Baby Blue and Strauss-Kahn

For whatever reason, in my readings of these blogs, the feature that really stood out to me was tone.

In “On Baby Blue Ivy Carter and the Alleged Ugliness of Blackness” by Akiba Solomon, the tone felt to me a little sad and a little regretful for the limitations of mainstream conceptions of beauty. The language is informal and the style very competent, but rather than communicating passion for expanding or changing readers’ minds, I read this blog as more of a lament. Phrases like “There’s nothing I can write to make this better” and “Personally, I’ve found solace…” made this blog feel more stationary rather than inciting movement. Maybe it is Solomon’s choice of literature with which to juxtapose the current discussion around Baby Blue: Gwendolyn Brooks’ Maud Martha in which “Brooks shows us how some women of color look in the mirror and assess what they see with pragmatism rather than self-destructive melodrama….The power in these passages lies in their straightforwardness and honesty.” In a world where the term “body dysmorphia” exists and beauty is placed at such a premium, especially for the famous, I am all for injecting some pragmatism. Yet, I feel in the context of this blog, these lines of Brook’s poetry, though beautiful, in some ways communicate a buy-in to the belief that “black” features are less beautiful than white. Now, Brooks’ characters having these thoughts in the context of her novel is certainly a comment on society in the sense of how these characters understand the racial hierarchy of mainstream conceptions of beauty, but for Solomon to include this 60 year old attitude of recognizing this racial beauty hierarchy and your place within it as “pragmatic’ seems to border on defeatist. I think the key comes in the next sentence when Solomon says “So Maud and Paul know what world they’re living in, and they do just that: Live.” I see that she’s trying to tell Baby Blue—and all readers of all times—to understand the limitations of society’s definition of beauty and then to live happily in spite of them. Yet I feel like we should do more to expand those very definitions.     

I was very impressed with “Strauss-Kahn’s Naked Challenge” by Amy Davidson; it amazed me how pithy and damning (and I mean that as a good thing) she could be in only a few short paragraphs. The tone feels very specific and very consciously chosen (rather than being a natural, unconscious style, like we might see in a personal blog). It is certainly journalistic in nature: assertive, formal/informal language, pointed, intelligent, her indignance held in by—or maybe expressed through—her rationality. In fact it is this rationality which makes her mocking of Strauss-Kahn so effective and keeps it out of “bashing” territory. By exposing the ridiculous illogic of Strauss-Kahn’s defense, Davidson is able to thoroughly trounce the politician without getting her hands dirty, maintaining the complete professionalism we would expect from a New Yorker writer. Her critique of the situation is threefold: First, that this is another story of a man in power attempting to be excused for bad behavior simply because he is powerful. Second, the rampant sexism in these cases: that mistaking a hotel maid for a prostitute is a reasonable assumption, and Strauss-Kahn’s defense’s challenge “to distinguish a naked prostitute from any other naked woman.” And third, that as a citizen of another country Strauss-Kahn’s attitude of doing whatever he wants is even more disgusting: “Given how upset French people got when the N.Y.P.D. held him here, and treated him like anyone else, one wonders about the conditions of his detention.” Her tone, humor, and logic applied to illogical behavior make Davidson seem immediately credible and convincing to adopt her feelings and judgment of Strauss-Kahn, and her ability to end on the perfect note is impeccable: “Can you distinguish a politician in a cell from any other jailed man—or any common criminal? In Strauss-Kahn’s case, that may be a challenge.” You got me Davidson, hook, line, and sinker.