I have to believe that Stephanie Zacharek designs her opinions merely to be perverse and provocative. I find her reviews in general to be unhelpful, and what she wrote about "Brokeback Mountain" was ludicrous. Did she write it, perhaps, before seeing the movie??

...give his new wife a chance, too. The LW doesn't say anything about her relationship with her. Perhaps the dad is uncomfortable about his perception that his daughter doesn't approve of his wife, or of his remarrying at all. It might do a lot if LW would make an effort to reach out to her new stepmother.

Dear LW -- been there, bought the t-shirt.

I was the youngest child, and the hooks went into me deeply. I felt responsible for literally keeping my crazy mother alive, let alone happy and sane.

When I went off to college she collapsed -- suicidal, stopped eating, filed for divorce, the whole nine yards. Naturally I was panicked about what I should do to save her.

My aunt -- my mother's sister -- came to see me and said something I was enormously startled to hear. This was a rather conservative, deeply religious woman, but regarding me and my mother, she said, "Get a divorce."

Being told that so directly -- that there was nothing I could do, that my mother's illness would ultimately only destroy me, that it wasn't my place to save her -- was ultimately the best advice I could have heard. I don't remember what I said or did at the time, but here I am 33 years later writing about it. It helped. A lot.

Your sister might not thank you now for telling her that, but i think you are in my aunt's position. You're someone who knows your mother well and obviously cares about her, but you can see that she will only pull your sister under with her. Tell your sister the truth.

that if LW was such a good friend of both couples that she was asked to be in the wedding parties that she would have been consulted about the dates? It seems inconsiderate on the part of the Happy Couples to have just sprung the dates and her expected participation on her.

Whoa, whoa, whoa with the Cary-bashing, already. As I read LW's letter, I was thinking, "This woman is not in her right mind." And I don't mean that lightly -- I mean "This is the voice of psychosis." Was I correct in thinking so? I have no way of knowing. But that was my very strong instinctual response. As such, I think it was absolutely on target for Cary not to focus on the LW's vague, disconnected accusations about her parents and instead to focus on the fact that she does not sound well. She sounds strung-out, confused, desperate, and capable of anything. Somebody in her life ought to be calling 911 on her behalf, if she's not able to do it herself.

Cary's advice is excellent. The more you can learn about mental illness and its effects on the family, the less bewildered and alone you will feel. Your increased knowledge will help you depersonalize the situation while deepening your empathy for everyone involved. I believe that your relationships with your mother, father, and sister will all benefit as you become better acquainted with the illness that has your family in its grasp.

He's a bad writer and a worse journalist. What about Salon? Had I missed the news that it's been sold to the Bring Back Jim Crow Society? What in the world is Salon doing giving a forum to crap like this, publishing it as the LEAD ARTICLE, and topping it off with an illustration that might have come off a KKK recruiting brochure? Would the Salon editors please explain why they found this appalling piece of condescending dreck worthy of publication?

I'm still waiting.

Enough about Nick Wadhams

He's a bad writer and a worse journalist. What about Salon? Had I missed the news that it's been sold to the Bring Back Jim Crow Society? What in the world is Salon doing giving a forum to crap like this, publishing it as the LEAD ARTICLE, and topping it off with an illustration that might have come off a KKK recruiting brochure? Would the Salon editors please explain why they found this appalling piece of condescending dreck worthy of publication?

-- paganmama

[Read paganmama's other letters]

Permalink Saturday, June 16, 2007 07:50 AM

The Nick Waldhams of the world can write anything they want about Ethiopia, Berlin, or Lower Slobbovia. The world is full of bad writers and lazy journalists. I am calling Salon on the carpet, as you say, because I want an explanation why they found this particular piece of shoddy, exploitative writing worthy of not only publishing, but giving the most prominent spot on the website. Yes, I found the article racist, although that is only one of the numerous aspects of it that appalled me. The initial concept -- that a remarkably ill-informed white man is going to pay a brief visit to Ethiopia and then explain the country's political woes to the rest of us -- smacks loudly of clueless colonialism. That he should even allude to Reagan as "my hapless rebel" is pretty jaw-dropping. Reagan is "his"?

But beyond the racism of the article, I object to its general shoddiness, which should make anyone with an appreciation of honest hard-working journalism squirm. Why the hell didn't Waldhams do some footwork and make some decent contacts in Ethiopia? Instead he depended upon a completely unknown man -- about whom we still know nothing, really -- whom a colleague met once in a cafe. It is as if Waldhams assumed that all Ethiopians are fungible -- he just needed one, who would surely be able to fulfill his every need during his "reporting" visit to the country.

Reagan is hardly the one who comes off as hapless.

So again, yes, my question is not about Nick Waldhams. It's about Salon. Why did they publish this embarrassment?