Letters to the Editor
-
No, you're missing the point
"Her assessment of the presidential candidates was beyond obvious. Why bother telling us what we all already know: Clinton too scripted, Obama not experienced, Giuliani not conservative enough, etc. etc. We've heard all this so many times before."
You don't get it. Here, let me 'splain it for you:
What's important about Clinton isn't that she's too scripted, but that Camille Paglia has met her.
What's important about Anna Nicole Smith is where Paglia was when she heard Smith was dead, and how she got to tell all the folks in the chicken shack about it.
What's important about Michel Foucault is that Paglia once taught a seminar on him.
What's important about God is that Paglia doesn't believe he exists, but thinks we ought to read his books anyway.
What's important about you is your opinion of Paglia, and what's important about the internet is that Paglia has decoded it's crisp, incisive signifiers.
Does that help?
-
I could go another six more years without Camile.
Sophomoric, tedious, and trivial.
-
Her Best Feature
Camille's back is always her best feature because it means she's going away. Whatta shrew.
-
What About Her Back?
Why the headline about her back? Her front isn't anything special.
-
Oh, joy! Oh, rapture! Camille is here to save us!
How wonderful that she's taking time out of her busy schedule of...whatever it is she does...to rescue us from "the partisan polarization of the blogosphere..and its prose too often slapdash, fragmentary or drearily prolix."
Personally, I'd like her to take the rest of her life off and go back to celebrating rapists as expressors of beautifully vital male sexuality, or whatever her asinine formulation was. Why does Salon--why does anyone--pay attention to this self-important fool?
-
Wonderful
I wish I hadn't already cancelled my subscription so that I could cancel it over this.
-
Camille's Opinion is just that...not FACT!
I'm glad Camille is Baaaack, but I take issue with her glossy and brittle need to be the last word on everything...She describes Hillary has being in a 'secret service bubble' during her NYS Senate run Listening Tour.
Fact: In Ithaca, NY, rather than a bubble, Hillary chose to stay the night in a local home, and I attended an event that took place in the living room, where she had meaningful conversations with almost everyone in attendance. It was not the typical meet and greet. I was impressed with Hillary's focus, her questions, the fact that she was truly listening to what we had to say. Sure, she had secret service protection, but she never let it get in the way of connecting with the community in a meaningful way. I am certain that this took place across the state and was one of the reasons voters pulled the lever for her.
Camille, it's trendy to bash Hillary, and I am certainly not in agreement with all of her policies, but quit calling your opinions facts!!
-
Paglia's Assumptions
I come away from this article most troubled not by Paglia's opinions, ego, or writing style (all sharply and ably criticized by other readers).
Paglia drapes her opinions, such as they are, in the mantle of scholarship--an enterprise based on research and responsible insight. So when she links to her recent work on religion in culture, I am disturbed by her cavalier approach to the subject.
Paglia intimates that her suggestion for an education in religious studies at the university level is daring, when many public and private institutions require study in world religions. In the article she links to, Paglia makes errors too numerous to count--arguing that American evangelicalism was resurgent during the 1960s and interrogating the "cults" of the same era. Many scholars of religion have abandoned the terminology of "cults" altogether, and the pioneering work of others uncovers the persistent strength of the evangelical movement throughout the century, even after the Scopes trial defeat.
Using her position as scholar to legitimate her unfounded opinions about cultural phenomena suggests that scholarship is a simple exercise in cobbling together widely-held assumptions on a variety of charming subjects. Paglia's errors and oversights are far more serious than her ability to incense and provoke--her work in Salon and elsewhere attempts, irresponsibly, to mimic research and insight with a string of idle assumptions.
-
A modest proposal
When I donate money to my alma mater, I can hand it over for general use, for academic scholarships, for a given school, etc.
Perhaps we could be allowed to do something similar with our Salon subscriptions - I'd like my money to support King Kaufman, War Room, and a few others.
Let the subscriber market decide where their dollars go, and we'll get a true measure of whether anyone is really that excited by Paglia's return.
Perhaps if almost no-one wants to pay for her, you can have her column have a specific sponsor... the RNC's DINO fund, for instance.
-
Ohhh She's BAAACK
How 1999 of Salon. Soooo cutting edge!
mention drudge.... check
rush...... check
academe... check
some babe. check
"Cultural high priestess"
naw. It's your gramdma's Salon.
-
Very Exciting!
I have been a CP fan for years! She has the courage to say things other writers don't! I just subscribed and was bummed that CP wasn't writing for Salon. Now I couldn't be more thrilled! Way to go Salon!
-
Lamott vs. Paglia
Someone suggested that those of us who dislike Paglia's "work" probably also dislike Annie Lamott. The only reasons I can even imagine anyone putting the two in the same category are that they are both women and both write a lot about themselves. But that's where the comparison ends. Anne Lamott writes essays about her search for truth and goodness and God. She writes of the fundamental questions, and about uncertainty and her confusion. She's the precise opposite of a know-it-all. The certainty with which Paglia wrote about the Columbia disaster being an omen makes her the most peculiar atheist I've ever heard of. Call her whatever you will, Paglia is NOT a seeker. She is the one and only person in the world who has all the answers. At least according to her.
-
Dear Laurel Guy
If you are happy about Paglia being back in the pages of Salon, then I suggest you buy a subscription. Someone is going to have to pay Paglia, and it is no longer me. Salon needs money, in case you haven't heard, and won't be around all that much longer unless all the free riders like you step up to the plate and subscibe.
I did my time as an original subscriber, now it's your turn. If you really think Paglia in Salon is a good idea, you can make sure they are both still here by putting your money where your mouth is. Pay up, or Shut The F Up.