I am rather dismayed by Bill Granger’s appraisal of the Chicago literary scene past and present (“City Lit,” June 8). His essay suffers from the same tired, hypercritical redundancy common to Chicago arts criticism. As usual, Granger apologizes for our not being New York, Paris or London and for not lionizing our writers.
Mr. Granger ought to know by now that cities are terribly materialistic places. This is not a malaise unique to Chicago. People live in cities–in the U.S., at least–to get decent jobs, make money, buy goods, blend into relative anonymity, be entertained from time to time and hopefully, if one can save enough money, retire to warmer climates with saner environments.
Despite our shortsightedness and our failings, Chicago is still one of the richest, most culturally stimulating places on the continent. Granger and his circle would do all of their readers a favor by dispensing with the jabs and jibes. A city should be proud of what it has. Would that its authors and intelligentsia, without resorting to civic boosterism, would sing Chicago’s virtues rather than interminably lamenting its tragic flaws!
Michael B. Hefter, Chicago
I was sad to note the novelist Peter DeVries’ absence from Bill Granger’s list of Chicago writers, but I was willing to let it go because DeVries was in such good company among many significant omissions. However, in your June 15 issue, Bill Brashler’s gratuitous slighting of DeVries as a “cynic” about fatherhood is a serious mistake that requires correction.
DeVries, the father of four children, wrote about fatherhood and fathers with wit, sympathy, insight and, sometimes, anguish. Never cynicism.
Dan Campion, Iowa City, Iowa
FOREVER WORRIED
Oh, what a kindred soul I found! The essay by Marnie Mamminga (“The Late Show,” June 8) brought back terror-stricken nights of my own. Now our children have all left our nest, but even though they are all adults, I sometimes have the urge to call in the middle of the night to make sure they are safely tucked in.
Ruth M. Horowitz, Mt. Prospect
THE ROYAL `WE’
I thank the gods of journalism that Rick Kogan has finally gotten off his editorial (or was it royal?) “we” kick. I was just about to give up reading For Starters when I noticed that Mr. Kogan singular had begun to admit that he alone was responsible for what appeared in the feature. Hopefully, he won’t be tempted to fall back into hiding behind a bogus partnership again.
Shelley Carlson, Mt. Prospect
IT DOESN’T ADD UP
June 1, what a beautiful day. Sunshine, Sunday papers and a pot of coffee. An anguished cry pierces the peace. “Stella! My sweater! Guy in the Trib, he’s got my best sweater! The one you said I lost!”
He’s right. There it is on page 24 of the Tribune Magazine (“Simple Math”). But I had put it in the bag for Goodwill just to get rid of it. Godawful thing, all those scraggly gold threads. Huh, they fixed the hole in the shoulder. Wonder if the zipper works now. Poor fella, though, it doesn’t fit him either. Way too small. Look at those sleeves.
Please God, help me. How do I explain this to Stanley?
Ginger Plys, Geneva
Was the model in your “Simple Math” report on menswear chosen because he resembled Brett Favre?
Rosemary Thielke, Milwaukee
———-
The Magazine welcomes letters. All mail should include the writer’s name, address and a daytime phone number. Letters may be edited for space and clarity.
Send mail to The Editor, Chicago Tribune Magazine, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60611. Mail may also be sent to our Internet address, which is tribmag@tribune.com.
