Up
TON!:

[You have a great name.]

So. It is true, alas, that by my habitual citation of said book I
have probably done more than anyone in the world to help Brady get
her money back.  As a publisher and a capitalist, I understand her
risk.  Maurice Girodias went to similar limits to get provocative
books out in the world.  "Banned in Boston" was a great advert long
ago.

IMHO, by circulating _100 Days_ the RadLib cause will defeat itself,
because the writing is so extraordinarily banal and, as you know, the
views and voices so remarkably biased, warped, libelous and eternally
puella and puer. [R.H. already dispatched this book in one elegant
bit of surgery which you probably didn't read.  So, what's a critic
to do with partisans who don't know how to comtemplate multiple
points of view?]

But that's just me and I'm a mere one voice.  Why should the holy
tribe with its PC algorithms fear just one crank from afar?  You've
got Harvard and Berkeley and Oxford behind you.  What's your problem?
All you have to do now is convince the rest of humanity that you've
got the answers for them.  [Hurry.  Al Q's got the march on you.]

As to your arguments and justifications, frankly, confronting them is
like confronting a rain of willow fronds without the tree, floating
in the balmy air of a dream in the deeps of Alabama, or of confetti
which still maneuvers in the haze all about us after the parade is
long gone, or of a child's writing on a damp window pane.  Pointless,
lost, at times beautiful, but incognizant of what it takes to keep
the kind of political liberty that lets you indulge in your fantasies
and speech freedom an organized fact and continuum in this world.

George Bush and I don't really care about your carping and fears.
Our concerns run deeper.  Don't worry, we won't let you recreate the
KGB in order to achieve your spurious idealisms which already failed
to enslave the world.

Best,

ReeKarrDo!







>Richard
>
>What you call "slander" was to hand. It's a pun I have often used; and I see
>its veracity confirmed daily, hourly sometimes, by those who publicly call
>on or refer to their god whilst lying, stealing and murdering. In that
>connection, George Bush is the most human of people.
>
>I didn't mention _100 days_ but on my own behalf and on behalf of the other
>contributors, I thank you for your continuing promotion of a worthy
>publication. I don't see that it failed.
>
>I suppose everything fails, depending on one's particular view. When I sent
>my silly message, I wasn't thinking of _100 days_ & my own contribution to
>that publication which I was not thinking of - AVAILABLE NOW FROM BARQUE
>PRESS - was largely written before the editor's call; and it is not aimed at
>Bush. Bush fits it perfectly, which is why I submitted it. It's not an easy
>text, and perhaps you have misunderstood it. It's subject is tyranny. I
>called it _tyranny_ as a hint, but maybe that wasn't clear enough. And it's
>subject is also the difficulty of making poetry and behaving within the
>polis in the face of tyranny and its sub-species bullying, threats, abuse
>and so on.
>
>_100 days_ contains, in  my opinion, some spectacularly successful work; it
>contains work that pleases me much less. As an anthology, I think it is
>extremely successful. You seem to assume that it was an attempt to bring
>down the American state; but there is no evidence that was Andrea Brady's
>intention. Quite the opposite.
>
>On the book's back cover, Andrea describes it as an "anthology responding"
>and "dissent" - and, clearly, "all manner of rants to cancel the raves".
>Your ongoing hysterical response to it is some evidence of its success in
>hitting the
>target.
>
>Inside, she says it points towards "the guilty future". I suspect that the
>murder and destruction in Afghanistan came, as an example, earlier than she
>expected. Guilty, indeed; and that applies to all who support the murder and
>destruction
>
>She also says ""I doubt there is any possibility for effective dissent. I
>wanted to make a place to say so." Again, you make her point eloquently.
>Thank you
>
>I don't know of whom you think I am envious, but it *was stupid, perhaps
>wilfully so, of me to respond to you, given your earlier 100%
>misunderstanding of my reference to punishment
>
>Now I must go. Louis Farrakhan is coming to tea
>
>L
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Richard Dillon" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: 16 March 2002 06:49
>Subject: Re: no subject
>
>
>| How many hours did it take for you to twist this one?
>| Hundreds?  It took you hundreds of hours to figure out a way to slander
>| someone?  I don't know whether you are envious or just wilfully stupid.
>| Give it up, Upton.  _100 Days_ failed.  It failed and you fail with it.
>| Farrakhan, "Brilliant Osman", and Upton: Members of that new children
>| of shyte band:  The Snide.
>|
>|
>|
>| >That's _preys_, Richard
>| >
>| >L
>| >
>| >----- Original Message -----
>| >From: "Richard Dillon" <[log in to unmask]>
>| >To: <[log in to unmask]>
>| >Sent: 11 March 2002 03:49
>| >Subject: Re: no subject
>| >
>| >
>| >| He also does something else that the Kents don't do.  He prays.
>| >|
>| >|
>| >|
>| >| >Bush Waved to Stevie Wonder at Washington Gala -----------------------
>| >| >
>| >| >
>| >| >Sunday's Presidential Gala at Ford's Theatre may not be
>| >| >remembered as U.S. President George W. Bush's finest hour.
>| >| >When musician Stevie Wonder, who is blind, sat down at the
>| >| >keyboard on stage, Bush couldn't restrain himself, the Washington
>| >| >Post reported in its "Reliable Sources" column, citing a witness.
>| >| >The President, seated in the front row, smiled and started waving,
>| >| >the newspaper said. After Wonder didn't respond, Bush realized his
>| >| >mistake and returned his hand to his lap, the report said.
>| >|
>| >|
>| >| --
>| >|
>|
>|
>| --
>|


--