My grandmother the writer Isabel Moore became a close friend of Marilyn Monroe’s in the early 1950s, when Monroe was approaching the height of the fame she achieved while still alive and my grandmother was editor of Photoplay magazine. As I have gathered from the many stories of my youth, Marilyn was always a very lonely and isolated woman. When she had to go into the hospital for an emergency appendectomy, she could call only my grandmother-then arguably nothing more than a gossip-magazine editor—to accompany her. As my grandmother held her hand while the young star was wheeled into surgery, Monroe revealed to her, among many other very personal things, her belief that film legend Clark Gable was her biological father and that Gable would one day acknowledge that fact. My grandmother never published anything about her conversation with Monroe that night, but did concede that she had passed that information on to Gable in the waning hours of a Hollywood party some weeks later. The incredible photograph in the October issue [“The Things She Left Behind,” by Sam Kashner] of Monroe and Gable, sharing a tender kiss on the eve of both of their deaths, brought the whole episode back to me. I am sure that no one ever gave any credence to Monroe’s dreamy conviction, but somehow that photo tells me that she may never have stopped believing it herself.

J. MICHAEL MOFFAT Cooperstown, New York

I AM AS OBSESSED and fascinated with Marilyn Monroe as the next person, but your photographic essay on Monroe’s trove of artifacts was a bit much, even for me. There seems to be a cottage industry of people who work overtime perpetuating the unbelievable mythology of Monroe. I find the whole phenomenon strange. When Monroe died, she was living in a run-of-the-mill house, in Brentwood. She hadn’t had a hit movie in three years, and her looks were starting to reflect years of drug and alcohol abuse. Today, Monroe is beyond famous. She is nearly a new religion—as noted in the article. If she had been one-twentieth as revered in 1962 as she is now, I hardly see how she could have functioned. She wouldn’t have been able to leave her house. It seems that her detractors have never truly been heard. And when reading between the lines of some of the anecdotal Monroe information, I get the distinct feeling that she was not as nice a person as the modern-day Marilynites would have us believe. Still, here we are with yet another genuflecting article on the actress.

KIM SMITH Charleston, West Virginia

“WOW”is the only word one can use to describe Marilyn Monroe’s attention to detail, her generosity, and the overwhelming image she had to live up to.

KATHERINE MILOSEVICH Darien, Illinois

I AM “the Professor” in the October cover story about the Monroe collection. The author of eight books on the history of women and gender, including Intertwined Lives: Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Their Circle, I am a full professor of history at the University of Southern California. I have spent five years studying Monroe.

The major error in the article is the statement that Monroe collected jewelry. She didn’t collect jewelry; she was ambivalent about it. Elizabeth Taylor, not Monroe, collected jewelry.

Further, the items photographed on a pink background in the article were copies of letters and notes. Ruth Conroy, who inherited this collection from its original possessor, Inez Melson, made those copies on pink paper for a book she put together on Monroe that was never published. The originals were probably sold or given away. The note from Somerset Maugham to Marilyn was one of the copies of original documents on pink paper.

I am quoted as stating that all the checks Marilyn signed are in this collection. That’s not correct. The collection includes roughly 400 of the checks she signed.

Marilyn collectors Greg Schreiner and Scott Fortner have verified this collection of roughly 5,000 documents, which Donald Spoto used extensively in his biography of Marilyn.

I want the Monroe collection to be placed in a museum, to honor Monroe as a great actress, a self-made symbol of the American Dream, a successful businesswoman, and the greatest sex icon of the 20th century. I want to bring Monroe fan-club members, collectors, and friends together around this goal. Mary Catherine Bateson, Margaret Mead’s daughter, gave her mother’s papers to the Library of Congress. Margaret Mead, she decided, “belonged to the nation.” I hold the same attitude toward Marilyn Monroe.

