GOOD PHOENIX

It was encouraging to read Jess Kilby’s article “As Maine Goes” (Jan. 31), about the anti-war movement taking place within our state. More and more citizens are beginning to see the folly of going to war against one individual who is protected by his own personal army. Unfortunately, it would be the innocent Iraqi citizens who would suffer the consequences of our misguided actions. President Bush was unable to point out with any clarity or justification as to why we should go to war with Iraq in his State of the Union message. Why has al Qaeda been put on the “back burner?” Why wasn’t Osama bin Ladin’s name even mentioned in his address to the nation? Now events have gotten worse given the situation in North Korea, a country run by a demented man who does have weapons of mass destruction and is threatening to use them. We will be lucky if we see 2004.

L.M. Eastman

Greene

BAD PHOENIX 1

I am writing in response to Tony Giampetruzzi’s skewed and insulting article “Where Have All The Gays Gone?” There are many factually questionable declarations in the article, but I am writing in particular about the aspersions cast upon the Maine Gaynet listserve. In his article, Tony portrays us as the only “truly vocal group of gays and lesbians in the state . . . a group of hundreds, if not thousands, of pedantic observers.”

Firstly, I would like to point out that “Maine GayNet” is not “Political Maine Gaynet,” and while we frequently discuss politics, it is also a forum for us to discuss a range of issues, from the deeply personal to the outrageously innocuous. Secondly, itýis interesting that Mr. Giampetruzzi used as examples of our discussions some of the more personal and/or silly topics from the past few months, and completely ignored the more formidable political issues we tackled like the Lewiston/Somali situation and diversity rally, and US involvement with Israel and Palestine. We even managed to keep each other updated on days-of-action, referendums, and media pieces about the gay community. Finally, I find it very disturbing that Mr. Giampetruzzi distorted our genuine concern over the financial state of SpeakOut and Outright and portrayed the conversation as “convoluted and tangential.” The Gaynet community is intended for discussion; it is a forum where people can gain experience expressing their views clearly, or gain insight into other’s views. It is not an organization of political activists. To use Gaynet’s content with the implication that we are making political statements for the community is erroneous and just plain bad reporting. Mr. Giampetruzzi lurked on our board and took our confidential discussions without our permission and without our knowledge, in an act that was both cowardly, and again, professionally questionable.

This sort of schlock reporting serves only one purpose: to satisfy the writer’s own agenda of bashing the gay community.

Liz Rensenbrink

Portland

BAD PHOENIX 2

I feel I was misrepresented by Ted Drozdowski’s review of my book Sonic Cool (“The Beat Report,” January 31). When I agreed to be interviewed, Ted pointed out that I had written in the text: “Green Day were the best ‘popular’ band in 20 years” and then asked me if, in that case, I thought Green Day were “better” than the Patti Smith Group, Talking Heads, or Nirvana, three bands within that time span that apparently Ted thought were as popular as Green Day. My reply was that the Patti Smith Group had one hit record, but were still basically underground, and I think the same goes for the Talking Heads: Although they sold millions of records in the ’80s, it was still mostly amongst college kids and the intelligentsia. Point being, I don’t think they ever really made the same kind of mainstream transition as Green Day. In any case, they were hardly a “pop” phenomenon on the level of, say, Kiss, the Beatles, or Britney Spears (there were never Talking Heads lunchboxes after all). As for Nirvana, I know it’s sacrilege to say, but I honestly think when it comes to traditional songwriting, Green Day were better, but that’s merely an aesthetic judgment that I have a right to make. The point is, this part of our interview was conveniently cut out of the finished article, and Ted writes in his review: “(Harrington) prefers the chordal pop music of Green Day to the more creative work of Nirvana, Patti Smith, Talking Heads, and many other groups who took more musical chances.” Huh? Way to put words in my mouth, Ted — if one consults the index he or she will find that Green Day is mentioned a mere half-dozen times, while the Talking Heads are mentioned nine times, Patti Smith a dozen times, and Nirvana 36 times, so as far as giving all these acts their just due as far as historical significance goes, the evidence is there and I rest my case. Once again, it would’ve been nice if Drozdowski had left this part of our interview intact, but that’s okay.

Îurthermore, he must have skipped the forward/introduction entirely, given his nit-picky obsession with facts and historical dates, since I clearly state that the book is supposed to read like a historical novel as opposed to musty old “history book.” It’s not an encyclopedia after all, it is an attempt to create a philosophically accurate portrayal of the pop culture in the way that other nonfiction writers have written similarly allusive works about, say, World War II or the Civil War. In short, lighten up, Ted! I make no apologies for, admittedly, not knowing the exact date when John Hammond Jr. kissed Robert Johnson’s ass on Main Street. My book is an interpretation of history and I stand by it 100 percent. I would also say, as far as being factual goes, it’s 95 percent accurate, but, as I noted in our interview, the further you go back in history, the more in question any data becomes.

I also think it was unfair to take a swipe at my publisher, Hal Leonard, and, in particular, my editor Ben Schafer. Considering that Schafer has previously worked with Herbert Huncke, one of the original beatniks, and is currently working with Richard Meltzer and Nick Tosches, I consider myself in good company. The reason he gave me such liberal reign is because he’s a literary editor who believes in allowing his writers the editorial freedom to express themselves in their own unique voice, a concept Drozdowski is obviously unfamiliar with — which shows in his dull and characterless prose. His assertion that “(Sonic Cool) at times has the jaded, ill-informed quality of . . . a fanzine” is laughable, considering that some of the most vital writing about rock music, from the beginning of punk in the late ’70s through the Riot Grrl movement and its accompanying feminist preoccupation, has come from the ’zine culture. The whole point of self-expression, indeed of rock ’n’ roll itself, is freedom — everyone should have the right to write whatever they want. If professorial types like Drozdowski can’t dig it, that’s fine, but his trembling declaration that a few erroneous facts constitutes a “credible danger” is highly absurd. Enjoy Sonic Cool for what it is: a funny, highly entertaining, somewhat satiric, and philosophically insightful travelogue through the culture of the 20th Century that moves at the speed of rock’s eternal heartbeat itself.

Joe S. Harrington

Portland

 

The author responds: I never make trembling declarations.

Ted Drozdowski