Sunday rambling as usual

[erastes]

Pulled a muscle in the base of my spine, so ouchie. Don’t expect any sense out of me. What do you mean, you never do?

I’ve had an idea – just an inkling – for a new novel. I’ll let it rumble around my head for a while and see how it goes.  I always come away bunnied after spending a day with Dad. He made a comment which set me thinking. If Running Press do continue with the line, it probably won’t be suitable, as it’s not pre 1900 – so that’s a clue. Not much of one, I admit. But I will say it’s not either world war. It may go nowhere, and I don’t want to say anything yet. Someone who writes faster might nick it.

Jessewave is doing a list of recommended books, and looking through the list I never fail to be surprised at the differences in opinion. Someone recommended the Wraethlu series and I found it entirely unreadable gibberish, and others are raving about the Raised by Wolves books and I found them so blooming dull.  It’s a good thing though, it would be boring if we all had the same taste.

Watched the new Merlin – ok but nothing spectacular, same old stuff but still enjoyable. I think they are setting stuff up for later, as far as I can see. ASH=still hot. Still King. Also watched the second part of Vampire Diaries which was even more Twiglet influenced (as if it wasn’t already) as they dragged in poor Wuthering Heights into it as they did in Twiglet.  What has that poor book done to deserve it?  Not that I’m a huge fan, as you know. It should have ended with Cathy’s death. I can see why emos like it, but I don’t get why Vampires do. I couldn’t help but like the Bad Boy Vampire in TVDs.  I think the producers are trying to cash in to the whole Brothercest thing that Supernatural enjoys as there’s a definite homoerotic vibe between Stefan and Damon.  (and really – how thick are American teenagers?  Have they never read a vampire book? Never watched Buffy?  Brooding, secretive and dark: check. Old fashioned house: check.  Disappears in a blink of the eye: check. KNow you are cut before you do: check. OH GET A GRIP, YOU STUPID WOMAN!

And while I’m ranting. Dear Author: Boxer shorts were not called that in 1920.

I can’t help but get ranty about this.  If a woman is going to write men’s erotica – THE LEAST, THE VERY LEAST they can bloody BOTHER to do is know the HISTORY OF MEN’S UNDERPANTS. FOR FUCK’S SAKE. This is the very least of the anachronisms in this book I’m reading.  Really. I do TRY to be impartial, professional and critical in a good way but sometimes I JUST WANT TO GET CAPSLOCKY ON THEIR STUPID HOLLYWOOD HISTORICAL ARSES.

Calm.  Calm.

Does anyone know how to adjust the time and date when you double click on the clock in the right hand corner and get THIS?  It’s all tied up with the bloody virus I got.

Comments

[zagzagael.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'll bite - what were they called?

And I'm no emo but I've said before I do love Wuthering Heights and am also confused by the vampire love. Seems that's what they'll be teaching in Uni in a hundred years - how we fookin saw vampires in EVERYTHING in the 21st century. Sigh.

I just discovered Wincest....and....omfg. It only "works" as well as it does because of the insanely superb writing of the show - it's the overwhelming LOVE that is who/what the character of Dean is made of...and puppy dog tails too, methinks.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

strossers, drawers, underbreeches - many names - but Boxers weren't named as such until the 1940s.

[txilar.livejournal.com]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/812340 may help, but it is aimed at XP and requires the CD.

Hi! ^_^

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I think I have XP - but no CD - and can't run CDs anyway, as the stupid exe function won't work. Thanks though, hun! I'm sure my close is right somewhere in the world. it's 9.21 in the morning according to it. God knows why it suddenly decided to be stupid.

[beckyblack]

I love the idea of having to research underwear. I bet there are big, serious, scholarly tomes out there on the complete history of pants.

I'm reading lots of Regency romances just now and I love the thought that under their elaborate dresses, with all those layers, the women are pretty much all going commando! :D Drawers were only just starting to catch on. See, wearing no knickers used to be entirely respectable!

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I think there's only one definitive book

http://books.google.com/books?id=PnUWcxzqmpIC&pg=PA206&dq=the+history+of+pants&ei=w3m2SrfaBaf4ygSl9NT5Dg#v=onepage&q=the%20history%20of%20pants&f=false

Tis vital! And yes, no knickers was quite respectable, whereas damping your muslin to show off your nipples was shocking. Typical that men were wearing the undertrousers as well as the trousers.

[beckyblack]

Thanks for that link. Some scary looking corsets there!

whereas damping your muslin to show off your nipples was shocking.

Those Regency folks have all this outward respectability and are secretly absolute saucepots!

