Laurel has come out with one of her extremely sensible letters about what someone in the author's predicament could also do. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with her politics most of the time, but damn! I admire her common sense and her way of setting things out clearly and noncontroversially.

Some of these other letters -- I'm smelling fear underlying the usual resentment and Schadenfreude.

Fear that if it can happen to the author, it can happen to anyone. To one of us. That it hasn't happened yet.

That can't be allowed to happen. That can't be allowed to be thought. So there's got to be a reason WHY this happened to the author, why she's Bad, why it could NEVER happen to us. And it's got to be a reason that makes the person fighting the fear feel as morally good and barriered from the author as possible.

Keep on fooling yourself. Personally, if the shit hits the fan for me again, I'm not going to use my energy, alleged writing skills, and work ethic in blaming someone else who's floundering. I'm going to put it toward getting me out of the hot water and into a new position.

Blame is easy. Survival is hard. And we all know it, deep down, except maybe the doctor husband in Cary's latest tale of spoiled yuppybrats (see below).

I've read slush. I've known professional writers whose work has been picked up, like a diamond in the rough, out of the slushpile.

Aside from the LW's snobbery about fantasy (okay, so call it magical realism, if it makes you feel better!), there is one important thing s/he needs to learn about slush, however awful.

Every writer in that slushphile has done two things that about 90% of all would-be authors have not been able to do: slush writers have A. finished a piece and B. gotten up the nerve to send it in.

However awful it may be, those writers have accomplished at least that. They have guts and a dream. And some have talent.

Can you do no less?

You know, the very young women writing about their sexual exploits, comfort with their sexuality, and their valuable little bods have managed to make the whole subject a self-aggrandizing bore.

You don't have to choose between being transgressive and being substantive.

You just have to write better and think and feel more deeply.

The trouble with early publication is that the bar gets set rather low -- and they put Cosmos and Manolos on it.

What about power of attorney? What about the names and numbers you put down on those forms at work: In case of emergency, please call__________________________

Relationship: ________________________

What about the forms you get from financial advisors who say "fill this out Just In Case and put it away someplace safe that people know about so if anything happens, they'll know your wishes."

This is unnecessary.

"Talk about selfish! You might want to also consider this: You tend to reap what you sow....if you are too lazy and selfish to raise the next generation, then don't expect them to be so generous as to take care of some unrelated singleton in old age."

I'm disappointed in you. Ordinarily, you have such common sense! In this case, however, the family values Kool-Aid has led you to saying something that could be profoundly hurtful.

Case in point: A married couple (you know, those sanctified types with a Good Marriage that you LIKE) can't have kids. Are they "too selfish" to raise the next generation? Or say they go through hell and HAVE the kid, and the kid turns out to be disabled. What kind of "selfishness" will you visit on them? They had a kid with a disability, they shouldn't have tried? It's a double bind: selfish either way.

Gay people who don't adopt: did they ASK not to be in relationships in which reproduction is possible? Give me a break.

Single and other child-free types: reproducing for the sake of getting someone to take care of oneself in one's old age strikes me as selfish. You raise a child because you love the child and want the child to grow up well. How many adults do you know who don't want to be "burdens"?

And then there are the people who could be the worst fear of women like you: for some reason, the bubble world breaks. Husband takes off; the money goes away; the KIDS go away; and they did everything RIGHT, but there they are, depending on their friends. Will you say "they MUST have done something wrong?"

Is it panic I hear, the "what will it happen to me" of an otherwise sensible woman who is scared to death that she might do Something Wrong and land her in nightmare, not never-never land?

I've always admired your common sense, but this time, you goofed.

Oh, and BTW, I have a very nice long-term-care policy that will look after me. I prefer objectivity to smarm.