E.B. White’s description of the three New Yorks certainly has not changed in the last 60 years. Even today it is very easy to categorize yourself, or people you know, as either native New Yorker’s, commuters, or settlers. However, the superiority he gives to the third group is overstated because New York’s character is equally dependent on the three categories of people. Finally, White’s understanding of how impossible it is for New York to exist is grossly unrecognized by most.
White’s categorization of each New Yorker into three cities is still relevant because it is easy to identify the group to which you belong. For myself, I am a commuter. I almost feel guilty contributing to the “tidal restlessness” of the City. In fact, it felt like an unexpected attack when White merely characterizes commuters as those who “fished in Manhattan’s wallet and dug out its coins, but never listened to its breathing… (White, 27)” It seems as though White makes a generalization by implying that commuters do not take time to appreciate the city, but only uses it as a means to earn their living.
Although the passion of the city stems mostly from those who settle here, they are not of more importance than the natives or commuters. The settler’s passion is on full display because that is their nature as artists, poets, and people who generally have a purpose for their presence here in New York. However, because their presence is outwardly expressed, it gives the illusion of contributing more to the character of the City. In reality, the commuters and even the native New Yorkers who accept their city as the norm, contribute equally to the nature of this city. Without millions of commuters, the city’s buildings would not need to continually extend upward. Subway lines would not connect spaces, culture, and people. In other words, New York’s liveliness and cultural diversity would be limited to its immediate residents.
While, I disagree with White’s generalizations and dismissive attitude towards certain versions of New York, I agree with his idea that the existence of New York as a whole is simply impossible. Its infrastructure alone is to be marveled. To think that an amalgamation of skyscrapers can sit on top a strip of land with hundreds of underground tunnels that shuffle people in and out through metal tubes is already bizarre. However, my greatest surprise is the fact that New York is truly resilient. As White pointed out, it has avoided being affected by deadly disease, mass hysteria, and the possibility of many casualties from a subtle mishap. Yet, amidst all that could happen, New York retains its cultural presence, its lively sidewalks, and continues to see its skyline grow upward.
Altogether, E.B. White does a good job of characterizing the various versions of New York from the perspective of its people. However, his decision to value the outward expression of the settlers over the subtle contribution of the natives and commuters is questionable. Nonetheless, White still makes a valuable and all-encompassing point that New York’s very existence is seemingly impossible because it is compact, massive, overpopulated, and still fully functional.
