Oh, I know, but still...


REPLIES - POST REPLY - REGENCY LIFE DISCUSSION - FAQ - HOME - Q

Posted by Jessamyn on October 02, 1997 at 23:06:41:


In response to Regency do's and fashions, written by Caroline on October 02, 1997 at 22:44:49

] Now there's a letter I meant to write to Victoria and never did...those aren't Austen styles at all. They're ten to fifteen years later--more sort of George Eliot styles. Why couldn't they have either made real Austen dresses, or used those dresses and employed somebody else's quotes instead?

] ] That aside, they're pretty consistent for the time period they do show--and very pretty.

]
]



] You know the reason why, Jess! Because until P&P and Emma2 came along, the Great American Public (GAP for short) was almost totally unaware of the existence of a "Regency" period! Somehow 1812 means forts and tricorns and Massa Jackson, and when all that is over with you slip straight into pioneers and industry and Indian Wars...Even the educated people at Victoria Magazine probably hadn't ever researched anything before 1835..

]


They were lazy! A pattern they used and mentioned in the article says right on it it's for the years 1830-1840--and if they'd done the least bit of fact-checking they'd have noticed Austen was already dead by then! And then they so obviously spent a lot of time and effort on the project; it was a beautiful set of spreads, and they really did a good job of picking models who had the right look.

Oh, well, I suppose it's like Glamour/i>--intelligent, well-written articles on topics like improving self-image and the advancement of women, and then a beautifully photographed fashion spread that contradicts half the things said in the rest of the magazine.




REPLIES:




Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.


- Republic of Pemberley -
Home | Q | Jane Info