[h-cost] Bad books:

2008-02-21 Thread ladybeanofbunny1
After I checked my mail this morning and got all the tips about 
researching, starting with cconsulting the back of the book, I went and 
looked in the back of some of my books! One book wasn't a book on 
fashion, but in it the author rather studies and compares the 
differences between our society today and Victorian society, and how 
many of the things that are bad today are the result of things that 
changed from that era, it really is fascinating and she nails many good 
points in the head. The bibliography is huge! Most of the literature 
consists of books written in the 1980s and 90's but there are a few 
titles, most reprinted, from the 1880s and I noticed that most of those 
were reprinted by one specific publishing company, so I will look them 
up. I will be sure to send along any bad books I get but most of my 
purchases are done so with care to avoid that sort of problem. However, 
I recall quite a few of those basic costume through history books on 
our library shelves that were printed I guess mainly for kids doing 
reports on a specific time period or someone doing a play. Our library 
system also has the network so that you can reserve/order books from 
any other library within the system and it's fairly fast cause I did it 
once, our branch here, though the prettiest library you can imagine, 
has a very poor selection on such topics for serious researchers, 
sadly. Even the other titles from other locations were again those 
broken down overview books where one person has done all the hunting 
and gathering and sloshed it together into one book. I will remember 
now that whenever I have one of those, to get a piece of paper and pen 
or pencil and just browse through the back of it. I have an original 
book of etiquette from 1880 so I take much of the content of that book 
more seriously than I would a new book about the Victorian era only 
such form varied from place to place and what rules applied in one town 
may not have been weighed so heavily in others.




More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
http://webmail.aol.com

___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume


Re: [h-cost] Bad books:

2008-02-22 Thread Barbara
Just out of curiosity, does anyone maintain a list of these "Bad Books"
for those of us in the early stages of our interest in historical costume?
I don't want to look at a book and realize after I buy it that the
research is suspect.

I have started a list of "good books" to look out for, but a "bad book"
list would be very helpful.
Barbara
___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume


Re: [h-cost] Bad books:

2008-02-22 Thread Melanie Schuessler
There is a short bad books list at Jessamyn's Closet.  The lady is  
very nice and I'm sure she would welcome suggestions for additions to  
the list.


http://jessamynscloset.com/badbooks.html

I second the recommendation against anything by John Peacock.

Melanie Schuessler



On Feb 22, 2008, at 8:24 AM, Barbara wrote:

Just out of curiosity, does anyone maintain a list of these "Bad  
Books"
for those of us in the early stages of our interest in historical  
costume?

I don't want to look at a book and realize after I buy it that the
research is suspect.

I have started a list of "good books" to look out for, but a "bad  
book"

list would be very helpful.
Barbara
___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume


___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume


Re: [h-cost] Bad books:

2008-02-22 Thread Dawn

Melanie Schuessler wrote:
There is a short bad books list at Jessamyn's Closet.  The lady is 
very nice and I'm sure she would welcome suggestions for additions to 
the list.


http://jessamynscloset.com/badbooks.html 


Some of those books really are not that bad. What a lot of people forget 
when doing research of any kind is that you need more than a single 
source. I don't know if they still teach that in grade school, to use at 
least 3 sources -- and not one of them can be the encyclopedia. By the 
time you hit high school or college it should have been taught, but 
there still seem to be a lot of adults who base their evidence off a 
single drawing or portrait.


Further, the list on that website was taken (without credit) from an 
article in the SCA publication Compleat Anachronist #39 Costume Studies 
II, which itself was reprinted from a newsletter series called "Seams 
Like Old Times". The issue should still be available from the SCA stock 
clerk for $4 or $5. There is a lengthy annotation for each entry which 
explains WHY it is a bad source, and the bibliography -- which is 33 
pages long -- also has a number of good recommended sources in it. 
Although most of the books listed date from the 40's to the 70's and 
have been out of print for decades, they still show up and can be useful 
sources.



Dawn

___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume


Re: [h-cost] Bad books:

2008-02-22 Thread Exstock
- Original Message - 
From: "Dawn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Some of those books really are not that bad.

