Letters to the Editor
An Open Letter To The Advisor &
Editors Of Tarnhelm
A review of your recent publication, Tarnhelm,
indicates that 87% of the contributions accepted came
from the staff of Tarnhelm. Only approximately 13% of
those contributions published were from students not
listed in the credits on the inside cover.
In light of the overwhelming contributions accepted
that originated from the staff, a question arises as to the
criteria for selection. It seems most ironic that this
significant percentage was based solely upon expertise in
writing ability.
On the contrary, considering that no explanation of
criteria was published, one can only believe that the
criteria was subjective at best. If that was the case, a
more reasonable approach would have been to evaluate
contributions blindly.
In that contributions were solicited from the student
body at large, and considering that the publication was
supported by student funds, it is only reasonable that an
objective criteria would have been utilized.
My creative writing ability is at best limited, and I did
not contribute to your publication. However, I am aware
of many who did, and spent many hours in preparing
material. These people, I’m sure, expected at the very
least an objective appraisal.
Certainly economics was a factor in the amount of
material which it was possible to publish. Nevertheless,
it is apparent that space was not a problem. Page three of
Tarnhelm is a striking example of this.
The students at Capitol Campus frequently hear about
the magnitude of student apathy. This is indeed a
problem at our campus, as well as campuses across the
country in the seventies. It seems strange then, that all
students who contributed to Tarnhelm weren’t in Some
way reinforced for their effort.
A simple statement at the end, thanking all those that
contributed and explaining limitations in space and
money would have sufficed. It is a sad commentary
indeed, that it is necessary to point out that those who
expended time and energy in student activism are not
even acknowledged.
Jimmy Olson Refuted
I was very much disturbed when I read the article in the
C.C. Reader dated May 15, 1975 entitled, “A Letter from
God.” I do not know which God wrote the letter. I am
sure it was not the God portrayed in the Bible, and it is
certainly not the God I worship.
The God I worship is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and
unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness,
justice, goodness, and truth. Since he is eternal, and all
powerful, and it is he that created everything that we have
the privilege to enjoy, can you imagine an all powerful
God getting tired? When our first parents sinned and
caused the whole human race to fall with them, God, in
order to satisfy his holiness and justice, sent his Son,
Jesus Christ, into the world to die to pay the penalty for
sin so that whosoever will believe in him shall be saved
(John 3-16). Now if God thought enough of the human
race to send his only begotten Son into the world to die
for man’s sins, how could he ever get tired of his earthly
children when they ask him to guide their lives.
True mankind is to love one another. When a person
saved by trusting in the finished work of Christ, hw proves
he is saved by his fruits. Galatians 5:22 states “But the
fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperence:
against such there is no law.” 1 John 4:7 states,
“Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God and
everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God.”
The next verse states, “He that loveth not, knoweth not
God for God is love.”
God also wants us to be dependent on him and trust
him completely. Proverbs 3:5,6 and 7 states, “In all thy
ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy paths. Be
not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord and ddpart from
ev 'l-” Does this sound as
though God gets tired of his children?
The article says, “When you humans were apes, you
were much more well behaved.” God created man perfect
as stated in Genesis. None of my ancestors ever swung
from tree to tree, and the article in Genesis is not a myth.
Exodus 20:7 states, “Thou shalt not take the name of
the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him
guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” All through the
Bible you read of God being jealous of his holy name. My
understanding of blaspheming god is stating that God is
something that he is not. Notice what our Lord says in
Mark 3:28 and 29. “Verily I say unto you, all sins shall be
forgiven unto the sons of men and blasphemies
wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall
blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never
forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
My God is a great God and worthy to be praised. He
has to be to save guilty hell-deserving sinners, like me.
And he can save all of you too. Fred Plasterer
Due to space limitations, we were forced to edit this letter.
We apologize to Mr. Plasterer.
M. Chris Wolf
11th term PSSC
| Tarnhelm Attacked!
Editor
After paging thru Tarn
helm, I have come to the
conclusion that it was just
one big ego trip for the
enlightened few who were on
the staff, and whose works
were about the only ones
that graced the publication.
For an organization fund
ed by the SGA from student
monies, it has behaved like
an elitist publication paid for
out of the pockets of the
publishers. I always thought
it was understood that
something paid for by the
students should represent
the students; especially
when it is supposed to be a
student project.
Not so. In Tamhelm’s
case, it is obvious the
editors felt that only that
work which was of the
highest calibre (read their
own) would be printed.
Thus, many students who
worked diligently and in
good faith and produced
many poems were granted
not a single millimeter of
space, while a few (mostly
staff people) had several of
their “masterpieces” pub
lished.
“Wait,” Tarnhelm may
say, “P.R.J. Smith had
seven poems printed.” Aha!
But Mr. Smith was last
year’s Tarnhelm editor.
