It’s all hooey
October 2, 2002
Roger Marolt’s defense of his fictitious letters to the editor, published in your Monday paper, was way more bogus than the letters themselves.
Marolt makes it sound like writing letters in the names of fictitious characters was some sort of noble exercise of free speech.
“For those of you who feel betrayed, hurt or angry about this, your superficial unease is a small price to pay for liberty” ? unfurl Old Glory! Strike up the national anthem!
Gimme a break. This is not about Roger’s constitutional rights or artistic freedom. Nobody’s saying he can’t write letters under fictitious names, they’re saying he shouldn’t.
He misrepresented himself, he undermined people’s faith in a local institution, he made some people feel they’d been duped, and they have a right to be pissed off at him for that.
He says he’s not to blame for breaking the public’s trust because he “never promised” to abide by the newspapers’ rules for letters to the editor. What a fine Clintonesque distinction! It’s just a basic rule of life, never mind of the newspaper letters page, that failing to tell the truth is as good as lying.
Recommended Stories For You
All that matters is the idea, not the signature at the bottom? Please. The reasons for restricting the letters page to real people and real opinions are too obvious to mention.
People who resent what Marolt did aren’t philistines who don’t get his brand of performance art, they’d just like him to do it elsewhere.
I actually sort of grudgingly admired Marolt’s fictional craft and his ability to get seven letters published in one day, but my admiration evaporated after reading his specious guest opinion.
Let him cast himself as a courageous artist, but I can see now that it’s all hooey.