Entry 10:

Dear Ed,

Good God what a week it's been. Yesterday it was the tax man, with his annual scary calculations. This morning I sat through a tense, distressing French film--a portrait of a sociopath from inside the sociopath's head. Highlights include: Man repeatedly punches stomach of pregnant wife, turning their unborn child into stew; man threatens Arabs; man seduces own adolescent daughter (a mute) and fantasizes about killing her. One shot I would estimate at about two minutes long shows the daughter quietly hyperventilating as a penny-sized bullet wound in her neck spurts out a slow stream of blood, like a gentle Zen fountain.

Now you want me to place the Chiapas conflict in context, and opine on the public funding of art. Whew. Okay then, but next I do think some lighter fare is in order. I'd like to see the book in question before I judge what happened. It sounds to me like Ivey carried out his decision in a cowardly manner. But it also strikes me as an understandable decision from his point of view. A pack of rabid Republican arts-cutters is nipping at his heels, waiting for a mistake so they can pounce. This is not a book to jeopardize everything for. What piques my curiosity much more than the content of this story is its rather politicized placement in your esteemed publication. What makes this minor embarrassment a Page One story? It seems like the Times is trying to provoke a scandal, in a not very constructive way--trying to ride the wave of NEA demonization, hoping Bill Bennett or some such will hold this article up at a press conference, thus giving the paper ownership of an unfolding "major story." In any case, the NEA in general just doesn't bother me the way it bothers you. At this point its power to censor art or bring new art into being seems too small to expect miracles from, and therefore too small to resent; and while the agency undoubtedly green-lights too many hacks, common sense says it also sustains some deserving people.

As for "diversity and tolerance," I understand your reservations when such rhetoric is applied to art, but I think you're way too apocalyptic about the damage that's been done. We've talked a lot about lists this week. Multiculturalism may crack the top ten reasons why we haven't seen better movies and paintings and novels in the 1990s. But that still leaves several reasons more insidious than it.

As for Subcomandante Marcos, I see by the length guidelines Slate issued us at the beginning of the week that I have less than 50 words left in which to discuss him. Not enough, but here goes. Much of what he says insightful, profound. Certain questions about intentions troubling. Uncritical supporters sometimes irresponsible, annoying, evoke days of radical chic. Supercritical detractors exaggerate evil. See through outdated prism of Cold War. This not always helpful. Truth somewhere in between.

All best,

Sarah