OUR AIM I've read the new New York Press three times ...

I've read the new New York Press three times and I am ready to strike it from my reading list. You have nearly completely ruined one of my favorite publications. It's not a question of ideology. You guys clearly can't write and have little of interest to say. Apparently, you don't want anyone else with anything to say around either. Matt Taibbi, who was brilliant and funny at least as often as he wasn't? Russ Smith, the worst writer to maintain so many column inches in New York? Still here. I'm amazed Armond White is still around. Even the News Hole and Crime Blotter, which were always funny and topical, have been turned into trite time wasters. You couldn't have fucked it up more completely if that was your aim.

With the decade long decline of the Voice and now the overnight trashing of NYP, New Yorkers are in rough shape. Please go back to writing your manifestos in a bar. We need a real free press.

Moses Nagel, via email

HOT WHOEVER

In your "Best Looking Whoever" write-up, you list Tracey Denton as part of Meetup.com [Sept. 28]. For future reference, our group is Democracy for NYC. Our only affiliation with Meetup.com is that we post events on their site. We post the same events and more at www.DemocracyforNYC.org.

In addition, I, Heather Woodfield, am the short brunette and Tracey Denton is the tall, good-looking blonde. However, we both thank you for the compliment.

Heather Woodfield, Director, Democracy for NYC

DE LA SOUL, BABY

So eloquent-D'Ulisse knows the soul ["Welcome to Lolita-Land," Sept. 21]. This is the best writing in New York Press in a while.

Chris Singer, FL

A NONCHALANT CHUCKLE

Reading the several pieces relating to Nabokov's Lolita, one gets the distinct impression that it is Kubrick's 1967 film adaptation of the book that is foremost in the minds of the writers, rather than the original literary work. Nabokov's Lolita is a chilling glimpse into the mind of a pedophile; Lolita is a "nymphet" and a seductress only insofar as Humbert sees her as such, not because Nabokov believed that twelve and thirteen year old girls consciously walk around wielding their sexuality as weapons, as Jonathan Ames, Xandi Line, J.E. D'Ulisse and Jim Knipfel (who further implicates Shirley Temple as a female seductress) seem to suggest ["The Nymphet-Still Looking Good at 50," Sept. 21]. Kubrick purposely sexualized Nabokov's young protagonist, and a culture that has been trained to view women and girls as walking sex toys ate her up.

We as a society have come to almost unanimously implicate this 12-year-old girl-who is kidnapped and raped repeatedly for years by a pedophile-in the crime that was committed against her. As a survivor of long-term sexual abuse, I know that at that age I wanted nothing to do with the leathery old man who robbed me of my youth. I'm sure he saw me as a nymphet, though-that every time I looked a certain way or wore a certain type of outfit, he cursed me for being such a vile little sprite, as Humbert did Lolita.

Instead of condemning men who view little girls as objects of sexual desire, we chuckle nonchalantly as D'Ulisse asserts that, were she in front of him today, he would "rip into" the "beautiful 13-year old Korean girl with long black hair, a thick firm body and tiny little breasts who dressed in short plaid skirts, schoolgirl vests, and patent leather shoes" (with apologies to his wife of course) who once tempted him so. I have met many adorable 13-year-olds in my lifetime, and I cannot recall ever being sexually attracted to any of them, regardless of what they were wearing, saying or doing. I think it's time to reevaluate Lolita and see her for who she is: a victimized child.

Eileen McDermott, Manhattan

THE EPITOME

J.E. D'Ulisse takes great liberties with his broad claims about what Vladimir Nabokov intended-claims that grossly miss the mark ["Welcome to Lolita-Land," Sept. 21]. Nabokov was not concerned with pedophilia, commenting on many occasions about how far-removed the subject was from his own life. Lolita is only superficially about an older man's desire for a young girl. To take it that way is to miss the entire breadth of the work, completely overlooking its careful, deliberate structure, and to do no justice to the author's intentions.

