Notes & Asides

National Review, July 28, 2003 by William F. Buckley, Jr.

-- Dear Mr. Buckley: As one who thoroughly agrees with you that J. S. Bach is the best, I sheepishly confess that when possible amidst Saturday chores, I tune in the local "oldies" radio station. A true Boomer, I was born but five years before Elvis Presley took up the icon's mantle and led rock 'n' roll's invasion of our society, attracting legions of fans as he did so. Yet I much prefer the Beach Boys and the Beatles. Elvis's tunes, with one or two exceptions, just never quite hooked me.

But now I've encountered your Elvis in the Morning. It is a most imaginative work and was a pleasure to read. I was impressed by all you had read to prepare to write, and I assume that in the process you gained a substantial feel for the so-called "King."

Regarding you as one of America's true sages, I must ask some questions: What do you now think of Mr. Presley? How do you assess his character?

Yours in admiration, James L. Fletcher Jr., M.D. Savannah, Ga.

--Dear Dr. Fletcher: 1) I think Presley was a superb and original vocalist. 2) His character was suicidally defective. Glad you enjoyed my book. Cordially, WFB

-- Dear Mr. Buckley: When a navy captain's ship runs aground (even if it is the fault of one of his junior officers), the captain will never make admiral, and probably won't get to drive his ship much longer.

The New York Times is aground and taking on water fast.

I submit that the only way the paper will restore any sense of credibility is for the editor to resign, or be fired by the publisher. This action would send shock waves through the nation's editorial boards (which wouldn't be such a bad thing), and it would also help to re-establish the trust which is so vital to our national press.

Christian Patte Maj. Gen., USA-Ret'd. Charleston, S.C.

--Dear General: What if John Paul Jones had run aground in 1770? Or Nelson, 30 years later? Iron rules that appeal to the military aren't always right even for the military, and are hazardously invoked for the non-military. What I think you are saying is that what the public wanted was a little mortification from so towering a paragon of public responsibility. A little propitiation. But wasn't that an internal matter for the Times?

Cordially, WFB

-- Dear Mr. Buckley: In the June 2 issue, in an item about Jayson Blair, NR says, "Blair, who was black, . . ." Isn't he still black?

Just wondering, Barbara Richardson Amsden, Vt.

--Dear Ms. Richardson: The sense of it, in the language used, was, "Blair, given the fact that he was black, . . ." As in, "Muhammad Ali, who was black [after all], refused to sign the contract."

Okay?

Cordially, WFB

-- Dear Mr. Buckley: Can you suffer one more comment on the sprinkling of foreign words and phrases in one's writing?

Bill Sholar argued against such a practice (June 2) because it may obscure the meaning of what is being written. (He was flummoxed by the phrase d'accord.) He then contradicted his entire premise by closing with Parva leves capiunt animas.

This sentence sent me into a frenzy of scholarly research to discover its meaning, which is "Frivolous minds are won by trifles," penned by Ovid.

Now this curious mind wants to know if I can get bonus points in erudition by using two different languages together in an English phrase, such as "a frisson of Schadenfreude"?

Sincerely yours, (Miss) Joan Mary Macey Binghamton, N.Y.

--Dear Miss Macey: If you try it, and discerning readers look on, I guarantee you lots of Schadenfreude.

Cordially, -- WFB