I just got done reading all of the clothes section, as well as his blog. First of all, I found it at least somewhat insightful. It was interesting to track his maturation -- went from not knowing crap, to being obsessed with quality and being put together, to them cultivating his own "style." But I also found his blog to be quite annoying. First, he asserts that those who shop at Louis only during the sale are simply "ignorant" of the service that those in Louis provide. Well, I've been in Louis during non-sale time, and all I found were a bunch of a**holes working there. Further, for him to suggest that the Louis markup is "modest" is absolutely absurd -- the markup is at least 25% and the service does not account for that. They don't even charge a reasonable amount of alterations, something most stores will do for free or for not much at all. Second, I found it pretentious for him to say something like "I find something romantic about a professor who makes $65,000 a year wearing only handmade shoes." Romantic? If said professor has children to feed, I'd find it absurd. Erickson's criticism of male fashion is undifferentiated between those who can afford to shop at Louis and those who can't. His criticism of the guy who sees the NY Times article about wearing jeans with a blue blazer who then wears a sack blazer over baggy Gap jeans, where Erickson instructs the person to go buy a snug fitting pair of "expensive" jeans by some designer who you've never heard of, fails to see that some people should be commended (perhaps) for "trying" but not succeeding because they are of modest means. I really hate the pretention that everyone should go shop at Louis, even if it means "walking out with only a couple pieces you could afford." Well, I'm not sure I could afford ANYTHING in that store at regular price. And I make quite a nice living. Sorry for the rant.
post #1 of 22
12/23/04 at 5:23pm