---

Letters for publication in The Morning News should be emailed to letters@themorningnews.org. Letters must be exclusive to The Morning News, and may be edited for length. Authors will not be contacted if their letter is published. All letters must be signed. No attachments, please. We value your correspondence.

Edited by Kate Schlegel

Reader Mail

March 1, 2010

Dear editor,

Nell Boeschenstein’s excellent article, “Out of the Brainland and Into the Heartland,” was very interesting and “down to earth” reporting on Mr. Jefferson and his Monticello.

However, I wish to point out one glaring and distracting reference: that Thomas Jefferson fathered the Sally Hemings children. What proof does she possess to make such an unfounded statement? I assisted Dr. E.A. Foster with the DNA Study and nowhere was there such proof. Please see the Scholars Commission Report, in which 13 prominent scholars found no proof that this occurred. May we expect a withdrawal of this inappropriate claim by Ms. Boeschenstein? Also may I suggest William Hyland’s book, In Defense of Thomas Jefferson, The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal and Cynthia Burton’s book, Jefferson Vindicated.

Respectfully,
Herbert Barger
Jefferson Family Historian

Ms. Boeschenstein replies:

Dear Mr. Barger,

Thank you for your note and your interest. While I understand this is a sensitive subject for some and a story about which the whole truth might never be known, I based my statement on research by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which indicates a high likelihood that Jefferson fathered at least one child with Hemings. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation officially takes a nuanced stance, saying that it “encourages its visitors and patrons, based on what evidence does exist, to make up their own minds as to the true nature of the relationship.” While I perhaps could have been more vague in my choice of language in the essay, doing so might have disguised the fact (and misled my reader) that I have made up my mind on the matter and believe that he did indeed father one child or more with a slave.

All the best,
Nell Boeschenstein

* * *

January 21, 2010

I’m a great fan of your Tournament and I follow it assiduously each year. This year you note that at least one National Book Award judge “flipped” a coin in his or her decision. Since I’m the unofficial historian of the National Book Awards, can you tell me who that was? Then I’d be happy to let people know that that judge (or those judges) flipped a coin to make a decision.

Harold Augenbraum
Executive Director
National Book Foundation
Presenter of the National Book Awards

ToB Commissioner Kevin Guilfoile responds: Ha! Yeah, no, we don’t actually know an individual who helped determine the eventual National Book Award winner by actually flipping a literal (or literary) coin. We were thinking about it more in the cognitive sense where you have all these books that are sort of equally deserving in different ways, and so you pick one arbitrarily and then you make up a rationalization for why you did. It happens all the time in the Tournament of Books.

It should be said, if it’s not obvious, that we are also followers and admirers of the National Book Award. In fact, it was the desire to see more of the book award sausage being made that inspired us to create a sort of open-kitchen book award of our own. That and general wise-assery, of which we have a surplus, unfortunately.

And let be known throughout the land: You kid the National Book Award and the National Book Award will kid you back.

* * *

March 4, 2009

Let me start off by saying that I love your site and that I regularly share it with others, whenever possible. I’m particularly fond of the Non-Expert, which is why I found the “Love Sic” piece so troubling.

If that was a real question, the person who wrote it was either suffering from some sort of disability or operating at an extremely low reading level. If that case the response was a cheap shot and the most painfully obvious way to belittle someone who is obviously at a disadvantage.

If that question was fabricated, what a waste of time. The piece was unreadable at best.

I’m not really a P.C., touchy-feely type but I was really turned off and felt the need to let someone know. I still think you guys are the bomb.

Thanks for listening,
Nick Johnson

Rosecrans Baldwin responds: We appreciate the feedback and it means even more when it comes from a dedicated reader. The question was a real message. I can’t speak to the sender’s mental state, but I can tell you that the email was about average for the type of queries we receive at the Non-Expert desk—half of the mail we get is much worse. The idea, however, was to play with the question’s diction and phrasing on the page and to avoid cheap shots. You’ll judge us by the degree to which we did so, but those were our intentions.

