- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"And I wish those who keep reminding us how much they dislike Salon would just go. Really. Just go. Keep your snark to yourself. We won't miss you. Go on, now. Shoo."
Dea, didn't you have this to say about Camille Paglia?
"Come on, Salon
[Read the article: Dancing as fast as she can]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]
Do we really need Paglia? She's neither funny nor insightful, and she can't write worth a damn.
And who buys her books anyway? After doing a grad school research project on Paglia's particular brand of "feminism" and reading a great deal of her work, I can't stay far enough away from her. I thought I'd give her another try with this article, but it's more of the same unreadable crap.
I'm disappointed to see the return of Paglia's unbridled venom, (unwarranted) intellectual arrogance, and self-referentiality to these pages. I won't bother to read any more of it."
I happen to agree with both your defense of the food slut (although I would have put it more mildly) and your vehement dismissal of Paglia. But you're still being hypocritical. You could argue that you were critiquing the author, not the site, but so could a lot of posters in this forum. Why shouldn't we get to complain about Salon? Sometimes it really, really sucks, like when it re-recruits Paglia, or to some people, when it pumps out (as others have said) self-referential, arguably whiney articles about the perils of journalism. We're all free to be here, and we're all free to find fault with Salon's material, so stop with that irritating "shoo" bit.