LOIS BANNER Los Angeles, California

NO. 1 WITH A BULLET

In light of Masha Gessen’s razor-sharp article [“Dead Soul,” October] revealing Vladimir Putin for what he is, a bloodthirsty thug with an overinflated ego, it is impossible to comprehend what moved you—in the same issue—to honor him as No. 1 on your annual New Establishment list. Not only do you do injustice to every other person on that list, but given Putin’s barbaric behavior in August (what you refer to as his “foray into Georgia”), it seems a rather tasteless choice.

Furthermore, certain facts should be taken into account. Russia’s tattered army is made up of toilet-seat-robbing, ill-paid soldiers and antiquated weaponry; the output from the country’s famed oil fields is expected to decline sharply in two years; and their economy on a good day—which they haven’t had any of lately—is about one-tenth that of Europe. Russia’s population is rapidly shrinking by hundreds of thousands a year, its oligarchs are bolting with their riches to safer havens (where they are not always welcome), and Putin’s collection of admirers is made up of Ortega, Chavez, Hezbollah, and Hamas. The laurels you so generously heap upon Putin seem decidedly undeserved.

ETERI DJOBADZE 

SERGI NAKAIDZE Los Angeles, California

VANITY FAIR’S New Establishment comprises mostly left-wing lunatics. It’s a disgrace. Putin invades his neighbor and makes the top of the list; George Bush liberates 50 million people and he is the Devil.

EDWARD F. OUTTEN JR. East Brunswick, New Jersey

YOUR LISTING of the top dogs of the Information Age started with two of the most prominent persons in disinformation—Putin and Murdoch. The idea that the Information Age lends itself to a different standard of morality than, say, the Industrial Age is really untenable. I see few, if any, leaders in movements to alleviate poverty, promote peace, or fight bigotry. There is a disconnect between V.F.’s often incisive editorial matter, covering the political and social scene, and this valuation of people whose only attribute is that they are worshipped by those for whom the old society pages in the press were the living end. The magazine would do far better to consider the intrinsic worth of an individual rather than his or her extrinsic characteristics.

SOL COHEN Vallejo, California

THE LAST QUEEN

THE STORY of Brooke Astor’s life and later years, written by John Richardson, had me transfixed [“The Battle for Mrs. Astor,” October]. I don’t know what got to me most: the precious picture of her walking hand in hand with trusted friend and butler Chris Ely or her so kindly asking guests, “Do stay for dinner,” though the chef was long gone, Bless Annette de la Renta for taking control of a ghastly situation and seeing that Mrs. Astor’s last days were as peaceful and gracious as possible.

STACIE BENES Washington, D.C.

I CANNOT believe how one-sided John Richardson’s article was. Tony Marshall is Brooke Astor’s Only Child. Give him the money. She’s dead. He’s alive. She treated her son as if he were a stepchild. Does Richardson have any clue how difficult it is to take care of an elderly person who is losing her memory? Let me tell you, it’s your worst nightmare. They are confused and are constantly telling other people that they are being mistreated and have no money. People begin to doubt you and wonder if there is any truth to what the senior with dementia is saying. I feel this article is a smear campaign against Marshall and his wife, and I feel for him. Who are we to judge when we have not walked in his shoes?

LOLLY HELLMAN Venice Beach, California

V. F. CLASSIC

In Juno 2001, Timothy McVeigh was executed after being found guilty of bombing Oklahoma City's Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, in 1995. The punishment seemed to lit the crime that the media had spun to America: McVeigh was evil and wanted to destroy innocent lives. (His act killed I6X people and injured more than 500.) But in Vanity Fairs September 2001 issue (on newsstands the month before the terrorist attacks of 9/11). Gore Vidal, who had been corresponding with McVeigh for three years, examined darker truths surrounding McVeigh’s story. Was the accused bomber retaliating against the government for its role in the 1993 takedown of David Koresh's Waco, Texas, compound? Or was McVeigh a tcxil in a larger conspiracy and cover-up used to pass anti-terrorism laws that have further weakened the Bill of Rights? To read Vidal’s "The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh," please visit VANITYFAIR.COM/ARCHIVES.

