Playwright’s sexuality irrelevant

Regarding Amy Barratt’s recent review of Biss-ous, my plays at the Théâtre Ste-Catherine [“Wet kiss,” Theatre, Oct. 5], I would just like to clarify that I consider myself to be a playwright and not a “queer playwright,” as Ms. Barratt refers to me in her critique.

I am openly gay and perfectly comfortable in my own skin, but I do not believe a person’s sexual orientation should necessitate an appellation to their job title. I doubt very much that Ms. Barratt would introduce herself to people as a straight, lesbian or bisexual theatre critic (whichever might apply).

For the record, the great majority of my work is not GLBT-themed and is populated with heterosexual characters. But even if this were not the case, my point would still stand. Would she, for instance, in a review of a play by David Mamet, introduce the writer as “the straight playwright”? I believe such labelling and pigeonholing to be irrelevant at best and, at worst, demeaning.

Ms. Barratt also suggests in her review that I think of myself as clever. I do not. As anyone who knows me will attest, I am in fact a very humble and modest person. I simply write plays to the best of my abilities and if people respond to them, I’m a happy man—or, as Ms. Barratt might put it, a happy gay man.

» Andrew Biss

Too few good men

I’ll have you know that after reading ‘‘Fall is for lover haters,” [Riff-Raff, Sept. 28], I immediately cut out the article and gathered up all of the female population of Lasalle College to read the one true description of our situation. What Raf’s girlfriends say about Montreal men is pretty much a word-for-word representation of our everyday conversations!

Studying in fashion design and having no time on my hands, I know a total of two straight guys. And of course they’re already taken. So, I have started to carry Raf Katigbak’s article around to remind myself that others are feeling the frustration too! Looking forward to what next Thursday will bring us from him.

» Marilis

CAGE hoopla

Re: Cage letters: Is this a practical joke or something? Wouldn’t it make more sense to give them their own column? They are just as funny as Raf Katigback [Riff-Raff], but at least Raf doesn’t ask us to take him seriously. We’re supposed to believe the sky is going to fall in because people must go outside to smoke? Give me a break.

» Brian Franklin

Defending Israel

Shirley Groves is right on track comparing Israel’s claim of self-defence to that of someone forcibly occupying a home and then protesting that the inhabitants don’t want peace. [“Defining defence,” Letters, Oct. 5] “The Arabs will have to go,” wrote David Ben-Gurion in 1937 before becoming Israel’s first Prime Minister, “but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.” Self-defence or premeditated ethnic cleansing? You be the judge.

» David Smith, Toronto

I appreciate Shirley Groves’s help with my comprehension and understanding of history, but neither are required [“Defining defence,” Letters, Oct. 5]. When any critic of Israel or its supporters compares either to “apartheid supremacists” or “Nazis,” the purpose is as clear as when many of them want “occupied territories” returned. (This last would include Tel Aviv.)

If not, they could substitute “Saudi” for states that support supremacy of one group and separation from others, and use, say, “Stalinists” instead of the odious comparison to Nazis, but they don’t.

As for the Suez War in 1956, she forgot that not only did the Israelis fire the first shots in that one, they also did it in 1967. In the first case, Nasser cut off all Israeli commerce from the canal and the Gulf of Aqaba. This would have included her entire oil supply. The strangling of commerce is a recognized act of war and Egypt “fired” first.

In 1967, Egypt not only repeated the process but amassed a huge army on the Israeli border, and ordered the UN peace keepers to get out of the way.

They, as the UN always does, meekly complied. Israel thought it might be useful to destroy the Arab air forces and attack before their armies were in Israel. While doing so, civilians were killed as happens in every war. The likes of Groves and [fellow letter writer] John Dirlik apparently feel that only Israel should accept civilian casualties at home and always allow the enemy to shoot first. The thing is, Israel, and most Jews, took this crap, and were at the mercy of others, for 2,000 years. It didn’t help, and we just won’t do it anymore.

Finally, when she turns toward Mecca or Rome or Jerusalem or whatever to say prayers, just repeat the following: If neither Hamas nor Hezbollah had fired rockets into Israel nor captured Israeli soldiers from unoccupied territory, none of this summer’s destruction would have happened. None of it!

» Ken Frankel

Correction:

Last week’s review of the movie Ghost on the Highway was written by Chris Barry.

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!

Send your comments, compliments or criticisms to:

Letters to the Editor,
c/o Montreal Mirror,
465 McGill, 3rd Floor
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 4B4

You may also fax us at (514) 393-3173, or reach us by e-mail:

Letters to the Editor

All letters should include your name, address and daytime phone number.

If you wish to reach someone in particular, here's a list of people involved with the production of the newspaper and this site.