http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17foreclosure-t.html
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 14 May 2009 22:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
not photoshop
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 14 May 2009 22:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
Noticed that earlier today. My heart was not immediately bent.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 14 May 2009 22:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
is this thread sponsored by gawker
― s1ocki, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
The only problem was money. Having separated from my wife of 21 years, who had physical custody of our sons, I was handing over $4,000 a month in alimony and child-support payments. That left me with take-home pay of $2,777, barely enough to make ends meet in a one-bedroom rental apartment. Patty had yet to even look for a job.
Found it very hard to read past this paragraph for the reason of my head being filled with visions of these two idiots burning in an eternal lake of fire.
― naturally unfunny, though mechanically sound (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
the best part of that photo is the kid on dog in the background
― ultra-generic sub-noize persona (Matt P), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
little orphan annie back there
― ultra-generic sub-noize persona (Matt P), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
^yea srsly i didnt even notice that at first
― johnny crunch, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
guys do you realize what this means? the economic crisis is even affecting rich people! this means it is really newsworthy!! it's like when straight people started getting hiv!!!
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
what's a quiddity?
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
think of the barefoot girls laying on dogs on the porches of brick homes in silver spring, md. x-post
― ultra-generic sub-noize persona (Matt P), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
“I feel as if I am finally at home,” she exclaimed as soon as we moved into the house. She could settle down and do the things she had always been best at: making a new home, nurturing her children and loving me.
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
But eventually:
The frosted-crystal shade on a beloved Italian floor lamp was cracked. The dog had gnawed the leg on her Biedermeier chair.
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
The Khaki Class
― man, i love collages (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
Thread of ;_;
― Dom P's Rusty Nuts (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
I can't really join in on any rich-people schadenfreude here, because it sounds to me like this guy is not of some far-distant social class, and the $4k alimony/child-support + take-home of $2.75k equation actually does sound pretty rough to me -- what's weird about it is to read the contention that this felt like a natural situation to wind up falling into; I suppose at that age and social situation it might, but of the many people I know who take home around that much money a month, I can surely tell you that not that many of them expect homes on it, and I'm not even just talking about the ones in New York.
― nabisco, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean, judging by that equation we might estimate an income in the general neighborhood of $100k a year, which is certainly pleasant but not some sort of distant class of wealth and privilege whose travails I might comfortably laugh at.
― nabisco, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
On one hand -- ugh, fuck this guy.
On the other hand, I have to give him credit for a little reality check. I just paid off the last of my credit card debt and I have a fixed rate mortgage, so I need to quit waking up at 4 a.m. and worrying about money.
On the 3rd hand, nice work of him to pull his story together and sell it to W.W. Norton.
― resistance is feudal (WmC), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
you've got three hands? surely you can swing a book deal out of that.
― macaulay culkin's bukkake shocker (bug), Friday, 15 May 2009 00:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's true, nabisco - he never really was that rich, especially by the standards of the new york times - but he sure lives and writes like he is. which is of course where the trouble started. getting a monthly keelhaul from the ex didn't help, either - i wonder if he writes about that in his book? - but i think this man's most basic problem was imagining that a take-home of $2500 monthly was enough to buy a half-mil pile. it's enough to make a casual reader think that the financial crisis really is a result of damn fools like him. in any case, this thread isn't for schadenfreude per se - but don't let that stop you - it's a record of what kinds of voices the new york times tends to lean on.
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 00:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm struck by his weaselly evasion of responsibility - despite the mea culpa undertones, he makes his wonderful new lady friend sound like a spendthrift bitch and says that his total lack of financial awareness was a symptom of the "same infection" that brought low the titans of industry. fat chance, ed.
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 00:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think this man's most basic problem was imagining that a take-home of $2500 monthly was enough to buy a half-mil pile
not enough OTM in the world for this
― butt-rock miyagi (rogermexico.), Friday, 15 May 2009 01:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
loooool @ tracer hand: voice of the underclass
― (Palm) springs sprungs (Lamp), Friday, 15 May 2009 01:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
I had assumed we would start by renting a house or an apartment, but it quickly became clear that it was almost easier to borrow a half-million dollars and buy something.
― languid samuel l. jackson (jim), Friday, 15 May 2009 01:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
n.e.way: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/garden/14aaron.html
ny times does seem to have a thing for pictures of the sprawled daughters of the leisure class in front of their itlianate mansions
― (Palm) springs sprungs (Lamp), Friday, 15 May 2009 01:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
sorry Lamp i missed the part where you had a point
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 09:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
my takeaway from this article is that our "elite" journos are often just as ignorant and greedy as the rest of us humps -- not to mention that i feel a bit smug seeing how shitty the media's coverage of the whole real estate/subprime mess was.
― Pull Slinky and Make Me Fart (Eisbaer), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol South
― "the whale saw her" (gabbneb), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't know crap about this guy, nor do i care, BUT
when i was 22 i dated this very cute but not-very-smart guy. it was long distance, so we wrote a lot of letters (this was in the lol 90s). in one letter he told me that being with me made him feel "quidity". i smugly laughed a little because i figured that he meant "tranquility" and wow was this guy adorable for not being able to use a dictionary. then i looked up the word "quidity" and realized that it was real (although not what he meant, i am 100% sure)
this thread is the first time i have ever actually seen anyone use this word. the end.
― figgy pudding (La Lechera), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
maybe he was like "wow she thinks my made-up word means something.. what a dim-bulb"
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 15:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
what do you think he actually meant?
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 15:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
pretty sure he meant tranquility, like comfort (i remember this from context, but really this was a long time ago and i can't remember much about the situation aside from this strange misused word)
― figgy pudding (La Lechera), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Megan McArdle on the piece. Judge for yourself.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Actually I kind of like her points?
― But not someone who should be dead anyway (Laurel), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
ya i mean... not really sure why this piece is as contempt-worthy as some are making it out to be. it's kind of brutally depressing.
― s1ocki, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
It is in a 'there-but-for' sense for sure. Not that I was ever going to try and be an economics reporter for the NY Times, but as time has passed I'm beginning to think the soundest piece of advice I've ever received in regard to writing was something J. D. Considine told me years ago -- 1993 or so -- in response to a random e-mail or two I sent him. He pretty much said, "Freelancing and journalism is very hard work and you should only pursue it on a full-time basis if you are willing to stick to that level." I'm honestly glad I heeded that and I think what you see in both pieces, regardless of whatever else feeds into their respective situations, reflects that.
At the same time, I'm trying to put my finger on what still jars about McArdle's response and it seems to be this sense of keeping up with the Joneses as paramount driving factor/potential excuse. At what point is leisure travelling to Europe, for instance, a 'minimum necessity' -- and I speak as one who's been there a number of times now. Still, I realize it's a sliding scale, says the person who has participated in a CSA thing with a local farmer for some years now.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
Literal translation: quiddity = whatness
― anatol_merklich, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ned, I read her response as being more about the foolhardiness of ever thinking ANY of those things are necessities. She seems to be (gently) chiding that whole tendency?
― But not someone who should be dead anyway (Laurel), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yah... she's just sayin' that you hang with people for whom this is true, you wake up with fleas
― butt-rock miyagi (rogermexico.), Friday, 15 May 2009 17:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think maybe something to add to McArdle's response is that we have this general cultural tendency to view attention as somehow related to money, a connection that really falls apart when it comes to writers of all sorts -- it's very easy to withhold sympathy from people writing about their woes in public, as if they're coming from a position of privilege or just courting attention, but in plenty of cases they don't have much concrete privilege and writing about their experiences is just, you know, work.
he never really was that rich, especially by the standards of the new york times - but he sure lives and writes like he is. which is of course where the trouble started. getting a monthly keelhaul from the ex didn't help, either - i wonder if he writes about that in his book? - but i think this man's most basic problem was imagining that a take-home of $2500 monthly was enough to buy a half-mil pile.
Yeah, exactly -- although if I had to summarize a problem here it would basically be that a middle-aged family-man homeowner with a decent salary expected to continue living like a middle-aged family-man homeowner with a decent salary, even after a divorce that meant the bulk of his income was going to support a family home occupied by other people. This is an unrealistic and dumb expectation to seriously act on -- you'd think that $4k would be a good monthly reminder that situations done changed -- but I can totally have sympathy for the situation itself; that would suck. It would be painful to have to support the family home you used to live in and have to support yourself and your new family on a fraction of what you're earning.
― nabisco, Friday, 15 May 2009 17:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
The other thing is that -- while he can't and doesn't come out and say this directly -- his one list of charges makes me suspect a bunch of money was getting borrowed to maintain a certain lifestyle for the kids
― nabisco, Friday, 15 May 2009 18:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
I thought he said that very directly just by listing all those expenses! (I note though that he does seem to say even more directly that his wife did that too.)
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 15 May 2009 18:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
Haha yeah, I guess the unsayable "direct" thing I had in mind was like "these KIDS were bankrupting us (that's right, Alex, I'm talking about you)"
I was going to jump past boggling at the beach house rental and wonder about the $700 at J. Crew, but I guess if you needed, like, one good suit and some decent sweaters for Christmas presents ... the world really does hold you to your socio-economic status, doesn't it -- even beyond nobody wanting to be the guy who gets divorced and suddenly has to start showing up to work in cheap suits, it'd be tough to be the guy making $100k who's like "I got you a candy bar for Christmas!"
― nabisco, Friday, 15 May 2009 18:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah the erm narrative here is anyways at least partly "but banking professionals who should be my Friends and Advisors assured us it would be alright!"?
However fishy such blanket blame is in general, I'm not sure it's entirely misplaced re how things rolled out this cycle. At one point around 2006, I momentarily had a crazy amount of money in my account due to family property reorg stuff, and was by phone promptly invited to an "advisement meeting" with a dude at my bank, who tried to convince me he had the correct %ages I should place my assets in (all mediated by said bank, obv). (I still was in net debt though!) I was all very cynical and noncommittal, which is not due to my deep insight or anything, just because my current boss worked in a bank in the early 00s and has spilled much shit on how those outfits operate(d?). (My fave morsel: the guys who construct the deals don't actually inform the salespeople abt all potential downsides and builtin fees, as this may hurt their sales!)
I don't think this guy deserves much point-and-laugh, btw, though it is obv somewhat funny he writes on economics.
― anatol_merklich, Friday, 15 May 2009 18:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't know that that's a big surface narrative, given the "I wasn't duped" and the bit about how a banking professional's refinancing maneuvers actually worked to carve down some debt
― nabisco, Friday, 15 May 2009 19:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's about even someone who should have known better made some really dumb mistakes, which is always a story worth telling imo
― s1ocki, Friday, 15 May 2009 19:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
A weird thing about "quiddity" is that the first definition, "essence", seems to be the opposite of the second definition, "a trifling point". So it can either refer to the essence of something or a minor, trifling detail? Confusing. I have a feeling that it's a word that's rarely used correctly.
― o. nate, Friday, 15 May 2009 19:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
my point is that there are hundreds of thousands of people with stories just like this who don't write for the new york times and have six-figure salaries who are perhaps just a leeetle more representative of the mortgage fallout going on right now - my pointing and laughing is at the editors, not this poor schmuck
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 19:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
well, they wanted a personal, first-perosn story, so going with a new york times writer... kinda makes sense, no?
― s1ocki, Friday, 15 May 2009 19:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
he will die at some point
― cool app (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Friday, 15 May 2009 19:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
lost in the truffle fries controversy was how dope mcginley's art for the issue was -- this photo str8 up captivates me
― righteous lecoq (J0rdan S.), Friday, 6 August 2010 04:29 (4 weeks ago) Permalink
so pretty
― righteous lecoq (J0rdan S.), Friday, 6 August 2010 04:30 (4 weeks ago) Permalink
gonna stop now
that ethicist one was amazing. his response was ice cold iirc.
― the itsytitchyschneider (s1ocki), Thursday, August 5, 2010 10:28 AM (Yesterday)
yeah cohen is pretty ok most of the time but he really knocked this one out of the park:
We put our paper, plastic and other recyclables in city-issued containers in our backyard and move them to the curb for weekly pickup through our town’s recycling program. A scavenger regularly removes cans and bottles, presumably to redeem for cash. I say that by depriving the city of these items, he adds to our recycling costs. I want to ask the police to apprehend the “thief.” My wife says I lack compassion. You? J.M., BURLINGAME, CALIF.
It would take a colder heart than mine to call the cops on someone so needy that he survives by scavenging garbage. To focus your crime-busting on the poorest of the poor shows curious priorities. Are there no BP execs, no Goldman Sachs plutocrats, no producers of “Sex and the City 2” ?
Thomas Hart Benton was once to give a speech denouncing John C. Calhoun, but learning that Calhoun was ill, declined to do so, declaring, “Benton will not speak today, for when God almighty lays his hands on a man, Benton takes his off.”
Benton’s compassion for the physically afflicted should be extended to the economically assailed. To lead an ethical life requires us to empathize with other people and ask: What circumstances would induce a person to behave this way? And: Does the most moral response to this behavior involve the police?
You should also ask how this fellow is to live if you thwart his pilfering recyclables. Rob liquor stores? Perform liposuction? There is little social good in what amounts to criminalizing poverty. It is not that the poor have a right to steal; it is that they have no duty to starve.
I would give a different answer if this foraging were the work not of an individual struggling to survive during tough economic times but was an organized effort involving fleets of illicit trucks staying one jump ahead of the designated recycling company. Context counts. What’s more, it is not clear if your town makes a profit from recycling. If it does not, the scavenger may actually save you money by lightening the load.
UPDATE: While putting out the trash one night, J.M. encountered someone going through his cans right by the house. Startled and mindful of the safety of his young children, he called the police with no discernible results. He has not phoned them again.
― terry squad (k3vin k.), Friday, 6 August 2010 04:38 (4 weeks ago) Permalink
oh lol that link was already posted, my bad
― terry squad (k3vin k.), Friday, 6 August 2010 04:39 (4 weeks ago) Permalink
Has McGinley progressed beyond being a slightly less creepy Terry Richardson? Hated all the shit he did for Vice when they were on the rise.
― a cross between lily allen and fetal alcohol syndrome (milo z), Friday, 6 August 2010 05:09 (4 weeks ago) Permalink
ryan mcginley is totally not what i was talking about. the stuff i posted looks like when you get a roll of film back and you go "i def didn't take this photo"
― plax (ico), Friday, 6 August 2010 07:13 (4 weeks ago) Permalink
A.O. Scott in self contorting head scratcher
http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/movies/13eat.html?8dpc=&pagewanted=2
"So many people in this world confront much graver threats to their well-being: violence, poverty, oppression. This woman has nothing but good luck! True enough, but the kind of class consciousness that would blame Liz for feeling bad about her life and then taking a year abroad to cure what ails her strikes me as a bit disingenuous — a way of trivializing her trouble on the grounds of gender without having to come out and say so."
Um...on the grounds of gender WHUT?
― Hadrian VIII, Saturday, 14 August 2010 14:47 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Would rather eat glass than sit through even the trailer for this movie again
― Hadrian VIII, Saturday, 14 August 2010 14:49 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
― Hadrian VIII, Saturday, 14 August 2010 14:55 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Gross.
― Jenny, Saturday, 14 August 2010 21:40 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
― I DIED, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 05:32 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
“When I was growing up, the guys were always talking big melons,” said Mr. Bright, a retired biology teacher and school administrator who got into the big-melon game in 1973.
― I DIED, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 05:33 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
it's like the twee, ruling class twist on the chris rock bit about the big piece of chicken
― be my anchor baby (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 18 August 2010 05:35 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
loool i just helped myself to this joke
― max, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 07:08 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
i mean the times is clearly in on it
but "low hanging fruit"
am i right
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22Adulthood-t.html?_r=1
― the disappearance of apollo creed (s1ocki), Wednesday, 18 August 2010 19:54 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Pretty much beaten to death and turned into fertilizer here:
This is a Thread for ILXORS IN THEIR 20s!11!!!!!!!
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 19:59 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
I'm proud of our guys and gals in their 20s, they sure know how to take down a piece of crappy journalism
― .. help? (admrl), Wednesday, 18 August 2010 20:09 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/nyregion/18about.html?_r=1
― Lamp, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 20:15 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
loser loses thing
― the disappearance of apollo creed (s1ocki), Wednesday, 18 August 2010 20:29 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
its not about money its about emotions the things u feel
― Lamp, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 20:31 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
You realize a homeless person is now wearing those suit pants and they're probably the nicest thing he's ever put on before. There are probably also holes and food stairs and dirt and urine on them already but don't think about that, it'll just bum you out.
― Jesus doesn't want me for a thundercloud (Laurel), Wednesday, 18 August 2010 20:31 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Holy shit, I just realized that a friend's mom wrote that NYT piece about 20-somethings.
I am filled with internal conflict.
― Jenny, Thursday, 19 August 2010 22:16 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
and indecision about your life and career path?
― the disappearance of apollo creed (s1ocki), Thursday, 19 August 2010 22:49 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
What? No. I'm 37. That kind of bullshit is for 20-somethings.
― Jenny, Thursday, 19 August 2010 23:10 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
The friend must be feeling really happy now. "Gee, THANKS MOM."
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 19 August 2010 23:28 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/t-magazine/22talk-jacobs-t.html
― Jenny, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:05 (1 week ago) Permalink
Which is more annoying? The school or the author's strange fixation on what everybody is wearing?
