New anthology

I am extremely pleased to announce the project that’s been under wraps so far: I am editing an anthology for Constable&Robinson, WILFUL IMPROPRIETY: 13 Tales of Society and Scandal (to be published in the US by Running Press). I will post the cover as soon as it is available, but for now, enjoy the ToC:

Introduction by Ekaterina Sedia

THE DANCING MASTER by Genevieve Valentine

THE UNLADYLIKE EDUCATION OF AGATHA TREMAIN by Stephanie Burgis

AT WILL by Leanna Renee Hieber

STEEPED IN DEBT TO THE CHIMNEY POTS by Steve Berman

OUTSIDE THE ABSOLUTE by Seth Cadin

RESURRECTION by Tiffany Trent

MRS BEETON’S BOOK OF MAGICKAL MANAGEMENT by Karen Healey

THE GARDEN OF ENGLAND by Sandra McDonald

FALSE COLOURS by Marie Brennan

NUSSBAUM’S GOLDEN FORTUNE by M. K. Hobson

THE COLONEL’S DAUGHTER by Barbara Roden

MERCURY RETROGRADE by Mary Robinette Kowal

THE LANGUAGE OF FLOWERS by Caroline Stevermer

I am really pleased about this one, even though YA is not something I do a lot of. But here’s an excerpt from my intro anyway!

“Recently we saw a great rise in both Victorian and Young
Adult categories of fiction, and to me these two go hand in
hand. If being a teenager is about disobedience, the notion of
Victoriana (at least the way it is perceived by a modern reader)
is often centered around propriety and convention, rigid social
structures, and impermeable class, race and gender barriers.
Yet, where there is convention, there is also defiance, and the
opposite side of this Victorian coin is the realization that as long
as there are barriers and conventions, there will be those who
will rise up against them.”

Semester, that is. Oh, who am I kidding: I haven’t been around internet much, and when I have been, it was all on Facebook and Twitter. But there’re posts fermenting. At the moment I’m noodling about:

1) Ukrainian fashion design;
2) Obligation of beauty;
3) Some other random stuff that makes me angry.

So all of this will happen. For now, here’s an image from topic 1: a look by Fedor Vozianov, a fashion designer with a degree in linguistics.

I am a bit obsessed with his work at the moment. Go ahead, check out his website. Tons of interesting minimal, sculptural, and almost Scandinavian avant garde. More forthcoming.

(From Vogue Italia 2009, picturing Nina Ricci’s famous heelless shoes)

I am currently reading submissions for Bloody Fabulous, and as happens with every new anthology, there is always a new set of issues. To be fair, I anticipated the majority of what is happening this time around: namely, people are trying to fake knowing about fashion. And it shows.

Firstly, fashion is not about labels. There is a reason a person dressed in a bunch of labels without rhyme or reason is called a fashion victim. Fashion is an industry that doesn’t sell you beauty or sexiness or any of those things; fashion industry sells you change and the promise of self-reinvention and your new, better self emerging from the ashes; it’s a promise of shapeshifting, of drag, of disguise and escape. And every successful fashion house knows it, and their label tells you what they are selling — which disguise. It’s a language, and you can fake it no more than you can fake speaking French. If you just throw a bunch of label names on the page, it looks off — as if you blurted random foreign words and expected people to understand you. So: what labels your character wears should tell us something about the character. The fewer labels the better, since it allows for a better definition without too much product placement. There is a reason it’s called The Devil Wears Prada, and not The Devil Wears Tom Ford’s Gucci.

Speaking of: yes, we all saw that movie. So the chances of me accepting a story about a fashion editor who is super mean to her assistant are close to zero. Chances of me accepting more than one of those stories are actually zero.

Secondly, fashion and style are not the same although they are related. Style is all about how a person puts together their guise. To paraphrase Ru Paul, we all wear drag: we put together our clothing in such a way as to tell other people what we envision ourselves to be, what image we want to present to the world. Style is being fluent in this language — that is, knowing how to put together a persona, as well as being sure of WHAT persona to present, whether to keep it fluid or to develop a uniform. People who do not care about fashion and style are not fluent (and that is fine, not every form of expression is mandatory); they dress for comfort and don’t give it a second thought. But when you’re writing about fashion, you are talking about people who are at the very least interested in style — that is, they know which persona they cultivate. And this part is not about labels as much as it is about the lines of clothing and the silhouettes.

