The Mail
Ned Rock City
But what does Ned Moran actually have in his collection? Michael Tilley's article never actually describes it.
We see a John and Yoko photo and assorted framed rock hippie posters and pictures. Were these clipped from Rolling Stone magazine back in the day? Are they originals? Were they gifts to Ned from musicians? Are there any interesting stories behind the acquisitions?
All we hear about is Uncle Willy's and his daughter. So much so that my impression now of the piece is that Ned's "museum" sounds much like my bedroom closet. Rock mags, snaps, memories and more, in droves.
Dave Murrow, Manhattan
Pundit Pugilism
Tucker Carlson is an arrogant, smug, under-educated, smarmy dick ("Tucker Trades Up," 1/12). I am 56, got bad knees, despise the Tucks of our "modern media," and hereby gladly volunteer to meet the Tuckster in the alley of his choosing. Won't take long.
P.S. Tucker's "athletic build"? Hate to break it to you, wingnut, but more is required in a real fight. Wimps need not apply.
Gary Van Ess, Green Bay, WI
Back to School
Can't Russ Smith write anything that isn't slavishly dependent upon name-calling? I've given his column several tries, but now I'm just giving up. Not once has he brought a fresh perspective to something. Not once has he made me see an issue in a different light. It's just more of the same ad-hominen flatulence that passes for "commentary" in this benighted age. Smith's got what Chad Pennington might call a "privilege," and he just wastes it by dispensing stale bromides and "so's-yer-old-man" invective. Calling people "idiotic" (without any apparent foundation) hardly constitutes trenchant criticism. First-graders can do as well as that.
Small wonder that Smith sees the demise of Crossfire as an unfortunate event ("Tucker Trades Up," 1/12). It seems to represent the kind of discourse to which he aspires (and, sadly, he can't even reach that low of a threshold). So I'm afraid you'll just have to go on shaking his fists impotently at things he can't understand, whilst bellowing louder and louder in attempt to drown out his own irrelevance.
David McKee, Las Vegas
Handling Hannity
Anyone who would think, and worse yet, call, Paul Krugman a "partisan hack" is himself a partisan hack of the first order ("Tucker Trades Up," 1/12). There's a difference-although you probably haven't noticed it-between name calling and sloganeering (on one hand), and citing facts and making reasonable arguments (on the other).
Sean Hannity wouldn't know a fact if it slapped him in the face, which it probably should. Krugman's column is replete with facts, explanation, and little else.
Robert M., via email
Before Dialogue
I've just started reading Armond White's work, and want to say that he is a terrific movie reviewer. I find his articulateness in championing critically underrated movies to be quite stirring, and the fact that fully half of his columns infuriate me just makes me enjoy his work more.
That said, if he's going to diss a movie, he should endeavor to do so for the right reasons. I'm talking, of course, about Before Sunset, which he seems to have completely missed the boat on ("Dirty Dozens," 12/29).
The fact that the two characters in that film suffer from astonishing tunnel vision toward their own navels does not make the film itself narcissistic-certainly not unconsciously or uncritically so. It is rather a remarkably clear-eyed satire of two fools, and it presents the simple message that love can penetrate even through the most callow and cloudy of egos. While Linklater is remarkably forgiving of his two chattering airheads, he never glorifies them. And the movie's whole essence is that the two find love despite, and not because of, their mostly pointless banter.
I can certainly understand why many people wouldn't like Before Sunset. You have to have a high tolerance for some pretty pretentious talk, and I'm sure many people have less of that tolerance than I do. But to mistake that talk, and not what lies behind it, as the point of Before Sunset is to completely misunderstand the movie. Ê
Tom Strong, Atlanta
Magic Murray
I just read Armond White's review of The Life Aquatic ("Yellowy Submarine," 12/8) and enjoyed it very much. I have seen the film twice within the last week. Bill Murray and company are outstanding; Wes Anderson has made another memorable film.
