 |
1. Our sixth annual “Yesteryear” issue looked back at decades of dressing in New York City, from the evolution of women’s workwear to the clothes (and lack thereof) that shocked the city (“What We Wore,” May 16–29). Amy Larocca’s “New Yorkers Have Always Worn Black” left readers surprisingly divided. “I’m a native New Yorker who always wore black (even in the summer),” wrote commenter jpmonte. “I relocated to the South for a few years and my new co-workers were always asking who died.” “Because black is always in, it always looks good, and it goes with EVERYTHING,” wrote lpycb42. “Black is so chic and sophisticated!” janeamast chimed in. The pro-color camp included commenter cflgh2: “I haaaaate this about New York. Incessant black is so boring and lazy. Stop wearing uniforms and take a goddamn risk already! Challenge yourself. Be uncomfortable. I guess while y’all are being too busy blending in wearing black, I’m going to wear plenty of colors, patterns and textures, à la Iris Apfel! A true New York style icon.” Commenter Carolella thought the decision to wear black might be a matter of pragmatism for many New Yorkers: “We wear black because otherwise we would go broke from the cost of laundry and dry cleaning. Who feels comfortable wearing light colored bottoms on public transportation?” Commenter JCSG added: “Citydwellers wear black to hide the grime that would collect more visibly on other colors. It’s too bad the black residue underneath their fingernails is not considered equally chic.” “There is an old joke,” wrote commenter Yorkville. “Q: Why do New Yorkers wear black? A: They can’t find anything darker.”
2. “Bill governed at a different historical moment than the one in which Hillary hopes to,” wrote Jonathan Chait in his column (“The Truman Corollary,” May 16–29). “The circumstances she faces may instead call to mind a different parallel: Harry Truman.” Commenter Ottovbs felt the comparison was flattering to Hillary. “All these comparisons with former presidents are somewhat suspect but Truman could be a role model for anyone. He’s without question the second greatest president since 1900 and he’s steadily climbed the rankings ever since he left office as his qualities and contribution have increasingly been recognized. To a large extent the times made the man but he rose to the challenge magnificently largely because he didn’t let his ego get in the way of his appointments … When you look at the men who were his principal advisers (Marshall, Acheson, Lovett, McCloy, Harriman) they were stars. Truman along with FDR and Johnson made modern America. And when it was all over he went back to Independence and the house where he’d lived since 1919 and drove himself and Bess around in the family sedan.” At least one commenter, Group.Captain.Lionel.Mandrake, thought the comparison didn’t hold up: “Hillary is not Truman. She’s Tom Dewey. She’s close to Wall Street, she’s a New Democrat skeptical of liberal government programs, etc. So who is today’s Truman? There isn’t one. There’s no one who is both liberal on economics and moderate on social issues.” But many more agreed with Chait’s comparison, including Paul52, who is bullish on a Clinton presidency: “As Truman served largely to consolidate the gains of the New Deal, Clinton will serve to consolidate the gains of the Obama administration. Anything more would, frankly, be icing on the cake.”
3. “Conjunctions and articles leave me unfazed,” wrote Christian Lorentzen. “If these combinations result in elaborate syntactical tangles, it thrills me. It’s cheap words I hate, and I hate adverbs” (“Can We Just Lose the Adverb [Already]?,” May 16–29). Lorentzen’s takedown of the lowly adverb had readers analyzing their own syntactical choices. “I much prefer ‘walked swiftly’ to ‘galloped’ but that’s just me,” wrote commenter Yolonda23. “I think choosing colorful words to describe a specific kind of action sounds stilted. Actually, even ‘swiftly’ bothers me. ‘He walked quickly towards the door’ has the ring of natural language, as opposed to ‘he galloped towards the door.’ Sometimes you need adverbs.” “Except that plenty of swift walkers aren’t in any particular hurry,” responded Mark.Kennedy. “To be hurried is to be bullied by lack of time into behaving hastily. Maybe this swift walker customarily moves decisively towards doors.” Commenter AmyBean13 appreciated how writing sans adverbs encouraged more creative deployment of verbs: “My 9th grade English teacher penalized her students for using the word ‘go’ in any tense. She challenged us to use a more descriptive verb. This encouraged more succinct writing and discouraged use of adverbs. Phrases like ‘I went to school’ were replaced with ‘I attended/hurried/ambled/drove/walked/etc. to school.’ I do use adverbs in my writing, but I know that a well chosen verb is worth a thousand adverbs.” Commenter JakeH suggested that it was really the state of oral communication that needed a cold, hard assessment. “Every sentence begins with ‘So.’ Every contention begins with ‘I feel like.’ In our speech, we’re becoming habituallypassive-aggressive and mealy mouthed. Hopefully, obviously, these trends will abate, and we will learn to speak straightforwardly, without necessity of a prefatory disclaimer that declares nothing so much as a lack of confidence in the sequence of our logic or a lack of faith in our listeners’ ability to follow it.” Writer Lucas Mann felt the no-adverbs dictate spoke to him directly. He tweeted: “**opens manuscript** **does a find-all for ‘ly’** **shame**.”