No, I don't think it's because they (we) simply think we have a better chance. Ginger's an icon of glamour; Mary Ann's an icon of beauty. That's how this beholder sees it, anyhow.
Okay, so what's the difference? (Mary Ann an icon of beauty? Huh? I don't think she's all that OR a bag of chips. Neither is Ginger, for that matter, but still.)
I stole this from a book blurb, but it applies: Beauty is truth. Glamour is what we do about the truth.
(And I stole the beauty/glamour thing from a Fresh Air review of John O'Donohue's Beauty: The Invisible Embrace. It sounds worth reading.)
Mary Ann and Ginger as icons of beauty and glamour? I agree with you: They are not, in an absolute sense. But relative to each other, I think they represent the concepts, as caricatures.
I'm mostly feeling slow and stupid, now, for not really getting this. But perhaps I merely have idiosyncratic notions of beauty, truth, and/or glamour, and, especially, don't see how the first two are equated, exactly. Or maybe it's slow and stupid day in my brain.
Even better: Mango-Ginger Conserve. (Nothing is as good as good raspberry anything, but this comes close. Ginger rocks.)
Posted by: emma goldman | May 03, 2005 at 01:03 PM
Marianne rocks more.
Posted by: CN | May 03, 2005 at 01:20 PM
Except it's "Mary Ann." (I only mention this because it took me a minute to figure out what you were saying. But then I giggled.)
And that brings up a question: Why do so many boys/men like Mary Ann? Because they think they have a chance with her?
Posted by: emma goldman | May 03, 2005 at 02:03 PM
Right. Mary Ann.
No, I don't think it's because they (we) simply think we have a better chance. Ginger's an icon of glamour; Mary Ann's an icon of beauty. That's how this beholder sees it, anyhow.
Posted by: CN | May 03, 2005 at 02:39 PM
Okay, so what's the difference? (Mary Ann an icon of beauty? Huh? I don't think she's all that OR a bag of chips. Neither is Ginger, for that matter, but still.)
Posted by: emma goldman | May 03, 2005 at 03:19 PM
I stole this from a book blurb, but it applies: Beauty is truth. Glamour is what we do about the truth.
(And I stole the beauty/glamour thing from a Fresh Air review of John O'Donohue's Beauty: The Invisible Embrace. It sounds worth reading.)
Mary Ann and Ginger as icons of beauty and glamour? I agree with you: They are not, in an absolute sense. But relative to each other, I think they represent the concepts, as caricatures.
Posted by: [email protected] | May 03, 2005 at 04:16 PM
I'm mostly feeling slow and stupid, now, for not really getting this. But perhaps I merely have idiosyncratic notions of beauty, truth, and/or glamour, and, especially, don't see how the first two are equated, exactly. Or maybe it's slow and stupid day in my brain.
Posted by: emma goldman | May 04, 2005 at 12:29 PM