University of South Carolina Libraries
opinion VIP:eft iTAbBUM VI' Crucible i discourag By STEVE VALK The Crucible, the literary magazine published by student funds for the purpose of publishing short stories and poetry submitted -by students, is having trouble obtaining copy submitted from students for publication. Joe Tiller, editor of the publication, has cited a lack of student interest as the main reason for the trouble the publication is having. I would like to suggest that if Tiller and his staff would make them. selves more accessible, they just might receive more input from students. Room 319 at the Russell House, the office for The Crucible, is seldom open, and no sign is displayed on the door GAME BILL PRA1 - BILL OUTLAW, Editorial Pag. Editer taff's apa ;es studen telling the visitor whom he may contact or when someone will be in the office. Students often come into the office at The Gamecock wanting to submit work for The Crucible. Students don't have anyone to give their material to or anyone to contact about having their work published. The lack of interest cited by Tiller seems to be more a lack of interest on his part. Last year's Crucible staff posted and maintained office hours in addition to posting instructions for submitting material when someone was not in the office. Last Year's staff also sponsored an.. arts festival to collect funds and increase interset in the publication. No such projects ~COCK ', Editor BILL GRANT, thy ts have been undertaken this year. A publicity campaign is a necessity for arousing interest and this year's so called "media blitz" has not materialized. Posters and fliers were distributed around campus last year and none have been seen to date this year. Advertising in The Gamecock has been limited to one two column ad. Students cannot be blamed for neglecting something they cannot see. The success of last year's Crucible was responsible for a substantial increase in the amount of funding the publication received this year. Additional funding is not being used for advertising where it could do the most good. Last Year's publication was outstanding because of the hard work, dedication and creativity on the part of its editor and staff. If this year's staff would exhibit the same kind of enthusiasm and responsibility, perhaps the problem of lack of interest on the part of students would be eliminated. LETTER Green Street solution offered TO THE EDITOR: I strongly support the principles underlying the demonstrations on Green Street on Oct. 13 and Oct. 14. Those principles were first outlined in a letter from a political science major, in the Oct. 16 issue of The Gamecock. If anyone is guilty of disorderly conduct at U.S.C. it is the board of Trustees. A decision was made to increase tuition, in. the summer when a meaningful dialogue with the student body was not possible. The Board of Trustees took a stance in support of the high standards of under-achievement in their historical "Law School Decision," once more with a total disregard for the commonwealth of the student body. Green Street signifies more than a problem of pedestrian and automotive traffic conflict. Green Street embodies the anger and frustration of students who are enraged at being treated as non persons. It is these underlying principles that I staunchly support: the need to be recogaized as consumers with a right to question decisions ef fecting the quality of education at U.S.C. and to be recognized as residents of a community unit in Columbia with a voice, and political power, no matter how diverse it may be at times. As a pedestrian and a driver of a car, I can neither support the closing of Green Street, nor its widening. Let there be erected a traffic-signal at the crosswalk in front of Russell House, and let the currently widened portion of Green Street be designated for student parking, both commuting and on campus. It is only through such a com promise on the part of all parties concerned with the particulars of the Green Street issue, and a concerned open advocacy on the part of the Board of Trustees of the principles outlined in this letter, that a sane solution to an otherwise insane pattern of problems can be established. BRIAN M. KOCHIERA 'Sweet Charity' review criticized TO THE EDITOR: As a theatre major at Carolina and an avid Columbia playgoer, I felt inclined to comment on Cyn thiaTaylor's review of Sweet Charity in the Gamecock of Oct. 9th issue, and Ron Birnbaum's subsequent letter to the editor in the Oct. 16th paper. To begin with, let me assert that I respect a drama critic's right to an opinion. However, if that critic tends to wield the power that comes with the position to such an extreme that it becomes damaging to personal pride or group en thusiasm, a second opinion is in order. My first criticism of Ms. Taylor's review stems from its structure. There is no introduction to the play; nothing to warm up the reader to what is being criticized. The first sentence is a damning Soo* remark aimed at the leading'lady. Anyone glancing through the paper and scanning the article would not only be turned off by such negetivity it would also most likely abandon any intentions of catching the play. After reading the review, I was glad that I had seen the play before being fluenced by Taylor's opinions. Granted, there are imperfections of various degrees in any University Theatre production. I challenge anyone here that is perfect to step forwardand~con demn my statelnents. Are there not occasional imperfections in., say, a computer science major's printout or a journalism major's news write-up? Certainly it is a reviewer's job to point out weaknesses in a production. It is the degree of such criticism that is in question here. As for Birnbaum's questioning of the Critic's qualifications, my three and a half semesters of acquaintance with Ms. Taylor have given me confidence that I can 'vouch for her theatrical knowledge, as well as her artistic taste. However, it is the extremity to which she expresses her opinion I must condemn. I was truly entertained by Sweet Charity, and I feel that the misgivings that were pointed out were far outweighed by the many instances of inspired theatrical creativity. We must all strive for perfection, but I believe that damnation in the place of con structive criticism can only hinder our efforts. LEE McCONNELL More thoughts on 'Sweet Charity' TO THE EDITOR: I would like to direct this letter to the president of the University Players, Ron Birnbaum, who though the performers of Sweet Charity were "maliciously and indecorously attacked" by Ms. Cynthia Taylor's review of their production of Sweet Charity. I don't see how you could say that Ms. Taylor lacks the journalism and theatrical qualification to write any review. Her review honestly stated her opinions of your production Sweet Charity. That is all the qualification she needs. She simply wrote an ob jective criticism of what she ob served at your production. I take it for granted that you are a Thespian. If you are not, I would like to state a sentence of the Thespian Pledge for you. "I shall accept criticism, disappointments and promotions with humility and obedience". Obviously, you are a poor sport and cannot accept criticism, unless it is in your favor and your actors' favor. I, too, am an actor, but I learned to accept criticism because ob jective criticism, such as Ms. Taylor's, helps one to become a better actor. Therefore, I want to say this to you and your actors: If you learn to accept criticism and take it for what it is worth, instead of trying to make a fool of your critic, you might have a better production next time. GUY WOOLBRIGH T