DEAR ELI: I take issue with your characterization of moving the Pride parade to downtown as a huge success ["Gayus Ex Machina," March 8]. Time will tell. The reason the crowd was so huge last year can be summed up in two words: great weather! Before we consider the move to downtown a success, let's see how it does when the weather is overcast and crappy. Having attended Pride parades for the last 10 years, there is a perfect correlation between the weather and the crowd. Nice weather = huge crowds, rainy weather = small crowds... so before we crown the move to downtown a huge success, let's give it some years of crappy weather, then we'll know.
Hal LonganBRAVO, PAUL
EDITOR: When I saw that there was a review of The Secret ["'You Are God in a Physical Body,'" Paul Constant, March 8], I held my breath while thumbing through the pages to find it. I seriously needed validation on this one. I needed to know that someone out there saw this book for what it is. I don't normally buy new books. But, I spotted it with its pleasing old-world style—I was mesmerized by its cover; it had charisma. The fonts, the paragraph style, it was gorgeous. I bought this one Brand Spanking New! Started to thumb through it and "Oh my God, Are you Kidding me?" I was pissed. Livid, as a matter of fact. And really HURT. I couldn't believe my eyes. I couldn't believe they had the nerve to sell it like this. I couldn't believe that they were so stupid that they thought this was a "Secret." What planet does the author live on? I couldn't believe that they corporate sized this. What really pissed me off were the examples: "a parking place," "bank accounts," oh my god!... Off with her head! What really baffles me is the complete ignorance. I didn't have the heart to return the book because I bought it from my local bookstore/coffeehouse hangout. It's now at my local Half Price Books. A new copy for that matter. Redmond, if anyone's interested. Half price, even. Run, run for the cliff...
Polly McAleer
CRITICAL RESPONSIBILITYDEAR JEN GRAVES: Thank you for your recent article concerning Matthew Kangas ["Critical Mess," March 8].
As a person who is passionate about art criticism, I deeply appreciate your commitment to the craft as well as the ethics involved. You have given me hope for Seattle.
Although I am both an artist and a gallery owner, I am in no way writing this in order to kiss any buttocks. Before I was ever either of these things, I was a little girl in a cabin reading every critic I could find in our tiny, one-room library, and it is that person who feels the need to express her thanks.
I see the role of public art critic as a sacred privilege often abused. David Carrier said in Writing About Visual Art, "How we see paintings or sculpture is very much determined by what we read" and he drew attention to when Paul Barolsky said critical writing "transforms [creative works'] meaning, giving them new significance." For me, it is as if critical writing can become as much a part of the artist's work as their own brush strokes, forever linked as if a part of each other. When this is true, great honesty and care should be taken out of respect to the artist.
Thank you for doing your part to bring integrity to our area and provide hope.
Lanae Rivers-Woods, La Familia Gallery
LOVE FOR THE 'DUCTEDITOR: Okay, I've slogged through every word The Stranger has published about why we should replace the viaduct with a boulevard; it still doesn't make sense. For years your paper has insisted that it's stupid to build light rail at street level where the trains will be stuck in traffic. I agree. You were all for the monorail because it would be above traffic. I'm with you there. So why do you think that taking all those cars off the viaduct and putting them at street level in traffic is a good idea?
You also keep insisting that the viaduct is a barrier to the waterfront. What barrier? You can walk right under it. You don't even have to wait for a light to change. Six-lane boulevards, on the other hand, are not easy for pedestrians and bicycles to cross. Highway 99 north of the viaduct: Now that's a barrier. By the way, you can also drive under the viaduct, and park under it. A boulevard uses the land once, while a viaduct thriftily uses it twice.
It's ridiculous to insist that if tearing down an elevated freeway worked in San Francisco, it will work here. San Francisco has BART. People were able to find an alternative to the Embarcadero Freeway because there was an alternative.
I do agree with you, however, about the tunnel. A tunnel would be insanely expensive, have no view, and have crappy air quality. But you've failed to mention the strongest anti-tunnel argument: zombies. I mean, hasn't Greg Nickels ever seen even one zombie movie? Any fool knows that tunnels are always a bad idea.
Raven Gildea
