Letters to the Editor
-
Welcome home, Anne
It's good to have you back, Anne. Your compassion, humility, wisdom and gentle good humor are a breath of fresh air in the current toxic political environment. You are one of the people who personify what Salon has been -- and still can be -- at its best.
Good luck with your new book. I hope you sell a million copies.
Eric Meyer
-
this article was like watching an accident in slow motion
So Joan Walsh the woman who obsessively kept the Abu Gharib photos as a daily item for months on end while cowardly refusing to publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons even when they became an international issue of major import, gets manicures and worries about getting wrinkles.
A manicure is just the most vapid luxury. If Walsh were able to step outside herself for even two seconds, that is not the image to advertise to the world: I'm such a gutsy leftist, but oh no...chipped a nail. I mean doing your own hair is pretty hard, but anyone with some patience and basic manual dexterity can shape their nails suitably well.
And why co-op Bastille Day? Salon has scant respect that I can see for the values of the Enlightenment and French Revolution. I say that because if they did they would hold Muslims and other non-Western movements to the same standard of conduct and critique their faith with the same level of reason leveled against Western targets (except vaguely new-agey, leftist Christians like Lamott who are also exempt from criticism). Just compare the soft way they treat Tariq Ramadan (recently arrested in France) or an Islamic apologist like Karen Armstrong in interviews with the hard-hitting questions posed to people like Sam Harris. The later is how a true intellectual handles an interview even if you agree with the person a priori.
-
Molly
I have tears in my eyes. What a beautiful way to speak of Molly! We all miss you and your life-loving ways!
-
salon readers
I've wondered about Lamott since that article about her son and figured, given her admitted self-absorption, that she probably was desperately hurt by the vindictive responses.
I don't really understand why Salon readers have to be so mean. I'm not an idiot; in fact, I love Salon and its readers because they are so smart, but I also recognize that there is something uniquely malicious--in a cynical, intellectual way--about the letters in Salon. It's almost like the responders are all wanna-be-famous writers honing their craft. You know, perfecting their own writing as they tear apart another's.
The problem with that is that then we lose the distinction between light and serious pieces (like picking on Garrison Keillor for something sentimental or Lamott for her silly Bastille thing--as though we can't tell the difference between them and something important, like war). Or we get simplistic (Clearly Anne overreacted to her son's misbehavior--something about their car?--and abused him by both slapping him and then telling about it; but citing this very complicated, universal, angst-filled story as evidence of criminal or sociopathic or narcissistic behavior? The letters were themselves overreactions.)
To a person like Lamott, those accusations had to have hurt. Why don't we care more about that? Are we so committed to our craft--Writing As Truth! Reason Above All!--that it doesn't matter to us that we may eventually stifle the few brave voices out there? Lamott can be formulaic for those who've followed her, but she can still be fresh, and she certainly was original at some point. Today, it is less brave to criticize the Bush administration and complain about the war, because everybody's doing it; but back in the fall of 2002 there were just a few brave souls who took the brunt publicly for the rest (I'm including most elected Democrats here) who were afraid to oppose the tide. I bring this up b/c similarly Lamott has given voice to many taboos--liberal Christianity, less-than-perfect parenting, addictions, appearances--that other writers have avoided. She was an authentic voice in the wilderness at one point, and if that is old to some of us, it's only because she helped pave the way for others. Yes, it's opportunistic and egocentric to mine her life for stories to entertain us, but it also continues to be brave to put herself out there for our perusal. I worry that readers' scathing attacks will scare off good writers who are feeling vulnerable because their truths are raw or their ideas are unheard of or their own sensibilities are too fragile. To those who say Good Riddance I ask: Are we looking exclusively for thick-skinned writers? Can we learn nothing from the sensitive?
-
Christianjb,
Did the irony really not occur to you that you used an Old Testament quote to illustrate her supposed Christianity? Guess what, Christians can eat pork, too, despite whatever quote from Leviticus you toss out. Check out Jesus's teachings or parables sometime. Her insistence on dominating her child by the use of physical violence does not comport with Christian teaching.
-
A Short Poem
Joan Walsh and Anne Lamott sitting in a tree,
K I S S I N G,
first came love, then came mutual masturbation, then came WOOOOOOHEEEEEEEE!!!!!
With Anne Lamott as the subject, I predict this will eventually make it to a One on "The Finger Scale."
-
Love your work, Anne.
I'd be stunned by all the nasty letters as well. But this is one hand raised in yuur favor.
-
Anne is real
If Anne was going to read the phone book in the middle of the Golden Gate bridge during rush hour, I'd be there.
If Anne was holding the first underwater book signing, I'd take scuba lessons.
Simply put, she goes right to the bone. And that depth is just one of the things that makes me buy everything she writes.
-
More meanness from a Salon Reader.
Let's look at that opening paragraph again.
Walsh is praising herself for overcoming her normal pettiness to give a copy of Lamott's book to someone at the salon.
Not only did Walsh get the copy for free, it wasn't even her only copy.
Walsh takes time to remark to us how impressed her acquaintance was, that someone could get an advance copy of a book. The use of italics by Walsh is there to remind us just how impressed the woman was.
Walsh then assures us that her act of kindness made the woman's day.
------------------
OK, I'm sure there was some irony involved, which escaped my literal-headed critical mean-eyed reading. But, now that everything's written in irony-speak, it seems that writers can dodge all and any criticism. (Garrison Keillor's recent rubbish column being a prime example.)
To be honest- I don't normally find Walsh half as grating as Lamott. That would be difficult- Lamott's every utterance feels like nails on a blackboard. However, I really didn't like this very cosy interview. After the outrage over Lamott's last article- I expected at least some critical questions. It seems that Walsh prefers to blame Salon's readers for going after her friend.
It's great that Lamott helped get Walsh a raise and all- but as a reader I'd prefer a little more distance between the interviewer and subject.