I can see though that this film will not get the recognition it truly deserves.ÊGiven the dramatic performances this year, Bill Murray's efforts will be all but lost. There can be a miracle of sorts, if he becomes a dark-horse nominee for Best Actor. Stranger things and performances have been recognized, when no one gave them even an outside chance. How this film was denied any representation at the Golden Globes, courtesy of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association is beyond me as well.ÊI thought for sure that Bill Murray would have been one of the top five in the Musical/Comedy category, as well as Willem Dafoe and Cate Blanchett.ÊHow Kevin Kline and Kevin Spacey managed to shut him out is a mystery.Ê
Do you think Mr. Murray will receive any Academy recognition?Ê
Jackie Alberts, Oceanside, NY
Skateboarding Is Not A Crime
Every Tuesday, I look forward to reading your paper. The short stories are captivating, and I always get a kick out of the way you guys bash on the Village Voice. Unfortunately, I just finished the Jan. 5 issue and was immediately struck by what was written about skateboarders in "Happy 2005! Now Here's What You Can't Do Anymore" (News Hole). Specifically, the part about skateboarders above the age of 14 being "stupid" and "annoying."
I started skating NYC over 17 years ago. The streets of downtown became my second home, and skateboarding was my way of observing the insanity and staking claim to a small piece of it. In exchange for this freedom, I have had to put up with continual harassment and hostility: cops write me tickets for disorderly conduct, high school thugs constantly yell "Tony Hawk" looking like they want a fight, meatheads demand me to do tricks-the list goes on. Recently, I haven't been able to take my board to a bar without being annoyed by lonely drunks that appear to be in desperate need of a good mucking. To top everything off, I open your paper to read your trash about skateboarders over the age of 14. I can't seem to understand where all the hostility has come from.
Historically, skateboarding has been rooted in the city's artistic subculture and has been a major influence on the downtown pop culture. Ed Templeton, Keith Haring, Larry Clark, Spike Jonze (to name a few) are all artists who have worked amongst the city skaters and collaborated in unique ways to bring the urban story to life. The view from a life lived on a board (yes, beyond the age of 14) affords me and other artists a way to observe the city from a different perspective, and I can't understand why this is so threatening to so many.
Typically, I brush off most of the obscenity and attribute this to ignorance about lifestyle, but when an article from a paper such as New York Press comes out with a low-ball comment as you did in the recent issue, I call into question the type of individuals that are writing for this publication. Could it be possible that New York Press is as petty as the average American meathead? By carelessly insulting skateboarders, you show that you share the same small brain with the cops, yuppies, uneducated thugs, idiots, scumbags, assholes, gay bashers, perverts, pedophiles, drunks, frat boys, bimbos and others of this ilk who are cruising around with their heads up their arses.
I was deeply offended with what you wrote and hope in the future your eyes remain open to others just trying to get around our city with a little more style.
Bobby Crawford, Manhattan
She Had a Name, You Know
In this season of fresh corpses and year-end media remembrances of the dead, I see Jim Knipfel is also looking back ("The Story that Wasn't," 1/5).
A lot of people knew that "writer in her 50s who'd published a few things." She wasn't very different from Mr. Knipfel-one of those "East Village characters." A writer and bookstore regular-an eccentric, opinionated, strange, funny, somewhat nasty little freak. Last time I saw her, she was rooting around the literary journals wearing a lop-sided grin and a skateboard. She didn't seem particularly interested in dying and when she did, she was probably terrified and most certainly alone.
Too bad you got scooped and didn't get to solve the murder mystery of the decade. Too bad you work in such a cut-throat business. You could at least have used her name, Jim.
Susan Willmarth , St. Mark's Books
Delayed Reaction
After recently reading Matt Taibbi's scathing article on Neil Lewis of the New York Times ("Neil Lewis Gets Abducted-and a Snickers bar," 4/30/03) online, I was convinced by your anger.
As you apparently are somehow familiar with the issue of Guantanamo, I would like to ask you a question regarding an article that Lewis wrote on or around August 27, 2004 about a Yemeni at Guantanamo who apparently "admitted [an] al-Qaeda link." In that report, statements made in military commission proceedings are quoted by Lewis.
