Letters to the Editor
jazztao
Published Letters: 132 Editor's Choice: 8
-
The Long Goddbye
[Read the article: The long goodbye]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mr. O�Hehir writes:
<<i>All of this is to say that Didion's fans experience her work on an intimate, personal level as well as an intellectual one. (Because of that, her influence on journalism is much more profound than the macho histrionics of Tom Wolfe or Hunter S. Thompson.) One of the reasons I'm not quoting from "The Year of Magical Thinking" is because you've probably read enough of it by now, if you're interested; another is that your reading of it belongs to you, and mine to me. >
So, which is it: that Didion universally reaches readers �on an intimate, personal level as well as an intellectual one.�, or that my reading belongs to me and far be it for you to color it with your interpretation? Rare it is to have a writer so completely express his hypocrisy in a single paragraph.
I for one, a drinking, drugging, male musician with an addiction to the ebb and flow of politics, most certainly experienced Hunter S. Thompson intimately and personally as well as intellectually. Perhaps you�ve forgotten all of your hermeneutics, or maybe you�re one of the �sensitive males� who reflexively regurgitate feminist homilies when confronted with old fashioned masculinity (and yes, it is old fashioned and we should well move beyond it�but it exists and it had, and has, its place). How dare you speak for anyone other than yourself and then claim to be above speaking for anyone else?
Please.
-
Breaths, not bombs
[Read the article: Breaths, not bombs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When will your fine publication cease utilizing writers who are afraid to speak for themselves and attempt to hide that fear behind objective language? As others have rightly noted, Steinglass� biases are littered throughout the review, and obvious to all. What level of understanding must it take for someone in this day and age to write the following:
�Consistently, in reading Hanh, one finds oneself having this sort of reaction: furious dismissal, followed by a creeping realization that one generally agrees with what he's saying.�
�and
�Why are we embarrassed by the word "love"? What violence in our disposition leads us to sneer at the word? What are we so angry at? What are we so afraid of?�
Does one sneer at the word love? One thinks that one must be an 18th century empiricist to express oneself thusly. I certainly don�t sneer at the word, love. I�m sorry, Mr. Steinglass that English only has one word for the varied forms of love. Nonetheless, speak for yourself. And may I be so bold as to answer that last question: your feelings (oops, our feelings) natch.
Hire someone from this century next time, Salon.
-
I couldn't agree more. Or less.
[Read the article: Our Jennifer fixation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to agree fully with those who have voiced their disappointment in Salon for this EXTENDED piece of celebrity fawning. We read Salon precisely because it doesn't (or didn't) shove this sort of crap down our throats. If we need a celebrity fix there's always The Fix. I say leave it at that.
I have to disagree with those complaining about the new Salon layout, however. I love it! All of the main stories are right there at the top of the page, no scrolling required! I especially like that the AP wire stories follow you when you select one--no more constant back paging to get the headlines. Finding archived columns is terribly pain-free for anyone with the slightest bit of patience. High marks!
One suggestion: fix your letters formatting so that those of us who prefer to compose in Word can paste our letters in without all of the quotation marks and apostrophies turning to gobbledy-gook. Please.
To get back on point. If Ms. Traister's article is a sign of things to come in terms of where Salon is putting it's money for feature writing, I will cease putting my money towards a premium subscription, new layout or not.
-
Kudos Bagheera25!
[Read the article: The Jesus symbol, the witch and the wardrobe]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I couldn't agree more. I sometimes use the Jesus v. Paul debate. If you are a follower of Paul's teachings then you tend to fall on the conservative/fundamentalist side of the faith. If you value the teachings of Jesus more highly you tend toward the left/universalist. Most evangelicals are utterly blind to the distinction, but that doesn't change the outcome at all. In this light it is easy and accurate to say that both Gandhi and Paramahansa Yogananda were Christians.
Leave aside the pagan elements of the story. That Lewis could extrapolate an entire universe from a few sayings of Christ is nearly evidence enough that he had little time for the sort of tripe that Focus on the Family will be slathering their press releases with opening weekend.
-
leaders...plural?
[Read the article: Rise of the new black leaders]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't take much issue with the article in general. And I've been largely (bankruptcy bill excepted)impressed with Senator Obama's record and character. Indeed during his Dem. convention speech I said to my wife that we were very possibly looking at the first black US president.
I do take issue with the nearly non-sequitur cover image and the subtitle. At least two thirds of the article was devoted to an analysis of California's racial politics, and produced not one example of a California politician primed to hit the national scene. Discussions of New York and Atlanta were equally void of examples of any sort of national "movement".
Of course all politics is local, and it has to start somewhere, but tidying up the piece with a few paragraphs about Barack Obama seemed cheap and, frankly, off point. Without the suggestion of the story's graphic image lead the summation doesn't follow.
Salon, and liberals in general, would do well to ditch any and all race baiting immediately--however well intentioned. It can only backfire from here on out. It is one of the pillars of the broken liberal movement, and trying to salvage this condemned structure can only lead to more trouble. Progressives from across the political spectrum would be well advised to erect an entirely new foundation that severs all ties to past strategies and builds on the foundation of the best that both (all) political parties have to offer. This is what Barack is doing, and perhaps we will see a movement grow out of it, but the work sited in Oakland and LA and New York and Atlanta is not yet an outpicturing of some transcendent uprising.