February 11, 2004

Subject: Craig Davidson on reviews by Kane X. Faucher

Mr. Bryson--

I apologize for not writing sooner and giving my gratitude for your decision to post my two reviews (Clark Blaise and a.e.m). ... I came across a letter by a Mr. Craig Davidson that seemed to beg for a response. I felt it serious, for it seemed to implicate more than one individual. I would be lothe to "bring down the reputation" of the Danforth Review as this person claims. If this is the case, I do apologize to you and your editorial team. So, in the interests of repartee, find below my letter of response...

Cheers
Kane X. Faucher
Craig Davidson - Or, Pseudonymous Critique

As far as I can glean from Mr. Craig Davidson's grievance, he objects to my use of language. Amidst the kludge of complaints leveled against my particular way of review (yes, there is more than ONE way to review a text), this came about as the most central theme. So, allow me to address Mr. Davidson directly.

I do not take my linguistic cues from IKEA catalogues or according to the topical rage as of late that champions simplicity. Language - no matter what words utilized - is there to be used, and to be used without censure or border. Moreover, I am not going to assume that you - Mr. Davidson - believes that there is a singular 'correct' way to conduct a review unless you abide by a strict protocol that, given enough time, could be shown to be arbitrary anyhow. It is an illusion to hold on to an ideal form for what a review ought to be. In my view, a review - not unlike most other forms of writing - need not be merely the transmission of information (there is more than one means of communication even with the same medium), and so I took this opportunity to experiment. As I am trying to forge a new and exciting link between what I have accumulated from theory and literary expression, these reviews bespeak of my commitment to this enterprise. I have merely done what many ask those who engage in theory to do: put it into practice; hence, my reviews.

I am rather disheartened that you have chosen a transparent strategy in appealing to the editors and the reputation of the Danforth Review as a convenient shield, suggesting that these reviews I have written had just slipped by. I do not know if you do the editors at the Danforth Review a service in even suggesting that they were careless in posting my review. I will assume that the editors who handled these pieces prior to their posting both read and understood the content. Moreover, you speak of my not doing any favour to the authors, assuming that a reviewer's purpose is primarily for the benefit of the author. In addition: be surprised, for I have received a handful of compliments for my review style. And, in fact, one of the author reviews was given to the author himself who approved of the content and suggested that I submit it. If you wish to measure the success of my reviews, I know offhand that I have attracted a handful more readers that had hitherto not realized that the Danforth Review existed.

On hype. Well, certainly if one stamps one's name upon a piece of writing it is an instance of bestowing credit. Even you have done this by putting forth an opinion you wish to be credited for. Is this hype' Is this self-serving' I did not once mention any of my own projects. Is it my use of language? I find many people afraid of language to the point where this fear becomes a hostile dislike of those who have the capacity to use words - any words, be them simplistic or jargon-laden. I categorically cannot and will not apologize for making seemingly esoteric references or using "jargon", especially when I assume my audience much more competent and well-read than I. It is not that I am being patronizing, but that I fear to render things more allegedly accessible is itself a form of patronizing. I would become very depressed if we limited communication to the simplest form of language, thereby denying the very beauty of so many neglected words. I will also not apologize for using theory terminology. I am what I read, and this is how I conduct myself as a speaker in this language. It can only be an instance of showboating one's intellect if it is an artificial construct, a persona, a mask worn for an occasion. But I assure you, Mr. Davidson, that I speak and think this way even in my most private moments, and yet I still manage to live a productive life where I love and am loved. I am merely sharing my enthusiasm, and would hope that everyone would participate in this legacy of the lexical.

On the appeal to authority. It is not, nor has it ever been my intention to degrade the integrity of the Danforth Review. I wrote a review, they reviewed it, and decided to post it. There was no deception at play, insider deals or personal favours that coloured their selection process. Owing to how many reviews they have posted, and Mr. Bryson's own 'Mea Culpa' which serves as a kind of open mandate for different types of reviewing, I can trust that the editors of the Danforth Review know exactly what they are doing, and so therefore know what will and will not jeopardize their solid reputation.

On the name. My name is perhaps as pseudonymous as yours. Yes, it is my real name, but I think displaying my positive ID to confirm my claim would demean us both. How is my birth name, Kane X. Faucher, any more ridiculous than yours? Because it is not common? Because it is different? Difference is not ridiculous except by those who insist on strict homogeneity - and if you detest difference, then I suppose there is nothing left we have to say to one another. Pardon me if I felt your comment to be a tad xenophobic.

In sum, I do appreciate your input even if I take issue with some of the particulars. I would think under different conditions that you would be partially right in your claims; however, this would presuppose any knowledge of my person and I of yours.

Be well,

Kane X. Faucher

Spec Guest Editor / Jacob's Ladder 3
Six Gallery Press
http://www.sixgallerypress.com 
Author's page: http://www.geocities.com/codex1977 
Coming in 2004: Urdoxa