Members of the reading public are depressingly familiar with literary censorship. We have come almost to expect threats against books, writers, publishers, libraries and booksellers from overprotective parents' groups, religious fundamentalists and repressive states. Sometimes the taboo titles or targeted authors seem odd choices (Freedom to Read Canada reports, for example, that Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale ranks 37th on the American Library Association's list of the 100 most frequently challenged books during the 1990s). Only rarely, however, are we surprised to discover who is challenging a writer's right to self-expression.

A threatened lawsuit against a prominent Toronto poet has recently rattled the local literary community. This is shocking news all by itself. But what is most perplexing about the ongoing legal threats is that they have arisen not from disgruntled readers or an offended sect but that they have come from within the literary community itself.

The aspiring litigants, Myna Wallin and Halli Villegas, are joint coordinators of the Toronto Small Press Book Fair, a twice annual event at which small and micropress authors and publishers showcase and sell their work to the general public. The Fair was created in 1987 by two small press publishers, one of whom, Stuart Ross, is the target of Wallin and Villegas' threatened claims.

Wallin and Villegas allege that Ross has engaged in a campaign of "defamation of character and interference in our professional lives." They also claim that Ross has conducted a "two-month campaign of personal and public harassment and defamation" and assert that he has done so "with clear intent to ruin our professional reputations."

This information has come to light in a singularly unusual manner: it was made public by Wallin and Villegas themselves in a mass email to the Lexiconjury discussion group. Inevitably, their email has subsequently achieved a far wider circulation by being forwarded by various members of the group to parties beyond it. Accordingly, at this point it seems fair to consider their allegations public information.

An understandable initial response -- that this is little more than a personal squabble made public, a tempest in a chamberpot -- seems undone by several salient issues. It is the presence of these issues -- which oscillate around intricately connected aspects of public accountability and the right to free expression -- that prompts the suggestion that this has become a public rather than a merely private matter.

Myna Wallin and Halli Villegas, as co-coordinators of the Toronto Small Press Book Fair, hold public positions. Indeed, the Fair (via the Toronto Small Press Group) receives public support from the Toronto Arts Council and Ontario Arts Council, and is also funded by fees charged to each publisher/writer who wishes to reserve an exhibitor's table. As such, Wallin and Villegas owe a duty of accountability (both moral and legal) to their membership/exhibitors, to their funding agencies via annual reporting, and to the general public whose taxes pay for the grants they receive. In part this duty expresses itself in the form of fiscal responsibility, which in this case does not appear to be in question. Wallin and Villegas appear to have, however, failed adequately to uphold another crucial element of their public accountability, which is to receive and respond -- in good faith -- to feedback from their constituents.

The very fact (broadcast publicly by Wallin and Villegas themselves) that they have threatened litigation against one of their constituents is by itself a deeply troubling thing. It sends a message that criticism, constructive or otherwise, is something to be repressed rather than considered. It risks creating an environment of libel chill, in which constituents may become afraid to speak up for fear of being sued by those in positions of power and authority. For their part, Wallin and Villegas claim in their widely broadcast missive to the Lexiconjury list that their "legal response" was not motivated by Ross' original criticisms of the most recent Fair, but was instead the result of subsequent "postings, mass e-mails and blog entries" and a 3 January 2008 letter to the Toronto Small Press Book Fair Board. No details of these communications have been shared, nor has any substantive basis been provided to justify the public allegations of defamation of character and interference with their professional lives. And yet, in representations on the SPBF's "official" discussion forum (a Facebook group) dating back to November, the coordinators repeatedly challenged Ross' right to post criticisms of the Fair even on his own blog, claiming that he was obliged instead to discuss his concerns with them privately. Indeed, the coordinators have regularly invoked Ross' original blog post (available here) in their own representations, including in their most recent public statement, suggesting that it looms larger in their objections than they are willing to admit.

