Reader H.M. comments on my Friday post about Monica Lewinsky, the woman who got left out in the cold in all the hoopla over Bill Clinton’s autobiography. (See Monica Lewinsky’s Fourth of July, July 2.) I suggested that Monica, who isn’t getting any younger or any thinner, has only a few years left to settle down in a serious career and/or find a man who doesn’t already have a wife. (The post, by the way, got picked up by the Dallas Morning News.) H.M. adds: 

“There is a man out there for every woman ‘ even a Rubenesque size 16. This is not rocket science. Ms Lewinsky has been captivated by the glare of the television lights for as long as we have known her….Ms. Lewinsky’s personal myth of success probably was twisted out of shape by the political manipulators, sycophants, and personal agents with whom she came in contact after the Clinton disclosure. She’s gone far beyond being the deer caught in the headlights. She continues to manipulate her victimization in an illusive search for fame, fortune and self-fulfillment.

“In this land of unlimited opportunity, she seems to be looking in all the wrong places. Were she to abandon her quest, drop out of the celebrity game and take a 9’5 job suited to her, or simply adopt a relaxed, private way of life, she would find the man of her dreams and fulfill herself if that were her true goal. Lots of 30-something women and men do it every day. As it is, no decent man, or woman for that matter, would seek a lasting relationship for mutual fulfillment with her because her lifestyle gives off all the wrong signals.”

Points well-taken: Monica is most attractive. And she yearns to be a celebrity. Trouble is, her 15 minutes of fame are well past. Looks don’t last forever, Monica, so for heaven’s sake, drop the pipe dreams and do something serious for once! You could start by reading The Other Charlotte’s post today: Who Should Marry Monica?

And reader G.F. points out an error in my Friday post on Caitlin Flanagan’s New Yorker article, “To Hell With It,” about her housewife-mother’s decision to go back to work (See Et Tu, Caitlin Flanagan!, July 2):

“I happened to have the New Yorker issue with Caitlin Flanagan’s article in it sitting on my desk. This is a minor detail, but the kind of thing that in my job as a proofreader I tend to notice–the issue is dated July 5, not July 7, as referenced in the post. Anyone who subscribes will figure that out, but I just thought you’d like to know. Sorry to be nitpicky!”

No, G.F., you can’t pick too many nits around here. I stand corrected; Caitlin’s article appears in the July 7 issue of the New Yorker. Sad to say, however, the article can’t be linked; you have to buy the issue.