Writers sign open letter opposing Israeli cultural institutions; backlash; writers sign open letter calling for end to boycott; correspondences with Poets & Writers; lists of markets; tips; and more
I'm genuinely confused as to why genocide is not the bottom, unencroachable line for people. The UN<---The UN itself has use the word extermination in regards to palestinians.
Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) writes:
"Reading the health experts, I am starting to think with horror that if it's not stopped, Israel's assault could end up exterminating almost the entire population in Gaza over the next couple of years.
The range of presumable direct and indirect deaths could be between 15 and 20% of the population already by the end of this year, according to Prof. @devisridhar
(and that's in line with the work of other academics).
Once the dust settles, I can't imagine how the world will go on after having allowed that.
Again."
How this can continue to be a "but two sides" and "liberal freedom" "what about our festivals" debate is astounding. Imagine this same conversation happening around Nazi Germany - because make no mistake this is indeed a holocaust - in the 1930's.
Its frustrating to watch certain literary players conflate being anti-genocide/apartheid with being against all Jewish people. The boycott is for those who are zionist/supporting what is going on in Israel - which is plainly and clearly genocide heaped on top of apartheid. It becomes even more clear when those voices try to frame resisters as "a small minority of anti-zionists" so they can continue to paint resistance against genocide as inherently anti-semitic, which make no mistake its anti-semitic in and of itself to say Jewish identity must inherently be wrapped into zionism at all, much less as such a cost.
This is a tragedy in the soul of the literary community that the lives of millions at the hands of a warring state is pitted against writing communities who continue to support or refuse to resist genocide, as if these things are equal in any way.
You make an interesting point. But many American supporters of Israel simply deny or refuse to believe that Israel could be committing war crimes on a large scale, much less ethnic cleansing or possible genocide. This may be in part a response to Oct. 7. But I suspect that it also reflects the general ability of people to deny or rationalize almost anything if motivated to do so. Others simply have different standards for Israeli and Palestinian loss of life even if they don't recognize it.
BTW, for those who are interested in understanding the argument that Israel is committing genocide, I would suggest reading the 1948 Convention definition of genocide, South Africa's initial filing in the ICJ, and what Omer Bartov, Raz Segal, Kenneth Roth, and others have written on the matter. Much of this is accessible online.
There's also a large number of Americans who are checked out completely of politics. I learned about this through listening to polling analysis experts. They say most of voting Americans only get political during election day and don't know much of anything. Whatever the prevailing narrative is on any issue--even if false--is what they'll remember.
Everyone: the selection of Zionists voices only is purposeful. They are slanting it like Fox news to elicit a certain reaction and manipulate the audience. Otherwise, they would have included voices of the boycott movement of ISRAELI institutions (not Jewish ones!). It’s clear they are pro-Zionist at this point.
I did correct and had a convo with chillsubs to see if they are in friend or associate circle with Becky. They are not even though they've done collabs in the past and cross promote Becky via substack. I did discover their stance on Palestine is nonexistent. They actually have never discussed it with their team. At all. Like there's been no discussion of genocide and they're a VERY close friend group. They have no idea where the group actually stands on this and it's been more than a year. They said they were "liberal" and were "certain" they'd all be pro-Pal which sounds weird, especially since they actually don't follow any Palestinian writers or have ever promoted any's work by even a small mention of a poem during this whole year (to their own admittance). The last they left the convo was that they were going to speak with the team about Palestine. There's been more messages unread at this point asking for confirmation before I make a different post. It's not as scathing as litmagnews, but it's really not a good look on them either.
Hi Nona. If you have a specific criticism of the work I do here, you are welcome to bring it to my attention directly, rather than emailing people in my professional circle to find out if they are friends with me. Further, if there are particular voices, articles, links that you wish to bring to my attention and which I have not included in a roundup, you are always welcome to share those with me. I aim to include everything that's out there and which is relevant to literary magazines so that readers can form their own views and opinions, as many here have done.
tbh I do find that Erika Dreifus gets a lot of extra focus in your work (and she is exceptionally vocal about abusing the concept of anti-semitism to continue to put forth zionist/genocide supporting rhetoric and in my estimation harmful) but see comparatively little in the way of voices on the other side, especially palestinian voices. (comparatively being the operative word, as I do discover things like this letter or RAWI from your articles)
Its not that they are never mentioned but the way it comes across does feel like it has an echo of a slant. In this article we get more truncated sources on the anti-genocide letter but more sources rebutting the letter for example. Truthout has many many clear and firm statements on gaza but their quote was simply to describe a piece of the letter rather than their going into more depth on the quotes on gaza like the rebutters.