I wonder whether journalists are allowed to these military commission proceedings? I thought these were closed sessions with no public allowed. Or is the New York Times exempt? To what extent can one rely on Lewis' quotations from the proceedings, widely reported in the U.S. media?
Elias Davidsson, Reykjavik, Iceland
Ringenberg's Ringing Endorsement
While I have never submitted a letter to the editor regarding a record review before, I do so belatedly regarding J.R. Taylor's review of Jason Ringenberg's Empire Builders ("Posers Are Red," 8/25/04). As someone who has purchased Empire Builders with my hard-earned "U.S.-American dollars" (as I've heard them called in the South in response to my yankee drawl), I think that Mr. Taylor's premise for a bad review is more politically inspired than musically justified.
To get right to the point, I have seen nothing in this review that leads me to believe that Mr. Taylor analyzed the album objectively. I honestly believe he applied his own litmus test to the album and concluded that Jason's point of view did not match his own. If the review was meant to tell me about Mr. Taylor, I get it. If it's about the album Empire Builders, I don't think Mr. Taylor gets it at all.
A few things were particularly disturbing. In case Mr. Taylor hasn't noticed, not everyone in the world or even the United States shares his cavalier attitude about laughing in the face of bombing. That's not prideful, as Mr. Taylor would have the reader believe. There is a fundamental difference between pride in our troops, our country, and even our elected leaders, versus blind obedience. Those who confuse the issue do every American a disservice. And truly, does mocking an artist's point of view actually constitute a review? Can a reviewer really stoop to call an artist of Mr. Ringenberg's caliber a "duplicitous douchebag" without having their integrity questioned?
Listen, I don't claim to know Ringenberg's perspective on every song he ever wrote. While we as music fans yearn or even demand to learn what a song means, I'm not comfortable when a reviewer feels empowered to tell me. Nonetheless, I think Empire Builders, and in fact his collective body of work, shows Jason's pride in god/country/family are above reproach. Please don't claim to have followed Jason's career and attempt to question his being "now you're just insulting the reader."
I also ask your readers to question the taste of anyone who finds Jason's ultra-cool leopard-skin cowboy hat to be "absurd" (is that the best you can muster?), and, honestly, who in their right mind would end a review in 2004 with a quote from John Wayne on Laugh-In? Congratulations to Mr. Taylor on demonstrating just how relevant he has become.
I conclude that this reviewer is no doubt comfortable going through life where stereotypes define his views, and anyone with contrary views makes bad albums deserving of personal attacks. I'll take great pride when I someday give my [is this guy a leprechaun?] three children each their own copy of Empire Builders. It's a great album, an important statement on the times, and, to me, it's becoming a symbol of the need to follow your conscience in spite of the consequences.
Jack Kolmansberger, Glen Mills, PA
The Tuck Stops Here
Great article ("Tucker Trades Up," 1/12). It's just too cheap and easy to sneer at Tucker Carlson's bow tie.ÊI'm not sure Carlson is a dyed-in-the-wool, rock-ribbed conservative like me, but I do know his book was one of the most interesting and readable I've seen in a long time. It was literate and interesting-and that's more than any of his critics can say.
Larry Eubank, via email
To the Finland Station
If I wanted Mr. Flores-Williams' attention, I would just go listen to him, which I would rather not. ("Breakaway Republic," 1/12). And please give me Mr. Flores-Williams' email address, as I wish to take over his Free Republic of Gotham. I'm way cooler and more charismatic than he is, not to mention smarter, and will make a better leader.
Let me also say that I enjoy New York Press more than the Village Voice. You guys are less self-important-you even, dare I say it, seem to have fun with it. I used to work for a free paper in Augusta, GA, back when I was in college (they still owe me money for a restaurant review I did) and I applaud free papers that just have fun with it.
Good work, people.
Daniel Bester, Manhattan