January 10th, 2004 4:40 PM

Heehee… look at the linguists (and journalists, indirectly at the NYT) grappling with the discovery of “Emo.”

I find it all mildly amusing that this is happening over a term that is common in my world, and that has been around for (I believe) nearly fifteen years.


and i thought labeling was transparent. either that or they’re looking way too deeply into the whole question of what is “emo,” considering the first time it was explained to me (while driving to a diner and listening to Saves the Day) two words were sufficient “emotional punk”. Maybe they just need an ear full of Dashboard Confessional and a look at the album cover to get the idea. Nausbaum’s interpretation, i must say, was dissappointing. For someone who usually is so thourough in her evaluation, she missed the whole group of people who wear ‘Emo’ with (poorly placed) pride. there needs to be a reply button on that page.

ps good timing, eh emo-boy?

Posted by: shuli on January 10th, 2004 7:14 PM