Amidst the congratulations we've been receiving we've also gotten a surprising amount of criticism for even trying to put together a wedding that involves more than a blanket, a frisbee and a grill area in Prospect Park. I don't even know where to begin to respond to some of the responses.
One writer seems upset that we are worried that a venue "will offend [Carrie's] parents' sensibilities." Is that not a rational concern? Carrie and I have the sort of relationship with our parents (and each other's parents, for that matter) that we care about their sensibilities. Yes, it is our marriage, but it we are not the only people who matter.
Some people would agree that ignoring one's parents' wishes is selfish, but feel that they are entitled to be selfish about their wedding - I assume that this manifests itself as either too DIY (catering from White Castle, reception in meat packing plant) or so opulent (orchids, caviar in ice sculpture) that the parents can't see past the cost. Forgive me if I don't apologize because we'd like everyone to be happy when it is all over.
Were you married on the Intrepid by a retired judge? I hope you had a wonderful time. Did you invite your friends over to watch the Super Bowl with chips and guac and sneak in the pastor during halftime? I'm so glad that worked for you. Neither scenario is going to work for us. Because a more traditional wedding means more expense, we are trying to mitigate the costs.
Gowns? Cut flowers? Conspicuous consumption? All we want is to find a space we like that will fit at least 100 people who we very much want to be with so that we can all eat food we will enjoy and dance until we throw it up.
As it turns out, that is daunting too.
Congrats on getting married! But I think the conflict some people are having is trying to swallow that someone as anti-consumerist as the staff at Stay Free! is somehow now in a tizzy over having $15,000 wedding. Yes, that's a small amount. But few people I know have ever spent that much on a wedding and they're all quite happy.
How can a publication that decries the mass marketing of DeBeers expect silence when the head staff decides to basically be so traditional that they plan on spending $15,000 for a wedding? It simply seems out of place and contradictory.
I have no doubt there is love there between you two. And great happiness. But the fact that this "Another Fucking Wedding" blog exists seems very counter to the image and ideas put forth by Carrie and Stay Free!
Also, how does having a blog called "Another Fuckng Wedding" meld into the concept of respecting one's parents. Ironic or tonque in cheek, it seems quite selfish a name and a concept. How exactly will parents and relatives understand that?
I wish you two the best of luck. But if you can't see the contraditions in the way this site is presented, nobody will ever explain that.
Posted by: Victor Dubinksy | 09/23/2005 at 05:26 PM
I see the contradictions, but are you going to make me stoop to quoting Whitman?
Posted by: Charles Star | 09/23/2005 at 05:34 PM
Aren't traditional weddings traditionally paid for by the bride's parents? If you are going traditional, how did the financial burden get shifted on the couple? You could buck tradition slightly and have the groom's parents pay, if the bride's are unable.
I am puzzled by this, among other factors. But I thank you for sharing this fascinating process with the rest of us.
Posted by: Nina P | 09/23/2005 at 05:52 PM
Charles in all honesty to each his own. But what drew me to Stay Free! over the years was the very unique and staunch view on the consumer and advertising driven world we live in.
But what really has made me roll my eyes after reading it for an extented period of time is the constant preaching and berating of people on attitudes towards consumer driven culture that Stay Free! themselves don't agree with. It really comes off as pedantic towards things that other people like but that the staff (mainly Carrie) does not like.
Now this.
I appreciate the fact that you and Carrie would like to formalize these bonds, but the whole spin on this especially the fact that you're erring on the side of a very traditional wedding is a tad baffling. And very hypocritical.
And the other aspect is that while some will call it fascinating that you're going to document this in a blog, I find it tad self tortuous on the part of you and Carrie. You're calling the blog "Another Fucking Wedding" which is quite disrespectful. And then you defend the respect of your mutual parents in defending the cost. And on top of that, but having a public blog about this you're basically asking people to comment and say what they feel.
It all seems a tad masochistic on your part and I'd say that the best thing you could do is just keep all of this private. Possible compiling the process for a post wedding blog. But doing this for a year? C'mon, at some point zine tweeness can only go so far and living your wedding planning in public display to begin with is not a great idea.
I don't think anyone is against a marriage in anyway. But I do think people are thrown for a loop that the both of you are making this process so contradictory to the words Stay Free! often preachs and you're making it so public. And "Another Fucking Wedding"? Ironic or not it's not something that would or should sit well.
