In the age of 140-character conversation, it's rare to receive letters to the editor of any great length. But this week, we received two: a response from David Jenkins to Mark Leib's review of Quills (Doug Wright's play about the Marquis de Sade) and a letter from Andrew Loomis regarding a column by Peter Meinke. (Note to frequent correspondent David Lester Hornberger: I'd print your letters, but they deserve to be scanned and presented as the art objects that they are. Never has the legalization of marijuana been defended with such elegant calligraphy.)

Re "Marquis attraction," Mark E. Leib's review of Quills (Nov. 3, 2011)

It's ironic that we are offered a review here so entrenched in a moral position about a play that seeks to challenge the idea of normative morality. From reading this, one might assume you hated de Sade as a figure before stepping into the theater (after all, we're offered comparisons to Nazis, Skinheads and Klansmen — it's clear where you stand), which is too bad for us and perhaps to a degree your readership. At least the bias is more than evident.

Half of this review is an attack on de Sade as a literary figure, which I suppose we can't do anything about. It is true that there are feminist writers out there like Andrea Dworkin who accuse de Sade of nothing but "vile pornography." Yet, for every Dworkin there is a Simone de Beauvoir (c'mon, you couldn't even give any of those "French postmodernists" any actual credit?) out there making compelling arguments to the contrary. Sade scholar Alice Laborde says Dworkin is "intentionally misreading the satirico-novelistic elements of the text." I think her statement might apply here to your interpretation of de Sade's work and thus what our little skit was all about.

Writers like de Beauvoir give de Sade credit for not making a distinction between "right" and "wrong" sexualities. Avoiding binary and the inevitable exclusions that result from it. For every conservative or radical feminist position that focuses on violence or subjugation we may find contrasting points of view within other feminist traditions, queer scholarship, and others that will point to the satire and the works' challenge of norms/status quo. de Sade's work is not fundamentally about morality or immorality, but rather he posits an amorality, which I recognize for many might be difficult to accept.

The truth is, we've had 200 years to "neglect" the Marquis de Sade, and we haven't. Why do you think that is? There has to be something in there, something which perhaps you've too easily dismissed.

David M. Jenkins, Producing Artistic Director, Jobsite Theater

Re "Poet's Notebook: The eye of the needle," by Peter Meinke, June 2, 2011

Dear Mr. Meinke,

I saw you reading poetry in Safety Harbor a while back, but you wouldn't talk: Central Casting's idea of a lame old beatnik. There is no fool like an old fool. Sure, the Berkeley Barb was fun — back in 1966. Now these pimp rags just append some "stay on brand" political stuff in front of their money-makers.

Please realize that some poor child might actually take you seriously, and throw away her prime on Marxist politics, or some other drivel that was discredited long ago. Sure, if you are mad that other people have stuff that you never made any effort to get, well, just steal theirs. And like guys who win the lottery, you will blow your windfall instantly, and end up worse off, still skill-less.

"The eye of the needle" was a column that you wrote for C. Loafing. Did you proofread that thing? East Germany, and Stalinist Cuba, and whacko-world Albania? Yeah, right. About 1961, the present leader of Cuba announced that he wanted the Russians to give him an atomic bomb to drop on New York City. And of course, the Russians then DID install nuclear weapons in Cuba. But "the Cubans were warm and friendly." Even the ones who Fidel sent over to attack the government in Angola?

Militant atheists such as yourself are certain that the Bible is just folklore. And then you love to preach from it. Hilariously. "The eye of the needle" means exactly what it seems to mean, because there are about a dozen other passages in the bible that say the same thing: the poor can "give it all up and follow Christ," because they would be giving up very little, and can't afford much sinning anyway; but the rich, oh my, what a sacrifice.

And THAT, of course, is precisely the "problem" that America has now: starving to death would take a concerted effort; the "poor" are watching the game on cable on their big screen, drinking beer in air-conditioning, with two cars in the driveway. You could look it up. Any kid who shows up and does the work can go through the public schools through Ph.D. If she picked a subject that is useful to ANY employer, she can then continue working for 3-4 more years and pay back her debt. Boo-hoo.

Thus, nobody can claim “need” anymore. Mothers don’t “need” husbands; babies don’t “need” fathers; youngsters don’t “need” any skills; and nobody “needs” to get along with their relatives or anyone else well enough to move in and share with them. And of course, columnists don’t need to make any sense. Just “stay on brand.”

When my mother said “We haven’t got the money,” it was impossible for my whining to succeed. Due to the astounding success of ‘the American experiment” over the last 100 years, whining now can be profitable. Jesus very much did NOT say that the ambition-freaks who infest government should be encouraged to seize our goods by force and give them to their friends — oops, to the poor — oh, whatever. Instead, he taught that each one of us must try hard to walk for our whole lives down that narrow road to where-we-all-WANT-to-go, instead of rollin’ on down that wide easy highway to a decadence and rot that will never end. If you are truly in need, rectitude and hard work are about your only options – besides suicidal defiance and a quick demise. But when you get rich like us, oh my, my, my, but it does get so much harder to be good.

You know nothing about immigration either. We threw out all the illegals after WWII and Korea, no problem. The Tweed Ring and then Tammany Hall and a dozen other “ethnic machines” always kept their snouts in the public treasury with the votes of recent arrivals who were afraid of the “natives.” Then the U.S. had hardly any immigration at all between about 1922 and 1965, and that killed off the immigrant machines, to the great benefit of the “native” blacks, don’t you see? Since then, the natives do not breed even at a replacement rate, and the entire increase in our population is from immigration. Shall we resurrect the Tweed Ring as La Raza Ring?

Mr. Meinke, if you think anybody might still be listening to you, try getting on the side of the folks who have actually read a book: advise the youngsters to stick with the most successful form of government ever devised, and get to work.

"Just because wisdom did not come until late in life is no reason to reject it when it does come."

Andrew F. Loomis, Clearwater, FL

p.s. Nobody is “worthy” of God’s compassion. We are all just hoping for a little mercy out here (“grace”).

This article appears in Nov 10-16, 2011.