I came across a NYTimes article, written a few days ago, titled "When the Action Moves On". It's a verbose piece that doesn't quite say that New York is over, because it ends on a positive note [we've still got Joan Didion], but it's got this smug, preemptive attitude. Like, I can hear the wheels turning in the Style editors' heads..."well, we're not too sure, but just in case 2009 is the downfall of the world's greatest city, we've got this article to prove to the rest of the world we knew before anyone else. And well, yeah, it also reserves our right to say, 'I told you so.'"
Look. It's the New York Times and I respect them immensely. But instead of perpetuating this fucking New-York-is-over theory, why don't you work on the very real The-New-York-Times-is-fucked problem, and leave the City to us?
What pissed me off the most was the audacity of a 23-year-old advertising assistant account executive, Haley M. Rubin: “It feels as if a layer has been peeled back on New York. When I’m out in bars and restaurants, there is a sheen that is missing...it feels a little grittier; there is a sense that the thrill of paying $20 for a cocktail is over. I find that my friends are still going out and want to have fun but their tolerance for the ‘price of exclusivity’ has waned.”
There is no thrill in paying $20 for a cocktail. Ever. It has been an annoyance for everyone; I sincerely doubt there are Upper East Siders rejoicing at how expensive their apartments have gotten. They can afford it, yes, but no, they are not thrilled. That is not the 'price of exclusivity'; it is merely the price.
More importantly, let me lay this out for you, Haley M. The sheen you're talking about, that glitz? That sheen doesn't lie in how expensive your Cosmopolitan is, that sheen belongs to the artists, the writers, the filmmakers, the entrepeneurs, the restauranteurs, the designers, the broke-as-fuck New Yorkers who take what they've got, work their asses off and make this City interesting for wannabes like you.
If anything, the sheen of New York City and its very essence lies in its undeniable grittiness, so Haley M, if you don't like it, try some place else.
And what's even more frustrating is that the New York Times knows that, so I don't know what they were thinking when they published this article and this quote. Reminder to the editors at the Times, this is your City. This is New York City. It's Inauguration Week, yeah, a lot of people are travelling D.C. and your point? Even if you have this sneaking suspicion that New York is waning, what good does it do to do nothing but declare your hunch and walk away? Do something about it, find the redeemable talent in the City, broadcast them and revive wavering faith. It's in your power, NYT. If nothing else, Obama has inspired us to hope and along those lines, just because things are different doesn't mean things have to be over.
And FYI to Haley M. Rubin:
The real thrill is going out with your girls, sneaking into a party you shouldn't be in, drinking for free at a bar that serves $20 cocktails and then running down the middle of Broadway, because a homeless man whipped his dick out after lecturing you on how great crack is. It's gritty. It's glamorous. It's exciting. And you didn't have to pay for anything.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
While I agree with your point of view on the real glitz, glamour and sheen of New York, I think you need to reread Ms. Rubin's quote. She is not lamenting the grittiness of New York, she is rejoicing in the reexposure of it. In recent years, New York has been completely inundated with new rich kids moving in from across the country, covering the city in a shroud of pretentiousness that's too much even for innately pretentious New Yorkers. Ms. Rubin is merely pointing out that the New York that believed money was the only way to have fun is over. Furthermore, if you are going to stalk people on the internet, do a better job. Ms. Rubin is a born and bred New Yorker.
Post a Comment