No offense to the writers on either list, but this entire thing? It’s depressing. It’s obvious. It’s old. And it’s certainly not productive.

It’s kind of shameful actually. To wrap this in a guise of neutrality when it’s an old turf war.

>>

I’ll paste the comment I left on Steven Beattie’s site and hope for a productive dialog out of this.

LH says:
I don’t think anyone is villifying anyone. I have nothing against Metcalf, or any of the writers, or you.
Call me naive, Steven, but I do hope for a bit of distance between such lists and one’s immediate peers. As a national reviewer I would expect to see a list that took into account the actual national scene in all of its complexness. Isn’t this part of what you’re reacting to? A kind of network of persistant back scratching? Is how one eradicates such small circles simply by replacing them? I thought we wanted to move beyond that.
As I said yesterday, I appreciate your willingness to take a bite out of things. I hope you can be equally willing to face the response.
As for the texts, it’s curious isn’t it. What way has this entire project been about setting up the writing for consideration and/or reconsideration? Worth thinking about. And of course, that may happen in the coming weeks.