TNI to become quarterly?

[Roger Bissell]

I've been out of town for several days, so I'm not up to date on my mail. However, I have a second-hand report from a friend that The New Individualist is changing from a monthly to a quarterly publication, apparently because of the high cost of maintaining a monthly publication schedule with that much high quality content. Personally, I'd like to see TNI be no less than a bi-monthly publication. Quarterly or semi-annually seems more appropriate for a journal than a magazine.

My "source" also tells me that Will Thomas did a review of Ed Younkins' edition of essays on Atlas Shrugged, and that he said some "negative" things about my essay. It was actually more of a fantasy, a fictional lecture by Richard Halley presenting his development of Hugh Akston's aesthetic ideas and application of them to music. Since it was my fantasy, it was my aesthetic ideas, of course -- my version of what Rand's music philosophy "could and ought to have been." I was admittedly "smuggling" my views into the piece, so that kind of fantasy is open to criticism, too, of course, and I will be interested to see what Will wrote.

In the meantime, if anyone is privy to the specifics of Will's article and especially his comments on my piece, please feel free to share them. And if the comments about my piece are not too extensive, please quote them. Otherwise, I'll hopefully read them tonight or tomorrow and quote/comment on them myself!

REB

[Robert Campbell]

Roger,

I've received my copy of TNI. I groaned when I got to that part of Will Thomas's review...

The passage is pretty short, therefore easy to quote, but I don't have the magazine with me where I am now. Will try to provide specifics this evening.

Robert Campbell

[jordanz]

Yes, TNI will become a quarterly. I reported about it here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=52782 (which points here http://www.jordanzimmerman.com/index.php?m...oc2008%2Findex).

[Chris Grieb]

It will not become a quarterly right away. Robert Bidinotto made that comment to me as he was leaving the Summer Seminar.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Judith]

I used to enjoy TNI very much.

USED to, you say?

Yup. I renewed my TAS membership in March of this year, but I haven't seen a single issue of the magazine since October of '07.

I've called TAS three times about this matter, but nothing has changed.

I am not happy.

Judith

[Bidinotto]

Judith,

Your post here was just called to my attention.

You cannot imagine how upset I am about chronic subscription problems like this one. There is no excuse for them.

Please send me your address, by private email, to:

rbidinotto@atlassociety.org

I will see to it personally that you are sent, immediately, all available back issues of the magazine due to you.

My apologies.

-- Robert Bidinotto

I used to enjoy TNI very much.

USED to, you say?

Yup. I renewed my TAS membership in March of this year, but I haven't seen a single issue of the magazine since October of '07.

I've called TAS three times about this matter, but nothing has changed.

I am not happy.

Judith

[Robert Campbell]

Roger,

This is what Will Thomas has to say about your chapter in Ed Younkins' book on Atlas Shrugged.

Many of the essays use Atlas Shrugged as the occasion for their authors to retail theories of their own that are not really analyses of Rand's work. An entertaining example is Roger Bissell's presentation "My Music: Why It's Romantic, and Why I Write It That Way," which purports to be a lecture given by Richard Halley "on the 25th anniversary of the Great Strike." This sounds like a fun fan-fic idea: Halley is a minor character in Atlas, a composer who joins the strike against the mystic-altruist-collectivist culture that dominates America. But this isn't Halley's speech, it's Bissell's, retailing his own theory of how melody functions in music. I know that Bissell's theory is one of several that try to develop esthetic ideas along Randian lines. But you wouldn't know that from reading this disguised essay. Like many of the ingrown and self-referential essays in this book, the Halley "speech" is less than it could have been.

Robert Campbell

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Robert B,

Just to chime in for one post only here, this problem is not uncommon. My friends Dan and Nova Walsh had the same problem awhile back and decided to stop giving to TOC for awhile because of it. I've been lucky. I think I've only missed about three issues over the many years I've subscribed. If you could get me my missing copy of the issue with the Vince Flynn interview, I'd be grateful.

I honestly hesitate to recommend that non-Seminar goers deal with TAS because of the strange glitches. If they've read Atlas, snarky references to Orren Boyle are sometimes forthcoming.

Jim

Edited July 10, 2008 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

This is what Will Thomas has to say about your chapter in Ed Younkins' book on Atlas Shrugged.

