Category Archives: Commentary and Critiques

Liebling by Sarah Moi-Thuk-Shung

Posted on by

Back Where I Came From: Apology For Breathing

I liked this excerpt of Liebling’s writing because he notes the different layers of New York City and the fact that not every New Yorker views the city the same. His writing is so descriptive that the reader is able to envision his explanations with the imagery he provides. Liebling says that the finest thing about New York City is that it is like one of those complicated Renaissance clocks, on one level an allegorical marionette pops out to mark the day of the week, on another a skeleton death bangs the quarter hour with his scythe, and on a third the Twelve Apostles do a cakewalk. This is my favorite line from this writing. I have seen writings where New York City has been compared to a great number of things but this comparison is on point and by far the best. Liebling goes on to say that some New Yorkers are completely submerged in their environment that they live and die oblivious of the worlds around them. I believe that I am the exact opposite of that. I am the New Yorker that he describes who is instinctively aware of the wonders of New York’s natural history, but think them hardly worthy of mention. I think that because we live in New York some of us may overlook just how magnificent this city is. One point that Liebling made that I disagree with is his statement that New Yorkers are modest. While some New Yorkers may be modest indeed, most are completely not. We live in one of the greatest cities in the world and I believe that we are entitled to feel decorous at some times. On the other hand, Liebling’s statement that New York women are the most beautiful in the world, is something that I absolutely agree with.

 

Beginning With The Undertaker

I read this piece a few times and I thought the whole thing was very random. I am not sure if there is a hidden meaning behind the number of baths or if he means exactly what he says. If someone figures it out I would really like to know.

 

People In Trouble

While reading this chapter I had to look up the year that this book was written because Liebling starts talking about rooms in apartment buildings in Harlem being rented for $4 to $7 a week and I knew this couldn’t have been written recently. Just as I suspected, the book was written in 1938. It was interesting to know that although the blocks of Harlem were overcrowded, to say the least, no major epidemic arose and the people stayed clean. When Liebling starts to talk about Mrs. Hankinson, I picture her as that same old lady that has been on any New York block for many, many years.

Liebling notes that the children of Knickerbocker village, although they are poor, never feel inclined to walk outside Harlem or even to a different part of Harlem. Those children most likely find comfort in their living situation and appreciate it because it is all they know. Outsiders may look at the people of this block as people in trouble but they themselves do not believe that they are in trouble at all.

 

Getting By

The faster in this story, Ben Green, is very dedicated for fasting for 38 days. Is it even possible to still be alive after fasting for so long? The eater on the other hand, Di Larentis was also very dedicated for eating everything that he ate. This comparison of the differences of how people get by is ironic and very funny.

 

Tummler

This is the second piece from Liebling that I am reading and Belmont is mentioned. I live in Elmont and Belmont is down the block from my house. I am aware that Belmont Racetrack is a historical landmark but I was not aware that so many writers felt compelled to write about it. I didn’t know what a tummler was but I looked up the definition. A tummler is a person who makes things happen, in particular a professional entertainer whose function is to encourage an audience, guests at a resort, etc., to participate in the entertainments or activities. This precisely describes Hymie.

The “Joe Gould’s Secret” Reveals More Than Its Title Says

Posted on by

by Mayara Guimaraes
The introduction to Joseph Mitchell’s “Joe Gould’s Secret” tells the readers that the book contains two different perspectives of the same person. Therefore, it should have been no surprise for me that I had two different opinions of the same person. However, I was more than surprised by it. I was shocked.
The first part of the book makes you love Joe Gould. You see him as a piece of art, as part of New York’s Village and as a citizen of the world. You learn to appreciate his strange personality, and even to admire his choices in life. Joe wanted to live free. He wanted to escape his memories, and at the same time, that was all he wanted to talk about (and write about). You keep wishing you could go talk to him.
The second part gives you more to think about. Is Joe lazy? Is he a parasite? Does he have the most annoying personality in the world? Does he deserve the life he has? Is he a big liar?
But as Mitchell, the reader goes deep into the secret of Joe Gould, and a better understanding takes place the introduction makes more sense.
Joe Gould is definitely an interesting figure, and as the book ended I still felt that I would love to chat with him and give a contribution to the Joe Gould club. But the real character of the book to me is Joseph Mitchell. While writing about Gould, the journalist revels so much about himself that it becomes impossible not to fall for him. He reveals himself as such a beautiful human being and great journalist that for a student like me, he becomes the real hero.
Joseph Mitchell’s “Joe Gould’s Secret” is one of the best books I ever read because it speaks about human nature, and the monsters we face, revealing on top of it all, that we are our own worst enemy.