So when writing about people who are (or try to be) stylish as well as fashionable, it makes sense to give some thought about how image is put together. Not the labels, but the lines — is it nipped in, girly, foofy, masculine, androgynous, eclectic, avant guard, approachable, forbidding, tailored, flowy? Knowing what selves your characters present to the world is knowing their aspirational self, or their armor. And if you set up a contrast between the true self and the projected self — well, that’s conflict right there.

And finally, it helps to know how fashion industry works if you choose it as your topic. As in, where do the models come from? Who makes runway samples? What are tailoring vs store samples? Where fabrics are sourced? Who are buyers? etc etc. Of course, not every story is about fashion industry — there are many about people of personal style, of significant clothing, of disguises. But for all that is sacred, if you write about the fashion industry, do your research in the same way you would research history or science or any other industry — thoroughly. If you think it’s too trivial to research, or that no one will notice, you do your story no favors.

(This post is for Feminist Fashion Bloggers. This month’s theme: Youth and Aging.)

(Image: Tilda Swinton wearing Haider Ackerman, in Toronto 2011)

My grandmother had a number of weird and funny sayings, as grandmothers do. This is the one I’ve been remembering lately: “If a woman doesn’t look good in her twenties, it is her misfortune. If she doesn’t look good in her forties, it is her fault.”

I know, I know. Quite a few assumptions here, but what I would like to focus on is the positives: the idea that as we age we not only acquire control over how we present ourselves to the world, but we also get to redefine what “looking good” is. Most of all, with all the built in assumptions, this saying resonates with me because I like getting older.

There was that thing about being young: I was unsure. I was easy to sway, I looked for male approval before female one, I fluctuated in my presentation to the world, I didn’t know what I was. It is not uncommon for young people to waver as they try to discover themselves. And the issue of approval is I think germane to how we express ourselves via dressing.

Dressing for men is something women are encouraged to do: we constantly hear women’s clothes being criticized as unflattering or unsexy, or what was she thinking, and she should show more skin, show off her waist etc etc. Anything to project an image desirable to a man. This is why I rarely have interest in clothes designed by straight male designers: they too often design for the male gaze, and I’m just not impressed. This is why I crack up at design competitors who break out “I bring a straight male perspective to clothing!” argument. This rare, precious commodity — the straight male view!

There is another saying about women who dress primarily for other women. This is at least what I hear mentioned by the way of explanation of the harem pant-wearing, waist-concealing, sack-dressing fashion forward individuals. While (some) other women surely can appreciate such styling better than (most) straight men, this isn’t all of the story either. Dressing in a way that is pleasing to oneself is important, sure; but so is sending a signal of “I do not dress for men”. So that this dressing for other women thing? I think it often gets misconstrued as competitive, trying to impress each other. For me, I take it as a signal of “I do not value male attraction above all else.” And as I get older, I see these women, and I want to be friends with them. Dressing for oneself OR for other women is a rebellion, since male gaze is such a default.

Now yes, there are plenty of young women who dress in interesting ways. But age does give one a few advantages in this area: first, there’s knowing what you like after four decades of trial and error. Personal style evolves, at least for those of us who are interested in that sort of thing, and any evolution takes time. I know what I like now, and unlike when I was in my twenties, it is hard to persuade me to like things because everyone else does (not that I never change my mind, but.) Then there is an issue of income or at least patience: it is easier for me to save for high quality pieces I want rather than spend it all on shiny disposable trends. I do want to dress as a grown up, which for me translates into tailored, high quality garments. (If I ever have enough of vintage silk blouses and woolen blazers, I’ll let you know.)

And finally, there is an issue of visibility. It’s an old chestnut that women after forty become invisible in our culture. But invisibility also comes with lessening of the scrutiny female bodies are subjected to. Women over forty are often freer to experiment with personal style — and many of the most amazing fashion icons, from Irene Apfel to Tilda Swinton to Helen Bonham Carter to Helen Mirren fall into this group. The social penalty for failing to cater to male gaze is lessened, since male gaze glosses right over women of a certain age, and… it’s okay. After all, most of us spent most of our lives railing against the patriarchy. Now we get to do it from a different place — from the place of strength and assurance, where our confidence is supported by a lifetime of achievement unrelated to our physical appearance, where our self-worth is unquestionable.

And I like it here, with the fabulously dressed women and timeless clothing. There is such a joy and freedom in finally knowing who you are, what you want, and what to tell those who don’t like it. No longer at the whim of outside influence, we can find peace with ourselves — and it is our doing.

Yes, I wrote a story for this, with the ambition to be most quietly contemplative Zombies vs Robots story ever. Have I succeeded? You’ll be the judge!

