Letters

Hell to Pay

To the Editor:

Lizzy Ratner appears rather appalled by the state of affairs in Murray Hill [“Welcome to Murray Hell!”, July 11]. I mean, imagine the horror of Murray Hill: a community of fresh college graduates—many harking from the nation's most prestigious universities—who have flocked to one of the few remaining semi-affordable enclaves in Manhattan to be around—gasp!—kids their own age who are working and trying to support themselves, while also establishing a social circle.

As Ms. Ratner scoffs: “When it comes to their professions, the young Murray Hellions seem to have an almost gravitational attraction to the fields of finance, marketing and advertising (which will, of course, eventually enable them to recreate the very comfortable lives they've enjoyed since childhood).” Ambitious twentysomethings with career and financial aspirations? What a terrible thought!

Ms. Ratner rags on these young Murray “Hellions” for their cell-phone-toting, happy-hour-loving existence. Yet in a city whose citizens are notorious for their isolated character and aloof demeanor, why must we criticize these young people for trying to foster a sense of community in this daunting, often impersonal place?

Rebecca P. Eskreis
Murray Hill

Hill: Ha, Ha!

To the Editor:

I just read Lizzy Ratner's article and I LOVED IT! It was great. Ms. Ratner doesn't know how right she is (or maybe she does).

I'm 23, went to B.U., grew up in Westchester and have some friends in the “Murray Hill scene.” We always give one of my friends shit for living there, although he likes it. I'd take the East Village or the Lower East Side any day of the week—and twice on Sunday—over Murray Hill. I think Murray Hill is kind of a joke. It's not even really New York City.

I hope your article gets picked up by the Associated Press and gets distributed in all the N.Y.C. papers, so everyone can have a good laugh. All in all, nice work!

Brian Trichon
Hoboken, N.J.

Jane Jacobs?

To the Editor:

Thank you for Lizzy Ratner's article. I thought it was interesting, pointing out many of the same observations I've had when going through Murray Hill. (Just the other day I remarked to a friend, “This is the only place in New York where guys wear shorts!”)

The tone of your article is critical, and although I share many of the same feelings—particularly about gentrification and a decline in the older New York culture that included more interest in art, music, politics, etc.—the one thing I think you've left out is that, regardless of how foreign Murray Hill may be to us, it is a community.

It seems like the presence of community in N.Y.C. has been in rapid decline. Williamsburg may have its community of hipsters (who, despite initial observations to the contrary, are not so different from the post-grads of Murray Hill), but more and more this city has become a city lacking community. I don't have a place where I can walk around and run into a dozen people I know. I don't know anyone in my building. Of all the people I know, only my one random friend who lives in Murray Hill can claim to have such a community.

So while I would rather be dead than living the life of an investment banker with gelled hair, I am envious that they have managed to create a community for themselves in such a short amount of time. As annoying as their community may be to me, perhaps we have a lot to learn from them.

Mark Phillips
Brooklyn

Rascally Rabbit Rove

To the Editor:

It was a pleasure reading Joe Conason's July 11 column, “Bush Remains Mum on Wilson Smear,” about the investigation into the outing of C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame. I believe, however, that this was never an investigation to determine who leaked the information. Rather, it is an attempt to muffle any future potential government whistle-blowers. I don't think that we will ever “officially” learn that it was Karl Rove who leaked this information, and it would be inconceivable that Mr. Rove would ever be indicted for perjury. I believe it's more likely that Judith Miller, Matthew Cooper and The New York Times will be indicted for obstruction of justice than Mr. Rove will be indicted for perjury. I think Patrick Fitzgerald will conclude that no crime was committed in leaking Ms. Plame's name, and therefore that the identity of the leaker need never be disclosed. Perhaps I am being too cynical. I wonder what Mr. Conason's thoughts are on this matter.

Barry Feiner, Esq.
Manhasset, N.Y.

Lunching on the Ladies

To the Editor:

I was cheering out loud when I read Sara Vilkomerson's article “Chick Lit to Chick Flicks: Women Flock to Weiner's World” [July 11]. (And I wasn't even a popular cheerleader type in high school!) I picked up Good in Bed because, well, the title rocked. Personally, I lost all respect for the ladies' club of literary writers when they sent their open letter to Oprah Winfrey which basically read, “Pick me! Pick me!  It's the only way I'll be a commercial success!” I'd love to see if one of the “ladies” can fashion a response to your article. Doubt it. 

Trina Bailey
Dallas