![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neadodsSpent most of the drive in to work framing a letter of rebuttal to Robin Givhan's "Wookiee at Me!" article in today's Post, which calls anyone who wears a costume for any reason sad, slobby, and mentally ill. (Bugmenot's pass past the registration is email batfart@mailinator.com and password batfart)
I haven't sent a reply to the Post yet, but this is what I'm thinking of sending when I've cooled down and done a spot-edit:
I see the Style section has jumped on the Star Wars bandwagon with a particularly nasty article wherein Robin Givhan asserts her superiority over everyone who doesn't wear current fashions. ("Wookiee at Me!," Style section C01, 5/20/05) Although she puts in a belated comment about how people who fuss over high fashion can be equally silly, most of her article is dedicated to suggesting that anyone who wears a costume has problems. Not just the Star Wars fans, but all science fiction fans, plus all historical re-enactors, and the renfaire buffs.
According to Ms. Givhan, every single one is personally a slob (""Star Trek" mythology is so persuasive that a fan will spend valuable time making himself up like a Klingon, but probably feels overburdened if his standard grooming ritual starts to take longer than 10 minutes"), in need of a real wardrobe ("A "Star Wars" fan will empty his wallet of thousands of dollars for a couture stormtrooper costume complete with macho laser blaster, but would likely balk at the idea of spending that much for a classic one-button suit"), and mentally ill ("The clothes are also what leave one wondering if perhaps Pfizer makes something that, taken twice daily with water, could snap them out of their delusions.")
Not one word about people who go to sports events, strip off their shirts, and paint themselves in team colors, though. Apparently that's perfectly normal.
I doubt Ms. Givhan realizes just how many people she has insulted this morning. The Washington area fan community is thriving, hosting dozens of annual conventions. One of the largest has over a thousand members every year. The Maryland Renaissance Festival is one of the most successful festivals in America. And the historical significance of this area means that it is the heart of Civil War re-enactment culture. The people who dress up for these events are mostly cultured professionals, since it takes education, dedication, and money to participate in such expensive, detail-oriented hobbies - and Ms. Givhan might be surprised at how few well-paying jobs actually require possession of a "classic one-button suit."
What is particularly insulting is dismissing the research and effort that goes into historical re-enactment as something that "could loosely be construed as educational." Many of the people who are members of the re-enactment groups are teachers, scholars, and dedicated historians. Their work is vital for making history accessible to the modern age. It even adds to the luster of Hollywood; re-enactors were an important part of the making of "Sommersby" and "Gettysburg," providing historical information and believe it or not, costumes. (The article makes it clear that Ms. Givhan doesn't realize that many costumers do not buy their outfits, they make them. Tailoring is a useful skill and costuming can be a profession.)
But what was worst of all was using a picture of one of the Renaissance festival actresses as an example of the people Ms. Givhan finds so pathetic. It was Mary Anne Jung's job to dress in character as Anne Boleyn, a job she most certainly could not have performed in a classic one-button suit or "fashionable ensemble that one would be expected to wear on a regular basis."
Perhaps for an encore Ms. Givhan will travel to Sturbridge Village or Colonial Williamsburg so she may dismiss the workers as delusional and their work as merely vaguely worthwhile. Or she could stay in town and protest at the Folger and Shakespeare Theatre of DC whenever they mount a production that isn't in modern dress.
Every costumer knows that when we dress oddly, some people will point and laugh. But distaste for those costumes does not excuse sweeping condemnation of hobby costumes as a sign of mental derangement or educational re-enactment as practically worthless, and it certainly does not excuse harassing an actress for doing her job.
ETA: Sent to the Post at 11:15 via email.
ETA2: The Washington Post printed it in the "Free for All" section on 5/28.
I haven't sent a reply to the Post yet, but this is what I'm thinking of sending when I've cooled down and done a spot-edit:
I see the Style section has jumped on the Star Wars bandwagon with a particularly nasty article wherein Robin Givhan asserts her superiority over everyone who doesn't wear current fashions. ("Wookiee at Me!," Style section C01, 5/20/05) Although she puts in a belated comment about how people who fuss over high fashion can be equally silly, most of her article is dedicated to suggesting that anyone who wears a costume has problems. Not just the Star Wars fans, but all science fiction fans, plus all historical re-enactors, and the renfaire buffs.
According to Ms. Givhan, every single one is personally a slob (""Star Trek" mythology is so persuasive that a fan will spend valuable time making himself up like a Klingon, but probably feels overburdened if his standard grooming ritual starts to take longer than 10 minutes"), in need of a real wardrobe ("A "Star Wars" fan will empty his wallet of thousands of dollars for a couture stormtrooper costume complete with macho laser blaster, but would likely balk at the idea of spending that much for a classic one-button suit"), and mentally ill ("The clothes are also what leave one wondering if perhaps Pfizer makes something that, taken twice daily with water, could snap them out of their delusions.")
Not one word about people who go to sports events, strip off their shirts, and paint themselves in team colors, though. Apparently that's perfectly normal.
I doubt Ms. Givhan realizes just how many people she has insulted this morning. The Washington area fan community is thriving, hosting dozens of annual conventions. One of the largest has over a thousand members every year. The Maryland Renaissance Festival is one of the most successful festivals in America. And the historical significance of this area means that it is the heart of Civil War re-enactment culture. The people who dress up for these events are mostly cultured professionals, since it takes education, dedication, and money to participate in such expensive, detail-oriented hobbies - and Ms. Givhan might be surprised at how few well-paying jobs actually require possession of a "classic one-button suit."
What is particularly insulting is dismissing the research and effort that goes into historical re-enactment as something that "could loosely be construed as educational." Many of the people who are members of the re-enactment groups are teachers, scholars, and dedicated historians. Their work is vital for making history accessible to the modern age. It even adds to the luster of Hollywood; re-enactors were an important part of the making of "Sommersby" and "Gettysburg," providing historical information and believe it or not, costumes. (The article makes it clear that Ms. Givhan doesn't realize that many costumers do not buy their outfits, they make them. Tailoring is a useful skill and costuming can be a profession.)
But what was worst of all was using a picture of one of the Renaissance festival actresses as an example of the people Ms. Givhan finds so pathetic. It was Mary Anne Jung's job to dress in character as Anne Boleyn, a job she most certainly could not have performed in a classic one-button suit or "fashionable ensemble that one would be expected to wear on a regular basis."
Perhaps for an encore Ms. Givhan will travel to Sturbridge Village or Colonial Williamsburg so she may dismiss the workers as delusional and their work as merely vaguely worthwhile. Or she could stay in town and protest at the Folger and Shakespeare Theatre of DC whenever they mount a production that isn't in modern dress.
Every costumer knows that when we dress oddly, some people will point and laugh. But distaste for those costumes does not excuse sweeping condemnation of hobby costumes as a sign of mental derangement or educational re-enactment as practically worthless, and it certainly does not excuse harassing an actress for doing her job.
ETA: Sent to the Post at 11:15 via email.
ETA2: The Washington Post printed it in the "Free for All" section on 5/28.
