76 Comments
Sep 3, 2022·edited Sep 3, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch

I don't like Ezra Pound's poetry because it is boring, not because he supported Mussolini. I adore Knut Hamsun's work as one of my personal treasures even though he sucked up to the Nazi invaders of his country. I am 100% in line with the anti-theist arguments and writings of Christopher Hitchens even though he was wrong on Iraq and women comedians (and his brother Peter is wrong about everything except his distrust of political absolutism, which I agree with totally). I'm against shutting down right-wing speakers scheduled to make a speech on your college campus and the list of "Words That May Not Be Spoken," but I feel as strongly about that as I do against the crypto-fascists on the Right who just make shit up.

The problem with censorship isn't only its arbitrariness or its shape-shifting as times and morés change, it also raises the question of who gets to decide. Who do you want to appoint as the arbiter of what may or may not be said, or written, or even thought? Who are you willing to give that power to?

That said, an editor can do whatever she wants with the vehicle she created and/or runs. And writers looking for places to put their work are always best advised to find venues that use their "kind" of work. A lot of the problems addressed in the OP can potentially be solved by a writer actually (and for once) taking the advice of older heads and truly scouting things out before submitting anywhere.

But the general pearl-clutching atmosphere of the present era (visible on every side) betrays a kind of cowardice that is unbecoming of people who say they are for free thought but are actually too afraid to have one.

(edited to add: "Literary Twitter" is an idea that needs to burn in a fire. The two concepts are not compatible and even sound lazy)

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch

However well-intentioned this kind of editorial policy is, I think it’s creating a horrible environment for writers and for creative writing in general. Art doesn’t flourish under these conditions: it shrivels and cowers in fear that it’s going to “offend.”

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch

I disagree with removing work after the fact, and I don't think publishing someone's work is an endorsement for all that they stand for. This is the age-old question of separating art from artist. Nine times out of ten, I think the art should be judged separately. But there are some exceptions.

It makes me uncomfortable to know a journal can remove work after the fact. As you mention, in our modern moment, removal is as easy as a click. But I think a good rule -- at least what would make me feel better -- is treating anything that is published as if it has been printed. There's no going back, for better or worse. I wouldn't have been exposed to a lot of great writing, probably, if editors could "cancel" authors and their works as easily as they can now -- and, not to mention, according to their own unique moral compass.

Plus, if a writer has said something ugly enough online for an editor to consider removing their work, what kind of weird punishment is removing their story or poem from a journal? Who cares? The work is probably, at that point, old news. And the people who are most upset with the offender will, I'm sure, deal with them summarily online, caring little about the story or poem they once wrote.

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch

An editorial decision is an editorial decision. My concern is the harsh approach utilized by members of literary Twitter to “address” (cancel) a writer/writing current today or writers/writing from times far different from today. That is censorship.

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch

I agree with Bruce re this kind of editorial policy creating a horrible environment for writers. It has to be tough for editors too. Maybe they could post disclaimers saying that they choose work based on the quality of the writing and how well it meets the needs of their publication, period, and they aren't responsible for what the authors say or do elsewhere. That said, the editors would have to be prepared to be attacked for choosing such a position.

Expand full comment

I think that we are undergoing severe overcorrection in the literary and publishing world. That's probably not a popular stance — but I would much rather see publications post an acknowledgement that it has been brought to their attention that a writer they've published has made problematic comments elsewhere, yet leave their work available. We are in danger of impoverishing ourselves artistically, culturally, and intellectually if we demand that writers — or, indeed artists in any field — be morally or idealogically pure according to the ever-evolving standards of the day. And I say this as someone who really believes in the importance of those standards continually evolving.

Expand full comment

Loving the comments here and endorsing most of them, even if I do end up being canceled for saying so. ;-)

A recent example of this madness involved a very minor character in a long story of mine who happened to be a lesbian who hated all men (which was important to the context of another character). The editor liked my story and wanted to publish it but was concerned about that passage because it might be seen by some as reinforcing stereotypes (because of course there no such persons on the planet). That's how gun shy editors have become.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to expunge Moby Dick (whaling), Shakespeare (take your pick) and Kurt Vonnegut (misrepresentation of aliens) from my bookshelves.

