GODS AND MONSTERS

Letters

Readers weigh in on Hitler's Pope; Billy Wilder's forsaken star; Kent students raise their voices; Kerouac—On the Road and off the wagon; How dare you, Nan Darien?; Money talks; fat girls, gay men, oh, and Ben Affleck

It is instructive that Vanity Fair chose to publish the journalism of John Cornwell ["Hitler's Pope," October] as opposed to an excerpt from the first English translation of the compendium volume of the Vatican archives on the Holocaust. Pius XII and the Second World War: According to the Archives of the Vatican, by Pierre Blet, offers precisely what Cornwell cannot deliver: evidence. And the evidence says that no one did more to save Jews during the Holocaust than Pope Pius XII (which is why Jews the world over were so thankful).

It must also be said that despite the efforts of Cornwell and Conde Nast the process of beatifying Pius XII will continue undisturbed by the politics of the moment.

WILLIAM A. DONOHUE

President, Catholic League for Religious

and Civil Rights

New York, New York

WITH REGARD TO John Cornwell's excellent piece on Pius XII, I would point out that not only Pope Pius but the entire apparatus of the Roman Catholic Church must be held responsible for its part in supporting Hitler.

Yes, we often hear tales of persecution of the church by the Nazis, of the murders of priests and nuns, but, terrible as these crimes were, they pale in comparison with the level of support given the Nazi regime by the church in Europe. The Catholic clergy who perished at the hands of the Nazis did so because of political, not religious, reasons. To count them as victims of the Holocaust is insulting to the memory of the real victims, the Jews. In fact, the church was more often than not an instrument of the persecution, assisting actively (at worst) or turning a blind eye to the reality around it (at best). The Catholic Church was then, as it is now, a powerful force. Had its clergy, from the Pope down to the humblest parish priest, united in their condemnation of Nazism, millions of Germans and others would have resisted. The church's silence was tantamount to support of Hitler.

Little has changed. To this day the Catholic Church has not posthumously excommunicated Hitler, because he, individually, did nothing to violate canon law. Evidently the planning and leadership of the worst case of mass murder in the history of humankind are not nearly so serious in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church as is, say, remarriage after divorce.

ERIC J. BROCK

Shreveport, Louisiana

AS A FORMER DEVOUT Catholic who has lately contemplated returning to the faith, I found John Cornwell's article on Pius XII both enlightening and discouraging. If even half of what Cornwell says is true, Pius XII is surely spending eternity with his co-conspirator, Adolf Hitler, and not in the never-ending rapture of God's presence. To those of us raised in the dogma of Roman Catholicism, this much is clear: whatever good Pius XII brought to his papal role must, in God's eyes, be overshadowed by his contemporaneous knowledge of the Holocaust and his refusal to intervene on behalf of its victims.

Moreover, it is difficult to understand how any right-thinking Catholic, including John Paul II, could believe that the case for Pius XII's canonization has merit. Conferring sainthood on him will make a complete mockery of the institution. For those of us who wish to re-establish our Catholic faith and devotion, it will be all the more challenging if we must, on one hand, reject Satan in his many forms and, on the other, pray to one of his cohorts— "Saint" Pius XII.

MICHELE SIMPSON

Stanhope, New Jersey

GRANTED, PIUS XII was an authoritarian who tried to weaken any real or potential rivals to his power. Granted, he feared Bolshevism and made too many decisions based on "the Red Menace." But Cornwell's evidence of his antiSemitism is inconclusive. Eugenio Pacelli's revulsion at the Communist attempt to take power in Munich was shared by many, as was his charge that the revolutionaries were almost entirely Jewish. And Pacelli's unwillingness to provide German Jews with palms for the Festival of Tabernacles during W.W. I simply shows that Catholics felt that theirs was the only true faith—not that Pacelli hated Jews. Both before and after being elected Pope, Pacelli certainly did rely heavily on Vatican diplomacy. But being too much a diplomat and too little a pastor is not a capital crime, nor does it reveal antiSemitism. Pacelli could have done more to help Jews; he should have done more. But he does not deserve this vicious portrayal by Cornwell. His diatribe might have been written by Christopher Hitchens!

