|
18 October
1998
Dear Barney,
I hardly write letters anymore. No time. (And this one is definitely not
for publication - since I see yo have a Letters-to the -Editor section.)
I can't tell you how moved I was to see and then receive my own copy of
your, Atrid and Jason's hand-made copy of the new Evergreen Review.
It is only what a madman would do - or a genius, which I define as an
incredibly generous spirit. Thank you for it, and I am very proud to be
even vaguely associated with it.
In your covering letter you asked for a response, and so, because of time
constraints, mine must be very short, but hopefully "sweet."
The most important thing I can say to you is that the magazine is too
backward-looking in its vision: you are constantly reminding people
of who or what Evergreen was. Ironically, this goes against the
actual life of the issue - which is completely forward-looking.
You have so much new stuff in it, great stuff: I read bits and pieces
of everything. Why contextualize this great new substance in a
backward-looking rhetoric? Yes, Evergreen was revolutionary.
But all people are going to do is ask you what is Evergreen today,
not yesterday. (And for those who need to be reminded because they are
among the still (!) unenlightened you can do nothing . Only actions count,
and the only act worth anything is self-enlightenment.) Stop defining
E.R. by re-publishing the ol stuff, mentioning the old authors,
etc. Give people a chance to remember these things themselves.
Fine, you have used the old name. That's enough - maybe too much as it
is. Now, as you yourself always say, "Do you want to know who we
were and what we're about? Then read what we published." New
actions speak louder then old words. Personally, I love "old words"
myself - in many senses of the term, but sometimes you just have to let
go. Otherwise, people are going to see you as the old guy trying to revive
the old corpse. What a shame - since you are one of the most actively
intelligent and sensitive people I know. In my earliest, brashed moment,
I could not have kept up with you! Old names, editors, etc. are listed
on the masthead. Enough. Just fill the pages with great new images and
text - and mum is the word. Not that I didn;t love your editorial - but
it looks over its shoulder too much at the past. We are alive now, not
yesterday or tomorrow. You are the youngest, most lively, energetic person
I have ever met. You will be so for the rest of your life. Put the history
where it belongs - in your autobiography - and the present where it belongs
- in the pages of the new Evergreen Review.
Much love as always,
Richard Milazzo
|
|
Dear Evergreen:
I received an email from the managing editor, I believe, a few days ago.
But the email was lost when my computer died. So, I'm emailing here in
hopes that I can pick up the lost line.
I'll be placing a link to Evergreen in the OBR links pages. I was planning
to do this anyway. I spent quite a while a few days last week going through
your website. I was very happy to find the magazine alive on the web,
and I hope that this new medium works for you.
Evergreen is the primary influence behind Oyster Boy Review. I only started
reading the back issues of Evergreen when I was an undergrad in the late
80s, but I was so amazed by the content, by the editorial selection, that
for some time after, the idea of publishing a literary magazine in that
vein stewed several years until I started OBR in 93. I have returned many
times since then to my collection of back issues of Evergreen when in
need of editorial inspiration. In fact, I modeled OBR5's layout on Evergreen's
classic design.
If you're interested, I'd be happy to send a copy of the next issue your
way.
Regards.
damon sauve
Oyster Boy Review
sunsite.unc.edu/ob
www.levee67.com
E-mailed 10/30/98
|
|
Dear Barney,
I want to wish you every success with Evergreen Review. You are a living
legend in the publishing world and have done more for advancing the cause
of literature than almost anyone else in America or elsewhere for that
matter. I love your fighting spirit and know that you will continue to
provide a place for voices to be heard that would otherwise be silenced
in the modern world where MBA's rule the day and mandate only voices that
immediately promise to improve a corporate balance sheet's bottom line.
Best wishes,
Christopher G. Moore
Bangkok, Thailand
|
|
Dear Barney,
Thanks for sending the interview, its great. I had a wonderful time reading
it. It certainly is strange to look back at the 50s today. There were
more than one dichotomy in the country. It was a time for madness, bigotry,
betrayal, yet artistically so much was happening, at least in NYC. What
a wonderful time to be alive. I remember in the late 40s and early 50s
they had sessions on Sunday afternoon in Birdland and every musician who
was in town would come by and play, and it was only a buck to get in with
no minimum. And there was all kinds of places and things happening everywhere.
Judson church, St Marks, coffee houses. The galleries on 10th street.
Poetry readings all over town. Things were really happening. I remember
we all had regular jobs and earned enough to pay our bills, go to a movie
and sit in the Cedar St. Bar. And the movies were great in those days
too. I'm sure glad I was alive during those days. And we're all glad you
were. This country has alot to thank you for. I sure hope you have a sense
of how important you were/are, and how much were respect, admire and love
you for it. Thanks for it all my friend.
I send you all my love and best wishes and hope this finds you well and
happy and enjoying the Blessings of Life.
Hubert Selby, Jr.
|
|
Dear Barney,
Thank you very much for the Paris Review interview. I read it with great
interest.
There's one amusing detail you seem to have forgotten: those three books
you bought from the original Grove Press people- Confidence Man, Crashaw
and Aphra Behn- were bound in a yellow cloth. And they scarcely sold.
Then as quality paperbacks began to be issued, you had the covers stripped
off and the books bound in paper.
Do you remember Cecil Hamley of Noonday Press in those days? When I was
putting together the "San Francisco Scene" issue of Evergreen Review,
he told me that I could NOT under any circumstances publish Allen Ginsberg.
And when New American Poetry was published he reviewed it for Hudson Review
and said: "It represents Mr. Allen's private view, and that is all, and
it shows what happens when a narrow, dictatorial taste attempts to assert
itself as authoritative." I found this recently going over old reviews
and trying to write an afterward for the new reprinting of the old anthology
by the University of California Press.
Best regards,
Donald Allen
|
