Review Editor:

READERS write

I have just received the 6th issue in which you ask, "Are We on the Right Track?" Well, up to now I thought you were very much so. But you have shattered all your good work by being completely hypocritic and giving up the entire cause you had worked for. This comes very simply by publishing the work of Ellis. He may think he that neurotic of all neurotics, Dr. has invented the word neurotic... (he is only) a good salesman to make you all admit you are as bad off as he claims and now I had you try to persuade your readers that we are neurotic. thought you acknowledged us human beings, as individuals whom you were fighting for the rights of, and trying to promote understanding. Now I see that all you are doing really is poking fun...and using us as a target for further ridicule by the public in general. You are not satisfied that we have a few different ideas from the majority of society, but want that majority to think we are ill and nuts too! How happy you must be to persecute us!

The situation is all so simple that I cannot see any valid reason for the hunting of reasons that will satisfy society for our existence. We are what we are because we were created that way by God. We are not sick and don't ask treatment; we seek only understanding that we are humans as are the rest. Our sexual desires are part of our nature... It is just as absurd to say we are neurotic as to say a gifted pianist is neurotic for pursuing music as a "phobia," as your gifted Dr. Ellis wishes to call it...-J. M., New York

(Reader J.M.'s sharp criticism of Dr. Ellis' views is gratefully received, but we hesitate to comment that either is to be regarded as wrong or right. Critical letters are encouraged: they show that someone is thinking. However, J.M., don't expect everyone to agree with you, just as we don't expect everyone to agree with everything we publish. Our goal is to deny that we are hypoget at the TRUTH--good or bad. We deny crites sticking our heads in sand and blind to what is going on around us. But we shall not evade an issue simply because it may be controversial and Albert Ellis dared to face it. Our pages are open to many more such controversies, and to those of opposing views as well. --Editor)

Review Editor:

I still offer for what they are worth my humble best wishes and you may be assured of this sentiment on my part as long as Mattachine and the Review continue to perform their valuable I have noted with no surprise your services to our cause. Review continue its valiant being entirely unfamiliar

plea to subscribers to help the service...no surprise because, not

mattachine REVIEW

with the financial problems that such a small-circulating (I cannot say SMALL; the Review is a GIANT in other ways) publication faces. Please accept my small contribution... Mr. P. R., Virginia

Review Editor:

I congratulate you on the results already achieved during your first year and encourage you to do as well in the future...I should like to oncrease my subscription by a voluntary contribution, but exchange control regulations prevailing in this country do not allow this unfortunately... Mr. E. B., Paris, France

Review Editor:

Kindly note a change in rates for our subscription: $11 first class per year. Rolf, Editor, Der Kreis, Zurich.

Review Editor:

It is difficult to get into "Hadrian and Antinous" (Nov.-Dec. 1955 issue of the Review) with any degree of enthusiasm when the author starts off with an inaccurate reference to Miss Yourcenar's fine work as "written by Hadrian just before he died," and then go on to note that "Mlle. Yourcenar has apparently done an excellent job by letting Hadrian do the writing." The fact is that Mlle. Yourcenar's work is completely her own -unlike your author, she has completely mastered all that is to be known of her subject. Mr. E. L., New York

(Admittedly, the Review and Author Mack Fingal stand corrected. --Editor)

Review Editor:

All in all,' I've enjoyed the Review in 1955. My one criticNot ism is that you are a little too literary. all of your readers are college graduates, you know...Some of us are just plain, ordinary laboring people with limited educations. So please steer clear of too much theory, six-syllable words and articles of literary, but not practical value. -Mr. R. L., Texas

(Thanks for the comment, and we'll try to comply. But it's hard to imagine that we can be "too rich for any Texan's blood" --Editor)

Review Editor:

My reaction to all six issues of the Review for 1955 is such that I feel ashamed for not having helped those in California more who have contributed so much free work as they held necessary full-time jobs. I believe that someday the caliber of the Review will dispel the knocks of both heterosexual and homosexual immature minds which have not considered it possible The Review to encourage such a timely organization as yours.

is unbiased. This has been proved simply by the 1955 issues in which writers have aired both sides of controversies. the democratic spirit of temperance, we wish to enlighten; to heal the doubts and frustration of those in far away places