NORMAN RAVITCH

Professor of history, University of California

Riverside, California

THAT PIUS XII would walk a high wire of ambiguous intrigue and cool compromise is all the more disheartening when one remembers his predecessor Pius XI and his unflinching recognition that Nazism was the embodiment of that old Catholic baptismal epithet: "the glamour of evil."

From an early age Catholics learn that the history of the Popes is not always beatific, that any one Pope is not the office itself, and that the soul of many a departed Pope is no doubt in need of our prayerful intercession. It is finally the burden of every Pontifex Maximus to remember that beneath his baroque floor-length gowns are the simple shoes of a fisherman.

GENE GREMBOWIEC

Houston, Texas

The Wilder Bunch

THE GREAT BILLY WILDER granted his actors immortality by casting them in his film classics. But in his sublime reminiscences for Cameron Crowe ["Conversations with Billy," October], he buries one star prematurely. Recalling 1959's Some Like It Hot, Wilder says that silent-film veteran Joe E. Brown "did the part, and shortly after, he died." Actually, Brown lived 14 years longer, until July 1973, and was taken from us during the same dark week that we lost screen icons Betty Grable and Veronica Lake.

JAY BLOTCHER

New York, New York

YOUR BILLY WILDER PIECE was wonderful. In reference to your account about how the book Conversations with Wilder came about, however, I'd like to make a small clarification. As a longtime friend of the Wilders', and one who has tried for many years to persuade Billy to write a book, I should point out that it was a struggle to get him to sit for an interview. Wilder had already been the subject of several unauthorized biographies. It was only after I read Cameron Crowe's hilarious Jerry Maguire diary in Rolling Stone and sent it to Mr. Wilder that he agreed reluctantly to be interviewed by Cameron Crowe. I then wrote Cameron Crowe cold and asked if he'd be willing to sit for a book of interviews with his hero. We three met, and it became love between them a few sights after that.

KAREN LERNER

New York, New York

Student Protest

I WAS APPALLED by "The Kent School Mystery" [by Michael Shnayerson] in your October issue. The subject at hand concerns Kent alumnus and Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane and headmaster Father Schell—not the Kent School. There was no need for you to deface it.

I graduated from Kent in 1996. When I attended the school it was not the corrupt and debauched place you make it out to be, and I do not believe a school could change that dramatically in only three years. In his article Shnayerson writes, quoting a faculty member, "The things [Father Schell] attacks in Family Guy he allows in the school. There is no code of morality on paper." This is in no way true. The things Father Schell attacks in Family Guy are definitely not allowed at Kent School. In fact, students are kicked out of school for displaying "un-Kent-like behavior." The other statement that shocked me was the quote from the mother of a former Kent student: "Virtually everyone in the dorms was on drugs. They were doing angel dust, cocaine, and grinding up Adderall ... in order to snort it." That is an outrageous statement and a horrendous label to put on Kent School students.

ANNE RYDER

Washington, D.C.

I AM ONE of the 550 students who attend Kent. I have just entered my junior year, and hopefully it will be as great and enlightening as the last two. What provoked you to publish such nonsense about our school is beyond my comprehension. I know Seth MacFarlane's father, and he is a wonderful and amiable man. In fact, I had him for the first term of English 2 last year. We shared laughs and jokes along with difficult tests, and we never imagined that a few jokes made on his son Seth's TV show would ever develop into such an ugly mess. You have no idea how we the students feel about this terrible event. Many of us have to apply to colleges this year, and the last thing we need is to be known as the scandalous school with the horrible headmaster. Father Schell is a wonderful, happy man. Understandably, he took offense at the personal nature of the program's content. You cannot imagine how outraged the students on this campus are. It is far too late for you to take back what you said in the article, but I do feel that you owe the school an apology. I could probably continue this letter for another 10 pages, but I need to go to class.

