Originally Posted by voxsartoria
I agree that his dress is impervious to fashion and personal evolution, but I also think that his dress is impervious to style. For me, the mere quality of imperviousness by itself is insufficient to think of someone as well dressed. For you, it might be more charming. I love seeing old coots Allen's age around here in their old Brooks sacks and bows trodding the Earth as if no time has passed. Those that do almost to a man have a panache, a confidence in dress, completely absent from the sallow, rubbishy look Allen affects. Allen does not have a I do not care look. He has a I gave up look. - B
"Affects" seems a bit harsh towards Allen: I think he's quite authentic. But I think you've summed up our disagreement pretty well. Those elderly Bostonians were correctly dressed back then, and now their persistence has given them the style and panache you describe. I think the same is true of Allen, if you adjust his type of dress to his context (NYC intellectual etc.), so I wouldn't say that he has "given up". Now if you think that Allen's style was 'wrong' to begin with (i.e. circa 1960), then you won't see him in a favourable light now. But obviously I don't, so I do. As for whether imperviousness to style can be stylish, well, let's do another threak on that interesting paradox some other time (it's 4am here). Tempting though: imperviousness to style (i.e. no style, albeit for a special reason) implies charm, charm implies style, therefore lack of style can imply style.