Don’t criticize the reviewer
Re “Get Drewes Some Therapy” (RN&R Letters, Jan. 25):
It is always foolhardy to rebut a theater review. I don’t know if letter writer Don Keene works with Reno Little Theater, but he does the group a disservice by attacking Ellen Drewes personally for her opinion of a show. He then goes on to intimate that she somehow favors Brüka Theatre in her reviews.
We want Keene to know that Ms. Drewes got some of that therapy by reviewing The Homecoming, her first review of a Brüka main stage show, oddly appearing in the same issue as Mr. Keene’s letter.
Brüka Theatre enjoys a good relationship with Reno Little Theater, and hopefully all the local theater groups who struggle and give their all to put up a show. We are lucky to have ANYONE doing reviews of what we do. If you disagree with an opinion, fine, but why insult the reviewer and another organization? This town is experiencing wonderful growth in the theater available to it. Brüka is different than RLT, which is different than The Actory, etc. If we are too “cutting-edge,” don’t come. You have plenty of other choices; use them.
Tom Plunkett
Brüka Theatre
Could the RGJ be biased?
Re “Spin of the Century” (RN&R Editor’s Note, Jan. 25):
I liked your editorial, “Spin of the Century.” The Reno Gazette-Journal has been campaigning vigorously for all the downtown redevelopment plans that the city government comes up with. The paper will even go so far as to deceive their readers. What is their motivation? Could it be that because of the advertising revenue they receive from the big downtown casinos, they want to please these casinos by supporting redevelopment at taxpayer expense?
George Kirste
via e-mail
Could Boegle be biased?
Re “Spin of the Century” (RN&R Editor’s Note, Jan. 25):
Some publications are progressive and proactive in a positive way. Writers of these may expose societal wrongs out of genuine concern for their readership. Some of your stories serve this purpose and contribute valuably to the community of Reno.
However, I feel that there has been a shift toward shallow negativity in the News & Review. The topics your editor chooses do little to enlighten readers and much to alienate them. For example, we know he doesn’t like the Gazette-Journal. We know this so well that it’s tiresome.
Although he surely doesn’t intend to put such questions into our minds, readers can’t help but ask each other: Why the personal attacks? Is he jealous of their revenue? Was he refused a job there? Will he ever move on to some more relevant issue?
I wade through the angry editorial ranting in order to read the few articles that keep the RN&R from totally losing its charm. I urge you to do something to cheer up the editor: Send him on a nice vacation, or have an office party to make him feel better about himself.
It would be great if the RN&R regained some of the positivity that I’ve valued in the past.
Martina Beatty
via e-mail
All hail the hippies
In musing about the criticisms constantly expounded by the wrinkled noses of the right concerning the “liberalization” of our society seeded in the 1960s, I can’t help but pose the question: Are we better off now than then?
Consider the advances in the understanding of health-related issues revolving around contamination of water, food and air. The changes demanded and made would not have happened so readily if communist hippies and long-hairs and protestors had been silent.
The destruction of wetlands by the developers’ bulldozers was happening at a rate of 458,000 acres a year in the 1950s, according to a recent Associated Press article, and due to these miscreants’ “blatherings” and “rantings,” that has been reduced to just under 60,000 acres a year between 1986 and 1997. What if the development rate had continued unbridled in the name of property rights and corporate profits that the establishment had—and does—so mightily fought for? And let’s not forget that we also have generated a very healthy skepticism of politicians.
As a card-carrying member of the values of the ‘60s (including four years of military service, 1967-1971), I would submit that there are many mighty oaks out there, seeded in the ‘60s, which will continue to provide heartfelt direction, refuge, beauty and social inspiration.
Christopher Lunn
Minden