Comments on: Wearing a Regency dress

By: Mary Robinette Kowal

Mary Robinette Kowal — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 05:12:45 +0000

Yes, the number of layers of is truly astonishing.

By: Catherine Shaffer

Catherine Shaffer — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:14:37 +0000

All writers have imposter syndrome. Thinking you are an imposter is a sign that you are not one. (Now my brain is broken.) Love the dresses. Wish I could have been there. You know what else is really cool about this? I like the dressing up that does not involve overexposure, cleavage spilling out everywhere, bare midriff, plumber’s crack, or a major hair waxing project. Not every costume has to have dual use as a prostitution uniform. I feel *pretty* uncomfortable around some of the costumed ladies at conventions. If I may rant a bit, in medieval times, women wore quite a lot of clothing, in quite a lot of layers, and had their heads covered at all times (in styles that changed all the time, of course). Wouldn’t it be fun to see *that* at a convention, instead of Yon Anachronistic Bar Wench?

By: Mary Robinette Kowal

Mary Robinette Kowal — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:51:59 +0000

You were so right.

By: Mary Robinette Kowal

Mary Robinette Kowal — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:51:32 +0000

I’ll bet you are a fabulous swooner.

By: Julia

Julia — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:24:22 +0000

Told ya. Glad you had fun doing it! That dress is just gorgeous in its simplicity.

By: Felicity Shoulders

Felicity Shoulders — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:03:47 +0000

That’s very interesting about the posture! I used to have a modern dress cut in a Regency silhouette and I noticed the same thing about it. Obviously we need more such dresses.

By: Madeleine Robins

Madeleine Robins — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:32:40 +0000

The only time I wore Regency dress at a convention (I think) I was required to swoon. Emma will likely remember it. I had made strategic applications of spirit gum beforehand, because the dress was really, really low cut, and swooning posed all sorts of hazards, even with stays. To the disappointment of some onlookers, I did not become a Regency Janet Jackson.

You looked utterly gorgeous in the dress, by the way. Just sayin’.

By: Mary Robinette Kowal

Mary Robinette Kowal — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:28:16 +0000

Why thank you!

1881 has some loooovely clothes which are significantly more restrictive than my era. At some point, if we ever have a chance, I’ll have to show you my dress from the 1860s. I collect vintage clothing and got very lucky one day. I have tops from the 1880s but never found a full dress that would fit me. Not surprising but my rule is that I have to be able to wear it or I’d own too many nice things.

By: Emma Bull

Emma Bull — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:12:15 +0000

This is wonderful! And you look very fetching and authentic.

I’ve dressed in full-on 1881 (felt I needed to for research, which was my sneaky excuse for getting into a little re-enacting), and I loved it. I haven’t done it at a convention, though. You’re giving me courage to embrace the pleasures of a hall costume. I kinda hope I can dress steampunkish when I’m a guest at LosCon this year!

By: Mary Robinette Kowal

Mary Robinette Kowal — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:39:08 +0000

Actually, I think it’s more the distinction between someone who wants to be a writer and someone who is a writer. Since there’s already some serious Imposter Syndrome going on in my head, there’s a part of me that was afraid that if I wore the dress people would find out that I was faking it.

This is not rational.

By: Michael Spence

Michael Spence — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:34:50 +0000

“Serious Authors® don’t dress up as characters from their books.” Behold the mindset that gave us the misleading and often pretentious term “literary fiction.”