Caring for Cats
Still reeling from the recent loss of two beloved cats, I wondered if I had the stomach to read Sloane Crosley’s piece about the death of her own cat (“The Tail End,” August 12th). To my relief, I was buoyed by her words, which radiated a love instantly recognizable to other ailurophiles. Both of my twenty-year-old companions left swiftly, with help from magnificent vets, while I rocked them in my arms and felt the sickening lurch of our power imbalance. Since then, I have gained some comfort from the knowledge that, from the moment they entered my home, my cats knew adoration, care, and delicious snacks. In their last hours, they had no notion of regret, for the past or for a stolen future. We just curled up, like normal, until the purring stopped. Would that we were all afforded an end with such grace. Condolences to Crosley, and thank you for expressing so well the nuanced grief that accompanies the loss of an animal.
Anna Caswell
Austin,Texas
Nothing but the Truth
I was surprised to see, in Clare Malone’s Profile of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., that the magazine published without challenge a quotation from a former managing editor of Rolling Stone which stated that Kennedy’s writing was full of factual errors “because he’s not a journalist. He’s a lawyer. He’s more about making arguments than about trying to communicate the truth” (“The Inheritor,” August 12th). Contrary to popular opinion, lawyers have a professional obligation not to lie or to misrepresent. That Kennedy wrote, and that Rolling Stone published, an article “riddled with errors,” which “falsely reported” and “misrepresented” a number of facts and which “required a number of major corrections,” cannot and should not be attributed to his status as a lawyer.
Margaret Raymond
Warren P. Knowles Chair and Professor of Law
University of Wisconsin Law School
Madison, Wis.
Writing About Infidelity
As the journalist who runs chumplady.com, the infidelity-support blog that Parul Sehgal derides in her review of Sarah Manguso’s book “Liars,” I was surprised to find myself characterized in The New Yorker as some sort of snarky Svengali who warped Manguso’s views on infidelity (Books, August 12th). I can tell you with authority that scores of women will see themselves in the toxically lopsided marriage described in Manguso’s novel and will applaud her truthtelling. But I was even more surprised that Sehgal would attack an author’s former online support group. Does she always probe the acknowledgments to make sense of her authors? I don’t fault Sehgal for being tone-deaf about the pain of betrayal—I would never wish that kind of understanding on her. But I do fault her apparent lack of empathy and curiosity.
Tracy Schorn
Waterford, Va.
Art in Print
It’s interesting that the print version of Jackson Arn’s thoughtful description of the Surrealists should unintentionally present a Surrealist touch (“The Art World,” August 12th). The much discussed self-portrait by Leonora Carrington is so severely cropped that it no longer includes a section of the painting which Arn focusses on. Unfamiliar with the work, I looked in vain for the details described. I cleaned my glasses. Luckily, I decided to Google the painting. Imagine my surprise. In full, Carrington’s work is much richer. And Arn’s point was finally revealed.
Bob Alley
Barrington, R.I.
•
Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address, and daytime phone number via e-mail to themail@newyorker.com. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium. We regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.