Saturday essay: Horn of treasures
It's almost too much to bear, this daily barrage of Christmas catalogues. Note use of the qualifying word “almost.”
The post-Thanksgiving onslaught easily averages half-a-dozen a day. From hams to jewelry and toys (for kids little and big), from model trains to chocolates, fruits and nuts and from newly discovered old stuff sold as new to new stuff made to mimic the old-fashioned, this Christmas catalogue horn of plenty borders on the horn of too much.
“Enough!” many of us shout in disgust, exposed for the mock that it is as we stop on, oh, page 33 of a certain catalogue to admire the very same revered “Caroler Candles” that never were to be lit as a child.
“No more!” we intone, our affectation rendered silly as we pause on, say, page 54 of another catalogue to admire the Scottish pocket watch made anew from the original hundred-year-old design and for a remarkably low get-outta-town! price.
“Well, this is simply too much!” we roll our eyes at the cartoon image of Mrs. Claus on the cover of another catalogue, feigning shock at the rising shirt and falling pants of Santa placing a package under the tree, his unshown posterior exposure a tease to “longtail” shirts designed to eliminate manly “mechanics'” malfunctions. “That's a pretty good idea,” we catch ourselves muttering.
Then we're quickly back to dissing it all — now not so much for the volume of the “junk” but because we don't have enough time to properly peruse the packed horn of treasures placed before us.
— Colin McNickle
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Monsour’s legacy: A bitter pill
- For U.S. Senate, W.Va.: Elect Shelley Moore Capito
- U.N. Watch: Gun-grabbers unite!
- McCaffery’s suspension: Castille’s concurrence
- For the Pennsylvania House: Ortitay, Krieger and Logan
- For U.S. House in Ohio & West Virginia: Bill Johnson and David McKinley
- The problem with WQED: Fat at the top
- Sunday pops
- Early voting: Hardly healthy