Giles Turnbull responds: When I read the question, the first thing that came to mind was the language used by some of the teenagers who hang around on street corners in this part of England. It’s a language that I find utterly, utterly perplexing. But that’s normal, because I’m a dull 38-year-old and they are teenagers and that’s what teenagers do. Their language twists around corners that us older folk can’t even see in the first place. My aim with this answer was to try, as far as I could, to peer round one of those corners, just to see what’s there. As Rosecrans says, and as he and I discussed before the piece was published, there was no intention to take cheap shots. Or even any shots at all.

* * *

February 18, 2009

Most hideous car on the streets of America? Perhaps you are thinking of the car it replaced, the Dodge Neon.

More correctly, the American car with proportions most resembling a London or Dublin cab. American car with enough room to fit an indie band’s Ludwig drums and Super Reverb.

OK, so my PT’s transmission crapped out at 77,000 and it’s been a repair nightmare ever since, but have you seen what they have been calling a Malibu for the last couple of decades…

Your loyal reader since the days of the Hasidic-looking guy logo,
Michael Hunter

* * *

February 16, 2009

Hi, guys,

Just wanted to mention that Matthew Baldwin is freakin’ hilarious. Since I’m bored at work I had the pleasure of reading his Mindfuck Movies, laughing the whole way through and genuinely impressed with his style. This scared my co-workers, which made it doubly effective.

Send my regards to the chef, will you?

Regards,
Vinnie Engelmann

* * *

January 9, 2009

To Pasha Malla,

Fuck you so very much. You wrote the best description of love I have ever seen or could hope to imagine. You made me remember and to miss what it’s like to love somebody in the real world, and to see the miracle of them looking back, somehow, with equal and greater love, at me. You hurt me by that remembering. And now I have to go out and get your stinkin’ books, and you know perfectly well I already have books way way out the ass. Endless books. So go to hell. Or better yet, no… that’s too easy. Stay… stay here, write more. That’s the best worst curse I can think of… And thanks.

John Mayfield

* * *

August 26, 2008

Dear sir or madam,

I have been regularly reading and enjoying TMN for several months now, and I was recently taken aback to see a headline reading “Latitude lacks in McCain’s anti-choice actions, even if his statements are muddled.”

Surely the authors and editors realize that “anti-choice” is an invective term for pro-lifers, as they identify themselves. It would be unprofessional and offensive to use slurs to refer to other groups, so why are pro-lifers any different? I sincerely hope that these kinds of offensive terms can be avoided in the future, or at least contextualized for the epithets that they are.

Thank you for your time,
Justin Knapp

Rosecrans Baldwin responds:

Dear Justin,

Thank you for your note. Our house style rule with regards to “pro-life” states that we don’t use “pro-life” to refer to someone who is otherwise “anti-abortion,” unless it appears in a direct quote or is a part of a group’s official name. “Pro-life” implies that pro-choice advocates are anti-life, which is silly.

And in the headline you cite, we used “anti-choice” rather than “anti-abortion” to play around with the terminology, and also to place the emphasis in regards to McCain more on women’s choice.

Concerning offense, we never want to offend one of our regular readers. We regret doing so, Justin, if you were offended. Again, we appreciate your note and your enjoyment of TMN, and we hope you continue to stick with us.

All best,
Rosecrans Baldwin

* * *

May 4, 2008

Hi, Kate,

Perhaps, instead of swearing off your beloved soup, you could try making it yourself. Yes, it may take a bit more time than it takes you to microwave a ready-made one, but it’s simple—and you can control the salt content. Why deny yourself a pleasure when the problem is so easily solved?

Yours,
Molly Bennett

Kate Schlegel responds:

Dear Molly,

Making soup is, indeed, simple. But in addition to being a soup person, I am also, sadly, an impatient person and a busy one. So I’ll keep soup off my meal plans for now.

Kate

* * *

March 24, 2008

Dear Editors,

As an American currently living in Paris with my family, I was discouraged to read the broad, stereotypical claims made by Rosecrans Baldwin in “Paris I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down.” While reading his piece, I had the distinct sense that that he was pigeonholing a broader Parisian population, without experiencing a wider range of Parisians. It was at least remarkable that, in order to prove his points—that Parisians “don’t like anything,” that Parisians have a contempt for Paris, that Parisians lack humor, and that they’re generally rude—he only gave examples of two or three Parisians in a specific economic range.

