Tut-Tut; I was too quick to judge Shelly's columns
Letter to the editor - published 12/11/2020
From The Anniston Star of 12/11/2020. Click this link to see the letter.
This letter was something I’d like to see more of: jousting between rival writers. Of course, Rubel Shelly doesn’t know that we are rivals and that I covet the spot he so often fills with his tut-tutting. In fact, I suspect he doesn’t even know I exist. If he did catch on to my existence and also became aware of my written take-down, he might protest that he had not really slavered all that much over Dolly Parton’s bosoms. He might even say that he was only reporting the words of others on that…I mean those…subjects. Rubel, Rubel, Rubel—I hear you, man, but one way or another, you Went There. Oh, you covered yourself by reporting that The Missus also espoused a love for Dolly Parton, but I ask you: did you show her the final draft of your column, you bad boy? Maybe I’m overstating the case.
You be the judge. Brace yourself and click this link to see Mr. Shelly's column about Dolly.
I would agree that, in Jimmy Carter style, he lusted primarily in his heart. But secondarily, he wrote just enough to allow his animal spirits to leak out onto the page. You might say he opened the kimono a tad (you might; I would never say that and I regret imagining you saying it, and the attendant mental image). And so I jumped up and down and pointed at him in public. Of course, given his pedigree, it is entirely possible that my letter, far from branding him a smut-meister, essentially issued him the Man Card which his studious career may have denied him. He doesn’t live nearby and so I cannot say whether he now walks with a previously-absent swagger or has been enjoying free beers all over Nashville since letting his philadollia hang out.
Speaking of studious careers, in all columns up to and including the one about Dolly, “retired philosopher” was included in Shelly’s bio. After my letter wherein I wondered how exactly you retire from that (what, do you stop thinking when you hit the government approved retirement age?), his bio no longer mentions philosophy as either a past or current activity. Either he realized the impossibility (short of physical incapacity) of retiring from philosophy, or he has secretly taken it up again, either as a hobby or as a consultant (e.g. when a company needs to spend the money budgeted for appeasement of annoying critics, they bring in an academic to tut-tut over their mission statement and corporate governance, write the man a big check, and resume their shareholder-enriching activities).
And now, let’s rap about editing!
As usual, the editor’s headline is anything but subtle. I have written on that subject before and won’t belabor the point (yes, I’m aware that my claims of non-belaboring often precede another 500 words on a subject; imagine if I actually belabored it). But I will say that I actually like this headline in spite of its bean-spilling quality. I like it because it follows the form suggested in the body of the letter, where I write about the typical (though never actually seen in print before now) form of headlines over the columns of the standard-issue, moralizing, minister (active or retired) columnist. That form is given as “Tut-Tut: [Insert Some Current Issue]”. And so we see that, while adhering to the practice of putting the punchline right up there in the headline, the editor gave a wink and a nod to the joke by using the form of headline that I had posited. I appreciate that!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.