does that sum it up? i think so. in the event that it fails to illustrate my central premise (see the title, above), i'll make a more detailed attempt to explain why i can't stand ep, albeit in a completely linear, non-entropic fashion (i hope).

a close friend of mine co-edits entropy press, and ever since he became involved in it, he's done everything short of drugging me with sodium pentathol to get my sincere criticism of the damn thing. let's give this friend of mine an assumed name, in case he doesn't want his identity disclosed; let's call him `russ'.

anyway, russ solicited my remarks (read: 'pestered me') for a good long while to read the thing and tell him what i thought. i knew how proud of this project he was, so it was difficult for me, as a friend, to give a harsh criticism (which, i felt, was the only kind of criticism i could give while being honest with myself at the same time). so eventually, after much haranguing, i caved. i told him i hated, hated, hated ep; thought it was pretentious garbage. that was just the issue (which, by the way, i still haven't been able to read all the way through).

but why, for the love of god, why do i have such a negative (and profoundly visceral) reaction to such a seemingly harmless periodical? well, i can't explain away the visceral part -- the sickening gut reaction is purely a matter of taste, and therefore unjustifiable, somewhat akin to my reaction toward merchant-ivory productions, only stronger.

the negative part, though -- that i can do.

the essence of ep, its core philophy, seems to be this notion of 'entropy,' and a notion of the importance of 'non-linear thought'. the ep editorials seem to repeatedly fail to distinguish between these two ideas. let's take a look at what mr. webster has to say about this word 'entropy':

assuming you're not a physicist, how could this not give you a headache? i get about as far as "related to the state..." before i have to start over. i think the part they're hanging onto though, is the last definition, number three. when i read this last definition -- and you can call me a freakin' head case if you want -- i wonder, 'what could be more linear than that?' where did this misconceived notion that entropy=non-linear come from?

this is the foundation of the difficulty i wrestle with every time i make an ill-fated attempt to read entropy press. major assumptions are made based on terms never defined. it is littered with wild contradictions that invalidate its raison d'etre. did i spell that right? it's french for 'reason to be'. i assume there's some sissy-ass punctuation i've left out, like a circumflex or something. who cares?

let's whip out another example. i'd love to dig up a couple dozen more for you (i know they're out there), but i told the "concept queen" that i'd try to keep my remarks to about 200-250 words, and i'm probably up to at least 700 by now. < 704 to be exact, but that's counting the dictionary definition. -ed. >

in the introductory comments for the 'sabotage' issue, the editors asked readers to free-associate with the word 'sabotage'. not surprisingly, different people responded in radically different ways. the editors go on to make the statement that this poll "illustrates one of the basic concepts entropy press hopes to perpetually convey...that reality is based upon the individual's frame of reference, and therefore no one perspective is any more valid than any other". other than the split infinitive, does no one but me take issue with this? does anyone else out there think it odd that the editors are drawing conclusions about the nature of perception v. reality based on various responses to a request to free-associate? isn't free-association, by definition, purely subjective?

in the least, this example illustrates ep's willingness to draw false conclusions based on false premises. i'd say it does more than that. i think this is symptomatic of ep's tendency to invalidate its own core philosophy. there's a constant urge within ep to prove the validity of non-linear thought with thoroughly linear but unreasoned writing.

i see ep as a shining example of what it hopes to mock, enthusiastically throwing itself onto the trash heap of self-conscious hipness along with all of its higher-budget, higher-bandwidth brethren.

now leave me alone.

regards,

dave anderson
mpls 10.14.96

p.s. no animals were hurt in the writing of this missive.

p.p.s. neither were the editors of ep. they're great people, and i admire their ability to take this criticism in stride and continue to treat me amiably. . . . unless that's all part of their plan. maybe they think they're proving their hipness by printing dissenting opinions such as this. huh.