About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 2:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I suppose I wouldn't be doing my job if I weren't occasionally trashed somewhere.  This piece is a gem:

http://www.savethehumans.com/culturebashing/outbursts/making_friends/index.shtml

I've been called (gasp!) an anal-retentive Objectivist because I was doing my job as an editor.  ;)

Enjoy,

Jennifer


Post 1

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 4:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer,

Well, don't worry about that. Linz calls me his "favorite anal-retentive old phart." Frequently, too.

It disappoints me that Objectivists resort to the use of Freudian classifications, or as I have accused Linz of doing, attempting to use gutter language to express skyscraper ideas. Essentially its cheap and lazy. Any idiot who things those words shock anyone any longer is very naive. They neither shock or offend, they simple bore the intelligent with their insipid attempts to be, "sophisticated," or, "liberal minded." The use of barracks language is, to me, a red flag the shouts, "I have no vocabulary."

I would never have been so kind as you were, however. My rejection would have been much simpler: "Sorry, The Altasphere does not publish the innane, the absurd, or the stupid. Each of these is worth one point. Your submission scored three."

(You may use that if you like.)

Regi


Post 2

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 4:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm with Jason. You might let him know SOLO will publish his piece!!

Nice to know I'm not the only one to tumble to all the anal-retentiveness among Objectivists!

:-)

Linz

Post 3

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 5:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you, Regi.

Linz, my point is that my reply to him was not anal-retentive in any way.  His reaction made evident his lack of maturity.  Rather than trying to understand my reasoning (and show my comments in full context on his web site) he acted like a five-year-old, and edited my reply.  I did read all of his work, and expected that as an intelligent human being he would be able to see from our guidelines that his words would need to speak to our audience.

As an editor, you would expect the same of me in an article for SOLO or the Free Radical, would you not?  I would not force my style upon you if my words didn't fit your audience.  It is my job as a writer to adapt to fit the needs of the market.


J


Post 4

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doesn’t Jason know that you can’t say “blowjob,” “scrotum,” “balls, or “oral sex” on the Internet? J

 

But seriously, Jennifer, your vivacity, passion and joie de vivre put you so far from anal retentive, it’s not funny. I agree; the Atlasphere should have standards. You wouldn’t present blowjob articles as representing TA (but that’s why SOLO is in my favorites and The Atlasphere isn’t) any more than you’d present lesbian S&M or abortion-is-a-holocaust articles as representing SOLO.

 

There’s also a certain lack of honor in this guy publishing your private email and slighting your honest intentions. But that’s assholes for you.


Post 5

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 10:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer: sorry, have to largely agree with Jason on this, though his public denunciation seems a bit excessive - reeks of smite :-).

Apart from a few laughs on the first page, I didn't particularly enjoy the article. It starts light and ends up heavy. It doesn't know whether it wants to be humour or deep relationship commentary. But that's not the reason you rejected it, and like you, I've seen enough of Jason's work to know that he CAN be VERY funny.

I cannot really see at all what makes the article unacceptably disparaging to women, and agree with his rebuttal. He offered to change out the (questionably) objectionable words.

But anal-retentive? Sorry Jennifer, you'll have to tighten up a bit more before I'd endorse that view of you!

Post 6

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I thank you both for your comments.  I just found the article to be very negative, blaming women for the things that change the dynamic in a relationship.  As you know, I am far from a feminist, but this tonality does not work for me, nor for our audience.  That's what it really comes down to.  In my role as an editor I had to make that call.

I have taken your points into consideration, however, and appreciate your feedback.  What pissed me off more than anything else was that he did not post my full e-mail reply on his site.  Anyhoo, it is said and done.  I just needed to vent.  :)

Best,
Jennifer


Post 7

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 6:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm with you, Jennifer. The current ratio of dating profiles on The Atlasphere is 811 males to 239 females. If Jason's column was to be published, the ratio would have been a lot worse. Interestingly, the movie I just reviewed for The Atlasphere, "Surviving Picasso," tells the story of a man forcing a woman to commit to a relationship, and her breaking free from him.

-- Michelle


Post 8

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 6:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I’m with Jennifer. I don’t respect minds that are too comfortable with that language. Even if they manage to be funny, it’s not worth it. I had enough of that stuff prior to adulthood, thanks.


