The Life and Times of Hugh Hefner

Martha Mark writes of the desert in the spirit of Joseph Wood Krutch, which is the highest compliment I can bestow upon her (“Counting the Majestic Desert Sheep,” Other Views, Aug. 7).

I cannot help but also comment upon the curious juxtaposition of her article and that of the adjacent piece written about Hugh Hefner (“Hefner Agrees to Tell His Life Story” by Elizabeth Mehren). Mehren is a fine writer and what I am about to say is not to disparage her considerable talents. My problem is with the mentality of printing what appears to be an advertisement for Hefner’s book. So much has been said about the basic triviality and banality of his life, not to mention the damage he has wrought against women, that it is redundant to go into that here.

I am not a journalist, but I will gently lecture you about that subject. Let me separate and acknowledge that we all have different and varied attitudes and tastes. I am also cognizant that many in your readership would like to hear about the doings of Hefner. No contest. But this fine paper has an obligation, in my estimation, to somehow uplift us all in what we think and ponder upon. My point is that you, as editors, should help us all to grapple with and better understand the issues of our lives and not to simply entertain us with pap like the Hefner matter.

The television industry has succumbed. But the papers, at least some of them, still have the intellectual vitality to rise above that awful spiral and to provide a leadership which enlightens, instructs, and helps to deal with what Henry James called the terrible algebra of our lives. I hope you understand that my letter is not so much a litany of criticism but a plea to uphold and save what is important about journalism. There is still time and it is papers like the Los Angeles Times in this country that will determine whether journalism will or will not ultimately share the fate of the television industry.

MICHAEL KOTTAS

Los Angeles