Mr. Kamiya,

Your article demonstrates to me once again the short-sighted nature of the journalism that Salon has been practising over the past several years. The fact that your editor views increased letter writing as a good sign is baffling. Taking the time to write a letter is a much more likely outcome when someone has written something to pique annoyance or anger in the reader. Taking the time to come back to a website over the long-term is a habit much more likely found in those readers who have been interested and fulfilled by the writing they have found.

Contrary to popular editorial belief, people do not generally like to read things that annoy them. Case in point: The Toronto Star, which has featured a supercilious and shrill columnist (Rosie DiManno) who rants indignantly on subjects she can have very little familiarity with (the hajib, for instance). Their supposed reason for featuring her prominently is that she generates a lot of mail, but the editors have confused "getting a large quantity of mail" for "generating well thought out controversy." The whole paper has subsequently descended into ridiculousness, with her ill thought out positions indelibly associated with the paper as a whole: I can barely bring myself to read my hometown broadsheet, and so avoid it when I can, contributing to the overall declining readership. (Oh, and many of my favourite columnists are women and it was low to suggest that any criticism of female writers has a misogynist undertone -- in fact, these days I agree Salon could use more of its prior edgy sexy feminist undertones.)

Paradoxically, Salon has lost a lot of class since it removed its "Sex" section several years ago. This is an admittedly strange but concrete marker for the point at which Salon began to lose its overall unique feel. Whereas I used to be able to visit the site daily to find an interesting, well-researched feature bringing a new topic to the table for debate in the internet sphere, these days I am lucky to find an interesting or fresh topic if I visit once per week. It seems as if every article on Salon these days has been recycled from other discussions on the net. It is a bad sign when the most consistently readable regular column is on the sole topic of air travel.

To read Salon today is to read the same thing every week: predictable recycled news analysis, a movie critic whos movie preferences can be consistently and safely avoided as complete bores, an advice columnist dealing with issues that never seem to change from one article to the next, a supposedly excellent sports column on a subject I couldn't care less about, and the superficial gossip from Hollywood that can be obtained in any tabloid. I can hear the response: well if you don't like what you read here, go elsewhere. The reply: I almost already have but either hope or denial leaves me lingering here in the letters section. Please give me reason to believe it is hope.

Remember creative writing class? I would guess that almost all of your writers suffered through daunting, personal, attacks on their writing to their faces, and for the most part, took the relevant criticism and hopefully improved. I don't know if I can post this link, but it may bring back not-so-fond memories:

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2006/5/9wayne.html

Also wanted to note quote by Laura Miller, made me laugh: "Blogs, often written by idiots, are bad-mouthing you", said apparently without irony.

Well written and interesting article, but the author apparent position is that "we" need to find a happy middle ground. GK seems to be implying that the medium should be shaped, or some other compromise or choice made, to support the authors' comforts. Authors can choose what type of communication they want to engage in, and publish in those forums or mediums that make them comfortable. There is no reason to change or alter any particular medium, to make it more or less comfortable for any particular type of author. Let the authors seek their medium of comfort, and allow readers the options and varieties of interaction, so they can choose as well. If an author does not like a full feedback medium, the solution which gives the most freedom to everyone, is for the author not to publish in a full feedback medium.

What subtly harmful effects arise from readers wanting authors to do a better job?

And is there independent confirmation that readers (and "bloggers") who hate your writing are idiots?

there is a kind of unfairness. On the other hand the only way lots of things can get said is anonymously. Some of it shouldn't be said but a lot that SHOULD be said can't be if the whole world knows who said it.

I had the perhaps unique experience of working for a newspaper tht published every letter to the editor it received, or just about. During elections, we got about 200 a week, both e-mail and snail mail, and guess who got to type/edit them all?

The newspaper in question has a devoted core of conservatives who have no qualms about insulting the other letter writers, and who write virtually every week, but who will probably not start participating in the newly designed online forums. This is just a guess at this point, and an ageist one, so who knows?

They have their pet subjects, mostly the evils of homosexuality and the bias of the liberal media and write over and over saying the same things. On the myriad of other topics, they are silent. My colleagues and I have written on subjects that are timely and on which we feel passionate about and gotten virtually no feedback. I would give a great deal to be published in Salon and have over 100 responses on my story, even if I did get my feelings hurt occasionally.

Silence after you have dared say something dear to your heart can drive you crazy. Trust me.

I'm glad to see this topic discuseed. I have all but given up on reading the letters on Salon, but not because of the bile directed at an article's author; what I can't stand are the letters directed at other letter writers. Usually a discussion about a story devolves into an argument between so-called critics. And more often than not, the argument consists in the kind of aggressive and insulting language one would never resort to if actually faced with the person he or she is speaking with.

Which brings us to the unfortunate by-product of the computer age: communication without consequence. When I read some of these exchanges I can't help but imagine what would happen if the parties involves were talking to one another on the telephone. They'd probably wait for each other to finish speaking. They might even make each other laugh. Or, god forbid, they might get of on a tangent about something they have in common, then apologize for being so aggro and reach for a compromise. But in the bubble of the keyboard menatality we yearn for no such truce; we kick and scream and vent and push "send". So much for progress.

Jason Moss

Eugene, OR