This is simply bizarre. And this is coming from Stay Free! fans.
Posted by: Victor Dubinksy | 09/23/2005 at 06:24 PM
"One writer seems upset that we are worried that a venue "will offend [Carrie's] parents' sensibilities." Is that not a rational concern?"
Um, no. The rational thing to do would be to say "Hey, so Carrie and I are getting married. It'll be at Prospect Park. You might want to bring a frisbee. I know it might not be the kind of destination you'd choose for your own wedding, but we're pretty thrilled about it, and we'd love it if you could come and celebrate with us."
Any parent who would object to that sort of approach is entirely too selfish to be taken seriously on such matters.
If even a cultural critic like Carrie is so susceptible to social pressures that she'll contemplate spending 2/3 of her yearly salary on something that needn't cost a penny, then I fear for the future of our culture. Are magazines like Stay Free! just preaching to the converted? Is there any hope for real social change, or will people just keep doing what they do because their parents, friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc. think that's the way it should be?
Posted by: Lulu | 09/23/2005 at 07:25 PM
"And the other aspect is that while some will call it fascinating that you're going to document this in a blog, I find it tad self tortuous on the part of you and Carrie."
I say it's fascinating because it's not MY personal life on display; I can just watch, and if it gets too unpleasant I can stop reading. I think Victor has Carrie and Charles' best interest at heart, but I'd never suggest someone putting something "out there" should stop, because I Like To Watch. Victor is a better man than I.
Weddings are one of those American Sacred Cows, along with Television, Christmas, Cars, Meat, and Makin' Babies. I've known people devoted to critiquing one or a few of those Cows, but seldom all of them. Hence you have "environmentalists" with multiple kids, vegetarians who drive SUVs, and so on. Even extraordinary people don't want to be alienated from everything their culture holds sacred; it's a hard and lonely road, and it can make you crazy. Plus we're all hypocrites on some level.
That said, I agree the situation is bizarre, but it does make me think.
Posted by: Nina P | 09/23/2005 at 08:24 PM
Years ago I made a conscious choice to avoid using Stay Free! as a platform for criticizing people for what they buy. There are a few exceptions - most notably, SUV drivers. (Though it's worth noting that the issue there is the effect that SUVs have on other people and the environment, not their expense...) But we have never advocated voluntary simplicity or bought into Buy Nothing Day. Frankly, I find the kind of puritanism reflected in these comments (and those on SF Daily) self-righteous and repellent.
If someone wants to spend their money on expensive clothes, fancy televisions, or - yes, even a party - so be it, as far as I'm concerned. Criticizing those kinds of decisions has never been what Stay Free! is about. Rather, we focus on those in positions of power: usually corporations, sometimes government, psychiatry, or other institutions. True, we have gone after consumer products such as diamonds -- but the target of our scorn is usually DeBeers and other marketers, not the consumers who desire such products..
I have never contemplated spending 2/3 of my salary on a wedding or investing in some gawdawful wedding dress, but even if I wanted to: what's it to you? I don't see how that has anything to do with Stay Free! (I could see how wearing diamonds would be hypocritical, but I asked Charles not to get me diamonds or an engagement ring.)
I think Victor is missing the point entirely: $15,000 is indeed a lot of money. Is it not alarming that one cannot have a modest wedding with dinner for 120 guests for such a hefty sum? I can go to any number of restaurants in the city and get a great meal for $20. So why, after weeks of searching, can't I find a comfortable, private space that can seat 120 people for less than $110 per person?
Finally, I just have to say how dispiriting it is that readers who have not once commented on the social or political questions we've discussed on the blog suddenly have the urge to attack us so cruelly and on such a personal level for something that should be a happy, celebratory occasion. If you all are trying to bum us out, you've succeeded.
Posted by: Carrie McLaren | 09/23/2005 at 09:38 PM
I.
Carrie wrote:"$24,000 is roughly what I earn in a year"
Charles wrote: "When we mention our budget - $15,000"
Carrie wrote: "I have never contemplated spending 2/3 of my salary on a wedding"
1500/2400 = 0.625
2/3 = 0.6666... = 0.667
0.667 - 0.625 = 0.042 = 1/24
The wedding budget is in fact 1/24 less than Carrie's annual salary.
II.
Carrie wrote: "...we focus on those in positions of power: usually corporations, sometimes government, psychiatry, or other institutions."
