.
| Hearsay: |
A soap opera has developed in Toronto. For those uninterested in my home town’s gossip factory, skip to the next post.
For many years I’ve loved the Toronto Small Press Book Fair. While I’ve never participated as a vendor or reader, I have participated with my dollars, regularly buying copies of my favourite magazines as well as books and chapbooks from some of the best small- and micropress publishers in the world (Wayward Armadillo, Taddle Creek, Book Thug, Porcupine’s Quill, Coach House, etc). I’ve even begun taking my young son there, when we’re in town. To my eye, it’s generally been a place of cooperation, collaboration, and community (though it does occasionally smell a bit like sweat and toner).
Not so, these days, it seems. The small press community has been shaken by an accusation of libel. While SPBF was started years ago by poet Stuart Ross and some others, the fair regularly rotates coordinators. Apparently, some patrons and community members, most vocally SPBF founder Stuart Ross, are raising some questions about the fair’s current management. After deleting Ross’s posts from “official” SPBF public fora groups, two of the organizers have now sent a letter from a lawyer threatening to sue him for libel. Excuse me? Libel? I’ve followed this pretty closely, and I just can’t see the libel here. It seems to me that part of the benefit of a rotating management in a volunteer-staffed community organization is the opportunity for input and criticism of community members, participants, and past coordinators. The hush that often falls when people hear the word ‘libel’ seems less than constructive to me. Taking criticism is part of the job. Trust me, I know.
A full version of the events and more commentary can be found here.
The very fact (broadcast publicly by Wallin and Villegas themselves) that they have threatened litigation against one of their constituents is by itself a deeply troubling thing. It sends a message that criticism, constructive or otherwise, is something to be repressed rather than considered. It risks creating an environment of libel chill, in which constituents may become afraid to speak up for fear of being sued by those in positions of power and authority. For their part, Wallin and Villegas claim in their widely broadcast missive to the Lexiconjury list that their “legal response” was not motivated by Ross’ original criticisms of the most recent Fair, but was instead the result of subsequent “postings, mass e-mails and blog entries” and a 3 January 2008 letter to the Toronto Small Press Book Fair Board. No details of these communications have been shared, nor has any substantive basis been provided to justify the public allegations of defamation of character and interference with their professional lives. And yet, in representations on the SPBF’s “official” discussion forum (a Facebook group) dating back to November, the coordinators repeatedly challenged Ross’ right to post criticisms of the Fair even on his own blog, claiming that he was obliged instead to discuss his concerns with them privately. Indeed, the coordinators have regularly invoked Ross’ original blog post (available here) in their own representations, including in their most recent public statement, suggesting that it looms larger in their objections than they are willing to admit.
January 2006
December
2005
November
2005
October
2005
September
2005
August
2005
July
2005
June
2005
May
2005
April
2005
March
2005
February
2005
January
2005
December
2004
November
2004
October
2004
September
2004
August
2004
July
2004
June
2004
May
2004
April
2004
March
2004
February
2004
January
2004
December
2003
November
2003
October
2003
September
2003
August
2003
Bookninja © Copyright
The opinions expressed on this site are those of individual participants
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the site owners,
organizers, or other participants.
[powered by WordPress.]
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
The deafening crickets and tumbleweeds here are a good example of what George meant when he referenced the libel hush phenomenon. It will be interesting to follow what damage is done to the trigger happy litigants’ careers, such as they are.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
“Farce,” “soap opera”: okay.
“Tragedy” — too strong?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
This whole fiasco reflects poorly on the toronto literary community. One would think writers have better than average people skills, given that they generally write about people.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Actually, I find the opposite to generally be true — fewer people skills spread over more people.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Writer=good with people? What a wonderful world it would be!
January 24th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Hey guys, this is not about “the Toronto Literary community.” Only a very few people are actually involved in this squabble.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am
libel chill affects ALL writers in a community. who’s next?
January 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I’m not sure “libel chill” is the underlying issue here.
Yes, it appears there has been an inappropriate attempt to control debate.
Worse, it seems to me, has been that the debate polarized so quickly and a pragmatic, problem-solving approach did not emerge. In short, how did things get so bad so fast?