[rikibeth.livejournal.com]

AFAIK, there's no documentation for anyone ACTUALLY damping their muslin -- there was one scandalized reference to sheer muslins that clung to the body AS IF they'd been damped!

Now, gilded toenails...

[gaedhal.livejournal.com]

I thought Pauline Bonaparte used to do this?

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I was sure i'd read it somewhere - can't find the bookmark now. *mutters to self* must organise. bookmarks...

[gaedhal.livejournal.com]

One of the reasons women swinging on swings was considered
so scandalous in the 18th C was because of the possibility
of seeing what was going on under ten layers of ruffles!

[kittymay.livejournal.com]

THE HISTORY OF MEN'S UNDERPANTS by Erastes

The idea has merit, old girl. Merit, I say.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Oh it's been done, The history of underclothes

http://books.google.com/books?id=PnUWcxzqmpIC&pg=PA206&dq=the+history+of+pants&ei=w3m2SrfaBaf4ygSl9NT5Dg#v=onepage&q=the%20history%20of%20pants&f=false

a bible, let me tell you.

[kittymay.livejournal.com]

I know. But I liked my title better. Non-fic...you never know, you could make that leap : )

[erastes.livejournal.com]

How about a Hawkin homage?

A brief history of briefs!

[kittymay.livejournal.com]

I like it. It works. But there again, it might be misleading...you'd need to cover (boom boom!) the period before they were briefs...well, you'd better anyway because if we can't dig up the 18th century then I refuse any part of it ; )

[rbm00.livejournal.com]

If you have an anti-virus program, run that and try to find your virus and quarantine it or delete it.

If it's a persistent virus and your anti-virus program can't do that (or it says it deleted it but your computer's still running wonky), download HijackThis (http://download.cnet.com/Trend-Micro-HijackThis/3000-8022_4-10227353.html). Run a system scan with that and save the log file. Do NOT fix anything! Just save the log.

Then head on over to Techmonkeys.co.uk (http://www.techmonkeys.co.uk/) and post in the right section about your problem and provide that log you saved earlier. They're really helpful and they got rid of a nasty virus for me :)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Thanks hun - I've got rid of the virus - a while back, but it's disabled anything with .exe in it which makes downloading anything new simply impossible.

I'll have to take it to the shop, just can't afford it right now.

I'll see if the monkeys can help, though - thanks!

[rbm00.livejournal.com]

You're welcome! You might still have the virus if everything with .exe is disabled... But techmonkeys was really helpful, so it won't hurt to try. The thing is, you have to be really specific about your problem, because there are a bunch of people posting and only a few techs around. I think they skip the ones who post vague descriptions.

[jl_merrow]

The history of undies looks invaluable! You know, some day you should do a meta post with lists of links for the right-thinking writer!

Your dad sounds great, btw! :D

[erastes.livejournal.com]

There's a huge link of links on my webpage!

[jl_merrow]

D'oh! I don't know how I missed that, except I was probably led astray by the ficcage!

That is one big list. *salivates* :D

[erastes.livejournal.com]

it needs updating, so i apologise for the broken ones

[ammonite7.livejournal.com]

In the 19th century U.S., men often wore longjohns, all of a piece and buttoned up. They were of homespun linen or wool for the average man, as cotton was more expensive at that time, particularly during and right after the Civil War, when the production of cotton was practically shut down. These were often called linsey-woolsey, which could be wool, linen or cotton.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

yes!

[ammonite7.livejournal.com]

Bad me! I was off by a few years. Long drawers to the ankle during the Civil War, linsey-woolsey, yes. Then right after the war came the "union suit" which was all of a piece with the flap in the rear that opened and, right after, long-johns, which is what we generally see all those guys wearing in the western and cowboy movies of the late 1800s. Here's a fun read on the history of men's underwear by, who else but: http://www.internationaljock.com/history-of-underwear.html

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've done a huge amount of research into the subject. I think any historical writer of gay fiction - or any historical where the subject is likely to come up - needs to know the nitty gritty of clothes even if you don't mention them more than once. it's like any historical detail, you have to know it - or you end up writing a wallpaper historical, which perhaps will please some of your readers who don't want to be bothered with all those nasty details they just want Barbie and Ken in pretty costumes - but won't be anything but laughed at by other writers who work bloody hard.

I did an article on the subject of mens underwear - up to the tudors anyway - on the macaronis site - i should finish it up

[ammonite7.livejournal.com]

I think those details are often part of what makes a story sing, what makes it real, as long as there are not too many of them all in one place. When I read history, I like to feel I am right there, either with the characters or one of them - see, smell, taste, hear - all that. Isn't that the idea?