Each letter gets mentioned but the anti-genocide letter gets one supportive quote from Lithub, which calls it powerful, but doesn't necessarily focus on support or expand on why the first letter is important. Then another letter is mentioned and that letter gets four or five respondents reported, a couple of them with big prominent quotes, all of them dissecting why the first letter is problematic.
I do feel like you're trying to walk a balance, which is good or I would have checked out like I did with Dreifus (and hope others cease to give her attention), but I do think there is some merit to the criticism that anti-genocide voices receive less focus.
That said, the articles give me an opportunity to speak up on this idea that the literary community has been struggling with - that our comfort as writers is more important than the fact that many Palestinian writers will never pick up a pen again, and their right to not face the ultimate censorship is far more important than the Western literary scenes right to chug along without discomfort.
Hi River. I appreciate you coming to me with these points. I do try to keep a balance (and in a past newsletter one reader accused me of being anti-Israel, so the criticisms occasionally come from all directions.) But I think you raise valid concerns.
One challenge is including relevant quotes and information which also pertain specifically to literary magazines. There are many writers expressing views but, while important, it's not always directly relevant to lit mag publishing, which is the focus of my site.
As I put together the newsletter, at times there are other considerations. Sometimes I aim to provide context for something, or to convey the scope of a situation. In other words, some things may not be directly related to lit mags, but I make exceptions as they provide a bigger picture of what's happening and how that might affect us in the lit mag world. (For this reason I wrote about the writer facing job loss for refusing to sit on a panel in a recent roundup, and it's also why I included the quotes from the literary agents this week.)
Just explaining some of my thought process when I put together these roundups. As I said, I do take your points to heart. And I appreciate that you've raised your concerns with me. I'll keep this in mind for future news roundups.
I appreciate your response and consideration. Its a tricky situation and highly emotionally charged topic and ultimately it will be impossible to avoid criticism no matter how well balanced you are. Someone will be unhappy. You can only do your best, which I believe you strive for.
Thanks for The Cincinnati Review link, it was rich advice and more links, from my experience as a first reader the part about narrative POVs that don’t ring true, rung true.
Consequence Forum announces the November 12 launch of Consequence, Volume 16.2, featuring BIPOC writers and artists on the consequences of war and geopolitical violence. Attend in person in Boston, 6:30pm at Boston City Hall's Civic Pavilion at 5 Congress Street or virtually. register here. https://consequenceforum.org/launch-of-volume-16-2/
Re the ongoing Israel-Palestine divide in litmags and authors, I cannot improve on the NY Times comment. “For authors who would in any other case denounce book bans and library purges, what do they hope to accomplish with this?” As for Erika Dreifus' ongoing tirades on the issue, she achieved the opposite of engagement with me i.e. unsubscribing.
NY Times is conflating boycotting with bans and purges, which it not the same. Bookstores actually aren't able to discriminate on the authors they purchase. That's been sorted in law ages ago. There's a difference between people gathering together and encouraging the lack of financial support (and in this case submission support) to industries vs banning them outright through means of law. Boycotting is a non-law enforcing call to consumers. Many do conflate the two, but they are not the same thing. NY Times also has proven to spread Zionist propaganda, so they aren't reliable either for an opinion.
I was going to mention the error, but decided it would be petty. What isn't petty and something I can't my head around is that Netty (and his Zionist supporters) seems to believe, so far, one Israeli life is worth 40 Gazan lives.
What I can’t get my head around is why Gaza started this war in the first place. Did they think they could rape, kill and decapitate 1200 women and children without Israel retaliating?
What I can see is why Israel needs to destroy Hamas. If they don’t, it’s just a matter of time until Hamas strikes again. As you know, their motto is “from the river to the sea,” which means the total elimination of Israel.
I think the actual issue is whether you think the Oct. 7 Hamas crimes justify ethnic cleansing and possible genocide by Israel. Or whether you are willing to ask that question. As a legal matter, genocide is not justified by the need for retaliation, deterrence, and longer term security.
Sad to see that you're calling for the deprioritization of the voices from a population actively being murdered and instead want to prioritize the voices of *checks notes* "those who are not anti-Zionist" so.... Zionists
Great post Becky. Especially loved your rhapsodic well wishes to all of us. Lots more I can say here but the tension is already thick enough. Perhaps later…
I'm genuinely confused as to why genocide is not the bottom, unencroachable line for people. The UN<---The UN itself has use the word extermination in regards to palestinians.
Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) writes:
"Reading the health experts, I am starting to think with horror that if it's not stopped, Israel's assault could end up exterminating almost the entire population in Gaza over the next couple of years.
The range of presumable direct and indirect deaths could be between 15 and 20% of the population already by the end of this year, according to Prof. @devisridhar
(and that's in line with the work of other academics).
