Letters to the Editor
-
difference between fact and fiction
>>Had "JT" pushed this as a piece of fiction, the publisher would have had nothing to do with it. I'm not justifying the author's tactics, I'm just saying that the publishing industry will rarely take you seriously, regardless of how well your work is written, if you don't fit into one of their "flavor of the month" categories. The current flavor of the month seems to be "reality" writing.Bah humbug.-- gar >>
JT's book WERE published as fiction.
Frey's book was published as nonfiction.
Big difference.
-
Huh??
Gee, cosmicmojo. My "insecurities"? Why, golly, I guess you told me, didn't you? (Please don't call me "dummy"--I'm pretty insecure about my intellectual abilities.)
Please. Michael Chabon won the Pulitzer Prize in 2001--not a hip writer at all, but one who has been embraced by the crustiest members of the cultural Establishment.
Regarding your characterization of my "sad need to feel better than everyone else because [I'm] special and know all the latest 'it' books, beautiful people and restaurants": I live in Knox County, Kentucky, where hip books are hard to get hold of and restaurants tend toward the utilitarian. The people, on the other hand, are kind of beautiful, now that you mention it.
-
I doubt I could name all the past 20 years of prize winners; some years I read them some years I don't.
Everything I say stands:
You implied you were superior to people who hadn't heard of JT or Chabon. That's not nice. It's not cool. It's snobbery, it's low esteem. I know they have middle school in Kentucky too, so you should have learned by now not to make fun of people who don't have whatever superior qualities you have.
-
Save your effing sarcasm, Serai...
"I don't know who [JT LeRoy] is either. But you might want to check out this little thing on the web. I believe it's called a "search engine". Yeah, I'm sure I read about that in some tutorial or other."
Oh, aren't you clever. Haven't you just told us! Aren't I chagrined!
There's just one problem. Just because you have time to do a writers' research for them and go backfilling in every article you read doesn't mean the rest of us do. Some of us are busy, you know, working and building relationships and holding families together and such and such. (You may have read about it in some tutorial or other.)
We expect our writing to include one, two, maybe even THREE lines of background, explanation or exposition! I know it's an awful lot to ask of a compensated writer. It's amazing, then, to think that it's been the norm for good writers for centuries now! Isn't it?
This piece, whether you had a background on the LeRoy story or not (and I did, having read the excellent Guardian article earlier) is sloppy, shitty journalism and it's unworthy of Salon. Hell, it's unworthy of the free alternative paper I read here in my hometown.
ronron
-
I have an idea for Salon
Let's submit Ayelet Waldman's columns to Cary Tennis: the "I was conned," the overtly sexual descriptions of her gratification with her son, her ramblings about her mother-in-law jealousy, and even her blog suicide note. We'll let the online therapist have a crack at her. It should make for fascinating reading...if not the actual article then at least these letters to the editor!
P.S-After reading all of her past Salon.com columns, I stand by my original assertion as to why she was conned by "JT Leroy."
-
Uh-oh, it's cosmicmojo
You don't have to have read Chabon, Leroy, or anybody else to have heard of the Pulitzer Prize. Why do you insist on wearing ignorance like a badge of honor and then questioning the "self-esteem" (gosh! that really hurt!)of someone who actually knows how to read a newspaper or watch CNN?
Sheesh.
-
Neither Chabon nor LeRoy are exactly household names...
"You don't have to have read Chabon, Leroy, or anybody else to have heard of the Pulitzer Prize."
Cosmicmojo never said s/he'd never heard of the Pulitzer Prize. S/he questioned the implication that anyone who doesn't know every winner of it for the past number of years is ignorant of culture. A fair question of a rather untenable position.
Many posters on this thread noted they have never heard of LeRoy. You implied they were ignorant. All people cannot be familiar with all aspects of culture all the time. To imply that they are not is elitist. Would you be au courant if the article had been on a figure or controversey well-known in ballet circles? Modern classical music? Modern dance? Then why are we all supposed to know and care about a second-tier writer celebrities have embraced this year?
In the great scope of things, LeRoy is a minor writer and Chabon is not exactly a household name, even among the well-educated . It is pompous and elitist to mock others for what they don't know rather than expecting an alleged journalest to put two or three pages of exposition into a supposedly-professional article.
ronron
-
Adjective trouble
Ronron: "Many posters on this thread noted they have never heard of LeRoy. You implied they were ignorant."
No, I didn't imply anything of the sort. I outright said it. Ignorant means "lacking knowledge," doesn't it? So, if you haven't "heard of" something--whether it's the center of a literary hoax or how much money I have in my pocket--you're "ignorant." Right?
"Would you be au courant if the article had been on a figure or controversey well-known in ballet circles? Modern classical music? Modern dance?"
No, I would not be au courant. I would be ignorant.
I used, I thought, a word that was not loaded. (People who don't know something are properly called "ignorant.") And cosmicmojo called me a "sad snob" in return and went on to attack my self-esteem.
I'm afraid that I still have to contend that Michael Chabon is not a cult figure and that the Pulitzers are mainstream.
-
Oh, I don't think I'm having any trouble at all understanding what you meant, thanks.
jds - "No, I didn't imply anything of the sort. I outright said it. Ignorant means 'lacking knowledge,' doesn't it? So, if you haven't 'heard of' something--whether it's the center of a literary hoax or how much money I have in my pocket--you're 'ignorant.' Right?"
Certainly. Absolutely.
jds - "I used, I thought, a word that was not loaded. (People who don't know something are properly called 'ignorant.') And cosmicmojo called me a 'sad snob' in return and went on to attack my self-esteem."
Ah. Now you are going to pretend that your post was value-neutral because you used one word which is value neutral? That is simply disingenuous of you and you know it. You wrote, in fact:
jds - "It was remarkable to see that so many earlier writers actually trumpeted their ignorance. (And one person wrote about not knowing who Michael Chabon is, as if that we were supposed to accept that gaping hole in her or his basic cultural knowledge.)"
"[T]rumpeted their ignorance"? "[G]aping hole in his or her basic cultural knowledge"? The words you chose make it quite clear that your intent was not to identify a state of being - ignorance - but to belittle those within it. I often agree with your positions, but please don't insult our intelligence by pretending that you meant that post to be neutral towards those who had never heard of Chabon.
- ronron