LETTERS TO L.A. LIFE : AROMA OF SCENTED CANDLES UNPLEASANT FOR MANY PEOPLE.

It was with interest that I read your article on the increasing popularity of scented candles (L.A. Life, Jan. 10). It got me to wondering if those who are so enraptured with the smell of scented candles are aware, or even care, that approximately one-third of the population are allergic to many of the perfumes and materials used in the scenting process.

In my case, I have to avoid any stores that sell scented candles and/or potpourri. There are friends whose homes I can no longer visit because they have taken to keeping potpourri and/or scented candles around for all to ``enjoy.'' For me to come in contact with those odors for as little as five minutes, results in extremely painful headaches and/or nausea. This is not a situation of simply finding the odors unpleasant. In many cases I actually like the smell, I am allergic to something that creates it.

Having worked in retail at one time, I understand the competitive nature of the business. That makes me curious as to how many shop owners who do not specialize in scented candles and potpourris would carry them as a sideline if they realized that they were actively alienating roughly one-third of their potential customer base by doing so.

John McFadyen

Canoga Park

Tuning out commercials - and the networks

Re: ``Midlife crisis for network'' (L.A. Life, Jan. 4):

The networks may spend millions trying to get their public back. But I think they missed the point on why people don't watch the big networks.

They have too many commercials. This is even worse when they rerun the same commercial twice during a program. You watch an hourlong program and see at least one quarter or more of commercials.

I know this is their way of making money, but is it worth losing the audience?

I will continue to watch stations that go small on commercials, or rent a video.

June Blaine

Beverly Hills 

Verdict favoring actress a bad omen for casting

The Hunter Tylo decision is only the start of things to come in the Hollywood community. No longer will producers be able to cast a project based on who's ``right for the part.'' Instead, they will be forced to cast who's ``correct'' for the part. Here's a list of possible changes forced upon the entertainment industry by all those overly sensitive folks out there, whose feelings seem to be more important than the fundamental freedom of choice granted by our Constitution (yes - even to Hollywood producers):

1. Denzel Washington as George Washington.

2. Leonardo DiCaprio as Juliette.

3. ``Guys and Dolls'' is brought back to Broadway and renamed ``Women and Men'' (women get to have top billing in the new version).

4. Fat Albert comes back to Saturday morning as ``Calorically Challenged Albert.''

5. Disney renames ``Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs'' ``Snow White and the Seven Little People'' and adds new animation having separate living quarters for Ms. White and the dwarfs ... plus, she turns the prince down on his offer to live happily ever after, saying she's ``an independent woman of the '90s (1690s) who doesn't need to rely on a man for happiness.''

6. Child welfare is forced to remove Robin from Batman, saying that Robin, a minor, is forced to risk his life on a regular basis, being put in mortal danger by Batman fighting criminals.

7. Wilma Flintstone sues Fred for divorce, claiming emotional abuse (not to mention being forced to stay home with the baby ... and barefoot!!)

Sound ridiculous?? So does the Hunter Tylo decision. In closing, I'd like to give Aaron Spelling some advice. To avoid this pregnancy problem in the future, next time you need to cast a sexy female for a part in Melrose Place, how about RuPaul?

Bob Bergen

Valencia