[Austin-ghetto-list] jaxon's rant, part 7

[JIM BALDAUF]

Jack- Don't apologize! This too is important history!
I just happened to buy "Lost Cause" a few months
ago at Oak Willies and loved it! Thanks for informing
me of the Chronk slander history that I was only vaguely
aware of. I recently talked to Michael King at the airport.
Michael and Lou Dubose (both formerly with the Texas
Observer) recently joined the Chronk and are people I
have ongoing dealings with. Is/was the Observer and its
people aware of this shameful chapter in Austin publishing?
Jim Baldauf

----- Original Message -----
From: jaxon41 <jaxon41@austin.rr.com>
To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 12:24 AM
Subject: [Austin-ghetto-list] jaxon's rant, part 7


> Dear Fellow Discerners of the Truth--
>
> In this installment of my rant we shall attempt to answer several
questions
> about editor Louis Black: Is he a well-meaning boob or just plain stupid?
> Does he act out of serious journalistic principles or is he a devious
> Scorpio who buries his head in the sand when presented with a mountain of
> evidence that he fucked up?  Let's look at some of the emails he started
> getting when Bison Bill put the affair on the Net and how Louis reacted to
> the stink he'd created.
>
> On 9 Oct. (same day as Bruce Marshall's letter in the Chron), this went to
> Louis Black from a total stranger, one Tom Furtwangler of Seattle:
>
> Hi,  A colleague today pointed me to your review of Lost Cause, written by
> Michael Ventura.  I'm writing to chastize you for publishing such an
> immature and vidictive piece of writing.
>
> By showing his bias in the first sentence ("this is what they call a
graphic
> novel"--come on!!), Mr. Ventura  quickly indicates that what follows is
more
> likely to be a rant than a balanced piece of criticism.  And indeed, this
> review almost immediately slips onto ground I would call dangerously close
> to slander.
>
> I am not going to defend the novel; that's not the point.  I am writing to
> express my amazement that you would publish something so vituperaatve by
> someone so clearly unqualified.
>
> Next time you assign a review of a graphic novel, why not choose a writer
> who at least has some context within  which to build a coherent critique?
> Graphic novels have been around for decades; one of them has even won the
> Pulitzer Prize [Art Spiegelman's Maus].  By running this review you reveal
> not only the author's ignorance, but your own.  Tom Furtwangler, Seattle
>
> On this printout BB scribbled a note: "Jack, Tom is a publisher of
> educational comics in Seattle.  He found the Chronicle's review on their
> website, then sent them the above letter.  There will probably be more
> reaction to my post over the weekend; don't be surprised if more letters
are
> sent to the Chronicle from comics professionals around the country."
>
> BB was right.  On the same day one Jeff Williams of the English Dept. at
> Texas Tech--a gentleman totally unknown to me--sent this to the editor of
> the Chron:
>
> Dear Louis Black,
>
> Michael Ventura's review of Jack Jackson's most recent book, Lost Cause,
was
> brought to my attention.
>
> First of all, I would suggest that a reviewer take a careful look at the
> work and conduct some background research on the medium reviewed before
> writing a critique; this would have prevented several errors in Ventura's
> piece (e.g., his statement about the visual stereotyping and his
> embarrassing comments about the "graphic novel").
>
> Secondly, after a piece that borders on slander and libel, it seems only
> fair that Mr. Jackson have the chance for a rebuttal.  Unless your
> publication is alternative for the ultra-right crowd.
>
> Jack Jackson is a well established historian and one of the early pioneers
> in the underground comix movement of the late 60s.  He was involved in the
> liberal press when the terms "liberal" and "alternative" actually meant
> something.  By allowing Mr. Jackson a voice, you will, to some degree,
> regain credibility as an alternative press that was lost due to Ventura's
> uninformed and biased review.  Sincerely, Jeff Williams.
>
> This email, and others like it were starting to get on Louis Black's
nerves.
> Williams' remarks--coming from boondocks Lubbock, of all places--must have
> irritated Big City Louis especially.  And it didn't help for Williams to
> imply that the Chron was cashing in on something that I had helped start.
> Louis' response to Williams of 10 Oct. 1998 was as follows:
>
> I assume you are a friend of Jackson's (or a friend of a friend) since I
got
> two or three letters with almost the same wording.  [Strange, eh Louis?]
