Regarding the view of Times editor and L.A. Marathon runner Michael Newman that "much of Los Angeles isn't very pretty," which already prompted some We Get Email reaction...

 I have to say that I was really annoyed, but not surprised, by Michael Newman's editorial about the LA Marathon. His piece showed a real disconnect with the city and all of the amazing diversity -- from socio-economic to ethnic to aesthetic -- that Los Angeles has to offer. The descent from East LA over the bridge at mile 24 into downtown was not only inspiring but a damn cool way to experience this city. I'm sorry for Newman that he doesn't get that. And I'm sorry that our hometown paper seems to be increasingly populated by Los Angeles apologists.

Heather John
John is a former editor at the Los Angeles Times Magazine

 What I noticed while watching the race was that the latest route is uglier than the previous ones. Yes, we've got a lot of those warehouse-y areas, but that's not the predominant backdrop to broadcast to the rest of the world (or whoever watches). Can't they find some nice neighborhoods besides Rossmore? It used to go down Robertson between Venice and Pico. That was fairly nice. And (biased here) the Westside is kind of pretty. Or Los Feliz, Sunset in Silver Lake? Why Universal City?

Koreatown is nice, but at night. We were up there on Saturday night for The Dandy Warhols at the Wiltern. Hole in the wall Korean BBQ places and bars selling two Crown Royals for $5. That's scenery.

Lastly, the TV coverage of the race was awful. They misstated the winning time of the wheelchair race because they were so obsessed with the record time, then avoided clarification. They missed the women's pass for the lead. They spent tons of time trying to calculate if and when the mens leader would pass the womens leader to the detriment of, well, just about everything except for the corporate shilling.

Mark J. Tavarozzi