Friday, November 29, 2013
Letter to the New York Times re:N.F.L and Jane Austen November 29, 2014 To the editor I was delighted to read Maureen Dowd’s “Pigskin Pride and Prejudice,” (column, Nov. 25): in which she used comparisons to Jane Austen’s heroines Emma and Elizabeth Bennet to highlight the character defects of the immature superstars of the male-dominated hierarchical world of professional football. I did my MA thesis on Jane Austen in 1958, when she was assigned reading for English majors taking courses in eighteenth century literature. I chose to write about Austen because I identified with the romantic and social problems of her many faceted heroines, and I adored both her universal wisdom and sparkling wit. She was an inspiration for my own writings: both fictional and autobiographical. After I published my first novel, in the late 80’s, I went to see a well known agent with a proposal to write a book about the tempestuous romance of two teenagers growing up in the 50’s in the insular middle class Jewish, neighborhood of Midwood in Brooklyn. Her response was unenthusiastic. She said: Books aimed at teenagers have to be contemporary stories taking place in far flung exotic settings. My book is primarily written for adults. Adults aren’t interested in reading about the doings of teenagers thirty years ago. What about the works of Jane Austen? She wrote about teenagers hundreds of years ago. The agent shrugged. “Oh, nobody reads her.”
Wednesday, November 06, 2013
Wednesday, November 6,2012=3 Cindy Nemser's archive is at the Getty Research Institute in California. There are tapes, published and unpublished books, articles, stories, a memoir about the 1970's art world entitled Firebrand: Tales of the 70's Art World Told by a Feminist Art Critic.Feminist Art Journal as well as the issues of Changes which contain articles by Nemser. There is also a roman a cléfé set in the 70's about 2 women artists trying to make it big in the art world of that time. The archive has lots of tapes that are interviews with men and women artists, as well as photographs, correspondence with artists, editors, fans etc. Cindy Nemser owns the copyright for all this material and anyone who wishes to publish any of it must contact her. She is looking for a publisher to reprint Art Talk: Conversation with 15 Women Artists, published 1975 and 95. She is also seeking a publisher for the memoir, the novels, etc. If you wish to contact Nemser call 1-718-857-9456 or email cindyn1@Verizon.net. She is delighted to speak with people, both women and men who are interested in the inception of the feminist art movement from 1970 through 1977. There has been very little written about that period which erupted in Brooklyn and Manhattan in 1969-70. The impact of the Women's Interart Center has also been neglected. Many of the leaders of the movement: artists, art historians and critics have not been given credit for their amazing courage and stamina. It is time they got their due. How many of you know about the contributions of Irene Moss, June Blum, Dorothy Gillespie, Jacqueline Skiles, Ellen Lubell, Muriel Castanis, Carolyn Mazzello, Sylvianna Goldsmith, Juliet Gordon, Camille Billops, Ce Roser, Gloria Orenstein and so many others who actively make the feminist art revolution happen. Nemser, who was there at the first confrontation of women artists with Duncan Cameron, the director of the Brooklyn Museum, and at the first panel and speak out about the sexism faced by women in the arts tries fill in the missing history of the movement. She speaks from a personal viewpoint as a writer and editor and is not afraid to tell how the feminists fought the system by picketing and publishing, but also fought each other for the leadership of a so-called non hierarchical movement. The book is both a history of a revolution in the arts and a personal revelation of both the heights and depths of human behavior when the opportunity to shine
Monday, September 24, 2012
Cindy Nemser 718-857-9456 firstname.lastname@example.org Access A Ride Should Be More Accessible As much as I appreciate Access A Ride as an incredibly inexpensive means of travel for a person who cannot use public transportation, I must register a complaint about the way it is run. First of all the person to be transported must wait up to 30 minutes for the vehicle, while the transporting van or car will only wait five minutes. This puts a heavy burden on an individual, like me, who is suffering from various serious ailments and cannot always move that quickly. (I have chronic pain in my feet and cannot stand for more that a few minutes without unbearable suffering.). And then what if that disabled person is forced to wait in the street for up to thirty minutes in rain, snow or excessively hot or cold weather? AAR is really not a viable option especially if the vehicle is does not arrive after the designated time and a private service must be called or the person is denied care or needed recreation? New York’s super wealthy disabled population can call their personal limousines, the rest of us do not have that privilege. There is a solution to this problem, but officially drivers are forbidden to use it. (Some kind-hearted souls do it anyway). All these drivers have the disabled persons’ home and (if they supply it) cell phone telephone numbers. They can easily get in touch with their scheduled passengers. A call would be the most efficient and compassionately means of alerting clients that their rides are ready to pick them up, and they must get to the vehicle and be ready to depart. There are other problems as well that I have encountered while attempting to use this service. It very difficult to schedule a return trip when one doesn’t know how long the appointment will take. For example, it is impossible to know when one will be finished with doctors’ visits. One can only guess a return time, but more than likely it won’t be the correct one. Then it is necessary to call and cancel the return ride, reschedule a new one, and again have to face the possibility of a long wait that can also include the half hour waiting period... This is most not being kind to sick people. Often a patient is forced to spend the greater part of the day waiting for an AAR vehicle. Again the driver could make a better use of cell phones, the patients could call “Assess A Ride, let them know when they are finished, and a driver in the vicinity could call the patients back and quickly pick them up. I must add that although I abhor the lack of efficiency that went into the planning of the AAR program, I am grateful to the parts of it that I can use. I am lucky enough to live in a house that has a large picture looking out on the street and in front of it is a large soft couch on which I can stretch out as I wait for my ride. I can be outside in a few minutes. So I use ARR for one-way trips only, and for the return I take an authorized car service or a taxi for which I have to put up the money. Before I discovered how to do the authorized care trip and found an realizable and relatively inexpensive service, I once paid $55 for a return trip from Manhattan to Brooklyn from midtown because it was impossible to flag down a taxi at 4:00PM .--that’s expensive and it shouldn’t be necessary. It was certainly a waste of the taxpayer’s money. I tried the ARR car service, but they were one half an hour late, so I missed my doctor’s appointment. Now I have found another car service which is reliable and reasonable. However it is difficult at times to find the money to pay for round trips to Manhattan where most of my doctors are located as I don’t have all those many extra dollars to spend. I do get reimbursed mines the $2:50, for the trips, but it take over a month. Fortunately, my husband is able to take to doctor’s appointment in our family car if I make them later in the afternoon. (He is still working as an independent sales representative, at the age of 78, and needs the car in the mornings for his business appointments.). But many other people do not have even limited source of private travel than AAR. It seems unconscionable that the MTA keeps complaining that they have no money, and need to raise subway fares, yet they allow Access A Ride to be run in this wasteful and inconsiderate fashion.