Letters to the Editor
-
Camille Paglia is back
I love her great modesty, her deep intellectual analysis, her complete lack of name dropping and her great mastery of the English language.
GDane
-
What's it all about?
It's all about Camille. It's always been all about Camille. I'll probably resubscribe in spite of the rate increase, but I sure as hell wouldn't unsubscribe on the basis of the (re)addition of this silly woman. I just won't read her.
-
Pure amusement
It's always a hoot to see the usual stampeding herd of independent thinkers collectively wet themselves. The lumpenleft's detestation of Camille Paglia is an illuminating example of a very old situation: the heretic always catches more hell than the infidel.
-
a mood swing is not an article
salon announces her return with an exclamation mark. do the editors really expect us to share their excitement? if it wasn't for Blumenthal i'd never visit this sad site.
-
Not canceling my subscription, but disappointed...
(I know -- complaining without canceling is somewhat the 'non-binding resolution' of complaints, but I still think there is enough of worth here.)
That said, I'm disappointed in you, editors at Salon.
If you wanted a "different viewpoint" why not bring in someone like, say, Slacktivist (if he'd be willing) -- a liberal, but very devout, Evangelical Christian with fascinating things to say.
If you wanted a rabble-rouser, I'm sure trawling the waters of Daily Kos would bring up plenty of names who'd love the platform.
If you wanted a critic, how about Jeff Chang? Or one of the Poplicks set?
Part of what's disturbing is the "going-backwards" mindset, I'll admit. When a publication starts trying to hark back to its "glory days", it's in trouble.
(Not to mention -- I would hope that if she's going to be writing once a month, she writes with a bit more thought and preparation than apparently went into her Big Return -- a few pages of "what happened last week". If you're writing monthly, timeliness is less important than depth. And please, tell me you're not paying her Big Monthly Column Wages for three pages of "stuff on the front of my mind right now."
Beyond that, though, you've gone and gotten a rhetorician, and an often-shoddy one, rather than someone who can contribute to sparking discussion of anything *other* than herself. (I mean, at least the Cary Tennis threads, to cite another letter, tend to involve some discussion of what was said, and not merely the person who said it.)
I mean, the woman who can (to pick but one minor example) claim that one rock song is "demonstrably superior" to another (yet makes no effort to do so) is not out to enlighten, but to inflame.
It's a shame, Salon.
-
Farnsworth,
shouldn't you be at FoxNews.com?
Typical of the ignorant ones around here, you suggest I should work for Fox because I defend Paglia in a manner that echoes your own attacks. And, having read all the letters here, you give me this whopping response:
Glad to see you are so open-minded and non-judgemental. No wonder you are a big Paglia fan.
As one can easily see, you have no problem with the highly judgemental posts against her, and their complete disinterest in a dialogue about her merits. They simply want her gone and, like a conservative joining consumer boycotts against a racy, daring show, threaten they will cancel their memberships over this.
I think they should go, and as soon as possible, because they adequately demonstrate they don't support the free-thinking, original perpective Salon has always championed and is embodied in Paglia.
The furor against her isn't worth a reasoned debate, because it isn't reasonable. Nor is yours, but what the hell, I've got a couple of minutes to kill. There's no calm analysis in the attacks on her, it's foaming at the mouth, alarmist rants. Um...kinda like Fox News. No quiet response. It's bludgeoning and simplistic. Why should I try to appeal to that by pointing out her many virtues? Been there, done that many, many times in the past.
These letter writers, yes, yourself included, are presenting a closed-minded, arrogant position. So I figure I'd give the same in return. Of course you didn't bother to criticize them or yourself in the same context you criticize me. No, that would involve open-mindedness and introspection, and a willingness to look look at the faults of those on your side. Something Paglia always does, and one of the things that makes her such a clear, savvy thinker. She doesn't follow a party line, she cares too much to ignore what can be a detriment to liberal thinking. You missed it. It seems you miss everything. When you leave because you can not tolerate an original perspective, you yourself will not be missed.
-
And I care because...?
Who? And more importantly, how does this story take precedence over anything else happening in the world today? Americans are swarming Shiite neighborhoods in northern Baghdad, a major snowstorm is pummeling the eastern half of our country, bombs are killing civilians on buses in Iran (a country Bush continues to bully), and oh, Camille Somebodyoranother is coming back? One of those headlines does not belong. Indeed, all of those headlines are from the New York Times, except the least pertinent one, that is. Time to switch the situs of my homepage, and thank you for helping me decide whether to renew my premium subscription or not!
-
Edwards in a debate
It was said in the article "But Edwards is a ferocious, knife-sharp debater with foxy, seat-of-the-pants smarts, and I hope he creams his opponents."
He was chewed up and spit out by Cheney. It was sad. Edwards seemed intimidated and insignificant. Remember when Cheney said "I have never even met you." Which turned out to not be true. Edwards just sat there. It got worse too.
-
Hey, Chris?
Haven't you bought your subscription yet? If you love Paglia so much, then I think it's time to get off your freeloader behind and buya subscription. Otherwise, STFU.
-
Oh for crying in a bucket
I was worried about Salon's intellectual future yesterday when a freeper (or freeper look-alike) named Bill blogged on and started a chat revolution on a brief piece in the War Room about Bush's fluffy schedule not having room for Iraq. It blew away all the wonderful character of Salon's many sassy, smart-ass, insightful, intelligent readers who write their take on a piece from interesting and uniquely smart perspectives. Most are generally close to a stand-alone piece. Until yesterday, it was my main source of political and social commentary.
And now this. Camille Paglia is more than a has-been. She is pretty much a never-was. A public shell of a public persona. Maybe it was her pioneering lesbianism (or bi-proclivities) that intriqued, and made gave her a maverick imprint. I don't know. But her positions have been offensive on every front to truly thinking people. She completely lost me when she implied that there was no such thing as date rape. To women like Paglia, I guess it follows that anyone who is able to actually want or get a date is "asking for it".
In addition to being a self-proclaimed Queen/Princess/Empress of commentary...thank you for validating her gross misperception...she is a mean and petty person...not to mention a little over the top.
Years ago, my son (an very early and enormous fan who admired her long before everyone else knew who she was) wrote her a letter and mailed it to her home expressing the hope that when he was home from college he might have the opportunity to actually meet her. He's not a stalker, he knew her address because we are/were neighbors living a couple of houses away. She personally called his dorm room, got his roommate and unloaded. Who did he think he was? Did he realize who she was? How important she is?
Apparently not. Imagine the nerve of a lowly college student (and neighbor) thinking he was important enough to contact the likes of her. I raised him to believe he could approach ANYONE on an equal footing. Intellectually or otherwise. I won't even mention the time she came out with a hose and doused her neighbor's small pile of yard-cleanup burning twigs.
One word, professionally and personally. Bitch.