ABOUT OURSELVES
Sm,—Three and a half years ago I began to take The Spectator because I expected to find therein, especially in its correspondence columns, new and interesting presentations of conservative views on current events and perennial problems. I have been disappointed. In fact, Sir, I find your paper inexpressibly dull and commonplace and I have for some time been casting about for an unanswerable argument for giving it up. Mr. Howell's letter provided it and I cancelled the order. This week, in the last Spectator I shall buy, Mr. Quarrel's letter convinces me that I took the proper course.
I shall make no reply to these gentlemen because their exprsed views, being ethically revolting and economically silly, can hardly be considered as serious contributions to a general discussion on post-war policy. Someone should tell Mr. Quarrell, however, that the Russians have always rejected the idea of protracted revenge, and there are no grounds for believing that their future actions will belie their present words.
But really, Sir, is this sort of thing the best that the century-old Spectator can provide? I had expected dignity ; I have been given petty vindictiveness and vicious reaction. Wu do not make vindictiveness less petty by dressing it in polysyllables, nor reaction less vicious by disguising it as caution. I am sorry The Spectator does not rise above the penny
press.—Yours faithfully, HOWARD LEES. 59 Highfield Avenue, Harpenden, Herts.
Previous page
