Editor asks me: Will you review That Pandemic Antho?

I say: Maybe. There are a lot of disabled writers in it, right?

Editor: ............

I say: Like, obviously?

Editor: ............

[After a while] Editor: Wouldn't it still be interesting if there were NOT a lot disabled writers in it? Your review could be about that?

Me: No. That's not interesting at all b/c my ideal audience is disabled writers & readers, so that's just like gross.
[I really did say "that's just gross" lol]

Editor: Lemme send you the TOC.

Me: Okay.

Meanwhile, I'm impatient so I just look up the antho b/c it's Big and Famous and Everywhere.
Here's what The Pandemic Anthology published by @AAKnopf looks like. Now remember: disabled people are the most affected by the pandemic, eg we die the most.

How many total poets? Ok I stopped counting at 100.

How many disabled poets? Oh boy. Are you ready.
1 radical disabled activist. Name spelled incorrectly in the TOC

1 not radical at all disabled writer. Most acceptable disabled writer to nondisabled literary establishment b/c this writer "doesn't make a big deal about it," as I have been told
[Just put on the song "Once in a while" by Paul & The Tall Trees b/c this is the vibe. The Pandemic Anthology is singing to me "Have mercy, have mercy, go easy." But no. I cannot.]
"She's really nice tho," they say about this disabled writer. Oh good, I'm so glad that while she is fighting not-at-all for us she's being really nice about that.
1 disabled writer who is pretty fame and newly disabled and doesn't know anything about disability consciousness yet and needs to catch up. Like fast. If at all possible.

1 disabled writer who is only disabled in her books. Her books are like "yeah I'm totally dis." However--
She has never in any interview/anywhere said the phrase, "I am disabled." You read the book. You go "she's totally disabled!" You go to her talks. You go, Oh idk maybe she's not? Why is she hiding? She has already won most of the awards including NBCC
1 writer who uses a cane so you're like "hey buddy you're disabled, right?" but that writer also has never said, "I am disabled" so like this is very confusing. Can we say it? Or are we not saying it? Orrrrrrrrrr
1 disabled writer who doesn't know how to be out & proud disabled yet so that writer is like disabled-in-the-comments-on-FB but like not really anywhere else

1 disabled writer who is disabled I know this only b/c I published him in the NYT so definitely cheers!
So by my math -- which is admittedly sketchy AF b/c I don't like math -- we have a total of TWO out & proud disabled writers in This Pandemic Anthology. What is TWO out of ONE HUNDRED does anyone know? Percentages?

More from Book

People have wondered why I have spent 3 days mostly pushing back on this idea that "defund the police" is bad marketing.

The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.

It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.


There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.

But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.

The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.

Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.

And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.

There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.

They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.

The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.

Which they intend to misconstrue.
One can make an analysis of how many right wing groups published books before Modi in power and after Modi in power.

Would Akhilesh Mishra, Abhinav Prakash and many others have got a chance to write in an English daily before?

The VC of JNU, IIAS, Nehru center, RRML are all


Right wingers.

This, while some in our own fold were criticizing and backstabbing an excellent book (disagreeable in places) by Harsh Madhusudhan and Rajeev Mantri.

There have been at least 4 lit fests and think tanks developed by right wing in six years. Pondy and +

Mangalore are the prime of them.

There are more media channels and more anchors in neutral channels backing the government then those against in six years.

We have at least three big lawyers: Harish Salve, Mahesh Jethmalani and Mukul Rahotgi fighting cases. We have won

more legal battles than not and are able to get many things done that would look impossible just two years ago.

Yes, textbooks, deregulation, harrasment and cabalism of the left including tech suppression and killing spree of fascistic governments remain and everything is not

a bed of roses. But what was a bed of roses for the opposition is not a bed of roses for them too.
Udhav would have loved to see Republic closed. It hasn't.. Mamata would love to have killed the whose who in BJP - Not possible.. She would not like big wigs of TMC join BJP - Not

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party