Saturday, December 16, 2006

I am upset that the front page of the Dec. 3 Arts section read like a passage from a romance novel.

What were J. Freedom du Lac and his editor thinking?

Post readers could readily pick up on the innuendo in the headline "Ample Talent, Charm" on an article about Dolly Parton. We did not need to have it spelled out in graphic detail -- "transfixed by her, um, abundance. It is her dominant trait, and it's particularly astounding when examined up close, from two feet away, for instance."

That was bad enough, but then came: "And then, the zone-out. Parton is still talking -- you can see those glossy, red lips moving at an incredibly rapid clip -- but you're not really hearing her. Instead you're consumed by her immensity, spellbound by the natural wonderness of it all. By this, of course, we mean Parton's huge . . . personality."

Several more times in the article, Parton's physical attributes were commented in what amounts to overkill.

How about substituting "he" and "him" in the above paragraphs? How does it read now? That would not have made it to print, would it?

Dolly Parton is a beloved icon in southwest Virginia and Tennessee. I'm a native of Scott County, Va., and we are proud of her many accomplishments and her generosity toward the people of that area. She deserves the many accolades heaped upon her.

Readers did not deserve this story.

-- Teresa Enix

Haymarket