There was alot in the interview in Hobart I thought was thoughtful and true. Here's a quote I particularly loved:
"I thought that was such a cynical, sad way to look at literature, at art, at stories, which, I think, primarily should be about the human experience, not one gender’s experience, or a certain race’s experience, or a person with a specific political bent’s experience…
When we lose the ability to relate to another human being simply for being human and the frailties being human brings to each of us, we have lost something like civilization, haven’t we?
When the number one leading cause of death for people ages 18-40 is fentanyl overdose, how can we allow anything to divide us? I don’t care what gender/race/sexuality you are, you’re experiencing pain and suffering and heartache, as the victims themselves and of the living family members (which I have witnessed first hand numerous times, as probably almost everyone reading this has at this point)."
Oct 18, 2022·edited Oct 18, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch
I didn’t read the Hobart interview with Perez, and I don’t know all the facts, but if five editors resigned over the publication of his interview, it would seem to prove that he is right: truly “diverse” points of view are not welcome at Hobart—only voices that are diverse in acceptable ways.
Meghan Daum’s take is very worthwhile. Got me to sign up to see what else she has to say.
It was an okay interview with a few good lines, and is only shocking because he is basically right—there is an orthodoxy that is not transgressed on pain of exile.
To have it come out from Hobart, which is very orthodox in that way (just check out their current slate of fiction and poetry to confirm), is what makes this taboo central. (Speaking of which, I find I agree with the resigning editors’ contention that it was in part dull, but their “sucked beyond measure” almost made me guffaw. Glass houses in a stone-thrower’s age!) You can hear the pain of the editor’s personal story leak out with a lot of pressure behind it. This is exactly the kind of thing lit is *supposed* on occasion to open people up to, for, about. But it’s smothering her. A real call to conscience for anyone willing to listen.
As someone who's dipped into Twitter a couple of times (I promise I didn't inhale) this fiasco is par for the course. Complaining about it's excesses is like taking up cage fighting and whining when you get hurt. The fact that Elon Musk wants to buy it should tell you everything you need to know. The saddest aspect of this kerfuffle from my point of view is the hijacking of legitimate campaigning for a more inclusive world and turning it into a series of Spanish Inquisitions. It would be helpful if more mags openly declared that this is nonsense up with which they will not put and that readers should expect to be triggered by stories that are both real and fantastical that are populated by humans.
Thanks for your summary of the mess at Hobart. I am not a twitterite, so I appreciate the news. Though I am a lefty I find most arguments about "correctness" vs "free speech" warped, doesn't matter which "side" you're on, you're wrong... such are the times.
I stumbled on the Hobart stuff on Twitter mid-stream and almost was sucked into following it to the source. Then I realized I just had to wait for the next issue of Lit Mag News and I’d learn all I needed. So thanks! You saved me a lot of time 😁
Thanks for a great roundup, Becky. I followed the whole Hobart saga. Exhausting. But sickly entertaining. Somebody published something that offended some people. Nothing like this has ever happened before.
Re the holy mess at Hobart: the use of "holy" is interesting given that the rigidity of the editors' attitudes seems like a kind of fundamentalism - the difference being that religious fundamentalists don't pretend to be open-minded or interested in diversity. I appreciate that this newsletter deals with variations on this theme, as in "Should lit mags unpublish writers because they're 'problematic' "? and the humorous "Thank You; No Thank You: An in-depth rejection letter from Hooligan Review". Exposing the problem again and again may help crack it open. I have to hope something will.
Re: Holy Mess at Hobart--There's a scene at the end of Some Like it Hot where Joe E. Brown says gently, a sly smile on his face, "Nobody's perfect." The problem is, with all these online meltdowns, that everybody thinks they're perfect, and this enables them to rant and counter-rant, firing slogans back and forth, without benefit of any kind of in-person restraint that tells a person, looking at someone's face, hold on--I am being offensive, I am being hurtful, I am being unreasonable. A war is an event where there is no progress being made, just a dead end with debris, minefields and poison left by "victory," and survivors with ugly and painful damage. This is the result of having absolute opinions, thinking one is perfect, and being unable to grow. There is an orthodoxy that is damaging literary conversation. There is an abuse of power, an out-of-control anger that will poison what it claims to protect.
Very interesting and complicated situation. Do not right-wing conservative magazines reject liberal stories and feminist "proto- Marxist" poetry every day without a problem? Should they be held accountable for rejecting points of view that do not conform to theirs? They would be proud and even brag about nihilating leftist literature. RT
There was alot in the interview in Hobart I thought was thoughtful and true. Here's a quote I particularly loved:
"I thought that was such a cynical, sad way to look at literature, at art, at stories, which, I think, primarily should be about the human experience, not one gender’s experience, or a certain race’s experience, or a person with a specific political bent’s experience…
When we lose the ability to relate to another human being simply for being human and the frailties being human brings to each of us, we have lost something like civilization, haven’t we?
