NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
SUNDAY SPECTATOR
November 12, 2006
On shoes
Today’s column will be on any topic except America and Iraq. I have arbitrarily selected shoes. Not in the manner of the legendary Imelda Marcos (whom, let me remind any reader who happens to have forgotten, I once interviewed by poolside) -- owner by reputation of several thousand pairs, all of them top-of-the-line.That was never my style. I think I peaked at about five pairs, generally in the economy range. "Le style c'est l'homme même", said the great phrasemonger of natural science, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon. ("The style is the man himself.") That is probably true, even of the poor. The reader will soon discern that I am not a cobbler, or cordwainer, only a consumer of shoes, and may therefore dismiss my observations on the decline of shoe-making and shoe-mending as the rantings of an uninformed bigot. Certainly that is the response of many professionals when I have previously written on topics outside my field of expertise. (And what is that field, I wonder?) I was recently taken to task, for instance, by the former director of an Alberta sheep-marketing organization, for my ignorant remarks in another paper on the culling of mature sheep, and the culinary preparation of mutton. Even though I had carefully checked my facts against such authorities as Eliza Acton, Modern Cookery for Private Families, 1845. In my own defence I would say, it is getting harder to be a polymath. The public relations function seems to have been disseminated throughout society, though seldom with the charm that would make it viable. I brace myself to be contradicted by official spokesmen for Messrs Bata, Florsheim, Adidas, Richlee, Clarks, Conker, Berluti, and Birkenstock, even before I have begun. But begin I must, now that half the column is written. I had, until quite recently, three pairs of shoes (not counting a pair of serious hiking clod-hoppers) -- one good, and two evil. At this moment I have one good, one evil, and one recently discarded. The good pair were purchased nearly thirty years ago, in England, for what seemed a small fortune, and have since been rebuilt twice by very capable and proud independent cobblers (once in Seoul, and once in Toronto). But that pair is currently unusable until rebuilt again. The surviving, evil pair had hardly been used, but is now beginning to disintegrate after several weeks of daily employment. I estimate the maximum life expectancy for a pair of shoes, available in the present market, at any price between $50 on sale and $200 not on sale, to be one year -- given a wearer like me who walks at least two miles a day, sometimes five or more. That would be a tread life of under 1000 miles. Whereas, I have had at least 5,000, and possibly 10,000 miles between rebuildings, from my good pair of shoes -- the name of whose manufacturer is long since obliterated and forgotten. From which I deduce that it is, in fact, possible to make shoes well. I bought them on Jermyn Street in London, or somewhere around Piccadilly -- they were very conservative brown oxfords, and the one demand I made of the salesman was, “I want a pair of shoes that will last me the rest of my life.” He said these would, and he didn’t flinch. Nor did his eyes wander. The price suggested he might not be kidding. I resolved to believe him, and my trust was rewarded. In the intervening time, whole years have gone by in which they were my only pair of shoes. And more than a dozen other pairs have come and gone, all of them finally battered beyond recognition, but unlike these, irreparable. What is wrong with our "postmodern" world? We have now received the experience of thousands of years of shoe-making craftsmanship, plus all the advantages of high technology. Why can't we have decent shoes? When I raised this pressing topic among my intimate companions last week, I was told, “Why would a shoemaker make a shoe that will last thirty years, when he could make you thirty pairs of shoes that will last one year each? Why would he want to put himself on such an extended holiday?” Another noted, albeit drolly, that, “With quickly changing fashions, you might as well have disposable shoes.” You might as well go discalced. No philosophical man could possibly agree with either of these libertarian views. (I won’t speak for the women.) The people at large should rise up. Is no one outraged? David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top