But what about the rest of Parisians? In general, I have observed there are all different sorts. Some are quiet and reclusive. Others are loud and outgoing. One stranger may sit down beside you while out to eat and, by the end of the meal, you’ll feel like great friends. Another may eat alone in a quiet corner of a restaurant. And though many do support Obama, as the author suggests, many others, typically of a more conservative type, support Clinton. It is a range of people, acting and believing a range of things, just as it is in the U.S.

True, there are the cultural differences, but the average Parisian is not one type of person, but is an array of people as broad as the American array … and growing ever broader all the time.

So imagine this! If a Parisian were to visit a particular area of the U.S., he may enjoy particular aspects of his time spent there, but overall, his visit may just “bring him down.” Why? Because, he concludes, Americans don’t like anything. They have a contempt for their own country and they lack humor. Worst of all, they’re just so annoyingly rude. So, everything he’s heard is true: Americans are difficult and hard to live with, and that’s what he’ll tell his friends. Maybe he’ll write about it!

Whose fault is all of this? I maintain it is the fault of the Parisian, for not being able to overcome his cultural assumptions regarding Americans. For leaving on his cultural blinders. For not experiencing an array of Americans.

I appreciate Mr. Baldwin’s honesty and his tongue-in-cheek humor, but I do believe he should seek out a broader range of Parisians before writing an article that is on the verge of encouraging a conservative bigotry.

Robyn Miller

Rosecrans Baldwin responds…

Dear Robyn,

I appreciate your candor. You have seen through my campaign. But you left out of your shopping list the French who would vote for McCain. I have a couple you can meet, if you like.

* * *

March 23, 2008

Dear Morning News Readers Who Think it Was Unfair That I Judged Díaz vs. Lippman Because I Already Have Read and Liked Díaz,

Are you batshit crazy? I mean that in the most evenhanded, levelheaded, unbiased way possible. If I loved an author’s first book, then I am less likely to like his second. That is because I am a literary author myself, and therefore embittered and unhappy to admire the works of others, and particularly unhappy to admire two books in a row. Nothing would have made me happier than to prefer What the Dead Know over The Brief and Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao.

Nevertheless, here is my revised list of connections to the books in the tournament. I teach Denis Johnson, too, and like 95 percent of the writers I know would give my left arm to have written Jesus’s Son. I loved Enduring Love but I didn’t like “Atonement” and I’m still pissed off that everyone else in the world did. I’ve read the descriptions of Shining at the Bottom of the Sea and I so love the idea that I really want to love the book. I like Tin House magazine and they publish Ovenman but I hate the cover. I have an aversion to lawyers-turned-novelists like Stephen L. Carter. I think Let the Northern Lights Erase Your Name is a great title, though upon reflection maybe for an album by a wan singer-songwriter. I can never remember what the order of the words is in the title of Brock Clarke’s novel; he seems like a sterling fellow. I have been meaning to read The Savage Detectives for so long I am terrified it cannot live up to everyone’s praise of it, though I have loved the pieces of Bolaño I have read. Until I looked closely I thought Petropolis was Persepolis and I still can’t shake the idea that it’s not a graphic novel. I have never read a Marianne Wiggins novel and am deeply embarrassed about it and so feel humiliated when I see her books reviewed and therefore disinclined to read them. I have never heard of Remainder but can only assume that it’s about books: Ick. I’ve already read and loved And Then We Came to the End but heck, he’s young and got a lot of attention for the book already. Jonathan Lethem has a cool last name. And Ann Patchett has twice plucked my eyebrows.

There. Now you know everything. It is anyone’s guess whether any of these things makes me more or less likely to admire a book once I actually read it.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth McCracken
ToB judge

* * *

March 23, 2008

Dear Mr. Warner,

I just wanted to thank you for your candid and insightful commentary on the second-round Tournament of Books matchup between Denis Johnson’s Tree of Smoke and Vendela Vida’s Let the Northern Lights Erase Your Name.

