SBD: Do clothes make the man?

[jmc_bks]

Last week I wandered through the NYPL exhibit, A Rakish History of Men’s Wear.

This exhibition surveys men's dress from antiquity to the present, noting how through the centuries male style has swung from ostentation to restraint and back again. Masculine clothing has changed over time owing to a multitude of social, economic, and attitudinal transformations. At first, individuals chose garments that proclaimed their rank or special status as warriors and leaders. Later, sumptuary laws (restricting what could and could not be worn), chivalric codes, and the rituals of royal courts played a role in the development of masculine garments. By the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, male fashion leaders were admired both overtly and covertly. The growth of a new bourgeoisie in the late 18th century further influenced the outward expression of modern masculinity, as dandies took upon themselves the role of fashion leaders.

Several of the placards discussed the fact that the fashions tended to be changed by young men, and that the choices were often edgy and intended to flaunt the wearer's sexuality. Which explains, of course, cod pieces and hose for men, but not those ridiculous shoes with pointy curved toes so long that they have to be fastened to the wearers' ankles or calves to prevent tripping.

The thing is, to my modern eyes most of those outfits looked ridiculous and often feminine; if their job was to make the wearers more sexually attractive, they failed with me. I'm afraid that from now on, whenever I crack open a historical novel, I’m going to be imagining a hero in ballet tights, book and a short, short jacket. Not really sexy to me.

I'm afraid I'm going to be picturing heroes like Allegreto is freaky tights like one of those engravings in the press release (available on the website) -- different colors and patterns for each leg. Yes, one chartreuseorange leg and one striped? So not lending itself to a heroic image in my mind. (Plus, those tights make the legs look unproportioned, as if one was significantly more muscled than the other.)


Random TV observation: Nathan Fillion as Alex Tully, landscaper with a shady past? Hawt. I'm generally a fan of good guys and not bad guys, but I'm liking this bad guy who turned into a good guy but whose bad guy urges and experiences are bubbling back to the surface.

I'm finding other parts of this new show not very compelling. The runaway mom and her extreme sidekick? Creepy. The selfish military wife? Grr. The woman told by god that she'll win? Disturbing -- I think she's schizophrenic, not god-touched. The ex-con who's taking his daddy issues out on lil bro? Cliched.

Comments

[tinyluv.livejournal.com]

Wasn't the picture with the men and their arms all linked like young misses precious?

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

There were certainly a lot of etchings in which the men looked quite effeminate. But the one I remember best is this one (http://www.nypl.org/research/calendar/exhib/hssl/hsslexhibdesc.cfm?1d429), which makes me think more of a court jester than a romance novel hero.

[dogzzz2002.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, having seen what men wore back in the day, I try and not read too much about it in romance. If they are at a ball I'm thinking of them in a suit and the heroine is not in some heavy garment that would trip her up. The romances I have a real problem with are the ones where they mention the wigs and the 'patch' and powder. Ugh. Nothing about that sounds appealing!

Nathan Fillion - yum. I am intrigued though by what it's all about.

CindyS

from Carrie http://lovelysalome.blogspot.com

[(Anonymous)]

"Drive" is all about Fillion. He's incredible. Everyone else fills gaps between more bouts of Mal Lust.

I love thinking about men's fashions, like how 70s clothes look terrible and Elizabethan fashions were poncy. How to find the studman beneath? The only one that really worked for me was Christopher Eccleston in Elizabeth. He's got the lace and codpiece and the tights, but he's got this amazing swagger that pulls it off.