― Jenny, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:07 (1 week ago) Permalink
“Kind!” shouts young Mia, resplendent in blue leggings, a pink oxford-cloth shirt and fuchsia toenail polish under her Salt-Water sandals.
new nadirs, every week.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:10 (1 week ago) Permalink
those descriptions really add an indispensable vividness to this interesting piece of journalism
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:12 (1 week ago) Permalink
the school sounds okay, like i can imagine that being a pretty cute scene, but as described and written it's just horrible.
― ('_') (omar little), Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:13 (1 week ago) Permalink
it's the "resplendent" that really sends it over the edge, but the hyper-detailed wardrobe itemizing is some vogue/bret easton ellis wtf hybrid, especially in the (admittedly debased) context of the times.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:13 (1 week ago) Permalink
Since the city’s bobos are now making their own pickles and ice cream, why not mold little minds as well?
like how can this not be a joke? i know, i know...i ask this every time i read anything style-y in the times. but COME ON.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:15 (1 week ago) Permalink
“My son is going to a public pre-K in the fall, and I am somewhat terrified.”
― lene lovage (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:15 (1 week ago) Permalink
It's like these outfit descriptions are supposed to signify something that will make us all nod our heads sagely and say, "Ah, yes, these kind of people" and I am just too ignorant to get it.
― Jenny, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:16 (1 week ago) Permalink
haha the real problem is that it's impossible to tell if this lady is being sardonic w.r.t. to the clothing descriptions or honestly effusive.
― strongohulkingtonsghost, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:19 (1 week ago) Permalink
Eight months pregnant with the couple’s third child, a girl, she is the epitome of the glamour mama, utterly lacking the whiff of patchouli one might associate with the home-schooling movement.
ok this person has absolutely no idea about homeschooling in this country at all. patchouli? gtfo
― lene lovage (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:20 (1 week ago) Permalink
yeah, what
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:20 (1 week ago) Permalink
moms that homeschool smell like cigarettes
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:21 (1 week ago) Permalink
i also like the unintended implication that having being pregnant with a girl is tres chic
― lene lovage (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:22 (1 week ago) Permalink
2.Crimson WifeS.F. Bay AreaAugust 23rd, 20101:58 pmThose kids aren't being homeschooled- they are attending a "cottage school". I didn't see any evidence in the article that the parents are actually taking on any of the responsibility for educating their children themselves. There have always been a certain percentage of rich families who have their children tutored. The only twist with this is that the tutoring is being done with a small group.
Can't the NYT find any ACTUAL homeschooling families? Ones where the parents are not outsourcing the teaching duties to some third party?
^^^^
― buzza, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:26 (1 week ago) Permalink
many of these [ field trips are ] lovingly documented in lush color on the school’s blog. (The annual class photos are in black and white).
why would you even
i mean
― lene lovage (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:32 (1 week ago) Permalink
in COLOR?!? color photography!?!? what a crazy idea!!
― piranha karenina (s1ocki), Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:53 (1 week ago) Permalink
See, again, I feel like there's some message there that I'm just not getting, because this is the beginning of that paragraph:
But what of the socioeconomic diversity such classrooms afford, and the oft-leveled charge that home schooling isolates children in a privileged bubble of their parents’ making? “It’s hard,” Betterton concedes. “It’s a self-selecting group of people. But that’s one of the reasons we are constantly outside in the world.”
I don't know what the author is trying to say, but I have "Black or White" stuck in my head now, so maybe I did get the message?
― Jenny, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 20:02 (1 week ago) Permalink
i was really just puzzled at the unprompted mention that the class photos are black & white because, i dunno, b&w photos are supposed to be more tasteful and artistic? or maybe b&w class photos are just so *unconventional*? anyway it is obviously very important to mention! these are unconventional kids, being raised unconventionally! artistically, even!
xpost
― lene lovage (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 24 August 2010 20:06 (1 week ago) Permalink
Or maybe the author is saying that the outside world is colorful but the bubble of the school is boring black and white, and black and white school photos prove that the parents are well aware of this?
― Jenny, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 20:12 (1 week ago) Permalink
The real question is why am I putting so much thought into teasing out what this NYT style section dingaling is trying to say about a bunch of rich alternaschooling parents in NYC?
― Jenny, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 20:13 (1 week ago) Permalink
i would be wary of ascribing that much intent; easier to understand as just bad writing imo xp
― lene lovage (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 24 August 2010 20:14 (1 week ago) Permalink
Reading into NYT style pieces for intentional depth and symbolism and metaphor is going to be my trigger for a serious delusional episode. IT IS TALKING TO ME! DIRECTLY TO ME!!!!
― Jenny, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 20:16 (1 week ago) Permalink