I think Vida’s was the most critically overlooked novel of 2007. I worked at an independent bookstore last year (Elliott Bay Book Company in Seattle) and spent a lot of time trying to convince coworkers and customers to read it. I must admit to feeling disappointment when I saw it matched up in the first round against The Savage Detectives (a book that no one needed much persuading to read, or at least purchase), and I resigned myself to clicking the “no way” button in response to the judge’s inevitable selection of Bolaño.

I knew it would be too much to expect Vida’s harrowingly lovely book to beat two of last year’s biggest, but I was comforted by your commentary and just wanted to pass along my appreciation.

I was especially interested in your comments about critical “certainty.” It helped me figure out why Sarvas’s decision irked me where McCracken’s, despite its bias, did not. It seems to have to do with tone, some kind of slippery difference between “this is my taste” vs. “this should be all our taste”… It’s probably got a lot more to do with that “wave of a hand,” but in any case, you’ve given me a lot to think about this morning. Thanks again for your astute commentary and for championing such fine books.

Appreciatively,
Elizabeth Ames Staudt

* * *

March 13, 2008

Dear Morning News editors,

I quite happily read Elizabeth Kiem’s article on the elections in Russia last week. As I’ve been living in Russia this year, through both the parliamentary and presidential elections, my access to the news has been a combination of the Kremlin-backed television channels and any additional news I can glean as fast as possible at internet cafes and in rare bursts of wireless. It was nice to read something that didn’t dismiss the results before, at least, it meditated on the circumstances.

I wanted to update Kiem and others on the election atmosphere here, though what she gleaned from the televised bro-down of Medvedev and Putin together was definitely how it ended. If she was in town the week prior to the elections, she probably saw buses painted with advertisements to VOTE! for anyone at all really (my States-based parents passed on that this sudden campaign to get out the vote was to ensure the 50% turnout needed to make the election valid). She maybe saw a non-United Russia candidate appear on the news for the first time, an apparent response to international scrutiny. If she was staying with Russians, she may have seen the formal invitations to vote, issued by various parties, dropped into mailboxes. She may have seen on these invitations capsule biographies of all the candidates and observed that Medvedev’s was always the shortest.

I live with a 77-year-old babushka who I believe has anti-globalist leanings (in spite of having hosted foreign students for 15 years) and has a nicely collaged wall of socialist posters, including, oddly, a “Fight for your right to party!” declaration that is less Beasties, more post-Soviet. She voted for Medvedev in the end but was less enthusiastic about it than the young people I’ve met, saying just, “He’s a good speaker.” (I haven’t been in the States since our election process was launched, but with my limited contact I would guess you could say the same thing for Barack Obama.) In the week leading up to the election, a stranger rung at our intercom and without preface asked who we were voting for. My host mother said, “I haven’t decided,” and turned it off abruptly but was perturbed for some time afterward. She has seen many decades of what happens to Russians who dissent.

Get-out-the-vote ads the day before the election advertised it as the first holiday of spring. My host mother was nice enough to take me to the polls with her and the atmosphere was indeed festive: a buffet, live chamber music, books for children, balloons everywhere; it was a far cry from the polls in the grim lobby of government housing in my swing state back home. Talking with my father later, I observed that the festivity was probably less the result of the relative newness of the election process and more the result of a complete lack of tension regarding the results. On the way out, though, when exit pollers stopped to ask who we voted for, my host mother barked, “What do you want to know for?” The poller looked resigned to this reaction in a district full of pensioners.

As for the clip of Medvedev in jeans striding toward the stage in Red Square, practically holding hands with his predecessor, it was replayed on the news almost every night for a week. I will never cease to find this amazing.

Yours,
Lucy Morris
Yaroslavl, Russia

p.s. Television seeming to be the great Russian pastime, ours is always on but neither my babushka nor I saw coverage of the marches in Moscow and St. Petersburg. If there was anything to convince me of the state of mainstream Russian media, which I occasionally hope might be balanced, this was it.

* * *