Whose stupid idea was it to re-write Juhan Liiv poems as sonnets, anyway?
Oh, wait...
Never mind.
Kaks Ilma
Monday, January 11, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
How do you measure success?
Well, there you go. The terrorists are officially winning.
Oh, sure, they haven't actually managed to blow up any aircraft recently, but they don't have to. I doubt it was ever really their intention.
What they have done, and done quite successfully, is prompt the US to create a world where people are less likely to go anywhere near North America.
I've completely crossed the USA and Canada off my list of places I'm likely to visit any time soon.
Note that, I said "and Canada". Why? Because I'm likely to need to change planes on US soil, and I'm just not going to do that. Oh, and any other country that would require changing planes in Hawaii? Yeah, I'm not going there either.
Mexico's off the list as well. I don't know if I have to stop over in the US to get there, but I'm pretty darn sure the US will be having a strong say in Mexico's security protocols.
South America, I don't know. It depends on whether or not the US bullies them into having similar security measures.
Now, there is, of course, the argument that I shouldn't worry about the security measures if I've got nothing to hide. I've heard that over and over again with the vox pops on the news: "Yeah, it's inconvenient, but you know, I've got nothing to hide so I've got nothing to worry about".
That's not the point. The point is, most of the security measures we already have are stupid, pointless, unlikely to make a true difference to our security AND strangely profitable to people selling stuff at airports. The new measures America is trying to bring in will just make it worse.
A full body scan that shows every detail of your body to whoever happens to be looking at the screen at the time? I wouldn't consent to a strip search without good reason and controlled conditions. Why should I consent to that?
And you will never - and I mean never - be able to convince me that the liquids thing isn't some money making scheme by airports. A 600ml, clear plastic bottle of water is not a threat. I can buy a 600ml bottle of water outside the airport for $2. Better than that, I can fill such a water bottle with water from my tap at home for next to nothing. However, I can't take that water bottle into the departure lounge. Once in the departure lounge, I can buy a new bottle of water for twice the price... but then I can't take it on the plane, which means I have to buy another, hideously expensive bottle of water at the next airport. If I'm catching a connecting flight, I won't be able to take that water bottle with me either...
There's a question everyone asks in those crime shows that clutter the TV schedules: "Who benefits?" It's not the travelling people of the world. It's not the countries which are now, thankfully, safe from water kept in clear plastic containers. It's the shops in the airport that sell the stuff we can't take with us any more.
And the thing is, the things they let us take onto the planes are no safer than the things they refuse. A laptop battery is a greater threat than a water bottle. The chain I wear around my neck, which never sets off the metal detectors, is a more useful weapon than the nail clippers I can't take with me... there's no real rhyme or reason to what you can and cannot do for "security purposes".
The fact of the matter is, anyone who actually wants to hurt people can and will, regardless of what conditions are placed on us all. These security measures are inconveniencing us for no good reason, and now they are completely invading our privacy for no good reason. Oh, these "security measures" look good on paper. You can hold them up and say "see what we are doing to ensure your safety?" But my safety is not ensured. It never can be. You are taking away my liberties and privacy to give me false promises in their place.
In its infinite wisdom, the US government has decided to punish the whole world for the actions of a few people. That's all this amounts to.
Now, I've been a teacher, and I've tried the "keep the whole class in" technique. In theory, the bad kids should realise they're hurting their friends, and their friends should beat them up in the car park for revenge, thus encouraging them to improve their behaviour. It never works. The bad kids don't change their ways for the sake of the others in the class, and the good kids realise they're trapped in a hopeless situation and start hating the person who is punishing them for being in the same room as the people who deserve the punishment.
That's where the US is heading with this. Eventually, more and more people are just going to say "stuff this, America has made travelling miserable and I hate them."
Thus, the terrorist have accomplished their goal of making the whole world hate America as much as they do. Rather ingenious, really.
Oh, sure, they haven't actually managed to blow up any aircraft recently, but they don't have to. I doubt it was ever really their intention.
What they have done, and done quite successfully, is prompt the US to create a world where people are less likely to go anywhere near North America.
I've completely crossed the USA and Canada off my list of places I'm likely to visit any time soon.
