What does it mean for something to be excessive? At first glance, the article seems to argue that denying aging itself is unnatural. Personally, I think aging is a state that should eventually be overcome.
But the real issue lies elsewhere.
The article’s central criticism is that the human face is becoming a class display device. The definition of a “rich face” is essentially the ability to redesign natural limits with money. A face into which surgery and capital have visibly been poured becomes the face of wealth.
The article argues that this virtue of excess is becoming monopolized by the rich. After reading it, I looked at my own face: the face of a $15-an-hour Upwork developer. It was a face worn down by fatigue.
At that moment, a strange thought came to me.
Excess and poverty look like opposites, but both erase the human being from the face.
The rich face loses the traces of life because it has been altered too much. The poor worker’s face loses the leisure of life because it has been consumed too much. One is a face into which too much money has been poured; the other is a face worn down because too little money remained.
In the end, the problem is not the desire to look young itself. The problem begins when the face is no longer the surface of a person’s life, emotions, and time, but instead becomes something read like a receipt of class.
The rich lose their faces through excess.
The poor lose their faces through exhaustion.
And somewhere between the two, the human face gradually disappears.
Interesting article, but I'm perplexed by the original headline on the New York Times. The double past tense is grammatically incorrect, and yet it is repeated in the first paragraph.
I see this grammar a lot now, and it always bothers me. Is it accepted usage now?
The core of this article is ultimately excess.
What does it mean for something to be excessive? At first glance, the article seems to argue that denying aging itself is unnatural. Personally, I think aging is a state that should eventually be overcome.
But the real issue lies elsewhere.
The article’s central criticism is that the human face is becoming a class display device. The definition of a “rich face” is essentially the ability to redesign natural limits with money. A face into which surgery and capital have visibly been poured becomes the face of wealth.
The article argues that this virtue of excess is becoming monopolized by the rich. After reading it, I looked at my own face: the face of a $15-an-hour Upwork developer. It was a face worn down by fatigue.
At that moment, a strange thought came to me.
Excess and poverty look like opposites, but both erase the human being from the face.
The rich face loses the traces of life because it has been altered too much. The poor worker’s face loses the leisure of life because it has been consumed too much. One is a face into which too much money has been poured; the other is a face worn down because too little money remained.
In the end, the problem is not the desire to look young itself. The problem begins when the face is no longer the surface of a person’s life, emotions, and time, but instead becomes something read like a receipt of class.
The rich lose their faces through excess. The poor lose their faces through exhaustion.
And somewhere between the two, the human face gradually disappears.
Interesting article, but I'm perplexed by the original headline on the New York Times. The double past tense is grammatically incorrect, and yet it is repeated in the first paragraph.
I see this grammar a lot now, and it always bothers me. Is it accepted usage now?
Update to my own comment:
They have corrected it now. So, shockingly, it was an actual error, that no copy editor or proof-reader noticed?
"didn't used to" is idiomatic English even though it makes no sense in terms of its component parts.
I'm not sure what you mean by "idiomatic", but it is certainly not valid grammar, even though it is more common now.
It is a beginner mistake people carry over from other languages. I agree English is not consistent, but the usage rules are specific.
Can you provide a reference from an authority on the English Language, if you meant it is valid grammar?
My source is that I'm a native English speaker from an English speaking country and me and everyone around me have used this phrase since childhood.
("me and ... have ..." is another thing that upsets language purists)
Sure, and I can also make up my own rules as I go along. After all language evolves, right? /s
I didn't purged...
I don't had any money...
See how silly they sound? The whole point of language is to have rules to facilitate understanding.
Even ChatGPT does that.
It is ugly. "I didn't used to care" versus almost everything, including the "I used to not care"