Letters to the Editor
-
Decent Human Being
I may not always agree with Anne Lamott's political views but I've always liked and respected her, and enjoy reading her stuff. Besides getting older, and who isn't, she's also getting better.
-
Wendy
I have said very little about Anne's actual abilities as a writer, but your fan-letter has prompted me into action.
I'd say that Anne is a reasonable writer, crippled by lack of subject, because her only subject is herself. In every essay she metaphorically holds a mirror up to her face and describes what she sees, and in somewhat narcissistic detail. Everything she's written describes, in so many words, why her moral judgment is superior to others. Even when she suffers- she lets us know that her suffering is worth more than others.
It's not astounding that a 52 year old would develop a few wrinkles. However, very few people find their own bodies fascinating enough to share the process of aging with the world.
Lamott has adopted a fuzzy Oprah-like liberal Christianity, which appears to further elevate her own self-empowerment above all else. All of this talk about receiving grace- literally, good favor from God. Another sign of the narcissist. Why would a God give a damn about Ms. Lamott? He doesn't exist- but if he did, wouldn't he be concerned with slightly more important topics in the world?
Likewise, the only way she can write about politics is in terms of how it affects her emotional state. She may have been devastated that Bush got re-elected, but why should anyone care unless she has some new insight into party-politics?
Again, her reaction to Hillary is in terms of how it affects her, or conflicts with her own moral opinions. I don't see why it's remotely important whether Lamott likes Hillary or not. It could have been important if Lamott had given any analysis of whether Hillary would make a good President. Lamott's only thoughts are that Hillary is in conflict with Lamott's own (pretty weird) views on abortion.
It's fine to have an opinion- but you shouldn't pretend that your opinion is worth anything more than anyone else's unless you have thought carefully about an issue. I believe that Lamott is passionate about abortion rights- but I don't know why I should listen to her opinions as opposed to any number of other people.
(The same criticism could be applied to my posts. However, if I were to make a profession out of writing books on slapping, or whatever, I would think it my duty to do a whole lot more research of the relevant literature. Opinions are fine, but don't expect them to be a replacement for hard-won experience and research.)
Finally, Lamott's recollections of Molly are done in her typical narcissistic style. She wants to let us know how friendly they were to each-other, and how much they did things together. It's a little convenient that Molly was by far the more famous of the two- so a cynic might read an ulterior motive for playing up their closeness now that Molly's gone.
All in all, I'd say that Lamott's writings could make for a good Blog, but they are of practically no interest to anyone who's interested in the world- and not just the cult of Anne Lamott.
-
Wow! I'm with Wendy...
Could it be that the Christian/Limbaugh right is feeling jealous and powerless these days, so they are reading Salon.com and bringing their hatred to the reader pages here?? Whatever one may think of Anne Lamott's writing, to argue that her experience doesn't qualify as hard won or that her Christianity is "faux" is pretty darn hateful.
-
Christianjb,
I agree with you that she should have apologized to her son.
-
christianjb
Every writer has the right to choose their subject matter, because, thank goodness, this is still a free country. I find it ironic that you would spend so much time evaluating and expostulating about something you don't like when there are so many other choices out there for you to make besides composing attempts at convincing speeches to make Anne Lamott look bad. The only person this is making look bad is you...the person with the agenda. Leave the negativity and judgement behind, please, and go off to find what you DO like instead of spending so much time harping about what you don't like. I'm sure there are some wonderful non-fictional accounts of wars with nary a personal reference in them for you. We all really do get to choose what we like and what we don't here in America - perhaps you missed that part. Oh, and thanks for the high-handed, arrogant judgement of Anne's choice of subject matter in her books.
I am left with just one question...how many books have you sold lately? Perhaps you "should" only be qualified to write hateful critiques of on-line articles instead of "pretending" that you really are someone who knows something. Why should anyone listen to you? At least we know Anne is really Anne - like her or not. You could be...anyone...anywhere. My bet is Karl Rove. He's understandably uncomfortable with introspection,too.
-
wow
I didn't know until reading this that Anne no longer writes for Salon. How unfortunate. Inbetween reading her books, I'd be excited about catching a new column here.
I really loved Grace (Eventually) as much as I loved her other books. When she comes to Portland on April 3, I have the honor of doing her introduction. Her writings have always meant a lot to me...and while I can definitely acknowledge that different people like and are moved by different things, I was saddened by the vicious attacks readers have left in response to her articles. I hope she finds another internet home soon so that we can still hear updates from her...
-
Wendy (and others)
You're not the only offender- but your frankly weird criticism of my post is worth commenting on.
The fact that you disagree with my opinions does not mean that I am right-wing, a supporter of war, or a fan of Rush Limbaugh.
If you want to disagree with me, then do so. Give some coherent explanation as to why you think I'm wrong. Name-calling doesn't get you anywhere.
And- no-one should be convinced by any of my opinions. They are only opinions, which may be right or wrong. However, I do give reasons to support my opinions and I hope that anyone disagreeing with me can give counter arguments as to why I'm wrong.
You, on the other hand have only provided a fan letter and then proceeded to label anyone who disagreed with you as right-wing freaks. Frankly, that contributes nothing to the discussion. Your gushing post didn't really explain why you think Lamott is worth reading, except that you personally like her.
Surprisingly, I do agree with you on one thing. It's generally a waste of time for people who don't like a writer to spend much time on reading something they know they won't like. I accept that many people do like Lamott's style, though it's not personally to my taste.
I wish Ms. Lamott all the best with her writing career. It seems that she does have a market- and good for her!
I only comment when she writes something on Salon, which is an internet site that I regularly read and which I once had high hopes for. Lamott (and to a lesser extent, Walsh) seem emblematic of a lazy narcissistic writing style that has taken over Salon in the last few years. As others have commented, we expect this stuff in blogs, but not in Salon.
I'm sure that Ms. Lamott will read all of these posts, and will probably feel hurt by a great many of them, including mine. I think she should take some consolation in the fact that a) she generates so much interest (good and bad) and b) people take her work seriously enough to criticize it. If she were merely an incompetent writer then I doubt that anyone would bother saying anything.