Many of the essays use Atlas Shrugged as the occasion for their authors to retail theories of their own that are not really analyses of Rand's work. An entertaining example is Roger Bissell's presentation "My Music: Why It's Romantic, and Why I Write It That Way," which purports to be a lecture given by Richard Halley "on the 25th anniversary of the Great Strike." This sounds like a fun fan-fic idea: Halley is a minor character in Atlas, a composer who joins the strike against the mystic-altruist-collectivist culture that dominates America. But this isn't Halley's speech, it's Bissell's, retailing his own theory of how melody functions in music. I know that Bissell's theory is one of several that try to develop esthetic ideas along Randian lines. But you wouldn't know that from reading this disguised essay. Like many of the ingrown and self-referential essays in this book, the Halley "speech" is less than it could have been.

Robert Campbell

(earlier Robert wrote) I groaned when I got to that part of Will Thomas's review.

Robert Campbell, thanks very much for typing this in. I just got home and read the offending passage scant minutes before logging on to Objectivist Living, so I noticed something you forgot to mention. Will Thomas categorized me (with others) as "The Crank." That provides additional context for your (and my) groan. And here, I thought Will and I had patched up our differences regarding the Summer Seminar....

Robert Bidinotto, I hope that you overlooked and did not approve of Will's name-calling of a TAS supporter and faculty member. I'd hate to think that you condone that sort of thing....

Best 2 all from "The Crank" aka "NAME"

P.S. -- To be fair, I suppose that some of the fans of Gone with the Wind were pissed off about Scarlett, too. :thumbsup:

[zantonavitch]

I think I've only missed about three issues over the many years I've subscribed.

For what it's worth, I seem to have received about 7 of 8 issues of The New Individualist so far (missing only March).

I just wish this wonderful magazine was available in Barnes and Noble bookstores. Liberty (a libertarian monthly) is found there in New York City, and I'm virtually positive The New Individualist would sell even better!

[Robert Campbell]

Roger B,

I did see that heading, "The Crank."

I was hoping it was meant to refer more to chapters like Karen Michalson's, which Will really hated.

But the layout of the article is inconsistent with my hopeful hypothesis.

Robert C

[Bidinotto]

Roger,

I didn't think that Will was including your contribution in the "crank" category, and I never interpreted it that way.

After citing two examples by authors (Karen Michalson and Walter Block) which he clearly intended to disparage as in the "crank" category, he began a new thought: "Many of the essays use Atlas Shrugged as the occasion for their authors to retail theories of their own that are not really analyses of Rand's work." This transition established for me that he was done giving examples of "crank" contributions and was beginning to talk about a different category. Because he cited only one example in one paragraph -- your essay -- he probably didn't think it merited a separate subheading.

Supporting this view, Will called your essay "entertaining" -- hardly evidence of hostility. His problems were, first, that it struck Will as confusing, failing to clearly distinguish Richard Halley's (Rand's) views from your own. Because it presupposed intimate familiarity with the character of Richard Halley, Will found that the essay also was not well-suited to communicating with a non-Objectivist reader (he said it was among the many "ingrown and self-referential essays" in the book, and that it was thus "less than it could have been." That is hardly the intensity of criticism that supports the view that he meant to include you in the category of a "crank." I suspect that Will tacked his comment about your essay where he did simply because he was coming to the end of his review, had run out of space, and had no other place to put it.

Incidentally -- and I'm addressing this not to Roger, but to participants here generally: If it hasn't already sunk in to readers of The New Individualist, TNI is a philosophical forum, not an ideological orthodoxy. Unlike other publications I could name, at TNI I grant writers considerable latitude in expressing opinions that I think will be interesting to our intelligent readers, even when I disagree with them -- sometimes sharply. A recent example is Roger Donway's "Private I" column in the same June issue, which takes a decidedly un-Objectivist perspective on the principle of individual rights. I disagree completely with Roger's position, even while sympathizing with specific concerns of his that gave rise to the article. Several letter writers in upcoming issues blast him for his views, which is great: I believe firmly in vigorous competition in the marketplace of ideas. And I happen to think that our readers are mature, intelligent adults, capable of weighing the merits of arguments for themselves, without me having to protect them from heresies by wielding a heavy editorial hand. I best serve readers of the magazine as their editor, not as their mommy.

And if at times you find the content of the magazine problematic, one simple solution would be to submit publishable, repeat, publishable material of your own for consideration. By publishable, I mean literate, interesting, well-written pieces that would interest our target readership of "sense-of-life individualists." By "unpublishable," I mean blog entries and term papers aspiring to the title of "magazine article."

[Judith]

You cannot imagine how upset I am about chronic subscription problems like this one. There is no excuse for them.

