Letters to the Editor
-
...and yet you provide him with free publicity.
What about this article prompts front-page coverage in Salon?
If you really are dismayed and embarassed by your association with him, why are you giving him EXACTLY what he wants?
-
For those who consume
these memoirs of "overcoming adversity" as an excuse to gaze upon these human freak shows...didn't the 80's teach anyone about healthy skepticism? The easiest con to pull off is one which appeals to the vanity of the mark.
This hoax wasn't particularly skillful, but does illustrate how little self described smart people know about human nature....
Who is the dumbest mark? Ayelet for believing this yarn for as long as she did?
Or Salon for paying her to scribble her less than enlightening scribbles?
Or us, for clicking her crap?
-
Conned by JT Leroy
First Ms. Waldman admits that she let herself be conned -- and made an utter fool -- because JT made her feel good about herself, and she can't get angry at people who make her feel good about herself, however dishonest or evil they may be. Then she adds insult to airheadedness by saying she's not really that concerned about the possible consequences of con-artists pretending to be victims in order to divert attention away from people who really are victims.
Can a journalist get any more oblivious and self-indulgent than this? Can't Salon find someone who actually cares about the world on which he/she is paid to report? You know, the world outside our heads, where actions have consequences?
I'm not paying good money to be embarrassed by such useless fluff as this.
-
Anonymous and without a clue
"I see what the deal is here...
The hate for AW is based on one thing, and one thing only: she gets to fuck Michael Chabon, the current literary sex symbol, and the people who despise her don't.
Yes, folks, it's really that simple.
-- Anonymous"
Actually, Anon., I'm a hetero guy who never heard of Michael Chabon until I read this article. And after reading this drivel, I'm actually proud of the fact that I obviously don't travel in those circles. Anon., you should stick to writing those poems and quotations found in "Bartlett's" under your name.
P.S.--I'd lay even money that AW is "anonymous." Makes sense, given her self-centered facile writing style.
-
Who the hell cares? And who EVER thought that was a man?
Honestly this is so utterly boring. Who the hell cares? "Sarah" is supposed to be a novel (Amazon even lists it as Sarah: A Novel) , so why does anyone give a shit about the personal life of the writer? News flash George Sand was a WOMAN!
And truly. If you ever met that person in the photo and thought it was a male (even one transitioning to female) you are utterly blind. In every photo I've seen both on Salon and in the SF Chronicle, "JT Leroy" presents as female.
The lesson here is that people are gullible, even smart people and will believe what they want to believe. I've never read any of the work, but why not judge it on its merits and not on the gender of the writer or supposed writer?
-
How about the exploitation of West Virginia?
I'm from West Virginia. What gripes me about all this is that the hoax works on the assumption that people believe that West Virginia really is the way it is portrayed in JT Leroy's books. How insulting. Just one intelligent question about the state of West Virginia by someone who knows the state would have exposed these jerks. Child prostitution rings at truck stops? We do have a state police, child protective services, and 1.8 million people who would have put a stop to that before it got started. Don't we West Virginians have enough to deal with, without this crap? And by the way, there are actually real writers here, writing about real people.
-
Waldman is not evil
I think a lot of the vitriol towards Waldman is by frustrated, unsuccessful writers who browse Salon, and There are probably many of those types frequenting this site and the letters column. I myself am not one. But, if I were, I think I would be very annoyed that her husband's fame seemed to play a part in her getting a column where she sometimes, or maybe all of the time, writes frivolous, self-congratulatory pieces. There are people out there who could use the space better, but that's true about virtually anything. I like reading her columns. They are sometimes provocative and thoughtful, light reading. She's intelligent (I think she's a Harvard professor/lawyer), warm, interesting, maternal, and somewhat self-aware and analytical and all that. So what if she has high self-esteem? So what if she's rich? So what if she has a lot of typical, ridiculous liberal views? Most people who have a big venue to write in are rich. That's just the way it is. Life is unfair, and she's not that bad!
-
Life is unfair, and she's not that bad!
Well, Steph....in the real world of publishing...being not that bad just isn't good enough to a check cut for you for delivering absolute crap.
-
And the point of all of this is...?
Unlike some others who have responded on this, I am paying for this drivel (a decision I'll have to rethink, since I agree with a previous writer that Salon's quality is in decline as of late). And drivel is precisely what it is. Has there ever been a more self-involved yet utterly meaningless story written? It could have been summed up--much less painfully--as follows:
I am a dupe.
I know that I am a dupe.
I don't care that I am a dupe.
It's no big deal that I've been duped, since others have been as well.
Because I think it's no big deal to have been duped, it should not be a big deal to anyone else that they've been duped as well.
My husband is clearly much smarter than I am.
That this pointless blather was even considered a story is puzzling; that it was the TOP STORY is utterly ridiculous.
-
re: nanerich
you're right, it's just that i've increasingly resigned myself to reading the crap that's published and promoted in this unfair world. i particularly felt hot under the collar after reading the complete crap that is benjamin kunkel's indecision, which only got published because of his connections, and i guess connections can get you the front page of the new york times book review when you are only 28ish and write derivative unoriginal crap. and then you get rich, as an untalented, unoriginal 28ish dumbass. it just gets tiring raging against the machine sometimes.