Friday, 13 November 1998
Tim Fletcher,
Syringa,
The Street,
Stodmarsh
Canterbury
Kent
Dear Tim Fletcher,
I am writing in response to your circular dated "November 1998".
I do not know what you mean, of me, by "the language is preposterous, that
of ludicrous enmity". I wrote to you in anger because you had published a
personal attack upon Bill Griffiths, amongst others, an attack made
apparently for the fun of it. Yes, I feel considerable enmity towards Andrew
Duncan nowadays, because I think he knows exactly what he's doing, for the
viciousness of his attack upon Bill Griffiths. If that is ludicrous to you,
then perhaps you have something lacking. It upsets me when people are
attacked wantonly.
When you say that the criticisms of Duncan's article you have received "are
hardly conclusive", I do not know what you mean. It has been pointed out to
you that he probably has his facts wrong and certainly can't have checked
them, that he does not provide arguments for his positions and that he
indulges in personal abuse in place of argument, the latter, I believe,
being self-evident to anyone who reads the article. I even quoted the least
offensive words ("a laggard, a captive of dullness") so that you would be
able to understand even if you hadn't read the whole thing before you
printed it.
I find your claims as to your own position, as you represent it, confusing -
how can you think Duncan's assessments are both "wrong" and "wildly
exaggerated". If they are wrong, then they are not exaggerated, they are
wrong. If they are exaggerated, then there is something in them you hold to
be true. If you do find them wildly exaggerated, how does that fit in with
your suggestion that he has to be refuted point by point rationally? A man
is given public space to tell untruths and sneering lies; it is acknowledged
that he is at least exaggerating wildly; but he must be refuted point by
point rationally. Attempts to point to the same beam in his own eye are
dismissed as intemperate... Why is Duncan privileged? Is that not
authoritarian? Duncan may have your space to attack Griffiths; but Upton may
not have space to condemn Duncan for his attack.
You accuse me of a "tone of authoritarianism". I told you what you should
do, having set yourself up as an editor, if you are to take editorial
responsibility. To dismiss it as authoritarian is a cop out. You delude
yourself if you think you do not have a responsibility for what you do and
the hurt you may cause.
I may well have been intemperate. So be it. I am not building a career by
attacking others. I find your response unconvincing and disingenuous and
your reference to "good editorial practice" hypocritical. Your idea that
people are not hurt by such attacks seems to me somewhat inhuman.
You disappoint me.
Lawrence Upton
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|