I've had some inklings at to the REASONS used to justify PEN's stonewalling; rationales to support established literature's blackballing. Judge how valid they are.
A.) I'M AKIN TO A SMELLY BUM OR A MADMAN.
It's true that someone would have to be mad to take on literature's totalitarians.
B.) THOSE WHO SIGN THE PETITION ARE AMBITIOUS.
Are writers ambitious for wanting to be heard? For expecting to be part of a democratic conversation by and about literature? A serious charge.
C.) I'VE USED A DISPARAGING TONE.
When you approach the Overdogs of Lit, do so with a submissive mien on your face and your hat in hand.
D.) PEN AMERICAN CENTER IS IMPOTENT.
This is strong argument for changing it.
E.) I'M NOT A WRITER
The quickest way to exclude writers you disagree with is to designate them "not writers."
F.) MY ARGUMENTS ARE UNPERSUASIVE.
The arguments are persuasive enough that they have to be stonewalled. Any argument becomes unpersuasive when it's censored; when it's not heard.
There must be other rationales for PEN's stonewalling. We don't know what they are, because PEN's staffers and bloggers aren't talking.