...

I will see to it personally that you are sent, immediately, all available back issues of the magazine due to you.

Thanks, Robert. The subscription to TNI is one of the best perks of TAS membership!

Judith

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

I didn't think that Will was including your contribution in the "crank" category, and I never interpreted it that way.

After citing two examples by authors (Karen Michalson and Walter Block) which he clearly intended to disparage as in the "crank" category, he began a new thought: "Many of the essays use Atlas Shrugged as the occasion for their authors to retail theories of their own that are not really analyses of Rand's work." This transition established for me that he was done giving examples of "crank" contributions and was beginning to talk about a different category. Because he cited only one example in one paragraph -- your essay -- he probably didn't think it merited a separate subheading.

Supporting this view, Will called your essay "entertaining" -- hardly evidence of hostility. His problems were, first, that it struck Will as confusing, failing to clearly distinguish Richard Halley's (Rand's) views from your own. Because it presupposed intimate familiarity with the character of Richard Halley, Will found that the essay also was not well-suited to communicating with a non-Objectivist reader (he said it was among the many "ingrown and self-referential essays" in the book, and that it was thus "less than it could have been." That is hardly the intensity of criticism that supports the view that he meant to include you in the category of a "crank." I suspect that Will tacked his comment about your essay where he did simply because he was coming to the end of his review, had run out of space, and had no other place to put it.

Incidentally -- and I'm addressing this not to Roger, but to participants here generally: If it hasn't already sunk in to readers of The New Individualist, TNI is a philosophical forum, not an ideological orthodoxy. Unlike other publications I could name, at TNI I grant writers considerable latitude in expressing opinions that I think will be interesting to our intelligent readers, even when I disagree with them -- sometimes sharply. A recent example is Roger Donway's "Private I" column in the same June issue, which takes a decidedly un-Objectivist perspective on the principle of individual rights. I disagree completely with Roger's position, even while sympathizing with specific concerns of his that gave rise to the article. Several letter writers in upcoming issues blast him for his views, which is great: I believe firmly in vigorous competition in the marketplace of ideas. And I happen to think that our readers are mature, intelligent adults, capable of weighing the merits of arguments for themselves, without me having to protect them from heresies by wielding a heavy editorial hand. I best serve readers of the magazine as their editor, not as their mommy.

And if at times you find the content of the magazine problematic, one simple solution would be to submit publishable, repeat, publishable material of your own for consideration. By publishable, I mean literate, interesting, well-written pieces that would interest our target readership of "sense-of-life individualists." By "unpublishable," I mean blog entries and term papers aspiring to the title of "magazine article."

Robert, I appreciate your benevolent -- not to say, elastic -- interpretation of Will's including me under the sub-heading of "The Crank" but ~not meaning~ to refer to me as a crank.

I think that "self-referential" was another way of saying non-Rand-focused, self-promoting...."crank." But that's my impression. Perhaps you are correct.

REB

P.S. -- Robert, let me put it more bluntly. Will Thomas is a nice enough person and a good (clear) enough writer that, if he ~meant~ for me not to be included in his subheading label for the three people discussed under "The Crank," he would at least have started out the paragraph about me by saying, "While not actually a crank per se, one of the essayists &c &c..." Instead, he chose to leave the clear implication that I was considered not "thoughtful," not "workmanlike," but a "crank." (Actually, I was ~quite~ thoughtful and workmanlike, but the fact that Will chose not to include me under either of those categories speaks volumes, let alone where he did include me.)

[Brant Gaede]

You're a crank, Roger, but not a cranky crank.

--Brant

[jordanz]

Roger, why don't you just ask him?

[Roger Bissell]

You're a crank, Roger, but not a cranky crank.

--Brant

Usually that's true, but you didn't see me when I read WT's review of the Younkins book. :hmm:

reb

[Roger Bissell]

Roger, why don't you just ask him?

I think that my days of asking him "why this" or "why that" are over. The value-for-value thing just isn't working out for me and TAS.

However, you are welcome to, if you'd like.

reb

[Greybird]

Will Thomas ought to remove that rhetorical pine cone from his nether regions, plant it in the nearest possible forest (to start offsetting his own carbon emissions), and recognize intellectual playfulness when he sees it.

Robert Bidinotto ought to contemplate just how much his cover portrayal of Ron Paul as having a cadaverous death's-head genuinely appeals to "intelligent readers" or raises the level of discussion.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Greybird