But the challenge of figuring out who said what and when is muddied by the reality that by late November or early December -- a mere two or three weeks after the Fair -- the coordinators began systematically deleting comments -- made by Ross and others -- posted to the Facebook group and began electronically 'blocking' contributors from membership. At best this is a capricious act, one that goes against the most basic principles of open communication and accountability. It makes it difficult to substantiate or refute the public allegations against Ross. More disturbingly, it makes it difficult to evaluate the character of Wallin and Villegas' own comments. I do not have a complete transcript of the comments posted to and then removed from the group (although I understand a number do exist), but several comments made by Villegas might easily be interpreted as assailing Ross' motives and contributions to the literary community, including: "your motivations were far from the pure 'I love small press' stance that you put on for your 'public'" and "I hope that you find some satisfaction in your life or work that allows you to let go of a project you started 20 years ago and move on to a better place." These are not the only arguably ad hominem remarks made publicly by the coordinators and their 'camp'. In comments posted to the Torontoist (a popular and widely read city blog), Wallin's former co-publisher David Clink described Ross as "one man who can't let go," and claimed that the controversy over the Fair is "about a man who in one breath talks about being censored when the same man, years earlier (I heard, second hand), ran a woman out of the community using bullying tactics because she referred to his work as "shtick" in a review. A man who has burned more bridges than anyone I know." Another commenter, writing under the pseudonym "sausage" assailed Ross' "inflated sense of entitlement!", wrote "I vote for Stuart Ross: Villain!", suggested Ross was merely seeking "attention" and finished off with "God he has a lot of time. Santa must have brought a big grant this year." These comments range from laughable to vicious. What they have in common is that they all attack Ross as an individual. Each of them seems far more likely to elicit objection than any of the available public comments made by Ross. It suggests that any "defamation of character" and damage to professional reputations may have been directed the other way.

Because of the severity of the allegations (further to the above, Wallin and Villegas have gone so far as to suggest in their public "response to a campaign of harassment" posted to the Lexiconjury group that Ross' comments were part of a history of "vicious attacks, particularly against women"), their implications for public accountability within the small press community, and the ramifications for the free expression of ideas by small press writers and publishers, it seems to me that remedies must be sought before full-blown litigation results.

First, it seems to me that as coordinators of the Small Press Book Fair, Wallin and Villegas' own motivations are fairly subject to at least the same scrutiny they have demanded be applied to Ross' comments and representations. In particular, it seems reasonable to ask what efforts they have made to 'de-escalate' the situation. Did they ever meet (or offer to do so, or respond positively to requests/offers for same) with Ross or anyone else to discuss concerns about the Fair? It also seems reasonable to ask what effect deleting comments and blocking contributors might have had on the quantity and quality of discussion. Perhaps above all, it seems reasonable to ask what possible ameliorative effect Wallin and Villegas' recent public allegations made about Ross to the Lexiconjury group -- and their subject refusal to address requests from multiple members for substantiation -- could possibly have with respect to the well-being of the Fair or the small press community.

Second, it also seems reasonable to ask what the Small Press Book Fair Board has done to mediate discussion and bring some positive resolution to these matters. A Board, consisting of David Chilton (identified as 'Publicity and Marketing Director'), Luciano Iacobelli (named as 'Community Outreach Coordinator'), Carolina Smart (listed as 'Volunteer Coordinator') and the coordinators, was created after the November Fair, apparently subsequent to Ross' allegedly objectionable blog post recommending that a Board be created (it seems worth pointing out that if Ross' suggestions were valuable enough to implement, perhaps they should not have been objected to so strenuously). Has the Board met generally with members of the small press community? Has it reached out to Ross? Has it sought in any way to broker a resolution, not between the individuals named here but with respect to the issues themselves?

Third, what of the small press community? Have the concerns of individuals within the community (expressed and subsequently deleted from the "official" SPBF group and more recently expressed on the Lexiconjury list) ever received fair adjudication? Is the small press community happy with the events as they have transpired and with the efforts of the current coordinators? What of the effects on future funding for the Fair? On relations between writers, publishers, and the Toronto Small Press Group? What about the public? What will be done to restore public interest and confidence in the small press Fair and the group that runs it?

