----- Original Message ----- From: "Lavolta Press" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Historical Costume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
There we disagree, because I think this is an artificial distinction. It's basically a marketing distinction. Like "real" literature getting reviewed in the _New York Times Book Review_, and "trashy"--but bestselling--novels getting reviewed in a great many less pretentious venues. Having worked in the book world, I could position lot of novels as either one or the other merely by writing a few paragraphs of back cover copy and sending review copies to a certain group of publications.
I'd still rather read Pride and Prejudice or The Pickwick Papers than the latest Diana Gabaldon novel.
Which I think brings back the point that we are too close to the twentieth century yet to look at it objectively. Pickwick and Oliver Twist were serial novels, hardly considered "literature" in their time. Shakespeare was just a playwright. But how many other novelists and playwrights from those eras do we still read?
What will be the contribution the twentieth century made that will still influence the world a hundred years from now? Four hundred years from now? Will people still be wearing blue jeans? I'm talking culture, not scientific, though science certainly has made a HUGE impact on our culture.
Just please tell me not everyone will speak in internet shorthand.. Dianne _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
