompous use of the word “fulsome.”
Yes, agree but these are not church ladies per se. They're fascists and are too stupid to realize how ridiculous they actually are in most cases. And boo to Guernica for the cave.
I did not read the original article. I came for the Lit Mag News -- not the other drama.
haha!
Thank you! Can't wait to read.
Here is a link to the essay mentioned above. (Maybe it was in the article but I couldn't find it.) https://web.archive.org/web/20240305095742/https://www.guernicamag.com/from-the-edges-of-a-broken-world/
I am devastated at the blatant hatred of Israel espoused by Guernica's former editors. Clearly, if you do not portray all Jews as horned monsters you have no right to be heard.
I read the essay on Guernica. It didn't flow with the "you're either against all Israeli Jews or against all Palestinians" current, which has expanded in places to be broad-brush anti-semitic rather than anti-Zionist. The essay may have been poorly timed, in this atmosphere, but it seemed a view from someone who has felt caught in the middle for a long time, someone who questions her identity, and who is trying to help. I think the controversy is over how it "came off" to the "either you are with us or against us" minds and, importantly, in the midst of terror and genocide, than what the author wrote and intended.
Amazing essay and shame on Guernica for pulling it.
I want to add that it seems at least some resignations came not only in reaction to the essay in question, but from biases some editors perceived as recurring problems at the journal. I can't speak to that at all.
Doesn't it always seem to go that those who speak loudest about freedom of speech are also often those in the front line of cancel culture. Shame on Guernica for buckling, let alone apologising.
What I'm reading in a number of places is that polls are showing that a lot of younger people are for limitations on speech - so I'm not convinced that these people resigning are generally supportive of free speech. Perhaps the editors of Guernica have championed free speech previously, and I'm just not aware of it. In any case, Nate Silver's analysis of the state of people's thoughts on free speech is pretty sobering, and you may find it interesting: https://www.natesilver.net/p/free-speech-is-in-trouble.
This desire to limit speech is one reason I no longer call myself progressive. I think I'm probably just an old-school liberal - or maybe just old.
Thanks, Clare. I don't think age has anything to do with free speech. You have to wonder what other freedoms the cancel culturati will attack after they've ditched your country's First Amendment. ;-)
Let's begin with the word "fulsome." Fulsome does not mean "complete." The phrase "fulsome praise," for example, means "exageratedly flattering praise." I think the editors mean "complete." They will publish a complete explanation. But their inability to distinguish between the word "full" and "fulsome" is inexplicable and inexcusable. My take is that if an editor cannot use words precisely, that person will be unable to understand ideas precisely and think clearly.
Per Merriam-Webster, "fulsome" has been used to mean "abundant" and "full and well developed" since early in the twentieth century, and this meaning goes back to the 14th century, when it meant "abundant, copious." My 1954 unabridged Merriam-Webster says "fulsome" means "offensive" and gives "fulsome praise" as an example of that - though it says the offensiveness can stem from insincerity.
My own take is that it's easy to be wrong about an individual word's meaning, editors are allowed to make vocabulary mistakes, and that in itself doesn't tell you anything about a person. My take on the editors of Guernica is that they're cowardly and their actions are reprehensible whether they use words correctly or not.
No, cooks are not allowed to serve burned food to restaurant diners, police are not allowed to trample on suspect's rights, and editors are not allowed to misuse language. There are professional standards. I do agree, Clare, that editors should also have standards of courage and justice in their work. Please, both are important.
I agree with you that using language correctly is important if you're in publishing, but all humans make mistakes, and I don't expect perfection of anyone in any field. I've worked in publishing for 25 years now, and I'm glad the mistakes I've made in that time didn't get me fired (the worst was not noticing that the proof spine of a journal came back from the printer blank). In any case, Guernica wasn't wrong about the use of "fulsome," but your "correction" seems to have been, so given your standards, I hope you aren't an editor.
Why would you prefer "fulsome explanation" to "full explanation?" Never mind. We have different values.
I didn't say I preferred it. I don't. If you think it sounds pretentious, I'm totally with you on that. I'm just saying it's not wrong.
Well said
THANKS
I have no idea why Guernica would pull this essay. Smh. I would expect more from editorial teams who publish writers touching hot topics. I hope another journal picks up the essay.
I always shake my head at these virtuous, noble creatures and wonder how they do not see their own reflections staring back at them. How are they so confident and simplistic in their views of a world whereby history has and will continue to move on without their precious tantrums, evaluations and declarations. Judgment is always a forked road.
Both sides have plunged into irrational bouts of self-indulgent judgement, neither citing no more substantiation than what's been borne on the winds of bandwagon stupidity. A classic case of: Ignorance begets fear begets hate. Gernica's carefully nurtured albiet fragile veneer of literary intellectual elitism is gone!
The Guernica story is all the proof you need that there is no real “diversity” in the lit mag world. Anything opposing the leftist agenda is despised and attacked.
To try, to test, to attempt: the definition of the essay. Note that the definition does not include "to convince," nor, "to demand." Perhaps it is a sign of the times that a literary journal on Guernica's level finds itself pressed to become an idealogical organ - instead of a platform for the exchange (and essaying) of ideas. Preaching to an already shrill choir is one solid step down the path of irrelevance in the self-referential "literary" world.
More resignations:
Follow your conscience and do what you feel you need to do. People in this part of the world have been killing each other's children in the name of their particular old man in the clouds for centuries and until these Bronze and Iron Age fantasies are put to rest there will never be peace, and we'll be right back here later. Netanyahu is a fascist who wants to apply biblical solutions (mass murder) to his problem, and has stood against a solution since before the Oslo Accords, and Hamas thinks rape is resistance and if they get killed they can screw 40 virgins until the cows come home. "Both-sides-ism" is something to say, because as we all know one or the other "sides" is perfect and has never done anything even questionable in the least, at least depending on which right wing faction of that particular tribe you speak with. So by all means, follow where you conscience leads you. You'll get to address the question again.
Speaking about ha-ha-ha Lit Mag MahJong:
The EIC of Big Wing Review must have been spying in this forum and overheard a bit of grousing about writing being rejected without the expected "no thanks" note.
Today I received my THIRD rejection note from Kat Sabatini -- for my one and only submission to Big Wing -- saying it was an attempt not to overlook anyone.
* * * Becky Tuch, please take a bow!
Moreover, all that flocking and flapping of Big Wings in this forum inspired me to write a poem about Flaco, Manhattan's iconic Eurasian eagle-owl (March 15, 2010 – February 23, 2023).
It's funny how the Muse taps a poet's shoulder.
To my disgruntled Big Wing colleagues, thank you!
The Atlantic published a thoughtful essay about this. I'm not sure how their paywall works, so apologies if you can't read it: https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2024/03/guernica-retracted-essay-joanna-chen/677738/
Thanks for including the link to my March newsletter, Becky.