Tom's comment was more for the milieu than big vs small bags in general. It was a dinner and a smaller bag would have been more appropriate for the occasion not as a sign of success. He insinuated the large bag would have suited another place like riding on the subway, carrying a lunch pail etcThe big vs. small bag debate still goes on.
Despite thoughts that the pendulum is swinging bag to big bags, Vanessa Friedman is still team small bags.
How Big Should a Handbag Be?
A reader wonders if it’s better to carry a small bag or a large one. Our critic explains the relationship between purse size and power.www.nytimes.com
Generally, the bigger the bag, the more space you have, the more you will stuff into it: water, wallets, pens, wet wipes, notebooks, extra batteries … This creates a situation in which you are toting around a giant lump of a thing that gets in the way and is bad for your posture. Not to mention that it puts the bag-person in the position of someone who serves other people, rather than someone being served.
Carrying a smaller bag demands choices and selectivity. Thus, “Succession” and Tom’s extremely snobby but trenchant point. Not carrying a bag at all is, in many ways, a sign of success. It suggests that you have other people to deal with the schlepping. It suggests that you can leave all of that stuff in the car or at the office. It suggests focus on the tasks at hand. It suggests liberation and efficiency. It’s a power flex. And at the very least, it’s better for your back.
Last edited:
