Rachel Shteir is not apologizing for calling out Chicago in a review of three Chicago-focused books published by the New York Times. While critiquing the books, the head of dramaturgy at The Theatre School insisted Chicago has “fallen short” of becoming the world-class city of its dreams. Pride, corruption, location and the city’s strong reluctance to accept criticism hamper possible growth, Shteir argued.
“But the bloviating roars on, as if hot air could prevent Chicago from turning into Detroit,” Shteir wrote, which prompted Mayor Rahm Emanuel to comment “I’d recommend that writer … go see our city, meet the people. Meet our neighborhoods. We have a lot to offer, which is why we’re a world-class city.”
Born in New York and raised in Princeton, N.J., Shteir received her B.A. from the University of Chicago, before moving back to the Northeast to pursue advanced degrees and teach. In 2000, she moved to Chicago to work as a adjunct professor for DePaul.
Shteir spoke to The DePaulia about her review’s reaction.
The DePaulia: Why did you write this piece?
Rachel Shteir: I wrote this piece to talk about Chicago, and there were books coming out about Chicago. This was an essay review, it dealt with each of the four books, but more than the sum of the books.
DP: Some think you compared Chicago to Detroit, do you regret referring to Detroit?
RS: I don’t compare Chicago to Detroit. I say, “Chicago is not Detroit, not yet.” That’s not comparing. I’m not saying Chicago is like Detroit. I’m concerned because there are certain things that I see in Chicago, that if not dealt with, Chicago will go in that direction. I don’t feel like people who made that comparison read the review very carefully. People read what they want to read, it’s like holding up a mirror. So, I feel the initial response was not a response to my piece, but to something I didn’t write.
DP: Rahm Emanuel did not like your piece. How do you feel about his criticism?
RS: I don’t work for the Chicago Chamber of Commerce. I’m not writing to please the mayor of Chicago, that’s not the job of a critic. A critic should be critical, provoke and illuminate. To say, “Read the books, don’t read the review,” which is what he said, I think is sort of funny. I’ve never heard of a mayor advising people not to read a book review. I think it’s funny.
DP: What do you like about Chicago?
RS: I like walking along the lake, looking at the water. I like hot dogs. I think that Chicago has terrific yoga. I like when it’s summer and people come out of their shells.
DP: How did you experience the criticism?
RS: Nobody has come up to me, but I received about 200 emails, I’m pretty accessible online. Half of them are amazingly supportive, from strangers, friends, former and current students. One of the most meaningful was from a former student that read, “Rachel, you always made us think, and now I see that you’re still making people think.” Others said, “You have so much courage.” I’ve got many supportive emails from faculty, they’ve been fantastic. I don’t read the negative ones. It’s a lot to ask a writer to read all of the negative criticism that comes in.
DP: How would you tackle some of the problems you point out?
RS: I’m a critic. I’m not a politician or an activist. I think there are really huge problems, and I don’t know how to fix them. I think the mayor has a really hard job, I would not want that job.
DP: Do you envision yourself staying in Chicago?
RS: I honestly don’t think about it. I’m just living my life.
DP: What would you say to your critics?
RS: Re-read the piece beyond the first paragraph.
DP: To your supporters?
RS: Thank you.