StayFree!'s online statement:
"Stay Free! is a Brooklyn-based magazine that explores the politics and perversions of mass media and American culture"
III.
Carrie wrote: "I have never contemplated spending 2/3 of my salary on a wedding or investing in some gawdawful wedding dress, but even if I wanted to: what's it to you? I don't see how that has anything to do with Stay Free!"
StayFree!'s online statement:
"Stay Free! is a Brooklyn-based magazine that explores the politics and perversions of mass media and American culture"
IV.
Carrie wrote: "Is it not alarming that one cannot have a modest wedding with dinner for 120 guests for such a hefty sum?"
No, it is not alarming. That weddings are expensive is not news, nor are the gouging prices of the wedding-industrial complex.
V.
Carrie wrote:"Finally, I just have to say how dispiriting it is that readers who have not once commented on the social or political questions we've discussed on the blog..."
I've put my neck out and argued vociferously in favor of free speech and copyright reform on the StayFree! blog. Others may not have felt the need, figuring agreement with posts they've read thus far required no response.
"suddenly have the urge to attack us so cruelly and on such a personal level"
I'm just puzzled, is all. I don't read Victor's comments as a personal attack. Given Carrie's history of intelligent writing, insightful critique, and courage, I'm surprised that the relatively lucid critiques posted here and on StayFree! are taken as personal attacks. I know the "correct" response to an engagement announcement is, "congratulations! I'm so happy for you! that's so great!!!", but is it any surprise that many StayFree! readers may be critical of this institution? Many posters are big Carrie McLaren fans, and of course we want Carrie to be happy. But we're her fans because she's modelled such truth-telling and courage, and suppressing our reservations in favor of conformist comfort goes against these ideals.
VI.
Carrie wrote:"If you all are trying to bum us out, you've succeeded. "
Carrie, we love you and wish you the best. But we're your fans, not your family or closest personal friends; we are not obligated to cheer your decision the same way. If you really cannot tolerate this criticism, then I too must (very reluctantly) advise against maintaining a public blog about your wedding. I hope you do find a way to tolerate it, because I find both the blog and the comments thought-provoking.
Posted by: Nina P | 09/23/2005 at 10:59 PM
I wrote:"The wedding budget is in fact 1/24 less than Carrie's annual salary."
I meant:
The wedding budget is in fact 1/24 less than 2/3 of Carrie's annual salary.
Posted by: Nina P | 09/23/2005 at 11:08 PM
I think Nina has said it better than I did. And I want to emphasize that I do respect the love that Carrie and Charles have and wish to share.
But if the both of you could step outside of the Stay Free! mindset and look at what you're doing to yourselves by publically documenting a level of personal minutae that some find odd, I think you would find it odd as well.
And what attracted me to Stay Free! is also disturbing me right now. That being the amazing level of openess and glibness Carrie shares with complete strangers who read her publication. I think that's great in a zine. Even if it has a supposedly higher goal a zine is a personal reflection in it's creators.
That said while the tendency to be open is par for the course so to say, I would say that doing so for this wedding planning is a very bad move. The wedding is good. The wedding will be great. But when you open yourself up to this level where you are planning to document every detail to degree that shows some contraditions in what Carrie has said in the past and what she's planning now, it's a bad idea. Plain and simple.
"what's it to you?" Well, nothing actually. But what is the compulsion on demanding that Stay Free! readers simply and suddenly shift gears to attempt to accept this very drastic paradigm shift. Why is this process being disturbingly public? Is this a zine version of reality show glibness?
I really think that weddings are tough enough. And Carrie is quite talented. I would really recommend keeping a private journal of the year of planning, and then after the wedding posting or publishing it online once perspective is in place. Playing this out as a work in progress will really only stress you more than should be.
And the open hostility of the name of this blog "Another Fucking Wedding: A chronicle of two Brooklynites plodding toward their big day" is so self-destructive is seems to actually hang a cloud over this great news more than anything.
Don't reconsider what you're doing regarding the marriage. If you love each other, get married and be happy! And I am serious. Please step back and look at the need to play out these preparations in public and seriously consider how that will only create a year of blog debate rather than give you and Charles the space to create a new life together.
Posted by: Victor Dubinksy | 09/23/2005 at 11:30 PM
Lucid critiques, Nina? I've been accused of having a mommy complex, the faith I grew up in has been denounced on multiple occassions, people who apparently mistake Stay Free!'s critique of the advertising culture for a loathing of personal enjoyment have been savaging Carrie for trying to find a way to do a decent-sized wedding.
If you aren't surprised, Nina, then I guess you win. I knew that expensive weddings could be had; I didn't know that it would be such a struggle with $15,000. We were surprised, and remain so. We are still going to do our best to do something workable on our budget, the origin of which requires a fairly silly assumption for your math to be at all meaningful.
Finally, as much as free speech permits you to blithely shit on our wedding announcement and plans as "conformist comfort" to our face, it also permits me to say that doing so makes you a pretty horrible person.
Victor, if you think that this is too public for your tastes stop reading it. Your opinion has been made clear and I'm not particularly interested in any more of it. We disagree that wanting a modest wedding undermines the entire Stay Free! ethos and I don't care how twee you think the idea of cataloguing our search is.
Lulu, may you continue to have many awkward Thanksgivings, not caring at all about what anyone else thinks.
Posted by: Charles Star | 09/24/2005 at 01:22 AM
Re: the budget. Much of the money is from our parents, who have saved up for just such an occasion.
I'm having trouble seeing how this is contradictory. The latter mentions the topics we cover; the former describes the approach. "Perversions" is in the eye of the beholder.
If I misrepresented Stay Free above then, by all means, point to all the articles I've written that criticize individuals for what they consume - or that advocate the kind of asceticism that you all apparently appreciate. Because the examples you've chosen don't support your argument.
Posted by: Carrie McLaren | 09/24/2005 at 01:40 AM
Charles wrote:"Finally, as much as free speech permits you to blithely shit on our wedding announcement and plans as "conformist comfort" to our face, it also permits me to say that doing so makes you a pretty horrible person."
Since there seems to be some confusion about what constitutes a personal attack: the above is a personal attack.
Good luck and much happiness to you both.
Posted by: Nina P | 09/24/2005 at 08:34 AM
Charles wrote:"Finally, as much as free speech permits you to blithely shit on our wedding announcement and plans as "conformist comfort" to our face"
I wrote:"But we're her fans because she's modelled such truth-telling and courage, and suppressing our reservations in favor of conformist comfort goes against these ideals."
The "conformist comfort" I referred to is the comfort potential critics would find in suppressing our reservations, and instead doing what is expected of us (and what Carrie and Charles now insist on): cheering without reservation. Charles missed the point, but he may have been seeking a "personal attack" where there was none.
Posted by: Nina P | 09/24/2005 at 08:50 AM
"I think Victor is missing the point entirely: $15,000 is indeed a lot of money. Is it not alarming that one cannot have a modest wedding with dinner for 120 guests for such a hefty sum? I can go to any number of restaurants in the city and get a great meal for $20. So why, after weeks of searching, can't I find a comfortable, private space that can seat 120 people for less than $110 per person?"
I heard that vendors tend to jack the prices up for the "wedding version" of any of their services. Like the way some elegant white dresses cost way more when they're part of a designer's "wedding dress" line than of a "bridesmaid dress" or "prom dress" line (I once heard of a bride ordering 1 Vera Wang bridesmaid's dress in white for her own wedding dress).
So, is it possible to reserve a restaurant/banquet hall/whatever for your event without telling them that the event is a wedding reception?
Posted by: Mina | 09/24/2005 at 10:32 AM
Taken from the very first post of this odd site:
"Despite the sober beginnings of our engagement, we are thrilled about the prospect of being married, but the fucking wedding is another story altogether."
Given your stance on taking any criticism of the approach as a personal insult, should the above then be seen as a self-abusive insult on your own choice to approach things this way.
"Over the last two weeks we have been torturing ourselves and each other trying to plan a wedding in the New York area."
Yes it is a tortuous process. Why are you choosing to torture yourself more by having such a violently self-loathing site as something called 'Another Fucking Wedding'.
"The Wedding Industrial Complex (WIC) is a ravenous beast."
And you are willfully participating in it in a way that comes as a shock to many Stay Free! readers and fans. No shock that someone would want to get married. But quite shocked at the utter conservativeness of this approach regardless of cost. I know people less radical who have had wonderful times for them and their family for much less and not even close to $15,000.
To each his and her own, but it's simply bizarre to see this as a conflict coming from the people who publish Stay Free! and who have done so in a highly alternative fashion that exists outside of the traditional media world.
"When we mention our budget - $15,000 - wedding planners look at us like a Lamborghini dealer would if you came in with the change you found buried in your couch."
Does Stay Free! hire marketing and distrobution consultants? I'm quite sure the answer is no. But yet somehow you're approaching 'wedding planners' to tell you what to do? Very odd.
"This blog is a chronicle of our quest. We hope that it entertains people other than us. And that we don't end up eloping or killing each other in the process."
Believe it or not, I and others hope for the best as well. But if the goal is not to kill each other in the process this public forum for a private affair coming from people who encourage speaking up and counter-culture is quite odd at best.
I wish you the best of luck. But I don't see how you make your life any easier by blogging about every piddly detail publically. And doing this for close to year? Isn't the process tough enough.
If you're so sensitive at this point and so eager to please your parents while torturing yourselves you're setting yourselves up for a lot of unneeded grief.
Good luck.
Posted by: Victor Dubinksy | 09/24/2005 at 12:37 PM
Carrie, you start out this whole thing by complaining quite publicly about the ridiculous costs of wedding-related stuff. You make it clear what you value when you detail the costs of gowns and flowers and a photographer and conclude that “given the choice of taking a year off from work or having a traditional wedding, there's no question that I'd rather bank the money and buy time.” You call the blog “another fucking wedding,” which shows such little respect for the whole thing that Charles’s mother even chimes in about that. You doubt whether putting effort into throwing a wedding has any “redeeming social value.”
Not to speak for Victor, but vanity without depth means that if you put your actions out for public display, you should be prepared to defend them with more than “mommy would cry if she didn’t get to watch me perform in a pageant in a place she thinks is fancy.” If you’re horrified by the price-gouging associated by traditional weddings, then why participate in the racket?
Stat Free! is a brilliant magazine. I look forward to reading every issue. I don’t need to pull out individual articles here—you know very well, as do your readers, that the magazine is an unrelenting plea for freedom in this Brave New World we find ourselves living in. Freedom of thought, speech, action, and freedom from the institutions/corporations with so much power that they manage to destroy people’s lives in so many ways. As you said, you tend to focus on criticizing institutions/corporations with power, rather than the people who consume their products/ideologies. So what are people supposed to do with those critiques? Most people are not in a position to change the rules from above. So we do what we can. Hence, the boycott. Change comes from millions and millions of individual choices, and you do an important thing by exposing the nasty underbelly of a lot of sacred cows that many people probably never questioned. Are weddings and marriage myths destroying our culture? They contribute to a lot of needless debt, yeah, and they certainly cause people to make bad life-choices for the wrong reasons and to focus more on the superficial aspect of relationships than the deeper ones, and there’s obviously the DeBeers cartel issue, and the fact that no real social good comes from the wedding industry, just a reinforcement of conservative materialistic values. The WIC isn’t going to be the death of our culture, but it’s sure a nasty symptom, and I hardly think it’s puritanical or ascetic to question an institution that puts many couples into debt so deep that it often persists long after the ink on the divorce papers has dried.
Maybe I’m an idealist, but god, I really do love the work that you do, and I think it would be amazing if your parents said hey, forget about the hyper-consumptive pagentry. We care about you and your values, and if you find this “fucking” wedding with “no redeeming social value,” then take the 15K and put out an issue of Stay Free on us!
And Charles, my family doesn’t celebrate Thanksgiving (rape of native populations never seemed like something to celebrate). I do care what my parents think and they care what I think, but there’s no dimension of control or coersion beyond the niggling little things that come up in any close relationship. Your mother is being utterly selfish if she’s trying to impose her values onto you and Carrie. It’s hard to see that selfishness, though, through a lifetime of guilt. I once dated a guy with a conservative family, and every Hallmark holiday and culturally-mandated ritual became a huge production of guilt and coersion and look-how-much-I’ve-done-for-you, and all I can say is, I’m sorry.
Posted by: Lulu | 09/24/2005 at 01:01 PM
"you should be prepared to defend them with more than “mommy would cry if she didn’t get to watch me perform in a pageant in a place she thinks is fancy.”"
They did defend the choice of location with more than that:
"The room is small - 1,000 sq feet - and up a flight of stairs, which wouldn't work for the over-70 crowd. (Both my parents are in their 70s, as are their friends.)"
That by itself is a perfectly fine reason to reject a venue. *Accessibility* is important!
Posted by: Mina | 09/24/2005 at 02:09 PM
Mina, last I checked, there were plenty of handicap accessible places out there where people could have a party without spending 15K!
Posted by: Lulu | 09/24/2005 at 02:46 PM
Your wedding blog - and the comments people have posted - have inspired me to write my own thoughts on the matter and post them on my blog: http://lowhug.blogspot.com/2005/09/forever-hold-your-peace.html
Posted by: a.j. | 09/24/2005 at 04:01 PM
"Mina, last I checked, there were plenty of handicap accessible places out there where people could have a party without spending 15K!"
I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I'm just saying the rejection of Issue Project Room itself wasn't a wimpy thing to do.
Posted by: Mina | 09/24/2005 at 05:44 PM
For those who say you cannot 'zine a wedding' may I point you [with my zine geek glasses on] to Francesca Castagnoli's Princess zine, which did just that fantastically. I really have no interest in weddings, especially superfancy ones like that described, but the detail and writing made it worthwhile.
I have not married, nor do I intend to, but find it odd that some people are attacking your for following your faith and or wishes and your backing it up by seeing that everyone has a good time and you a day to remember. That is, after all, what money is for.
I am sure that the detractors have 'contradictions' every bit as large in their lives. Contradictions are easy to jump on, whether they are actual or just seeming.
Looking forward to reading the blog. Even if it is just me and your parents (though that may feel kind of creepy).
Posted by: Iain Aitch | 09/25/2005 at 10:15 AM
This is so cool!
A friend tipped me off to this little brouhaha, and it fits right in with a project I'm working on, "The Hypocrisy Archive."
This one works on so many levels: the avant-garde zine publishers who buy into the whole Korporate Konsumer wedding industry ("because our parents are paying for it"), the drama queen self-promoters who open up a public blog about their personal soap opera, then get all hissy when the audience isn't 100% adulatory, and so on.
Thanks for the material!
Mr. Haney
Posted by: Mr. Haney | 09/25/2005 at 10:45 AM
Mina: I wasn’t talking about the choice of Issue Project Room per se, but the more general issue--the choice of spending 2/3 of one’s income (and 1/3 of the median US household income) on a party that will last for several hours. Maybe the ad man told mom that such profligacy was de rigeur, but what kind of justification is that? Yeah, everybody has the god-given right to drive around in an SUV, but if Carrie posted a blog entry about her hot new SUV, her readers might just want some answers.
Oh, and of course I agree that it would be selfish to have a party at a venue that wasn’t handicap accessible if you were inviting handicapped guests. (Is ready submission to cultural mores a handicap?)
Posted by: Lulu | 09/25/2005 at 12:07 PM
As well they should! SUVs kill people and destroy the environment - and we have gone to some lengths to promote the fact. What Lulu describes would in fact be hypocrisy.
But having a dinner party for one's friends and family is another matter entirely. I can't remember ever using the zine as a sounding board to criticize people for their pleasures. If you want to call me a hypocrite, where is the evidence? Because all I've seen here are ad hominem attacks and accusations based on false assumptions about what we're doing and who we are.
"Mommy pleasers"? Both our moms could give you a long and substantial list of things they would do differently.
"Korporate Konsumer wedding"? Yeah, right. There are no wedding planners, no diamonds, no engagement ring, no Knot.com page. Charles is using his grandfather's wedding ring and we'll look for a band to match. I'm either going to thrift or borrow a dress. We'll either have a friend or student do the photos. We're looking at lofts and other alternative spaces for the venue and cheap-but-tasty Israeli joints for the food. (If we could find a non-cheesy, kosher-friendly restaurant with a large, open room - for dinner and dancing - that would do it within our budget, believe me, we would!)
We'll probably end up doing our own liquor and renting the tables, chairs, and dishes from a party supplies place. We'll probably have cake but it won't be a "wedding" cake. I'm designing the invitations (not sure how they'll be printed). Flowers and centerpieces? Perhaps corsages for the moms but otherwise no. I couldn't care less about the standard wedding accoutrements but want a chunk of money to hire people to set up, clean up, and serve drinks... and I want money to do a goofy photo project at the reception, to make gifts for attendees (perhaps a mix cd), and to buy dinner at a nice restaurant for all out of town guests.
Anyway, I need a break from all this so I'm turning off the comments. Some of you will no doubt read this as an inability to accept criticism. So be it.
Posted by: carrie | 09/25/2005 at 01:33 PM