I see what you're doing there: you're trying to get your commenters to go invade another site. Well, it won't work, do you hear?!

Seriously, vinyl 45s coming back? When did that happen, and where? Is this one of those things that visible in some clubs and nowhere else?

A 70s fashion revival, though, is easy to predict, and unlikely to be wrong. Fashion is always doing that sort of thing, it goes retro at the drop of a milliner's fascinator, and it's often in the 30-40 year range, because of the people with money wanting their youth again. How long any such revival lasts is another question, because fashion is so terribly ephemeral.

I believe that vinyl is a "clubbing fashion" yes.

Oh and I've left a comment in their moderation queue!

Comment has been perpetrated, upon the uses of fun-poking, and one underappreciated value of near-future fic.

It shocked me to remember that my (much adored) phone was but a twinkle in Steve Jobs eye so few years ago. Seriously I wonder why my 5 year past self would have thought if I travelled back and showed him an iPhone, as far as I remember he was just getting over a flip phone that belongs in a museum now.

Shape of "athletes-and-performers" in opening ceremony at XXXth Olympiad forms a summoning, and extra-dimensional horrors eat Seb Coe, and all spectators, before STratford is nuked (small, <1kt, pleas, so my house is still standing ......) thus significantly increasing IQ of UK. Improbable enough - if not make REALLY FRESH cup of tea!

The closest I can come to a drawback to that plan is that I know some people who live or near Stratford (E London)!

I believe that vinyl is a "clubbing fashion" yes.

Vinyl 33s never went away - you need them if you're a DJ. 45s? Search me, guv.

a sudden fad for 16th century fashion

Might I point you to Lolita Fashion. It's already here.

Not exactly; the EGL thing is more late-Victorian girls-wear, according to my significant other (who is interested in these phenomena).

In general, clothing fashion in Europe followed a 150-year sine wave from the early mediaeval period to the early 20th century, so that something that was the height of fashion in year X would be replaced by its antithesis by year (X + 75) and be back in, in slightly remixed shape, by (X + 150).

It helps to bear in mind that clothing was fiendishly expensive until the early-to-mid-20th century: a complete outfit of new clothes for a fashionably clad man or woman would be the equivalent in modern financial terms of buying a serious high-end designer outfit or a cheap car. Stuff got repaired, re-sized, handed down, sold on, and worn until it was in rags -- so fashion was very slow to change. This situation began to change with the advent of cheap cotton fabric and sewing machines, then accelerated drastically in the 20th century, breaking down entirely (we now see fashions changing on a roughly 10-20 year cycle, so fast that different trends exist in parallel/superimposition).

(So a sudden 21st century fad for 16th century clothes would be anomalous because (a) it'd break significantly with current fashion, and (b) it'd significantly break the 150 year cycle.)

Maybe I should hang on to my laserdiscs, they might go back into fashion...

I've been wondering where the fashion for 1960s hippie styles among mid-teens started. I think it became common about 2004-2006 here in the western US, and has faded somewhat, though still apparently not completely gone.

Nah, it's the hipsters who are going all renaissance. Tights, elegantly slashed tops, hoodies. I swear I saw someone wearing a top with tied on sleeves at the bus stop the other day. Just wait, when people start taking their hoodies off, rolling them up into a doughnut and sticking their head in the wrong hole, then we'll have some proper 16th century fashion happening.

1960s hippie styles were never worn by real Hippies. Only by plastic Hippies. And Narks. GLOBAL WARMING WILL NOT GO AWAY.

I recall some internet philosopher on fashion: (A) Men tend to find a look that suits them and stick with it, declaring fashion a solved problem for decades at a time. (B) Clothing cycles tend to go around in a 30-40 year period, leading to (C) Fathers will be maximally out of fashion just as their sons grow old enough to care about clothes.

Not necessarily true, but amusing.

Charlie's got a good point, though. When clothing fashions are cycling down at a decade or two, nobody but the fashionistas will even try keeping up. People will find something they like and go with it, rather than whatever is the look of the month. It becomes practical to put your line-green Nehru jacket into the back of the closet and wait for things to come around again. Or, if you work in academia, keep dressing as you did twenty years ago and ignore your wife's subtle hints to get a clue.

45's doesn't seem to ever have gone away in clubland, at least around here. I think I'm seeing the outlines of what seems to be a vinyl backlash against laptops for DJing though. (Not that anyone I know ever considered using anything else than their Technics 1200s, of course.)

