SN&R Constructive Criticism

by juli boggs

It is no secret that I am often vexed by the SNR. I’ve said this many times, and I’ve written many letters, and lodged several complaints. So here I go again, with all due sense of humor.

Dear SN&R.

Another week, another issue, another total and complete insult to literature, news, and entertainment. I wonder what it is you stand to serve beyond those masters of absolute inanity. Where do I even begin in this past week’s issue, which, I might add,  is just one in a long chain of a shameful waste of time and energy that ought to be spent producing something of actual quality, funding public transportation, or feeding the homeless, and NOT paying your writers to get loaded as they squabble together some facts from Wikipedia which they then call “journalism.” Your dealer, sir, does not count as a “reliable source.”

Mr. Sound Advice, “critics are allowed to have an opinion,” not you.  The capability of hearing music does not qualify you in any way to expound upon or direct any conversation relating there unto.  For example, the questions provided to those undoubtedly talented individuals known as Doombird, “What do you eat?” and “Is it hard being in a band?” These would be acceptable, and even cute, if asked by a four year old. You however, are presumably being paid and I have no idea why.

And who is responsible for the dreary editorial mistake of the “Sex, Drugs, and Rock ‘n’ Roll” title? Cliché aside, a barrage of Sammy nominations hardly qualifies an entire issue as “rock n roll,” and the staff’s apparent inability to abstain from “medicinal marijuana” is hardly something to tote. As for sex, it was alarming to read a re-hashing of Joey Garcia’s shockingly poor advice to a woman whose natural sexual desires may be “an attempt to fill an emptiness inside herself” to which, incredulously, no pun was intended.

What hath God wrought? Terrible reviews, insulting advice, and an absolutely mundane sense of humor if one is to be found at all. Is your staff seriously so incapable of producing a modicum of information worth reading? As if it even needs saying, the SN&R shows such a sever lack of initiative in the pursuit of innovation and creativity that it in itself stifles the growth of this city by failing to provide a stimulating forum for its readers. I can only hope that next week’s issue will emerge with something of value.


Julianna M. Boggs, Esq.