By Alan Prendergast
By Michael Roberts
By Michael Roberts
By Amber Taufen
By Patricia Calhoun
By William Breathes
By Michael Roberts
By Melanie Asmar
Thank you for not outing Denver's real dive bars and instead listing the already hipster-infested pseudo-dives that such people are comfortable in. Drew Bixby's compilation will surely increase the crowds of self-conscious, PBR-swilling look-alikes in girl pants, assuring that the real dive bars remain as they should: places the look-at-me disaffected youth are afraid to hang out in.
I would like for you to envision my disgust upon completing this week's cover story on the Nob Hill. I was born and raised in Capitol Hill and have remained in the neighborhood for my entire life. In so saying, I have watched this neighborhood turn from a diverse place containing people from many socio-economic backgrounds into a trendy "in" place to live for — you guessed it — yuppies and hipsters. Over the years of reading your paper, I have begun to attribute some of this to your own publication.
In my early twenties, I remember the Squire Lounge as what you tout it to be today, "a diverse cross-section of Colfax." However, when I was a patron, there were no college kids or scenesters to be found. It is this very influx that is destroying the charm that is Colfax. It is a sad day when kids from the surrounding 'burbs are planning their great weekend slumming adventures based off of what you write.
As an off-and-on patron of the Nob Hill over the years, I have always enjoyed this place the most of any and all dives. This is due to the fact that the people here are real. Most of them wear their hearts on their sleeves. By deciding to write this, you are once again inviting suburbanites and their kin who have already relocated here to take over yet another bar. This leaves a rather foul taste in my mouth. Who ultimately benefits from this? The owner, your egos and no one else.
Are you guys running out of ideas over there? I have noticed with your glossy new covers you have also made a recent change in reporting style as well. This collaborative attempt at bit stories in which you all spend a couple of hours pretending to be Jack Kerouac sipping drinks and writing in your leather-bound notebooks is sophomoric at best. Do none of you have it in your power any more to write a full feature article on your own? This style reminds me of a sandpaper circle jerk. It might make all of you feel good, but someone has to clean up the blood.
I just got done reading Jason Sheehan's review of the Cheeky Monk, and just wanted to say what another fantastic piece! Unfortunately, I read the letters to the editor immediately after — to find another completely ridiculous, negative attack concerning his October 29 review of Mark & Isabella. I've been reading Sheehan's reviews for years now; Cafe is always the first section I turn to when I look at a new issue. The fact that he's intertwined so much of his life in with his reviews gives each review a more credible and sincere feel, and I'm positive more readers than not appreciate that. Additionally, as with this most recent review, hearing backgrounds on the restaurant, owners, etc., make for good reads.
I know those negative letters are posted just because they're so lame they make everyone chuckle, but I'm bored at work and thought I'd share my thoughts about the good work that Sheehan does. My girlfriend and I seriously plan nights out around his reviews, and we haven't been let down yet. I'm sure Sheehan doesn't need the extra kudos, but thanks to him for keeping Westword a must-read magazine each week. And my condolences for his loss.
I've enjoyed Westword's movie reviews for years, as I find them generally honest and informative. However, J. Hoberman's review of The Men Who Stare at Goats was extremely confusing. I have no idea who Mr./Mrs. Hoberman thinks is the target audience for these reviews, but he/she needs to make up his/her mind about it. Starting an article off with an aside so obliquely worded that I wondered for half the article if it was some kind of metaphor or just elitist showboating really doesn't seem like it's very friendly to the general audience. If they're your goal, then knock off the pointlessly high-brow literary acrobatics; your "look at me" motives are very transparent in this regard. On the other hand, if these reviews are for film-savvy academic types, then for the love of God, learn a little jargon. I'm a card-carrying film-buff douchebag myself, and a grad student in the subject, to boot, yet I have no idea what you mean when you say a film can't find its "tone." Are you talking thematically? Aesthetically? Is it a pacing issue, or one of ambience, or moral? What does that criticism mean? I know that writing about story arcs and mise en scène makes for limited accessibility, but that's better than the non-existent accessibility you're accomplishing now.