Yep I know British visitors (and probably
others nowadays, now that TV programs get shipped around so much) will know
immediately where this is from, that it is entirely innocuous and nothing at
all to do with my little world. But
hey! Don’t say anything and ruin the
illusion.
Besides, there is nothing to
say that particular uniform dress wouldn’t suit other roles – you just have to apply a
little imagination.
In fact a shop that
was once situated in the Edgware Road, London (Near Marble Arch) used to sell a
similar style aimed at privately employed nursery nurses and children’s nannies
right up to the late 1980s.
Look up ‘GAROULDS OF LONDON’ (click) in the women’s workwear collection section of THE ORIGINAL INSTITUTE if you get the chance. It is in the BEYOND THE BARRED WINDOW area or copy and paste the link below into your browser.
http://www.theoriginalinstitute.com/toyntanen/garroulds-of-london-1960s---80s-overalls-and-uniforms.html
Look up ‘GAROULDS OF LONDON’ (click) in the women’s workwear collection section of THE ORIGINAL INSTITUTE if you get the chance. It is in the BEYOND THE BARRED WINDOW area or copy and paste the link below into your browser.
http://www.theoriginalinstitute.com/toyntanen/garroulds-of-london-1960s---80s-overalls-and-uniforms.html
Not that there’ is much really going on in this particular picture either – to me it’s all in the facial expression
(bolstered by the uniform to some degree – but not as much as you might
think). Sometimes you can come across a
perfectly innocuous scene like this and read all sorts into it. As an image, though, it would work well if illustrating some part of one of my later books, such as ALICE UNDER DISCIPLINE (either book one OR two - Garth Toyntanen, LULU Books) and it would work wonderfuly well along side the piece by 'Chris' I am currently edditing / embelishing in between working on my own new book.
Talking of reading. For the first time in years I actually
purchased something in my own genre (apparently) recently, off of Amazon. I’d read the first part as a free sample and
got all steamed up about it – it spawned a multitude of fantasises and putative
story arcs in my head. But I should have
left it like that – all hanging questions, what ifs and ‘maybes’. As it was I took the next step… And was disappointed. It only cost me £2.59 (inc VAT) so even I, in
my fairly dire strait, am not actually weeping other the cost – and to be
honest it was not THAT bad all things considered – it was just that it quickly
ran out of steam ideas-wise, didn’t go where I’d hoped it would go and… Oh no –
the heroine not only quickly grew to like her situation, She Came Out On Top
(in a way, to a limited extent). A real
shame all in all. Yeah there were one or
two aberrations which niggled, such as the use of ‘an’ before a word beginning
with a consonant (the word forms part of the title, so I won’t give it) and one
or two plot devices which were contradictory (there is a part where the heroine
is in something very akin to a straightjacket in the manner by which it
immobilises her arms, but all of a sudden she is being ‘led by the hand’) but
all in all it was quite well written. As
I say, the cost is so little as to mean nothing, it is just that reading it
sort of robbed me of all those delicious mental possibilities I was enjoying so
much.
Which brings me back to the picture
above. Left as is, with perhaps just the
hint of an outline, one can still tailor the tale to suit one’s self. In fact it is for the latter reason that I
decided to leave off anything that might define exactly who is being addressed,
gender identity and so on. Now you the
onlooker are in charge of the journey.
Lastly – GOOGLE. Yep!
Apparently the rumours were true:
I received the following email a few days back (which is why I’ve been
inspired to update again – and go back to editing a contribution by Chris for
future inclusion), but have not had time to post it up until now: So this is what they say – it’s not exactly a
climb-down in the way that it is worded; but you have to admit, the scenario
they describe with blogs such as this one being labelled as ‘adult’ is errm…errm…errm… Actually – can anyone see the difference?
EMAIL from GOOGLE
………………………….
Dear Blogger User,This week, you received
an email telling you about some changes we were
making to the Blogger Content Policy. In that email, we announced a
change to Blogger's porn policy stating
that blogs distributing sexually explicit
images or graphic nudity would be made private.We've received lots of
feedback about making a policy change that affects longstanding blogs, and the negative impact
on individuals who post sexually
explicit content to express their identities.We appreciate the feedback.
Instead of making this change, we will be
maintaining our existing policies
(http://www.blogger.com/content.g).What this means for your blog:Commercial
porn will continue to be prohibited.If you have pornographic or sexually
explicit content on your blog, you must
turn on the adult content setting (https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/86944?hl=en)
so that a warning will be shown.If you
don't have sexually explicit content on your blog and you're following the rest of the Blogger Content
Policy
(http://www.blogger.com/content.g), you don't need to make any changes
to your blog.Thank you for your
continued feedback,The Blogger Team(c) 2015 Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre
Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
Regarding the Google email
ReplyDeleteBoy, that punk elephant sure is white
We're backing down, but we can't admit we're backing down, because if we admitted we're backing down, the we'd have to admit that we have something stupid to back down from, which would requite us to admit that we were a pack of assclowns
Can you say assclown on this blog?
The Non Victorian Chick
Google sucks when they try to do anything other than search. Of course they don't know how to deal with community-- it isn't what they do.
ReplyDelete