Note that, I said "and Canada". Why? Because I'm likely to need to change planes on US soil, and I'm just not going to do that. Oh, and any other country that would require changing planes in Hawaii? Yeah, I'm not going there either.
Mexico's off the list as well. I don't know if I have to stop over in the US to get there, but I'm pretty darn sure the US will be having a strong say in Mexico's security protocols.
South America, I don't know. It depends on whether or not the US bullies them into having similar security measures.
Now, there is, of course, the argument that I shouldn't worry about the security measures if I've got nothing to hide. I've heard that over and over again with the vox pops on the news: "Yeah, it's inconvenient, but you know, I've got nothing to hide so I've got nothing to worry about".
That's not the point. The point is, most of the security measures we already have are stupid, pointless, unlikely to make a true difference to our security AND strangely profitable to people selling stuff at airports. The new measures America is trying to bring in will just make it worse.
A full body scan that shows every detail of your body to whoever happens to be looking at the screen at the time? I wouldn't consent to a strip search without good reason and controlled conditions. Why should I consent to that?
And you will never - and I mean never - be able to convince me that the liquids thing isn't some money making scheme by airports. A 600ml, clear plastic bottle of water is not a threat. I can buy a 600ml bottle of water outside the airport for $2. Better than that, I can fill such a water bottle with water from my tap at home for next to nothing. However, I can't take that water bottle into the departure lounge. Once in the departure lounge, I can buy a new bottle of water for twice the price... but then I can't take it on the plane, which means I have to buy another, hideously expensive bottle of water at the next airport. If I'm catching a connecting flight, I won't be able to take that water bottle with me either...
There's a question everyone asks in those crime shows that clutter the TV schedules: "Who benefits?" It's not the travelling people of the world. It's not the countries which are now, thankfully, safe from water kept in clear plastic containers. It's the shops in the airport that sell the stuff we can't take with us any more.
And the thing is, the things they let us take onto the planes are no safer than the things they refuse. A laptop battery is a greater threat than a water bottle. The chain I wear around my neck, which never sets off the metal detectors, is a more useful weapon than the nail clippers I can't take with me... there's no real rhyme or reason to what you can and cannot do for "security purposes".
The fact of the matter is, anyone who actually wants to hurt people can and will, regardless of what conditions are placed on us all. These security measures are inconveniencing us for no good reason, and now they are completely invading our privacy for no good reason. Oh, these "security measures" look good on paper. You can hold them up and say "see what we are doing to ensure your safety?" But my safety is not ensured. It never can be. You are taking away my liberties and privacy to give me false promises in their place.
In its infinite wisdom, the US government has decided to punish the whole world for the actions of a few people. That's all this amounts to.
Now, I've been a teacher, and I've tried the "keep the whole class in" technique. In theory, the bad kids should realise they're hurting their friends, and their friends should beat them up in the car park for revenge, thus encouraging them to improve their behaviour. It never works. The bad kids don't change their ways for the sake of the others in the class, and the good kids realise they're trapped in a hopeless situation and start hating the person who is punishing them for being in the same room as the people who deserve the punishment.
That's where the US is heading with this. Eventually, more and more people are just going to say "stuff this, America has made travelling miserable and I hate them."
Thus, the terrorist have accomplished their goal of making the whole world hate America as much as they do. Rather ingenious, really.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Phone number
"I'm telling you this in an email", he says, "because I've lost your phone number again..."
And I suddenly have to fight the urge to laugh out loud.
Lost my phone number again? Lost my phone number again? My good man, I've given you my phone number no less than six times. You've never "lost" it - you've never "kept" it! Not that it matters, I can't remember you ever using it.
I'd just like to point out something. Just bring it to your attention. Every time we bump into each other and have a chat, you finish the conversation by asking me to keep in touch, and saying you'll call me later. Every time.
Not once have you actually called me later. I don't actually expect you to (which is probably just as well), but you keep saying you're going to. Why? There's no precedent for you calling me. You haven't done it before, I don't expect you to start doing it any time soon...
And as for the "keep in touch" thing? Well, it helps if you don't ignore most of my emails. I'm just saying. It may surprise you to know that people are more likely to keep in touch with you if you also keep in touch with them.
Unless, of course, you don't want to. I've long suspected the reason why you "lose" my phone number is because you don't want it. Just as I've long suspected the reason why you don't reply to my emails is because you don't want me to send them. I'm actually okay with this concept, it's just that every time we talk you finish up by telling me to "keep in touch" - and you sound like you mean it.
It's like some strange compulsion you have.
Tell you what, just to make life easier, why don't we establish a fallacy that can save us both some time and effort:
"Oh, I don't have a phone. Sorry."
And I suddenly have to fight the urge to laugh out loud.
Lost my phone number again? Lost my phone number again? My good man, I've given you my phone number no less than six times. You've never "lost" it - you've never "kept" it! Not that it matters, I can't remember you ever using it.
I'd just like to point out something. Just bring it to your attention. Every time we bump into each other and have a chat, you finish the conversation by asking me to keep in touch, and saying you'll call me later. Every time.
Not once have you actually called me later. I don't actually expect you to (which is probably just as well), but you keep saying you're going to. Why? There's no precedent for you calling me. You haven't done it before, I don't expect you to start doing it any time soon...
And as for the "keep in touch" thing? Well, it helps if you don't ignore most of my emails. I'm just saying. It may surprise you to know that people are more likely to keep in touch with you if you also keep in touch with them.
Unless, of course, you don't want to. I've long suspected the reason why you "lose" my phone number is because you don't want it. Just as I've long suspected the reason why you don't reply to my emails is because you don't want me to send them. I'm actually okay with this concept, it's just that every time we talk you finish up by telling me to "keep in touch" - and you sound like you mean it.
It's like some strange compulsion you have.
Tell you what, just to make life easier, why don't we establish a fallacy that can save us both some time and effort:
"Oh, I don't have a phone. Sorry."
Brontes' Garden Party
Amongst the T-Shirts I would buy if I could afford to buy T-Shirts from overseas just because they amuse me is this one:
I love Kate Beaton's take on history and literature. I particularly love her take on the Brontë sisters.
Everyone reads Charlotte's Jane Eyre, with the brooding, yet decidedly jerky and obnoxious leading man. Everyone reads Emily's Wuthering Heights with the brooding, yet decidedly creepy and disturbing leading man. No one reads Anne's Agnes Grey, where the nice guy gets the nice girl in the end.
Beaton's version of Anne Brontë, as the poor sensible girl who has to put up with her stupid sisters' poor taste in men, is just brilliant.
I love Kate Beaton's take on history and literature. I particularly love her take on the Brontë sisters.
Everyone reads Charlotte's Jane Eyre, with the brooding, yet decidedly jerky and obnoxious leading man. Everyone reads Emily's Wuthering Heights with the brooding, yet decidedly creepy and disturbing leading man. No one reads Anne's Agnes Grey, where the nice guy gets the nice girl in the end.
Beaton's version of Anne Brontë, as the poor sensible girl who has to put up with her stupid sisters' poor taste in men, is just brilliant.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
The Estonian Sonnet
You know how, occasionally, you read some piece of information you already knew and suddenly you make a connection you hadn't made previously? So that it's almost like reading old information has somehow magically provided you with new information?
The other day I read a description about the pronunciation of Estonian that mentioned the fact that the stress falls on the first syllable of the word. All subsequent syllables are, apparently, unstressed.
I have read this previously, and previously I have asked myself: "But what about secondary stresses? After all, they have really long words in Estonian." Well, most of the things I've read have neglected to go into that sort of detail (don't they know there are nerds and geeks trying to learn their language?), except to mention that compound words have stresses on the first syllable of each component of the compound. They don't mention if these stresses are equal to the primary stress or secondary in nature. Losers.
Anyway, that's old stuff. The connection I suddenly made was: "But that means they'd never be able to write a sonnet in their native language!"
Iambic pentameter relies entirely on having the stresses fall on every second syllable in the line. The entire iambic rhythm structure would be an artificial imposition on the Estonian language which would preclude sonnets from ever developing in that language.
You might be able to get away with trochaic meter, as long as you only ever used words of two syllables in length...
Then again, there may be words that are always unstressed in a sentence which may either help or hinder as the case may be. I really don't know enough about about the patterns of the spoken language to understand these implications. Does anyone write books or essays dealing with the stress of spoken Estonian and it's relation to rhythmic feet?
All I know is, sonnets are out. And quite possibly blank verse as well.
I am not sure I can accept this truth.
Well, actually, I can, I just felt writing a sentence in iambic pentameter. I'm nothing if not an annoying show-off.
It makes me wonder, though, whether or not Estonians would feel more naturally inclined towards English poetry in a trochaic or dactylic meter than one written in iambic or anapestic meter.
Or, maybe I should just remember that the only reason why I care so much about classic verse forms is because I'm a time travelling immortal and, back when I was young, poetry was cool and knowing about poetry made you attractive. Most people today probably wouldn't know an iambic foot if it kicked them.
The other day I read a description about the pronunciation of Estonian that mentioned the fact that the stress falls on the first syllable of the word. All subsequent syllables are, apparently, unstressed.
I have read this previously, and previously I have asked myself: "But what about secondary stresses? After all, they have really long words in Estonian." Well, most of the things I've read have neglected to go into that sort of detail (don't they know there are nerds and geeks trying to learn their language?), except to mention that compound words have stresses on the first syllable of each component of the compound. They don't mention if these stresses are equal to the primary stress or secondary in nature. Losers.
Anyway, that's old stuff. The connection I suddenly made was: "But that means they'd never be able to write a sonnet in their native language!"
Iambic pentameter relies entirely on having the stresses fall on every second syllable in the line. The entire iambic rhythm structure would be an artificial imposition on the Estonian language which would preclude sonnets from ever developing in that language.
You might be able to get away with trochaic meter, as long as you only ever used words of two syllables in length...
Then again, there may be words that are always unstressed in a sentence which may either help or hinder as the case may be. I really don't know enough about about the patterns of the spoken language to understand these implications. Does anyone write books or essays dealing with the stress of spoken Estonian and it's relation to rhythmic feet?
All I know is, sonnets are out. And quite possibly blank verse as well.
I am not sure I can accept this truth.
Well, actually, I can, I just felt writing a sentence in iambic pentameter. I'm nothing if not an annoying show-off.
It makes me wonder, though, whether or not Estonians would feel more naturally inclined towards English poetry in a trochaic or dactylic meter than one written in iambic or anapestic meter.
Or, maybe I should just remember that the only reason why I care so much about classic verse forms is because I'm a time travelling immortal and, back when I was young, poetry was cool and knowing about poetry made you attractive. Most people today probably wouldn't know an iambic foot if it kicked them.
Searching everywhere for something new
Okay, I'm quite happy to admit I'm really boring. I don't know anyone who throws fun parties, and if I do I don't know them well enough to get invited to those parties. Even if I did know people who throw fun parties well enough to warrant an invitation, I probably wouldn't get one anyway because they'd know I'm likely to sit in the corner of the room exuding vibes of boringness. Or, perhaps, boringality. Or any other fake nominalisation you can think of for the word “boring”.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise to you that I celebrated New Years Eve by staying home and watching a DVD of Disney's classic film, Bedknobs and Broomsticks.
Now, I love that film. When I was a kid, I used to borrow it from the video rental shop up the road from my grandmother's place and watch it at least three times in a week before returning it. That, and Mary Poppins. Maybe I'm a fan of David Tomlinson, who stars in both films. Maybe I'm a fan of Robert Stevenson, who directed both films. Maybe I'm a fan of Bill Walsh and Don DaGradi, who wrote the screenplays for both films. Maybe I'm a fan of Richard and Robert Sherman, who wrote the music for both films. I don't know. All I know is that these two films, together, represent all that was once right and good in Disney films. It doesn't bother me in the least that Bedknobs and Broomsticks was probably a prime example of Disney executives saying, “Well, that other film was a success, let's make another one just like it!” I still love it.
For a while there, you couldn't watch Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Once the rental videos died, there was nothing to replace them. It took a long time to get released on DVD and it was never shown on TV. Then it did come out on DVD, and I intended to buy a copy, but life gets away from you, doesn't it? Ah, but when I noticed on shop had a double set of Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks for less than $20... Well, there was no power in the 'verse that was going to stop me from getting my hands on that. I got the last copy in the store, but I got it.
So, New Years Eve rolls around and I can think of no better way to spend it that to crack open a favourite film from my childhood and wash in the nostalgia of it all.
But something wasn't quite right. There was a scene early in the film that didn't run exactly as I remembered it. A conversation I didn't quite recall. Perhaps I should have twigged at that point. After all, even after all these years, I could still recite a number of the lines with the characters as though I'd heard them yesterday (“my first brrroom!”). It wasn't until David Tomlinson launched into an entire musical number I'd never seen before that the penny dropped – the film had been “restored”!
Apparently the film I knew and loved had been cut quite dramatically to bring it under two hours running time. There was over half-an-hour's worth of material that I had never seen before. Songs that were cut, conversations that were halved, entire subplots that were excised. When Disney brought Bedknobs and Broomsticks out on DVD for the 25th anniversary they found as many of those bits as they could and put them back in. Even then, they didn't exactly find them “whole”. In most cases they found the picture, but obviously not the sound, so they had to record new ADR voices. They had to leave out a musical number (technically, the first in the film) because they had the sound, but not the images (they included it, with stills, in the special collections).
The film I watched on New Years Eve was a much longer film, but for the most part also a richer film. There was the subplot with the Rector trying to woo the witch (he didn't know she was a witch, obviously) because he wanted to get his hands on her house. There were shades to Professor Brown's character that were more thoroughly fleshed out. There were musical numbers I hadn't seen, and longer versions of the musical numbers I had seen. The romance between Eglantine and Prof. Brown was fleshed out a bit more (but still, somehow, not convincing).
Being such a fan of the film I should have been happy to see more of it, and, on one level, I was. I wasn't happy with the way they did the ADR for the restored scenes. I'm usually a fan of Jeff Bennett's work, but he didn't sound a thing like David Tomlinson – and his timing was off. Nothing drags you out of a story like noticing the main character's voice is different and his lips aren't moving at quite the same time as the sound. I suspect they got Angela Lansbury to do her own ADR for those scenes, what with her being not dead and all. That was my only real gripe with the way they did the restoration.
However, I felt vaguely cheated. I was all set to watch a favourite film from my childhood, and instead I watched something else. Something very similar, mind you, but not the same. And I have no other options. The only version of this film available on DVD is the restored version. If I want to watch the one I grew up with – the one where David Tomlinson's voice comes out of his face in every scene – I'm plum out of luck.
I felt the same way with the re-mastered Star Wars films. I didn't particularly like the newer versions more than the older versions, but for a while there you couldn't buy anything else. I think that's one of the reasons why I really can't be bothered with Star Wars these days.
I understand something similar happened to Blade Runner when the director's cut came out. The only version you could get was not the version you remembered from the cinema.
Maybe it's just being petty, but it would be nice if, in this age of almost unlimited choices, I had been given the choice of watching the old version if I wanted to.
That said, man I'd love to see that first musical number from the film if they ever found the images.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise to you that I celebrated New Years Eve by staying home and watching a DVD of Disney's classic film, Bedknobs and Broomsticks.
Now, I love that film. When I was a kid, I used to borrow it from the video rental shop up the road from my grandmother's place and watch it at least three times in a week before returning it. That, and Mary Poppins. Maybe I'm a fan of David Tomlinson, who stars in both films. Maybe I'm a fan of Robert Stevenson, who directed both films. Maybe I'm a fan of Bill Walsh and Don DaGradi, who wrote the screenplays for both films. Maybe I'm a fan of Richard and Robert Sherman, who wrote the music for both films. I don't know. All I know is that these two films, together, represent all that was once right and good in Disney films. It doesn't bother me in the least that Bedknobs and Broomsticks was probably a prime example of Disney executives saying, “Well, that other film was a success, let's make another one just like it!” I still love it.
For a while there, you couldn't watch Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Once the rental videos died, there was nothing to replace them. It took a long time to get released on DVD and it was never shown on TV. Then it did come out on DVD, and I intended to buy a copy, but life gets away from you, doesn't it? Ah, but when I noticed on shop had a double set of Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks for less than $20... Well, there was no power in the 'verse that was going to stop me from getting my hands on that. I got the last copy in the store, but I got it.
So, New Years Eve rolls around and I can think of no better way to spend it that to crack open a favourite film from my childhood and wash in the nostalgia of it all.
But something wasn't quite right. There was a scene early in the film that didn't run exactly as I remembered it. A conversation I didn't quite recall. Perhaps I should have twigged at that point. After all, even after all these years, I could still recite a number of the lines with the characters as though I'd heard them yesterday (“my first brrroom!”). It wasn't until David Tomlinson launched into an entire musical number I'd never seen before that the penny dropped – the film had been “restored”!
Apparently the film I knew and loved had been cut quite dramatically to bring it under two hours running time. There was over half-an-hour's worth of material that I had never seen before. Songs that were cut, conversations that were halved, entire subplots that were excised. When Disney brought Bedknobs and Broomsticks out on DVD for the 25th anniversary they found as many of those bits as they could and put them back in. Even then, they didn't exactly find them “whole”. In most cases they found the picture, but obviously not the sound, so they had to record new ADR voices. They had to leave out a musical number (technically, the first in the film) because they had the sound, but not the images (they included it, with stills, in the special collections).
The film I watched on New Years Eve was a much longer film, but for the most part also a richer film. There was the subplot with the Rector trying to woo the witch (he didn't know she was a witch, obviously) because he wanted to get his hands on her house. There were shades to Professor Brown's character that were more thoroughly fleshed out. There were musical numbers I hadn't seen, and longer versions of the musical numbers I had seen. The romance between Eglantine and Prof. Brown was fleshed out a bit more (but still, somehow, not convincing).
Being such a fan of the film I should have been happy to see more of it, and, on one level, I was. I wasn't happy with the way they did the ADR for the restored scenes. I'm usually a fan of Jeff Bennett's work, but he didn't sound a thing like David Tomlinson – and his timing was off. Nothing drags you out of a story like noticing the main character's voice is different and his lips aren't moving at quite the same time as the sound. I suspect they got Angela Lansbury to do her own ADR for those scenes, what with her being not dead and all. That was my only real gripe with the way they did the restoration.
However, I felt vaguely cheated. I was all set to watch a favourite film from my childhood, and instead I watched something else. Something very similar, mind you, but not the same. And I have no other options. The only version of this film available on DVD is the restored version. If I want to watch the one I grew up with – the one where David Tomlinson's voice comes out of his face in every scene – I'm plum out of luck.
I felt the same way with the re-mastered Star Wars films. I didn't particularly like the newer versions more than the older versions, but for a while there you couldn't buy anything else. I think that's one of the reasons why I really can't be bothered with Star Wars these days.
I understand something similar happened to Blade Runner when the director's cut came out. The only version you could get was not the version you remembered from the cinema.
Maybe it's just being petty, but it would be nice if, in this age of almost unlimited choices, I had been given the choice of watching the old version if I wanted to.
That said, man I'd love to see that first musical number from the film if they ever found the images.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
knickerbocker holiday
Heh, the things you end up doing when you're on holidays.
So, we got lost in Oamaru and accidently found ourselves in a little neighbourhood where all of the buildings are from the Victorian period and made of limestone.
Turns out there's a little Victoriana thing happening, with a bicycle museum dedicated to penny farthings and the like (I know, I get lost and find a bicycle museum - what are the odds, right?)
Also in this area is a shop dedicating to clothing from the 1890s through to the 1920s. I'm not kidding. They make a lot of the clothes on site for re-enacters and the vintage car people.
I just happened to find a pair of early 1910s style knickerbockers. They just happened to fit me very comfortably. This, in spite of the fact that they were made on site for a "random" size (which wasn't even on the pants) and I'm a girl with girl-shaped hips.
Yes, I know the pants are technically gender inappropriate (a phrase that can describe far too much of my wardrobe), but I don't care.
I've decided that it's high time mens fashions from before the Revolution* became perfectly acceptable women's clothing today. Everyone who's ever watched Firefly would agree that mens styles from the late 1800s look pretty good on women, and I think we should just bring steampunk into the mainstream with high waisted pants and braces for all.
I will admit that I still want a pair of bloomers (and a matching basque), but I know I'll also have to get the foundation garments to go with it. Quite frankly, the thought of wearing a corset (whale bone or otherwise) chemise, drawers and a dickie in the tropics is unappealing - especially when you're wearing the other clothes on top of all that**. Men's fashions from the period were much more flexible and allowed for more movement (hey, look! Nothing's changed!).
Join with me, all of you. Men and women alike. It's time we started mixing and matching the fashions of the last two hundred years. Empire line dresses with sneakers one day, knickerbockers and T-Shirts the next. What a bright and glorious future it will be***.
*Nothing too political folks (depending on your point of view). I'm talking about the sexual revolution in the Sixties - you know, the one were it started to become perfectly normal for a woman to wear jeans and a T-Shirt without having to explain to her father why she still dresses like a boy even though she's past 18 and should start wearing more pretty dresses if she wants to land a husband any time soon - thus paving the way for those horrendous power suits in the 1980s.
**I once had a strange desire to go around dressed in nothing but a chemise, corset, pair of drawers and multiple layers of petticoats (standard "foundation garments" from the mid-to-late Victorian period) and see if anyone noticed that a) I was walking around in public in nothing but my underwear, and b) I was still wearing more clothes than anyone else.
***Okay, I'm possibly not crazy enough to actually expect anyone to join me in this endeavour. I'm not even crazy enough to actually join myself in this endeavour - but largely because I know I'll have to sew my own clothes if I want to do this economically, and that's not something I'm likely to take up any time soon.
****Bonus footnote: Interestingly, women's fashions do shadow mens fashions from several decades ago more than you may think. I once bought women's vests from the 80s to dress a couple of actors who were playing men in the 20s, because the cut of mens vests in the era were closer to women's clothes from the 80s than mens clothes from today.
So, we got lost in Oamaru and accidently found ourselves in a little neighbourhood where all of the buildings are from the Victorian period and made of limestone.
Turns out there's a little Victoriana thing happening, with a bicycle museum dedicated to penny farthings and the like (I know, I get lost and find a bicycle museum - what are the odds, right?)
Also in this area is a shop dedicating to clothing from the 1890s through to the 1920s. I'm not kidding. They make a lot of the clothes on site for re-enacters and the vintage car people.
I just happened to find a pair of early 1910s style knickerbockers. They just happened to fit me very comfortably. This, in spite of the fact that they were made on site for a "random" size (which wasn't even on the pants) and I'm a girl with girl-shaped hips.
Yes, I know the pants are technically gender inappropriate (a phrase that can describe far too much of my wardrobe), but I don't care.
I've decided that it's high time mens fashions from before the Revolution* became perfectly acceptable women's clothing today. Everyone who's ever watched Firefly would agree that mens styles from the late 1800s look pretty good on women, and I think we should just bring steampunk into the mainstream with high waisted pants and braces for all.
I will admit that I still want a pair of bloomers (and a matching basque), but I know I'll also have to get the foundation garments to go with it. Quite frankly, the thought of wearing a corset (whale bone or otherwise) chemise, drawers and a dickie in the tropics is unappealing - especially when you're wearing the other clothes on top of all that**. Men's fashions from the period were much more flexible and allowed for more movement (hey, look! Nothing's changed!).
Join with me, all of you. Men and women alike. It's time we started mixing and matching the fashions of the last two hundred years. Empire line dresses with sneakers one day, knickerbockers and T-Shirts the next. What a bright and glorious future it will be***.
*Nothing too political folks (depending on your point of view). I'm talking about the sexual revolution in the Sixties - you know, the one were it started to become perfectly normal for a woman to wear jeans and a T-Shirt without having to explain to her father why she still dresses like a boy even though she's past 18 and should start wearing more pretty dresses if she wants to land a husband any time soon - thus paving the way for those horrendous power suits in the 1980s.
**I once had a strange desire to go around dressed in nothing but a chemise, corset, pair of drawers and multiple layers of petticoats (standard "foundation garments" from the mid-to-late Victorian period) and see if anyone noticed that a) I was walking around in public in nothing but my underwear, and b) I was still wearing more clothes than anyone else.
***Okay, I'm possibly not crazy enough to actually expect anyone to join me in this endeavour. I'm not even crazy enough to actually join myself in this endeavour - but largely because I know I'll have to sew my own clothes if I want to do this economically, and that's not something I'm likely to take up any time soon.
****Bonus footnote: Interestingly, women's fashions do shadow mens fashions from several decades ago more than you may think. I once bought women's vests from the 80s to dress a couple of actors who were playing men in the 20s, because the cut of mens vests in the era were closer to women's clothes from the 80s than mens clothes from today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)