Hey there--

I was going to say that this letter merely makes the poet (who I've never heard of in my life, sorry Richard) look puerile and imbecilic--not just petty, but pathetically anxious about his own work's reception--but then I realized that (double score!) it also reveals he's got a ton of racist friends.

Sorry you had to deal with this idiot, Steven. Hopefully you see/saw the humor in it, as I think most will who aren't blinkered by either a personal agenda or some benighted sense of loyalty to a poet who clearly needs to get out more. Not everyone is going to like everything we write; don't most writers come to that conclusion in, like, high school? To be writing snotty garbage like this at this guy's age is just hopelessly sad. I know the personality of a poet has nothing to do with his writing, but you know, there's a lot of poetry out there to be read--and no particular reason, therefore, to go out of one's way to read any poetry written by a man like this. And I'm sure some would say that about me, too, and about you, but hey, we learned in ninth grade how to deal with that, didn't we?

So much for him,
Seth
 

What an appalling document. I'm so sorry.
 

Hi Steven, I wanted to try to say something constructive here rather than indulge in the above comments or the letter itself. As you know, I haven't read Vargas's work. I did want to ask about the context in which you read Vargas's work. The bodily functions and body parts, which you discuss in your review, and which Vargas brings up in his letter: whereas your assessment of these brings you to the conclusion that the work is perhaps immature or "macho," have you considered Oscar Zeta Acosta's Brown Buffalo, which seems a fair comparison. From what I understand about Zeta Acosta, his writing openly and unrestrained about bodily functions and body parts has much more to do with the body politics of brown men and standards of beauty for brown men in the USA than it has to do with immature boy humor. Body politics seems relegated to the realm of women's writing, but I think it's totally fair to say men of color also must write against mainstream American objectification and commodification, which are both emasculating, and which are major sources of man of color rage or anger or indignance.

So that's all I wanted to contribute to this discussion, just considering the context in which a work is written. If it differs from the reviewer's context, is it "fair" to ask the reviewer to try to step outside his own context. This isn't to say you must therefore praise the work. If you still end up not liking it, if it's still not well written in your opinion, that's cool.
 

Hi Barbara Jane:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I'm not familiar with Oscar Zeta Acosta's work, so it's entirely possible that he was a major point of reference for Vargas. Without Vargas' books in front of me, though, I do recall that his "hard peepees" poem was a direct address to Sandra Cisneros (the "hard peepees" being based on a line from her work), which muddles things up--it seemed like a male/female thing instead of a brown/white thing.

If you check my review, I do say quite clearly that I think Vargas' primary stance toward machismo in the poems is one of lampooning, but that (A) the humor itself doesn't always work especially well for me, and (B) in my view, some of the poems slip over the line between parodying it and embodying it.

Best,
Steve
 

Dear Steve,
I haven't, but now want to read both Vargas's book and your review—preferably in the wrongest order. (OK, read the review. You/Richard had me at Bukowski—and no one has ever associated me in any way with the concept of being macho.)

To say one hasn't "heard of" a poet is a silly point. But the academic, gabacho, pinche, pissant, crappy white asshole (eww), brown nose platform, too, is silly—and just so easy.

(Again with the academic pejorative—I didn't know you met the criteria. Can you write me a recommendation?)

But then again, I think you may have known you were opening yourself up for the assault when you wrote this review. I've heard this dance works for Bill Logan (and Franz Wright). . . .

Props for having the balls to put it out there, though. I fight with signing up for Rilke's "With nothing can one approach a work of art so little as with critical words: they always come down to more or less happy misunderstandings" vs. just thinking I'm a giant wuss.

But your reading and BJPR's comments do interest me the way I think critical discussion is supposed to. And I think this is to Richard's credit—slightly more than this letter is to his debit.

Yours,
The Ivory Tower
(That may or may not be a penis reference.)
 

A.D.,

A fair point, and I should say that my snotty comment about not having "heard of" Richard Vargas was merely a direct (and sarcastic) response to the anxiety the man so obviously displayed at establishing his hierarchical position in the world. Calling attention to that in the way I did was, in the event, as ugly as the initial sin, I do see that now. I think what's most important to me is that we have the courage to call this letter offensive in all particulars; I can't imagine any reason one would have to (or wish to) dance around that, or how such an avoidance could possibly be defended as honorable or constructive.

Best,
S.
 

steve, i know this is kinda your own little fan page, and once this is posted, i won't bother coming back. looks like when the reviewer gets reviewed, the sky falls. who knew? i congratulate you for posting my letter as written, i really thought you were going to take selected parts and use them out of context. the lampooned version is kinda funny, i'm impressed. if anyone reads this and will be in so. calif this month, i'm reading june 26 at Stories bookstore, in Echo Park. also on june 27, as part of "A Celebration of Words,' sponsored by Tia Chucha Press. i invite you to make up your own mind. oh, just had a poem published in Big Hammer, a very cool poetry mag. check it out. thanks steve, keep doing what you do, you do it so well... rvargas
 

Seth,
Also a fair point. I don't think we can hope all writers keep a standard of unemotional and impersonal discourse RE their own writing, though.

Richard,
(Though I know you won't return to read this.) Seth, you and I are the only ones really editorializing about the letter here—so I don't think skies are falling. (Steve and B coolly stuck to the poetry.) Far from being a fansite, I think it's cool as hell that this blog facilitates us hearing from you on this—though I would have like to read your take on the Zeta Acosta point.
 

this is a hot mess. i love it!

what most caught my eye in the letter was richard's statement that no one (NO ONE) has ever (NEVER EVER) accused him of being
"associated" with the "concept of being macho." i find this hard to believe.

latino culture is a patriarchal culture. sexism, racism, homophobia abound. every latino male must confront his own sexism and homophobia sooner or later. as i gay man, i've been called out for some latent sexism. i'm grateful for these call outs. they help me better myself, and they help me analyze my relationship with a mexican culture that i love, a culture that treats women and gays harshly.

every latino male (gay or straight) i've ever met has picked up, unconsciously or not, some racist, sexist, homophobic tendencies. the trick is to acknowledge these tendencies, and to work towards excising these beliefs out of our minds and hearts.

okay, i'm rambling.

one more thing. i found it hilarious that richard calls himself an outsider then goes on to quote some of his impressive facebook buddies: luis j. rodriguez, a lamont winner, a poet published by black sparrow, and an award-winning native american poet. i want to be that kind of outsider.

p.s.

i write about dicks too!
 

I do agree with Eduardo that we can't simply say "I've never been called ____ in my life" as a blanket defense of our poetry from such a claim.

The thing is, though, that Mr. Vargas seems to think I'm commenting on his machismo or lack thereof. I don't know how much more clearly I can say it: I don't know him at all beyond this letter and his writing, and I've never made a single comment about him personally. My comment on machismo was about his poems, and very directly acknowledged (third time now) that he's trying to make fun of it in his poems, but that I didn't think the mockery always succeeded.

Despite the fact that he knows me equally as badly, he's made numerous factually inaccurate personal statements about me and has referred to me with profanities and with racial pejoratives. If someone thinks my review was too harsh on his poems or missed a critical point, fine, let's talk. But let's also keep some perspective about who's doing and saying what here. There's no conversation for me to engage in at this point.
 

Man, oh man. This is the kind of thing a person should (in my opinion) write if it helps blow off some steam, but then quickly delete -- never, never send it off -- because it just makes the sender look much worse than the person he's trying to criticize. Anyway, I'm sorry to see this directed at you, Steven.
 

Just for the record. He refers to himself as "William", not "Bill"--Logan that is--in personal correspondence that is how he signs his name. Gainesville, Florida British. FW