A Response
While brief and somewhat weak, I am happy to report I receive the following response from Robin...perhaps D will also receive a response and share it with my readers (all five of them!)
Dear Lyla,
You're right. Some styles are utterly unattractive on an extremely thin
physique. I will certainly keep that in mind for future stories.
All the best,
Robin
Robin Givhan, fashion editor
The Washington Post
251 W. 57th Street, 12th Floor
NY, NY 10019
212-445-4900 (p)
212-445-4853 (fax)
202-258-0622 (mobile)
givhanr@washpost.com
Dear Lyla,
You're right. Some styles are utterly unattractive on an extremely thin
physique. I will certainly keep that in mind for future stories.
All the best,
Robin
Robin Givhan, fashion editor
The Washington Post
251 W. 57th Street, 12th Floor
NY, NY 10019
212-445-4900 (p)
212-445-4853 (fax)
202-258-0622 (mobile)
givhanr@washpost.com
Labels: Fashion
posted by Lyla @ 11:20 AM
7 Comments:
At 11:29 AM,
Daniela said…
Robin Said:
Dear Daniela,
Perhaps I can put you in touch with the folks who agreed with the column and you all can argue over who's right.
All the best,
Robin
To which I replied:
Dear Robin,
What is this article supposed to be about? The title suggests one subject (summer accessories) while the first line suggests another (office attire). The article criticizes flip-flops and sweat rags, which are in keeping with your title. But your discussion of "leggings" is, truly, a thinly veiled attack on overweight people. I call your attention to the lines:
"Designers have shown them layered under filmy skirts and short sundresses, and in theory, it is a charmingly bohemian style. The execution, however, is what gives one pause, as the look requires a keen understanding of proportion, reasonably slender legs and the ability to administer a significant amount of tough self-love."
Here you admit that it is not the article of clothing that you are against, but WHO is wearing them and that is what is so offensive about this article. Of course you do offer a sort of disclaimer:
"One would be committing the politically incorrect sin of pulling certain people aside and saying, 'You shouldn't. You can't. Don't.' But there it is. The truth stings."
Here you seem to want to communicate that political correctness is absurd, that telling the "truth" is so much more...what? Noble? Correct? Intelligent? Fashionable? Fine, I'm not going to tell you that you should be politically correct if you honestly feel that it is useless or improper. However, I do think that if you are going to tout the glory of "truth telling" that you should be willing to observe the same rule yourself. The truth is that this article is not well written. You have a confusing message and you seem to wander away from whatever focus the article was supposed to have. To grow as a writer you need to pay a little more attention to your critics, from whom you may actually glean a thing or two, and a little less to your yes-men. Of course, that would require a little "tough self-love" on your part, which is difficult, I understand, as "the truth [really does] sting."
Sincerely,
Daniela Machuca
At 11:30 AM,
Daniela said…
Robin Said:
Dear Daniela,
Perhaps I can put you in touch with the folks who agreed with the column and you all can argue over who's right.
All the best,
Robin
To which I replied:
Dear Robin,
What is this article supposed to be about? The title suggests one subject (summer accessories) while the first line suggests another (office attire). The article criticizes flip-flops and sweat rags, which are in keeping with your title. But your discussion of "leggings" is, truly, a thinly veiled attack on overweight people. I call your attention to the lines:
"Designers have shown them layered under filmy skirts and short sundresses, and in theory, it is a charmingly bohemian style. The execution, however, is what gives one pause, as the look requires a keen understanding of proportion, reasonably slender legs and the ability to administer a significant amount of tough self-love."
Here you admit that it is not the article of clothing that you are against, but WHO is wearing them and that is what is so offensive about this article. Of course you do offer a sort of disclaimer:
"One would be committing the politically incorrect sin of pulling certain people aside and saying, 'You shouldn't. You can't. Don't.' But there it is. The truth stings."
Here you seem to want to communicate that political correctness is absurd, that telling the "truth" is so much more...what? Noble? Correct? Intelligent? Fashionable? Fine, I'm not going to tell you that you should be politically correct if you honestly feel that it is useless or improper. However, I do think that if you are going to tout the glory of "truth telling" that you should be willing to observe the same rule yourself. The truth is that this article is not well written. You have a confusing message and you seem to wander away from whatever focus the article was supposed to have. To grow as a writer you need to pay a little more attention to your critics, from whom you may actually glean a thing or two, and a little less to your yes-men. Of course, that would require a little "tough self-love" on your part, which is difficult, I understand, as "the truth [really does] sting."
