The internet was young when I had my store so internet vs. yellow pages experience from then wouldn't apply now. Personally, when phone books arrive here, they go directly into the recycle bin. I did order a yellow pages CD from Qwest and installed it but never really used it since you need to update it so often. When I needed a plumber, I looked on the internet. Same with looking for appliances and someone to seal my driveway. I found a van to buy on the internet. When I'm looking for a certain business I look for their website and when they don't have one or I can't find it (and I'm pretty good at searching!) it's a black mark in my book. A basic website at least is as much of a requirement these days as a business card. Don't overlook advertising with the local Chamber of Commerce or local organizations. Restaurants that have advertisements on the menus or placemats can be good. Search for review places that apply to your business to get your name in there with info and even some reviews and opinions. That many more hits with the crawlers. TV & radio are possibilities. We got some good rates through the local cable company if that would work for you. They'd target the channels that we chose and worked with their suggestions too. We used local papers for successful advertising. Word of mouth was of course best and having a storefront in a high traffic area helped. Other ideas: Sometimes the back of taxi cabs can be reasonable, depending on the area. Some still put signs on. Local "free" papers, giveaways, can be good. If you're targeting a bargain hunting clientele there's "saver" type magazines and publications that might be an option. I should say that we got a lot of response from cable. People saying "saw your commercial", but frankly I'm not sure how much we sold from that group. Whether it helped to bring them back for repairs or something, that's possible. I know what you're going through. We had the same problems. Good luck. It's the small businesses that built the country and the ones people run to for local support. Yet, all too often, the ones people neglect when it comes time to spend their dollars!

Russ, I think men can write "girl books." Herman Wouk's Marjorie Morningstar is very much a girl book, I think. While I know they are not great literature, a number of Gothic suspense novels have been written by male writers under feminine pseudonyms -- I guess the thinking of the publishers was women prefer to read Gothics by what they think are women writers, which I think in the case of most female readers is bosh. A number of female writers have written quite effectively in the traditionally male bastion of war stories. Olivia Manning's recounting of the Battle of El Alamein in The Levant Trilogy is every bit as good as any male writer's, and Pat Barker's The Regeneration Trilogy is much lauded by both male and female readers. However, whatever the inroads female writers have made, I'm afraid that there's a certain segment of male readers who will pass over their books simply because they are females. An androgynous name, such as Barker's, has probably pulled in some unsuspecting male readers. As for the classics you mentioned, Russ: Tolstoy's and Flaubert's books -- even when their protagonists are women -- are more likely to be read by men than Jane Austen's novels are. Anyanka has already talked above about this disinclination of boys and men. I know present male company is excepted, but it's hard to say it's untrue of male readers in general.

One of the many problems I had with this movie (Vanity Fair) was how they portrayed Becky Sharpe. In the book she was a complete shrew. In the movie they tried to make her look like she did what she did simply to survive. A few weeks ago I rented some movies and was lucky enough to find a few 'book based' ones. I saw The Tenant of Wildfell Hall and it was BEAUTIFUL! It started Toby Stephens and Tara Fitzgerald (both played in the new Jane Eyre too). I have yet to read the book, so I will not comment further. Did you think this movie was true to the book? I also saw Emma, with Gwenyth Paltrow. SIMPLY GASTLY! I did not launch anything at the screen this time, but I did find at the end of the show that I had been chewing on the corner of a magazine in agony. It was all wrong! The costumes, the dialogue, everything! And who did they get to decorate the scenes? Van Gogh? What was with all the bright colors? The characters were all horrible. The worst was Mr. Knightly. He looked 'Americanized'. A straw hat?!? He could have been one of Tom Sawyer's gang just floatin' along the Mississippi... The Emma movie with Cate Beckinsale is amazing! It actually made me appreciate the book more. I just posted a thread about a new book based movie. It is on F. Scott Fitzgerald's 'The Strange Case of Benjamin Button'. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchette are starring in it. CMK

I read the book last summer and LOVED it! At the time I had just graduated college and gotten my first "real job" as an assistant in NY city, so I was completely able to relate. The only thing I did not like about the book was the ending- but it WAS realistic, not a typical happily ever after story-book ending... so in a way it was good. I just saw the movie with my mom last night (who also read the book) and although we both enjoyed the movie, we were a little dissapointed. I expected it to be a different, but there are so many things they could've done better. First of all I CANNOT STAND Anne Hathaway!!! She's weird looking first of all, she was WAY too nerdy for this role, and she completely over-acts. I think she's painful to watch. The role of Andrea should've been played by someone more natural, funny/sarcastic, and she shoulve been kinda unmotivated at first- crashing on her friend's couch b/c she has no apartment, eating a lot, drinking, smoking, sleeping til noon- still in college mentality...the way she's portrayed in the book. I think Kate Hudson would've been a good choice. She's a little too mature for the role, but if this movie came out 4 or 5 years ago, she would be it. Anne Hathaway was just HORRIBLE. She was too flimsy and jittery and not funny AT ALL. Ugh she's such a bad actress. Meryl Streep however is a brilliant actress. Anything she does is great! However, the role was definitely written too nice. The character of Miranda in the book didnt have conversations with Andrea, she simply just ordered her around. She was meaner and showed no emotion. Whoever said they made her too human was right... I know however for the movie they want to show more of a relationship between her and Andrea, but the writers could've made her just a tad meaner. And my final complaint is the lack of build up with her outside-work relationships. Lily in the book gradually became an alcoholic, hooking up with shady guys in bars b/c she was neglected by her over-working friend. In the movie she had 4 lines and no personality. Also they made the boyfriend so DULL in the movie. Plus I wasn't feeling their relationship AT ALL. They looked unnatural together. Other than all that, it was a cute movie. I just think they could've made it SO much better. "That's all"