Handmade gifts for Christmas 2014

Since most of my crafty/knitting post have been cosplay related lately I decide to share some of the little gifts I made this year.  I set myself the challenge of working only from the stash and I am proud to say I met that challenge.

When it comes to making gifts it can be very time consuming so I like to make sure that what I make is a winner out of the gate.  I prefer knowing someone specifically wants something so when being observant fails I just flat out ask.  That was the case with my brother this year.  He told me he wanted little Jawa named Blizz.    I found a few crochet patterns but none knitted ( Please know I don't hate crochet I just can't do it, and yes I've tried) so I had to make this up as I went.  Having knitted plenty of little dolls/animals - it wasn't that hard.  There was some ripping out here and there.  And now I realize he's not wearing a cape.  Oh well, my brother loves it so that's what's important.

Second up is for my dad.  This is the fourth hat I've made him.  It's super boring 2x2 ribbing but sometimes you just want boring.  This yarn was leftover from this sweater.  It seemed a little light so I dug up the Kool aid I have stashed from when I used to dye things with it.  For the hat I used one green packet, two blue packets, and about one third of a grape packet.

Next is a cowl for a friend.  It's leftover sock yarn and done entirely in seed stitch with some little yarn overs here and there.   I wanted something light enough to be worn indoors because I didn't want her to have to remove it every time she goes inside.  Plus, living in southern NM, making it light weight means she can wear it for a much longer time than the few days/weeks a year it's actually cold.

Finally, the one sewn one.  Again, for a friend.  She has just gotten into sewing and was lamenting she couldn't find a big pincushion.  I could have bought her one but I figured I'd try making one instead.  I used this tutorial.  Or rather I read it through once and then had at it.  It's not perfect, but it should do the job.

My great uncle's yearbooks -1939

Remember ages back (July) when I posted the first one?  No?  Here's a link.

The observant might note that the last yearbook was 1937.  What happened to 1938?  Your guess is as good as mine.  Either he just didn't buy one that year or it got misplaced.  I do have 1940 and will get around to posting it.  Probably six months from now.

This year the theme was "Then and Now." 

Each section begins with an illustration of "Then" on the left page . . .

. . . and a photo of "Now" in the right.

This year my great uncle played varsity - he's in the front, number 70.

Being a junior, this year he also got a solo photo.  He looks very cool.

Continuing with the theme of "Then and Now" are photos of teachers and staff "Then"  I made this extra large so you could see all the details.

This is the Junior Safety Council - who have awesome coats. 

Male cheerleaders, just because.

I'd love to meet the new Nash.

This particular yearbook was ephemera heavy.

The back of the Jinx dance ticket.  In case you can't read it, it says "Whopee, I finally danced"

I'm assuming this "arrest notice" was a way of "collecting" one's date to the dance.  The address on it is in a residential area.  Bonus, the dark haired young lady in the white sweater is the one whose name appears on the arrest notice.

But what of Peggy Landis mentioned in the last year book post? A Margaret Landis is standing behind the brunette looking left.  Mystery solved?  Anyway I love Peggy's hairdo. 

Then and Now: Peter Pan

Source

My friend and I always talk about how when you watch something you haven't seen since you were a child you see things completely differently.  There are things that went over your head or didn't stick in your memory at all.  Inspired by my viewing of Peter Pan Live! I've decided to start a series that might end up being only this one.  After all, it all depends on me watching something I haven't seen since I was a child and having a lot to say about what I remembered it was like and what it really was like.

What I remember:

I remember the Darlings running away from home.  I remember lots of flying - "Think lovely thoughts."  I remember thinking Tinkerbell was horrible.  I remember the song about Neverland, and the "I won't grow up" song.  I don't recall if I wanted to run away with Peter but I do recall wanting to fly. 

What I realized:

Actually, Tinkerbell isn't really all that bad when you measure her against other characters.  Sure, she's jealous of Wendy and tries to have her killed and she is strangely possessive of Pan, but she's makes more sense than either of the two leads.

Let's start with Pan.  He is the hero, right?  The whole play is centered around him and his joyous youthful adventures.  You are supposed to want to run away with him, right?  But if he is the symbol of everything wonderful about childhood, well then he fails.  He's selfish, cruel, and shows a remarkable lack of curiosity.  He actively mocks learning.  In song and dance even.  Pan does what he likes and doesn't much care about the consequences.  I've worked with children for years and I have to say I am offended.  Yes, kids can be like that at times - but so can adults.  I suppose there's a reason Pan has a whole syndrome named after him but there are actually plenty of wonderful qualities associated with childhood and Pan seems to possess none of them.

Now Wendy is so strange that I can't decide if this is because gender roles have changed so much or she is just horribly written.  She is clearly in love with Pan and runs away with him.  Ignoring the fact that she brings her brothers with lets talk about what she does when they get to Neverland.  Does she get to run around and have adventures with everyone?  No she has to be a mom.  She goes to Neverland not avoid growing up, but to play at growing up.  Pan is father and "husband" but he is hardly a supportive partner to Wendy - frequently mocking her efforts to act as mother - a role he specifically brought her to Neverland to fill.  Wendy is an effing doormat.  So when she finally escapes Neverland does she get to go off an have adventures?  No she has a daughter and sits every night in her childhood nursery waiting for the return of the selfish brat that she still hasn't gotten over after all these years.  And when he finally returns what does she do? She offers up her entire female line as some sort of sacrifice to Pan.  Does she completely forget that she nearly died in Neverland or does she not care that she's sending her child to a dangerous place with a forgetful and careless boy?  Is this some wacky form of Stockholm Syndrome?