A 70s fashion revival, though, is easy to predict

In general, clothing fashion in Europe followed a 150-year sine wave [...]

But where the hell did the 1950s revival come from? (With the added tattoos and piercings that everyone is required to have.) I'm thinking that the whole burlesque thing has something to do with it, but I'm not sure. Or is that just around here?

By the way, the alt text for all three covers on the Orbit post is "Rule 34". Yet more evidence that nobody cares about alt texts, I suppose.

Olympic nuke - A VERY SMALL one, please, since I live only 4km North of the stadium.... No sign of "Rule 34" in Waterstones' yesterday ....

Olympic nuke - A VERY SMALL one, please, since I live only 4km North of the stadium.... No sign of "Rule 34" in Waterstones' yesterday ....

Waterstones is a Big Chain™ -- they're unlikely to leak copies prematurely after being yelled at in the past for screwing up various bestsellers' first week sales figures. Ditto Amazon.

If you want an early copy your best bet is to find a local specialist store who aren't on the publishers' radar for premature leaks. Alas, Forbidden Planet are basically a comix'n'toys franchise these days (except for the Superstore in London, which is a different company trading under the same name by arrangement), and I'm not sure who the current London indie SFF bookstore would be.

Amazon just emailed me to tell me my copy has been dispatched, so I have a bood chance of it being here on Monday.

Charlie, since you mentioned fashion, perhaps you and Feorag can answer a question I've long wondered about: what caused the Great Sloppification of the 1960s and 1970s? Candid photographs of Depression-era people show your typical working-class male in garments that would today be classified as at least "semi-formal."

The change really is striking: 80% of modern people could wander into 1980 without having anyone blink an eye. That is simply not true of 1960 or earlier.

The change is not related to comfort: as somebody who a decade ago found himself required to dress in suits or blazers and creased pants, I rapidly discovered that it was more comfortable than sloppier wear, save under conditions of extreme heat. Nor (at least in America) does the change appear to be related to a decrease in class or income distinctions, which have increased in everything except everyday clothing. The result is a mystery. (And an esthetic disaster, but I am a cranky young man.)

Any thoughts?

I have no clue as to cause - and would like to find out too - but will point out that the trend becomes interesting in fiction if you either swing the pendulum back or let the trend become more extreme. Perhaps wastrel young men in ties and blazers, hanging around on street corners? Or bankers in company t-shirts and shorts? In any visual medium, either choice would be an effective sign of being Not This Era.

what caused the Great Sloppification of the 1960s and 1970s?

Feorag's away this weekend, and for my part, I have no idea: but I'm grateful for it. (I hate neckties with a vengeance.)

I will note, however, that generational changes have happened previously in the west. Male attire changed out of all recognition between 1810 and 1840 as I understand it (before then: breeches and stockings and bright frock coats: afterwards, the early version of the modern lounge suit), and female attire changed similarly between 1900 and 1930 (out went long skirts, lots of layers, and corsets: in came shorter hemlines, fewer layers, and brassieres).

Side-effects of the 1960s to 1970s thing included that it became increasingly acceptable for women to wear trousers (previously it was unusual), both genders abandoned hats, and the hemline index decoupled (after being a fairly accurate predictor of the economy for fifty-plus years).

I would hazard a guess that with the 1960s/1970s transition, a big chunk of the change was generational -- the baby boomers became an economic force impinging on the fashion industry -- and economic (sloppy clothes are cheaper to make and buy). In the 1900-1930 transition, the Dress Reform movement and early feminism had a slow-burn impact from the 1860s onwards, as did the advent of the sewing machine, cheaper fabric, the invention of the bra, and a sudden shortage of eligible men post-1918. I'm not sure what triggered the 1800-1840 change, but George Brummell has been blamed for it -- probably excessively, but elegant understatement was a radical fashion stance at a time when menswear involved lots of red, gold braid, and lace.

Perhaps because that's when youth became the thing to strive for? It's speculation, I don't really know about this sort of thing, but suits and ties would presumably signal "boring, settled old guy"..

"Male attire changed out of all recognition between 1810 and 1840 as I understand it (before then: breeches and stockings and bright frock coats: afterwards, the early version of the modern lounge suit), " .....Think of military uniforms and the poverty stricken - glad to get a square meal and clothes that didn't stink - soldiers and sailors and their Officer Class Tailored Uniform commanders in the lead up to the time of the Great Wars of the Twentieth Century.

