RE: America the Beautiful? [May 1999]

People Can Make It Work
Pete Gradowski's rant on America was pretty generalized, even though it pointed out a number of specifics. I believe it is more important to look at the lives of the people who live in this country than the general corruption of the government. Most governments are corrupt.

Of course, the media makes sure we know what they want us to know. I agree that sensationalism brings it all home, but I think the human spirit rises above the ugliness we have allowed to be created around us.

When was the last time you walked in the forest with no purpose but to enjoy and commune with that which is around you? When was the last time you spent an evening without a television blaring in the background or staring at a computer terminal? How many books have you read in the last year?

It is better to celebrate that which is good than to rant on that which one believes is wrong with world. It is our place to change that which we do not like. If we make an effort to improve our own sphere of influence, it will overlap into other spheres. The influence that we have on others is like the stone thrown into a still pond. The ripples swell outward.

It is better to offer a hand to a drowning man than to think that someone else will come along and you needn't be involved. If we are to change a world that seems to be spinning out of our control, we need to involve ourselves in the changes we want. We need to stand up for what we believe in and be heard.

What right do we have to complain about government if we're not registered to vote? I've heard many complaints from nonvoters - those same folks who pass the drowning man. It is our place to make the world better in some small way. I try to live by a simple rule, "Leave it better than when you found it."

We might not change the world, but the people that we touch will touch others in turn.

MARNY MELINO
Wed, 5 May 1999 13:38:17

RE: Review of "Your Other Half" [May 1999]

Book Publisher Challenges Review
I just took a look at Annie Clark's review of "Your Other Half". She is, of course, welcome to her opinion.

My only objections are based on her failure to check facts, and the assumptions she makes as a result.

The premise of her review is that Tamara is a "quick-to-agree little wifey," standing "one step behind (Wayne), always agreeing." Annie's proof? Her false assumption that Tamara took her husband's last name. Completely wrong. Wayne legally changed his name to Mitchell, Tamara's last name. Does this make Wayne the quick-to-agree little husband? No, Tamara is the exact opposite of what Annie represents her to be. In this review, Wayne and Tamara are unrecognizable.

Annie says the Mitchells "have both been married and divorced two times before they met." Wrong again, but it tells you how closely she read the book.

Annie claims there are spelling errors in the book. Find one. Editor, typesetter, printer, and all other readers have yet to find a spelling error. As for a sentence fragments, run-ons, etc., the introduction clearly states this book is in spoken, not written, language. Her point makes as much sense as critiquing a Brian Lamb interview on the basis of formal, written English.

Of course, there are many other points I disagree with, but as a minimum I hope you correct the factual errors in the review.

LISA MILLER
Echo Work Publishers
Wed, 05 May 1999 12:36:44

Writer Response
In my review of "Your Other Half" by Wayne and Tamara Mitchell, I wrongly stated that Wayne and Tamara had both been married and divorced twice. I would like to point out that Wayne had only been married and divorced once before, while Tamara is on marriage number 3.

I also wrongly assumed, because Wayne and Tamara share the same last name, that Tamara had taken Wayne's name. In fact, Wayne took Tamara's name. I apologize for any confusion caused by my error.

In response to the publicist's denial of my perception of Tamara as the wife always one step behind her husband, I point the reader to the introduction to the book, which states "Usually when we do presentations, Wayne delivers an opening talk, then we both answer questions from the audience ... listening to Wayne talk, with Tamara waiting to answer questions." This statement gives the impression of a woman not allowed to speak until her husband gives her permission.

Wayne may in fact do some dishes when they are dirty. But this does not mean he is not controlling.

As for grammatical errors, I would like to point out that although this book is supposed to be written in conversational form, there is no excuse for bad punctuation such as dropped commas, extra and unnecessary commas, or missed question marks. Some examples include: "All he has to do to be free again, is to let go.", " 'Can't I have an original idea,' ". Other grammatical errors that would be unacceptable in speech as well as the written form include: "If you wonder if someone is your other half, they aren't.", "Now telling someone the exact words to say is definitely nothing new, look what it did for Cyrano." All of these errors would be easy to correct and still maintain the conversational tone.

I would also like to point out two spelling errors I found, as challenged to do so by Echo Work. " ... over time all our butts get a little bigger." This statement may be true; however, the authors intended to use the word "buts," as in multiple objections, not multiple buttocks. "... she would hid and ..." I do not take this as a grammatical error of verb conjugation; rather, I think the "e" was left off "hide."

May I point out that using spell-check does not guarantee correct spelling all the time, as words that are not flagged may in fact be used wrongly?

Once again, I would like to apologize for any confusion caused by my assumption that Tamara took Wayne's name, and also for the fact that I wrongly counted the number of times Wayne was actually married.

ANNIE L. CLARK

RE: Review of "The Phantom Menace" [May 1999]

A Star Wars Fan Scorned...
And you have arrived at this [opinion] on one viewing? 2 viewings? 5 viewings? How long have the classics been around to see the fine interaction of the characters and how the other movies interrelate

I could see next film getting some New Jedi Master looks in the line and, as to the antics, the shield door move was very slick that will be talked about for quite awhile. As to the 'expansive issues, that is what George Lucas has said in his interviews, it set up some backstory, but is not the point of the film and is confusing. As the film is the precursor of the next 2 film, the middle to the ending of SW:E1 is of much more importance to me than the 'issues' of the beginning. As to the emotions, I felt for Anakin in the pod race, I linked to the relationship of the Queen and Anakin, the council rule and Qui's rebellious side was a nice part and I could relate to that. Anakin is the person I most felt linked to though, cut off from family and pushed into the great unknown ...

I got Jake Llyod's emotion, it wasn't overacting, but it was there. Anakin is a reserved character not brash and unreserved also, how do you know what Vader was like in his youth? This is how Vader was in his youth. Sorry, it didn't meet your expectations.

It was a great showcase of the tech available for movie makers, but all that is second to the plot. Character have just begun to take their steps and they were good ones. I related to Anakin ... a boy of immense possibilities. AND, I totally disagree, go see this movie as if you are seeing a part of a series rather than a solitary movie, because this is where you will pick up the context of the rest of the story - the whole prequel trilogy experience will be much better if you do.

JOE REDDING
Thu, 20 May 1999 23:04:15

For Shame
To give such an awful movie and A- Has Lucus lined EVERYONE'S pockets? Is there no reviewer willing to tell the truth? Oh well the search continues.

STEVE and DIANE SCHNEIDER
Sat, 22 May 1999 08:45:10

Review Hit the Nail on the Head
Nice review of Star Wars. I pretty much agree with everything you said. The problem with the movie was just that you didn't care. I mean really, compare when Obi Wan dies in the original vs. when a main character dies in this one. I was sad in the first one, in this one I was just kind of like "ah well, sucks to be him." I think even Ewan felt the same way, he didn't seem to broken up about it.

Oh yeah, one other thing. Didn't you remember Vader being a mean bad guy. He was crushing people's throats and blowing up Lea's home planet, shoving her into a tiny cell and torturing her with some needle robot. Really, aside from that rabid NJ devil fan (Puddy from Seinfeld?) accidentally stabbing Liam, I thought the bad guys were actually very nice and polite. Oh yeah, the lightsabre fights were more acrobatic in this one (which is good) but they lacked that trash talking aspect all the battles in the other movies had. You know, they'd fight for a minute, talk some trash.. fight some more, talk some more trash. Actually, the silence thing did kind of work in the very first battle that Maul was in. That was kind of cool how he just came out of nowhere on Tatooine and started going after those dudes without saying a word.

DAVID GODWIN
Wed, 26 May 1999 17:52:25

TOP