Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Johnny Longfellow's avatar

There's been an awful lot of sideshows in the lit scene of late in relation to the horrors going on in Israel/Gaza. And honestly, I think they diminish the seriousness of what's happening and has been happening there for many years. Granted, being online it's good to see that there are writers speaking up. I know I have, while more or less casually observing what's happening in the lit scene and otherwise ignoring it. But, I took more notice of what happened with Chestnut Review, where a publisher was pressured to publish something he was reticent to publish, decided not to, and was then collectively branded as having censored a writer. The online discourse was such that even he came to agree with the allegation, which I'd say is false. Reason being, the bio was submitted after the poet's work was accepted with an ultimatum that if the EIC didn't publish it, then the writer would rescind their accepted work. Given the circumstances, saying no to that--regardless of the editor's political position on *any* matter--is an expression of his freedom to publish what he wishes to publish. Had he done otherwise, it would have been compelled speech, which is what all those who accused him of censorship were actually advocating.

Expand full comment
Arthur Klepchukov's avatar

Can someone elaborate why the intent “to avoid making a political statement” provoked such a response? If an editor objected to my bio, I would expect them to have final say over what they published. What am I missing?

Expand full comment
34 more comments...

No posts