3/28/25
Since writing yesterday's entry, I have had some further back-and-forth communication with the professor whose journal rejected my re-written paper concerning the real authorship of "The Raven." Strangely, I might as well be talking to the same person each time any of my papers are rejected by these journals, because it's the same laundry-list of objections. She pointed out that this might, normally, clue me in that I need to change these things. But there's a catch--these are irrational suggestions.

That means there's nothing I'm doing wrong, but clearly, I'm pushing the same buttons. Just as one example, I'm told that I haven't cited the literature. Well, I can't cite the literature, because there is no literature to cite. Which is to say, this is entirely new territory. So far as I can tell, not one single scholar has ever questioned Edgar Allan Poe's authorship of "The Raven." Therefore, who, exactly, am I going to cite? I can cite hundreds, or thousands, who have assumed his authorship as an a priori fact. But what can I do with those papers? Nothing. They are fundamentally, absurdly mistaken from the first sentence (sometimes, from the very title). Let me see if I can find some titles for you--I'll try Google Scholar.

"Myths in Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Raven'"
"A deconstructive reading of Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Raven'"
"'The Raven' and 'The Raven': Another Source of Poe's Poem"
"Figurative language used in 'The Raven' by Edgar Allan Poe"
"Semiotic Reading of Edgar Allan Poe's Poem 'The Raven'"
"Problems of Poetry Translation on the example of 'The Raven' by Edgar Allan Poe"

Those are from the first page of results. I could go on and on. Which of these papers should I cite, to address my evidence that Edgar Allan Poe was a scammer who had nothing whatsoever to do with the writing of "The Raven," nor with its true premiere publication?

I can't scan through thousands and thousands of papers. I have queried different AI bots repeatedly, and the only relevant work I come up with is my own.

One more example, continuing with this issue. The feedback is that the sources I'm citing are too old; or none are given; or, they are mostly unpublished papers.

You see the logic behind this. They are so very proud of their legacy of academic work, that one dare only build upon it--one dare not fundamentally challenge it.

The "old sources," which I presume they are referring to, are primary sources, i.e., 19th-century publications. Unless they mean that my unpublished papers from 2021 and 2022 are too old. If people like them would be fair and honest, these unpublished papers would have been published. They created the problem, themselves (i.e., collectively)--they irrationally rejected my papers, and now they are complaining that they are unpublished!

But as for my "not citing any papers," I explained to her that my preference is to cite inline (i.e., as I'm bringing up the relevant subject, in the text). I gave her one example, and she acted like that was the only instance. I asked if she had read the paper; she said she had. I then expressed confusion that she had read the paper, and yet, she was seemingly unaware that I had cited multiple historical sources inline. I asked again, if she had read the paper, or merely skimmed it. I told her I often skim papers, but then I'm honest about not asserting that I have really read them.

I have received no answer to that. Maybe it's the time difference.

The most maddening thing was to have carefully explained, in the Introduction no less, that my objective in the paper I'd submitted was narrowed down--that I simply intended to prove that Mathew Franklin Whittier said, in literary code, that Poe had stolen "The Raven" from him. The feedback said that my paper had no objective, and that I should narrow my focus! (This kind of thing is what makes me suspicious that they hadn't actually read the paper.)

In short, these people, however intelligent and however well-trained in their field, go into psychological denial when faced with the massive cognitive dissonance my work would engender if it were taken seriously. Just like your opinionated uncle who argues politics at Thanksgiving dinner. No difference.

Clearly, trying to use logic and evidence against a closed mind--no matter how erudite--doesn't work. These people's rationality checks out when their world is effectively and seriously threatened. Strangely, they pull up essentially the same irrational laundry-list of excuses and rationalizations.

As Spock would say, "Fascinating."

Sincerely,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.