Letters to the Editor
Survivor Man
Published Letters: 6
-
Alright, A Little Late To The Party, But...
[Read the article: Salon's new letters registration policy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...thank you Salon, an excellent evolution, I think. Kudos for taking the bull by the very necessary horns.
Honestly, I've followed the arguments from both sides re: the anonymity angle, and I'm still not sure why anyone would care enough to retain the capacity. I've previously disclosed exceptionally personal stuff on here that would be utterly devastating if it were traced back to the actual real life me, but "Survivor Man" is still a long way away from my actual name, so I just don't understand the need for that extra layer of protection. I mean, to be a little crude and risk offending our slightly prudish American friends in particular, who fucks with two condoms on?
But anyway, I'm finding myself liking Salon again, perhaps as much as I did in its glory days. (Okay, perhaps something that big-eyed and raw ought to have been posted anonymously, ha ha.)
-
Thank You Joan
[Read the article: Bill Donohue and I -- together at last!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know, this is a bit of a meta comment, and I apologise in advance for it, but the more I read Joan Walsh's blog, the more I'm impressed that Salon has ridden and evolved beyond its apparent reader crisis. I was never one of the "ad hominers" in the old Letters section -- I just can't work that way -- but I sorta could see the point that Ms Walsh came across as autocratic and arid and even (as someone recently wrote) a bit tight-assed. I could see it, even if I didn't buy into the whole "bring back our old Salon" rhetorical whining that began to emanate from the outer circles of the long-term peanut gallery.
Now I'm simply impressed. There is energy again, and an engagement on the part of writers and readers (and the entire blurry middle) with the issues and concerns that will, in a very real sense, shape our collective future in this brave, often tortuous, and definitely bewildering new world. It sure feels like time to cut the crap. Yet it also feels like an opportunity to drop the jaded cynicism and all the other awkward tools that help maintain the (mostly artificial) yawning gulf that lies between political and philosophical adversaries. The tone in which Joan Walsh describes her encounter with someone very difficult to appreciate from our secular liberal perspective is a case in point.
I know this might be seen as backslapping, but for once I'm being deadly serious. It's time to re-establish the parameters of the public debate circle, and instead of filling it with hurt, replenish it with passion, reason, imagination and the near-sacred art of persuading others to see it our way without rancour. Because -- all postmodern relativity aside -- we (progressives, liberals, lefties, whatever) do believe we're on the right track with our insistence on inclusiveness, compassion, justice, humour, nuance and, yeah, simple kindheartedness. The mistake we've made is to join those on the political right who have insisted on framing everything in terms of war or combat. Put simply, let's reinvent the town square for the Internet age.
-
Angelina as Mariane, Cate as Bob
[Read the article: Beyond the Multiplex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I understand your points, petrarch, and they are well made; I too would love to hear Angelina's rationale for this. To play devil's advocate a little, however: perhaps we are progressing past these kinds of conflict -- albeit painfully and awkwardly -- into not so much a colour-blind as colour-flexible world wherein artists may feel less constrained by overt literalism. Done with sensitivity, this could open up the world for deeper insight, although done poorly could become a not-so-subtle vehicle for bigotry. I'm thinking along the lines of Todd Haynes and his decision to cast the very Caucasian (and very female) Cate Blanchett as the very Jewish (and very male) Bob Dylan in the upcoming I'm Not There. The mind boggles, but is also intrigued.
-
"Berk"
[Read the article: Opus day!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Berkeley, you are absolutely right about the origins of the slang term synonymous with the diminutive of your name. However, its etymology rarely crosses anyone's mind when they use it. Similarly, in the UK, "cunt" -- and to an even greater extent "twat" -- has lost most if not all (in the latter's case) of its venom. In the right circumstances, they can even be funny, affectionate terms, which is wonderful given their literal meanings, and a situation that's more a return to their historical, medieval usage than it is a sign of permissiveness. Slightly off-topic, but did you know that there were numerous English towns that featured streets called Gropecunt Lane before those prudish Victorians and others came along and renamed them? Strangely, it is generally North Americans who insist on the more misogynistic usage of these vagina-derived terms. As someone who likes vaginas and vulvas, I've never really understood the negative connotations.
Anyway, welcome to Salon.
-
Nope
[Read the article: Opus day!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ozwellcom, no it's pronounced to rhyme with "turk", even though "Berkshire" is pronounced "bark-sher". Cockneys. Go figure.
-
Fetish?
[Read the article: Circumcision cuts female pleasure?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well said, NicoleShield. I can only conjecture that a streak of peculiarly American puritanism could be behind the bizarre assertion that you so rightly question. Natural or modified, genitals are great, and I hope that those of us who agree continue to enjoy them!