Resolving to be better about posting this month

[matrixrefugee]

Eeesh, only eight posts in all of February. I feel like I've been neglecting you folks.

Busy day today: I had an appointment with the therapist, as well as some shopping to do at Wal-Mart. I need some new shirts for work. But let me say this:

I hate shopping for clothes.

I can never find things I like in the women's department. I don't know *WHAT* is up with the styles these days, but it seems women are dressing like hootchie-mommas, and that's about the last thing I'd go for. If I was ever going to show more skin than I do, it would be a classic noir-ish femme fatale manner, not like some cheap little tootsie. I couldn't even find any plain cotton tee-shirts that hadn't had the neckline or the sleeves messed with. So I just marched over to the men's department and picked up a few tee shirts and fleece-lined jerseys. I should be set for the season.

Also, made my semi-weekly trip to the Salem Barnes & Noble, where I picked up a collection containing Jane Austen's "Sanditon" and her three notebooks of things she'd jotted when she was a teenager. I've read her hysterical "Love and Freindship" (spelling hers!), which I'd had from the Lowell library, and I was eagerly looking for more of her early writings, which are utterly ridiculous in a good way. Someone needs to film "Love and Freindship", if only as a playful parody of the typical Jane Austen movies, since the book itself is a parody of the novels of manners of the type that she herself would later write. I think that's a testament to how witty our girl was, since she was able to poke fun at herself, as it were...

And yep, the icon is based off the funny-lovely photo from Entertainment Weekly's Most Influential People in Hollywood from a few years back.

Comments

[nightofcydonia.livejournal.com]

Regarding the clothes thing, it's nice to know that I'm not the only person who's noticed that. I've got a whole collection of impolite comments directed at current 'fashion' and the female version gets the worst of it. Nothing but over priced, impratical, over faffed-around-with flimsy rubbish. Even the coats are useless (an observation made a few years ago. All the 'winter' coats in the female section were light coloured, non-water proof fabric with furry collers/trim, while all the sensible, dark coloured, waterproof ones were in the male section). But then I'm the kind of person who's defalt state is comfortable scruffiness (often even when I'm trying to look smart).
~Weaver

[matrixrefugee.livejournal.com]

Hee, agreed on all counts: I was comparing a small men's tee shirt with a large woman's tee shirt (I take a medium to a large, on account of my height), which were roughly the same size, and the women's shirt had less fabric by comparison, but it cost US$2.29 more than the men's shirt.

[ladyneferankh.livejournal.com]

I agree, I don't think "more skin= automatically immodest" but there's just something about the cut of these outfits in recent years....

I don't know why people can't seem to realize there's a difference between "classily eye-catching "and "cheap".

Lucky you, I wish I could shop in the men's department, (everything looks more comfy and practical there, but stuff rarely fits me :P)

You know, I think I heard a rumor that some people have considered filming one of Austen's lesser known works, but are worried there isn't enough of a "market" out there.

P.S.
I love the way you refer to Miss Austen as "Our Girl" ! ;-)