A sublime sketch
To the editors:
On ‘Day Jobs’ by Paul Karasik (February 27): Brilliant! I loved it! Have it framed! Hung up! Thank you!
Elaine Cioffic
Paramus, New Jersey
Lack of attention
To the editors:
I proceed with caution regarding Amy Bloom’s powerful memoir “In Love” (March 6), about her husband’s Alzheimer’s and euthanasia, and the details highlighted in Alex Witchel’s review. (My husband had more age-related Alzheimer’s.) Bloom’s husband’s waning interest in his wardrobe and her television script may seem unfair given the bigger picture of his prognosis and an impossibly difficult decision for both of them.
Paula Burke Campbell
Washington, DC
genre bias
To the editors:
As for Becca Rothfeld’s review of Rebecca Mead’s “Home/Land: A Memoir of Departure and Return” (March 6), I was so excited to see an issue devoted to memoirs. But why pick a reviewer who clearly has disdain for the entire genre? “Embarrassing indulgences”? “Maligned Kind”? I tried to imagine a reviewer complaining about the boredom of reading a novel, or a book of poetry, before launching her cocky diatribe against a specific example. It would never happen. Why in 2022 is it still fair game to banish all old, worn-out prejudices against memoirs?
Don’t invite these bullies to play on our part of the literary playground.
Wayne Scott
Portland, OR.
Index humor
To the editors:
Margalit Fox’s review of Dennis Duncan’s “Index, A History of the” (February 27) reminded me of an index entry for William Kennedy’s “O Albany!” When it came out, I looked to see if my great-grandfather’s ice house was under the W’s. It wasn’t – but I was amused to see a nearby entry for “vote fraud” where, instead of specifying the page numbers, the indexer stated: “see Democratic Party.” I never thought an indexer could be both editorial and entertaining.
While the index has entries for “Prohibition,” “Prostitution,” and “Mafia, the,” there is none for “speakeasy,” even though my grandfather worked at one such “gentlemen’s club” across the state legislature; so under this category the indexer could have stated: “see New York State Capitol.”
Michael Wilpers
Silver Spring, Md.
To the editors:
I was a physician of obstetrics and gynecology from 1982 to 1986. The authoritative text at the time was a 1179-page tome: “Williams Obstetrics, 16th Edition” (1980). We were supposed to know all about it. The authors were teachers at the renowned Parkland Hospital in Dallas. While perusing the index late at night, one of my colleagues came across the following entry: “Chauvinism, male, sizeable amounts 1-1.102.” We also discovered “Eyes of Texas are on you, 1-1.102.” We all loved this comment and called it the mad indexer’s revenge. Were the indexer and proofreader colluded?
Susan Davidson
Madison, Wis.
imperial tongues
To the editors:
In a letter (February 27) responding to Amy Chua’s review of Rosemary Salomane’s “The Rise of English,” Kibbe Fitzpatrick continues to “search for the answer to why English could win a battle that Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin couldn’t.” .”
You don’t think the English-speaking British Empire—which at its peak comprised about 25 percent of the world’s landmass—could have anything to do with this, do you? I was wondering.
Martin Wilson
Fernandina Beach, Florida
books.
The Times welcomes letters from readers. Letters for publication must include the author’s name, address, and telephone number. The email address is books@
nytimes.com† Letters can be edited for length and clarity.