PS - Suggested template for mags who are happy to publish and be damned.

'If you've bothered to read our publication before submitting or commenting, you'll know what we publish. If you're offended by what we publish occasionally, here's what you can do.

1. If you are not a subscriber or financial supporter, we don't give a rat's ass what you think.

2. If you are a subscriber or financial supporter, we love you but you don't get to dictate our policies, any more than we get to dictate your tastes, so stay or go, it's up to you.'

Expand full comment

I don't feel I can make blanket statements about any of this. Writers, and all artists, can say and do whatever they want (at least to the extent of the laws of the land, although plenty over time have broken those too). Same goes for lit mags, or any other curating venue. But is any action free of consequence? No. Social mores also evolve—behaviors, beliefs or words that are totally normal or even laudable in one era can be deemed cancel-worthy in another, and vice versa. It seems like a pretty slippery slope to claim I have a singular belief about any of it. Then again, if I, a Jewish, queer and nonbinary person living in a diverse community, were an editor, and I happened to find out a contributor to my magazine was, say, a homophobic, transphobic Nazi actively working towards the extermination of people like myself and my friends, would I be tempted to deplatform them by removing their work? And would the thought of keeping their work up turn my stomach? Yes and yes. And then again AGAIN, if ten years down the road it became outré to use the word "queer" (as it sometimes has been), would I be disappointed if my current published pieces containing it were taken down? Or if I were cancelled over its use? Yes and yes. But I'd also argue that actively working towards the annhialation of a group of people versus using a word that becomes "bad" over time are two very different offenses. And thus my point: no blanket statements here.

Expand full comment
founding
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch

You are raising a fascinating complex issue here, the vulnerability of on-line writing in general. In the novel 1984, Truth is very malleable, and texts fall victim to competing political regimes. With computerized texts the permanence of written Truth is even more at risk. Words may easily disappear into the Memory Hole or be altered. It's good that the American Constitution exists as a written parchment, otherwise we may wake up one decade and find new amendments to everything we believed to be carved in stone. Copyrights may not mean anything when a text can be altered or even removed at will. What protections do writers have against such manipulations? What laws exist right now that prevent an editor from changing the text or removing it altogether? History books published on-line are most vulnerable to these powers. RT

Expand full comment

Excellent discussion. From my point of view (as an old hippie) just want to add that I've noticed in the last 50 or 60 years that I've been around, I've noticed a growth of Victorianism. Somebody mentioned "pearl-clutching." There is definitely fear involved in these reactions. And in censoring "bad" ideas, there is an absurd belief that these ideas will go away. They won't. They will go underground, leaving a saccharine hypocrisy behind. Really? Ending racist language ends racism? What a corporate (classist) pretence. Words easily eel in and out of insulting meanings--all you need is a sneer, when you say a supposedly benign word to make it hateful; and words invented to be hateful are best seized and used by the victim as badges of honor, like queer, Hebrew (which once upon an ancient time was used as insult, believe it or not), cunt, which originally was a common , not-insulting term, etc. There are many effective ways to deal with hate and hate language, especially with humor. When infantile persons are attempting to shock--don't be shocked. The price of admission to the pages of any literary journal should be literary merit, not mealy-mouthed gentility and goody-two shoes morality. A little challenge is good for the intellectual immune system.

