16 August, 2010

what's in a name?

it's obvious that when it comes to baby names, celebrities are the courageous trailblazers* of our times, coming up with jewels like apple, moon unit zappa, puma and trixibelle. then there are those who do their part in bringing back the names of yesteryear such as jack, ava and talullah. all fine and dandy, but i think there is an untapped pool of old fashioned names beyond the emmas, janes and jeremiahs.

why, oh why, are we not naming our children ethel? what's wrong with floyd, beryl, mavis and mildred? could there be anything cuter than a tiny organic-cotton clad darling who answers to norman? i say, go beyond the matildas and phineases, and move on to the truly hideous. if you're famous, people will think you're cool. if you're not, they'll think you're cruel, but that's what parenting is all about, no?


*some would say they are overpaid morons hopped up on too much botox, cristal and coke snorted from paris hilton's navel, and who am i to argue?

4 comments:

redfox said...

I know a baby named Floyd!

the polish chick said...

really? i know an octogenarian named floyd, so at least you know he'll grow into it. it's not your baby, is it?

redfox said...

Not mine, no. Mine's named Jane.

I've kind of warmed up to Floyd as a name for a nice fat baby, it's so absurd. And it's better than Lloyd.

the polish chick said...

most things are better than lloyd. unless it's dwayne. nothing beats dwayne. also, there are a lot of serial killers in the u.s. named dwayne. fact.

jane is lovely. i adore that name, and not only because of jane eyre and jane austen (english nerd, yup).

btw, welcome.