Monday | September 19, 2005 | 3:25 PM
The Emperor’s New Category

I’m gradually filing my blog entries into categories that make more sense. Right now, the organization is out of hand. I have the habit of throwing entries under the “NYC” category when I can’t think of what category the entry should actually be assigned to. I guess in the back of my head, I’m thinking, “Well, what I’m writing about happened here in New York. And I’m sitting here writing it in New York. Ergo: New York category.” Which is no good. If anything, a “NYC” categorization should be default and implicit, as I have “Brooklyn,” “Ohio” and “Ireland” categories for stuff that happens there.

One category I wanted to add was “Clothing.” But was this the precise, catch-all word I sought? My first thought was that “Fashion” would be more all-inclusive for my purposes, but let’s face it, nothing about me screams “fashion” unless I’m singing that David Bowie song. Perhaps “Apparel,” I thought. But what’s the difference between “clothing” and “apparel”?

Here’s the circuit I took in the dictionary that’s built into Microsoft Word X for Mac:

clothes npl 1. garments that cover the body

O.K., garments isn’t listed, but garment is:

gar·ment n a piece of clothing

Hmm. Let’s give clothing the old college try:

cloth·ing n 1. clothes collectively

Then, bringing it all back home:

ap·par·el n 1. clothing or garments, especially outer or decorative clothing

If I take this slithery tangle literally and factor out what I already know about clothes, I still have no idea what the hell clothes are. They could be flapjacks or lichens or good intentions, for all I know.

Anyway, for the purposes of category-naming, “Clothing” it is.