Expand full comment

I came of age in the '60's when free speech was a big thing, and organized protest entered the mainstream, yet we never developed the depressing cancel culture I see permeating young, and some older minds today. Thought control is nothing new: see the Inquisition , the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution, Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, or just read Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World, The Gulag Archipelago, The Trial, To Kill A Mockingbird, and on and on. It's easy to see how any prejudice can hurt those it is directed against, but what seems not generally recognized is the tremendous damage it does to the 'righteous' PC crowd, sure that they have found the 'truth' and so are superior. First their brains will atrophy as they become more rigid, intolerant, judgmental...the essence of fundamentalism. And fundamentalists are not always 'religious': there are 'true believers' who espouse atheism, or a brand of politics or a culture or life style and are certain, it seems , that anyone who does not share their ideology is less than human. The real question is why? Why do we humans tend to make other humans 'the other', somehow less than we are? Think about this, because this is how we allow ourselves to do terrible things to other human beings, who are really much more similar to us than different, no matter how they look, or talk or believe. If we didn't de-humanize the 'other', could there be any crime, poverty, alienation, genocide, WAR! Each time we make someone else 'less', we harm ourselves, our minds, our hearts, and our souls--as those of us who have experienced such, suspect.

Expand full comment

It’s dispiriting to be living in/through a time when such a question even has to be asked—emphasis here on “through” because this moral panic will burn out in time, as such public frenzies tend to do. That said, I canceled my subscription to Poetry when Michael Dickman’s “Scholls Ferry Rd.” was scrubbed from the magazine’s website (after a single NPC on Twitter objected to the poem’s “offensive” language) and Don Share resigned as editor. Cowards, despite sitting on an endowment of more than $100 million.

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch

The desire to avoid publishing abusers and people who use bigoted speech comes from a real problem, which is the fact that people who are serial-abusers / rapists are often not held accountable in our society. Because the disciplinary systems don't seem trustworthy, individuals feel that they must act themselves for there to be any justice. Though there are downsides to this, I understand it in the context of the world we're in now. I do feel that if someone behaves abusively (which is not a mere political disagreement, but an act), they should be given less status.

In the context of literary journals, I do have some confusion: what does it mean for fiction to express bigotry? You could have a bigoted character (and you may need bigoted characters to comment on an unjust society), but that doesn't mean that the author condones the values of those character. This ambiguity creates a bit of a difficulty for me.

Expand full comment

I don’t agree with taking down an author’s work because the Twitter people get worked up about something. I’m really tired of all the policing out there. I don’t even read Twitter. Yesterday I was on there for a second and saw Buffy the Vampire Slayer was trending. I love Buffy so I clicked. I never figured out why it was trending, but I ran into a lot of tweets where people bitched about different characters or episodes, mainly concerning how the male characters treated the female characters. Would it be better going forward if all guys stopped acting like guys? I mean, come on. I realize Buffy is not a lit mag deleting work, but it’s just the idea (or fact) that a lot of people seem to be so anxious to neuter reality. Reality is not always pretty or fair. Pretty and fair doesn’t make interesting writing (or shows).

Also, editors should not step down for literary Twitter. Even if they get slammed, any publicity is good publicity! Don’t let the Twitter police push you around. My best advice on this is not respond to complainers. Takes two to tango, and if you don’t give them anything to keep the dance going, they don’t have much to work with, which is boring for the side who wants to fight. So they will move on to their next crusade.

Expand full comment

Censorship is bad. "Hateful" comments are not usually published (if ever) by literary magazines, and I suspect this removal has to do with now-taboo words. Think of Tony Hoagland and his poem, "The Change," which Claudia Rankine insisted was racist but which is exactly the reverse: it's the exposure, with some humor, of a white man confronting his own racism. You might even call it "doing the work" in Robin diAngelene terms--though I am no fan of her work.

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch

I'm old. I wouldn't twitter without a court order!

Expand full comment

The answer is really simple: No. I am wildly progressive, but unpublishing people is unthinkably shoddy. You can choose not to publish them again, of course. I agree with RW in his dislike of shutdown of speech on college campuses and elsewhere. I also assert that if you like my story, you like my story. That an editor disagrees with an essay (or tweet, or whatever) that I publish later and elsewhere should have no bearing whatsoever on the original piece. None. It is unethical.

