Of course, W.'s letter of protest against his sacking would itself be grounds for sacking, he says. There's so many typos for one thing, W. says. So many poorly reasoned arguments, supported by specious or non-existent evidence: that's his letter of protest, W. says.
But it was more important to him that it was written from the depths of despair and from the heights of passion, W. says. It was more important it was a letter of the heights and the depths, which means by itself it would be a sackable offence.
The typos are magnificent, I agree. He didn't correct a single one. Not one! And he even apologised for his typos in the final paragraph, did I notice that? I did. As if it weren't possible to correct typos retrospectively! As if it would have been a compromise too far to have proofread his letter!
But then such a letter could only be written at white heat, W. says. Only from the depths of despair and the heights of passion.
Lars Iyer's Blog 