EDITOR: Was A. Birch Steen a real person? I must know. His brief column at the end of The Stranger has always been my favorite. From reading his criticisms, it always appeared that he was aware of his position as an "object of ridicule." His humor was subtle and conspiratorial. My favorite of his complaints (and it never grew old) was the curt refrain "too gay," which he used whenever he lacked any other criticism for an article. It broke my heart last week to read A. Birch Steen's letter of resignation. He will be sorely missed. The high school sophomore [Jennifer Beckwith, May 30] is not an acceptable replacement.
Erik Reiner, via e-mail
A. BIRCH STEEN RESPONDS: Thank you, Mr. Reiner, for your kind words, though I am quite frankly shocked that The Stranger has chosen to run your letter given their penchant for ignoring their readers. That said, it should comfort you to know that I am, indeed, returning to my position as Stranger ombudsman beginning this week.
Why are you getting rid of the weekly critical overview? That was one of my favorite parts of The Stranger!
Anonymous, via e-mail
A. BIRCH STEEN RESPONDS: Dear Anonymous, please see above.
DEAR EDITOR: Since A. Birch Steen has retired, I would like to have his job. I am unfettered by secret ridicule and possess a mercurial wit (modestly promulgated, of course). My meager publications over the years are well-written and comical. Attached is an example of my writing. I am a fifth-grade teacher in the Bellevue School District, and in this editorial, published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, I blast the superintendent, my boss, publicly.
Craig Parsley, via e-mail
A. BIRCH STEEN RESPONDS: Mr. Parsley, I am sure The Stranger appreciates the offer of your services, but I fear that even if my position were open, you would be far too intelligent for their liking. After all, upon my departure two weeks ago they immediately replaced me with an insipid 16-year-old girl.
EDITOR: I have been a fan of The Stranger for a while now, but of late I have been forced to revise this take on your paper, and call myself a fan of its wasted potential (you have even lost the interest of your most smug and eager critic, Mr. Steen), because it has grown tiresome to read the publication each week and I have the nagging suspicion that the angles taken on the articles are chosen intentionally to go against the grain. There is nothing wrong with a controversial stand-point on the issues, but your articles are dripping with an obvious desire to say what no one wants to hear (whether or not it is your actual view).
Try writing what you believe every once in a while rather than trying to be different all the time, and skip the reaction-starved path you usually take. I realize that The Stranger is an alternative newspaper, but perhaps you should take that term a tad less literally/seriously. You are beginning to remind me of a rebellious 14-year-old. Grow up, Stranger, 'cause I think you'll make a hot adult.
Yasmeen O., via e-mail
A. BIRCH STEEN RESPONDS: Yasmeen O., The Stranger's "editor" forwarded me your letter, and I must say I agree wholeheartedly with your astute critique. The sense of pride The Stranger holds in simply being contrarian (and usually immaturely so) has always bothered me. One day, hopefully, they will embrace the idea of popular consensus and not try to "rock the boat" so much.
DEAR STRANGER OMBUDSMAN: Have you no real powers of ombudsmanship? Week after week the editors and scribes of The Stranger print only a puny half-page of letters, usually taking most of the space themselves in umbraged retort to the outraged responses.
In the most galling case they used the entire space to berate a writer whose complaint was how they squander this tiny forum. Yet we all know that The Stranger gets gobs of mail. Hate mail, of course.
Theodore, via e-mail
A. BIRCH STEEN RESPONDS: As this week's letters section is again but one-half page, apparently I don't have any real powers of ombudsmanship.
DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS: Last week ["Think Locally," Josh Feit, May 30] we made a comparison between the monorail and light rail using incorrect numbers. The story should have compared the 14-mile $1.2 billion monorail proposal to the 14-mile $2.1 billion light rail proposal. We regret the error. Also, the People's Coalition for Justice community vote on the police department will take place on July 6 and 7 in the 37th Legislative District, not June 6 and 7, as stated in last week's article "Public Comment" [Amy Jenniges, May 30]. The same ballot will be posed to students in Central Area high schools and at Seattle Central Community College on July 7. Finally, two weeks ago we criticized Seattle City Council Member Nick Licata for saying he supports district elections while failing to propose districting legislation. ["District Elections," Dan Savage, May 23]. As it turns out, Licata proposed districting legislation on March 7 and again on May 17. And ALSO, in Emily Hall's May 30 review of the LAVA 2002 art show, she misidentified artist Tim Sullivan as Tim Sanders.