Further, Tarnhelm may
point out that they evaluated
the works fairly, by scratch
ing out the names of the
authors on each piece. But,
do they mean to tell us they
couldn’t tell one another’s
work from all the rest? Are
we all that gullible? I think
not.
Tarnhelm, what of the
students who submitted 10
or 20 poems, without having
a single one printed? Were
you so pressed for space
that you were forced to deny
them one small poem?
(Judging from the layout of
several of the pages, again, I
think not.) Why no
considerate remark, or even
one little thank-you to all
those who really wanted to
help by contributing?
Finally, what distresses
me the most in this situation
was the way the publication
evolved after all those early
pleas for help and contribu
tions from the students.
Tarnhelm, you screamed for
contributions, then smote
those who contributed. You
should have told everyone
from the beginning that you
were only in it for
yourselves.
But, I understand. If you
would have admitted these
intentions from the begin
ning, you may never have
gotten that $350 allocation
from SGA. You would have
had to charge for your
magazine. And who,
besides yourselves, would
have bought it? I
understand
with Love and Consideration
Romeo Trajanus
Tamhelm Replies
Editor:
In response to questions posed regarding the selection
of material for Tamhelm I would like to state that each
contribution was evaluated anonymously in terms of
creativity, depth, intensity, complexity, unity and overall
effectiveness as a unique work of art presenting a striking
image, an imaginative perspective, an unusual idea, an
insightful or philosophical statement.
Membership on the Tamhelm staff was open to all
students and meeting notices inviting participation in
evaluating and editing material were posted. Those who
responded expressed interest in reviving Tamhelm for the
purpose of offering the campus community a quality
literary magazine.
In the spirit of creativity the staff collected, evaluated,
edited and compiled the collection of literary material
which you find in Tamhelm. Because the objective of the
Editors was to choose quality material, it was imperative
that the staff approach each creative work from a critical
perspective. Thus, it was decided that all work would be
read anonymously.
In his article “The Concept of Artistic Expression” John
Hospers states that one must evaluate art for its own
sake, as it stands alone, divorced from the creator and any
intention she may have expressed or any intensity she
may have experienced. Not every contribution a literary
magazine receives - no matter how hard the writer has
worked nor how intense the emotional energy she has
expended.- will have literary merit.
The material in Tamhelm reflects quality work evaluated
on the basis of formalist criticism by a fairly large group
of people who worked together in a democratic spirit, yet
made individual decisions in evaluating material
submitted for publication based on the criteria which had
been established.
To a certain degree space limitations were a
consideration as they must be in any publication. While
all contributions could not be published they were
returned to the author with thanks and with the hope that
he/she would resubmit next year.
All things considered, I feel Tamhelm speaks well of an
effort undertaken with serious purpose and integrity.
Reply To The Reader
The last issue of the Reader contained a letter from the
editor rebutting my letter printed in the previous issue.
The letter was in regard to the fact that the C.C. Reader
faulted in its reporting of the election scandal.
Well Mr. Bollinger, you blew it again!
I criticized Sherry Lukoski for stating that I had told Sue
Bretherick what vote criteria had been used this year and
not last year as you stated.
Next you stated you took the facts from the court
record. I’m sorry Mr. Bollinger, but the court’s decision
reported only its decision, not the facts surrounding the
case. The supposed facts you reported were apparently
received elsewhere.
Then you ask what previous mistakes the C.C. Reader
has made, which I referred to. I’ve written numerous
articles for the C.C. Reader and it has been a rare
occasion to find them without error in printing.
You state it is your duty to point out the faults of your
peers and administration. Is that really what the duty of a
newspaper should be?
You then state, “Our student leaders, who are true
leaders, can accept constructive criticism as such.” I’m
sorry Mr. Bollinger, but didn’t you just describe yourself
when your jumped all over my ass for stating my opinion?
To conclude I would like to say I am very proud of the
C.C. Reader staff and the newspaper which they produce.
I have received enjoyment from reading its articles and I
also contributed quite often to its content. You people
have worked hard and you have done some good as have
the other organizations on this campus. We could not
have worked as well without each other.
I really commend you for a good paper whioh your
awards prove, however I don’t feel you are that High and
Almighty that you have achieved a level of perfection
which no one will or could ever achieve, as you seem to
think.
Al Kerchner
ED Note: The facta for Bollinger’s editorial wan taken from
SGA Minutes, Lukoakl’a article, and the Student Court declalon.
Lukoakl did not attribute Kerchner with any quotes concerning
ballot-counting criteria.
Thanks, Maxine
This year our campus has had the extreme good fortune
to have had Maxine Lewis coordinating the exhibits in the
Gallery Lounge. The quality of this year’s exhibits, the
professionalism of the displays and the organizing of the
details of the series of exhibits are due to Maxine’s
efforts.
Because Maxine has done such a good job and has
devoted so much of her energy to this program, I think it
is appropriate to recognize her efforts publicly.
Peggy Dillon
Tamhelm Editor
James D. South