quiddities and agonies of the ruling class - a rolling new york times thread

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/nyregion/18about.html?_r=1

loser loses thing

its not about money its about emotions the things u feel

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.

Holy shit, I just realized that a friend's mom wrote that NYT piece about 20-somethings.

I am filled with internal conflict.

and indecision about your life and career path?

What? No. I'm 37. That kind of bullshit is for 20-somethings.

The friend must be feeling really happy now. "Gee, THANKS MOM."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/t-magazine/22talk-jacobs-t.html

Which is more annoying? The school or the author's strange fixation on what everybody is wearing?

“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.

those descriptions really add an indispensable vividness to this interesting piece of journalism

the school sounds okay, like i can imagine that being a pretty cute scene, but as described and written it's just horrible.

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.

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.

“My son is going to a public pre-K in the fall, and I am somewhat terrified.”

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.

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.

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

yeah, what

moms that homeschool smell like cigarettes

i also like the unintended implication that having being pregnant with a girl is tres chic

2.
Crimson Wife
S.F. Bay Area
August 23rd, 2010
1:58 pm
Those 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?

^^^^

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

in COLOR?!? color photography!?!? what a crazy idea!!

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?

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

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?

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?

i would be wary of ascribing that much intent; easier to understand as just bad writing imo xp

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!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/business/07flier.html

what is the point of this article, really

that's like roger sterling talking into his tape recorder

That was like a sort of almost-interesting blog post. That is a terrible opening sentence.

Which is more annoying? The school or the author's strange fixation on what everybody is wearing?

― Jenny, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 19:07 (2 weeks ago)

This is one of my major writing pet peeves -- sentences that go "I spoke with Carla, a ____, _____ woman wearing a _____ and carrying a ______ handbag" -- as though the author thinks detail per se makes for good writing.

That reminds me of descriptions I've heard of the Sookie Stackhouse books, with details about Sookie's 80s fashions.

a few years old but i think it belongs on this thread...

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/06/060206ta_talk_mcgrath

I think the authors of a lot of trade paperback popular fiction do that clothing descriptor thing, in just that same annoying way. I particularly hate when news/feature writers employ that device for woman, but fail to provide any details about the appearance of men.

Like, a remember many years ago I was reading a Popular Mystery Novel (I have no idea who the author was, but he was prolific and wrote contemporary cop stories targeted towards male readers) and he described every woman who appeared in the book by going into fine detail about her clothing, and then by comparing her body to some type of animal, usually a horse. As in, "Her thoroughbred legs were encased in sharply creased, white wool-blend trousers that hugged the curve of her firm flank, and tapered to her tiny waist, set off by a fine leather belt that he longed to grab onto like a bridle."

That Frequent Flier guy is really funny, but not in the way he is trying for.

Jenny, I respect any writer who can unsubtly hint about his urge to put a saddle on a woman and still get published.

"He reached into his pocket and pulled out a sugar cube. She shook her long blond mane in anticipation rippling the fine fabric of her light blue, Chanel silk blouse. She reached towards him, taking the sugar cube in her perfectly manicured hoof encircled in a thin, gold bangle. He stroked her withers and asked, 'Would you like to go for a ride?' 'Nay,' she responded, 'I already have plans with my groom.'"

hahaha ew ew ew

eponysterical

I particularly hate when news/feature writers employ that device for woman, but fail to provide any details about the appearance of men.

Probably a better thread for this, and I know getting wound up by local music reviewers is just not a good way to spend time, but the "editor" of the local music website introduces every woman with an appearance-based adjective, and it drives me crazy.

When there aren't any women in the bands he starts looking elsewhere, too - other classics include:
Inevitably, the mind and eye wandered from band to audience, and I realised that my German friend had been right all along: ninety five percent of English girls dress like prostitutes.
and
Looking out (of the gig venue's window), you are confronted with the ugly antics of drunk, overweight women who have seen too many winters. Rather in here than out there.

I left a sarky comment once (well, one sarky one, and one a little too narked - time of the month amirite guys, ho ho) but all you ever get in reply is "lol women, can't take a joke", sigh.

the right response is "lol writers, can't come up with anything better than misogyny for filler"

the "editor" of the local music website introduces every woman with an appearance-based adjective, and it drives me crazy.

Which gets into an even deeper pet peeve of mine, in which bands are invariably referred to as "all-female" or "all-women," but never as "all male." And a band with one woman in it is "mixed gender," but a band with one man in it is "mostly female."

Wait, that came out as a "why is there no WHITE history month" thing. Which is not what I meant.

No, I got what you were going for.

good piece of reporting but the attitudes of some of the people on display here are pretty lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/business/13partner.html