Askins Misjudges Field Hockey

To the Editors:

Eben Askins' article, "How I learned to Stop Caring and Love Hockey," is about the ice hockey team, The Plague. He asks the student body why only a few sporting events get fan support, such as the Plague. The Oberlin College varsity field hockey team agrees that support from the students is needed and would be great for athletics here. In an unnecessary comment, however, Askins goes against his own argument by poorly describing field hockey in an inaccurate manner that is negative to the sport. He says that he goes to several events from swim meets "to the tedious stalement-immobility of field hockey, a great game that (regrettably) grants its participants too much time to stand around." Not only is this a false portrayal, but its negative overtone will deter any virgin spectators from the sport.

Let's set it straight. The stalemate of field hockey leads to very exciting, close and intense games. This season, the OC field hockey team took at least six games into overtime, including our last regular season game against number one ranked Denison, the soon to be NCAC field hockey champs. The games keep fans on the edge of their seats. Field hockey is not without thrills. Sudden uncontested break-aways, mind boggling defensive saves and the perfect pass are sights to see!

As to the second part of the short and pointless field hockey commentary, Askins could not possibly be more wrong. Field hockey takes place on a 100 X 60 yard field and requires constant running for 70 minutes with one five-minute half time and up to two two-minute timeouts for each team. The half time seems more like two minutes and the timeouts are rarely used. In hockey, you can't possibly win if you "stand around." Aggressiveness and movement to the ball are needed to be successful. Perhaps Askins is mistaken and was watching another sport because there is no "standing around" in field hockey. If there is, it surely isn't "granted" and comes from the players' own laziness.

We, the 1999-2000 Oberlin College field hockey team, would like to invite Askins to our indoor game, this Sunday from 7-8 p.m. in the newly turfed field house. This will allow Askins to play and perhaps re-evalute his conclusion about the "idle" sport. If Askins cannot join us this weekend, no worries. We play every Sunday. And Askins need not worry about never having played before, because we always have guys in other sports play with us, and they do great because they don't stand around.

--Emily Johnson (College sophomore) and the Oberlin College Varsity Field Hockey Team,

Gleason Retort Lacks Courage

To Ben Gleason, c/o the Editors:

Hello, Mr. Gleason! It's so nice to hear from you again. I was very flattered that you took up an entire half-page of the Arts section in last week's Review to discuss the letters we wrote you. It gave you a chance to correct me in my assumptions: not only are you ignorant of your job, you also lack the courage to speak your mind.

Let's drop the retributive and facetious crap, shall we?

I am sorry to hear that you hated Quills and were bored by it. It did run long; it did demand a lot of patience; the script is rather slow-moving. These things are all true. I am more sorry that you didn't see fit to say so in your review. I would much rather read a truly honest, cutting, horrible review than two pages of lily-livered waffling and summary. Seriously.

Should you drop your objective stance and be moved by the theater you go to see and review? Certainly! And if that theater moves you to the bathroom to vomit with disgust and wait out the end of the show, so be it. I didn't say you could be moved in only one direction. If you hate a show, then that's how you feel about it, so that's what you should write in your review! Reviews aren't advertisements. If we wanted to advertise our shows, we would (and we do)! This is the very reason why we don't critique our own shows: the commentary we would write would be completely worthless advertising. Please, please, write what you think. Share your opinion!

As for your implications that the other writers whose letters appeared in the Feb. 25 edition of the Review and I collaborated on those letters, I'm sorry to say you are mistaken. I was as surprised by the letters of my associates as you were. If we all said the same thing, it is because that was what needed to be said. There was no planning, no discussion, and no collaboration.

Concerning the fact that yes, four out of five letters regarding your Quills review came from members of the cast and crew, the explanation for that is very simple. No one else cares enough about a review to write about it. I've thought that the reviews for other shows were poorly and inadequately written, but didn't say anything because I did not care enough about those shows. Being involved naturally makes you want to receive a legitimate review. The fact that we were all so upset doesn't mean that we were asserting our vanity, or that we expected praise to be heaped on our shoulders for making an effort, but instead means that having put in so much effort, we wanted to know how we did. At the end of a soccer game, you know whether you win or lose. At the end of a show, you often have no clue. Most of the audience leaves, as it should, and those who stay are generally friends who would tell you that you did well even if you fell on your face, broke all the props, stuttered, started to cry and ran away. We look to the reviews for honest criticism. When that criticism is not to be found, it's tremendously disappointing.

Finally, I would like to apologize for attacking you so directly in my letter of Feb. 25. Letting the letter get personal obviously got in the way of my point. I hope that this letter will make you think differently about your responsibilities as a reviewer.

Also: I'm sorry you didn't get a program; I don't recall what night you came, but presumably they hadn't been printed yet. Copies of the script, rough program and director's notes all would have been made available to you upon request.

--Melon Wedick, College senior

Athletes Should not be Isolated or Glorified

To the Editors:

Sport's biggest benefit is to foster a sense of community both within and among teams. With that in mind, I object to last week's "You Can Say That Again." Taken out of context, the quote "everyone else sucks" sounds arrogant and disrespectful to the other competitors. These I believe are two traits which athletes should avoid. They certainly should not be isolated and glorified as they were in your paper.

--John Limouze, College junior

Two Spring Back Dancers Vault for Other Interests

To the Editors:

(To the Theater and Dance Department)

We, Johanna Almiron and Rashida Bumbray, submit this letter to resign from the production of the Spring Back Concert. We will not perform in the production because our efforts are focussed in other areas. Johanna Almiron is currently coordinator, choreographer and dancer in the production of Colors of Rhythm. Rashida Bumbray is currently a director, choreographer and dancer in her senior recital registered under "Essence." Both of us are also members of Adenike Sharpley's semi-professional dance company, Dance Diaspora.

Auditioning in Spring Back was a forum to break silences. As dancers, we spoke to you through dance. Dance, and art in general, has been a vital part of political expression. It is our hope that our auditions were successful in exposing injustices and opening lines of dialogue. Furthermore, we humbly assume that our participation in the auditions was not a waste of time but rather, an important introduction to the recognition of breaches within the theater and dance department. Also, Nija Whitson's presence in the concert is testimony to the continued effort to transform the face of Spring Back.

Wc look forward to further communication with you. We request a meeting of critical interchange between the Theater and Dance Faculty and a small group of students who represent our concerns. The forum would preferably take place in the early part of next week (March 13, 2000).

Thank you for your time and consideration.

--Johanna Almiron, College junior and Rashida Bumbray, College senior,