JOHN RICHARDSON’S article on my great-aunt Brooke Astor, while chronicling the last, sad years of her life, did justice to what an extraordinary person she was. While always the grande dame, she dressed up but never talked down. She had a touch, a feel, a passion, and a way of making friends wherever she went. We, her English relations and friends, will miss her and are truly grateful to Annette de la Renta and Philip Marshall for ensuring that her final months were spent peacefully.

WILLIAM ASTOR London, England

THE PART MAKES THE MAN

WHERE IN THE RAREFIED AIR of your magazine did the side a man parts his hair on become a condemnation of character [“From the Jazz Age to Our Age,” by Graydon Carter, October]? Perhaps John McCain’s limited arm use due to service injuries determines where he is able to part his hair.

JOAN VUCINS Brookfield, Wisconsin

WHAT A DUMB sociology study! Lefthanders often part on the right because it is easier. John McCain is left-handed and can’t lift his arms over his head. I have seen Bill Clinton with a right part. He is left-handed.

JOAN MOORE Portage, Michigan

SCREEN WARS

THANKS to James Wolcott for his diatribe against current Hollywood movies (“Little Big Screen,” October). After 11 years of reviewing movies for a local newspaper, I, like Wolcott, can scarcely summon the energy to go see another carbon copy of the latest big hit or another Sundance tribute to ennui. There was a time when the number of good movies to see was endless, and it still is—as long as I stay at home with my DVD collection.

STEVE BAILEY Jacksonville Beach, Florida

WHEN YOU DREDGE the depths of recent Hollywood wastewater to substantiate the argument in James Wolcott’s article about why TV is better than the movies, it’s difficult, I find, to take Wolcott’s opinion with anything but a grain of salt. Of course he is correct to assert that The Wire is a better-crafted television show than The Bucket List is a film. Something that’s good is, in fact, better than something that’s bad. Perhaps, however, Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man franchise should not be the mantel upon which to hang the shortcomings of all modem cinema. Modem cinema offers more than summer blockbusters “from the guys who brought you Superbad,” just as television simultaneously airs Mad Men on one channel and I Love Money on another.

Cinema presents to the filmmaker a challenge unknown to those who thrive in coaxial land. While David Chase and David Simon have free rein to spread their lush, layered worlds across dozens of hour-long episodes, expanding and retracting their story arcs at will, filmmakers enjoy no such luxury. Alfonso Cuaron is bound by an egg timer to build the crumbling, post-apocalyptic gauntlet through which Clive Owen must navigate. It’s an awe-inspiring accomplishment.

So, to Wolcott’s argument, I humbly submit: We’re never closer to wisdom than a gleeful Philippe Petit as he delicately tiptoes across a wire suspended between the rooftops of the Twin Towers. We’re never closer to true love than Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova as they build a friendship based on harmonies. We’re never closer to madness than Daniel Day-Lewis as he barks into the dusty night. Wolcott laments these types of films as “midafternoon droop.” I quite enjoy my afternoons.

ANDREW CARLIN Chicago, Illinois

THE PRINCESS AND THE PERP

WHILE ANNE HATHAWAY is a decent actress, she is by no means one of the great ones—yet. That’s why I am baffled that “The Follieri Charade” [October], about Raffaello Follieri’s fraudulent business dealings, prominently featured the couple’s romantic tête-à-têtes and that one of the sources Michael Shnayerson quoted said this investigation would never have come to fruition had it not been for Follieri’s involvement with Hathaway. If I were a member of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York, much less working for the Vatican, I would be insulted.