I
> respect Jackson and respect his work but neither of these feelings impacts
> on what a reviewer writes about his work in the Chronicle.  You are in an
> English Dept. and you attack a reviewer for being biased.  Am I missing
> something here.  Is their objevtive criticism?  [Eh?]  I'm sorry Jackson
put
> out a really bad book.  [Aha!]  If The Chronicle needs to pretend
otherwise
> to maintain our credibility, we pass (think how insulting a statement that
> is to people who work putting out this paper 52 weeks a year--because we
> dien't like your friewnd's book, we suck).
>
> I read the book and had problems with it, in genmeral agreeing with
> Ventura's review.  We asked Jesse Sublett to review it and, because his
> reaction was th e same as Ventura's and mine, he passed on reviewing and
> instead wrote a background piece.  When three people who regularly
> contribute to this magazine come to the same conclusions, I am comfortable
> with that position.  I almost never respond to letters like this but,
damn,
> you're in an English Dept and I thought your position was shocking.  LB
>
> Ol' Jeff Williams at upstart Texas Tech fired back an indignant reply,
based
> on Louis' false (paranoid?) assumption that I was a friend, or a friend of
a
> friend, of his:
>
> Actually, I'm working on a dissertation that utilizes literary theory to
> interpret comics.  One chapter analyzes non-fiction comics.  I am aware of
> and have read all of Jackson's series on Texas history in addition to his
> earlier work.  I'm also on a comics discussion list where some recent
posts
> have made mention of the [Ventura] review.
>
> My main point of contention was not so much the review itself but the fact
I
> had heard that Jack Jackson was not allowed some kind of response.  It is
> very common among professional, academic periodicals to allow an author of
a
> book or article to defend him/herself against attack (or less than
> flattering reviews), either in the form of a short article or at the very
> least in a letter to the editor.  In the profession of literary studies,
> this is considered common courtesy.
>
> I would not ask for any kind of retraction; Ventura is free to his opinion
> and to express his views of the book (which to many comics scholars comes
> off as less than informed).  Jack Jackson should also be allowed to
exercise
> his right to free speech and not [be] subjected to censorship.  JW
>
> I doubt if Louis bothered to reply.  Hey, this guy was saying some pretty
> right-on things about freedom of expression; kinda hard to argue with
that,
> unless one is willing to reveal a despotic mindset.  Another email of 10
> Oct. came from some unknown fellow on the West Coast named Jeff Lester.
He
> told Bison Bill that he'd read Ventura's review online and then sent a
> letter to editor Louis Black:
>
> Although I didn't mention it in my letter because it seemed off-topic, I
> find it horribly ironic that Ventura had written an unproduced screenplay
> anout Hardin but consistently disparages Jackson's work by comparing it to
> "old Westerns" and "your average Hollywood screenwriter."  As we say out
> here in San Francisco, Mr. Ventura obviously has "issues."  Having not
read
> the work [Lost Cause], I'm sorry that I didn't present a stronger defense
> for Jackson's work, but my hope was to point out that Ventura's review
> seemed so obviously biased and wrong-headed as to be useless.  My hope is
> that another review will be allowed, or a response from Jackson.  I also
> hope that you can convey my sympathies to Mr. Jackson.  Although it is
> certainly none of my business, is there any reason apart from Ventura's
> review to believe this to be a personal attack?  He didn't steal Ventura's
> girl or anything, did he?  JL
>
> No, I didn't steal V's girlfriend (to my knowledge anyway), but this is a
> reasonable supposition from the personal spite that laces his review.
Bison
> Bill sent the following to comix@ on 14 Oct:
>
> I just spoke with JJ a few minutes ago.  Since it is apparent the
Chronicle
> editor will not change his mind about publishing Jack's point-by-point
> rebuttal, Jack would like it to appear on the Internet.  He feels this is
> only fair, since the Chronicle posted its review on the Internet for all
the
> world to see.  BB
>
> To which West Coast comics collector & dealer Robert Beerbohm, an old
> acquaintance of mine, replied:  "You mean to say that the Austin Chron
won't
> post Jack's rebuttal on their website, which doesm't use up any 'valuable'
> paper space at all?  This is even more chicken shit of this paper."
