Letters to the Editor
jtp118
Published Letters: 13
-
rather self-serving
[Read the article: Notes on "A Tragic Legacy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Am I mistaken or is this actually your FOURTH blog post that shameless spams your own book? Your usual rants are often tedious and shrill but at least generally readable; this constant self-aggrandizement is pathetic and somewhere far beyond tedium ...
-
a response ...
[Read the article: Notes on "A Tragic Legacy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I cannot help but notice that this is the only letter you have written. If you are a regular reader, the only reasonable conclusions I can draw are 1) either everything has been perfect until now, or 2) you have finally overcome your shyness enough to post for the first time, or 3) you are having a bad day and decided to take it out on Glenn's blog. I am sure there are many other just as reasonable explanations.
I've been reading Salon semi-regularly for perhaps two years, and regularly for the last few months ... and actually, I have found 99% of the articles to be worthwhile, thus far, so I suppose I'd fall under #1. I'm having a pretty good day so far, at least; and I'm not shy. So, yes, #1.
This is Salon. Glenn blogs here. It's not a starving writer situation but it's not Harper's or the NYT or the WSJ either. It's what people do. It's called marketing. And it appears to be working.
The general idea (I think) is to get as many people as possible to read Glenn's books in the hope of effecting some sort of change in their thinking in the hope of turning America away from its headlong rush into chaos, moral darkness and endless war and death.
There's a fine line between marketing, or tactfully mentioning one's own book, and then posting five blog entries in the space of a week or two which literally instruct the reader on where to buy one's upcoming book, etc. I don't think that my eye-rolling after the third or fourth blog post is all that unreasonable ...
And don't get me wrong, I agree with Glenn for the most part, actually I'd say that I agree with him roughly 90% of the time (though I do wonder if we shouldn't change foreign policy and/or our interpretation of the Constitution at least slightly now that geopolitics have changed so completely, vs. the late 18th century).
Actually, I believe it's the fifth. And there are going to be a lot more. I wrote the book because I think the book covers topics of importance and interest, and talks about those topics in a way that is valuable, so it is only natural that I would use the book as a springboard for discussions here.
And when one writes a book, one wants as many people as possible to read it, which one accomplishes by discussing the themes of the book. That is going to continue to happen here, so I would suggest that if it infuriates you as much as it seems to, you ought to cease coming here, unless - as seems to be the case even more - you have a need to be aggrieved.
In all honesty, I didn't browse to Salon looking to be aggrieved; as I just said, I was in quite a good mood, and still am. Are you really saying that I'm completely unreasonable and off-base to think that filling the Salon frontpage with lengthy and somewhat repetitive posts that basically amount to "buy my book" or "look what people are saying about my book" is somewhat tedious? One or two or even three posts, maybe; but five? And you're saying that there will be more? I can't recall another blogger, on Salon or elsewhere, having done so much self-promoting. But again, none of this is to say that there's anything wrong with your book; just with the way you're going about 'marketing' it.
-
a comment about rhetoric
[Read the article: Lewis Libby owes his freedom to our corrupt political elite]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First let me say that I agree whole-heartedly with the content of your post!
Yet I feel compelled to make what I hope will be a constructive criticism; essentially, I wonder if the constant tone of "aghast scathing yet reasoned attack/critique" (or whatever you'd like to call it) in your posts might not turn out to be sort of self-defeating. I happen to be sympathetic with your views, and so the tone doesn't really annoy me that much; though honestly it can become a little grating when (literally) every single post is full of self-righteous anger.
But just as a rhetorical method, might it not be more effective to introduce a little wit or humor? Or at least the appearance of even-handedness? I can imagine a Republican or centrist reading your posts and just (incorrectly) dismissing them as extremist liberal hackery ... you might get a wider readership with a little less vitriol!