2008 Woodie Awards
Speak Up
A writer is hardly a vandal
Nathaniel Maddox
Issue date: 11/14/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
When I anonymously published a small yet ultra-controversial newsletter entitled "The Wicket Gate," little did I expect to be equated with the heinous crime of those who vandalized school property in the Crimson article "C for cowardice." I certainly did not expect to be labeled by the Crimson as a perpetrator with the inability to own up to my actions. My reasoning for anonymity was much more simplistic than and not nearly as apprehensive as described by The Samford Crimson.
"The Wicket Gate" wasn't and isn't meant to be some covert, author-friendly attempt to release steam, nor was I, as the author, interested in becoming a martyr complete with Facebook hate mail and dirty looks. No, my purposes laid elsewhere. "The Wicket Gate" was meant to stimulate discussion between students, to confront those for, against and, most importantly, indecisive in regards to the Samford production of "Cuckoo's Nest." My wish was to establish forums between friends, acquaintances and fellow students without having to deal with individuals too irate, close-minded and hateful to rationally enter into the discussion. The argument was of paramount importance, not the authorship.
I find it odd that the works of anonymous/pseudonymous poets, novelists and essayists earn a place in our CP classes, and yet, if an individual distributes a newsletter for the sake of inspiring what he or she believes to be much needed conversation, his or her work is deemed unworthy of discussion. This is ill logic.
Furthermore, equating a controversial, anonymously published newsletter with the incognito doings of vandals on the level of cowardice is absurd. There is not a $1,000 dollar reward on my head, I don't walk to class looking over my shoulder for Campus Safety, and I am most certainly not wanted on felony charges. As stated, my concern wasn't and, in hopes of future publications of "The Wicket Gate," isn't a cry for fame or a voice for cowardice. Labeling the author of the publication as such is, at best, a grave misunderstanding of the purpose of the newsletter and, at worst, a poor attempt at simplification of an opponent's argument.
"The Wicket Gate" wasn't and isn't meant to be some covert, author-friendly attempt to release steam, nor was I, as the author, interested in becoming a martyr complete with Facebook hate mail and dirty looks. No, my purposes laid elsewhere. "The Wicket Gate" was meant to stimulate discussion between students, to confront those for, against and, most importantly, indecisive in regards to the Samford production of "Cuckoo's Nest." My wish was to establish forums between friends, acquaintances and fellow students without having to deal with individuals too irate, close-minded and hateful to rationally enter into the discussion. The argument was of paramount importance, not the authorship.
I find it odd that the works of anonymous/pseudonymous poets, novelists and essayists earn a place in our CP classes, and yet, if an individual distributes a newsletter for the sake of inspiring what he or she believes to be much needed conversation, his or her work is deemed unworthy of discussion. This is ill logic.
Furthermore, equating a controversial, anonymously published newsletter with the incognito doings of vandals on the level of cowardice is absurd. There is not a $1,000 dollar reward on my head, I don't walk to class looking over my shoulder for Campus Safety, and I am most certainly not wanted on felony charges. As stated, my concern wasn't and, in hopes of future publications of "The Wicket Gate," isn't a cry for fame or a voice for cowardice. Labeling the author of the publication as such is, at best, a grave misunderstanding of the purpose of the newsletter and, at worst, a poor attempt at simplification of an opponent's argument.