![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chocolatepotYesterday afternoon/evening I sat down and used a basic form letter to request permission from every non-Fenimore museum for permission to use the patterns I took there. Oh, not the SLCHA either, though I should. Oh, and I ought to write to Clermont - I took a pattern of a gown there that was supposed to be for someone else to turn into a costume for an interpreter, which never happened, but now I have the pattern. Chapman already got back to me to say yes! So that's all of the patterns I did for their PastPerfect website (remember that? mostly wedding dresses, the Delphos dress, a slipper ...) as well as a couple I did randomly: two chemises, an 1845 fan-front mourning gown, an 1850s tarlatan ball dress, and a pretty basic 1860s day dress that I don't even remember why I bothered. Albany Institute has also said yes.
Drew out the diagram for the overskirt that goes with the Peacock Bodice. That went very nicely in Affinity, but the next step - making up the table to say what width the pieces should be at top and bottom for the different sizes, because I am not going to make enormous skirt pieces print-at-home - is very boring, so I may shelve it for a little bit and work on a fresh pattern ... now that I have a million new options!
I am thinking of doing one of the garments I patterned before we switched to a 1920s costume theme for the section with dressed mannequins in Great, Strange, and Rarely Seen at AIHA; I wanted to publish a little booklet with the patterns of all the dresses in it but this was denied, and then we ended up doing other things anyway, so. The first one was a late 1830s-early 1840s day dress and you know I love that style!! (I should do the crazy no-fastenings Regency dress but it's so complicaaaaaaaated.)
---
Somehow I have ended up down a rabbithole reading about what some people have dubbed "squeecore" - imprecisely defined by the dubbers as quippy and with too much identity-politics (they're coming from the left but a more, um, "class first" left tradition) and dominant either in numbers or SFF awards. The general consensus seems to be that they're describing only a couple of works at best, and mainly drawing together a thing they dislike in this work, a thing they dislike in another, etc. and calling it a movement. Then beyond that I'm reading about the Puppies and all that, blog posts from 2012-2015 because why not.
(One of the dubbers is Raquel S Benedict, who was briefly fandom/writing Twitter's main character some time ago for some condescending tweet thread on writers who got started in fanfiction; she definitely seems a bit cool girl/pick-me girlish and RTs others. Can't help but notice that she calls herself a "dangerous woman" in her Twitter bio just like this person who applied for flair at AskHistorians and turned out to be a TERF, so now I'm mulling over how self-identifying that way seems cool to the doer but looks really pompous and pathetic to others, and how perhaps it signals a kind of "not like the other girls" attitude.)
Some links, which themselves have links to other posts in them:
Is there a dominant mode of current science fiction?
The follow-up to that, Yeah, but
Science Fiction Is Never Evenly Distributed
“Squeecore” and the Cartoon Mode in SF/F
Drew out the diagram for the overskirt that goes with the Peacock Bodice. That went very nicely in Affinity, but the next step - making up the table to say what width the pieces should be at top and bottom for the different sizes, because I am not going to make enormous skirt pieces print-at-home - is very boring, so I may shelve it for a little bit and work on a fresh pattern ... now that I have a million new options!
I am thinking of doing one of the garments I patterned before we switched to a 1920s costume theme for the section with dressed mannequins in Great, Strange, and Rarely Seen at AIHA; I wanted to publish a little booklet with the patterns of all the dresses in it but this was denied, and then we ended up doing other things anyway, so. The first one was a late 1830s-early 1840s day dress and you know I love that style!! (I should do the crazy no-fastenings Regency dress but it's so complicaaaaaaaated.)
---
Somehow I have ended up down a rabbithole reading about what some people have dubbed "squeecore" - imprecisely defined by the dubbers as quippy and with too much identity-politics (they're coming from the left but a more, um, "class first" left tradition) and dominant either in numbers or SFF awards. The general consensus seems to be that they're describing only a couple of works at best, and mainly drawing together a thing they dislike in this work, a thing they dislike in another, etc. and calling it a movement. Then beyond that I'm reading about the Puppies and all that, blog posts from 2012-2015 because why not.
(One of the dubbers is Raquel S Benedict, who was briefly fandom/writing Twitter's main character some time ago for some condescending tweet thread on writers who got started in fanfiction; she definitely seems a bit cool girl/pick-me girlish and RTs others. Can't help but notice that she calls herself a "dangerous woman" in her Twitter bio just like this person who applied for flair at AskHistorians and turned out to be a TERF, so now I'm mulling over how self-identifying that way seems cool to the doer but looks really pompous and pathetic to others, and how perhaps it signals a kind of "not like the other girls" attitude.)
Some links, which themselves have links to other posts in them:
Is there a dominant mode of current science fiction?
The follow-up to that, Yeah, but
Science Fiction Is Never Evenly Distributed
“Squeecore” and the Cartoon Mode in SF/F
no subject
Date: 2022-01-20 03:11 pm (UTC)So... squeecore (what.. how...) is an offshoot of the puppies, it sounds like? This may be a tangent but for the love of all things fluffy and adorable I am so *tired* of sf/f catering to a Certain Demographic and the rest of us can go fuck ourselves.