>
> Yeah, Boib, I thought it was chickenshit too, and that's why I got so bent
> out of shape about it.  Is this AMERICA, Land of the Free, Home of the
> Brave, we live in or WHAT?  It may be, but it seems we've got to keep
> fighting for our freedoms or they'll vanish--even at the hands of our
> "alternative" press.  One of my favorite emails sent to Louis came from
> another total stranger, Glenn Carnagey of the Chicago Sun-Times, on 12
Oct:
>
> Dear Mr. Black,
>
> It saddens me very much that something like Michael Ventura's review of
Jack
> Jackson's Lost Cause got past the editors.  It is most unfortunate and
> embarrassing, as even the barest amount of research would have revealed
that
> it is littered with inaccuracies and ad homineum approaching slander; even
a
> superficial reading of the "review" should have made obvious the bile and
> bias which fairly drips from every sentence.  It is painfully apparent
that
> Mr. Ventura has never encounteree a graphic novel before, knows nothing of
> the abundant literature concerning them, and is whollu ignorant of three
> decades of this man's work.  I should think it would be in your best
> interestsa to refrain from publishing reviews of graaphic novels, if you
> can't find someone capable of reviewing them.  However, I recognize that
> these tthings do slip by, in a busy world, and that is comprehensible.
But
> it is incomprehensible that you are unwilling to let Mr. Jackson defend
> himself from such flagrant abuse.  That, I'm afraid, is beyond my ken. GC
>
> Mine too!!!  I don't know who you are, Mr. Carnagey, nor am I familiar
with
> your work for the Sun-Times of Chicago, but you sound like my kind of
> people.  What's going through your mind, Louis, as you're reading these
> posts?  Now here's one from a fellow newspaper man in Chicago, instead of
> jaxon's "friends" or "friends of friends."  And what does he think of your
> editorial standards?  Not much, except to extend you the benefit of the
> doubt that this horrible piece of shit might have "slipped by" you in a
busy
> world.  You're thinking to yourself, "Thank God, he doesn't know that I
> masterminded the whole thing!"  And from Chicago, Louis, not stupid
Lubbock.
>
> Then, on 19 Oct, Bison Bill posted the response I wrote about V's review,
> already given in Part 3 of my rant.  When Bob Beerbohm out in the Bay Area
> saw it, he emailed BB:  "Just read Jack's rebuttal.  The Austin Chron's
> 'review' ran three full pages?  And they want to hide Jack's response in
the
> Ed letter page??  I just sent Louis Black another letter.  RB"
>
> This barrage of unwanted emails from all over the country was beginning to
> take its toll on Louis.  How many "friends" could this fuckin' jaxon have?
> One of them (an artist known to all of you Listers but who shall remain
> unnamed here) ran into Louis at Antone's while he was drowning his sorrows
> in suds.  What's wrong Louis?  Why do you look so down in the dumps? he
> asked.  Louis confessed that he'd "really fucked up" on his handling of
the
> review of my book; felt terrible about it, blah blah.  Yeah Louis, I know
> why you felt so terrible: not because of your slam, but because so many
> people were calling your hand on it and recognizing how chicketshit you
are!
>
> Anyway, the Chron ran the following three letters on 23 Oct, I suppose out
> of guilt at how they had been stacking the deck against me by keeping
> silent.  The 1st came from some character named Tary Kelly Owens.  Anybody
> know him?  Sounds like a nice guy...
>
> JACKSON SETS THE STANDARDS  Editor:  It was with great sadness that I read
> Michael Ventura's outrageously wrong-headed and hateful review of Jack
> Jackson's comic-history, Lost Cause.  I had a higher opinion of Mr.
Ventura.
> I didn't know he would stoop to such bile.  JJ is a serious artist; his
> classic God Nose set the standard for all underground comics from Shelton
to
> Crumb to Trudeau, and his illustrated histories have received the highest
> praise from such important writers as Larry McMurtry.  I have known JJ for
> 35 years.  To call him a racist is not only morally wrong but is the
lowest
> form of indignity.  That the Chronicle stands behind such vile garbage
> lowers the credibility of your newspaper.  For shame!  TKO
>
> Thanks Tary, even if you have overestimated my importance as a cartoonist.
> Shelton & Crumb were already masters of the artform when I began seeking,
> groupie-like, their company.  I've always been a second-stringer, but like
I
> said in my rebuttal, I try to make the best of my limited talent.
>
> Then a local cartoonist named Mack White had his letter printed beneath
> Tary's.  Yall probably have seen Mack's bizarre strips (usually given in
> installments) in XLent, a venue which--unlike the Chron--appreciates comix
> and supports the Austin graphic arts scene.  No wonder that so many good
> local artists--Guy Juke, Sam Hurt, Shannon Wheeler, Mack White, and others
> (I boldly place myself in their company)--have given up on the Chron and
> gone over to XLent as their "alternative" choice.  Ironic, isn't it, that
> the Establishment/Mainstream organ is now hipper than the Cron?  Wonder
why
> the CAUSE of this shift of creative energy hasn't dawned on Louis Black?