HIT GRAPHIC NOVELS GET LITERARY TREATMENT

IDW Unleashes Prose Program for Breakout Comic Series:
ZOMBIES VS ROBOTS

35 Writers Explore, Expand and Remix ZvR World

San Diego, CA (September 6, 2011)—IDW’s gleefully subversive ZOMBIES VS ROBOTS comic book series from creators Chris Ryall and Ashley Wood will soon be eating readers’ brains from the inside via a series of short stories, novellas and more. As announced at the 2011 San Diego Comic-Con in July, the company plans for an ambitious slate of original prose stories set at different points in this epic adventure of a zombie apocalypse. In ZOMBIES VS ROBOTS, the clanking robots are built to fight the shambling braineaters, in a desperate attempt to save Earth’s dwindling population.

“It’s gratifying to see that ZvR has taken on an unlife of its own,” asserts Ryall, series co-creator and Chief Creative Officer/Editor-in-Chief for IDW. “Expanding from comics into prose is a logical progression, though as the heretofore sole writer of the series I must admit that letting other writers into our subversive little world was at first troubling. But now I’m fine with it. Really. Mostly. Especially since editor Jeff Conner has corralled such a talented array of writers to tackle some really bizarre and creative prose stories. As long as no one expects me to let them write ZvR comics, too…”

A lurching cohort of writers—including such notable talents as John Shirley, Nancy A. Collins, Rio Youers, Brea Grant, Steve Rasnic Tem, Amber Benson, James A. Moore, Rachel Swirsky, Norman Prentiss, and John Skipp & Cody Goodfellow, led by Ryall himself—has been assembled to pen original stories of life during wartime in the ZVR world. “It’s our biggest project so far,” states Conner, the IDW contributing editor helming the ZVR prose program. “In a way it’s a follow-up to our Classics Mutilated release, at least in terms of its anything goes spirit. The results so far have been—um, riveting.”

The rest of the ZVR writer roster includes: Dale Bailey, Amelia Beamer, Jesse Bullington, Simon Clark, Lincoln Crisler, Stephen Dedman, Rain Graves, Rhodi Hawk, Robert Hood, Stephen Graham Jones, Nicholas Kaufmann, Steven Lockley, Nick Mamatas, Jonathan McGoran, Joe McKinney, Gary McMahon, Mark Morris, Bobby Nash, Yvonne Navarro, Hank Schwaeble, Ekaterina Sedia, Sean Taylor, Simon Kurt Unsworth, Kaaron Warren, and Don Webb.

A film version of ZVR is currently in development through Sony Pictures, with Michael Bay’s Platinum Dunes as producer.

Visit IDWPublishing.com to learn more about the company and its top-selling books.

1) Oh Project Runway. I liked you so much better when you at least pretended to be fair, and to be about fashion design rather than just drama. So far, we have: team leaders picked by running a race (assuring that only young men get to lead), a designer who quits being replaced by someone who was kicked off three episodes ago instead of the most recent one, and just ugh. Seriously. Also, Tim Gunn isn’t even trying anymore. He has more presence in that Expedia commercial.

2) Big Sexy is a new TLC show, about plus-sized women who are trying to make it in the fashion industry (as stylists, designers, models). I would’ve liked this show a lot better if 5 minutes into the first episode they didn’t start bodysnarking on thin models, at some point calling one very thin young woman “that thing”. I wish they realized that body policing is not OK, no matter who gets to do the policing (and that’s the whole other issue about who gets to be a real woman etc). Also, this show is problematic on other levels, but I’m yet to digest it enough to verbalize it. My unease is mostly about their search for romantic relationships and the whole “we want men who like big girls but no chubby chasers” angle.

3) Work of Art is coming back in October. Yay!

4) I was offline because Irene killed my computer, and I had to get a new one. The new one is a laptop, and I find it easier to write/do editing stuff if I disconnect from the internet and go downstairs. So expect reduced online presence.

5) Some other things I’ve been mulling over, about the whole female/foreign/childless outward presentation. I was planning a post on some of those things for feminist fashion bloggers, but lately I feel like everything I have to say doesn’t make any difference, and futility overwhelms. And there is a lot of good blogging going on about the obstacles facing various kinds of people (especially writers), but what none mention is that at some point jumping over the hurdles becomes simply not worth it. Giving up under such circumstances is a valid response, not weakness or a failure. No one owes it to the world to keep banging their head against the wall, you know?

