Style and substance

Re: Juliet Waters’ review of The Revolution Will Be Accessorized [Books, July 6]: I agree with Waters that many contemporary fashion magazines “have the soul of a department store catalogue,” but her solution seems to be that fashion magazines should print less fashion and more fiction—or, as she says, “literature”—like the good old days. While this may (or may not) improve the overall quality of BlackBook or Vogue, it won’t really help those of us who are interested in style, clothes and fashion, and want to read intelligent writing about the subject.

Ultimately, Waters’ main criticism of the book is that fashion writing has no business aspiring to literature because it, and the people who are interested in it, are inherently soulless. There is a fairly large community of people who believe otherwise, and are attempting to write about fashion and style in a way that’s neither “ad-asphyxiated” nor “over-produced, over-the-top and decadent” (and not because they think “shallow is the new deep” either). Consider the possibility that a larger group of people care about style these days, not because they are brainwashed by corporations, or need a 12-step program, but because fashion plays a huge role in art, music and film—not to mention our everyday lives—and is worth contemplating.

» Serah-Marie McMahon, Editor, Worn Fashion Journal

Homolka not humorous

I have been seething with anger and feelings of shock ever since I read the “Alternative Grand Prix Weekend” feature in your June 22 edition. I still find myself experiencing disgust at the unspeakably bad taste and ignorance of writers Anne Marie Marko and Chris Barry.

The object of my disgust is one of the alternative activities mentioned in the article, “Play ‘Where’s Karla.’” Are the authors of the piece familiar with the horrendous crimes perpetrated by Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo? What if the authors or their girlfriends, sisters, mothers or children had been abducted, sodomized, repeatedly raped (all of which was horrendously captured in morbid detail on videotape) and then had their bodies cut into pieces and encased in cement? Would they find that funny?

The article about Homolka is the pinnacle of bad taste. Get educated. Karla Homolka is a sex offender who played a vital role in raping and killing several women, including her own little sister. The quote, “imagine the fun you could have together” is an unimaginable statement. If the authors or one of their loved ones had suffered at Homolka’s hands, would they joke about it? Shame! Shame!

Your article is irresponsible and ignorant. Any responsible publication would never accept articles from these authors again. Your paper is better than this trash and shouldn’t in good faith print such bullshit.

» C.L. Illsley

Moving movie

In your film listings, your critic [Malcolm Fraser] has judged Le Secret de ma mère too harshly. The well-constructed ensemble piece subtly broaches many of the issues involved in adoption—unanswered questions, shame, anger and humiliation. Adopted daughter Jeanne’s obvious detachment form her birth mother and adoptive mother Blanche’s genuine and moving observation that loving, not birthing, a child is the real indication of motherhood lead to the insightful and earned conclusion.

I found characterization in Ghyslaine Côté’s film skillful. Blanche is especially well developed. She is first portrayed in her young adulthood as a sensual, carefree woman, later as a young wife tormented by jealousy, then as a middle-aged devoted single mother toughened by the heartbreak of a marriage gone wrong. Flashbacks relevant to Quebec’s history help document the rapid social change that has taken place in this province. We see the family-oriented ’50s, Expo 67 and the 1968 St-Jean-Baptiste riots broaden the scope of this movie. A wide array of believable characters make this film one of this year’s most perceptive and best.

» Faith Langston

Smoking and thinking

I’ve been reading some pretty strange things in the letters to the editor section lately.

Cigarette smoke is no more harmful than chlorinated water [“Don’t smoke ’em if you got ’em,” July 13]? No one ever got lung cancer or heart disease from chlorinated water, at least not that I ever heard of. Nor asthma or bronchitis. Yes, chlorinated drinking water has been linked to small increases in the rates of rectal and bladder cancer. But chlorinated water has saved countless lives from water-borne diseases. Anyway, six bucks buys you a charcoal water filter that eliminates chlorine and its by-products. So I don’t see any valid comparison here.

People shouldn’t have to go outside to smoke because it gets cold and windy? Well, one has a choice. No one is being forced to smoke, so no one is being forced to go outside.

The indoor smoking ban is totalitarian, dictatorial? The government of Quebec was democratically elected. They looked carefully at the facts surrounding second-hand smoke, and they acted to protect their citizens, as is their duty. Most people support the new law. So, what is totalitarian or dictatorial about that?

Has anyone considered the possibility that the people making these statements have had their judgement clouded by addiction to a very powerful drug called nicotine? And given what we know about tobacco, doesn’t the habit itself probably indicate poor judgement to begin with?

» Richard Murray

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!

Send your comments, compliments or criticisms to:

Letters to the Editor,
c/o Montreal Mirror,
465 McGill, 3rd Floor
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 4B4

You may also fax us at (514) 393-3173, or reach us by e-mail:

Letters to the Editor

All letters should include your name, address and daytime phone number.

If you wish to reach someone in particular, here's a list of people involved with the production of the newspaper and this site.