What Is the Shoe?
Manolo says, one of the Manolo’s internet friends has asked the Manolo the most important philosophical question.
Dear Manolo,
After reading a very interesting article about the average number of pairs of shoes owned by the shoe obsessive Australian women , my husband and I have had much debate about what defines “the shoe”… he insists that the flip flop and slipper should be defined as a shoe as they cover the feet. Naturally, I disagree. Can you help moderate this discussion? It does give me a great deal of solace to know that I am not the complete shoe tragic and that I form part of a very important bell curve!
Thanks,
Cat – lover of the Marc Jacobs.
To some of the extent, this arguement between the Cat and her husband, it is similar in tone to the great arguments of the medivel ages, during which the Scholastics would debate endlessly about the theological arcana and minutiae.
However, despite the seeming pettiness of this question it is still worthy of consideration by the Manolo.
Sadly for the Cat, her husband is mostly correct: the slipper is the type of the shoe, as is the flip-flop.
However, after having said that, the Manolo would not include items such as the houseshoe and the cheap flip-flop in any accounting of his or anyone else’s shoe collection.
It would be as if the dedicated philatelist counted the roll of recent stamps in his desk drawer when tallying the breadth of his collection. Yes, they are stamps, and they are in his possession, but they are inconsequential and not worthy of mention.
Likewise, the slippers and the plastic flip-flops are not worthy of counting, as they are semi-desposible items intended for current use. (The Manolo would make the exception for the opulent slippers, such as the special monogrammed velvet houseshoes. )
Now that he has settled this question, the Manolo will soon address some of the thornier Thomistic shoe questions.
The Alioth is by no means the expert on the super fantastic shoes, but she must make the argument in favor of the house slippers and the cheap flip-flops. Clearly, they are the shoes which, by being ordinary, lend to the super fantastic shoes their very super fantasy. If one went barefoot when the super fantastic shoes were not called for, the super fantastic shoes would be the only shoes, and therefore would be ordinary shoes. Ah, what dazzle and glamour would be stolen from the universe of the shoes if there were no baseline for the super fantastic shoes! The Alioth argues that the slippers and the flip-flops deserve much of the credit for raising the super fantastic shoes above that lowly plain.
Hi,
I have just passed on your blog, I wrote you this message, because I have myself a blog. The objective is that people send me their picture(s) with the clothes they intend to wear today or the next few days. And this to find out how is the fashion for people like you and me and by people from all over the world. I live in Singapore and here, fashion has a big importance, there’s a mix of cultures. It gives a colorful city… Anyway!
I think it’s great to share, to see how people match their clothes and accessories together. Anyway maybe I’m dreaming a little bit but who doesn’t intend anything, doesn’t get anything.
If you know anyone interested, it’d be great to talk about it, if yourself you find the idea interesting, of course!
My blog : http://your-fashion.skynetblogs.be
Thank you in advance
Have a nice day
Marie
I am in agreement with Alioth, and must also add neither the superfantastic shoes nor the feet of great bareness are appropriate to fend off the wee beasties one encounters at the public showers at the “Y” pool. Nor are they fit to baptize with the cookie crumbs as one watches one’s Project Runway DVDs.
If the Thomists had had nicer footwear they’d have struggled with these questions, too.
They would buy their shoes at Thom McCann!
If I was to go to my closet and start counting shoes, I would count flip flops, but not slippers. I think because flip flops can be worn out-of-doors, and slippers cannot. Thus, flip flops seem more “shoelike” to me.
Perhaps this is also because my flip flops tend to be less disposable than you’d think – almost crossing the line into thong territory, with hard soles and leather straps. Some of the pairs I own are 5 or 6 years old, and get quite a bit of use in the summer months.
If you keep your slippers or flipflops protected (such as in their box) they should count. I count the sneakers I keep in their box but not the ones I keep by the door or the flip flops in my car in case I stop for a spur-of-the moment pedicure!
But I need all the help I can with keeping the count down as I would totally blow the Australian shoe bell curve with 100+ pairs of shoes and growing.
Most of them are heels, which can be tricky on the snow days like today.
If you keep your slippers or flipflops protected (such as in their box) they should count. I count the sneakers I keep in their box but not the ones I keep by the door or the flip flops in my car in case I stop for a spur-of-the moment pedicure!
But I need all the help I can with keeping the count down as I would totally blow the Australian shoe bell curve with 100+ pairs of shoes and growing.
Most of them are heels, which can be tricky on the snow days like today.
What, then of the slipper socks? They look unquestionably sock-like, but are meant to be worn on their own (albeit, only indoors), and some go so far as to have rubber or leather soles.
As always, it is the questions in the gray areas that pose the greatest challenges to philosophy.
“Philatelist.”
The Manolo is not only the maestro of the witty rhetoric re: the shoes, but also master of the general metaphor.
Molto bravo.
Even after you have laid your perfect wisdom and most considered advice on the grayest and most contentious of minor issues, Manolo, there are still doubters, objectors and schisms as can be seen in the comments above. Listen, folks, the guru of the shoes has spoken on the numbering of said objects and I for one am taking his Word as gospel.
Such wisdom! I definitely do not count flip-flops… or at least I wouldn’t, if I owned any.
Well-written article, Manolo! The topic is funny because I have been known to state, “sneakers are not shoes.” He he. What then about the sneakers, is your opinion?
Hah! La BellaDonna, she is at the other end of the spectrum from the Veddy Veddy Bad Ang (hola to the VVBA!); she has the pair – perhaps even somewhere, the two pair – of the flipflops, which followed her home from pedicures, and are … somewhere. Indoors. Yet La BellaDonna, she has the many pairs of what are undoubtedly the “slippers” – gold leather, silver leather, purple velvet embroidered with gold spangles, brown velvet embellished with copper spangles, biscuit embroidered with pearls, black silk damask mules … the list, it goes on and on, especially as it is difficult to tell where “slipper” territory ends. As it happens, many of the shoes La BellaDonna owns are the ballet slippers, which would seem to be self-identifying: the little denim ballet slippers with the perky red bows, the amusing leopard ballet slippers which La BellaDonna has bound with the black velvet ribbon, the slippers with the cherries printed on them, the polka-dotted slippers … And this, it does not include other slippers which La BellaDonna longs for: the burgundy velvet slippers with the rhinestone ornaments, the bright metallic red leather slippers, the suitable pair in camouflage – woodland pattern, not urban … These and their ilk, they either have their own boxes, or deserve to, and perforce La BellaDonna supposes she must count them as shoes.
Prada sneakers are shoes.
The things you wear to work out at the gym are not.
How fabulous to have discovered heaven! Where have I been to have only just found you, Manolo. No wonder my life felt empty!
To join the debate: perhaps we need to consider that there are two types of shoe collection.
1. Shoes which are practical clothes for feet and serve a specific purpose like sneakers for the gym, or in my case a multitude of riding boots and wellies for general horse riding, competition horse riding, mucking out in winter, mucking out in summer etc etc.
2. Shoes which are akin to art and are adornment for the feet or mantelpiece (and yes, I have shoes for display on both).
Therefore slippers or flip flops of great beauty should of course be counted as contributing to one’s ‘shoes as art’ collection; and those of no beauty, but they keep your feet warm or provide a layer between your precious feet and the grossness of whatever you might need to step on, should be relegated to the practical collection.
So to my mind the debate not just about what constitutes a ‘shoe’ but also about which collection it should be attributed to. I consider my shoes of beauty to be an important contribution to my interior design and therefore are more than a mere shoe.
How fabulous to be able to pontificate on my favourite subject.