LOVE CONNECTION

Although I consider myself a big fan of Courtney Love, I was happy to see reader Lance Elliott criticize her negative remarks about pornography in her Dec. 15 Calendar interview (“Hollywood’s New Love Scene,” by Patrick Goldstein). He’s right to call it a matter of supply and demand and to see it as a freedom of speech issue (Letters, Dec. 22).

However, Elliott trips up logically when, addressing Love, he sniffs that “many consider your ‘art’ more damaging than pornography,” in part because she appeals to youth. Not only is this irrelevant to his main point, and hardly the sort of thing a true free speech advocate would assert, but it’s an entirely inaccurate assessment of Love’s work.

I’m on an Internet mailing list devoted to Love and her band, Hole. Many of the people on the list are teenage women, and what Courtney Love means to them is honesty, intelligence and self-empowerment. Yes, she’s a person who’s made mistakes in her life, as she’d be the first to admit. But that’s not relevant to her art or her philosophy, both of which I consider to be a very good influence on young women.

Elliott may be surprised to learn that teenagers are quite capable of getting an artist’s message without emulating the artist’s human flaws. Similarly, one can agree with Elliott’s defense of pornography, and still see his opinion of Love as entirely misinformed and inaccurate.

STEVE OMLID

San Francisco

*

As I read about Courtney Love’s self-absorption and her self-destructive behavior, I’d have to say that Hollywood should make room for those like her as long as they put their child-bearing plumbing in some kind of dormant state. Why burden innocent children with the physical and psychological harm that must come with Mom’s penchant for dionysian antics?

It’s a shame Love curtailed her drug habits so as not to be an insurance risk for movie moguls, yet not to be less of a risk for her child.

CECILE ANDERSON

Pasadena