Kevin Britten's article about love and Valentine's ("Phnom Penh Asides: The refined face of lust", February 13) began with the point that we as a species love because we can read.
Beyond the question that begs about love in nonliterate societies, the article also showed very little love for the readers, dragging us through a series of disconnected and unsupported musings about an already murky and ill-defined concept (What exactly is "Romantic Love as we know it?").
Admittedly, the conclusion (that love is a confused concept) almost justified the equally confused structure, but I am unconvinced.
If Mr Britten wants to write about differing conceptions of love across cultures, he should do so.
If he wants to write about the importance of creative media (poetry, novels, music, films) in the construction of romantic love (perhaps including a look at the mediated nature of long-distance relationships), he should do so as well.
If he wants to write about the devaluation of "love" in our linguistic currency, he should feel free; I would read any of these articles with pleasure. But would it be too much to ask that he write them one at a time?
Send letters to: firstname.lastname@example.org or P.O.鈥圔ox 146, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The Post reserves the right to edit letters to a shorter length.