Letters to the Editor
-
Um...Chris?
You're either marvelously dry-witted or incredibly high.
On page 6 (or, 6 pages deeper than wherever this post appears) Elaine's post in its entirety reads:
"It kind of bugs me that people are making the argument that just because they are critical of a writer, they shouldn't be labeled "haters" or whatever.
That's called reductionism. Acting as though we who complained think there are only two positions, gushing or demonic.
I'm one of the most critical people I know (ask my husband), and I loathe the kind of responses to this piece that imagined taking scuba lessons if Lamott were to write underwater (WTF?), but there is a world of difference b/t criticism and vitriol. Unnecessary meanness is just... unnecessary, I guess, and surely it will affect the future pool of writers as well as the makeup of the salon community, some of whom simply will not put up with the cynicism.
Mostly, I like reading all of your stuff b/c I like good writing. I know my worry about scaring off good writers comes directly from my own baggage; I once wrote something for a local paper and got reamed. I went into a clinical depression--not kidding. How immature, I know, but what can I say? Writing is so personal."
I - Emily - never said a word about finding anything reductionist.
Not that I think Elaine is WRONG per se...but I probably would have used a phrase like "false dichotomy", then been smacked in the face with a flounder by all of my non-grad-schooly buddies.
Anyhoo...you're talking to Elaine, dude.
Not me.
-
Grace under fire
Tom, who has promised not to comment any more on Lamotte [sic], writes that Anne Lamott is "grotesquely self-centered ...her position represents a radical extreme that denies any possibiity of divergence on any level." From my humble perspective that describes his rhetoric far more than hers.
He writes that he finds her to be "a self-righteous, shrill idiot who is incapable of acknowledging that there are experiences beyond hers that may have some relevence to the issue." But it is not Lamott, it is he who comes across shrilly--so convinced that he has the corner on intellectual honesty.
I agree with another reader who made the case that this forum is probably not Lamott's current best venue for publishing. But I regret that. With all respect to free speech, I wish the angry, disappointed comments were more civilly offered. With her independent spirit and intelligence, Lamott demonstrates much grace in her writing. As far as I'm concerned, her expression of ideas, struggles and reflections contribute much to the world and to me; I have always been and still am glad that Salon values her so highly.
-
Emily, Chris, Christianjb, whoever
Sorry for being rather inarticulate about my "reductionism" comment. Here's what I meant (or at least what I think I meant):
Over-the-top, vicious comments (of which there are actually only a VERY FEW here, when all is said and done; most of the subsequent comments are ABOUT those comments) were posted. Then those posters (or maybe others, on their behalf--I've lost track) responded to complaints about those posts with something like this: "What. We're not allowed to criticize? We have to agree with every schmaltzy thing that gets published here?" (Hands in the air, palms up, shoulders to ears, disingenuous victim look on face).
I say that's reductionist, because we're not saying you have to AGREE with her; we're just asking you to be more measured or respectful in your disagreement. OF COURSE you don't have to. OF COURSE you have the right to say whatever you want. OF COURSE people will have differing opinions about the quality of Lamott's writing or the value of her content. It just doesn't seem like too much to ask to do it with a little kindness, so as not to ward off all incoming writers. Sure, you can say Grow Up, You're a Writer, Get Used To It. But everyone is not so thick-skinned.
PS When I use the second person, I'm not necessarily referring to those in the subject line. I've lost track of who the "meannies" are. (LOL)
-
I Wonder If Anne Really Believes in Jesus
Or if she's just fooling herself. I think you know what I mean. I'm just wondering. Don't crucify me.
-
On the abortion thing
I don't actually think she means that she wishes there were more unwanted pregnancies just to be able to abort the babies, even though that's what she seems to say.
I suppose she means that she's sick of Hilary's pandering, and she sees H's attempt to move to middle ground here as trying to appeal to the right wing. Lamott is obviously unambiguous about reproductive rights and doesn't find it as morally complicated as some of us do. I think the comment in the interview is just sloppy thinking and writing.
-
Also on the abortion thing...
Anyone who has followed the evolution of the anti-choice movement will tell you: they're slick little fuckers.
Okay, maybe they won't phrase it that way, but...here's what I mean:
The religious right is BRRRRRILLIANT at manipulating rhetoric and appealing to emotion.
So THEY are the authors of the "we just want to reduce the number of abortions" argument, because really, who could possibly disagree with that?
Same as when they say "we want America to stop murdering babies!"
You can't argue with the content of the statement itself: if America WERE "murdering babies" then gee...I'd like them to stop too.
So they wedge people closer to outlawing abortion by turning it into one of those endless theoretical "wars" on something you can't really deny is bad - drugs, terror, whatever.
And it's this Rovean repetition of carefully phrased misinformation that garners them support among "regular" people.
So when Anne Lamott objects to Hillary Clinton's subtle adoption of right-wing rhetoric, its likely because she's followed the issue long enough to understand what Hillary's tacitly saying by throwing her hat in the "fewer abortions" ring.
The "fewer abortion" ACTIVISTS tend to support:
- Abstinence only eduction (in which government funding is supplied to teach our daughters that they should "keep their legs closed or accept the consequences.")
- Restriction of abortion unless its "really necessary" (as defined by someone OTHER than the woman in question - who is then subject to scrutiny about whether she's a victim of rape or incest, if there's gross fetal deformity on the line, possible health risks if she carries out the pregnancy, etc.)
That's fine for borderline pro-life people who DO consider the question morally ambiguous, but...
for the real liberal, hard-line pro-choicers?
Screw that.
I want a Democrat who's going to say:
"It's liberty issue. We cannot regulate women's bodies. We trust women to make their own reproductive choices. PERIOD."
I want a Democrat who's going to say:
"sure - let's have more sex education in the schools, parents & churches are free to do their thing, but it's not the government's goddamn business how many abortions people have."
If America doesn't agree with me, so be it.
Tyranny of the majority.
But personally, I'll be damned if - as a liberal woman - I'm going to throw my support behind a liberal woman who refuses to unequivocally acknowledge abortion as a women's liberty issue, and who's OK with the government basically calling average Americans sluts and baby killers.
That ain't what MY Planned Parenthood contribution is going for.
So I agree with Lamott: personally, I want a democrat who is hard line on abortion and gay marriage, no pandering, no flip-flopping, no doubts.