A number of e-mails came in during the last three weeks from readers we picked up in 2008 and there seemed to be various questions about the weekly writing editions. So this corner is just going to go over the basics of that.
Third Estate Sunday Review is Jim, Dona, Jess, Ava, C.I. and myself. We are very fortunate to have many people helping out each week but we are the ones responsible for the content. Dallas gets a special thank you each week and is mentioned on the left side of the site because he does so much and has for so long. We have repeatedly offered to include him as part of Third but he is fine with his current status.
Each week, everyone (not just Third people) working on the edition gets together. Generally speaking these days, Third is in California as are Kat and Wally. Others participate by phone. We are pitching ideas. We're tossing out what we have. It may be some elaborate pitch or just a sentence. Sometimes it's less than a sentence. "Roland Barris." I don't know who tossed that out this weekend but we all knew we'd be covering the topic long before the weekend rolled around. So there are things like that which we know we'll cover. (Though sometimes the features turn out badly and we end up shoving that into the print edition that goes out on our campuses.) Then there are the things that are maybes. This is a very in-depth process and time consuming.
B.B. wanted to know if Ava and C.I. truly are in charge of their space? Yes, they are. Jim will make suggestions before they start writing or ask them to work something in but that's their call. They do the weekly TV feature themselves, it's their beat and they can cover what they want. While Jim makes suggestions or requests, Ava and C.I. also generally give us an idea of what they're doing if it's out of the norm. This week, for example, they wanted everyone to know ahead of time that they were focusing on a game show and only a game show. This wasn't going to be a hard hitting piece. They outlined their reasons (which they didn't have to, they don't owe anyone an excuse). First, Saturdays are ignored by the networks and CBS was finally programming a new show on Saturdays, they didn't want any other topics to dilute from that. When we started up, we quickly became aware that our core audience included a lot of young couples who couldn't afford to go out on the weekends. So a Saturday show is a big deal to our longterm readers. Second, due to coming events, things are going to heat up in the real world quickly and Ava and C.I. wanted to do just an entertainment piece before that happened. There are readers who prefer them. There may have been a third reason. If so, I've forgotten.
Highlights? Why is it not written by Third?
When we started doing highlights, what we did was completely repost. The way it works now is you get a link to something and a description in "Highlights." The way it used to work was all of those things in "Highlights" would be reposted in full here. Near the end of that, I remember C.I. and I getting so frustrated by the whole thing and Mike saying he'd take care of it. We gladly slid it over to him. But to repost, you need to watch the spacing and do this and do that and it's time consuming and a pain. When Mike realized that, he started doing a form of the "Highlights" that now goes up each week. So that's their feature and Jim always lists Mike first due to the fact that Mike's the one who came up with how we currently do that feature.
Jim's note to the readers. It's always Jim typing it up unless he's taking time off. Dona used to joke (or not joke) that Jim wanted to play publisher while she got stuck with the grunt work of editor and that's why Jim wanted to do the "A note to our readers" each week. The note offers an overview of the week's edition and, on good weeks, a lot more than just that. Jim's note has fans and the few times we've said, "It's too late, we just want to go to bed" and convinced Jim to forget doing a note, the e-mails have come in complaining.
Kyleen e-mailed on the editorials and wanted to know "is it normal to feel outraged after reading one?" Normal or not, that's the reaction Jim wants. The editorials. Ay-yi-yi, as Ava would say. That's generally the last thing written. By that time, it's often Jim, C.I., Mike and Rebecca who are still functioning. And it's generally Jim and C.I. doing this back and forth with Jim really pressing buttons trying to get anger or sadness out of C.I. From that, we write up the editorial. Last week's editorial was just not working. Everyone was tired. Jim was off. Rebecca came up with an idea to save it and it worked. It gave it a different flavor, which Jim's not used to, and in his note you can't tell he's unsure of what to make of that editorial. This week's editorial will call Barack Obama a "bastard." As in "Make the bastard work for you." It's eye catching. It's supposed to make an impression. And we've discussed that editorial more than many we do -- discussed in advance. There is a lethargy with regards to political action and we went over a list of terms and a list of issues we especially wanted to raise. This will be an editorial that hopes to snap you to attention. Or that's the plan. It's not written yet, so who knows how it will end up? But Jim does want a reaction. In the original notes back in the day, he'd always write that he didn't care if you laughed, screamed, cursed us or the topic we were covering as long as something here grabbed you. And back when we had time to reply to e-mails, Jim would only reply to the ones disagreeing. He really enjoys those who disagree. His goal with this editorial (provided we're not all sleepy when it gets written) is to splash cold water on people's faces. It's okay to read it and say, "I hate Third Estate!" That's not the issue. But even if that's your initial take-away -- or especially if that's your initial take-away -- you're going to find yourself thinking about the topic. We throw St. JFK on the fire in it too, or that's the plan.
"Truests," was Olivia's issue. She wanted to know why it took so long because we'd mentioned that it can take forever. When you add six or more people and everyone's got a suggestion of what they believe was the truest thing said last week, there's going to be discussion, there's going to be debate and it can take forever. FOREVER. This week, I know C.I.'s pushing for Betty, Ruth and Martha & Shirley. I am going to be pushing for them as well as is Kat. I don't anticipate it will be a problem. The only problem is that I know Mike and Stan have several things they want for truest that come from C.I.'s "2008: The Year of Living Hormonally (Year in Review)." C.I. won't go for it and the sooner Mike and Stan drop it, the better. Three is pushing it for Truest and Kat, C.I. and I think the three pieces mentioned did something amazing and really deserve an extra bit of recognition. (That's not me saying I don't think that C.I.'s deserves extra recognition. I think it does but I know C.I. will nix the suggestions.)
