![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancerjodiI've started reading this about Alva Vanderbilt-Belmont.
It’s a bit controversial/incomplete (see Amazon comments for more on this) but at this point I'm enjoying reading about the fantasy world created in it. Work has slowed enough that I can afford to take my lunch hour (which I usually spend reading if its too cold to go walk around the reservoir).
Its interesting to think of the Vanderbilts and the like not being accepted in ‘Gotham’ society as a result of their new money. At the moment Alva is discussing building an opulent home for she and her family across from the St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC in which to be showy and entertain the local high society. In another project at the same time she’s working to design the Metropolitan Opera House. You see, those with new money weren’t allowed to purchase boxes in the current Academy of Music, so Alva decided that the Vanderbilt’s should just build another opera house and give boxes to the other wealthy families with new money (who she’d ask to help fund the project) so that they could flaunt their diamonds and gowns in the faces of the Astors, Belmonts, and others. Many years later Alva would divorce her Vanderbilt husband (unheard of in that class of society at that time) and marry the son of one of her biggest high society rivals – Caroline Belmont (who incidentally, lived down the street from them at Newport).
Do you think the distaste for the nouveau riche exists today as it did in the pre-gilded age? I wonder if great change and growth in industry has lessened people's focus on breeding and increased the appreciation for resourcefulness and hard work. It does seem that the Vanderbilts and others sure moved past the stage of being seen as “uncouth and without background” (pg. 6). Was it for true appreciation of thier industriousness, or was it from their showy properties, parties and personalities?
It’s a bit controversial/incomplete (see Amazon comments for more on this) but at this point I'm enjoying reading about the fantasy world created in it. Work has slowed enough that I can afford to take my lunch hour (which I usually spend reading if its too cold to go walk around the reservoir).
Its interesting to think of the Vanderbilts and the like not being accepted in ‘Gotham’ society as a result of their new money. At the moment Alva is discussing building an opulent home for she and her family across from the St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC in which to be showy and entertain the local high society. In another project at the same time she’s working to design the Metropolitan Opera House. You see, those with new money weren’t allowed to purchase boxes in the current Academy of Music, so Alva decided that the Vanderbilt’s should just build another opera house and give boxes to the other wealthy families with new money (who she’d ask to help fund the project) so that they could flaunt their diamonds and gowns in the faces of the Astors, Belmonts, and others. Many years later Alva would divorce her Vanderbilt husband (unheard of in that class of society at that time) and marry the son of one of her biggest high society rivals – Caroline Belmont (who incidentally, lived down the street from them at Newport).
Do you think the distaste for the nouveau riche exists today as it did in the pre-gilded age? I wonder if great change and growth in industry has lessened people's focus on breeding and increased the appreciation for resourcefulness and hard work. It does seem that the Vanderbilts and others sure moved past the stage of being seen as “uncouth and without background” (pg. 6). Was it for true appreciation of thier industriousness, or was it from their showy properties, parties and personalities?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 12:06 pm (UTC)I think any opinions of mine on this will be horribly biased by virtue of being seen from a filter of being resentful of those who've had money and power handed to them. I resent the rich in general, but have respect for those who are well-off but have earned their money through hard work and ingenuity.
I think many friends of mine (most of whom are from a similar demographic of growing up middle to lower-middle class) would have a similar take on having more respect for the nouveau riche simply because it means they had to work for it, and that represents our shared work ethic and values a lot better.
I, myself, am confused by the kind of people I meet who place lots of importance on breeding and the social registry, as though can somehow take credit for someone else's achievements by sharing genes. If they're proud of where they're from because of culture--that makes sense. But not if it's an elitist "I come from bluebloods, and therefore am better than you, peasant," kind of thing. I ran across a diluted (that is, it was reserved, because being obvious wouldn't show class) version of this in the private school full of rich kids that I attended--on scholarship.