Letters to the Editor
-
Fuck the begrudgers
In Ireland, where I went on my holidays last year, they have a saying: "fuck the begrudgers". I asked somebody what this meant and he told me that in Ireland they hate anyone who is successful, talented or has a good opinion of themselves, and so if somebody tries to put you down for one of these reasons, your friends will say to this to you to make you feel better.
This was my first time reading Camille Paglia, but I like her breezy style, and I like the lack of false modesty. Very fun and refreshing. It certainly brought a lot of begrudgers out of the woodwork, which must be because she's successful, talented and likes herself.
-
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph
So, yehudi, you're happy with her lack of false modesty, are you? But how are you feeling about her lack of real modesty? That's the question needs answering, is it not?
-
Where is the editorial judgement?
Paglia's work speaks for itself and for her. In sum, her writing and what passes for her ideas are dreary, self-referential blather. I will not be wasting my time with her dubious contributions to Salon.
My problem is with the managerial and editorial judgement on display. Paglia's last eruption onto the pages of Salon was greeted with overwhelmingly negative feedback. The vast majority of readers loathe the creature and her works, and wrote to say so.
Is that why she's being inflicted upon us again? Because she generated a huge amount of heat, if no light? Is Salon trolling the waters usually mined by the gutter press to sell papers and Fox News to boost ratings?
Or can it be that Joan Walsh thinks Camille Paglia is just a super, first-rate writer and thinker, a worthy re-addition to the Salon stable, and the readers be damned? I really must question the sobriety of anyone who could write that blurb: "cultural high priestess," "pioneering Web proto-blogger," "nobody...can escape her level gaze." Exclamation points!!!
Oh, I get it! It's all a joke, right?
-
JM Walker et al
My objection to CP's writing is primarily based upon her self-absorption, as opposed to her political beliefs (though those are often noisome as well).
Come one, Salon, couldn't you find one contrarian who didn't refer to himself/herself every other sentence? Not one?
-
atonement
So she voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.
Let's hear some serious atonement for that, and then I may pay attention to what she has to say now.
-
Whaa--
Paglia induces insanity, obviously, because she is fundamentally so confused and iditotic. Camille, meet William Donohue, head of the Catholic League.
I will not fall for the bait. This is my last letter here, as what you will say is only food for trolls.
I'm getting surer and surer I'm not renewing my sub to Salon, as it seems to be getting the Slate disease.
-
Welcome back, Camilla!
BTW, I loved you as Mrs. Robinson in "The Graduate." What was it like working with Dustin Hoffman?
-
A challenge to Salon
Dear Salon,
I'd like to sincerely issue you two meaningful, important challenges:
1) Hire a respectful, insightful, articulate writer who espouses conservative viewpoints. No, not a contrarian. Not a token conservative. Not a bombastic, witty, clever conservative. I'm talking someone like the one of those professors we all had in college whom we liberals strongly disagreed with yet had the utmost respect for. Someone who writes to share knowledge, opinions... not bang us over the heads or entertain us. Get a no-name writer if you have to, I don't care. But I'm dying to have someone other than Rush Limbaugh and his coarse, anti-intellectual ilk in the media define conservatism for me.
2) Please gracefully yet firmly show Ms. Paglia the door. She's a divisive entertainer, not a scholar. Not even, if I daresay, a particularly engaging writer. And maybe I *am* being too elitist or I'm simply a humourless boob, but I'd really like to see some more scholarship in Salon, preferably from a thoughtful conservative.
Thank you.
-
Goodbye
Like others in this list, the return of Paglia is the last straw for me. I won't bother to list the others, but this e-zine is no longer worth my time or money.
-
give it a rest ktbrownz
I really hate that tired and unoriginal argument that says, "Well, if she's pissing this many people off she must be doing something right." You're full of shit using that argument --- maybe you could google some some more original platitudes. Camille Paglia is clearly more interested in perpetuating her ego than talking about anything substantial.
-
To Anonymous Bitch
These things that irk you and others so much don't bother me at all. They have so little bearing on the content of her thought and writing that they're little more than cosmetic in my eyes. If you can't read past them, then simply don't read her column. Potential offense to your sensibilities averted. Personally, I find all of these threats of cancellation hilarious. I encourage all of these people to take their toys and go home.
-
Yawn.
When is she leaving?
If Camile Paglia is a priestess, I'm an atheist.
-
Why I'm cancelling right after I post this
A lot of Camille supporters seem to think we dislike her because she is not PC, or she "tells it like it is" or is an amazing critical thinker that fightens us sheep.
The truth is, she is not a thinker at all. She is a self-promoter and a side-show. Nothing she writes can withstand any serious criticism.
The overwhelmingly negative response here is indicative that most people are on to her bullshit.
I'm nearly impossible to offend and hardly PC. While I certainly lean left I often disagree with other liberals. Camille does not offend or frighten me - she bores me and her inclusion indicates a contempt for Salon's readership.
Andrew Sullivan is a D-list personality because he is a gay Republican, a novelty. In the same way Camille achieves D-list stardom by being a lesbian feminist critic. Past the novelty these people have nothing to offer - they are wrong nearly all the time about nearly everything.
I would *love love love* to see Camille have to defend her absurd writing against serious criticism, but she can't and won't. Psuedo-intellectual is far too kind.
---
I would enjoy an articulate, thoughtful conservative voice on Salon. I enjoy thoughtful, articulate writing even if I disagree 100% with every opinion and conclusion.
Camille's pieces are full of weak reasoning (or usually just no reasoning at all), puffery and hot air. She fails to apply consistent standards to different subjects and often stoops to personal slights just for the hell of being a bitch I suppose. The notion that she is a superior critical thinker is hilarious.
All style, no substance. Why would I pay for that when I can hit myself in the head with a hammer for free?
What irks me most is that neither Camille nor the editors ever try to justify her bad logic, defend her, acknowledge her sploppiness or in any way show they are listening to their subscribers. Why is it that King will respond to letters about sports trivia and correct minor statistical errors but nobody at Salon, including the genius thinker herself, can bother responding to substantive criticism?
How about a simple "hey, we hear you guys and our answer is Camille is an entertaining side-show."?
Salon is too good to interact with readers or respond to their concerns in any way? In that case, Salon is too good for my money.