Letters to the Editor
-
a small voice for ageing women
This doesn't regard such earth-shattering issues as OT vs NT or whether there is a god/goddess. I am a small person who is sometimes moved to state the obvious.
A manicure is a harmless self-indulgence at any age, and I don't see how anyone could begrudge the hardworking, mostly immigrant manicurists the pittance they charge. But as a woman of 68 (15 years older than Anne Lamott) I have to say that I can no longer see well enough to do my own nails. I don't have them polished, but every three weeks or so I must have someone remove the ragged and hard cuticles that I can feel but not see, and have my nails shaped as well.
Getting old presents problems other than vanity (although I too dislike my neck). Bilateral knee replacements have enabled me to continue to walk (if not hop, skip, and run up or down stairs) but require me to be subjected to indignities every time I travel by air. Necessary medication after breast cancer treatment means I deal with hot flashes or longer periods of feeling overheated and visibly sweating for the rest of my life. I yearn for the energy and memory I once had, and am glad I retired early rather than late from the demands of public high school teaching.
But consider the alternative. Like Alice, I could have left off at seven, or sixty-seven.
-
Being nice or nasty
I'd had no idea until recently that there were so many people who despise (or at least seem to) Anne Lamott. I'd also wondered why she didn't have any articles on Salon anymore, but didn't take time to find out why, and apparently I completely missed the really controversial essay about slapping her son. Nonetheless, what I have read by her I've actually enjoyed. It struck me as being quite honest and a serious attempt at getting to the truth, and to me, getting at it the best way she knows how. I think that's an important thing to do for everyone, and I like to read how other people work at it, even if it's completely different than anything I'd do (for instance, I couldn't care less about being a Christian, since I ended my interest in being one many years ago)--so long as it's an honest attempt.
That's where she seems so different from Camille Paglia, who reminds me of so many of the so-called conservatives of the day, CP doesn't seem very honest or insightful, or even to really care about what the truth is, she seems only to care about being shocking. Shock-value as a primary value get tedious very quickly, since one usually doesn't learn much of value that way. In other words, it's usually a waste of time. Anyway, the viciousness of attack on Miss Lamott made me question whether my own sharp comments about Camille Paglia were as appropriate as I'd originally thought. After all, I'd thought I'd sure hate to have someone write about me what I wrote about her. But then, I don't do things that Camille Paglia does to get in that situation.
So, while I have no problem with serious invective being used against Camille Paglia because she is a waste of valuable public space, I do think it's inappropriate to be so vicious towards Anne Lamott (admittedly, I might feel differently if I'd read that one article mentioned above, but even with that, I've read enough of her other articles that I'd probably mitigate that one as an outlier). Ms. Lamott seems to be laying her heart out in a very vulnerable way to get at the truth--I think when someone does that they don't deserve to be treated cruelly. Paglia is just mouthing off for the publicity, and so doesn't deserve the same consideration.
--Ron Robertson
-
great piece
Anne, it's great to see you're back. I can't wait to read your new book. (Bush bashing doesn't turn me off in the slightest.)
By the way, for the letter writers who are still criticizing her for writing about her problems with her son, the article says they got help and they're doing better. No one's perfect. She's moved on, why don't you?
-
Christianjib...
Not near as funny as your Jesus-on-a-stick reference.
(Uh, "reptile" would have saved a lot of words and been perfectly PC by the way). Hisssss!
-
A vicious letter-writer responds
So far, half the letters are complaining about the viciousness of people (like me) who are seen to be attacking Lamott.
I thought I'd respond to that.
1) This is the internet. There's going to be some rough and tumble. That doesn't excuse bad behavior, but it is generally understood that columnists are going to come in for stiff criticism on occasion.
2) Ms. Lamott is an adult, who knows what she's doing. She chose to be an online columnist who writes about personal matters. (It's not clear whether her son also gave consent- I would very much like Ms. Walsh to tell us. Even if he did- it's arguable whether a teenager can meaningfully give consent in the same way as an adult professional writer.)
3) Ms. Lamott uses the internet and her books to give us her religious views on just about every subject. That's fine- but religion like politics is always fair game for debate. Especially once you start proclaiming your beliefs to others in a public forum.
4) The debate over 'the slap' column may have been cruel in places, but it did bring up the important topic of using physical violence (even in moderation) against children. I for one felt that a lot of good was done by the process of having that conversation. Even if Ms. Lamott felt hurt- she should recognize that the issues she raised were discussed in a meaningful way.
5) The editor of Salon screwed up big-time with this oh-so-cosy interview between two best-friends-forever. Ms. Walsh did the right thing by acknowledging their history- but I think the readers have every right to ridicule the fawning tone of the interview.
6) There's an enormous inbuilt bias in all of us to regard criticism of someone you like as vicious, whereas criticism of someone you don't like is more often regarded as warranted. (Thus, you very rarely here people on the left complaining that a jibe at Bush is over the mark or too strong.) I don't know how to overcome this bias- but I think we should recognize it.