TIMOTHY JARVIS CASTANTINE

Kent, Connecticut

AS PRESIDENT of the Board of Trustees of Kent School, I write to express the board's concern about Michael Shnayerson's article and to set the record straight.

The facts are fairly straightforward. Several months ago, the school's headmaster, Father Richardson W. Schell, was drawn, by a unique set of circumstances, to a television show whose content he considered objectionable. He believed that the show was not appropriate for viewing by young people, especially as it aired in a primetime programming slot. Father Schell then wrote letters to encourage the show's corporate advertisers to reconsider their support in light of the content. In fact, the letters were relatively successful. Several of these companies indicated that they would reconsider advertising on the show.

Mr. Shnayerson used this as the point of departure to create an article that is based largely on innuendo and anonymous quotes, and one that portrays a distorted view of both the headmaster and Kent School.

Particularly troublesome is the article's suggestion that the school is lax or tolerant in matters of student conduct. I want to make it clear that Kent School's leadership has zero tolerance for cheating, or for the use of drugs and alcohol. The school has strict and clear procedures in place to ensure enforcement of its policies and the application of rigorous, consistent discipline in cases of infractions by students in these areas.

Beyond that, your readers should know that the Board of Trustees has confidence in Father Schell's stewardship of the school and supports him fully. Kent is in excellent condition in all respects—levels of applications, enrollment, academic ranking, alumni support, and financial strength.

In our judgKent's headmaster stands by what our school teaches. As an individual and secondary-school educator, Father Schell spoke out on an issue that affects the development of all young people. The matter is as simple as that.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 124

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 116

BRANDON W. SWEITZER

Kent, Connecticut

Drink to the Beat

I ENJOYED James Wolcott's trenchant and concise article on Jack Kerouac ["Kerouac's Lonesome Road," October]. His observations are informed and astute, not only about Kerouac but also about the Beat movement itself and its legacy.

However, while it's quite easy to see the Kerouac of the 1960s as a "test model for ... Archie Bunker" whose alcoholism caused his work to "taper off into wispy formlessness," it's important to realize that compositional formality wasn't part of Kerouac's aesthetic to begin with—as Wolcott himself suggests when discussing the editing of On the Road. As to Kerouac's physical decline, I once observed to Allen Ginsberg that it was a shame that Kerouac had ended up sitting around in dirty clothes drinking beer at his mother's, and Ginsberg replied, "Sure, but what you've got to understand is that Jack had always sat around in dirty clothes drinking at his mother's. He just got older."

It's also worth noting that even though Kerouac did go into a marked personal and artistic decline after, say, 1961, Kerouac tackles the subject of alcoholism honestly and head-on in his 1962 novel, Big Sur, offering a stark firsthand account of the subject which is, to my mind, unrivaled in English.

KEVIN McGOWIN

Professor of English

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina

Coin-Fed Up

I AM A MIDWESTERNER who will not be renewing my subscription to Vanity Fair. I cannot subscribe to a magazine that allows such disrespectful and irresponsible writing as socialite Nan Darien's description of her travels to the island of Farnango ["Vanities: Mad About That Island!," October].

Ms. Darien calls midwestemers, specifically Ohioans (I live in Cincinnati), clunkers and large people. She also says she would like to dip us in disinfectant, chop off our beer bellies, and do something about our shoes. I am not sure whom she is talking about, because I (like most of my friends) am in great shape; enjoy wine, not beer; and wear Birkenstocks more often than not. By publishing her column, Vanity Fair, I assume, condones this attitude of disrespect.

In addition, Ms. Darien also chooses to be irresponsible in her description of bulimia. It is difficult enough for young ladies today to avoid the pressures of being thin. That an established and respected magazine such as Vanity Fair would encourage purging is appalling. "Say what you will about bulimia," says Ms. Darien, "but bulimics are absolutely some of the most gorgeous people in the world." Apparently, Vanity Fair's idea of gorgeous is a head in the toilet, rotting teeth, potassium deficiencies, broken blood vessels, and sometimes death. In the future, I hope your editors think more before publishing such dribble.

