Party in the Past

wonderful

Here’s a thought. It’s a thought I had about seven years ago while paying £500 a month to live in a drafty townhouse loft that would once have housed a maid or a nanny.

It’s a thought I had last year when reading that a stony-broke Patti Smith was able to buy a modest breakfast with a quarter dollar she found in Central Park.

It’s a thought I had at Christmas while watching It’s a Wonderful Life, in which George Bailey sells brand new houses for $5,000 in the same year that the average salary was $3,150 (so you could completely pay for a family home in two or three years).

It’s a thought I frequently have when flicking through Emily Post etiquette books, books that give the impression of a roaring 1940s social society in which people had parties often and watched television never.

It’s a thought I had just the other day when looking at the sunken staff entrances to Montreal town houses which have now been divided economically into expensive little apartments and offices. Hardly anyone can afford a house like that now, let alone staff it.

The thought: did the people of the technologically unsophisticated, gap-toothed, commodity-impoverished, disease-ridden past actually have a better quality of life than we do today?

Is that possible? Can that possibly be possible?

They never Tweeted anything to the effect so I guess we’ll never know.

Buy the complete back catalogue of New Escapologist with a 10% discount today.
Or buy the complete back catalogue on PDF, with £1 off the price each issue.
Buy Issue 3 on PDF for £3 for a limited time only.

About

Robert Wringham is a humorist and the editor-in-chief of New Escapologist.

5 Responses to “Party in the Past”

  1. Bev says:

    Is it possible that we see much more evidence of the wealthy past than the poor? After all, tar paper shacks just don’t stand up the way those lovely brick and stone homes of the owner-class do. And all those novels and movies are about rich people – let’s face it. Grinding poverty is pretty boring.

    I could argue the other side, too, and I do from time to time, but I fear I’m romanticising the past when I do. I remind myself that if I lived in any other time or place, I would almost certainly be a subsistence peasant and not one of the ruling classes (or even an Emily Post-reading socialite), as have been most people who ever lived.

    I’m not sure why I’m commenting on this. I want so much to agree with your premise, but I’m feeling contrary today, I guess.

  2. Hello Bev,

    I’d normally agree with this kind of statement. It’s important that we don’t look to the past with rose-tinted goggles.

    But I must say that the examples here actually don’t make that mistake for once! Patti Smith was desperately poor when she bought that breakfast. The houses George Bailey sold were to the strapped (if admittedly fictional) people of Bedford Falls (the house specifically valued at $5,000 was sold to the Mantini family – a poor, goat-owning immigrant family). The Delia Smith of the ’40s, Emily Post’s books were hugely popular (though admittedly perhaps due to their call to affluence). And while the example of my loft space draws attention to a caste of wealthy home-owners, it really points to the fact that my domestic circumstances as a young professional in 2006 were similar to that of a servant in the mid-19th century.

    You’re right to advise caution though. We wouldn’t want to trade our advances in civil, medical or scientific progress for anything. The present is a far better time to live from those points of view. But I can’t help think we’ve lost something culturally. I’d take parties, inexpensive tailored suits and unthreatened libraries over LOLcats, H&M and tablet computing any day.

  3. A little other thing on the subject of taking ideals from the past:

    Are we then suggesting a return to the living standards of 1974? Not necessarily, for the luxuries acquired since then may, even if they have added nothing to our real well-being, be painful to forego. (This is an instance of the general truth that damaging social changes cannot always be rectified simply by being reversed, any more than a man flattened by a steamroller can be restored to life by being run over backwards.) What we are saying is that the long-term goal of economic policy should henceforth not be growth, but the structuring of collective existence so as to facilitate the good life. — How Much is Enough? Money and the good life

  4. Bev says:

    I definitely agree that our increased expectations and reliance on technology have kind of ruined us for a better quality of life, even if we could somehow attain it. I can’t imagine living without internet anymore, even if I had every other aspect of a perfect life. And I don’t know what that says about me.

  5. Oh, I wouldn’t want to live in a world without the Internet either. In fact, I was without it for a few days earlier this year and I could feel my stress level rising with every passing moment. Separation anxiety from the cloud! For this, I still think my relationship with the Web is a healthy one. I use it like turning on a tap/faucet to get water: I just turn it on when I need it, and don’t just sit there watching it run.

Leave a Reply

Latest issues and offers

1-7

Issues One to Seven

A bundle of our first seven issues. Featuring minimalism, Houdini, Leo Babauta, Bohemianism, Alain de Botton, Sartre, and Tom Hodgkinson. 567 pages. £35.

8-11

Issues Eight to Thirteen

A bundle of our last six issues. Featuring Luke Rhinehart, Flaubert, Mr Money Mustache, part-time work, Will Self, home life, Richard Herring, and E. F. Schumacher. 593 pages. £30.

Issue Thirteen

Our final edition. Featuring an interview with celebrity mortician Caitlin Doughty; Matt Caulfield on zen fool Ryokan; and Reggie C. King on David Bowie and Sun Ra. 122 pages. £7.

Escape Everything!

A hardbacked guide to scarpering. Essential reading for wage slaves and slugabeds alike. Published by Unbound. 230 pages. £12.