SARAH L. LOHMEYER St. Louis, Missouri

IT’S DELIGHTFUL, IT’S DEFINING

VANITY FAIR’S 25th-anniversary issue was such a present to readers! Thank you. There were many great features, and Dominick Dunne’s retrospective [“What a Swell Party He Wrote,” October] was truly special. Vanity Fair is my window on the luxe life, as well as my chance to enjoy some of the finest journalism around. Congratulations— and please keep it up.

MARY ANN PIRES Greenville, South Carolina

IN HIS RETROSPECTIVE diary entry, Dominick Dunne was kind to remember me and Sotheby’s historic Geneva sale of the Duchess of Windsor’s jewels. However, Dunne incorrectly identified me as the C.E.O. of Sotheby’s at the time. For the record, I proudly served as chairman of Sotheby’s Holdings from September 1983 to February 2000. As a major investor in Sotheby’s and its non-executive chairman, I never held the title or carried out the day-to-day responsibilities of a chief executive officer.

A. ALFRED TAUBMAN Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

MORE FROM THE V.F. MAILBAG

Do magazine mailrooms know one another (we’re often asked), go out for drinks on Thursdays after work, compete in some sort of Letters Softball League, and share information on the latest envelope-sorting technology? By way of an answer, we offer this recent communication: “We’re glad you acknowledged our good friend Kenneth Zimmerman's incessant letter-writing campaign [see August Mailbag]. We get it here too. Good to know we’re not alone. Regards, Letter Department, People magazine.” 

Thanks. Should we be talking about a support group? Because Zimmerman has just sent us another 14 different letters, all about the Putin article. In that context, the additional three he’s sent regarding Marilyn Monroe seem stingy, a mere afterthought.

A letter from Kerry Sims of Lahaina. Hawaii, begins, “Dear Mr. Dunne, I would like to make it very clear that this is a love letter.” and ends. "Thank you for a life well lived and generously shared.” Another, from Elaine Sloan of New York City, probably doesn't fall as neatly into the category of “love letter”: “I'd rather read about dust mites than Anna Wintour." All we can say is: Stay tuned. (And so. we slyly tip our hand regarding the topic of our next single-theme issue.)

“I cannot thank you enough for the wonderful "Secret Marilyn Files’ article," writes John Eversen of Oxnard, California. “The photograph that Ms. Monroe "liked best' and kept with her was taken by my father. Robert Eversen, who passed away in February 2007. Among his keepsakes were several photos he took of Marilyn Monroe during her U.S.O. trip to Korea. Dad was an army corporal who enjoyed photography and was given the lucky assignment of troop photographer. He treasured the photos he took of her, but had no inkling of Monroe's appreciation for the particular one of her in the jeep. It really does capture her beautiful spirit.”

“I am a 17-year-old Marilyn Monroe fan," writes Victoria Coke of Guelph, Ontario. “I noticed a telegram within the Telegrams section of The Marilyn Files' on VF.com that addressed Monroe as "TURKEY FOOT’ and was signed, "LOVE WW.’ Your caption reads. "A 1961 telegram. perhaps from columnist Walter Winchell. Monroe entered a psychiatric hospital in New York on February 7, 1961.’ I have great confidence in saying that it is not Walter Winchell who wrote the telegram, but photographer Andre de Dienes. In his book Marilyn he writes. ‘In 1945. when I photographed Norma Jeane in the mountains, her hands often turned purple from the cold, and that color reminded me of the dark purplish color of turkey feet, hence I nicknamed her "Turkey Foot." And “W.W." stood for "Worry Wart." Norma Jeane had nicknamed me that because she thought I was always too cautious. . . . Those two names were our secrets. On some occasions, I used to send her notes or letters and nobody could have made any sense out of my funny messages except her.' ”

"O.K., I have just renewed my subscription for the ninth time. However, I have some demands . . . ” Essentially, Elizabeth C. Hamblet of Princeton, New Jersey, has sent us a contract. (Our lawyers are vetting it now.) The first few clauses address plastic wrapping, blow-in subscription cards, and so forth. She continues, "When Evelyn Waugh coined the term "bright young things,' he meant it ironically. I have the nagging feeling your writers have never read Vile Bodies, and thus use the expression as a compliment.” (Unlikely. It's required reading for the Contributing Editor Exam. But we'll check.) Ms. Hamblet’s final requests: “Please find more self-improvement regimens for Mr. Hitchens to undergo. Laughing along with his exploits helps to boost my heart rate during my workouts" and “Please remind George Wayne that referring to himself in the third person stopped being acceptable after he became potty-trained." (You're making assumptions here, don't you think?)

