A Reply

While reading last week's Salient letters I noticed one Ms (or Mr.) Jan Lacki's destructive criticism of John Henderson.

I agree that it's been nice in the past to see Vic's aspiring critics demonstrating enough interest in the magazine to voice their opinions of its format, etc. but I am disappointed at the total lack of feeling some correspondents demonstrate when they not only criticise other writers, but seem determined to publicly rub somebody's face in the dirt without offering a constructive alternative.

At the risk of appearing rude, what the hell do you—Jan Lacki—hope to achieve through your mindless attack on John Henderson? If you really disagree, or are embarrassed by what he writes, why don't you come into the Salient office and volunteer to write the staff notes, Exec, reports, etc? Of course, one word of warning—you will find that very few people will read these reports unless you make them interesting and/or witty because they are otherwise horribly boring. (But judging from your keen sense of humour you may do very well). Another thing to remember is the time you must spend attending these meetings and forums taking notes and observing the people there, so you can later construct your witticisms.

While you apparently take enough interest in John to read and analyse what he writes, you seem annoyed that his name appears in the magazine. I personally think that the writers of Salient's articles should be acknowledged for their efforts—but you evidently disagree. Of course, if you join the staff and write something on a regular basis, you should have the satisfaction of seeing his name replaced by your own at least once per issue.

Any further criticism of Salient's content is, I feel, unwarranted unless the critics bother to help with the work of writing it, because if the present few workers gave up and left, Salient would cease.