(Image: December 2008 cover of Russian Vogue)

A few months ago, a fashion blog, Fashionable Academics (which since then seems to have gone private readership) hosted a blog conference called “This is What a Feminist Looks Like”. Many fashion bloggers contributed with pictures of themselves in their best Banana Republic business casual (seriously, what’s with academic fashion blogs BR shill?), with big smiles on their white attractive faces. The whole point of that (as was pointed out by an anon commenter) is to convince the casual observer that the feminists are not hairy man-hating beasts but actually very nice white middle-class attractive ladies. That is, we take an unfairly maligned category and make it more palatable to the mainstream by distancing ourselves from the fringe (in this case, hairy man-hating beasts). We can call it Gloria Steinem syndrome.

And it struck me recently how much do we do that. Spokespeople for pretty much any cause will present the most mainstream face possible — and from Bono to Gaga, celebrities often give their face to causes associated with groups that “general public” (whatever that is) might find less relatable than those white celebs. And… I really do have a problem with that.

Recently, that horrid Lifetime show, Russian Dolls aired. As you can guess by the name, it is about Russian immigrants (in Brighton Beach, of course), and something something struggles something weird makeup haha look at how they dress all funny something show. I wrote before of this tendency to diminish the sartorial other; in TV, we have shows like Jerseylicious which really serve little other purpose than ridiculing a group of people for the way they dress, so in that regard Russian Dolls is not terribly surprising. What was surprising is the number of people who asked me if it was really like that.

I found my reaction interesting: first, there is a legitimate degree of annoyance that people expect the experience of Russian immigrants to be the same, regardless of the time immigration has occurred, whether or not they live in ethnic enclaves a la Brighton Beach, whether their entire families have immigrated with them etc etc. Clearly, individual experiences of individual people will produce vastly different results, and yet the desire to categorize and assume the uniformity of the other is overwhelming, even in intelligent people. The other aspect, however, surprised me: I wanted to distance myself from those Brighton Beach people. I wanted to appear more mainstream, which is a legitimate self-preservation instinct. Yet, I was surprised at the accompanying impulse to downplay those who are flamboyantly not fitting in, those fringe others — with their blinged-out Versaceism and all that.

This is not to say that I’m suddenly all right with the representations of Russians in contemporary American entertainment — au contraire. The representation is terribly one-sided and negative. I don’t want all Russians on TV to be hookers or criminals; I just want some positive representation. Yet, my own desire to see and to show only the acceptable misses the mark too. The point is, we are people, with a variety of experiences. And unless we start representing the range rather than only one end of the spectrum, there is no hope to actually recognizing the other as legitimately human and deserving of being treated as such, regardless of their sartorial choices, level of attractiveness, or place of residence.

Yes, I said all sorts of horrible things about Project Runway judges, and how they pander to the lowest common denominator as they imagine it to be. And no, I am not taking this back. Because this week’s challenge was great, in theory — outfits for stilt walkers! Crazy proportions! Circus! Open air runway! Exciting guest judge! (Well, I lied about the last one.)

Instead, designs were criticized for being too costumey. The biggest compliment Michael Kors gave was that the outfit would look just as good on someone not wearing the stilts — which is the opposite of the point of this challenge! It’s like having a couture challenge and then praising the winning design because it would totally fit at Talbot’s.

Thankfully, there was plenty of drama. Fallene got bossed around by the baby-faced Bryce who kept hissing at her because her bodice was not cut on grain. Fallene is fragile, so she cried and complained of the black cloud hanging over her.

In fact, the black cloud was the awful tutu Bryce made. See?

So Fallene cried, and we all knew it was over for her, because even though she made a quirky feather fascinator, it was abundantly clear that she is not cut out for reality TV. I hope she opens an Etsy shop real soon, because I do dig her designs. Just not this:

I KNOW.

Then we had Anya and Olivier, who were adorable and made a mediocre but not particularly offensive outfit, and were waved through:

The menswearish bodice had potential, but the outfit was meh. Anya and Olivier actually collaborated though, which is so rare in these team challenges. So thumbs up, carry on with your adorable selves.

In less adorable, there was Viktor, who was a snot, and Bert, who was insufferable. Last week he declared that he has immunity and doesn’t care, and sent a half-assed outfit down the runway. This week, he was once again above the challenge but no immunity, so he acted even worse than Viktor. So Viktor discovered Simon Doonan’s rule of flattering adjacency. That is, if you want to be a snot and yet come across as a decent human being, stand next to Bert.

