Open Letter Etiquette - inform the party or not?

[Chairman Pow]

I've noticed a lot of open letters as of late. "An Open Letter to George Bush" (which I think was in the Pit at one point), "An Open Letter to John Kerry," "An Open Letter to Alan Keyes," etc. They generally pop up in op-ed columns and in the back of Soldier of Fortune, personal web sites, etc.

Now, is the purpose of the OL to be something like Luther nailing the 95 Thesis to the door, in plain sight for everyone to see - a gauntlet thrown that by the very virtue of its being made public demands to be addressed, or is it just an excuse for the holiers-than-thou to preach to their choirs and make themselves feel better at a party ("that damn Alan Keyes, he completely ignores the issues - in each of his last four debates, he has ignored all of the issues I addressed in my open letter! I think he's scared and as all readers of imapompusjerkpundit.blogspot.com know, this can only mean he's scared of me")?

Is it common courtesy for open letter writers to send a copy to the recipient? Are they just expected to read the editorials in the Sun-Times and find out that Thadeusz Novinski of Morton Grove takes issue with John Kerry? I've not seen a single OL that said, "I faxed this to G.W. and haven't gotten a response. Here's a copy of the tx confirmation sheet." Are they purely rhetorical devices?

[Exapno Mapcase]

is it just an excuse for the holiers-than-thou to preach to their choirs and make themselves feel better at a party

Got it in one.

[Roches]

Yes, that's basically it. Open letters are rhetorical devices that allow a person to address their grievances towards another in a more direct, conversational style than, say, a doctoral dissertation or traditional editorial. They may make the address seem more personal than other forms, by allowing the use of the pronoun 'you', and they allow devices such as 'questions' to the recipient and person-to-person exhortations (e.g. 'Mr. <leader>, please stop the <unpleasant event> in <location> now!').

The conversational style of an open letter makes it more accessible to the masses, and incidentally easier to write than a less creative/original/unusual/haughty formal editorial. (This would be appealing to bloggers and other amateur experts who haven't yet gotten the break they need to get on the staff of the Washington Post.)

Since it's rhetorical, it's not necessary to inform the intended recipient of the open letter, and it's not appropriate to expect an answer, especially not in the form of another open letter. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to complain that an open letter was not answered or to interpret this as wilful ignorance of the author's grievances. The idea is not so much to inform the letter's recipient of the author's opinions, but to convince others that that opinion is correct.

Now, has anyone seen an open letter that ends with something like "CC: The People of America"? That would be arrogant and falsely original and witty beyond my comprehension, though I'm sure it's been done...