Letters to the Editor
-
In Praise of The New Yorker
Camille,
You are nowhere near as bad as many of these posters allege, but The New Yorker does not deserve criticism from you. The New Yorker is an easy target for you and the never-been-nowhere-yet-wish-to-be-hip segment of your readership.
But The New Yorker has led the world in explaining the problems in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Washington. And, at the same time, for cryin' out loud, The New Yorker has kept (grabbed back, actually) its own quirkiness.
Your life is less for not reading The New Yorker.
-
Goodbye, Camille. EOM
I can't even bring myself to read her for the pleasure of dissing her self-important blather. Couldn't even skim more than the first half page.
Waste of pixels.
-
FIRE JOAN WALSH
We, the readers, saved this fucking magazine way back when with our subscriptions. We demand our writers at least have a basic understanding of science, and the scientific process. Drop this obtuse, bland hack and your subscriptions will increase. Until then, off with Walsh's head!
-
Camille sounds like she's never been Europe
I'm sure she has, but that's just what she sounds like. More like John Derbyshire than someone who's actually in tune with the fact that, contrary to Kellie Pickler's recent assertions, Europe is not one homogenous mass that you can brush away conveniently. In discussing secularism, Camille has forgotten the existence of other terribly secular places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and China (by choice or not, it is secular). The question she is attempting to address deserves so much more of a nuanced treatment than she is willing to give it.
And the whining about technical education and the romanticization of the lives of plumbers and electricians. For some reason, according to Camille and her sources, they are much more satisfied with their work than people like herself could ever be, what with all that swimming in wires and sewage they regularly engage in. And how can one head of the hydra decry the quotidian pasttimes of the Italians and their soccer, and at the same time, praise the virtues of manual labor over liberal arts education? Those truckloads of books ok litcrit don't write themselves, you know. How would Camille earn a living, if it weren't for those of us who pay for her books and pay for Salon, to read her work about how being a person who has enough education to appreciate her work is completely useless, and would that we all become plumbers? (Not that some plumbers can't appreciate her work, but most probably cannot)
She decries academe as a giant marketing scam, yet she herself has attended Yale and earns her living at least in part by teaching at a university. The mind reels.
And the cheap shots at the New York Review of Books and the New Yorker -- why? It seemed pointless and petty. The fact that the New York Review of Books is still in vibrant publication should be a comforting thought to people like Camille, because it means there are still readers out there (like myself) who willingly parse through the verbosity to content the insightfulness of which is unparalleled. Perhaps Camille got a bad review of one of her books in the esteemed publication?
Of course, I could say that about the New Yorker too -- another publication I literally never see anywhere except in airports.
Maybe this speaks more to where Camille lives rather than the quality of the publication. I see the New Yorker all over the city, being read by lots and lots of people. It's called the "New Yorker" for a reason. At the same time, as others have pointed out, Hersh and Mayer have lead the way in reporting the misdeeds of the Styrofoam iron chancellor, and for that the whole country should be thankful, including Camille.
-
what's not to love
It's hard to believe how persnickety so many Salon readers about Camille's columns. I certainly don't agree with everything she says, but her style of writing is really loose and cool. The stuff about global warming and especially The New Yorker is just crazy, but have to totally agree about her promotion of Sandra Bernhard and Tom Jones. Not enough can be said about either of them as far as I'm concerned.
-
New voices please...
Dear editor: I'm an avid reader of Salon. I've tried to read Paglia's stuff over the last few months, but found it a complete waste of time. Painful prose and inane ideas, at best. It is provocative, but only provocatively bad. Please don't count my click on to her articles as a reader - I'm only there to read the outraged letters. My guess is that is the main reason you continue to publish her: The letters. Yes, they are a waste of my time, too, but at least some of them are entertaining. I'm writing just to ask that you do more with her space. Please introduce us to another Glenn Greenwald or Digby, someone with a strong, rational, and truly important voice. I was a big fan of both of them before you published them, but there must be people out there in the blogosphere I've never heard of that you are following and deserve a shot at a larger readership and maybe a paid gig. It kills me that some of my donations to NPR goes to pay Cokie Roberts for her "conventional wisdom" and horse race political commentary in the same way that a portion of my subscription to Salon goes to pay Camille Paglia. Please stop wasting precious space on Camille Paglia, there has to be more interesting voices out there. There has to be.
Thanks, Steve
-
Double Dip: Skilled Upper Working Class Future
You Guys! Camille is right about the people with actual skills marching over us liberal arts geniuses! Bulldozer Drivers and Horse Shoers and Barbers will tromp us into the ground in the next quarter-century.
Please raise your heads and sniff what really is going on. And please steer your kids in good economic directions.
-
More of the same
Do you think maybe, possibly, could it be that Ms. Paglia has been excluded from the New York Review of Books? In actuality, the NYRB includes some of the best political reporting and analysis in the country.
As usual CP's verbiage is embarassingly self-referential and her role as glib provocateur is analogous to Borsch Belt comedy: so stuck in the past, it's archaic. I can see her yanking her string tie and complaining that she don't get no respect like she did in the good ole days.
Camille, it really looks bad for someone who claims to be a critic of pop culture to be so happily stuck in the recent past.
And, my god, the Hillary bashing and the resurrection of Gennifer Flowers! Yes, you've got a million of 'em, you really do. Mega-dittos, girlfriend. You and Rush ARE big. It's the brains of the rest of us that got small.