Pictures of New York
Mail has many striking photographs
of New York City after the storm, with emphasis on the “two cities”—the parts of New York that were affected by the storm, and the parts (such as where I live) that were not. The two photographs that are most striking to me are of Long Beach, a town outside New York City on the South Shore of Long Island, in which the streets are covered, and cars are partly covered, in deep sand.
On the cultural side of the phenomenon, all the people seen in these photographs, including large crowds in midtown Manhattan (which was not affected by the storm), are dressed like proles. This is the way the West now looks.
Also on the cultural side of the phenomenon, VFR remains the only publication I have seen that does not refer to this devastating storm by the ridiculous name “Sandy,” but simply as “the storm.” - end of initial entry -
Giuliano D. writes:
The Daily Mail has many striking photographs of New York City after the storm, with emphasis on the “two cities”—the parts of New York that were affected by the storm, and the parts (such as where I live) that were not.
That explains the curious dichotomy I felt when I was emailing VFR the evening of the storm. I was seeing incredible pictures of flooding in real time from a variety of web sites and national TV channels while you were saying it was quiet. I couldn’t understand it then and kept asking myself, “Can Lawrence not see it?” Speaking of synchronicity (a tale of two cities), I am currently reading a biography of Charles Dickens by Peter Ackroyd.
As well you kept telling me that the local New York channels were not reporting the massive flooding taking place. Now that you’ve been able to see the enormity of the storm, were the local television channels understating the effects of the storm that evening?
Is this division due to some geographic aspect of the city? Is one part higher than the other?
“As well you kept telling me that the local New York channels were not reporting the massive flooding taking place.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 31, 2012 06:52 PM | Send
I don’t remember saying that. In fact, the first thing I saw from the local stations on Monday evening was their reporting of the massive flooding in downtown Manhattan and I blogged about it.
“Is this division due to some geographic aspect of the city? Is one part higher than the other?”
Sure. Lower Manhattan is close to sea level. Parts of upper Manhattan are high and rocky. The differences in the height of parts of the narrow island as it goes northward and grows much narrower are very dramatic. For example, facing west from West 112th Street in Harlem (which is a vast plain), you see Morningside Heights rising up like a cliff and on top of it the east side of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine making the height even higher. It reminds me of descriptions I’ve read from histories of the French and Indian War of Quebec with its cathedral rising over the Plains of Abraham. (I’ve been to Quebec, when I was a teenager, but don’t remember seeing that view.)