OUT OF STEPFORD

I find the article “The Stepford Writers” on the front page of Book Review (March 24) by a pseudonymous “Chris Altacruise” a further sign of deterioration of the Book Review section.

The week before, the front page went to misogynist Bret Ellis with a weird comparison of this boring man to Jonathan Swift.

What makes these people literary authorities in the eyes of the Book Review editor? The writer of the Stepford article merely says he or she is a veteran of five years of MFA programs. That is a long time if it is not helpful. Does that mean he or she is a student in a conformity rut or a teacher who set up a robotic atmosphere? Why the pseudonym?

You have my name, and I have taught college writing classes and private classes for 20 years, and every story and every book is like a different fingerprint--never mind the details of dialogue and characterization.

Writers need the stimulation of other writers to develop. Let us not forget the Impressionist painters who sat around tables in Paris cafes and nourished each other artistically. Writers lead a lonely, introverted existence, needing the stimulation and contact of persons with no axes to grind.

If Altacruise’s writing is not stimulating or his teaching attitude is so elitist, who is to blame? Is there a desire to hear old bells ring on the part of editors and some teachers? Can we blame the person with the fine literary fingerprint?

REBECCA NEWMAN, MFA, Instructor, UCLA Writers Program, WESTWOOD