When the number one leading cause of death for people ages 18-40 is fentanyl overdose, how can we allow anything to divide us? I don’t care what gender/race/sexuality you are, you’re experiencing pain and suffering and heartache, as the victims themselves and of the living family members (which I have witnessed first hand numerous times, as probably almost everyone reading this has at this point)."
I didn’t read the Hobart interview with Perez, and I don’t know all the facts, but if five editors resigned over the publication of his interview, it would seem to prove that he is right: truly “diverse” points of view are not welcome at Hobart—only voices that are diverse in acceptable ways.
Meghan Daum’s take is very worthwhile. Got me to sign up to see what else she has to say.
It was an okay interview with a few good lines, and is only shocking because he is basically right—there is an orthodoxy that is not transgressed on pain of exile.
To have it come out from Hobart, which is very orthodox in that way (just check out their current slate of fiction and poetry to confirm), is what makes this taboo central. (Speaking of which, I find I agree with the resigning editors’ contention that it was in part dull, but their “sucked beyond measure” almost made me guffaw. Glass houses in a stone-thrower’s age!) You can hear the pain of the editor’s personal story leak out with a lot of pressure behind it. This is exactly the kind of thing lit is *supposed* on occasion to open people up to, for, about. But it’s smothering her. A real call to conscience for anyone willing to listen.
As someone who's dipped into Twitter a couple of times (I promise I didn't inhale) this fiasco is par for the course. Complaining about it's excesses is like taking up cage fighting and whining when you get hurt. The fact that Elon Musk wants to buy it should tell you everything you need to know. The saddest aspect of this kerfuffle from my point of view is the hijacking of legitimate campaigning for a more inclusive world and turning it into a series of Spanish Inquisitions. It would be helpful if more mags openly declared that this is nonsense up with which they will not put and that readers should expect to be triggered by stories that are both real and fantastical that are populated by humans.
Thanks for your summary of the mess at Hobart. I am not a twitterite, so I appreciate the news. Though I am a lefty I find most arguments about "correctness" vs "free speech" warped, doesn't matter which "side" you're on, you're wrong... such are the times.
I stumbled on the Hobart stuff on Twitter mid-stream and almost was sucked into following it to the source. Then I realized I just had to wait for the next issue of Lit Mag News and I’d learn all I needed. So thanks! You saved me a lot of time 😁
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fe6X6D3XgAAXU08?format=jpg&name=small
Sorry to hear about Confrontation. It was the first literary magazine to take a poem of mine—40+ years ago.
Sounds like the terribleness at Virginia Quarterly Review in 2010-12, which involved a staffer’s suicide.
Thanks for a great roundup, Becky. I followed the whole Hobart saga. Exhausting. But sickly entertaining. Somebody published something that offended some people. Nothing like this has ever happened before.
When it comes to the Hobart kerfuffle, there really is
“no good way to answer the question—“What are you going as...”
Confrontation published a story of mine, so this is very sad(:
Oh dear. That Hobart story seems to play out like fiction, doesn't it? Every note hit in just the right order.
Re the holy mess at Hobart: the use of "holy" is interesting given that the rigidity of the editors' attitudes seems like a kind of fundamentalism - the difference being that religious fundamentalists don't pretend to be open-minded or interested in diversity. I appreciate that this newsletter deals with variations on this theme, as in "Should lit mags unpublish writers because they're 'problematic' "? and the humorous "Thank You; No Thank You: An in-depth rejection letter from Hooligan Review". Exposing the problem again and again may help crack it open. I have to hope something will.
Re: Holy Mess at Hobart--There's a scene at the end of Some Like it Hot where Joe E. Brown says gently, a sly smile on his face, "Nobody's perfect." The problem is, with all these online meltdowns, that everybody thinks they're perfect, and this enables them to rant and counter-rant, firing slogans back and forth, without benefit of any kind of in-person restraint that tells a person, looking at someone's face, hold on--I am being offensive, I am being hurtful, I am being unreasonable. A war is an event where there is no progress being made, just a dead end with debris, minefields and poison left by "victory," and survivors with ugly and painful damage. This is the result of having absolute opinions, thinking one is perfect, and being unable to grow. There is an orthodoxy that is damaging literary conversation. There is an abuse of power, an out-of-control anger that will poison what it claims to protect.
Very interesting and complicated situation. Do not right-wing conservative magazines reject liberal stories and feminist "proto- Marxist" poetry every day without a problem? Should they be held accountable for rejecting points of view that do not conform to theirs? They would be proud and even brag about nihilating leftist literature. RT