University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

'Spectator' Will Appear;
'Got Us A Rag, Mamma!'

There are those in the University
community who have been wondering
when the "University of Virginia
Magazine" will come out.
There are those in the community,
on the other hand, who are not
wondering when the UVM will
come out.

In my position as Editor, I have
been wondering when it will come
out, and, fans, it will come out. But
it will be a new and revolutionary
publication which has discarded the
old bourgeois label of "UVM"
under which it declined to debt and
ruin, and it is now to be known as
the "Spectator." Gone it its old
crypto-fascist image; gone is the
lackluster collection on inanity and
insanity; gone is its sole, degenerate
competitor, that running dog of
the Wall Street Bankers Clique,
"Rapier." Its editorship fell to me
by default, but now there is, at long
last a more-than-worthy successor
to the "Spectator" of several years
past whose presence was banned by
out ever-wise Board of Visitors who
sought, in all of their customary
wisdom and foresight, to silence an
oft-ungentlemanly press for the
benefit, supposedly, of the student
body which then so soundly supported
it. As R. Crumb might say,
"Ya kin nevah keep a good rag
down, Mama!"

And we've sho' got us a rag now,
Mama! Our rag-tag staff this year
numbers among its members that
grizzeled, bitter, and long-dormant
disciple of Whatever, Anarchist
Walker Chandler. His illustrations,
along with those much better ones
of Tom Smith, and writings have
helped make the magazine what it
is such as it is (far be it from me
to take credit for those activities
outside of the jungles of the
editorship). Scholars C. Swift
Dickey and L.L. Estes have made
their staff debuts in their never-to-be-forgotten
study of the twisted
world of Lewis Carroll entitled
(and, I might add, provocatively),
"Phallus in Wonderland." These
four and others of the staff must
together share the blame for the
hilariously irreverent game (suitable
for framing), University: A
game nearly anyone can play.
Credit and/or blame must also be
given to the Jefferson Society,
under whose auspices the magazine
has endured since 1838 and from
whose ranks our staff has been
recruited.

Jerry Elmore's rapidly aging
features give stark testimony to the
difficulties that have been encountered
in putting out our first
issue. In his position as Managing
Editor, Mr. Elmore has had numerous
and nearly fatal contacts with
our printer whose proofreaders, no
less, objected to several alleged
"obscenities" which appeared in
the original magazine. Our naive
literary staff had assumed that the
proper job of a printer was to print.
Mr. Chandler, who has virtually
never been known to use any oath
stronger than "By Saint Lo!"
expressed his "total shock" when
the haggard Mr. Elmore related to
him that "The Story of S" a play
by David Giltinan would be omitted
and parts of "Phallus" would be cut.

At any rate, the "Spectator"
will be on the stands in the next
few days, and I would urge students
to purchase their copies of the
limited edition magazine as rapidly
as possible. It is well worth the
paltry fifty cents that we are asking
for it.

Our magazine is an institution.
As we prove in our first issue, we
can use anybody, with or without
talent, who is willing to work. At
present we haven't an office, but
those willing to join our institution
are invited to contact Jerry Elmore,
Walker Chandler, C. Dickey, or call
me, not collect, at 295-6816.

Lesson In Logic

In reply to Mr. Giltinan's dispensation
of lessons in logic, one might
point out that to "prove" the
weaknesses of liberal logic does not
necessarily render radical leftist
logic accurate and right. This has
nothing to do with defending
liberal "philosophy" or "non philosophy"
but rather with
questioning what Mr. Giltinan
offers as an alternative to liberal
"philosophy" and to question it on
the same grounds that he attacks
liberalism.

Mr. Giltinan's alternative to
liberal "philosophy" is radical
violence (Mr. Wenzl's actions are
really not the issue but rather what
his actions represent in the eyes of
Mr. Giltinan and in the eyes of the
"liberals"). So, to liberal indecisiveness,
Giltinan proposes violence, a
violence that is "good" because it is
leftist. How, then, does that violence
square with all the wars that
have been fought, with the violence
of the Christian Inquisition, with
the violent implementation of
Bolshevism in Russia and Nazism in
Germany and Italy, with the
slaughter of the American Indian or
the suppression of American blacks
or Viet Nam? Do not the leftist
radicals condemn the fruits of these
violent undertakings? Yet all of
these events were accomplished by
violence in the name of good and
justice and of a higher truth. It's
actually quite a time-honored tradition.

It is not surprising, then, that Mr.
Giltinan is inclined to treat the
radical conservative or reactionary
with considerably milder invective
than that accorded the liberal for
they are at one in their moral
superiority. The conservative and
the reactionary, explains Mr.
Giltinan, "can't hold a candle to
the liberals when it comes to
sophistry . . . " for "The Conservative
. . . believes that good violence
is that which is for a good cause,
like thwarting the International
Communist Conspiracy of Godless
Aggression, or showing the nigras
their place." A perfect description
of Mr. Giltinan's "alternative"
philosophy if one will simply
replace the above mouthful of
rhetoric for: "believes that good
violence is that which is for a good
cause, like thwarting the Establishment's
Insensitive and Inhumane
Military-Industrial Complex."

But then Mr. Giltinan certainly
would not deny this simplistic
formula; i.e., substituting the right's
violence (bad) with the violence of
the left (good). In his own words:
"one would still hope that people's
criteria for determining what was
good and what was bad violence
would at least be rational (!) and
objective (!), as opposed to merely
selfish."

Mr. Giltinan, there are a lot of
us out here waiting; unfortunately,
we do not have that firm grasp on
ultimate truth which you have; yet,
we are just as discouraged with
liberalism's ineffectiveness and
"sophistry" as you are. But your
attack on liberalism with your
superior (?) logic of "violence on
the right is bad, non-violence in the
middle is bad, but violence on the
left is good," convinces me that we
are fated to wait a while longer.

Blatant Distortion

That we had hoped for a certain
amount of objectivity (if only our
of condescension) in your "report"
on our University Reform Program
is indicative of YAF's inherent
idealism and faith in our fellow
man. But alas, it was not to be so.

Seldom have we seen a more,
blatant example of distortion, out
of context quotation, error, omission,
front page editorializing and,
simply, shoddy Journalism.

There were so many inaccuracies
that space does not permit an
adequate presentation of the facts;
as it is, only half of the program
(not all the major points) was even
referred to. We will therefore have
to, as we once tried before, buy ad
space and print the program in full
(as we had requested of The
Cavalier Daily).