Dear Sir, - I am just a little concerned at the various letters that have appeared in London Life of late, over various signatures, from individuals who grumble at the nature of, and the amount of space given to, the correspondence, and who, as it appears, would, if they had their way, transform your very individualistic weekly into a story-magazine very like any one of a number of others.
Surely all this betrays a very odd and illogical way of thinking! If the public want straightforward love, adventure, and detective stories, then there are plenty of publications that offer them an unlimited abundance, with or without admixture of topical and quasi-scientific articles, stage or film lore, etc., etc.
Why, then, cannot the above-mentioned dissentients be satisfied with these, and leave "London Life" to those for whom it's intended the rebels against convention; the lovers of the bizarre and unusual; the seekers after that elusive something different that to all but the most humdrum minds adds such an important spice to life!
I do not know what the circulation of your journal might be, but I suspect that, were you to grant these grumblers their wish and bring out a number filled entirely with stories and articles, no matter how excellent, one or other of two things would happen; either sales would fall with a bump to an uneconomical level, or they would remain high but reveal, should newsagents be interrogated, a complete change over in the personnel of the buyers. In either case, should the change be announced as permanent, all but a few of the old enthusiasts would be left disconsolate! I know I should!
Nor do I see any justification for correspondents grumbling at the inclusion of letters on topics distasteful to them personally. Every man's meat is someone else's poison, and those who have strong likes and dislikes themselves should allow for others having the same, and act accordingly. Though no one is less sensitive than myself to the allure of rubber clothing or feels greater dislike for transvestism, female impersonations, etc., as I have said, I think, before, I should never dream of suggesting their elimination from your pages so long as readers who remain take interest in them.
As for your correspondent "Honesty," (what a pseudonym to choose!) and his strongly-expressed repugnance to monopoly (April 5th) - well, I can only conclude that he has either never met a monopede or, worse still, has met one of the wrong sort. Unfortunately, there are such, who seeks to compensate for lack of charm by exaggerated self-pity as a vehicle for attracting attention.
Anyhow, I was sorry to see his effusion with its hint of the conventions and sentiment of a bygone day.
Yours truly,
C. D. B.