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

[jaxon41]

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!