THERESA LUBKE

Cincinnati, Ohio

NAN DARIEN RESPONDS:

Theresa, you are absolutely right to think, me a horrid old bag. Disrespectful? Irresponsible? Yes. That's me. That's who I am. But given the amount we are all forced to euphemize and fictionalize and verbally prettify in life—my entire life is a fiction, darling— isn't the occasional blast of civet a refreshing

tonic? I think so. I will, however, quibble with you over one thing—your last sentence. You've confused "dribble" with "drivel,"n'est-ce pas? Take thatbout of your drivel, Theresa, and put it back in your bonnet.

Money Problems

YOUR MAGAZINE ERRED in "The New Establishment" [October] when you wrote that the efforts of Time Inc.'s editor in chief, Norman Pearlstine, "to push Money upscale ... , with a new editor and redesign, failed."

The facts prove quite the contrary. Money'?, newsstand sales are up 34 percent this year over the second half of 1998. Ad pages are up 12.6 percent, while those of the rest of the personal-finance category are down. As for going upscale, Money now has the wealthiest audience in the category, with a median household income of $70,211. In fact, 2.4 million Money readers have a median household income in excess of $100,000. That's nearly four times the figure for the competitor you mistakenly cited as our model, Smart Money.

Clearly Mr. Pearlstine's efforts at Money, and those of Bob Safian, our talented managing editor, have succeeded quite well.

DAVID W. KIESELSTEIN

President

Personal Finance Magazine Group

Time Inc.

New York, New York

EDITOR'S REPLY: Mr. Kieselstein quotes our article on Mr. Pearlstine incorrectly. Vanity Fair states that Money's redesign "failed to impress its conservative readers." This is true, based on the negative response Money received from its own readers in the wake of the redesign. Based on published figures, it was clear that Money's redesign and new stewardship were not initially a success in terms of paid circulation.

Chasing Affleck

AFTER READING your article on Ben Affleck ["Let's Try It Ben's Way," by Evgenia Peretz, October], I must say I am dismayed. In reference to Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben is quoted as saying: "She's actually the funny, down-to-earth fat girl in the beautiful girl's body." I guess Ben believes that pretty girls cannot be downto-earth and that "fat" women cannot be beautiful. Sorry, Ben, but you are indeed a "chump," and I would never be willing to be with someone so ignorant.

MICHELLE KAIN

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

I REMEMBER WATCHING the Oscars a couple of years ago with a group of mostly gay friends and trying to convince everyone that Ben Affleck and Matt Damon were not gay. "But they came with their mothers!" everyone howled, as if that were proof enough. No, Ben is not gay, but he is what we desperately need more of in this world: an absolutely 100 percent heterosexual guy from a working-class Boston background who is secure enough in his own sexuality to be flattered and amused by speculation and attention from the gay community.

While I can safely say that most homosexual men wish Ben were gay (especially after viewing those wonderful pictures by Annie Leibovitz), I'll take Ben just as he is—a very grounded straight boy devoid of the macho homophobia that permeates so much of our culture.

JOSEPH CRANGLE

Toronto, Ontario

CORRECTION: On page 324 of the October issue ("Let's Try It Ben's Way"), we referred to a "finals club" at Harvard. The correct term is "final club."

Letters to the editor should be sent with the writer's name, address, and daytime phone number to: Vanity Fair, 4 Times Square, New York, New York 10036. Address electronic mail to vfmail@vf.com. The magazine reserves the right to edit submissions, which may be published or otherwise used in any medium. All submissions become the property of Vanity Fair

Those submitting manuscripts, photographs, artwork, or other material to Vanity Fair for consideration should not send originals unless requested in writing to do so by Vanity Fair All unsolicited materials must be accompanied by a self-addressed overnight-delivery envelope, postage paid. However, Vanity Fair is not responsible for unsolicited submissions.