...
Although most of the books listed date from the 40's to the 70's and have 
been out of print for decades, they still show up and can be useful 
sources.


Along those lines, as I am busy spending scads of time looking for wills & 
inventories on Google books, I'd like to make sure that people don't get 
confused and think that everything written on historical matters during the 
era of Bad Costuming Books is worthless.  People in the 19th century seemed 
to have a positive mania for transcribing very useful historical documents.


-E House 


___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume


Re: [h-cost] Bad books:

2008-02-22 Thread AlbertCat
 
In a message dated 2/22/2008 9:06:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

http://jessamynscloset.com/badbooks.html



***
 
She lists
 
"Braun and Schneider. Historic Costume in Pictures"
 
I'm sorry but I love this book. However, I also know it's from  the 1840's. 
[You can clearly see it in the silhouettes of the women's  clothes...in any 
period] This makes it kinda fun, especially when they do the  Orient. And I 
love 
the Nationalistic costumes...which are indeed costumes. I  think it's worth 
having. But no one in their right mind would consider it a  completely accurate 
history.




**Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.  
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp0030002598)
___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume


Re: [h-cost] Bad books:

2008-02-22 Thread Catherine Olanich Raymond
On Friday 22 February 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/22/2008 9:06:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> http://jessamynscloset.com/badbooks.html
>
>
>
> ***
>
> She lists
>
> "Braun and Schneider. Historic Costume in Pictures"
>
> I'm sorry but I love this book. However, I also know it's from  the 1840's.
> [You can clearly see it in the silhouettes of the women's  clothes...in any
> period] This makes it kinda fun, especially when they do the  Orient. And I
> love the Nationalistic costumes...which are indeed costumes. I  think it's
> worth having. But no one in their right mind would consider it a 
> completely accurate history.

There are definitely reasons to have some of these "bad" books (as she said, 
Robin Netherton collects them as evidence of different types of 
misconceptions about the costume of earlier periods that have infected the 
accepted "knowledge" across the history of costume research).  I don't detest 
Peacock, for example, because though he can't draw period silhouettes with 
great accuracy his timeline books give a useful general idea of types of 
change over time--particularly if you are already familiar with period styles 
from period art and other sources.

The biggest generalization I would make about the "bad" books is that they 
should not be given as a first, second, or third book to beginners, because 
they tend to give people the wrong mindset and other kinds of wrong ideas 
about historic costume and costume research.  I was fortunate in that the 
first costume history books I encountered were the ones written by the 
Cunningtons.  They use redrawings, true, but they're reasonably faithful 
redrawings, usually with indications of what the original source is, and they 
are steeped in the idea that period art should be a first stop in attempting 
to learn about period costume.  

-- 
Cathy Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

"You affect the world by what you browse."-- Tim Berners-Lee

___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume


Re: [h-cost] Bad books:

2008-02-22 Thread Chris Laning


On Feb 22, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Exstock wrote:


- Original Message - From: "Dawn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Some of those books really are not that bad.

...
Although most of the books listed date from the 40's to the 70's  
and have been out of print for decades, they still show up and can  
be useful sources.


Along those lines, as I am busy spending scads of time looking for  
wills & inventories on Google books, I'd like to make sure that  
people don't get confused and think that everything written on  
historical matters during the era of Bad Costuming Books is  
worthless.  People in the 19th century seemed to have a positive  
mania for transcribing very useful historical documents.



They did indeed, and it's a great help. I would never say *all*  
Victorian sources were bad; it's more complicated than that. Although  
any Victorian source needs to be checked out -- and we should be  
doing that anyway.


I think the problem is mainly that Victorian writers on the Middle  
Ages and Renaissance were very, very confident. They were *certain*  
that they could look at a fragmentary, incomplete artifact and  
"restore" it to what it looked like when it was new.  They also seem  
to have been fairly relaxed about generalzing from very few  
examples.  Modern researchers are much more cautious, and try to  
question their own biases and to not make any assumptions beforehand.


I'd still say "not reliable" is a good starting assumption when  
looking at Victorian sources, but that doesn't make them useless.



OChris Laning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Davis, California
+ http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com




___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume