Join the Inbox discussion! All you need is a keyboard and an opinion

Just the other day I was discussing our Inbox letters with a proofreader who’s spent many closing days putting the finishing touches on those pages.

“I work really hard on those,” she told me. “Some of them are really good! But sometimes the grammar isn’t so great.”

“I work on them before you do,” I answered. “And if you want to know the truth, I don’t need the writing to be perfect. I want to retain the voices of the readers — the ‘everyman’ flavor.”

I have an editor’s instinct to polish every sentence perfectly. When I edit Inbox letters, though, I hold it in check. The Inbox is the place for readers’ voices and opinions, and we try as much as possible to give everyone their say — as long as the discussion remains respectful and purposeful. While it shouldn’t be a jarring aberration to the rest of the pages, I don’t think the Inbox should sound the same tone as the rest of the magazine. I’d want a proofreader to fix spelling, basic grammar, and check sources — but to otherwise proceed lightly.

In this space, authenticity should come before syntax. The magazine is just a host.

We’re not a host just to your voices. We’re also often host to spirited discussions and debates, and we welcome that role. But here are a few things to keep in mind if you want to contribute.

If you send in a letter that attacks or questions a contributor of ours, we will usually offer that contributor the chance to respond in print. Often the contributor will tell us “okay to print, no need for my response.” But sometimes they’ll ask for space for a short explanation, and we feel it’s only fair to give it.

If your letter is rude or very abrasive, with the potential to cause real pain, it might get softened during editing. But strong, critical letters are definitely welcome. This is not the type of Inbox that’s overflowing with sweet compliments.

Parshah insights would probably do better sent to a different address. Long, formal essays probably won’t get published. A ponderous sermon isn’t usually a good match for the Inbox. (In general, shorter letters — around two or three paragraphs — stand a better chance of making it to print.)

Then there are those letters only vaguely related to the magazine content, where a reader latches onto three words in an op-ed as a trigger to address their pet vendetta. Sorry, these probably will not get published; we see the Inbox as an outflow of our content. A roundabout and meandering outflow, maybe, but still sourced in the magazine.

If your letter attacks rabbanim or gedolim, this is not your venue.

Letters that question the policy decisions of our rabbinic board usually will not be published. These letters are taken very seriously; if you write these kinds of letters, there’s a good chance you’ve received a personal response, or that your questions became the kernel for a serious internal discussion and perhaps policy reevaluation. Still, for the most part, we don’t open up these policy decisions to public discussion, because matters of halachah and hashkafic approach aren’t meant to be tried in the court of public opinion but to be determined through consultations with the relevant authorities.

On the other hand, letters that question editorial decisions will regularly find their way to the Inbox. We’ve published letters criticizing specific pieces, letters questioning our reading of news and politics, letters complaining about storylines and visuals.

Why do we publish all that criticism? Why not focus on praise? We do our best to make smart and considered decisions. We think and rethink our plans and consult wise advisors for advice and second opinions. But we’re human, we know that our perspective and awareness are limited, and we acknowledge that our readers have very valid opinions that we can all gain from hearing. So we’re open to discussion. We’re happy to talk it out.

Join the discussion! All you need is a keyboard and an opinion.

—Shoshana Friedman, Managing Editor

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 881)