Lewis Beale's article on Siskel and Ebert has just a few flaws.
First, didn't he talk to Neil Tesser, or read his piece ("Mixed Thumbs for 'Siskbert,' " Jan. 5)? Tesser says Elbert is "comparatively intellectual" and "pedantic," but Beale sees him as "expansive," a "jocular raconteur" tending toward "gregariousness," a "motor-mouthed storyteller."
Tesser describes Siskel, on the other hand, as "personable," as well as "genial, telegenic." Beale, however, thinks Siskel is "imploding," "the better reporter," though Tesser notes (as does Beale) that Siskel makes factual errors.
Personally, I find both Siskel and Ebert self-important and superficial, but at least I can tell them apart.
ELLIS J. BIDERSON