When asked why he wrote Lolita, Nabokov answered that he enjoyed creating puzzles with intricate solutions. Nabokov reveled in chess problems, deep, often multi-linguistic word-play, and lepidoptery. He was not concerned with little girls.

Furthermore, D'Ulisse has the facts wrong. Nabokov would have shuddered at the claim that Lolita drew upon Russian folk-tales. If anything, the spark to create the novel, as Nabokov has said, was ignited, of all things, by an American newspaper article about experiments on primates. There is also some scholarly evidence that Lolita had a predecessor in a German work read by Nabokov.

Primary sources and interviews delineating Nabokov's views on Lolita are easy to come by, and it is evident that D'Ulisse did not bother to exert even this miniscule effort. D'Ulisse is the epitome of those whom Nabokov would avoid at parties.

Inna Goldberg, Manhattan

THOUGHTFULNESS

You'll probably get angry about this letter, but my criticism is meant to be constructive.

The new editors of New York Press said they'd be doing things differently, but I don't see much change and certainly no improvement in a paper that everyone I know doesn't read. (I only skim it.)

Even the new headlines are really really bad. "Temple Leopard" may be the worst title for a column in publishing history. (It's not even a good name for a really bad metal band.) "Counterfeit Detection" is equally awful. Really clunky and awkward.

I didn't like the old editors much either (and the "Newshole" title wasn't too good) but at least the layout was accessible and the items succinct and to the point. Now, Counterfeit Detection is just an ignorable mash of words. (Who does your layout? Unabomber?) Do you realize you're in New York City and we're subjected to information overload? For you to just shove all your items into one long scrawl of words encourages us to tune you out.

And that can't possibly be your objective.

Please think these things through before you just jump into them. Thoughtfulness is really great.

Janice D'Amato, via email

IDIOT PATROL

A check of the archives would reveal that I had my issues with the letters by readers published during Jeff Koyen's stint as editor, but I am totally dismayed by the Press' new section. The old letters section was two, sometimes two and a half pages long; this one is barely a page. The old letters section printed letters that were hard hitting, often brutal, and did not airbrush reality; this letters section resembles Saturday morning tea. The vast majority of letters in the old letters section were overwhelmingly critical of the paper and its staff-one of the most honorable practices any newspaper could ever engage in; this letters section mostly praises the Press. About a year ago, subsequent to an editorial about Richard Jewell that I felt was nothing short of pure genius and deserved a Pulitzer prize, I suggested the Press become a daily newspaper; I can hardly stand to read it weekly. In short, a newspaper that while not perfect could have been a major vehicle for social change in this country and contained hard hitting, no holds barred journalism you rarely find anywhere else has become a sad, pathetic shadow of itself. And where is CXB's "Idiot Patrol?"

Nathan F. Weiner, the Bronx

THERE SHOULD BE A LAW

I bet "a good time was had by all!" ["Brit-Style Masochism," Sept. 21]. Ever notice how the Brits love to have these little shows within their government? They make a big show out of the whole thing, nodding and winking to the crowd with each zinger! They're fucking cute!

Nobody puts on a better show than Tony Blair though. If you ever watch him you'll see why he's the leader. If he gets a tough question he can't answer he doesn't stutter and get red faced like Bush-he comes off with some kind of slur and makes even his critics guffaw with laughter. However, nobody put on a better show than ole "iron drawers" herself. Maggie!

Remember when they were kicking her ass out and she was giving them a last piece of her mind and pissing all over everybody and saying "I'm enjoying this!" and by God she was! Why can't we do that here?

It should be a law that you have to reach a certain level of smart-ass-dom to even be a congressman. As far as president goes, he should have at least one good affair on his wife under his belt, and should be required to whip it out right after taking the oath of office to prove to us that he isn't a prick. Well, we wouldn't have made John Forbes Kerry do it because it's quite evident that anyone that tall is hung like a Massachusetts MULE!

James Wes Brown, via email