/fa/ books

>>9751523
American Psycho
:^)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class

It is at this point that the dress of men falls short of that of women, and for sufficient reason. Conspicuous waste and conspicuous leisure are reputable because they are evidence of pecuniary strength; pecuniary strength is reputable or honorific because, in the last analysis, it argues success and superior force; therefore the evidence of waste and leisure put forth by any individual in his own behalf cannot consistently take such a form or be carried to such a pitch as to argue incapacity or marked discomfort on his part; as the exhibition would in that case show not superior force, but inferiority, and so defeat its own purpose. So, then, wherever wasteful expenditure and the show of abstention from effort is normally, or on an average, carried to the extent of showing obvious discomfort or voluntarily induced physical disability. There the immediate inference is that the individual in question does not perform this wasteful expenditure and undergo this disability for her own personal gain in pecuniary repute, but in behalf of some one else to whom she stands in a relation of economic dependence; a relation which in the last analysis must, in economic theory, reduce itself to a relation of servitude.

To apply this generalization to women's dress, and put the matter in concrete terms: the high heel, the skirt, the impracticable bonnet, the corset, and the general disregard of the wearer's comfort which is an obvious feature of all civilized women's apparel, are so many items of evidence to the effect that in the modern civilized scheme of life the woman is still, in theory, the economic dependent of the man—that, perhaps in a highly idealized sense, she still is the man's chattel. The homely reason for all this conspicuous leisure and attire on the part of women lies in the fact that they are servants to whom, in the differentiation of economic functions, has been delegated the office of putting in evidence their master's ability to pay. There is a marked similarity in these respects between the apparel of women and that of domestic servants, especially liveried servants. In both there is a very elaborate show of unnecessary expensiveness, and in both cases there is also a notable disregard of the physical comfort of the wearer. But the attire of the lady goes farther in its elaborate insistence on the idleness, if not on the physical infirmity of the wearer, than does that of the domestic. And this is as it should be; for in theory, according to the ideal scheme of the pecuniary culture, the lady of the house is the chief menial of the household.

>>9751531
>t-the master is the r-real slave
The bourgeois was a mistake

File: CqKY_hoUIAAL_6K.jpg large.jpg (263KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1500x1500px

>>9751523
>aesthetics of clothes

as a cyberpunk aficionado I do find yr thread most vague and intolerably banal, ignoble soul! dost thou always dribble drool over thine keyboard?

But seriously though, this has like three subparts:

1. What is the function of clothing for the protagonist? for sci-fi there are often environmental dangers, not just societal pressures
2. What is the character's relationship to clothing, like in terms of what she can afford, how do her clothing choices characterize her
3. How do I actually explain a clothing item

I read the first few chapters of this book by neuromancer guy that wasn't idoru and the main character was wearing an excruciatingly accurate replica of a MA-1 bomber jacket, and it had descriptions of the wrinkles in the fabric due to the vintage serging machine or some BS like that. it alienated me because I can't even afford a knockoff MA-1. fuck William Dawkins. I bet he just does yoga and waters his lawn all day. what a phony.

File: djjs.jpg (142KB, 818x727px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 818x727px

>>9751557
>as a cyberpunk aficionado I do find yr thread most vague and intolerably banal, ignoble soul!

>>9751529
>>9751531
Yeah when clothing is used as a social commentary it's kinda boring, even though it is fundamentally a social thing. I was more talking about aesthetics.

Like when Nabokov describe clothes it's not to say "she's rich" but "this dress makes this child even sexier". It's more exciting. But then again, most of the time, I have no idea which specific piece of clothing he's refering to.

>>9751557
That's interesting, I didn't think of the sci-fi angle, since I never read sci-fi. Any sci-fi book where, from the text, you manage to clearly imagine the universe's sense of fashion, disregarding functionality? I'm talking shapes, colors, lines etc.

File: 1486231519970.jpg (122KB, 854x1024px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 854x1024px

>>9751624
>I'm talking shapes, colors, lines etc.

that shade of blue from Hitchhiker's. It's a blue prism. truly, the epitome of reproducibly representing visual information in a non-visual medium! The highest aspirations of our craft. That way when 1000 nerds read a book, the character you self-inserted as will look the same in all of their heads, so you don't have to waste time beating them up

>>9751523
Bangkok 8 by Burdett
Invisible Monsters by Palahniuk
American Psycho by Ellis

>>9751624
Symbols of power, wealth, and status is actually a pretty interesting subject desu, to me at least. In preliterate society these symbols were especially important to convey superiority or other themes like holiness or the glory of God.

>>9751544

Trying to make fun of theory of the leisure class in green text. TOTLC is a great read and a fascinating topic. Really gets your noggin joggin. Do you have leisure? Do you use it aristocratically?

>>9751682
jesus christ that's fucking ugly

File: 1478048459741.png (1MB, 800x1100px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x1100px

>>9751720
Sure, I agree. Especially about religious symbolism.

But take American Psycho for example, Bateman's gonna brag about his Armani suit because he can afford it, it's expressing his wealth, which is fine and in-character. However, he's not gonna adress the craftmanship of it, nor its immediate beauty.

That's where I'm getting at: more often than not, clothing in fiction is a tool to commentate on the background of it's owner. There are many authors that celebrate the shapes and colors of women or landscapes, but few, if any, mention clothing in the same way. I suspect it's harder.

File: _0003w.jpg (19KB, 279x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 279x400px

This high-class pseudo-intellectual avant-garde garbage isn't fashionably /lit/ at all. To even care about something as tawdry as 'fashion' is to be anti-/lit/.

>>9752112
remind me, what neurological disorder correlates with disregarding fashion ?

>>9751523
I started dressing in khakis and polos after reading Lisa Birnbach's preppy handbook. It's from 1980 but it's still really need.