No flattering adjacency could save this though:

Actually, I take it back. The guest judge, Kim Kardashian, had this to say about this look: “It reminds me of the movie The Sound of Music, where they had to cut curtains to make their clothes… like something in Marie Antoinette times.” Suddenly, the dress looked more refined.

Then there was something for the business casual stilt-walker:

This is by Danielle and Cecilia, both my early picks. They can tailor, and the blouse is actually lovely. The pants are well-made. It’s just such a conservative look — I would totally wear this to work if pants were wool. For a stilt-walker, I expect something with a little pizazz:

This is by Julie and Joshua. The proportion is weird, because of the tiny cape which makes the model look like she has T.rex arms. But really, a bigger cape, and you have a great matador/circus look! Totally appropriate for someone on stilts! The judges hated it for being too costumey. I… don’t even.

There was one costumey look they did like:

This was by Kim and Becky. They worked well together — without drama! They just assessed their strength, split the work, and did it, like actual adults. Kim impressed me with her mad tailoring skills (she made the pants). Becky FINALLY showed what I’ve seen in her portfolio: sharp tailoring, nice jacket. Nina of course complained about the collar being too circusy. I didn’t mind it — in fact, it channeled Vivienne Westwood and reminded me a tad of Seth Aaron, without being a knockoff of these too. It is possible!

Someone tell Anthony Ryan, because after he knocked off McQueen’s collar dress last week, this week he went for Gucci Fall 2011.

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B (Gucci):

Nina Garcia politely called him “referential”. Still, it won — actually, he graciously gave the win to Laura, which was sweet.

I’m still pleased with Cecilia and Danielle, really happy that Becky started to show what she can do with tailoring, and now I’m impressed with Kim’s sewing. She flew under the radar so far, but this week, I liked her a lot.

Also, next week’s challenge? Designing for Nina Garcia! This is one challenge where sharp tailoring will pay off, and taste levels will be questioned. Bryce, Joshua, or Viktor — who will be aufed?

(Image via Georgian Index)

Among many significant relationships in my life, one stands slightly apart from the rest: my tailor. Neither friend nor family, a tailor is someone I tend to develop emotional reliance on, and when Angelo retired, I felt lost and a tad bereaved. Angelo is a master, a Burberry-trained pro with a sharp eye, good taste, and understanding of my needs, and and… you get the picture. Before Angelo, there was Silvio — who was very sweet, offered feedback along the lines of “This makes you look less fat!” and did a beautiful job on pencil skirts. Sadly, he also got older, had to cut down on work, and became increasingly difficult to catch in his atelier. And now that Angelo’s gone, I felt lost — lost, and in need of a new tailor.

It might seem like a trivial thing, but I felt as if I was rushed into finding a new relationship, and I wasn’t ready for it. So the search started reluctantly. My local cleaners are great for hemming etc, but not so great for larger stuff (I once took a jacket to them to have a sleeve shortened, and it was returned to me without proper button holes. Now I have a jacket with non-functioning sleeve buttons.) I therefore turned to my local menswear store that offers alterations. A dominant part of my wardrobe is wool — tailored pants and jackets, since menswear is sort of my thing. Good quality wool is beautiful, comfortable, resilient, and lasts forever. Hence the need for alterations — as for most humans, my size and shape changes from time to time, and alterations on even old pieces is required. And an upscale menswear store would surely contain a tailor used to working with wool. (Another component of my wardrobe is button up shirts — something a men’s tailor would be able to handle — and silk, which requires no alterations because it drapes beautifully even if oversized. In fact, especially if oversized.)

The store in question indeed had a tailor — Leo, who spoke with an Eastern European accent (I cannot really tell which one, and I do not ask people — I should probably blog about that too). Leo was put to a test. First, I presented him with a skirt that was really fine, although could use maybe 1/2 inch reduction in the hip. Leo made me put it on and contemplated silently, face in hand. “Can’t do it,” he eventually announced. The skirt in question had a heavy brocade front and thick jersey (almost sweatshirt-like) back.

“Can you put an extra seam in the back?”

Leo contemplated some more. “I don’t like it,” he finally said. I was pleased to see that Leo had the tailor integrity, even if he was easily discouraged from brocade.

Next, I brought out a pair of wool pants. Leo visibly brightened. “I can do these.” He even smiled a little. “Anything.” I was growing hopeful. He marked up my pants with a piece of soap (another good sign), and we moved onto the shirts (husband’s).

And the last thing I presented Leo with was my favorite woolen dress, which needed a gather in the shoulder. Leo pinned the shoulder down. “No charge.”

I think I might have a new tailor. Although I still miss Angelo.