You may remember a two-part post from a while ago on the subject of anonymity. Part two dealt specifically with, which started as an anonymous poetry-prize watchdog.

You’d have to decide for yourself if I made my point in my post or not. Alan Cordle (the founder of Foetry) takes exception to a number of points, and his readership agrees with him. (L is for Loser, in case you didn’t realize.) In the comments Cordle says:

I never met her, but she had a contentious relationship with her colleagues. Her (only) friends in the department told us that she got a settlement from the university when she left. Maybe that’s why she’s imagining litigation everywhere.

She calls Kathleen’s career “half mast,” but remember that’s from the perspective of someone capable of writing literature who sold out to write genre. I’m grateful Kathleen didn’t lower her standards and that she has three books published in an ethical manner.

He doesn’t remember that his wife introduced us; he recounts (inaccurately) how I left the WWU; and best of all he pronounces me a sell-out. I am capable of writing real literature, you see, but I chose to write for the masses.

In his post he also claims he can’t link to this weblog or the relevant post, which I believe is simply his way of responding to me in an under-the-radar way. It’s so much safer to pontificate in a whisper.

10 Replies to “Sell-Out”

  1. One thought keeps poppin’ in my head;(the rest is just sillyness) His wife must be pissed! Jeesh, husband’s on the net behaving like a child, she should just smack ’em in the back of the head and move on.
    As far as his “readership” goes, not worth it.

  2. I think of your being a “sell-out” as a good thing. As in: her books sold out at the store, they were going so fast, or the first printing of QoS sold out, and they ordered a second one.

    It sounds to me like a childish case of jealousy on his part. Critique and differing opinions are a part of life and he is having a terrible time dealing with any opinions other than his own.

    Hang in there…

  3. I am disinclined to listen to anyone who is so snobbish about genre fiction. I often find “literature” boring. My “full of shit” meter is going off.

    (Maybe if genre fiction were peer reviewed he would feel differently.) (heh.)

    And how are fiction books published ethically? I don’t get that.

  4. I agree that his use of the word ‘ethical’ is suspect. Especially if you look at the comments to his post, in which he implies that because I use a pen-name (Lippi instead of Lippi-Green for fiction), my marriage must have failed, and that I was not awarded custody. The logic jumps are enough to make you dizzy.

    That kind of muckracking inuendo says more about him than it ever could about me.

  5. I hear the National Enquirer is hiring. Maybe I should send him the job link; he’d be a grocery store rackstar in no time.

  6. I see that you are able to comment, after all.

    Kathleen introduced us, as far as I remember, on one of your short trips to town. I remember what you look like. Would a description satisfy you? Or to put this differently: I don’t remember the date and place I met one of my best friends, somebody I see regularly. Why should I remember the date and place I met you?

    To be absolutely clear: I have no interest in discussing any of this with you. I used as an example of a website that stumbled (in part) because of the author’s anonymity. I raised the issue of conflict of interest in such a situation. Others believe you distorted and misrepresented facts, and I know that to be true in one case in particular. I haven’t asked that person’s permission to discuss this matter in detail, and so I won’t.

    As far as I am concerned, we have nothing more to talk about.

    Finally, let me warn you: I delete abusive comments.

  7. Cordle chose to reply to this on his weblog, if you care to have a look. And be forwarned, if you’re reading this: you are, according to Cordle, a desperate housewife and/or a cat lady.

    Note also that suddenly he’s perfectly able to link and ping back to this weblog.

  8. Interestingly, this whole thing started with a discussion of the perils of anonymity. You did not say that it’s wrong to air one’s thoughts – for or against a particular topic. What you did say was that a person should identify himself or herself so the reader can judge whether they truly know about that of which they write. In other words, why should we trust an anonymous writer? You at least put your name to your own thoughts on the matter. And you have the dignity not to name names without first obtaining permission.

    Rolls eyes. I can’t believe I read two whole posts by that guy. It was unpleasant, shrill, adolescent arm-waving. I can almost hear the “nyah nyahs” at the end of his post.

Comments are closed.