About that 'fan mail'

Last week, we got a record number of e-mails from regular readers (many of whom are community members) and from visitors.

While our regulars had many points and suggestions to make (and demands -- the book discussion is back for this edition, many of you will be happy to note), visitors focused on only one thing.

"Darfur"? "Head on Home (a musical in four scenes)"?

No. Except for three e-mails (two devoted David Mamet fans and one pro-torture visitor who wrote, in jest -- we hope, "If you don't torture them, they don't learn."), they all focused on:

"TV commentary takes a back seat this week to Colbert"

Ava and C.I. didn't want to write that. They note in the piece that someone died on stage and the best thing to do is to avert the eyes. They noted to us when the topic was suggested/demanded (and we noted it in our note last edition) that due to the very nature of the piece, if it was written and included it would overshadow "Darfur" -- a piece we were excited all week leading up to writing it. They were right. Among visitors it was overshadowed. Jim sent out a plea, after we checked the mail last Sunday night, for everyone to highlight "Darfur" at their own sites. Betty wasn't able to work it in and no one was surprised by that. She's doing a ficitional, online, comic novel. She can't just toss out a link even when she wants to (and she's working from an outline). C.I. flat out refused. C.I. stated that it was noted on Sunday morning and that was it. There was no need to write, as Jim suggested, "Ava and I were right, it did overshadow everything."

Ava and C.I.'s attitude was, "We warned you, you didn't listen."

No, we didn't. (We is everyone since anyone could have picked up their point in the discussion and said, "You know what, I agree it will overshadow everything else.")

Ava and C.I. don't read the e-mails in response to anything they write. They also aren't interested in a back and forth with readers who disagree. (Or in reading threatening e-mails and something about the piece brought out the old sniper in the clocktower types that had largely been silent and AWOL for over two months.)

They did have a few questions. Did those screaming mad focus on both the issue of the portrayal of women and the issue of the portrayal of Asians and Asians-Americans? Or, they wondered, did the vocal ones just dismiss the sexism and fail to note the racism?

They failed to note the racism. One e-mail, from a he-thinks-he's-worldly type offered that he was "strident" too, back in the day, and then went on to offer the history of P.C. (as he dreamt it up, it helps to know a timeline when attempting to share your "knowledge"). What was strident? Standing up for women. Not standing up for Asian-Americans? We couldn't know, he failed to address that issue.

Probably because he knows you can get away with being a sexist but it's a little harder to live with yourself if you cop to racist.

Same person and 27 others argued that Colbert was doing "a character" so it wasn't offensive.
Oh, that's how it works. You do a character and you can make sexist remarks and racist ones and you're not accountable? Maybe Rush Limbaugh should start saying what he does on air is "a character."

Rush could argue it's a character. Rush is consistent. If the line is that Colbert was playing a right-winger, Fox type, then he needed to stay with that character. When Lily Tomlin does a character, she stays with it. If she's doing Edith Ann, she's talking about childhood experiences, she doesn't attempt to toss in a joke about OBGYNs because Edith Ann would have no reason to make such a joke. It's beyond her point of reference.

If that was a "character," Colbert needs to work on it. Needs to explore it and get to know it. The only woman who wrote to complain signed her e-mail "Little Miss." We like to think of her as "Huffy Little Miss." HLM feels that "even if" it was offensive, it doesn't "help anyone" to point it out. "We should all just ignore it." But most of all, "There are important things to write about and for six college students to waste everyone's time writing something like this is really sad."

Know what's sad? People who can't comprehend. Every note to the reader notes that Ava and C.I. write the reviews. More importantly, because Ava and C.I. assumed that it would result in e-mails, they made a point to identify themselves as the sole authors of the piece within the piece. HLM apparently couldn't comprehend this sentence: "'We' is Ava and C.I. for those who don't read carefully before penning their hate mail." It's in the piece HLM claims to have read "three times in increasing fits of disgust!"

But HLM, if you really think there are important things to focus on, why are you focusing on the piece to begin with? Why did you feel the need to e-mail on that as opposed to the pieces on Darfur? As Ava and C.I. point out, this is important. This is important because we don't need to worship blindly and we don't need to close our eyes, mouths and minds (we think HLM's mind was closed long ago) when we see racism and/or sexism. We need to call it out, call it for what it is. This go-along-to-get-along is killing the Democratic Party. And HLM, ignoring it won't make it go away. P.S. HLM, C.I.'s not a college student.

"Big Boy" gave a graphic account of how he intended to dismember Ava and C.I. and there reply when we summarized it for them was, "Does he work for Donald Rumsfeld or is he Donald Rumsfeld?"

TI877 wanted us to know that feminism was dead and never achieved anything. In explicit terms he raged against a movement he claimed changed nothing. That's a lot of rage for something that supposedly "didn't do a damn thing."

A lot of people (taking their cues from cowardly leadership in the DNC) used the piece as a way to attempt to work through their own issues with women. "I'm sick of bitches who don't know to shut the f**k up," B-Blow explained adding, "Women and kids should be seen and not heard." With that charming attitude, we kind of doubt B-Blow hears or sees very many women outside of 1-900 numbers and glossy centerfolds. (Watch out for the paper cuts, B-Blow!)

BrighterDayz wanted us to warm our hearts by spreading this message of sunshine, "I hope you all die!! I dream of choking you to death with my big ___ and giving you something to really complain about!" From the afterlife, Brighter Dayz, complain from the afterlife? Maybe that was the intended ray of sunshine in the message? Ava and C.I. suggest you keep dreaming of having a big ___ because in dreams, we can have anything and don't have to live with the shortcomings we were given.

KevIN opened with a lengthy assault on Gloria Steinem and then, seven paragraphs later, offered that "No one listens to feminists anyhow." Really, KevIN, because, though you disagree with Steinem, you seem to quite familiar with what she's written?

We could continue with the e-mails but we think you've gotten a pretty good sample of them.
Ava and C.I.'s "beat" is always covered from a feminist perspective. We agree with their commentary. We're glad they wrote it. And e-mails like the ones noted above only demonstrate how much that perspective is needed.