*its* doors, that is. I hate that mistake. Incidentally, I was watching that movie Paycheck last night (no laughing, now), and I noticed that they actually made this mistake on a piece of paper Affleck looks at in the movie, mistaking the contraction "it's" for the possessive "its."

I make that mistake all the time, but you can edit posts.

I'm having more trouble trying to imagine how an individual can "flock" through doors.

Oh, you Grammanators, you....

quote:

Originally posted by J.Cormier:
*its* doors, that is. I hate that mistake. Incidentally, I was watching that movie Paycheck last night (no laughing, now), and I noticed that they actually made this mistake on a piece of paper Affleck looks at in the movie, mistaking the contraction "it's" for the possessive "its."

I had the same movie on last night, though I was not watching it close enough to catch that.

I was counting myself and my imaginary friends, of course. We're a flock. Consider them my own personal loa. ;-)

Many people are allergic to brands, and WG confesses in his blog that Cayce's serious allergies are random (and she bears with Starbuck and Apple because he likes them).

quote:

I cheated. I cheated when she has the Tommy attack, because I gave her my own reasons for disliking Tommy product, when, on the basis of the rest of the book, her specific logo-phobias seem random. (1/3/03)

Her profitability is probably because her middle class American upbringing places her in a critical position in the world zeitgeist created by films, TV and media, so her own reactions mirror a sizeable portion of the population. High sensitivity with particular upbringing. So the question is not well put. She does not dislike HK (or anything Japanese) because for the wide demographic she represents (in taste of cool) HK is cool, yet. Japan itself is cooler than ever, although with some ragged edges. The only fault of Bibendum (which I like) is that he is uncool (and Michelin may be moving a bit away from him, at least at the Clermont Ferrand HQ and in many publicitary media, so maybe someone up there agrees with her).

As a literary creation, we have to accept the powers that her creator endowed Cayce with, but we cannot deny them. So it is more a work of rationalization than explanation, when there is a conflict between the novel and reality. Amusing.

José

Bear in mind that we should "trust the tale, not the teller," as I believe D.H. Lawrence said. I hesitate to use the word hermeneutics (thinking of Mama Anarchia here), but it is relevant. In literary analysis, discussion of the work on its own merits, without regard to its author's intentions, must eclipse real-life rationalization.

So, in other words, it really doesn't matter whether our inside information, charitably provided by Mr. Gibson, tells us that certain things -- like the dynamics of Cayce's allergy -- are in reality relatively arbitrary: as readers, we can address the book itself without regard to the author.

This is, obviously, only one type of interpretation, which many might not have a taste for; I bring it up so that any discussion herein might be unhampered by total reliance on real-life reasoning.

But JRE's response to the question at hand is certainly a helpful one; maybe Cayce really is just a coolhunter, who has a tangible response to cool, and her problems surrounding her condition (not liking being called a "coolhunter") are simply responses to that.

Although I agree the author has a subjective relationship with work and characters, he is still very well placed to discuss motivations and even deleted material. Consider him like a close familiar, who knows many tales we don't, and yet who can still mix up his memories.

Anyway, most fads and fashion here (with the possible exception of Bibendum) would agree with Cayce. TH is a wannabe brand, bought more for price awareness than any quality or attractiveness issue. Meanwhile HK is a geeky, overlooked cultural aspect (or one icon among many), as are most Japanese influences. So they are just ignored or glossed over.

So, in a clear case of cross pollination, an American coolhunter becomes the best suited for European sensitivities, which then are imported back into the USA as foreign, "cool" objects.

José

Did anyone notice the very PR related item on BBC


http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5292860.stm

Yup.

First post.

This thread has been quite the interesting read. Though I have no reactions to logos themselves, I rarely if ever wear anything with a visible logo or trademark.

I feel like it brands me, and I can't have that.

It’s been a hot minute since I’ve posted on here and I never quite to reg status, but anyways…

You’ve made a lot of good points and I’m just going to drop a few things & not react to every point. This is in part because I haven’t read the book very recently so it isn’t quite so fresh, so I’ll talk more about fashion in society.

Generally fashion indicates something about the social status of someone within a particular clique or subculture. It’s sort of a tribal statement. For example I’ve worn a mix of affordable hip-hop mixed with affordable skater clothes. I dunno what you call that, but that’s what I tend to like. Back in the day I enjoyed my Ecko graffiti shirts before they were popular back in the 90s. Since they went all rhino the price has been rising, I’ve been liking the designs less and it was no longer a semi-underground thing so I dropped it for all those reasons. That says something about my tribal status. I’m not sure what it says in particular, but it is a message about what tribe I’m in. The fact that I have a goatee says something. The fact that I had the mushroom cut in the 90s said something at the time. Everything is a potential tribal indicator, largely unconscious.

As I’ve been aging, I’ve been modifying. I’ve been trying to minimize my corporate logos even prior to this book. My reasoning is I don’t want to be free advertising for any corporation really. If I have to I’d rather it be a union brand like my Vans. I dislike the corporation as an institution in and of itself as best explained by the documentary – The Corporation. So that sends some kind of message about me. I did some Aeropostale because I liked their cargo khakis and some shirt designs. I then flipped to Dickies and lately Steve & Barry’s because they’re cheap and not half bad. But I still do have some logo shirts floating in there. I don’t buy clothes that often so my changes are a slow evolution.

Cayce’s anti-logo reaction is in itself a tribal message about her. So in some way lacking logos is also a logo in some weird way. Logo-lack is a sign of either anti-corporate or some kind of zen fashion of fashionless fashion. Methinks I’m rambling a little.

What’s great in one tribe is crap in the next.

Nouveau riche and ghetto fabulousness is about showing off to make up for feeling the lack when younger and flashiness = success within their culture. The blue bloods are much subtler about the correct ways to flash your status and success. Is either way good?

Wholly organic fair trade hemp clothing is the status symbol. Sometimes it’s the made in America label. For anti-establishment types logos are the enemy. It’s all very subjective.

My ideas aren’t wholly thought out as I’m writing this as I read the thread, but there ya go.