Joe Gould’s Secret

Posted on by

By: Teresa Roca

Joseph Mitchell’s “Joe Gould’s Secret” is a classic in disguise. Through Mitchell’s writing, he is able to capture the emotions of each character, allowing the reader to understand the actions of Gould and Mitchell.

When I began reading this novel, I did not find bohemian Joe Gould to be a likeable character. I found him to be selfish and felt that he was using his oral history as a way to trick his friends and acquaintances into donating money to the “Joe Gould fund.” His constant drinking and lies about what he would use the money for strengthened my negative thoughts about Gould. An example would be, “I’m supposed to go to the clinic at the Eye and Ear Infirmary, at Second Avenue and Thirteenth Street, and pick up a prescription for some eye trouble I’ve been having, and if it’s one kind of prescription it won’t cost anything but if it’s another kind it may cost around two dollars, and I’ve just discovered that I don’t have any money with me, and it’s getting late, and I wonder if you’d ask your receptionist to lend me two dollars” (Mitchell 55). We later find out that Gould never went to the clinic and used the money for something else. As the novel continued, I began to feel sympathy and understand why Gould acted the way he did. By learning of Gould’s past, and how he would rewrite the death of his father and other prominent events in his life over and over again, I discovered that Gould is a character suffering from pain and regret of his past. This humanizes Gould, turning him into a more likeable character, as readers are now able to relate to him.

Throughout the novel, Mitchell’s ability to feel sympathy for Gould makes him an admirable character. By paying for Gould many times, forwarding his mail, and checking on him, this shows the genuine character Mitchell is. Mitchell is not a character that carries the stereotype journalists unfortunately carry of using their subjects for stories. That fact that Mitchell did not continue to badger Gould about the oral history not existing, and that he kept Gould’s secret even after his death shows the remarkable journalist Mitchell is. It is also interesting to see how much the neighborhood cared for Gould after his death, especially when friends dedicated their time searching for the oral history. One man made a community come together as a whole. This makes me believe that maybe this was Gould’s secret all along.

This novel is relatable, smart, informative, and draws emotion. I am glad that I had the opportunity to read it.

Amanda Burden Comments

Posted on by

The Amanda Burden feature was really well written. I found the voice of the reporter to be very unbiased. Although she mentioned the good things Amanda Burden did for rezoning the city, Julie Satow also mentioned the criticism Mrs. Burden received for her work. I found Burden to come across very privileged, but yet again, Julie Satow used her words to compare and contrast the many things that make up Amanda M. Burden. The reporter gave much detail about her life prior to her job as the director of the New York City Planning Department, although she was a socialite, she made it clear that Burden was not too polished to get down to work. At certain moments I got the feeling that Burden was very controlled, polished and callous. However, the writer cunningly added in the portion where Amanda Burden goes to Stuyvesant Cove Park. This area was going to be demolished until Mrs. Burden was asked to step in.  This portion of the article shows the compassion in Burden, as calculated as she may have come across to the readers she still has consideration for the people that will be affected by her decisions.

Blog Post #1: Amanda Burden Article Response

Posted on by

I like the way the writer began with Amanda Burden’s physical appearance. The details that the writer focused on such as the 60s style hair and her sheath dress immediately puts a picture to mind to what Burden might be like upon first impression.

It’s interesting how the writer focused a bit on Burden’s past of being a socialite and a fashionable “it girl.” These images of her are quite surprising given her job description. It also helps define her image of New York City and her goal to rebuild and update its neighborhoods to better suit the modern times.

Burden’s take on gentrification as “improvement of neighborhoods” rather than as a burden (no pun intended) sheds light on its positive aspects, such as making the city more livable and breathable despite the many buildings that seem to be sprouting up everywhere.

The last statement of hers really struck me since she mentioned maintaining the identities of the neighborhoods. I think despite the development and gentrification that’s being done, it’s important to keep their distinctive characteristics (i.e. small businesses).  Those identities really depend on the residents themselves that have lived and built their lives in these neighborhoods.