I have a question for Plainfield readers of the dead-tree version of the New York Times.
Have you noticed anything ... different ... lately?
My friend Billy Gene, a retired pharmaceutical executive (and fervent George W. Bush supporter) who retreated from New York City to his native Texas in retirement, used to refer to the New York Times as 'that odious newspaper'.
By which he meant the editorial section, not the arts and culture sections, which he lapped up avidly.
For my part, I have never ever felt the Times was odious, but something has definitely changed.
Last Sunday, while devouring the Sunday papers, I was driven to distraction by a decidedly fishy odor in the kitchen, where our ample counter gives us room to spread all three papers out as we read.
I couldn't nail it for sure, but finally decided to bundle up the stack of papers in the corner for the next pickup and, presto!, the smell went away.
This morning, the aroma was back -- intensely.
Scandinavians might think lutefisk or surströmming were lurking nearby. A classicist might suspect garum, the fermented fish sauce beloved of Romans high and low and similar, I am told, to the sauce favored in Southeast Asian cookery.
It definitely seems to be coming from the New York Times.
Is anyone else having this same experience? I would like to hear, if only to convince me I am not losing it olfactorily.
For now, though, I am rushing through reading my favorite paper, which has become so malodorous it is now odious to read.
As cats are mewing outside the kitchen door, waiting for the papers to be put out.
-- Dan Damon
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment