October 27, 2006

The Spirit of Inquiry

I find it astonishing that writer Michael Miner would use such slipshod journalism in his column disparaging another publication's journalistic methodology [Hot Type, October 20]. Miner did make one lackluster effort to contact me, but then did not respond to my returned phone call. He made no effort whatsoever to contact the person most qualified to correct several inaccuracies: CEO Christopher Miglino. Willie Gault is neither an owner of Conscious Choice nor Charles Shaw's boss. Gault is a partner in IBS, a company that helped secure capital funding for the purchase of the four magazines from Dragonfly Media. Conscious Choice's parent company is Conscious Enlightenment Publishing, a subsidiary of Conscious Enlightenment, LLC.

Marla Donato was editor of Conscious Choice only, not of Common Ground. Charles Shaw wasn't hired until after the September issue, in which the offending David Ray Griffin interview appeared, was well into production. In fact, had Shaw been on board sooner he could have declined running the piece. In a departure from Dragonfly policy, local editors make decisions in their respective markets as to what national features they will include. But more to the point, why does a critique of Conscious Choice veer into a referendum on Shaw's journalistic history?

Finally, what happened to the spirit of inquiry that has long defined the "alternative" weekly media? Miner so readily discredits the aforementioned interview that I wonder how closely he could have read it. Griffin poses numerous valid questions and makes several admitted conjectures in the absence of credible reports from the 9/11 Commission. If Miner has read Griffin's research and still has no questions about the official report, I would be happy to facilitate a conversation with the professor. Perhaps the Reader would like to cover it in a future issue. To borrow a thought from a subsequent blurb in Miner's column from the same day, perhaps Miner should "consider joining a (journalism) supremacist group. I hear they still exist in (Chicago) and always need new recruits to spew hatred against people they don't like."

Abigail Lewis
National editor
Conscious Enlightenment Media

Michael Miner replies:
IBS was identified as the "parent corporation" of Conscious Enlightenment in Conscious Choice last December in an editor's note introducing the magazine's new owners. Conscious Enlightenment CEO Christopher Miglino says that statement was incorrect: IBS helped arrange the purchase but put up no money of its own. Shaw's relationship with the Griffin interview was accurately described in the column, which quoted Shaw as explaining, "They booked that article before I came on." The suggestion that Donato had anything to do with Common Ground, the Conscious Enlightenment magazine in San Francisco, is the result of an ambiguity, not an inaccuracy, and I apologize. If my column turned into a "referendum" on Shaw, it did so because he happens to be her editor in Chicago now and Conscious Choice is in his hands.

My objections to the Griffin interview originate with the utterly credulous tone of Lewis's questioning. What happened to the spirit of skepticism that has long defined all serious journalism? Given that Griffin was debunking conclusions reached by journalists, government officials, engineers, and blue ribbon panels, I found the interview marred by an astonishing tone of preaching to the choir. Perhaps Lewis and Griffin were. She'll be happy to know I received several indignant letters assailing me for my close-mindedness.

One other thing. In addition to Jim Slama, whom I mentioned, Conscious Choice was founded by Ross Thompson, whom I should have mentioned. Thompson is now technology director of Conscious Enlightenment Publishing.

Snarky Snobbery

It is difficult to argue with Noah Berlatsky's skewering review of Mark Strand's latest collection [Pulitzer vs. Penguins," October 20], partially because I am not familiar with that text and partially because he raises some points. Drinking whiskey at dusk is something of a cliche, but no more than claiming that an art form is dying or dead. Referring to Strand's book as "another nail in the coffin of contemporary poetry" is about as cliched a thing as one can write, and far less interesting than the idea of being drunk at sunset.

When Berlatsky writes, "The one saving grace of contemporary poetry is that virtually nobody -- hoofed or otherwise -- reads the stuff," I have to wonder why he feels he can claim the authority to relay this as fact. I am always suspicious of statements that boast such authority, especially when they come from a writer who is considerably less read than, say, Mark Strand. Not that I think Berlatsky imagines that he is well-known or widely read, nor would I assume he feels that is the issue. But the truth be told, contemporary poetry has a wider audience than Berlatsky can imagine, perhaps because Berlatsky cannot imagine readers outside of those who half-attentively breeze past his columns on the way to Savage Love and phone-sex ads.

The examples of better writing which Berlatsky offers to support his position are major names like Eliot, Blake, Christina Rossetti, and Roald Dahl -- interestingly, all canonical writers. I suppose his aim is to demonstrate how fun they can be in comparison to academic writers, but while invoking these names he is also ignoring work by Strand and others of his generation that provides a similar kind of enjoyment. Has Berlatsky read Strand's famous "Eating Poetry" or Paul Muldoon's punning verse or Ciaran Carson's playful metaphors? Apparently not.

It is easy to sense that Berlatsky is happy wearing his lack of pretension on his sleeve (Look, I read kids' books and prefer them to contemporary poetry!), so much so that it smacks of pretension. But as anti-snobbish as he tries to seem, invoking those before-mentioned canonized poets makes him appear to be a former English major, familiar enough with the big names, who feels it his duty to report that poetry is dead because it doesn't look like the poetry he studied as an undergrad. I mean, Strand's verse contains no alliteration or rhyme, and that's what all good poetry is made of, right? And besides, as he says, no one reads it anyway. If a poet writes alone in the woods and no one reads it, is it still poetry?

I could be wrong. Berlatsky might be a well-read chap quite familiar with artists outside the canon. He may have impeccable taste. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but my concern will vanish the moment this letter is written and sent. After all, there is far more interesting writing to consider, like writing that seeks to create something more ambitious than scathing book reviews pretending to know more than they do. But it's so much easier to be snarky, isn't it?

Vincent Francone
Edgewater

Noah Berlatsky replies:
The cliche you pointed out was in the headline, which was written by the Reader's editors, not by me. To read some painful statistics on poetry's market share, or lack thereof, you can check out this article: artscouncil.org.uk/documents/publications/371.pdf. And I've always found "Eating Poetry" to be one of Strand's most annoying efforts, though I know many people like it.

Send a letter to the editor.