More Moore
As a proponent of free speech and a believer in the power of discourse, I would like to respond to Timothy Sawyer's negative Letter to the Editor regarding Michael Moore's appearance in Cincinnati (Moore Is a Bully, issue of Nov. 12-18)

First of all, Sawyer states that Moore's film Bowling for Columbine has been discredited as a documentary. This implies that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Science has made a statement regarding this matter, since they are indeed the institution that bestowed Moore with the Oscar. I couldn't find any statement to corroborate Sawyer's claim. Perhaps he meant to imply that it is of some people's personal opinion that this film isn't a documentary.

The AMPA&S; defines a documentary as "a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction." The key word here is "emphasis." The topics portrayed in Moore's film are based upon factual events. His incorporation of humor into all of the subject matter he tackles is his personal trademark. He has never tried to imply otherwise. If you don't care for this type of interpretation, that is simply your opinion, but it doesn't mean something is "discredited" just because you don't agree with the portrayal or interpretation.

As for his statement that Moore is anti-American, in my opinion he's one of the most pro-American spokespersons this country has seen in a long time. His public discourse on the failings of the United States' policies and practices do not make him anti-American. Quite the contrary, Moore is a passionate, patriotic man deeply concerned about his country and his fellow citizens.

Lastly, as for Sawyer's critique of Moore's physical appearance -- you should be very careful here. What's next on your agenda? Criticizing the color of one's skin when they make a public statement you disagree with?

Elliott Was Real Person
I would like to respond to Brian Baker's article Mr. Misery (issue of Nov. 12-18). Elliott Smith was in my close circle of friends at Lincoln High School in Portland, Ore., our junior and senior years. There was a tremendous amount of creativity and playfulness in that group of people, and we're all still in contact.

We got through a lot of the bullshit of high school together -- during school hours and when we'd go to one another's houses to hang out and listen to music like Elvis Costello, The Beatles, Squeeze and REM. Elliott was more shy than some of us and didn't talk much, but when he did it was usually because he had something thoughtful to say. One time he and his girlfriend went on an awkward double date with me and a guy I had a crush on. Elliott's girlfriend had a VW vanagon and drove the four of us to see Jim Jarmusch's Stranger Than Paradise. I don't think Elliott said a single word the entire time, but after we'd dropped off my date and it was my turn to get out, he looked back and gave me a totally sympathetic smile.

I remember the relationship he had with his girlfriend as being as healthy as any high school relationship can be. Clearly Elliott struggled psychologically then, but so do a lot of people in high school. But he was relatively happy and connected.

That's how I've liked to think of Elliott in the intervening years as I've stayed close to what was going on in his life through a mutual friend. His death has hit me harder than I expected, not because of a personal connection to him but because of our shared friends and history, what Elliott's music has meant to me and what it is to wrap your head and heart around a death that's self-inflicted.

OK, I'm saying all this because Elliott was a person to me, you see, but I think he should be so to everyone else, too, including Baker. Sure, he was a person with fame, recognition and many fans, but what gives anyone the idea that they should go ahead and speculate or explain in print? Why does Baker feel comfortable discussing in CityBeat what he or his acquaintances have come up with in response to Elliott's death? That it's a "safe bet" that Elliott died because of "his appetite for heroin and alcohol?"

How can Baker presume to know what Elliott's friends and family are going through? What "signs" does anyone necessarily have? How can he feel good about speculating that Elliott's death is connected to his feelings about the music he was making in his last sessions?

This article hurt, though I recognize Baker's general intentions were to write a tribute. I wish he would consider what compelled him to speculate in the ways in which he did. I wonder about the relative merit -- or lack thereof -- of doing so.