Since Pan doesn't change (and he wouldn't have to grow up to grow as a character) the only way the play really works for me is if Pan is presented as a tragic figure.  Showing how his unwillingness to grow up denies him the opportunity to fully enjoy and participate in life.  But then you have Wendy there still adoring him and waiting for him and giving him her children.  Which makes it feel like the play is trying to present Pan as an ideal.  But he isn't.  He's not even very much like a real child.

I don't know how much was rewritten for this version - I do know that they added a song.  (But only because I watched a behind the scenes thing -as I mentioned, my memory of the songs is hazy. ) I think if I'd been in charge of the rewrite I would have changed the ending.  Let Wendy go off and live a life and have her own adventures.  Let her really grow up and not fixate on the boy who kidnapped her and her brothers.  Let Pan return to an empty nursery and wonder where she is.

I am not saying I totally hate Peter Pan - in terms of cultural literacy I think the play is very important.  But I have to say I see things very differently through adult eyes.  Perhaps that's because I'm a stodgy old grown up now. 

Who'd happily climb a tree and still wants to fly.

On a semi - related note Tom & Lorenzo are doing Musical Monday's again.  They did Grease last Monday which I think is the perfect example of a movie looks totally different through grown up eyes.  I've seen it plenty of times since becoming a "grown up" but I just might tackle it at some point for this series.

On Modesty and "Old Fashioned"

This recent post on Cos Couture got me thinking about modesty and how we often associate "old fashioned" with covered up and modest looks.  Which is a bit odd. It assumes that fashion runs in some sort of line straight from completely covered to showing it all off.  But fashion has always cycled.  

A fashion plate from 1919

Now, I will be the first to point out when skirts are too short in a film or show set in the 1920s but while the actual length of a 1920s dress may look long to modern eyes, in terms of what women were wearing just a decade earlier hemlines were shockingly higher.  But they didn't stay that way and by the 1930s they had fallen again to something closer to 1910s lengths. 

Rising hemlines in the twenties . . .

 . . .Falling ones in the thirties.

And then there's the sixties.  The mini skirt was mini.  So short many women opted for tights to avoid flashing people.  Last time I was in a store I didn't see any dresses or skirts that short.  And while the 20th century saw some of the biggest shifts, hemlines have always risen and fallen.

I admit this is evening wear, but clearly plunging necklines are nothing new.

It's the same for necklines and the tightness of how clothes are worn.  I guarantee there are plenty of older women and men who have uttered comments on how "dowdy" modern clothes are.   Yes, there are "Old fashioned" folks out there thinking the young people should wear tighter  and more revealing clothes.  And no, they are not all dirty old men.

This is the first image that popped up when I did a Google search for "appropriate work wear" Yawn.

While the casual and special occasion clothes of today can some times get pretty revealing the notion of accepted work wear  is pretty conservative.  Can you imagine an office allowing women to wear skirts as short as those shown in the SCDP offices in recent seasons of Mad Men?  When I was younger I was pulled aside for wearing clothes that showed  a little too much or were too brightly colored according to those who spoke to me.  I didn't think I was showing too much or being inappropriate but I did as told.   Then when I got into vintage dressing I had to think carefully about what I could get away with and what would lead to another "little chat".

In the Cos Couture article she writes about how the visibility of the human nipple through clothes was not considered to be obscene and in fact its appearance was sometimes enhanced with the sewing of buttons on the bra.  It brought to mind a time when I was bra shopping and asked the clerk if they had any bras that weren't lined with foam.  She responded to me in a despairing tone "But the nipples."  Apparently I had been unaware that such exposure was not only undesirable but downright tragic.  And yet the store was filled to the brim with push up and padded bras.  Clearly enhancing the actual size of one's assets was okay but let's not remind people that breasts have a functional as well as decorative purpose!  Where will fashion take us twenty, thirty, fifty years from now?  What are we enhancing and admiring right now that will become obscene?  What will we chose to show off and augment instead?
 

Just some old fashioned ladies.

So why is that most people equate "Old fashioned" with prim, proper, and (occasionally) prudish?   Is it because most people are ignorant of fashion history?  Is it the idea that fashion only runs in one direction?  Is it, perhaps, coming from the same place that the notion that old people are naive and unworldly?  That the mythical "Good Old Days" were a simpler and more innocent time? I hate to shatter anyone's illusions but the "Good Old Days" exist only in people's imaginations.  Life was never simple, it was just different.  Attitudes change over time, maybe sometimes for the better.  Of course what is "better" will depend on your perspective.

"Old fashioned" should simply mean that it's fashion from a time previous to now.  But that's not how it's used.  This certainly doesn't bother me on the level of a "wrong era" comment.  I think how it really bothers me is that it seems to be closely associated with a value judgement.  The person using the remark is often either praising or insulting what they deem to be "old fashioned."  Either being an "old fashioned" girl is good because you are prim, sweet, and proper or it's bad because you are prudish, repressed, and dowdy.  Take your pick.  I prefer neither.

What do you think of when you hear the term "old fashioned"?