And finally, what of Stuart Ross, the co-creator of the Small Press Book Fair and the target of the current legal threats? In their most recent public missive to the Lexiconjury group, Wallin and Villegas demand that Ross "stop his personal harassment, defamation of us, and interference with our friends and contacts in the literary community". In the absence of any substantiation of these very serious allegations, it is unclear how much Wallin and Villegas are demanding Ross recant, and how much control they now seek to dictate not only over his involvement in small press publishing and the Small Press Book Fair, but over his writing career -- his blog, his widely read 'Hunkamooga' column, his past and forthcoming poetry books and novel, his participation in literary events, his work as a literary editor and instructor, his collegial and personal relations -- more broadly. Given the duration and extent of Wallin and Villegas' campaign against Ross, it is unclear how much further they intend to go -- or how Ross might respond upon provocation.

Regardless of anyone's position on this controversy, it seems undeniable that threatening legal action prematurely or unreasonably, or engaging in actions that suggest an intent to silence, intimidate and bully, bodes terribly for critical comment and the free expression of ideas, and is deeply undermining to the large segment of Toronto's literary community which has been built upon the efforts of small press publishers and authors. In a city still engaged in the process of trying out its various voices, it seems to me that this kind of repression is the most surefire route to ensuring that Toronto ceases to exist in anyone's imagination.

[In the event it needs to be said, the opinions expressed here, other than quoted excerpts of others' public comments, are my own, and are based an interpretation of commentaries and allegations that have been made publicly and which for the most part remain publicly accessible.]

[Prison library image by P.J. Gallagher and used under the aegis of a Creative Commons license.]

1. Thank you for this responsible, clear-eyed and even-handed account. It was much needed.

   Posted by Paul  on  01/20  at  08:29 PM

2. Thank you for a concise account of this issue. Slap suits-as Conrad Black has proven-have a way of coming back to haunt the person who initiates them. Let’s hope this conflict ends without a self-destructive thud.

   Posted by Editor  on  01/20  at  08:46 PM

3. Well said. The whole thing hurts. Stuart Ross has done so much for the community—from running reading series to support to brilliant editing and on and on. And it takes courage to raise concerns, as Stuart Ross did. In this maelstrom of kicked up dark dust, regular decent human interaction, the issues, and the Fair—they’re being lost and damaged too. Thanks for an even-handed essay. Hope it helps to resolve things, too.

   Posted by  on  01/22  at  02:43 AM

4. Stuart Ross is not only an accomplished poet but one who has arrived from the land of small pressers. He can walk the walk so when he talks the talk people should listen. The reaction of the co-coordinators is regrettable. None of this helps The Toronto Small Press Fair, although it may assist the Buffalo Small Press Fair.

   Nic Coivert

   Posted by  on  01/22  at  10:15 AM

5. Well, I went over and read the “offending post” and I see nothing there that should spark a lawsuit. In fact, I think Ross made every effort to be constructive. Saying they needed more advertising to get the word out to the public seems pretty benign to me. I would hope a court would throw this defamation lawsuit out quickly.

   Thanks for this interesting post. I think the underlying theme – our freedom of expression – is very, very important. You’re right – the literary world is constantly under attack by fringe or religious groups who want to ban books under the guise of protecting the children (pulease!!!!). To see freedom of expression attacked within the literary world’s own ranks is disturbing.

   Posted by Wendy  on  01/22  at  11:11 AM

6. I agree with everything you’ve said.

   In his original blog post, Stuart was offering some critical concerns (i didn’t even know the SPBF was on until three days before the event – Stuart having sent an email out!) that in retrospect were bang on, eg. there was very poor promotion of the event.

   The SPBF coordinators were the people who blew this all out of proportion. It’s left a bad taste in my mouth. I don’t think I’ll be visiting the SPBF for some time.

   Posted by Melmoth  on  01/22  at  11:39 AM

7. Good seems to be coming out of all of this. In particular the generosity of Lexers taking time to open up the boxes of piled up issues and kickstarting the communications gears into something resembling dialogue. Rose

   Posted by  on  01/22  at  12:45 PM

8. Amy, is your article a report or an editorial? It matters, if you are constructing an entity that is trying to stand against a legal threat. Your rhetorical engine torques halfway through: of course I don’t mind that you take a stand, and: this should also be apparent from your lead. That’s a basic of journalism, and if you are wearing its cloak then an editor should help adjust the ties before it goes online into the public realm.

   I wonder if it’s possible to make attempts to stretch over legalese, and embellished journalese, and calls to public accountability to arts councils – all of our measures of “professionalism” and “professional reputation” in this particular moment of scrutiny – and find ways to patch through to a actual, textual and virtual, conversation about how all these lines of private and public, objective and subjective, are at stake and up for description, and must be attended to with radical attempts at reinventing active community building. Talk about how to empower free speech with discussions of why it is individuals turn to highly regulated and regulatory textual discourses whenever the personal and private is at risk. There seem to be required at this juncture not bottom lines but opening lines.

   This conscientious article/editorial by Amy Harris opens up for me a space of how we are accepting the private is a fallacy, and the public too must be held into constant requestioning. Just which public does this article pull into view next? Quill and Quire? The Toronto Star? Russell Smith’s column in the Globe? Do these offer fewer consequences to any individual involved than a court room? Does handing the mainstream press “factual news” of a squabble int he small press community fashion a discursive space of reinvention and reconstruction? Or does the “way it all happened” quickly crystallize into an assumed known script which erases the chances that there will be productive and inventive solutions and resolutions.

   A longer text was posted to Lexiconjury, which did not fit in this comment space.

   Margaret Christakos

   Posted by  on  01/22  at  12:57 PM

9. What is with the scoring that appears through some of the text here?

   MC

   Posted by  on  01/22  at  12:59 PM

10. Hi Margaret, it has been a long time since we last talked! Thanks for your comment. The strike through happens when you put— at the start and finish of a string of text. I’ll correct it for you.

    Robert Ouellette

    Posted by Editor  on  01/22  at  01:34 PM

11. Hello Margaret, and all;

    You ask whether my article is a report or an editorial, question the distinction between public and private, and inquire into the facticity and (hyper)reality of the various texts informing the current discussion. These are all fascinating and valid questions, and I would be delighted to discuss them anytime over a glass of wine and/or in a relaxed electronic environment, perhaps even here.

    At the same time—and this is why I wrote my commentary—I do not think anyone should forget that the current situation has a sticky attachment to the corporeal world where breathing people write and speak and shout and fight and censor and threaten to sue other people. You seem to allude to this when you ask whether we might “find ways to patch through to a actual, textual and virtual, conversation about how all these lines of private and public, objective and subjective, are at stake and up for description” and add that they “must be attended to with radical attempts at reinventing active community building.”

    But I am interested in matters that cannot, in my view, be separated from a conversation about community building in this (and perhaps any other) instance: how to uphold the right to free expression; how to adjudicate the duty of accountability those who hold public offices owe to their constituents; whether the current coordinators can be assisted in backing away gracefully from their entrenched positions, or whether (if this is impossible) they should be replaced; what role(s) the small press community sees for the Fair’s advisory board; and how and whether credibility can be restored to the Fair, including regaining the trust of past and potential exhibitors (not to mention past and potential attendees).

    I wrote because I was hoping to help stimulate better analysis of the current situation and more focus not just on the most narrow (involving personalities) or broad (pertaining to text and intertextuality) issues but on the practical implications of the current debacle. I am delighted that your response seems to reflect a shared desire for more critical engagement and less name-calling. I hope others will continue to weigh in on the small and large issues affecting us all, whether as readers, writers, publishers, or interested observers.

    warmth and best wishes,

    Amy Lavender Harris

    [Also posted to the Lexiconjury list, where a far larger conversation has occurred.]

    Posted by Amy Lavender Harris  on  01/22  at  05:40 PM

12. i know stuart ross. he is a man of principle. he cares about the small press community. he would not defame or besmirch individuals to promote himself or any other imaginable agenda. he cares. he wants the event to succeed. grow. take wing. not implode in petty squabbles. here’s hoping this is resolved without dragging good reputations through the misguided muck of literary politics.

    Posted by  on  01/23  at  03:19 AM

13. I’ve met Stuart Ross several years ago and can’t imagine that he’s capable of some kinf of malicious campaign against the coorindators of the Small Press Fair.

    Editor’s Note: I’ve deleted part of this comment because it was off topic and, well, the author knows why.

    Posted by Lucas Taylor  on  01/23  at  10:17 PM

14. I’ve known Halli Villegas and Myna Wallin for many years, and they are hard-working, caring, talented, kind, and supportive.

    Halli has done a lot of good for the community, including volunteering at the University of Toronto’s Taddle Creek Writers Workshop (which is where I first met her in 1999, when I was on faculty), working with Guernica Editions and Tightrope Books, and more.

    And, as those who saw her brilliant featured reading this past Tuesday at the Plasticine series at The Central know, she is a wonderfully talented writer, to boot (and when her work with the Small Press Book Fair was mentioned by the emcee in introducing her, it should be noted that the audience responded with immediate, sustained, spontaneous applause).

    Myna’s work promoting other authors through her radio program, working with the highly effective Algonquin Square Table poetry workshop at the University of Toronto, and with Believe Your Own Press, has also been terrific, and she too is a wonderful writer.

    To suggest, as some have, that Ross’s response throughout has been reasoned, restrained, and rational while Wallin’s and Villegas’s has been the opposite is a very selective reading of the events.

    Posted by Robert J. Sawyer  on  01/24  at  11:12 AM

15. to suggest that threats of litigation about literary community reputation is reasoned, restrained and rational is an extraordinary leap of consciousness (for me). let’s all try to play nice in the modest toronto writer’s sandbox. before you know it, we’ll all be dead, and then, where will you wear all your fine threads of allegation and pretty lawsuits?

    Posted by  on  01/24  at  11:57 AM

16. Up above, Stephen Roxborough, you speak of “good reputations,” plural, and yet you rush to defend only one, that of your friend. Please do try to remember that other good reputations are involved here (“here” both in the sense of the issues at hand, and “here” as in Toronto, thousands of kilometres distant from your vantage point in Washington state).

    As I said, the issue is not the most recent turn of events but the overall arc throughout this affair. It is NOT the one-sided “Wallin and Villegas’ campaign against Ross” as portrayed here.

    Posted by Robert J. Sawyer  on  01/24  at  01:37 PM

17. to robert: when i refer to good reputations (plural), i mean everyone involved. of course there are many sides to every conflict, however muck-raking drags everyone down. let’s make some lemonade out of this. where is the committee to improve attendance for next year’s small press fair? where is their marketing strategy? target market? proposed media? all that good stuff. even though i’m thousands of klicks away, i can still understand marketing and universal human truths. yes, we all have feelings. yes, we want a better small press fair. let’s focus energies on these matters, call a truce, and yes yes yes yes yes stop throwing sand…peace out.

    Posted by  on  01/24  at  03:33 PM

18. I’ve read the original blog entry and the following brouhaha, and I’m still stuck on what to name my cat.

    Posted by  on  01/24  at  06:54 PM

19. To Robert Sawyer,

    No matter how many times you use the word “brilliant” in reference to Wallin and Villegas, it does not change the fact that they have threatened Stuart Ross with a libel suit.

    The questions are: – can such a threat help the situation? – Can it help make a better Small press Fair? – Can it improve conditions for writers across the country when libel chill has far reaching implications?

    Posted by Dana Samuel  on  01/24  at  09:56 PM

20. Mr. Sawyer, above, reminds how talented two of the three protagonists are. Particularly: “Halli… she is a wonderfully talented writer…” and “Myna… she too is a wonderful writer.”

    Knowing none the three protagonists, one might well conclude Ross is untalented. Not of any talent sufficient for Mr. Sawyer to bother mentioning alongside the prior two protagonists, anyhow.

    Even so. It is conceivable there exist other talented writers. Not Ross, of course—yet still other than the two out of three protagonists Mr. Sawyer so particularly assures us of. Talented writers who would not—ever—resort to threatening litigation. Not under any circumstances even remotely resembling those described.

    And the same goes for countless ordinary yet decent human beings in every walk of everyday living.

    Posted by  on  01/24  at  11:05 PM

21. test

    Posted by Test  on  01/25  at  09:29 AM

22. And one more crucially belated thing. Not only is none this about “talent”, “brilliance” and whether the applause one protagonist or another received this past Tuesday was enthusiastic or merely polite.

    Not only is it not popularity contest time or little talent time now. It was either mistaken or intentionally counter productive when Mr. Sawyer wrote that “to suggest, as some have, that Ross’s response has been reasoned, restrained, and rational while Wallin’s and Villegas’s has been the opposite is a very selective reading of the events.”

    Either mistaken or intentionally counter productive. What’s been tabled since the past week at the Lexiconjury group (see link in original article) is mediation not among the three protagonists—i.e., involving Stuart Ross—but rather mediation between the two other protagonists and the small press community. Mediating specifically whether and how the two protagonists who have threatened litigation in such inappropriate circumstances can continue to represent any literary voices.

    The chief mediating condition tabled so far is the withdrawing of all threatened litigation. That’s the point, Mr. Sawyer. Not “talent”. Not “brilliance”. Not whatever reading on whoever’s applause-metre. Not even that it no longer be against Stuart Ross that litigation get threatened. Nope. The point has been resolved against threatening litigation under any circumstances as inappropriate as these.

    Let’s look and keep moving forward, please.

    Posted by  on  01/25  at  09:39 AM

23. and here i thought it was all about me being thousands of kilometers away….as for mr. fruchter’s last comment re: chief mediating condition: i’ll drink to that. put all rapiers back in their scabbards and come to the table with willingness to improve the small press fair. yes, mr. fruchter, bravo for your clarity of thought. forward. forward still. ever forward on.

    Posted by  on  01/25  at  12:01 PM

24. Interesting to note, this is what Wallin and Villegas are now doing to defend themselves. One should note that the so-called “smear” has NEVER once been justified or proven, and followers of the discussion on all sources on-line have all commented that none of Ross’s comments are personal or defamitory. Have a look at their sympathy campaign, below:
    —-
    Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:55:43 -0500

    Dear Friends:

    This is something I haven’t wanted to draw your attention to. There are so
    many good things going on in my career that I would rather tell you about!
    But we have been given some advice from an author we respect to enlist
    support
    for what has become an untenable situation. For two and a half months, Halli
    Villegas
    and I have been subjected to a barrage of criticism, and then clearly
    defamatory
    comments made increasingly public, through Stuart Ross’ personal blog,
    then the two sites on Facebook, the Toronto Small Press Book Fair, then on
    “Friends
    of the Toronto Small Press Book Fair,” and then spiralling out on blogs and
    sites
    all over the internet dealing with all things literary.

    Things increased exponentially when the Toronto Small Press Fair was
    nominated for a Torontoist Superhero Award, and continued even when
    we placed third in an online vote (of a twenty-four heros shortlist)! An
    article
    was written on Reading Toronto recently, which then got picked up, as though
    it were fact, by the Quill and Quire blog I’ve attached here. It began as a
    piece of editorial journalism in the guise of fact. (I think it’s important
    to note
    that the author of that “article,” Amy Lavendar Harris, is a forthcoming
    author
    with Mansfield Press, where Stuart is a guest editor.)

    Halli and I sent a “cease and desist” letter to Stuart on Jan. 15th,
    basically
    asking him to stop his smear campaign. This only increased it, while he
    wrote everyone asking them to write letters to us personally, through e-mail
    denouncing what we’d done, and calling for people to write articles and to
    write to the Toronto and Ontario Arts Councils to deny us further funding.
    I have over 250 blogs, blog posts, personal e-mails and group e-mails
    on the subject to date. But the argument has been skewed thus far to
    the negative side.

    So I’m writing to you today, just a few select friends, to ask you to please
    defend our good name by writing a comment on the Quill and Quire blog here.
    We are not asking that you attack anyone, just asking that you say something
    positive about us, so that the negative words will not outweigh all the
    positive.
    We have and continue to try to promote writers in our fields, through
    Halli’s Tightrope Books, my radio show on CKLN, the Rowers Pub Reading
    Series Halli helps organize and the Art Bar Reading Series that I help to
    organize, and of course, the Toronto Small Press Book Fair. Any kinds words
    at all will be greatly appreciated.

    We have been warned that this story will only get bigger, going to more and
    more legitimate outlets, like it already has at the Quill and Quire and at
    the popular site Bookninja, where it also appeared earlier this month.

    Sincerely,

    Myna
    ——

    Posted by Dana Samuel  on  01/27  at  04:04 PM

25. i’ll go on the record here and now: stuart ross has never asked me to defend him against these good ladies or anyone else. in fact stu and i have been out of correspondence for sometime. it seems i actually have a mind of my own and can smell a silly libel suit thousands of kilometers away (imagine that). i would think the common sense approach would be a face-to-face meeting of the small press community to help improve attendance for next year’s event. there’s always room for improvement.

    Posted by  on  01/27  at  04:14 PM

26. How curious and yet predictable.

    Myna Wallin now suggests that a conspiracy against her extends to the very ends of the internet. And at the centre of this immense imagined conspiracy, standing behind a vast electronic veil like the Wizard of Oz, (or so Wallin seems to allege) is Stuart Ross.

    At the same time, Wallin manages in her letter not only to reiterate serious if utterly unsubstantiated accusations against Ross, but now to attack a broad range of other commenters who have weighed in on the matter, claiming that they have done so at the express behest of Stuart Ross.

    Even more curious is that Wallin can conceive only that respondents have acted at the request of Mr. Ross, rather than doing so (as many have stated) out of a wish to see the serious public allegations against Mr. Ross substantiated or withdrawn and/or to see some effort on the part of Wallin and Villegas to act in any way consistent with their responsibilities as current coordinators of the Small Press Book Fair.

    This debacle is not and never has been about Stuart Ross. It is and always has been about the running of the Small Press Book Fair. I wrote the original post (much above) because it is my view that Toronto literature requires a climate of openness to thrive and can only be damaged by efforts to silence its voices.

    As for Stuart Ross’ editing work with the prospective publisher of a book I am currently completing, it should be pointed out that Ross has published with, or edited for, a great many Toronto publishers. Indeed, it is worth pointing out that Mr. Ross has both edited and published Wallin’s own work—which puts her in the most curious position of all.

    Posted by Amy Lavender Harris  on  01/27  at  05:03 PM

27. It’s also worth adding/noting that—once again—Wallin/Villegas and crew, are:

    drawing attention away from issues of the fair, of censorship, or libel chill, of an open, transparent, accountable operation

    and towards personal issues against Ross. Note how in their missive, above, that,

    “defend our good name by writing a comment on the Quill and Quire blog here.
    We are not asking that you attack anyone, just asking that you say something
    positive about us”

    Once again, the issue is not whether Wallin/Villegas are nice people and good writers, or not.

    Not at all.

    They may very well be lovely folks and “brilliant, wonderful” writers. But they are definitely people who have made made decisions and have reacted disproportionately. Why should their bad behaviour be rewarded? It should not.

    Legal action is inappropriate, as is their “smear” campaign against Ross—which is clearly documented, unlike their allegations.

    Posted by Dana Samuel  on  01/27  at  05:27 PM

28. Whoops, that should say, bad decisions, above in the second last paragraph.

    And finally, I hope this is finally—this is a small community, in which I am only a peripheral member myself (though I have as much right to comment, as I am a more central member of the broader Toronto arts community). Everyone has their personal contacts, and friends, etc. It’s hard to throw a typewriter and not hit someone who has had professional contact with someone else in the writing community.

    For instance, Mr. Sawyer is the brother-in-law of David Clink, a good friend of Wallin/Villegas, and one of the writers of utterly scathing things about Mr. Ross on the Torontoist site: “It is about one man who can’t let go. It is about a man who in one breath talks about being censored when the same man, years earlier (I heard, second hand), ran a woman out of the community using bullying tactics because she referred to his work as “shtick” in a review. A man who has burned more bridges than anyone I know.”

    I am connected to Stuart Ross, so yes, I have my allegiances.

    But allegiances and sides are not the point. The point is that the libel threat is completely inappropriate.

    And it seems clear that Wallin and Villegas are the ones who can’t let go, as it’s clear from their note that they do not plan to let up.

    Will the community stand for this? is this appropriate behaviour from your small press fair leaders? (who, I might add, are not volunteers, they are paid an honourarium…. hence the use of public funds towards their time/efforts does unfortunately come into question…..)

    All for now
    Dana

    Posted by Dana Samuel  on  01/27  at  05:35 PM

29. I don’t know any these people. Yes, I used to read at the Art Bar—but that was 25 years back. Very likely prior any these “talented” youngsters got all literarily aspired.

    I don’t know these people. But the correspondence reproduced above so speaks against itself.

    Like, for real? Myna actually says “it’s important to note” that Stuart Ross might wind up editing a book of Amy’s—in the future? When Stuart Ross has both edited and published some of Myna’s own work—like in the past?

    So good to know Myna is “not asking that [we] attack anyone.” Wouldn’t it be superfluously redundant as well as unnecessary if she did. Not fair, though. Between threatening litigation and importantly charging others with maybe getting edited by Stuart Ross just like she already has, Myna may not leave anyone around to independently attack.

    Hell. I like attacking people too. Please Myna—take a rest. Un-attack some people, please. You’ve had plenty more’n your fair share.

    Posted by  on  01/27  at  06:17 PM

30. I know what Suart Ross did! Opened his mouth and, with reluctance, criticized two people who he felt “dropped the ball” – they didn’t get it right.

    Yup – they didn’t- nowhere did I see a mention of the the SPBF – not in Now Magagine, not in Eye magazine, nor in any of the major papers which will list literary events. You fucked up – yup – we all do from time to time – the human condition.

    If they had put aside their pride, and just admitted that they had made a mistake (like “sorry, we dropped the ball this time”,) then the so-called “literary community” would be appeased.

    Unfortunately, these two people decided to threaten Stuart Ross with litigation.

    Okay I’ll take these two litigants on. I’m a Canadian tax payer.From what I know, you get funding from government sources. Since these two people get money from the government = part of that is my money!

    So, if these two people continue their unwarrented attack against Stu Ross, and continue to deny their incompetent handlng of the promotion of the the SPBF, I’ll send a few emails to a few government people I know who have Cutural portfoloios. Okay – I’m not an important person – but I do pay taxes – and the last thing I want is my taxes endingup in the pockets of… (fill in the blanks).

    You are accountable for the way you manage your organization. You are in the public realm – not Stu and not me.

    But I’m going to take you on. How dare you try to squelch free speech. Who do you think you are? If writers can’t be critical of each other or their “community”, do they have a voice at all?

    I know other writers are calling for a “silence”, a moratorium – screw that. If you continue your shiat behaviour of trying to silence other writers for their critical comments, then WATCH OUT – I’m your enemy+++

    Posted by melmoth  on  01/29  at  11:10 PM

31. Stop whining all of you.
    Instead of sniping at each other over a non-issue such as this, go home and work on perfecting your craft.
    I thought only political parties ate their own.

    Posted by Kalman Latabar  on  02/03  at  02:32 PM

32. Threats like those of Melmoth show the dark side of blogs like this.

    “Watch out”?? “I’m your enemy.”???!!

    Extremist sentiments such as these have no place in the world of Arts and Letters unless it is in the portrayal of stereotypes.

    All of you reading this should censure Melmoth from bringing his threats onto this forum.

    Posted by Smythe  on  02/03  at  05:27 PM

<< Back to main