Post 9

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 7:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you, Michelle and Rodney.

I think there is a way for humor to be done well without having to be crass.  I have yet to resort to profanity in my writing, as I find it to show a distinct lack of imagination and vocabulary.  

Of course, I do talk about nursery schoolers peeing on me in my latest article, but that is slightly different.  ;)

Jennifer


Post 10

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 1:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd better never go near the Atlasphere, apparently. 

.....Balls!!!




Post 11

Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, Lindsay's on my side... In that case, I'll need to take another look at Solo. :)

I've decided to cave in and respond to some of the comments here. First, the only reason I excluded parts of her responses to me was because they weren't relevant to the points I was commenting on. Don't worry, there's no "conspiracy to prevent the Objectivist community from knowing the REAL truth about Jennifer Iannolo!" She's obviously free to post the entire text of her e-mails here if she thinks they're relevant, or that there are people who are actually interested in reading them.

I'll remind everyone that Jennifer asked me to submit an article already knowing my style and after declaring "I adore your work." If you ask someone to submit their writing, knowing their pattern of consistently writing using language and content "inappropriate" for your website, then you explain to them what exactly you find "adorable" about their writing and/or that you expect to see something significantly different from what they usually write. If Jennifer was an editor at the CNN website, I might have expected radically different content guidelines than my own site. But it's an Objectivist dating site, for Christ's sake.

Now for the fun.

Reginald Firehammer writes:
"The use of barracks language is, to me, a red flag the shouts, "I have no vocabulary."

Actually, Reginald, having no vocabulary is a better indication of having no vocabulary. Using a word like "asshole" doesn't negate one's ability to form unique, intelligent, colorful phrases. Like "red flag", for example.

Glenn Lamont writes:
"There’s also a certain lack of honor in this guy publishing your private email and slighting your honest intentions."

Glenn, if you think her intentions were honest based on the e-mails of Jennifer's which I published, then I didn't slight her honest intentions. And I never said her intentions weren't honest. She was, however, a bad editor.

Jennifer seems to think that she was being a good editor by rejecting my submission. But if that's the case, then she was sloppy in her correspondence to me before I wrote and submitted the piece.

Imagine Time magazine inviting George Carlin to submit an article, knowing his style, and not telling him beforehand that there were significant aspects of his style that would not be acceptable. Do you think it would be "good editing" to reject his submission after he took the time to write it because you eventually realized that maybe articles about sex with dead children might not be appropriate for your magazine? Or do you think "good editing" would be to tell him before he wasted his time?

Finally, an ironic twist. Jennifer wrote to me:

"I recommend that you read some of Don Watkins' past pieces to get a better sense of the kind of humor we publish, and perhaps you can clean this up a bit and resubmit it."

Recently, Don Watkins just posted to my site:

"Wow, she asked you to tone it down and then referred you to *my* writing? From one of my Atlasphere articles: "The next morning, I came before a judge. Then they arrested me again because, well, you know, court clerks don't like cleaning up that kind of mess." How can they complain about you talking about blowjobs and yet let me write about the result?

"Anyway, just wanted to say I no longer write for The Atlasphere, which is so saturated with Kelleyites that they end up saying the sorts of things Jennifer said to you. "

Now, that's funny.

Jason
http://savethehumans.com

Post 12

Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow, Jason.  I moved past this a long time ago.

I will admit that I did make a critical mistake in not telling you to tone down your work before submitting it, and apologize for wasting your time and my own.  However, to imply that I was disingenuous by saying that I adored your work is an unfair assumption of me.  I am not a sycophant, and have no desire to be one.  Your ego is not one I wish to stroke.

Also, with regard to Don Watkins' article, it was not one I had edited, and frankly I was unaware of its existence.

I should have done my homework in a number of areas before choosing to deal with you.  Lesson learned.

Jennifer


Post 13

Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 2:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm with Jennifer on this one (not that she needs a vote of anyones approval). Though for me the worst offense of the article was its undercurrent of bitterness. Made for a not very interesting read. And thats ok. Much of what I write falls into the same category. But it does help me to improve. Thickness of skin is something one grows after awhile.

John

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.