Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 271 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Who killed the powerful, well-paid, self-appointed, self-hyping gatekeepers?
[Read the article: Who killed the literary critic?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Isn't this more a case of tastemakers and criticism not appearing in traditional places nor being able to command as much dough?
I find it insulting how this discussion omits any mention of Bookslut or The Millions or any of the blogs now respected and considered vital to the process, as well as insightful and well written.
The only decline I see is traditional critics being able to get paid as easily within a system which is complex and changing anyway.
I really wonder which magical age it was when literary critics had much power beyond what was given by wealthy professionals of academia and publishing.
Plus within this group they still have power when they control grants and access and when the book business uses them to help make marketing decisions.
Providing hints as to what book was worth bribing the bookseller to put on a display table has long been the main value of critics.
The actual criticism has always been secondary to it's ability to confer marketable status: the prize, the must read list and the celebrity endorsement.
This discussion overlooks how critics with clout worked the celebrity system in mass media as well. When the New York Review of books was a well hyped status object in popular culture, it had influence.
Even then the connection between critical and actual success was far more tenuous than the critics themselves pretended. Many works in the canon are there not due to any critic, but because they were notorious or famous due to some powerful person or event. Other works are their due to the tireless and canny appeal of the author.
Consider Mark Twain, known as much for himself as his books. Yet even his legendary takedown of Cooper failed to remove Last of The Mohicans from the American canon. This was in part because Cooper was essentially a celebrity genre writer himself.
It's also worth noting that Twain's piece was hardly an act of civility, nor has much of the history of criticism. Nor has it always been a well paid endeavor. In fact, the history of powerful criticism has as much in common with the Amazon comment section as it does with the lamented book column.
This has been so since the invention of the printing press, and since then the elite have felt threatened when they can't control what the masses read or think.
-
Clarification - by this I mean Ronan McDonald
[Read the article: Who killed the literary critic?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I should clarify, by this discussion I mean Ronan McDonald's and all who agree with him. The review here takes that down pretty well.
-
"Dumbshit" avoids the real story.
[Read the article: Flip this house. Please!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wish Steve Almond would be a bit more honest as to how exactly he managed to buy a house without knowing what he was getting into.
It's too bad he skips over this by calling himself a dumbshit, because he could explore what most home crisis narratives omit: How people take such a massive and complex risk while rationalizing away the consequences.
He's an author who has used extensive research in one of his best books, yet he presents himself as avoiding issues covered in the most basic home buying tips.
Even bubble era real estate transactions are complex with required steps. Perhaps an inspection might be avoided or go wrong, but one can only not see a tax assessment by refusing to read it.
I understand why one might want to rush past the issue of denial and willing ignorance. It might invite an unsympathetic notion one "deserves" one's fate. But the way to get past these unhelpful ideas of blame is to explore the internal and external pressures which convince people to get in over their heads.
-
Calm Down - it's Erma Bombeck and Joan Rivers with Video Game references
[Read the article: How Rock Band saved my marriage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think anyone should respond to this seriously as it's just a modern take on standup-ish story comedy: "oy, those noise cancelling headphones!" Take a look at the author's book - she's embracing the old humor column style.
The problem is Salon has such a strong reputation for the unaware, off-tone personal essay, it's hard to tell when an author is just cracking wise.
I was only vaguely amused, but compared to twee essays being "funny" yet taking themselves way too seriously, it's an improvement.
-
@NYShooter
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Why would a perpetrator play a victim?"
I find the phrase "victim playing" to be excessive, but your use of "perpetrator" shows you in full fake victim mode.
"Perp" implies someone is guilty of crimes or abuse against another. Not happening. People voting for one candidate is democracy. People expressing opinions in an online form no one has to read is free speech.
What is allegedly been perpetrated, and who was involved?
Clinton herself chose to use the reference repeatedly in taped interviews, and to say "assassination", without thinking of all the connotations and implications.
Obama didn't tape the interview or post the coverage. He has no magical power over the press, if you haven't noticed. The voting public has no control over how press talking heads react - you can't hold them responsible for what a guy on television, who doesn't work for Obama and doesn't take orders from the voters, says.
You also can't act like merely daring to argue a point online is victimizing someone. Well, you can, but you are proving yourself without integrity.