In my first job as a jr. tech in the mid 1960s onward I was sort of expected to wear standard suit/jacket and casual ironed trousers as were my academic colleagues who were for the most part ex armed services ... my chief academic friend of the late 1960s sort of adopted me and taught a working class boy the officer class ropes. My friend had, as a Jr. lieutenant of the Royal Navy suffered in an explosion in his destroyers fuelling process that was rudely interrupted by the enemy and which did reduce to incandescent powder his Asbestos clad refuelling party whilst he been caught in the fringes of the explosion in tropical kit and ..well I'd seen battlefield injuries - my grandfather had fought in the Great War from its beginning - but Jim had had to have extensive skin grafts, and when the light caught his face at certain angles, and when you realised that his ears were just rather ragged flaps that lacked curled rims, you did recognise the price of war. Jim always wore male standard uniform with as little skin showing as was practically possible.

Anyway, Jim was an extreme of course but most business people did wear what amounted to un-dress uniform. We Jrs did follow by example and, even in Tech Jobs, did wear collar and ..... TIE !! .. with the obligatory White Lab Coat issued once per year. We could, theoretically, be dismissed for " Conduct Un-becoming of a Scientific Officer " I was issued with this little book of RULES to which I did conform ...or Else!

Even now we men have mostly reverted to jacket and tie with concession to jeans as trousers, and omission from ties if the occasion will permit, and this from the laid back 1970s. These days, its still mostly military undress off-duty uniform with minor alterations as the occasion will permit ... ever so Macho eh wot?

Oh, and " breeches and stockings .." Think MUD and SHIT - mostly horse shit - and the difficulty of laundering clothes. Instead of having to wash trousers you or your wife/servants just had to wash stockings and/ or clean Boots.As laundry methods improved - as with Chinese laundries - and streets became cleaner trousers became a practical proposition.Dunno what caused embroidered waistcoats for men to become unfashionable, though I speculate it was 20th Century wars, militarism, and uniformity that did for the fashion.

Maybe who could pay for them wore lots of clothing to be warm. They did not have to clean them. < br>I remember Pics OF working men with ties and stiff collar shirts. Maybe they wanted to look good for the pics.

I've got candid family photos of people at work: nobody wore ties, but collared shirts and creased pants were the norm. It's a real change; not just dressing up for the camera.

I would love to read a serious social history of everyday fashion in the West.

I think people here have already found one big answer to rapid changes in fashion in the 20th century: war, possibly being on the winning side of same. Wartime brought austerity that was temporary for the clear winners. The postwar era was time, after burying the dead, to have fun.

Not so much for the losers, but economy forced changes anyway.

This certainly makes sense for WWI. I collect old photos and have seen how women's fashions before and after that war are very different at least in the US and France. Men's fashions still looked pretty much Edwardian.

It holds somewhat for WWII.

The 1960s saw rising social awareness internally and colonial revolts, secessionary wars and emerging nations in Africa and the Middle and Far East. I'm sure the Establishment generally being on the wrong side of those wars could spark youth's desire to disassociate from it would include ways of dressing as sell as in music and hairstyle.

Not only war, though. The death of Queen Victoria kicked off a big change in fashion in the UK.

But if 1810-1840, which saw the last of the Napoleonic Wars and a reshuffling of the European order, accounts for fashion changes, could, for instance the Thirty Years War (1616-1646) or the Seven Year War (1759-1765)?

Just my rapidly deflating 2 eurocents.

Collars were removable .. I still have my grandfathers old shirt studs .. whilst shirts were worn for several days depending on your social class and disposable income.

See here ..

http://www.ushist.com/victorian_mens_clothing_f.shtml

Bear in mind that whilst the label is 'Victorian ' customs and practices in clothing did linger for quite a long time.

Just a thought. But Brit Army uniforms became dust colored to make them harder to shoot at. Americans moved to green for the same reason. Well we don't wear dress uniforms to fight now. So they can be any color. Why not Redcoats for you and Blue for the US?

No ... Reason ? .. at all, apart from Politics? The significant pause ..once upon a time I did have FUN with my Students with the USE and Miss-use of the Significant Pause in Presentation Technique .. being on Account of BLUE being usually attributed to the Conservative/Tory, Republicans and Red Being devoted to those of the Socialist/Godless Communist persuasion. This despite the fact that Blue is my favourite colour.. there's no justice in Colour Schemes whatever the .. Uniform ? ... Code of Camouflage might dictate.

