Loquaciously

Sir-Recent issues of Salient contain a justifiable criticism of the layout and general standard of reporting exhibited in Salient. But criticism can surely go further than this.

Over the last few months readers have been subjected to a personal testament of Neil Wright's political affiliations, the doubtful Interest of which was confirmed by no more than a cursory glance, the hysterical outpourings of Messrs Hirschfield, Rowlands, and (to a lesser degree) Haas, the admittedly loquacious but eminently predictable thoughts (and preconceptions) of James Mitchell. I make no claim that these voices should not have been heard, but rather that the space allocated them was quite disproportionate to their interest and value.

Drama reviews, with the exception of a recent effort by a senior member of the Education Department (in itself a commentary on the paucity of studenl reviewers) have been incoherent and inarticulate, an insult to the average reader's intelligence. The film reviews of M J. Heath, informed as they unquestionably are, provide little satisfaction for the general reader. They assume a knowledge of other films which very few actually have. The frequency of heavy black type, seven titles other than the film being reviewed in the last issue, attests to this fact.

Errors in printing and proofreading are more numerous than I can remember having seen in recent years, while the editorial level has reached a probable all-time low. Compensation for this is not provided by the verbal paranoia exhibited by the editor in his replies to recent correspondence.

In short it would appear that Salient has sacrificed quality for quantity. Yet I feel that a footnote to my criticisms is called for. The photographic section is often excellent. However I suppose that the management of Salient must put in some serious thought before they decide it worth their while merely to bring out a weekly double page pull-out.