Seven of you wanted more book features. Book roundtables are out. They are just too time consuming. Between now and April, we'll probably do one and no more. But we are trying to find ways to do more on books and we have a short piece this week that is on a book.
Larken feels that "sometimes the mix works better and sometimes it doesn't." No one working on these editions would ever disagree with you. We try to get a variety as much as possible. Some weeks it works, some weeks it doesn't. We're under no mistaken belief that each weekend is a home run. When we started, the first three months it killed us if everything wasn't perfect and it was never perfect. We have enough of a body of work behind us now that we're used to it. Also true is that stuff we all hated has gone up because it had to. If it didn't, we'd have only half an edition. So it's gone up with us hating it and some of that stuff has resulted in e-mails from people happy with it. Which just underscores how everyone's personal taste isn't the same.
Cliff was among those e-mailing to express how much he enjoyed last week's short story, "The New York State Annie Riots." He wishes we could do more of that. Each summer, we do our Summer Beach Read edition. That includes Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary plus fiction. It might be poetry, it might be parody, it might be anything. But we do that each summer. I would love to do it more often. Not a full edition but just tossing in a short story every now and then. Why don't we? Jim. If I pitched a short story idea this weekend and Jim loved it, he would tell me it was perfect and he would write down a note for us to work on it in June or July for that fiction edition. Jim hordes that stuff, afraid we'll do it and nothing will come up to replace it so we need to hold onto it. The reality is Jim's little note, read this summer will not jog my memory much and, if it does, I won't have the same enthusiasm. So I disagree on the waiting. Last week's short story made it to the writing process because Dona and C.I.'s friend (the Broadway composer) were both telling Jim it was too good to hold on. Cliff, I will convey your wishes to Jim again (I've already done so once) the next time any of us have a short story idea and he asks us to table it until this summer. Can't promise it will do much good, but we'll see.
Les wants to know how he can get his blog linked in an article here? E-mail. If you'd mentioned the blog's name (or provided a link), I'd be saying right now, "Check out Les at ___." Like Sol Bellel who e-mailed and he's following Caroline Kennedy's attempt to buy a Senate seat:
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline-for-senator-1.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline-for-senator-2.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline-for-senator-3.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline-for-senator-4.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline-for-senator-5.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline-for-senator-6.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline-for-senator-7.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline-for-senator-8.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline-for-senator-9.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline-for-senator-10.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline-for-senator-11.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline-for-senator-12.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-ring-ding-ding-caroline.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweet-caroline.html
http://dbellel.blogspot.com/2008/12/nyc-royal-family.html
See, just like that. (We don't link to pornography. We're a site for the left so keep that in mind as well.) Sol actually linked to us and e-mailed to let us know (I believe he reposted one of Isaiah's comics). And he linked to Elaine. Who didn't see the e-mail he sent her. (Sunny, Elaine's assistant who runs her office, reads Elaine's e-mails. Sunny was on vacation last week. Elaine didn't see the e-mail until Sunday morning when I mentioned she might want to check. She plans to note Sol on Monday at her site.)
Andy e-mails asking not to "ever change" but he worries about our future journalism careers. I guess our sidebar sketch still isn't good enough. Here's what's what. C.I. was never a journalism major. C.I. was not in college with us. C.I. holds multiple degrees, none are in journalism. I have a bachelor's in journalism. I am not using it. I work in the film industry. Dona and Jim have their bachelors and are currently in grad school. Jess has his and is currently in law school. Ava has her degree (journalism) but she's on the road with C.I., Kat and Wally each week speaking out against the illegal war. She's put work, college, on hold to do that. Like C.I., Ava has money. That doesn't mean everything's easy because of it. (But, they'd both tell you, it does mean you don't have a panic attack when something breaks down or an unexpected bill or crisis emerges.)
Andy's fear is that we'll never be able to work in the MSM. We're not really trying to except maybe Dona and Jim and I'm not really sure what they're planning to do. They're engaged so they're planning to marry but, beyond that, I don't know. Andy notes that we don't play favorites and we don't. And that's fine. We're not trying to kiss ass. And especially these days, we have to hit hard. We are frequently the hardest and harshest critics. Let me offer a comparison. Paul Street is systematic in his criticism. And he will hold Barack accountable. He deserves much praise for that. But -- outside of his comments at ZNet -- he could be considered 'reasoned' or whatever. We're not trying for that. We're making the strongest case in our editorials, for example, and we hopefully make those few brave voices like Street seem less extreme as a result. We move the playing field to the left. The real left, where the actual people are. Which has me thinking of a feature so I'll stop there.
We really do not have time for personal replies. I'm sorry about that. But e-mails are read and we are trying to find ways to work them in each week (thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com). And Elaine has noted a feature C.I. should do, a short one, and Jim noted it here recently. The film's a bomb. It's an obvious bomb. I can't believe papers are insisting otherwise. Your first day isn't all that and it drops each day after? You're a bomb. But C.I. can't say that. Couldn't before the film opened. Couldn't after it opened. Was hoping to do so this week but the Water Cooler Set is still claiming it's going to be a hit. It's not as this weekend's box office will demonstrate. We hope to get C.I. to do that feature next week. But if you're e-mailing on that, it wouldn't hurt to e-mail a reminder closer to the end of the week. In a busy news week, things can get forgotten very quickly.
