If you want to continue the discussion with me please feel free to write directly

So says Ms. Traister to those who are critical of Broadsheet, and that's sad. It seems to me to be an attempt to keep this discussion out of the public eye, to force criticism into back channels where it can more effectively be silenced and ignored.

Why shouldn't those of us who want to "continue the discussion" feel free to do so here and in Table Talk, Ms. Traister? Are you afraid that other people might find those arguments more compelling than your own?

Thanks to Duck for noting Traister's description of lesbianism as an "ailment." That's reprehensible language, and it ought not be tolerated.

I like the idea of Video Dog a lot, but white print on a black page? Terrible web design; very difficult to read. Why make this one feature so much less user-friendly than the rest of Salon?

Karen M asks, "...what if this were some other piece of artistic work that you admired as much as Ms. Fattore and others of us admire P&P, as well as the rest of Austen's work, and it had been, in your eyes 'defiled?'"

The novel Pride and Prejudice has in no way been "defiled" by this movie; the novel continues to sit on your bookshelf and millions of bookshelves around the world, untouched and unharmed.

And if there were some piece of writing that I admired so intensely that I couldn't bear the thought of seeing it changed in any way, then I wouldn't go to the movie. I'd stay at home and re-read the book again.

C'mon, what did you expect? You knew going in that the movie was only two hours long; you knew plotlines would be trimmed and characters would be shortchanged and favorite bits of dialogue would be lost. If you didn't know those things, then either you've never seen a movie before, or you are too painfully naive for words.

The movie isn't pure Jane Austen because it can't be; an adaptation from one form to another is by definition a collaboration between the original author(s) and the new author(s). And it deserves, as does any work of art, to be judged on its own terms, on how well it accomplishes its own goals, not held hostage to the demands of a group of rabid cultists who will brook no change to their hermetically sealed view of the world.

Count me in agreement with those who wish you'd return to a traditional Letters to the Editor format instead of this blog-comment mess. Even reading only the Editors' Choice "letters" isn't very useful, as they often refer to comments that aren't marked as Editors' Choice.

How can you continue to call these blog comments Letters to the Editor when you've abdicated the editorial function of reading them and pruning out the junk?

"And even publishing the ones we did choose took a lot of extra labor on the part of our editorial staff."

That's one of the primary responsibilities of an editorial staff -- they're letters to the editor, after all. You've still not provided a good explanation as to why Salon has chosen to abdicate this responsibility.

What's next, doctors whining that giving all those shots takes too much "extra labor"?

"Cheddar from up the lake in Shelbourne"?

Hard to work up too much enthusiasm for an author who screws up the basic details of his setting. The name of the Vermont town is spelled "Shelburne."

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Mysterious Skin.

"Although Rove and Reed left no visible fingerprints in those attacks, they have been universally suspected ever since..."

Or, to paraphrase:

"Althought there's not a shred of evidence to connect Rove and Reed to those attacks, we're going to continue to accuse them of being responsible, because we don't like them very much."

That's tabloid-style "journalism," and I am disappointed to see Salon stoop to that level.

There's even that little snippet in the credits after the show saying the judges consulted with the producers to determine who was cut.

In interview after interview, everyone involved with the show has repeatedly said that the producers are not making the decisions. The judges make the decisions; the producers step in only if the judges are unable to reach consensus, which has yet to happen in the first two seasons of the show.

Why is it that whenever a straight male author reviews work by a gay author, he inevitably feels compelled to point out to his readers that he isn't gay, no siree bob?

Barra came oh so close to simply letting his piece be about White's work, but then, in the very last sentence, there it is -- that reflexive, defensive assertion of heterosexuality, serving as a not-so-gentle reassurance to the reader: "See, it's OK. I know he's gay, but I'm straight, and I promise you there's nothing to be afraid of."

The comedian hired to perform at the White House Correspondents' Dinner is never the star of the media coverage afterward; the press attention always goes to whichever political figure has done the most elaborate bit of self-deprecating humor.

A year ago, it was Laura Bush, joking about George's attempts to milk a bull, who got all of the attention (including a lengthy bit on The Daily Show, and -- as usual -- the professional comic got none. I don't even remember who it was, and I'd be surprised if Ms. Walsh does, either.

Funny or not, daring or not -- it's all beside the point. The "ignoring" of Colbert's performance isn't some grand political conspiracy; it's standard practice in the coverage of these events.

"...but the questions asked/posited in the review are answered quite well in the book."

So what? The movie is being sold, as any adaptation is, on its own merits, and it must succeed or fail on those merits; if you have to read the book to enjoy or understand the movie, then the movie has failed.