February 20, 2005
Frill!
Attention Michele and Kristen: I bought the wedding dress.
For anyone who doesn't follow both my life and my shopping in great detail and is wondering why I'd buy a wedding dress, the answer is: it's pretty, it's frilly, it's soft, it fits me, it's creamy old ivory gauze and lace and delicate poofy sleeves, it's frilly, it has a train, it has a little lace sash, it's old, it's frilly, and it was $20 at Thrift Town in San Francisco. It's so faintingly virginal that I as a boots-wearing living-in-sin libertine absolutely had to have it. And it looks damned good on me, even with the boots.
Now here's a call for opinions. Kristen, Michele, Katie, and I all looked at it and said, "by golly, that's a wedding dress right there." The security guard at Thrift Town agreed. Random passersby in the store beamed and asked me when I was getting married (and were probably somewhat distressed when I grinned happily and told them I wasn't getting married at all). Jacob, on the other hand, looked at it and insisted that it didn't look very bridal. It's got the train, yeah, sure, but wedding.... nah.
What do you think? Please select one: bridal, non-bridal, bridal-ghost, or other (explain).
See, I'm going with bridal-ghost, personally. And do I need a bigger/better picture here?
Posted by: Dianna at February 20, 2005 02:42 PMI've gotta say bridal-ghost. Who's the lucky groom-ghost?
Posted by: Chris at February 20, 2005 03:34 PMTotally funerary bridal-ghost...or, like, femme vampyre...or if you had big, tall hair, bridal-frankenstein! Cool in any case.
Posted by: Erik at February 20, 2005 04:33 PMi'm fascinated by how in this picture the dress looks so much shinier than it really is. it's like satin looking. which is weird since i know it's totally cotton. lovely, in either case though. i'm so glad you went back and bought it because it did fit you perfectly and looked completely cream-puff (in a good way, a good vegan cream kind of way).
Posted by: michele at February 20, 2005 05:02 PMHey! Cream-puff was not one of the options, missy. Dead brides love cream puffs, though, so that's all right.
You're right about the shininess. It's the least shiny wedding dress ever made; it's like old-fashioned nightgown material. All the better for haunting corridors, since it only rustles a little bit and light can shine right through it.
Posted by: Dianna at February 20, 2005 06:06 PM"...and light can shine right through it."
There's nothing I can say to this that won't get me in trouble.
And I'd deserve it.
Posted by: Chris at February 20, 2005 06:51 PMI love it.
You look gorgeous.
And sinful. And virginal.
You're a paradox of great fashion.
now ... pur a corset over that sucker and .... *yum*
hehehe
yep ... virginal *cough* ... sweet .. innocent ... bridalish ... and very little-house-on-the-prairie
cuteness.
Posted by: Ang at February 21, 2005 02:49 AM"Come hither, so I can make with the stabby stabby!"
So.... bridal ghost I guess. Although with appropriate hair and makeup I agree that Bride of Frankenstein would be quite apropos.
Posted by: poot at February 21, 2005 06:08 AMbridal-ghost, for sure. in her wedding-gown-doubling-as-nightie. is it just me, or did this dark corridor just become chilly? i stand by my earlier assessment, too, that it looks a lot like a 1960s interpretation of something pre-Raphaelite.
by the way, what the fuck is it with people not appreciating our thrift store triumphs? my Utterly Undelightful Housemate's sole response to my fucking rad suit was to observe repeatedly that the arms are slightly too long. maybe he and jacob can just go... well, they can just go buy clothes at retail stores and get them tailored, that's what they can do.
Posted by: katie at February 23, 2005 08:40 PMJacob asks, in regard to your Undelightful Housemate's undelightful reaction, "Did she hit him? With the arms?" If the answer is no, I would urge you to consider remedying that situation.
Posted by: Dianna at February 24, 2005 12:14 AMi should have. i should have hogtied him with the too-long arms and legs and flogged him with my tie.
also, i realize that putting jacob in that category was just extreme. he merely failed to agree on the dress's specific qualities - he didn't commit the sin of suggesting costly alterations. sorry, jacob.
Posted by: katie at February 25, 2005 08:29 PM