Your article about Richard Burton (PEOPLE, Aug. 20) showed me that he was loved not only by fans and peers but by the everyday people who surrounded him as well. I was lucky enough to see him in Camelot, and for “one brief shining moment” I saw King Arthur come to life.
Michelle L. Ziatyk
Cedar Knolls, N.J.
Reading reports of Richard Burton’s death, I’ve been appalled by the critics’ asinine assertions that he threw away his destiny as a great actor for life with Elizabeth Taylor. These pompous fools are wringing their hands over the years he wasted being passionately loved by that exciting, feisty, fun-loving woman. Some tragedy.
Clarence B. Santos
I’m sure you’re going to find this droll. Today I picked up your magazine expecting to find accuracy, intelligence and unbiased reporting. Imagine my surprise!
In a Startrack in the Aug. 13 issue, PEOPLE linked Cher with Eric Stoltz. They are not dating, nor was Stoltz the actor Cher proposed for her leading man in Grandview, U.S.A. We apologize for the errors.—ED.
I’ve been a fan of Prince’s music, but he himself has remained a mystery to me, perhaps because he shies away from the press. Your article helped me to see this outlandish musician as a human being.
I think Prince is just one more mixed-up person whose mind is polluted with too many thoughts about sex and who happens to be a musician.
Patrick L. Vercher
Ford Ord, Calif.
I was excited when I saw that this issue contained an article on Prince, but when I read the first sentence I cringed. As the offspring of a mixed marriage, I find the term “mulatto” offensive and dated. It has much the same impact as calling a black person “colored.” The term “biracial” would have been more suitable.
Prince is the Baudelaire of funk.
Taylor Hastie Fargas
Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel
Your feature on movie critics Siskel and Ebert gave me almost as many laughs as their program does. Frankly, they come off like a couple of old ladies who’ve gotten together to discuss their aches and pains. All they need are some knitting needles and a couple of balls of yarn.
Pacific Grove, Calif.
Why you found it necessary to subject your readers to a photo of Goldstein and his girlfriend happily watching their pet snake devour a bowl of poor little goldfish is beyond my ken. I’d prefer a photo of a boa constrictor dining on Dr. Goldstein.
Linda Bird Francke
Linda Bird Francke is wrong. Parents do not need to be made aware of what you term the “anguish divorce can inflict on children.” They are already too busy drowning in guilt and punishing their new mates for what they imagine was the ruination of their children’s lives. In many ways kids handle divorce better than their parents do. So let’s stop all the whining and self-denigration. A good divorce is better than a bad marriage. Ask the kids. They know.
I know a lot about divorce; my parents have been in and out of court for eight years. We’ve had child stealing, blackmail, child molesting. We’re like pawns in a chess game. If you’ve ever played chess, you know the first thing to sacrifice is the pawn: Use it as bait; use it to set up an offensive. Maybe because they’re little, or there are more of them, or they can only move one space at a time. Before you know it, all the pawns who have been used to get the king and queen are left sitting listlessly by the side of the board, as good as dead. Both my parents accuse each other of playing games. When I tell them I love them both, they can’t understand. When I tell one I hate the other, I’m used for an offensive. A pawn in checkmate. Seems like somebody changed the rules I grew up with.
In your article concerning Nevada and California wedding chapels in South Lake Tahoe, Calif. (PEOPLE, March 19), you quoted an individual who said that a court order in the litigation was “bought.” This allegation is completely false. The judges in South Lake Tahoe are conscientious, honest and highly respected members of the California judiciary who have worked hard to develop their good reputations. The truth is that the California chapel sought a temporary restraining order (commonly called an “injunction”) against the Nevada chapel to prevent publication of a brochure they believed was not fair and accurate. California requires the posting of a bond when a restraining order is issued to protect the party against whom the injunction is issued. The bond (in this case $10,000) is held as security to pay any damages the enjoined party may suffer should it turn out that the injunction should not have been obtained.
James N. Penrod, Esq.
Rogers & Huber
The individual quoted in the article complained to a PEOPLE reporter that the injunction was “bought” because the posting of a $10,000 bond enabled the California chapel to obtain the injunction. PEOPLE correctly quoted the individual but omitted to set forth the basis for the comment. The magazine did not intend to accuse the judges, the participants or their lawyers of any improper act.—ED.