Sincerely,
Daniela Machuca
At 11:31 AM,
Daniela said…
Robin Said:
Dear Daniela,
Perhaps I can put you in touch with the folks who agreed with the column and you all can argue over who's right.
All the best,
Robin
To which I replied:
Dear Robin,
What is this article supposed to be about? The title suggests one subject (summer accessories) while the first line suggests another (office attire). The article criticizes flip-flops and sweat rags, which are in keeping with your title. But your discussion of "leggings" is, truly, a thinly veiled attack on overweight people. I call your attention to the lines:
"Designers have shown them layered under filmy skirts and short sundresses, and in theory, it is a charmingly bohemian style. The execution, however, is what gives one pause, as the look requires a keen understanding of proportion, reasonably slender legs and the ability to administer a significant amount of tough self-love."
Here you admit that it is not the article of clothing that you are against, but WHO is wearing them and that is what is so offensive about this article. Of course you do offer a sort of disclaimer:
"One would be committing the politically incorrect sin of pulling certain people aside and saying, 'You shouldn't. You can't. Don't.' But there it is. The truth stings."
Here you seem to want to communicate that political correctness is absurd, that telling the "truth" is so much more...what? Noble? Correct? Intelligent? Fashionable? Fine, I'm not going to tell you that you should be politically correct if you honestly feel that it is useless or improper. However, I do think that if you are going to tout the glory of "truth telling" that you should be willing to observe the same rule yourself. The truth is that this article is not well written. You have a confusing message and you seem to wander away from whatever focus the article was supposed to have. To grow as a writer you need to pay a little more attention to your critics, from whom you may actually glean a thing or two, and a little less to your yes-men. Of course, that would require a little "tough self-love" on your part, which is difficult, I understand, as "the truth [really does] sting."
Sincerely,
Daniela Machuca
At 11:31 AM,
Daniela said…
Robin Said:
Dear Daniela,
Perhaps I can put you in touch with the folks who agreed with the column and you all can argue over who's right.
All the best,
Robin
To which I replied:
Dear Robin,
What is this article supposed to be about? The title suggests one subject (summer accessories) while the first line suggests another (office attire). The article criticizes flip-flops and sweat rags, which are in keeping with your title. But your discussion of "leggings" is, truly, a thinly veiled attack on overweight people. I call your attention to the lines:
"Designers have shown them layered under filmy skirts and short sundresses, and in theory, it is a charmingly bohemian style. The execution, however, is what gives one pause, as the look requires a keen understanding of proportion, reasonably slender legs and the ability to administer a significant amount of tough self-love."
Here you admit that it is not the article of clothing that you are against, but WHO is wearing them and that is what is so offensive about this article. Of course you do offer a sort of disclaimer:
"One would be committing the politically incorrect sin of pulling certain people aside and saying, 'You shouldn't. You can't. Don't.' But there it is. The truth stings."
Here you seem to want to communicate that political correctness is absurd, that telling the "truth" is so much more...what? Noble? Correct? Intelligent? Fashionable? Fine, I'm not going to tell you that you should be politically correct if you honestly feel that it is useless or improper. However, I do think that if you are going to tout the glory of "truth telling" that you should be willing to observe the same rule yourself. The truth is that this article is not well written. You have a confusing message and you seem to wander away from whatever focus the article was supposed to have. To grow as a writer you need to pay a little more attention to your critics, from whom you may actually glean a thing or two, and a little less to your yes-men. Of course, that would require a little "tough self-love" on your part, which is difficult, I understand, as "the truth [really does] sting."
Sincerely,
Daniela Machuca
At 4:20 PM,
Kate said…
kudos to both of you, although i'm nothing short of amazed that robin (as of yet genderless) had the balls (either metaphorically or literally) to write back.
At 5:16 PM,
Daniela said…
She's a lady. I saw her picture. She wore a cheesy pink dress. hee hee hee.
At 6:47 PM,
Kate said…
a pink dress?! seriously?! you'd think that someone who works for the washington post as a fashion editor would at least attempt to avoid such visual references to plath's the bell jar. it's just not good for business, you see.
Post a Comment
<< Home