Letters to the Editor
-
A different 'Anonymous'
I'd like to have a go at Michael Chabon. Oh, yeah. But I don't want to be Ayelet Waldman.
-
???????????
Salon was never supposed to be all political news, all the time, as some who think it's "deteriorating" seem to think--remember Suzy Bright on sex and Camille Paglia on pop culture? They're both better writers than Waldman, but not THAT much better, or that much more "serious." On the other hand, I think I liked Salon a lot more before the automated letters feature made me realize that a large percentage of the regular readers are pompous blowhards.
What I find most disturbing about these letters are the ones mocking her for disclosing that she, like many people, has a mental illness that informs her experience of the world. I respect her honesty about it. It takes a different order of chutzpah to write about psychiatric problems in a national magazine than in a blog. I don't understand the vitriol. How does Waldman's public disclosure of being on SSRIs or manic depression invalidate her as a writer? You (of psychiatric perfection, no doubt) make me want to go give her a hug.
-
What?
I came here to bravely post my complete ignorance about what this article seems to assume is something so widely know that the author can just start in the middle only to find that I apparently I'm not the only one not in the know. These might have been a very interesting piece if the author had started from the beginning of the story instead of the end. Does Salon no longer bother to even edit pieces before they decide that they are worthy of being the lead story?
-
Delightful
I, for one, was delighted to see the Ayelet Waldman article at the top of the page on Salon this morning as I knew (even before reading the article) that this was a guarantee of REAMS of angry letters. I hope the Waldman boycott doesn't succeed, as half the fun of the site these days is sitting back and marveling at the maelstrom of negativity that she generates with each and every article. I can understand some of it. The article earlier this week about her son/lover made my skin crawl. But this one? Lighten up people!
-
??????????
WHAT?! AW is no where near the writer Camilla Paglia is. Wow.
-
who?
Just another voice chiming in with a big ol' "huh?" to this story. Who is JT Leroy? Why should I care?
I finally ended up skimming the rest of the article after realizing that I wasn't going to get any background or context. Verdict: booooooring.
-
What's missing from this article is background
Who is JT Leroy? Why is this fraud important? Who did he/she say he/she was?
Catch your readers up.
-
Another subscriber on the edge.
I've been a premium subscriber for a couple of years. But over the last few months I too have noticed the change taking place with Salon. It used to be that I couldn't wait to read the days articles with a good cup of coffee first thing in the morning. Lately, I find myself opening CNN news first. I thought maybe I was just getting old and cranky, but after reading the responses from many of you, I realize it isn't just me, the quality of this once fine ezine has deteriorated to the point that it may not be worth the money anymore. And as for the latest submission from Ms. Waldman, I can only had my disappointment that something this trite would make it as the day's lead article. JT Leroy? Never heard of the guy/girl/whatever. After reading the piece, imagine my surprise at having to then go to the NY Magazine site in order to learn just who the fuck he/she/whatever is/was/might be. Come renewal time, I will have to think about what I'm getting for my money. I hope the powers that be at Salon are listening to what their subscribers are saying. Please. Do not take us for granted. You can and should do better by us.
-
Who Cares
Wow. Count me among those who had no clue who JT Leroy was/is. And I've never written a letter hating on Waldman, so this isn't a knee jerk reaction. But I truly found it to be a complete waste of time, compounded by the fact that I am apparently supposed to know who this person is. Actually, according to ML, I should know JT Leroy, who is "not that obscure if you at all keep up with literature." Well, I don't, which I guess confirms ML's accusation that I'm "entirely out of the cultural loop." Of course, ML assures us that he/she is "not meaning to sound smug." A little late for that, I'm afraid.
I'm not one who feels that every article in Salon needs to be about earthshaking events. And I rather enjoy reading articles referencing subjects with which I'm unfamiliar, if the author can help me a little with some context,rather like reading the letters to the editor in a magazine about previous issues you haven't read. But this article was content free and boring.
And by the way, not being familiar with what he looks like, I Googled photos of Michael Chabon.This is the guy who inspires hatred for his wife because of the sheer carnal desire of those not fortunate enough to be Ayelet Waldman? I don't get it.
-
Strike Two.
When I was in high school 20+ years ago, there was a guy who called a few friends of mine on the phone and, after some long conversations, started to ask them about their intimate secrets, like their sex lives. They really liked talking to him and one of them even passed MY phone number on so he could contact me. Which he did. And, being the shy, passive, insecure 16 year-old I was, I talked to him for long conversations and shared all my intimate secrets.
I was duped way back then and, fortunately for me, it never went further than the phone. I loved the attention, but more so, he "made me feel good about myself."
I am a sometime writer, published even. The reason I have not ever written about the above is because it's not interesting. I could embellish it with all kinds of details of the conversations for sheer titillation. I could navel-gaze and try to figure out the why's of it all, but I already know them: I was young, impressionable, and something within me wanted to be validated.
Tah-dah! Ms. Waldman wants validation. And everyone here is giving it to her, repeatedly. Salon only provides the forum.
I said recently in another letters area that I would give Ms. Waldman another shot, since it was the first time I'd ever read anything by her. So twice now I've clicked through to her on Salon and twice now I've been disappointed by her writing. I'm not going for the third strike.
I don't fault Salon. Yes, the site's writing and the chosen topics have gone downhill a bit, but they are publishing what their readers want to see. That's more of an indication of the degeneration of the readership than it is of their business model.
If you truly want Ms. Waldman to disappear, ignore her links and don't write any more letters. The business end of it will take care of itself.