Letters to the Editor
-
Margalis Is Cracking me up
You are saying everything I am thinking. It seems like lots of us are scratching our heads at this decision of Salon's and I thank you for taking the time to make reasoned arguments about why this woman is an idiotic gas bag. You get a red star in my book.
-
Salon: DUMP PAGLIA AND HIRE MARGALIS
Of course, it'll never happen because Margalis is sharp, logical, thorough, funny, and not insane.
-
Camilla Pagila that's what I say
Thought I throw some more wood on the fire.
This isn't the first stupid move Salon has made. They tried to hire, or maybe they did hire and fire Greg Palast, who is a total waste. They both make the average person want to stick a plastic bag over their own head and suffocate.
If she sucked then, what makes you thing that she wouldn't suck now?
Maybe you SHOULD bring back Greg Palast. Then you can rename the site to Crack Den or maybe Whore House. Yes, that sounds nice.
-
Camille Made Me a Member!
After years of using the site pass every day to read Salon, the return of Camille finally convinced me to become a Premium Member. Her strong, distinctive voice, impeccable style, and her astonishing scholarship, make me devour everything she writes, whether I agree with her perspective or not.
-
CP for your Bunghole
I used to read CP back in the day, and I thought she was pretty good. But I was also much less informed in that period, and the large amount of high quality on-line writing that exists today (i.e. blogs) was totally absent then. So, now Salon brings her back, but time has moved on while CP really hasn't. Thus her "analysis", stripped of self-referential puffery, is not particularly good, and I don't intend to read it in the future. There's no need to get emotional about this, though. Salon after all is a business, not your all volunteer newsletter. If she brings in more money via more page hits or more subs than Salon loses from cancelled subs or less page views, then in a business context she is a useful addition to Salon. I want Salon to continue, because it does (although less frequently than in the past) provide original invesitgative journalism, which is a rare commodity these days. To me the addition of Glenn Greenwald, imho a brilliant writer and analysit, nullifies whatever pseudo-insight CP may bring, so in the end we're even (or maybe slighlty ahead). Those who are supremely angry would be better served supporting local Dem candidates to replace R's, that's the only thing that has a chance to make a difference in the long run. CP is irrelevant.
-
The Readers Have Spoken
I hope I'm not inadvertently casting a vote for Camille Paglia's new tenure at Salon by submitting this letter. (I often get the sense that the pieces which generate the most controversy are considered good for the magazine because they stir interest and generate wider talk about Salon.) This is hardly a controversy. As of a few minutes ago, you had 440 readers responding, and the vast majority of them were appalled by this editorial choice. (And for every reader who took the trouble to write, I'm sure there were many others who felt the same way.) It was not Paglia's political or intellectual positions they were objecting to--it was the overwhelming narcissism of her so-called style. Name dropping, horn-tooting, utterly irrelevant observations about her personal photo collections, promos for her other scribblings, bizarre musings about her deep mourning for an utterly fluffy celebrity... It should be clear from the massive response that this is not the sort of quality writing that draws most readers to Salon.
Camille Paglia is not contributing substance to Salon, nor provoking serious thought; she's providing spectacle. Yes, that might generate new readership, but so would putting pictures of naked girls on page 3, or posting videos of the latest melee on the Jerry Springer show. It's one thing to boost traffic by spreading celebrity gossip in The Fix, but at least that's clearly labeled as such, and easy to avoid. By spreading this kind of showy, vapid content to the other parts of the magazine, Salon risks losing integrity and respect. Maybe the readership will bump up a little, but is it worth it? As the recent O.J./Judith Regan flap showed, even Rupert Murdoch occasionally acknowledges a mistake...
-
Salon's Cunning Stunt
Camille was and is a bad actress. Give this hooker the hook.
-
$.02
I throw in my lot with Margalis. I'd rather read him/her than Paglia. Actually, I've sometimes wondered if Salon shouldn't think about hiring one of its consistently thoughtful, clear-headed letter-writers. As least we wouldn't have to fear the constant self-hype....
-
It's not just Paglia
I can only speak of my own concerns here but for me the issue is not only Salon's rehiring of Paglia. Certainly I can't deny that I think Paglia is a self promoting hack with little of significance to say but I can also say that the personality of Salon is heading down a similar path. I probably will not be renewing my paid subscription when my current one ends because I see salon turning into another CNN.com with a heavy emphasis on fluff and entertainment. Much (or most) of what I now see on Salon.com I can get at any number of online sources, there's little left that is unique enough to keep me paying. So, in essence, Paglia alone has not convinced me to reconsider my paid subscription but, rather, she was just another in a growing string of events and actions that are the decline of Salon.com.
-
Oh, brother..
Anyone who describes him/herself as having "burst on the scene," as a writer has been drinking his/her own Kool-Aid for too long. We've been spared Anne Lamott's self-love for some time now; must we launch into a Camille Paglia self-love-fest?
-
Welcome Back Camille!
Camille's columns were a major reason I subscribed to Salon and I have sorely missed them. I was about to let my subscription go. Salon is not provacative or cutting edege anymore and now this! Maybe there's hope for Salon after all!
-
Eric K, you don't know what you're talking about (OT)
With all respect, you don't know what will happen if we pull out of Iraq, nor does anyone else. There is every bit as much reason to believe (and I mean "believe" because it is an article of faith and nothing more) that as soon as we're gone the various factions will look at one another through the smoke and rubble and say, "We'd better knock it off before we completely annihilate each other." Or that Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia et al. will exert their authority and put a stop to the fighting. I'm not saying this or that's going to happen, but either scenario is just as likely as the one you describe.
Anyone who claims to know the outcome of a U.S. withdrawal, please lend me your crystal ball so I can take it to the race track!
As for Dr. P, I agree with another poster than Salon ink would be better spent on a thoughtful, articulate, intellectual conservative point of view, expressed here in the spirit of cordial debate.