CORRECTIONS: The photograph of Paul Newman on pages 376 and 377 of the September issue (“The Newman Chronicles,” by Patricia Bosworth) was taken by Candice Bergen. In the October Editor’s Letter, in a second reference to the brotherand-sister team of sociologists John and Catherine Walter, their surname was misspelled.

Letters to the editor should be sent electronically with the writer’s name, address, and daytime phone number to letters@vf.com. Letters to the editor will also be accepted via fax at 212-286-4324. All requests for back issues should be sent to subscriptions@vf.com. All other queries should be sent 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.

POSTSCRIPT

In April 1993, Vanity Fair special correspondent Maureen Orth reported on the feud between Philadelphia social figure Edgar Newbold Smith and his son Lewis du Pont Smith, who had become an acolyte of Lyndon LaRouche's ("Blueblood War"). Followers of LaRouche's, a perennial presidential candidate who distributed pamphlets (with titles such as “The Gore of Babylon") that promoted his political ambitions, believed that the conspiracy theorist could save the world from imminent collapse. (Never mind that LaRouche was serving a 15-year sentence in prison for defrauding the I.R.S. and swindling his supporters.)

Bad blood started boiling between Newbold Smith, who married into old du Pont-family money, and his 36-year-old son when Lewis gave $212,000 of his $10 million inheritance to LaRouche's publishing arm in 1985. Newbold Smith, fearing Lewis had been brainwashed, succeeded in getting a Pennsylvania court to declare his son incompetent. a ruling that put Lewis's spending habits on ice and denied him the right to marry. (In 1986, Lewis eloped to Rome and wed LaRouche follower Andrea Diano.) Anger reached the tipping point when Newbold Smith plotted to kidnap Lewis and "deprogram" him. which landed Newbold Smith in court, in 1992. As Orth reported, Lewis was so indignant he cut off contact with his family.

But a year alter Orth's article hit newsstand, things shifted. A judge ruled that Lewis was competent, which allowed him to manage his own affairs and further validated his marriage to Andrea. Lewis has since reconciled with his family. “That conflict is ancient history." he says.

Having run for Congress twice before. Lewis moved to Minnesota to run for attorney general in the 1994 election. attempting to defeat incumbent Skip Humphrey, who Lewis thought was trying to bring down LaRouche. He lost. After his third bid for Congress, in 1996. proved unsuccessful. Lewis became a blip on the radar. He might, however, soon reemerge: the current economic situation has prompted him to consider running for Congress again. “I’m no longer a political activist with the LaRouche organization, but I'm still sympathetic with his economic policies." Lewis says. "His forecast on the pending meltdown of the financial system was absolutely on the mark. LaRouche was right."

Today, Lewis is still married to Andrea, and they have three girls, aged nine. six. and four. Lewis runs a travel business, and Andrea is a homemaker. They live in Philadelphia.

LaRouche,for his part, was released from prison in 1994. after serving five years. His influence was dwindling, and matters continued to worsen for him when PMR Printing owner Ken Kronberg. 58, committed suicide, in April 2007. As the backbone of LaRouche's movement. PMR Printing was responsible for generating the promotional materials that helped sustain the LaRouche enterprise. The loss of LaRouche’s press machine may have been the death knell for his organization: in this election, for the first time since 1976, he did not run for president. 

—JESSICA FLINT