Sirs:
While I was reading the latest edition of TIME the following question occurred to me as I glanced at the page or two which you devoted to W. R. Hearst [TIME, Aug. 15].
Has Mr. Hearst added TIME to his list of periodicals ?
S. M. LOGOOS. Boston, Mass.
Mr. Hearst is not a subscriber. —ED.
Fashion
Sirs:
TIME is very interesting, it is so concise and up to the minute, but it seems to me someone on your "staff" is entirely lacking in foresight when they omit a section on Fashion.
Don't you think a section devoted to that all-important subject would endear your magazine to many more readers of the fair sex and give them a service they should like to have from your magazine ?
NANCY SMOLLING. Philadelphia, Pa.
If 100 subscribers write to TIME requesting a section on FASHION, they shall have it.—ED.
Shrewd Husband
Sirs: My husband subscribed to TIME because he considered me uninformed. Although it is less expensive, he did not think me in need of Elbert Hubbard's Scrapbook. I could discuss Nietzsche and Freud as superficially as the rest of our friends. But when the conversation turned to political and international affairs, I looked bored and blank. He implored me to read the newspapers. I did; I grinned at the comic strips, literally "glanced over the headlines," and imbibed the weather and theatrical reports. In despair, he gave me a subscription to TIME, which I read weekly with conscientious, but sincere, interest. Now at the dinner table I am voluble with the latest gossip— of the Prince of Wales, Henry Ford and Lena Stillman, and I look bored, but not blank, when the McNary-Haugen bill is mentioned. Last week I had just finished reading TIME from red cover to red cover, felt buoyantly well-informed. The doorbell rang, and there was the mailman with another edition of TIME. Oh dear! Yours, till my subscription runs out.
LOUISE (MRS. JAMES) EPPENSTEIN Elgin, Ill.
Part-of-His-Life
Sirs:
I have never read nor subscribed for any periodical that became so much a part of my life as TIME has become. When TIME comes into my home it demands reading throughout. This is due, I think, to the complete and concise treatment of world-wide news and to the distinguished style and diction. I have much to praise, little to criticize in TIME.
In the July 18 issue on p. 5 I first found something that grated against my sense of propriety. I have noticed it several times since. I refer to your use of the sign "&" in lieu of the word "and." This would be all right if you were referring to the Baltimore & Ohio R. R., but when you speak of "President & Mrs. Coolidge" or "Senator & Mrs. Norbeck," it reminds me of Ring Lardner's pseudo-ignorant style which seems entirely out of place in TIME.
PAUL S. FISHER. Dodge City, Kan.
TIME uses "&" to conserve space.—ED.
For Custis Knapp