Lordy, lordy!
Naturally, City would defend its position on the mammary cover and story (“Mammary Monologues,”
November 27). You’re probably all gloating and saying “See? The readers
complain but it gets their attention, and they read it! That’s what counts!”
                 Well,
sorry, but other things count, too. That cover showed a complete lack of taste.
And City showed a complete lack of
class. I thought you had more ‘couth.’ Anyway… who wants to read about
private body parts and women’s angst? Are they really all that interesting?
What next? Men’s privates? Lordy, I hope not!
                 Politics
is a lot more fun! (And I don’t mean sexual politics!)
                 Berthe Santirocco, Kevin Drive, Penfield
Disgusted!
While I realize that City is not really a “family
paper” and was never meant to be, I was disgusted at seeing women’s bare
breasts on the front cover of your November 27 issue. I thought this was really
in poor taste.
                 Kevin
P. Yost, Middle Road, Henrietta
The Victorians
Bravo! Your editorial and artistic courage to print that
cover for Jennifer Loviglio’s story clearly illustrates the constrained,
conservative, and pathetic Victorian attitudes that prevail in this community.
                 Upon
returning from a recent visit to New York City, I realized that just 370 miles
away, culture accelerates with the times but remains trapped here in a hopeless
state of complacency. Rochester doesn’t embrace anything contemporary or original. If we continue to focus our
attentions on trivial prejudices, our city and its culture (or what’s left of
it) will continue to decay — just as it’s been doing for the last 30 years.
                 Move
forward, City News!
                 Jim Cappellino, Averill Avenue, Rochester
‘Sensitive, honest’
Bravo for the article “The Mammary Monologues”
(even if it was a rip-off The Vagina
Monologues). It was a sensitively written, honest account of the thoughts
and feelings of many different women about their many different experiences
with their breasts.
                 That
some people wrote you to express offense and some stores refused to carry the
issue boggles my mind. I appreciate Mary Anna Towler’s response (“Why We Ran
That Cover,” December 11); how telling it is that stores will carry mags with
pictures of scantily clad woman in sexually suggestive poses, but are afraid of
scaring the public with an article that discusses women’s bodies with candor
and respect.
                 Grow
up, Wegmans!
                 Jill L. Scheltz, Gates
‘Flip, naive’
“Mammary Monologues” is seriously misleading on the subject
of breast-cancer survivors and their feelings about their bodies after breast
reconstruction.
                 Loviglio
tells us about one woman who had reconstructive surgery and who loves her
“breasts,” as they are bigger than before, and another who has tough
“boobs,” hard as rocks, that will be perky when she is 90 years old.
Her article seems flip and naive, at best, and women deserve better information
on this issue.
                 Breast
reconstruction is a miracle of modern surgery, it is a boost to self-esteem,
and of course, the patient lives. Breast reconstruction is not the same as breast augmentation in healthy women.
Reconstructive surgery is a solution to breast removal; it results in a
“breast mound,” a constructed approximation of a breast.
                 Most
women experience emotional side effects for years, because even with the
reconstruction, they are permanently disfigured. Many are not be thrilled with
rock-hard breast implants, as is the woman cited in Loviglio’s article.
                 Those
of us who are older, with loving companions and children, may have a better
support system than do the women who are single, and/or younger. My own
reconstruction, two years ago, resulted in a ‘breast solution” that is far
from perfect. It is stiff, pulls hard at my underarm, is somewhat pectoral in
contour, crisscrossed with ugly scars, and is as numb as a doorknob. Yet it is
a good solution; it gives me comfort, and I am 48 years old, well along in
life.
                 When the
process started, I did believe I would have beautiful new breasts. For me, the
best information came from talking to other women who had been through it.
Thank goodness for their honesty.
                 Catherine Kirby, Long Meadow Circle,
Pittsford
Clean it up!
I’m writing to protest Jon Popick’s crude and vulgar
language in his movie reviews.
                 As we
all should know, language can be beautiful, provocative, evocative, pertinent,
thought provoking, and intelligent. It need not be adolescent when one is an
adult, presumably writing for an adult audience.
                 Many
of the movies he reviews play at the Little Theatre; in my 16 years of
attending movies there, I have yet to see 13-year-old boys, who might see
Popick’s language as “cool.”
                 How
about cleaning up his act? If not Popick, how about the editor?
                 Pat
Heney, Manhattan Square, Rochester
Frank rocks
I loved Frank De Blase’s article on the Blasters; I will be
sure to forward it to Dave and the guys (“A Fan Is Born — Again,” November
27).
                 I
thought I’d get to read a lot of interesting rock criticism at this job, but
it’s surprising how little of it is out there — how many music writers just
copy out of the bio and then add at the end that this song rocks, and that song
doesn’t, and that’s the end. So I definitely appreciate commentary that really says something substantive about the
music.
                 Lindsey Westbrook, HighTone Records
Publicity, Oakland, California
Looking for music
I pick up City each
week not only for your editorials, but for the music listings as well. Recent
issues have seen a drastic and rather annoying change in the listings. Not only
has the section apparently been downgraded in size, but the new style of the
listings makes it somewhat difficult for readers to select what they would like
to see.
                 Individuals
choose their musical outings based on the style of music first, then the band
or artist playing, the date of the show, and the cost. Where the artist is
playing is irrelevant. I (or “we”) will go wherever the artist is.
                 I
have always been under the impression that as the alternative press in
Rochester, City has striven to
present an un-biased attitude free of pressure from advertisers, politicians,
and other media. However, the only reason I see for the changes in the music
listings is as a benefit to the clubs themselves.
                 The
new listings make one wonder whether City is caving in to their vested interests. I know that this cannot be the case;
nonetheless, I would appreciate your consideration of my remarks.
                 Louis Richards, Rising Place, Rochester
                 Editor Mary Anna Towler’s response:We
made the recent change because some club-goers on our staff were convinced that
it would make the listings more useful to readers. The clubs’ preference had
nothing to do with our decision. In years of publishing music listings, we’ve
arranged them both ways: some years by venue, other years by type of music.
Some readers we’ve talked with prefer one, some the other.
                 You’re
right: The current arrangement takes up slightly less space. That does give us
room for additional features. However, saving space isn’t the principal issue.
Reader usage is.
                 And
we do urge readers to sound off on this. Which best helps you find out what’s
going on: listing events by type of music or by venue? Do you look to see
what’s going on at your favorite club? Do you search for specific types of
performances? Do you search for specific performers?
                 E-mail
us at: themail@rochester-citynews.com. Or put your comments in an envelope and
send them to: The Mail, City Newspaper, 250 North Goodman Street, Rochester
14607.
This article appears in Dec 18-24, 2002.