Free speech is great. Debate is great. Debate about a very specific subject involving a limited number of specific actors that cannot coalesce, that does not take a solution-oriented approach — is that what we mean by free speech? People are perpetually free to misunderstand and misrepresent each other?
Not that I’m saying that’s what’s happened here! ;)
There’s a lot of threads in this story. I for one don’t feel chilled into silence. I’m more concerned that an institution (the Fair) that has been a focal point of communal vibes for two decades is now a point of divisive contention. That seems to me the real loss to the Toronto literary community.
One strangely turns to the language of “better governance” and “stronger feedback mechanisms” as possible routes forward….. “Mentorship” and “transition planning” also come to mind.
More talk, yes, better talk, yes.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Well put! This is exactly my sentiment as well.
This situation could have turned out much differently had both sides met, and then opened a public debate. Easy to say in hindsight, I suppose. I wish everyone the best, but we should be supporting each other not bickering and sending lawyers after one another. More people may know about the Small Press Affair now, but what kind of impression does this make? Especially with the general public, who has to be convinced at the best of times, that funding art is part of what makes this city liveable. It is a great fair, I just hope that all parties involved can resolve this and that the fair can continue to grow.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Interesting to note, this is what Wallin and Villegas are now doing to defend themselves. One should note that the so-called “smear” has NEVER once been justified or proven, and followers of the discussion on all sources on-line have all commented that none of Ross’s comments are personal or defamitory. Have a look at their sympathy campaign, below:
—
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:55:43 -0500
Dear Friends:
This is something I haven’t wanted to draw your attention to. There are so
many good things going on in my career that I would rather tell you about!
But we have been given some advice from an author we respect to enlist
support
for what has become an untenable situation. For two and a half months, Halli
Villegas
and I have been subjected to a barrage of criticism, and then clearly
defamatory
comments made increasingly public, through Stuart Ross’ personal blog,
then the two sites on Facebook, the Toronto Small Press Book Fair, then on
“Friends
of the Toronto Small Press Book Fair,” and then spiralling out on blogs and
sites
all over the internet dealing with all things literary.
Things increased exponentially when the Toronto Small Press Fair was
nominated for a Torontoist Superhero Award, and continued even when
we placed third in an online vote (of a twenty-four heros shortlist)! An
article
was written on Reading Toronto recently, which then got picked up, as though
it were fact, by the Quill and Quire blog I’ve attached here. It began as a
piece of editorial journalism in the guise of fact. (I think it’s important
to note
that the author of that “article,” Amy Lavendar Harris, is a forthcoming
author
with Mansfield Press, where Stuart is a guest editor.)
Halli and I sent a “cease and desist” letter to Stuart on Jan. 15th,
basically
asking him to stop his smear campaign. This only increased it, while he
wrote everyone asking them to write letters to us personally, through e-mail
denouncing what we’d done, and calling for people to write articles and to
write to the Toronto and Ontario Arts Councils to deny us further funding.
I have over 250 blogs, blog posts, personal e-mails and group e-mails
on the subject to date. But the argument has been skewed thus far to
the negative side.
So I’m writing to you today, just a few select friends, to ask you to please
defend our good name by writing a comment on the Quill and Quire blog here.
We are not asking that you attack anyone, just asking that you say something
positive about us, so that the negative words will not outweigh all the
positive.
We have and continue to try to promote writers in our fields, through
Halli’s Tightrope Books, my radio show on CKLN, the Rowers Pub Reading
Series Halli helps organize and the Art Bar Reading Series that I help to
organize, and of course, the Toronto Small Press Book Fair. Any kinds words
at all will be greatly appreciated.
We have been warned that this story will only get bigger, going to more and
more legitimate outlets, like it already has at the Quill and Quire and at
the popular site Bookninja, where it also appeared earlier this month.
Sincerely,
Myna
—-
January 27th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
“Halli and I sent a “cease and desist” letter to Stuart on Jan. 15th, basically asking him to stop his smear campaign.”
I thought a lawyer sent it. There’s a big difference between a letter “basically asking” from two people involved and a threat of lawsuit from lawyer. This kind of double talk makes me not trust them at all. They’re actually lying to their friends to bring them into a quagmire they created. Great friends.