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022·edited Sep 3, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch

Let me begin by saying that all feedback is a gift and everyone has a right to their opinion, and moves toward transparency are generally constructive and worthy of appreciation. All that said, it seems to have gotten so you can't even be sharp or snarky about anything but "the Man." Even oneself! For example, I was told I (or my poetic persona) must not refer to myself/herself as an "idiot." Also in one poem I have cop characters I depicted (the specific characters, not in general) as clownish and inept, and was told this was "too positive and humorous" and they should only ever be depicted as dangerous, lest I appear contrary to the zeitgeist. (Also my references to classic musicals like Brigadoon, Carousel, Music Man, and State Fair were not contemporary enough and people would "not have ever heard of them"). I believe writers can and probably should depict a lot of realistically negative things-- without condoning or glorifying them, yet they cannot control anyone's reactions. So, yeah, my feelings are mixed, on those policies, because this information is illuminating, but given I write primarily to express myself, not as a professional per se, and I read to see if anyone shares my views, as well as to expand my horizons, I feel a bit stymied, frustrated and sad.

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch

I'm not interestd in Twitter. In fact "Bugger Twitter" and bugger all superficial instant-speak, was my immediate reaction to Becky's piece today. I've already replied to a few of the comments below. I say here only that I deplore racism and all the other isms piously condemned in litmag guidelines and elsewhere, just as I deplore the position of those who set themselves up as the arbiters of righteous or right-thinking writing. It's especially obnoxious when a piece is deleted, not for what it contains, but for something its writer has published or said elsewhere.

Expand full comment

“[M]any who work in journalism, universities, or publishing are now more concerned to avoid offending than to test the limits of what can be said. In this context, arguing for free speech often arouses suspicion. Defenders are said to be aligned with racists, transphobes, deplorables. And no one wants that. Rather than publish and be damned, the message is to self-censor . . .”

—Joanna Williams, “How Woke Put Paid to Publishing,” City Journal, 28 August 2022, https://www.city-journal.org/the-woke-takeover-of-publishing?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Organic_Social

Expand full comment
Sep 4, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch

Such an important discussion. Thanks so much for the courage to take it on - despite what blowback you might get.

Expand full comment
Sep 4, 2022Liked by Becky Tuch

A really interesting topic and discussion. It's the age-old dilemma of can you separate the art from the artist? While it seems from the outside we are now a far more progressive society, the constant cries of horror over everything on social media can make you feel like you're back in the pearl clutching days of the past. Just this time you have slightly different pearls.

If you censor stuff on the main social media/media sources, do you just send it underground and to a deeper part of the web? Do you ground the possibility of discussion? Or should certain things simply not be heard?

I don't have an answer or a defined opinion, as it's a delicate topic in many ways. But whether you agree or disagree with all sides of the argument, it certainly gives you food for thought.

Expand full comment

I think that this is too broad of a topic to simply come down on to "is censorship bad, yes/no". I think Rowan captured it best in the comments, in saying "The desire to avoid publishing abusers and people who use bigoted speech comes from a real problem, which is the fact that people who are serial-abusers / rapists are often not held accountable in our society. "

I do think that twitter - including literary twitter - can often be too fast to jump on a perceived wrong, without looking into details, instead reacting/retweeting something that looks bad in a screenshot, or getting angry when the response from a journal isn't the exact wording that they feel it should've been. I think the idea that editors should go on a deep dive through a person's publishing history to check if they've ever written something problematic is kinda ridiculous, yet I see some people thinking editors really should do that. And I don't think we're talking about censorship here on the level of "this is a swear word that makes me uncomfortable so you should be removed."

But there are people who *are* being harmful to others, and so yes, I'm okay with them being held accountable. That editor who threatened to drive across states to shoot another writer? I'm okay with him losing his role as an editor at a lit mag (and then eventually, quietly, a press dropping his planned book). The poet who writes using Nazi imagery because of being a bit, well, Nazi himself? I'm okay if a journal decides they don't want his work once they learn about the meaning behind it. Personally I'm currently feeling really uncomfortable that you've got a talk lined up with the editor of a journal that's known for publishing AND supporting the work of a poet writing about raping living women poets, along with recurrent issues around racism in the journal, plus bullying and harassment of women poets. I think he and his journal should be given as little air-time as possible.

Expand full comment