Critical Bias, Imperial Languages, and Other Letters to the Editor


To the editor:

About “Daily Affairs” by Paul Karasik (February 27): Excellent! I liked it! I had it framed! Hang it! Thank you!

Elaine Cioffi
Paramus, N.J.

To the editor:

I carefully examine Amy Bloom’s powerful memoir of her husband’s Alzheimer’s and euthanasia in “In Love” (March 6) and the details highlighted in Alex Witchel’s review. (My husband had Alzheimer’s, which was more age-appropriate.) To quote Bloom’s dwindling interest in her husband’s wardrobe and television script seems perhaps unfair, given the bigger picture of her prognosis and an impossibly difficult decision for both.

Paula Burke Campbell
Washington DC

To the editor:

As for Becca Rothfeld’s review of Rebecca Mead’s “Home/Land: A Memoir of Departure and Return” (March 6) I was thrilled when I saw a memoirs issue. But why pick a critic who openly despises the entire genre? “Shameful indulgences”? “The cursed species”? I tried to imagine a critic complaining about being fed up with having to read any novel or any book of poetry before starting his arrogant tirade against a particular example. It would never happen. Why in 2022 is it still fair game to remove all old, worn-out prejudices against memories?

Do not invite these bullies to play in our literary playground.

Wayne Scott
Portland, ore.

To the editor:

Margalit Fox’s review of Dennis Duncan’s “Index, A History of the” (February 27) reminded me of William Kennedy’s “O Albany!” It reminded me of an entry in your directory. When it came out, I looked to see if my great-grandfather’s ice house was listed under the W’s. It wasn’t – but instead of giving the indexer’s page numbers, I was amused to see a recent entry for “vote fraud”, “to see Democratic Party.” I never thought an indexer could both edit and entertain.

While the index includes entries for “Prohibition,” “prostitution,” and “Mafia,” there is no entry for “talkative,” although my grandfather worked in such a “gentleman’s club” across from the State Legislature; under this category, the indexer could specify, “to see New York State Capitol.”

Michael Wilpers
Silver Spring, Md.

To the editor:

From 1982 to 1986, I was an assistant doctor in obstetrics and gynecology. The authoritative text at the time was a 1,179-page volume: “Williams Obstetrics, 16th Edition” (1980). We were expected to know everything. The authors were faculty members at the famous Parkland Hospital in Dallas. While reviewing the index late one night, one of my colleagues stumbled upon the entry: “Chauvinism, man, voluminous quantities 1-1.102.” We also discovered “Eyes on Texas, 1-1,102”. We all loved this comment and came to refer to it as the mad indexer’s revenge. Were the indexer and editor collaborating?

Susan Davidson
Madison, Wis.

To the editor:

In a letter (February 27) responding to Amy Chua’s criticism of Rosemary Salomane’s “The Rise of English,” Kibbe Fitzpatrick still seeks to “answer why English was able to win a war that Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin could not come close to winning. ”

You don’t think that the English-speaking British Empire, which at its peak occupies about 25 percent of the world’s landmass, might have something to do with it, do you? I just wonder.

Martin Wilson
Fernandina Beach, Florida.

The Times welcomes letters from readers. Publication letters should include the author’s name, address, and telephone number. E-mail address your book@
nytimes.com. Letters can be edited for length and clarity.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *