Several colleagues and I recently wrote to Hugo Lindgren, the new editor of the New York Times Magazine, to protest the cancellation of the “On Language” column, which began in 1979 under William Safire, and was continued after Safire’s death by Ben Zimmer. Lindgren had recently commented publicly that he had not ruled out the reappearance of the column in the future, and we hoped that he could be convinced that “On Language” was too important to be eliminated.
Despite the fact that the first issue under his editorship was about to appear, Lindgren took the time to write a thoughtful response that same day. With his permission, I reproduce both letters below. The only change has been to obscure Lindgren’s e-mail address.
Thank you for your interest.
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:41:17 -0500 From: Jesse Sheidlower <jester@panix.com> To: [XXXXXXX] Subject: Group letter on "On Language" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Dear Mr. Lindgren: It was very reassuring to read your recent comment that the fate of the "On Language" column in the New York Times Magazine has not yet been decided. As leading lexicographers, we urge you keep the column going. Popular interest in language has always been very high, but at the present time it seems especially pronounced. We are all constantly approached for language advice, and the Internet is full of discussions (often inaccurate) of such issues as new words, etymologies, proper usage, and the like. It was a surprise to the originator of the column that it had staying power it did. William Safire, though not a linguist, was a marvelous writer who constantly reached out to linguists and lexicographers for advice, ensuring that his entertaining and witty column was also wholly accurate. His wonderful successor, Ben Zimmer (who is, it must be noted, friends with all of us), is not only a trained linguist, but is also deeply familiar with both popular and high culture, able to write knowledgeably about politics and pop songs, academia and football. He is doing a fantastic job, and should be allowed to continue. We write not just in support of a colleague and friend, but because we feel that a serious discussion of language is an important thing, more relevant today than ever. The New York Times is the ideal place for this to be published, and it would be a shame if this great resource were allowed to disappear. Thank you for your attention. Yours truly, Jesse Sheidlower Editor at Large, Oxford English Dictionary, and President-Elect, American Dialect Society Joseph P. Pickett Executive Editor, American Heritage Dictionaries Steven R. Kleinedler Supervising Editor, American Heritage Dictionaries Peter Sokolowski Editor at Large, Merriam-Webster
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 18:01:27 -0500 From: "Lindgren, Hugo" <[XXXXX]> To: Jesse Sheidlower <jester@panix.com> Subject: Re: Group letter on "On Language" user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.6.0.100712 Jesse (et al) Thank you for this wise, thoughtful note. The suspension of On Language is part of a broad rethinking of the habits and routines of the magazine. After 32 years of On Language, we decided to take a breather, at the risk of disappointing many loyal readers, and see what else works in the magazine. I feel strongly that in order to survive and prosper, magazines have to allow for experimentation and improvisation. Unfortunately, there is a hard limit on pages, so something has to give. AS you know, we have kept open the possibility of restoring some version of the column, and in the meantime, I hope you will find other aspects of the redesigned magazine to your liking. Week to week, there will be many changes. Please distribute this note to whoever you wish. I have responded to many of the On Language fans who have written me, but not all, and I don't want anyone to think their concerns are going unheard. Sincerely, Hugo