*beam* It's great to meet you too. I've long been a lurking admirer of your posts to this list.
I see what you mean about snark, when you said in your first post that it was destructive. It's too unilateral, and that's always a danger in written media. I was reading this old rant<http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/07/myers.htm>by BR Myers on modern literary fiction last night, and I was enjoying myself thoroughly at how rude and dismissive it was, but a third of the way in it got thoroughly monotonous, and I kept saying "Yes, and?" to it. Austen's humour is amazing, to me, because of how she manages to work it into her writing in such a non-cynical way [for the most part]. What have you been re-reading? I just got back home from a three-month stint in Calcutta and the first thing I did was to crack open Persuasion, which is full of hideous characters, and still manages to tolerate and accommodate them. It's a marvel. A marvel! Supriya. On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Deepa Mohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Supriya Nair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I share some of your distaste for the critical venting of spleen, Deepa, > but > > I think in this case the fault lies with me, for quoting the most > > eye-catching part of a free-wheeling and catholic review of a > well-judged > > book, and not with Turin and Sanchez. > > > > I don't think they dismiss scents on a popularity basis. *Slate* > carried a > > review last week which carries a couple of nice things they say about > famous > > perfumes: http://www.slate.com/id/2190277/ > > > > Their snappy reviewing style is interesting to me for the reasons Udhay > > mentions above. To my blunted sense of smell, the simile-laden strings > of > > press-release perfume descriptions mean zilch - the emotional and > > intellectual consideration attached to [some of] these reviews keeps me > more > > interested. > > > > Supriya. > > Hey Supriya! First of all, nice to e-meet you...and I do agree, what's > biting is MUCH more interesting than what is polite! (I have just been > re-reading some Jane Austen, and this is so true even in the more > gentle form of her wit! "The visit (by relatives) was ideal in being > far too short." > > And while I hold some opinions on how opinions should be expressed, I > don't think that everyone should, or would, do things the way I want > them to be done, unless of course I become Supreme Potentate of the > Universe. I *am* working on that... > > Cheers, Deepa. > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Deepa Mohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Supriya Nair <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > wrote: > > > > Turin and Tania Sanchez' book of perfume criticism is something I > have > > > > wanted to read since the minute I read this review of the > > > > book< > > > > http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/03/10/080310crbo_books_lanchester?printable=true > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > That, it turns out, is relatively mild, as their criticisms go. > > > Consider > > > > 212, from Carolina Herrera: "Like getting lemon juice in a paper > cut." > > > > Amarige, from Givenchy? "If you are reading this because it is > your > > > darling > > > > fragrance, please wear it at home exclusively, and tape the > windows > > > shut." > > > > Heiress? "Hilariously vile 50/50 mix of cheap shampoo and canned > > > peaches." > > > > Princess? "Stupid name, pink perfume, heart shaped bottle, little > crown > > > on > > > > top. I half expected it to be really great just to spite me. But > no, > > > it's > > > > probably the most repulsively cloying thing on the market today." > Hugo, > > > the > > > > men's cologne from Hugo Boss? "Dull but competent lavender-oakmoss > > > thing, > > > > suggestive of a day filled with strategy meetings." Love in White? > "A > > > > chemical white floral so disastrously vile words nearly desert me. > If > > > this > > > > were a shampoo offered with your first shower after sleeping rough > for > > > two > > > > months in Nouakchott, you'd opt to keep the lice." Lanvin's Rumeur > gets > > > a > > > > one-word review: "Baseless." > > > > > > > > Admire and appreciate that Turin is apparently a biochemist > > > "specialising in > > > > the creation of new smells." > > > > > > > > > I suppose these are maestros of scent who know exactly what they are > > > talking about...but such destructive criticism, while it sounds very > > > witty, makes me, personally, very uncomfortable, because it posits a > > > stance of "only my viewpoint is valid and the people who use these > > > scents are idiots". Scents are so subjective that I cannot understand > > > how any one opinion can be the only valid one. And I am with the > > > snobbery of "I am so expert that I can slate every perfume which is > > > popular." > > > > > > "If this > > > > were a shampoo offered with your first shower after sleeping rough > for > > > two > > > > months in Nouakchott, you'd opt to keep the lice." > > > > > > > > > Oh, come ON! This sounds so clever and mordant...but Mr. Scent > Expert, > > > I would NOT opt to keep the lice after two months in Nouakchott, > > > wherever that may be. > > > > > > > > > Does expertise only mean looking down (looking down one's nose is an > > > apt image here!) on others? I understand that some of us have much > > > more highly educated noses than others..but surely every scent under > > > the sun has its place somewhere in the Universe! "I don't like it" is > > > acceptable to me, "No one should like it" is not. > > > > > > In fact, the same fragrance may affect one differently depending on > > > the context. When I was walking through the State Forest at > > > Devarayanadurga, the scent of the wild jasmine was everywhere. It is > a > > > strong and heady aroma, and I loved it; my memories of the day are > > > completely tinged with that scent. But I would never buy such a > strong > > > scent as a perfume-in-a-bottle. > > > > > > My earliest memories are of "Tata Eau de Cologne" (applied to my > > > forehead in a folded hanky, whenever I was running a high > > > temperature), and I always associated the smell of "Tata Shampoo" > > > (remember that annular bottle > > > those-who-were-brought-up-at-that-time-in-India?) with clean hair. > > > They were, probably, very hoi polloi scents; but I cannot change my > > > "Tata Aroma" memories. > > > > > > Hmm...this smells like a rant... > > > > > > Deepa. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Doo-bop. > > > > -- Doo-bop.
