Hell to Pay
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
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
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
Hill: Ha, Ha!
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).
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.
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
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!”)
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.
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.
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.
Rascally Rabbit Rove
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.
Lunching on the Ladies
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.