I know it's not common (or even proper?) for authors to respond to their reviewers. Authors are supposed to grin and bear their reviews, no matter what they say. But given that Ordinary Eternal Machinery is about conversation in the first place, and given that Greg Rhyno's review pushes that conversation in a direction it probably needs, I'd like to keep it going at least one step further.
Near the end of his review, Rhyno says this – "What’s missing from this exchange [between myself, Cohen's book, and my interlocutor, John Nyman] are the marginalized voices Cohen co-opts: the survivors of personal and historical horrors. As it is, this chapbook represents one kind of privilege interrogating another. Some external oversight would be welcome."
Yeah. He's so right. Particularly when you consider that the publisher, Aaron Schneider, is also a middle-aged, middle-class, White guy. As is Rhyno himself. As is rob mclennan, the editor posting the review. Aw, shit.
Part of this is due to the nature of the project itself, of course. It's driving question was, "What should privileged people do with the books they love when those books are complicit (more so than usual) with the structures of privilege?" It makes a kind of sense that the people engaged with that question would be the privileged people concerned.
On the other hand, Rhyno's observation is absolutely just. Posing that question in isolation from the people being marginalized only perpetuates that marginalization, not to mention passing over other valuable perspectives on the issue.
So,
here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to send comp copies to some writers I
know who identify with the marginalized in Cohen's novel, and I'll see if they
have the time and inclination to respond to the problematic of Ordinary
Eternal Machinery.
Jeremy Luke Hill