“Linda Rogers, you’re a bully.”

February 4, 2010 at 7:16 pm 3 comments

Thanks to both Zach Wells and Jacob McArthur Mooney for their blog posts highlighting Linda Rogers’ response to Candace Fertile’s review of Rogers’ recent poetry collection Muscle Memory in the Times Colonist. All of these links are well worth reading (Rogers’ response is so outrageous it borders on hilarious), and highlight the extreme lengths some writers will take to undermine critical discourse in the name of self-interest.

Especially laughable is Rogers’ assertion that she should be immune to negative reviews because this was “the first negative poetry review in a lifetime of writing and most of [her] poems have been published elsewhere and won national and international awards”.  Never mind that Rogers goes on to evoke hate-mail and Haiti, or that she attempts to use her position as poet laureate to throw her weight around.

It says here that Linda Rogers should be stripped of her laureateship for what Mr. Mooney describes as bullying.

Advertisements

Entry filed under: News.

Covers MM13 Available Now!

3 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Matt Rader  |  February 17, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    Seriously? I can’t believe grown-ups can be so childish. What’s the harm really? I can’t imagine anyone standing at the poetry section of Munro’s (local Victoria bookstore) and thinking “Nah, Rogers got a lukewarm review in the Colonist by Candy Fertile.” Does that happen? Do people stop liking your poems because Fertile isn’t totally enamoured? In that case, I’m taking Fertile for drinks first chance I get.

    Reply
  • 2. truthtopower  |  May 1, 2012 at 2:46 am

    saw her give a reading today. Foolish, foolish, boorish, egomaniacal buffoon. Referenced the review many times. This case speaks badly of the centripetal, self-serving Canlit culture.

    Reply
  • 3. Linda Rogers  |  July 3, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    OK. It is three years on and I am done with the poet laureate job, so I will speak.

    I am myself a (respectful) critic and enjoy (respectful) critical discourse.

    The point is and was, this review was personal and mean-spirited and was part of a larger effort by a disappointed former candidate to undermine my effectiveness as poet laureate, which I saw as a mandate for inclusivity.

    My objection to the review is that I was characterised as a a man-hater ( not true as my many man friends, husband, children and grandchildren will attest) and as someone not sympathetic to Robert Lattimer, who ended the life of his severely disabled child.

    I was not goin to respond to the mis-characterizations, but the Lattimer family asked me to deny in writing that I had written a poem critical of Bob at a critical time in his application for parole. The Lattimer family have my complete sympathy and the poem was sympathetic to a conflicted father, who made a choice non of us should be faced with.

    Truthpower should sign the blog, not for my sake because I know the source, but for transparency. If you have an opinion, you should stand behind it.

    That’s it folks.

    I continue to love the practice of poetry in the interest of peace in this world.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Calendar

February 2010
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Most Recent Posts


%d bloggers like this: