The Problem with 'Wedding Style'

Dear Readers,

As you well know, I enjoy good quality style and follow a number of different sources. Probably my best source of inspiration is pinterest, where I follow about 985 people at the moment. As a result, I get to see a lot of content that people are posting in what is effectively a social cross-section, ranging from ordinary people, to businesses selling their products, to magazines and fashion editors.

One trend I've observed is that we have created a special category of clothing for weddings. What exactly is it that makes something a wedding dress, bridesmaid's dress, or attire specifically reserved for the best men? As far as I can tell, these are artificial inventions. This is why I do not have a specifically 'wedding' pinterest board.

Style is infinitely subjective, of course, but my gripe is twofold: the limitations on what weddings look like and secondly, the limiting of clothing appropriate for ordinary life. Just a few generations ago, most of the dresses available in wedding ranges would have been considered insufficiently formal and with good reason--most clothing sold under the guise of 'wedding' is not actually formalwear... most of it is cocktail attire or badly put together semi-formal attire.

Additionally, I personally find the whole bachelor/bachelorette party and excess wedding attendants as highly obnoxious, especially when they all wear matching clothes that often look clownish during the wedding ceremony.

Our first problem with understanding the situation is to recognize the traditional functioning of formalwear. The second problem is to understand the purpose of the wedding industry.

Formalwear descends from historic royal courts and people of visionary fashion design. Throughout the last few hundred years, seamstresses and tailors worked to improve their craft, producing elaborate and elegant attire for full court dress. Over the years, partly due to a shift in power from monarchies to democratic regimes, the goal of making life more elegant and beautiful was set aside in favor of the practical. Whereas dressing nicely in the royal system was seen as an honor, today it is considered by most as a burden, regardless of comfort. This has contributed over the last two centuries to a decline in formalwear. Additionally, if anyone has watched Downton Abbey, you would know that formalwear was eventually codified so that certain codes of dress could be adhered to in order to create a well ordered look. These dress codes have come to the present day in multiple forms that relate to the level of formality and/or the time of day. As a result, we have Morning dress until 6pm and Evening dress after 6pm. Additionally, we find that we have semi-formal and formal. Semi-formal does not mean cocktail, incidentally--it means black-tie. Formal similarly actually relates to white-tie and full court dress.

When a person goes to a wedding shop, they are confronted with a myriad of decisions. There are entire magazines and plenty of blogs online with an equal number of opinions. When you walk into a store, you are confronted with even more options, and a sales staff whose main goal is to sell you a product--which is usually whatever trends are being parroted by the industry. My goal here is to sort out what is what from a high level in order to create the opportunity to take a step back and rethink the whole concept. Why do people need to know what the industry expects them to buy? I personally believe, it is due to our overly casual lifestyles. In most circles, you will find that the overall majority of people have no clue how to put together a formal outfit. When people are instructed to dress up, with their experience often primarily in the jeans and t-shirt area, we find ill-fitting suits, shirts that have collars that don't lay flat, ties that look cheap, and all manner of other problems. You will usually notice certain executives, lawyers, and a few informed people as being the exception. (However, I believe that it is possible to dress well on a lower budget, as well.)

I therefore theorize that the wedding industry exists to inform the uninformed and collect their money. Because people usually don't know the first thing about dress, the wedding industry has the bar set fairly low. As a result, it is basically selling people a slightly upgraded version of prom wear and/or cocktail attire. Prom wear is not true formalwear: it is a modern mashup of things that were never meant to be put together. A man's formal waistcoat should never have 5+ buttons: this belongs on a lounge suit, which most people would know under the name of a 'business suit'. Formal waistcoats since the late 1800's have been supposed to be low-cut, in order to daringly show off the man's well-pressed and well-starched formal shirt. Additionally, these jackets, since the end of the Victorian era have been generally intended to be of a quiet color in order to crisply show off the black and white uniformity of men in a social gathering. Now of course, there is room to discuss ways to reintroduce color in formalwear for men, something that was the norm up until the mid 1800's. Unfortunately, I find the way the wedding industry has done it is completely cheesy.

As for women, we have decided somehow that white dresses are only for weddings (white used to be one of the most popular colors for dresses in all situations in the early 1800's) and that bridesmaids should all wear identical dresses, often shorter than the bride. This actually makes no sense. Dress length is directly related to the formality of an event... if your wedding is a formal event in the evening, why ever would anyone wear a gown that wasn't the proper length? It just looks awkward. When the maid of honor wears a floor length gown and the rest of the bridesmaids wear short ones, I find this especially tacky. While I agree it has become customary for wedding dresses to be the longest, there is no real reason why if the wedding is intended to be formal that the rest cannot also be full length. Continuing this, I believe there should be no such thing as a bridesmaid's dress. How is this any different than any other dress? Why would you only buy such a thing to participate in a wedding?

Why have we let an industry tell us that a particular set of garments are only for weddings? Why is it that we only dress up for weddings nowadays? Why can't we choose to enjoy elegance everyday and have more events that are capable of using these same clothes? Personally, I feel it is a huge waste to only wear nice clothing during weddings, since we could reuse many formal items if we held more balls and formal parties. I would also add that if we regained a habit of formal events, no one would put up with the rubbish that the wedding industry sells, because people with taste would want things that are actually worth wearing.

Moving on, if a wedding is a certain level of formality, why does the wedding party subscribe to an entirely different dress code oftentimes? I assume this is because it is more cost effective, but it actually doesn't make much sense. If the wedding party is wearing white-tie, why are the guests attending in cocktail attire? Cocktail attire isn't even actually formalwear. This happens regularly!

Returning to the definitions of formalwear... does anyone in North America know what Morning dress is? Most formal weddings in the United States wear tuxedos during the daytime. A tuxedo should NEVER be worn before 6pm. Instead, if the wedding is formal and during the day, the guests and wedding party should be informed to dress in Morning Dress. For men, this means wearing striped grey trousers, morning coat (aka cutaway coat), waistcoat (often double-breasted), and a necktie or formal ascot. Of course there are plenty of stylish variations on this, color being something that is celebrated in Morning Dress waistcoats and ties.

The reason I bring up these points, is not as much to offer a specific prescription to rigidly fix wedding dress. Instead, I write this because I want everyone to take a step back and think about the look they are trying to achieve. Don't fall for a cheesy stereotype, rather allow weddings to be natural and beautiful. Additionally, I think finding ways to make clothing useful for events throughout the year is important because it creates ownership, sustainability, and provides constant practice to help everyone improve their taste and understanding of clothing.

I want a world in which people are better dressed, more elegant, and better understanding of each other. Beauty is not something to be afraid of, instead it is something we learn and become through our practice of its principles. I encourage people to be more tastefully creative in putting together outfits when creating new/unique looks, or alternatively to stick with the models that have stood the test of time across the last 150 years: Morning Dress, Black-Tie, and White-Tie. Don't rent your formalwear: research and buy it so that you feel comfortable in it, find or create events to use it throughout the year, and in doing so you will make life here on earth more beautiful and glorious in the process.

Meditation on Emotion in The Young Victoria

I find this quote by King William IV in The Young Victoria is brilliant:

I have been insulted - grossly and continually insulted! She has kept her daughter, my brother’s child, from my Court! But from now I’d have her know that I am King! And I will not be flouted or disobeyed by her or by that jackanapes she keeps about her!

At times I feel that the ways people will go to hurt others and manipulate others (sometimes using them as tools to hurt others) is so terribly uncalled for. Let us all remember to be more sane in the future and do our best to be respectful no matter the circumstances we find ourselves in. There are times when even I find this difficult, but it becomes no less necessary as a consequence.  I hope that sometimes the insults that people make aren't intentional or are done against the person's wishes by those who control them. At least then, I can preserve my good opinion of people, even if they refuse to do me justice. I should hate to think ill of anyone, because of another person's fault. And when insults are intentional, I shall in time learn to accept and to ignore, even when they are undeserved.

In the film, The Young Victoria, Princess Victoria is managed and controlled by her mother and her mother's adviser. Their real goal is to usurp her and use the power that is rightfully Victoria's for their own ends. Instead of allowing her to use her mind and communicate with the outside world, they construct a scheme in defiance of William IV to shelter Victoria. And they prevent her from being capable, or so they hope, from making good, well informed decisions. Thankfully, Victoria is strong-willed and able to see through their deceptions and manipulations, but can you imagine how history would have been different had she not succeeded?

Sometimes I find myself in the shoes of William IV, being extremely upset about things people do to defy both myself and reason. And I'm tempted to launch into flame wars that don't end up mending anything. My hope is to be more like Prince Albert and be the mediator who can bridge misunderstandings and still not fan the flames in the process. What I am trying to learn, is to discern where I may find ways to help others understand me better and when to stop before it's too late, when my words are having the opposite effect. Remarkably, Albert was not only able to help Victoria in her political endeavors; he also helped restore her relationship with her mother, which had been terrible when she was growing up... he was absolutely indispensable to her. This is what I want to be more like, a peace maker, not a fighter battling for an impossible cause. The loss of Albert for Victoria was a terrible blow, not solely because he truly loved her, but he was arguably one of the best things that happened to her, particularly at the beginning of her reign.

Despite the temptation to be depressed and give up in trials, I am deciding to choose not to. That's because this year, I have resolved, will be a good year. I will not allow my life to be derailed by anyone who expects me to fail or by anyone who wishes to burden me with things that I have not done. I will not allow myself to be discouraged by the whims of evil whether spiritual or by human proxy. Every time I feel like giving up, I need to choose to prove the naysayers wrong, rather than to become a self-fulfilling prophecy and putting into actions the thoughts that others incite in me. Daring to be brave and prove oneself has always been a most honored and esteemed quality in those whom history regards with kindness.

As I am not a king, I shall learn to be content with knowing the real truth about everything I do and think. Knowledge is power, the power to free oneself from lies which would hold one down. To build up ones' internal strength is to protect oneself from the onslaught of the world and all that would fight against good. Do not let anyone convince you of what you know is not true, be strong and persevere!

Like Jesus says at the end of John 8:32, "...the truth will set you free."

Let us remember the message of The Young Victoria: Do not give up, be stronger than you appear.

Review: North and South, Wives and Daughters... Novels vs. BBC...

As I have just recently finished reading Wives and Daughters (actually listening by way of unabridged audiobook from audible), it seems most logical that I should begin reviewing it and the book I read in the same manner just before it, North and South, before they all collectively fade out of the front of my memory. These are a collection of thoughts, but are certainly are not comprehensive, more will undoubtably come later. :)

I will start with the lovely Wives and Daughters story that I had so greatly enjoyed in the BBC/Masterpiece televised drama. People frequently say that books are usually better that the movies that are based off of them, and I must say that it is true in this case as well.

It's not that the televised series was bad... in fact far from it, most of the details were carried over from the book into the BBC series. It's merely that Mrs. Gaskell manages to incorporate all sorts of details that cannot be observed in quite the same way when the action is all before you. She has this brilliant way of narrating everything, just at the right moment... and nothing out of place.

I love how the characters have increased depth and their character becomes better explained by the more detailed accounts of their actions and interactions... and in many cases we are able to read into their minds as Gaskell has provided this periodically.

Molly Gibson for example, my favorite character from the BBC series, remains such after the book. However, she becomes more real, her struggles more vivid and her thoughtfulness more obvious. In the BBC series Mrs. Gibson (Claire/Hyacinth) is annoying, but not nearly as much as in the novel... in the novel all likelihood of any propriety on the part of Molly's step-mother is quickly done away with. The quality of Molly's character grew with every added detail, details which often in life we often don't ever know about the people around us.

I feel that reading novels like these often teach us things about the world around us that we might otherwise miss. I often wonder how novelists are aware of so much beyond their own minds to be able to give such a realistic feeling to their characters.

Speaking of Mrs. Gibson, however... I hadn't noticed this so much in the BBC series, but after reading the book, I think Wives and Daughters is very similar to Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. You have many of the same elements present... irritating mother who is obsessed with matchmaking and money, father with his head on straight but who can't seem to get his wife to be on the same page, daughters who get married either in spite of their mother or despite her interventions, etc. One thing that struck me most however, is the difference between Mr. Gibson and Mr. Bennet. While they both realize the silliness of their wives (and eventually make a point of visiting their favorite daughter for relief periodically once they are married), they still manage to handle their lot in very different ways. Mr. Bennet chooses to become all but a hermit and use sarcasm on everyone rather than try to solve any problems; on the contrary, Mr. Gibson, while doing his best to keep out of the way on trivial matters still insists on some sense in the house. Mr. Gibson also will not allow himself to be overruled on essential matters, even if his wife fancies some imaginary reason to object to an idea of his... and excepting Cynthia, without Mr. Gibson's interventions there might not be any end to Mrs. Gibson's trouble for Molly. I think Mr. Gibson's approach to good sense clearly has a positive effect on the family as none of the girls ends up like Lydia Bennet, running off with any unworthy men who might show up.

I would like to go on for much longer, but I'm afraid I can't right now, but the whole of it is that the book has so much additional lovely detail that it is worth a read!

Another note... I hadn't realized this, but Elizabeth Gaskell never finished the novel, as her death happened before she could write the final chapter. Thankfully she provided some idea of how it was to end, and history has remembered this for us.

Lastly, I want to know what the picture on the audiobook cover (above) is... I really like this painting, but I have no idea who painted it or anything.

North and South is also really good. I had a bit of a harder time with the BBC series of this novel, but I can safely say that I like the story even more now that I have read the novel. In the BBC series Margaret is more of an enigma to me, whereas in the book we really get a good peek at her heart and character.

I have much more respect for Mr. Hale in his questions about the Church of England in the book than I did in the tv series. I thought the BBC may have taken a few too many liberties regarding religion and I was a bit annoyed. In the book, I still disagree with Mr. Hale, but he doesn't seem to be quite as far off as the BBC seemed to portray him. The church incidentally is well thought of throughout the novel, and Margaret's faith is of importance to the story. A small note: Mr. Hale tells his wife and daughter about his career change in a different scene in the book than in the BBC series, but I discovered in the special features on the DVD that they actually did record the scene as it happened in the book. Unfortunately it isn't as dramatic as the rest because they don't have the soundtrack in the background, but it was interesting to watch.

My main question is why Margaret and Mr. Thornton get married. This is an attraction that has puzzled me from the beginning. At least in the book, Mr. Thornton isn't portrayed as nearly violent or unkind as in the BBC series, but clearly there a difference between his matter of fact mechanical view of the world and Margaret's theory of moral goodness and duty. In the book, we get to see more of Margaret Hale's influence on Mr. Thornton's ideas and the practical changes he puts into effect, which I find particularly interesting. I like how Margaret overhears his talk about his projects with the 'hands' at her home in London and how this prompts her to create a proposal for reopening the mills; in fact I like it far better than the way the train trips/railway proposals are portrayed in the film. I particularly disliked the railway proposal, incidentally... I think the way the BBC did it would have been frowned on in the period, and I can only think of Margaret's reputation in society. It was bad enough for her to marry Mr. Thornton, let alone allow herself so much public display of affection and then to go home with him and not yet married!

But I still want to understand why two people who disagree so strongly would want to get married. I know people who are like this to me and the thought of them does not make me want to propose, or else I should think myself very foolish. My readers will think me overly simple for not understanding their growing attraction to each other, even if I see their growing understanding of each other and mutual respect/admiration. I can see how they become suited to each other towards the end--yet I have difficulty imagining this in real life, despite I know it happens undoubtably quite frequently.

One of the more major changes to the plot has to do with investments. In the book there is no mention of financial schemes and of Mr. Thornton's moral supremacy over those who speculate, or at least I might say it isn't as prominent. In the BBC series, this is a good part of the plot and why Margaret wants to help Mr. Thornton. I wondered where the BBC got this idea (not that I disagree with it in the least) and was able to run with it. The book seems to be more concerned with the particular workings of the lives of the people, whereas the film seems to veer a little more towards being philosophic and perhaps bringing out more of a political agenda.

In summary, the book made me understand and better appreciate Margaret Hale. She has strong character, but she seems somehow more feminine and likable in the book, IMHO. I would recommend the book, as it is very well written and quite a good story! (Don't get me wrong... I also liked the TV series, I just happen to like the book that much more)

Also the music is amazing in both North and South as well as Wives and Daughters. However, the theme for North and South is particularly amazing in my opinion. Listening to it and feeling the emotion is wonderful, it's so dramatic and intense! I found this image of what the soundtrack artwork might look like if the BBC chose to release it like it has done with many other works. Why they won't release Martin Phipps' music is a source of consistent annoyance with me.

In the future, I've thought about making more in depth posts on particular characters, rather than trying to summarize entire novels all the time. However, this shall have to wait for the present. :)

The Young Victoria... My First Impressions...

On Tuesday evening I had the pleasure of seeing a preview screening of The Young Victoria... the film was lovely. It was filmed nicely, had good costumes, incredible music, etc. Here's the trailer:

I particularly liked how the end tied everything together, it was really moving. After watching the film and seeing the historical facts about what happened after the period of the film, it was particularly endearing. The thing that struck me most, was they mentioned that Queen Victoria had Albert's clothes laid out every day until her death. To not forget his existence, I think makes a good case for their strong attachment.

I found the movie provided a lot of insight into how the court operated in Victoria's time and in the way customs were executed. It's one thing to read a book and another to see them illustrated in live action before your eyes in gorgeous film like this.

What I will say though, is I was a bit afraid after seeing the trailer, that there might be a bunch of inappropriate scenes. I can assure the reader that all the scenes in the film that border on inappropriate are no worse than anything in the longest version of the trailer. I still thought they had more of these than was absolutely necessary, but at least they weren't nearly half as bad as I had worried.

The moral of the story is good... Victoria is vindicated against those who do not have her best interests at heart... both in thwarting a regency and in marrying Albert who sees through the cunning of her advisers. The movie shows us how Victoria gets past herself to truly take advantage of these auspicious events and things.

The music for this film is also a delight... when I was in the theater, I was effectively wrapped in beauty from the beginning to end. I also purchased the soundtrack from Amazon, and it is quite nice. They did a good job of combining it with the Coronation anthem, Zadok the Priest by Handel. It is a bit on the quiet side, with occasional bouts of excitement, so keep your volume control at hand or use headphones.

The costumes are well done too, but as I previously stated, I'm not a huge fan of the women's wear from the period. Prince Albert, however, has number of amazing outfits... which may yet be featured in a future blog post. (particularly after the DVD is released, so I can take some screenshots)

The action at some points may appear a bit slow, but in the end, it probably is good they don't go too much faster, as they cover a lot of ground in the retelling of the story. Therefore, my conclusion is to recommend this film to all fans of period dramas and the like! :D

For the rest of you all in the United States, I believe the film comes out on the 24th or 25th of December.

(I feel as though there are plenty of things I should also cover, but I'm sure they've been covered elsewhere, or perhaps I will write again upon seeing the film again to have the opportunity of noticing more details)

Wives and Daughters BBC

I just recently finished watching the BBC adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell's Wives and Daughters. The series is delightful... I particularly like the main character of Molly Gibson. As depicted in the BBC series (I haven't yet read the book, so cannot say anything about the original) she is nearly the ideal of what a woman ought and should be. Her strength is not in loudness and impertinence, but rather in the gentle persuasion and love that she has for those around her. She empowers those around her, without suffocating them. Additionally, her modesty and reserve is truly what makes her beautiful... a girl like this wields the power of queens, because she is trusted as matter of course and to offend her must be pain enough to prevent it being overly frequent.

Anyhow, I will probably write another note in more detail on Molly Gibson, perhaps tying her in with Fanny Price of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park. Girls of this quality are extremely rare... and for some reason they tend to be singled out for the hatred of the masses who do not appreciate them and often view them as weak, usually out of a misunderstanding of femininity and relational politics.

I also wanted to mention some of the things I liked about the costumes. This film appears to be set in the early Victorian period. I generally do not like Victorian costume for women... because it generally creates extremely unnatural shapes in the cut of the garments (I don't like overly large hoop skirts, overly tight corsets, ridiculous sleeves, or overly puffed up blouses). Also, particularly with the War of Northern Aggression (U.S. Civil War for those of you who are insecure about the legality of secession) many of the costumes are overly plain or gaudy. Since I believe in simple elegance and refinement, I generally pass over these. However, all this said, there were truly a few outfits that were worth noticing, in my estimation.

I tried to find everything, and I have not had time for finding halfway decent examples of more than very little. I will do another article in further detail...

I love Molly's blue and white dress with the chemisette...

I also really like the outdoors outfit she has, it goes together so nicely!

I'd like to know how the bow is tied here, if it is done in the same manner as I tie my modern bow ties... hmm...

Alright, more later... good night everyone! :)