> Could there be some reason why it hasn't?  YOU BETCHA: the Austin
Chronicle
> has been hostile to cartoonists since the git-go!  That's why there never
> was a "Chapt. 2" of my strip in their 1st issue.  I wanted to be a regular
> contributor, but they said they were "too broke" to pay me for a strip
each
> issue.  It might have been true then, but it's not true now and hasn't
been
> for a long time.  They're ROLLING IN DOUGH but don't want the Austin
> artistic community to have any of it!  Tight bastards.  Worse, they have
> exhibited a hostile attitude toward comics that was almost universally
> unknown in "alternative" pubs on the Austin Scene prior to their arrival
and
> co-opting of the medium.  They think they're too classy for comics, and
that
> their pub is sorta like Rolling Stone; photos are almost their total
visuals
> {no offense intended to the many excellent photographers on the Scene, I
> assure you)  Wake up, boys; you ain't even close--except maybe in your
> ability to drum up business from advertisers.  Here's Mack White's letter:
>
> MORE SUPPORT FOR JACKSON  Dear Mr. Black:
>
> I have some objections to MV's review of JJ's Lost Cause.  First, it
reveals
> a complete ignorance of the graphic novel medium.  To dismiss the book
> simply because "without pictures, the 148-page story would shrink to maybe
> 25 pages, if that" is to completely miss the point of the graphic
> novel--that pictures can be used to tell an intelligent story and that the
> graphic novelist's task is to tell the story in as few words as possible.
>
> Also, V's review reads more like a personal attack than a review.  V. is
> certainly entitled to his opinion that J. is  "racist"; however, to use a
> critical forum to smear J's character in this way is inappropriate, if not
> downright uncivilized.
>
> Furthermore, your readers should know that V's opinion is not shared by
> everyone who has read the book.  I have read it, and so have a number of
my
> colleagues in the comics community.  No one has found the book to be at
all
> racist.  The book is, in fact, a gripping, realistic depiction of
> Reconstruction-era Texas; it is beautifully drawn, excitingly written, and
> excellent history.
>
> It would be nice if there were space in this letter to refute all of V's
> claims with regard to the book's "racism."  But the claims are so many,
and
> the issues raised so complex, it cannot be done in a letter.
>
> That is why JJ should be allowed equal space to respond to this unfounded
> attack.  MW
>
> Then, another member of the Marshall clan(?), named Lytton, rounded out
the
> list of protestors on my behalf:
>
> VENTURA WRONG  Dear Sir:
>
> In his mean-spirited attack on JJ's Lost Cause, reviewer MV makes an
> historical gaffe in falsely accusing J. of making one.  According to V.
"on
> page 13, in a scene set in 1857, his riders are armed with what looks like
> Winchester-style repeating rifles...There were no such rifles in 1857.
> Until the Civil War ended in 1865, rifles were long-muzzled and had to be
> reloaded after each shot, which usually meant ramming a rod down the
inside
> of the barrel."  ALL WRONG.  Send V. back to New York.
>
> The weapon shown in J's artwork is a HENRY.  According to the catalog of
> Navy Arms (which makes replicas of the Henry and other historic arms), the
> Henry was produced "between 1850 and 1866."  Thus it was well within the
> time frame depicted by the author-artist.  The Henry was used during the
> Civil War, and also the Spencer, incidentally, another breach-loading
> repeating rifle.  Your reviewer has done a disservice to both
author-artist
> J. and to the Chronicle as well, in claiming J's "goof" shakes faith in
his
> work--when in truth it is V. who is the historical ignoramus.  He owes
Jack
> Jackson an apology, and if he is not man enough to do it, the Chron should
> make their own apology for using a vicious-mouthed Yankee boob to defame a
> truly fine and multitalented Texas historian.  LM
>
>
> Louis put the following ED. note in brackets with these letters: "An
online
> comic art discussion group took up the JJ issue.  The Chron received 4
> similar letters from that group.  They are available online."  Yes, but
you
> didn't bother to give the address, did you Louis?  So much for your belief
> in the free exchange of ideas.
>
> Alright Gang--I know this has been a dreadfully long post.  The next one
> will be QUICK & DIRTY, short & simple.  Then will come my interview in The
> Comics Journal--with pictures!  I'll wind up my rant in the next
installment
> with a brief assessment of where the Chron stands in a long line of
> Austintacious pubs that thought cartoons were essential to their Reason
for
> Being.  Thanks for bearing with me through this ordeal, and I promise to
> never, ever, post such long-winded rants on the List again!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>