February 12, 2004

Subject: Kane X. Faucher's reply to Craig Davidson

Hey, here's a reply to a.e.m. and Faucher,

Well, what can I say? To each his or her own, I suppose. I'm glad you sought Mr. Faucher out, a.e.m, although I don't suppose he had to search far, considering you both publish with the same press---which Faucher, in his non-hyping way, adds a link to, along with a plug for his upcoming work, at the bottom of his letter.

I understand there will be different styles of review. Some I will like more than others, along with any reader. But I think they should be intelligible. I've got my education to the MA level (in English), and I didn’t know what he was saying. Perhaps his reviews were pitched at the PhD/Mensa set; I have no clue. I think we have a fundamental disjunct about what is "academic" writing. I've read good academic writing; I'm sick to death of it, but still, I know good academic writing when I see it. 

Faucher is what I refer to as "pseudo-academic" writer: that is, a writer who has probably read a lot of lit-crit texts and loves to spout off on this acquired knowledge, often poorly; these are the type of people who think if they litter their speech with enough lit-crit terms they might somehow fool people into the belief they are saying something profound, when in most cases (as it is in this case) saying very little, if anything. Doctoral programs are littered with people like this. I abhor obfuscation for the singular purpose of obfuscation, and especially when it comes from someone who is doing so simply to prove how sophisticated he believes he is, or make other readers feel intellectually impoverished—or perhaps we’re meant to bathe in the light of Faucher’s shining intellect; again, it’s a mystery to me. 

If I wanted poorly-written academic navel-gazing, I’d go read a stack of undergraduate essays (my own included); I don’t expect or appreciate seeing it elsewhere. There’s a place for poseur intellectuals—coffee shops, faculty mixers, undergrad house parties, personal webpages—but, in my opinion, that place is not the Danforth. Obviously a.e.m. believes differently. As an aside, I’m in total disagreement with the fiction review editor seeking out his own reviewer, especially one who, as I’ve said, publishes with the same house. The spectre of biased bedfellows arises. 

Another aside: I think a.e.m. quoting Celia’s email as proof of Faucher’s worth is invalid, as she seems just as unintelligible as Faucher—their written personas recall two fellow soulmates who’ve worked their way to the bottom of an absinthe bottle, the green fairy working its odd hallucinogenic magic.

I won’t mince words, as I believe in being direct: I believe Faucher is an intellectual fraud, and I think his reviews are woeful. Call me narrow-minded or intellectually lacking, if you’d like. Perhaps I am. All I know is that I appreciate clarity, and I don’t think Faucher’s reviews offer that—although his letter is much more intelligible. Perhaps if he’d written his reviews in a similar style I would’ve gotten through them. 

Take care, Craig (yes, my REAL name.)