Once the dust settles, I can't imagine how the world will go on after having allowed that.
Again."
How this can continue to be a "but two sides" and "liberal freedom" "what about our festivals" debate is astounding. Imagine this same conversation happening around Nazi Germany - because make no mistake this is indeed a holocaust - in the 1930's.
Its frustrating to watch certain literary players conflate being anti-genocide/apartheid with being against all Jewish people. The boycott is for those who are zionist/supporting what is going on in Israel - which is plainly and clearly genocide heaped on top of apartheid. It becomes even more clear when those voices try to frame resisters as "a small minority of anti-zionists" so they can continue to paint resistance against genocide as inherently anti-semitic, which make no mistake its anti-semitic in and of itself to say Jewish identity must inherently be wrapped into zionism at all, much less as such a cost.
This is a tragedy in the soul of the literary community that the lives of millions at the hands of a warring state is pitted against writing communities who continue to support or refuse to resist genocide, as if these things are equal in any way.
You make an interesting point. But many American supporters of Israel simply deny or refuse to believe that Israel could be committing war crimes on a large scale, much less ethnic cleansing or possible genocide. This may be in part a response to Oct. 7. But I suspect that it also reflects the general ability of people to deny or rationalize almost anything if motivated to do so. Others simply have different standards for Israeli and Palestinian loss of life even if they don't recognize it.
BTW, for those who are interested in understanding the argument that Israel is committing genocide, I would suggest reading the 1948 Convention definition of genocide, South Africa's initial filing in the ICJ, and what Omer Bartov, Raz Segal, Kenneth Roth, and others have written on the matter. Much of this is accessible online.
There's also a large number of Americans who are checked out completely of politics. I learned about this through listening to polling analysis experts. They say most of voting Americans only get political during election day and don't know much of anything. Whatever the prevailing narrative is on any issue--even if false--is what they'll remember.
These are excellent resources to refer to.
Amen.
Everyone: the selection of Zionists voices only is purposeful. They are slanting it like Fox news to elicit a certain reaction and manipulate the audience. Otherwise, they would have included voices of the boycott movement of ISRAELI institutions (not Jewish ones!). It’s clear they are pro-Zionist at this point.
litmag news isn't chillsubs. They're entirely separate.
I did correct and had a convo with chillsubs to see if they are in friend or associate circle with Becky. They are not even though they've done collabs in the past and cross promote Becky via substack. I did discover their stance on Palestine is nonexistent. They actually have never discussed it with their team. At all. Like there's been no discussion of genocide and they're a VERY close friend group. They have no idea where the group actually stands on this and it's been more than a year. They said they were "liberal" and were "certain" they'd all be pro-Pal which sounds weird, especially since they actually don't follow any Palestinian writers or have ever promoted any's work by even a small mention of a poem during this whole year (to their own admittance). The last they left the convo was that they were going to speak with the team about Palestine. There's been more messages unread at this point asking for confirmation before I make a different post. It's not as scathing as litmagnews, but it's really not a good look on them either.
Hi Nona. If you have a specific criticism of the work I do here, you are welcome to bring it to my attention directly, rather than emailing people in my professional circle to find out if they are friends with me. Further, if there are particular voices, articles, links that you wish to bring to my attention and which I have not included in a roundup, you are always welcome to share those with me. I aim to include everything that's out there and which is relevant to literary magazines so that readers can form their own views and opinions, as many here have done.
tbh I do find that Erika Dreifus gets a lot of extra focus in your work (and she is exceptionally vocal about abusing the concept of anti-semitism to continue to put forth zionist/genocide supporting rhetoric and in my estimation harmful) but see comparatively little in the way of voices on the other side, especially palestinian voices. (comparatively being the operative word, as I do discover things like this letter or RAWI from your articles)
Its not that they are never mentioned but the way it comes across does feel like it has an echo of a slant. In this article we get more truncated sources on the anti-genocide letter but more sources rebutting the letter for example. Truthout has many many clear and firm statements on gaza but their quote was simply to describe a piece of the letter rather than their going into more depth on the quotes on gaza like the rebutters.
Each letter gets mentioned but the anti-genocide letter gets one supportive quote from Lithub, which calls it powerful, but doesn't necessarily focus on support or expand on why the first letter is important. Then another letter is mentioned and that letter gets four or five respondents reported, a couple of them with big prominent quotes, all of them dissecting why the first letter is problematic.
I do feel like you're trying to walk a balance, which is good or I would have checked out like I did with Dreifus (and hope others cease to give her attention), but I do think there is some merit to the criticism that anti-genocide voices receive less focus.
That said, the articles give me an opportunity to speak up on this idea that the literary community has been struggling with - that our comfort as writers is more important than the fact that many Palestinian writers will never pick up a pen again, and their right to not face the ultimate censorship is far more important than the Western literary scenes right to chug along without discomfort.
(please note this is feedback, not an attack)
Hi River. I appreciate you coming to me with these points. I do try to keep a balance (and in a past newsletter one reader accused me of being anti-Israel, so the criticisms occasionally come from all directions.) But I think you raise valid concerns.
One challenge is including relevant quotes and information which also pertain specifically to literary magazines. There are many writers expressing views but, while important, it's not always directly relevant to lit mag publishing, which is the focus of my site.
As I put together the newsletter, at times there are other considerations. Sometimes I aim to provide context for something, or to convey the scope of a situation. In other words, some things may not be directly related to lit mags, but I make exceptions as they provide a bigger picture of what's happening and how that might affect us in the lit mag world. (For this reason I wrote about the writer facing job loss for refusing to sit on a panel in a recent roundup, and it's also why I included the quotes from the literary agents this week.)
Just explaining some of my thought process when I put together these roundups. As I said, I do take your points to heart. And I appreciate that you've raised your concerns with me. I'll keep this in mind for future news roundups.
I appreciate your response and consideration. Its a tricky situation and highly emotionally charged topic and ultimately it will be impossible to avoid criticism no matter how well balanced you are. Someone will be unhappy. You can only do your best, which I believe you strive for.
Thanks for The Cincinnati Review link, it was rich advice and more links, from my experience as a first reader the part about narrative POVs that don’t ring true, rung true.
I felt so too about the cincy review link.
While there are several players in this area now, credit for setting the trend should be served to Clifford Garstang who has been offering such lists for years. https://cliffordgarstang.com/2023-literary-magazine-rankings-overview/
How telling, to try to defend one's position against boycotts on strictly financial grounds.
Consequence Forum announces the November 12 launch of Consequence, Volume 16.2, featuring BIPOC writers and artists on the consequences of war and geopolitical violence. Attend in person in Boston, 6:30pm at Boston City Hall's Civic Pavilion at 5 Congress Street or virtually. register here. https://consequenceforum.org/launch-of-volume-16-2/
Re the ongoing Israel-Palestine divide in litmags and authors, I cannot improve on the NY Times comment. “For authors who would in any other case denounce book bans and library purges, what do they hope to accomplish with this?” As for Erika Dreifus' ongoing tirades on the issue, she achieved the opposite of engagement with me i.e. unsubscribing.
I also unsubscribed.
NY Times is conflating boycotting with bans and purges, which it not the same. Bookstores actually aren't able to discriminate on the authors they purchase. That's been sorted in law ages ago. There's a difference between people gathering together and encouraging the lack of financial support (and in this case submission support) to industries vs banning them outright through means of law. Boycotting is a non-law enforcing call to consumers. Many do conflate the two, but they are not the same thing. NY Times also has proven to spread Zionist propaganda, so they aren't reliable either for an opinion.
I'm not interested in hair splitting on the issue but I agree that Western media seem biased towards Israel in any conflict.
So over 1,000 writers signed a statement that included this sentence?
“Boycotts against authors and those who work with them is illiberal and dangerous.”
Did none of those writers notice the glaring subject-verb disagreement in this sentence?
I was going to mention the error, but decided it would be petty. What isn't petty and something I can't my head around is that Netty (and his Zionist supporters) seems to believe, so far, one Israeli life is worth 40 Gazan lives.
What I can’t get my head around is why Gaza started this war in the first place. Did they think they could rape, kill and decapitate 1200 women and children without Israel retaliating?
But when does retaliation become genocide? How many more Gazan women and children will the Zionists slaughter before they feel "safe"?
Another question: did anyone suspect kicking thousands of people off their land to carve out a religious state might lead to "hard feelings"?
Gaza didn't start it. And the response has been wildly outsize--as you must be able to see.
What I can see is why Israel needs to destroy Hamas. If they don’t, it’s just a matter of time until Hamas strikes again. As you know, their motto is “from the river to the sea,” which means the total elimination of Israel.
I think the actual issue is whether you think the Oct. 7 Hamas crimes justify ethnic cleansing and possible genocide by Israel. Or whether you are willing to ask that question. As a legal matter, genocide is not justified by the need for retaliation, deterrence, and longer term security.
Sad to see that you're calling for the deprioritization of the voices from a population actively being murdered and instead want to prioritize the voices of *checks notes* "those who are not anti-Zionist" so.... Zionists
Great post Becky. Especially loved your rhapsodic well wishes to all of us. Lots more I can say here but the tension is already thick enough. Perhaps later…
A boatload of news and interesting info!