I think the Khaki colour scheme came in on the heels of the Boer war, and probably before theyd had the idea of a dress uniform. I expect when they saw other nations having a different dress uniform there was some face-palming going on

I think all uniforms were used as dress uniforms. who would pay for two? You wanted color to tell what was who. But not now. If they can see you they can kill you. "No ... Reason ? .. at all, apart from Politics?" Urrr. Say what?
Back then I think cops stopped you more if you were not respectable with a tie and coat. No matter if they were dirty from work.

The U.S. Army has just moved to a blue Class-A uniform. It is loosely based on 19th-century field dress, and it looks much nicer than the dress greens buried in my closet somewhere. The Marines have always had full dress blues, although their Class A is an olive color.

I believe (but am not certain) that British full dress uniforms are still officially red, but nobody wears 'em except for occasions when the royal family is present.

US troops have a number of camo uniforms that they can use in different areas.

Charlie @ 18 Yes, I know, and I don't think there IS a proper indie SF bookstore in London (sigh) & @ 22 ( & as Charlie already knows ...) Well - I look like a retro, anway - I almost always wear a CRAVAT (not a conventional tie), and sometimes breeches and (modern long) stockings, but that's for when I'm dancing. Why do Morris-dancers wear such? Because that was the wear back in the day, AND, importantly, socks are a lot easier to clean than trousers, if your roads are unpaved - and cheaper.

Look at THIS picture of Geo & Robt. Stephenson. Firing-up & oiling "Northumbrian", c.1830 - and look at what they are wearing - including the top-hats! Oh - yes - Archeopteryx.. @ 25 - precisely.

" I think all uniforms were used as dress uniforms. who would pay for two? " .... ' who would pay for two? '.. Oh, come on, you are joking aren't you?

They were/are called " Officers " and once upon a time they usually had to BUY their commission - it's a class thing. Younger sons of prominent Families either went to the Clergy or the Military and latterly to academia from Soldiery or Clergy -first born son got to inherit the Estate.Sons were NEVER consigned to Trade, no not Ever!!!

Of course the Female Persons got to be traded as pawns in the Game of subordination and Royalty and thus could be married to Trade.

Marilee, this is not currently true of the Army or Air Force, although it is true of the Marines and the Navy.

Cravats and stockings are just odd, sir. Do you really wear them for social occasions? You'll have to forgive my quite honest skepticism.

I really hate to ask this, because I'm sure that you know that blue is the color of the Democrats and the left in the United States, whereas red is the color of the conservative nationalists. In short, the color schemes you think are universal are not, even within the West. (FWIW, the color of the left in Mexico is gold, not red, and in Canada the socialists use orange, although the conservatives there do in fact use blue.)

Given that, what is it that I'm not understanding about your comment? Other than that you should, I think, move to America.

The Army definitely has camo patterns. I see camo all over here.

Perhaps you should read my comment again? ...

". there's no justice in Colour Schemes whatever the .. Uniform ? ... Code of Camouflage might dictate."

I do assure you that I would feel very deeply uncomfortable in the .. to me ..very right wing US of A - I am very English and a child of the Welfare State and the National Health Service.

As for party color schemes in the US of A; I had supposed that the term ' RED ' or ' Reds ' was a pejorative used by the American Right/Republicans to associate the Left/Liberal/Democrats with godless communism...hence also Pinko Liberals and so forth.

I don't doubt that there are subtle nuances in the social structure of the USA that I could only grasp if I were to live over there for several years but that's not something that I would ever wish to do.

" I'm sure that you know that blue is the color of the Democrats and the left in the United States, whereas red is the color of the conservative nationalists. "

Er, no I didn't. Why ever should you suppose that I would ..BLUE is very definitely Tory/Conservative over here in the UK whilest Red is asociated with socialism as it is accross most of Europe.

A quick google of Wikepedia gives " Red remains associated with parties on the left of the political spectrum.

Social-democratic political parties throughout the world, particularly in Europe, are most commonly symbolised by the colour red.

In the United States, red is associated with the right-wing Republican Party and blue with the Democrats – a reverse of the traditional European scheme. This convention is relatively recent: before the 2000 presidential election, media outlets assigned red and blue (the colors of the American flag) to both parties, sometimes alternating each election. The fixed usage became established in during the 39-day recount following the 2000 election, when coverage began discussing the contest in terms of "red states" versus "blue states".[70]"

Interesting ..but I hadn't given it much thought.

As for me ..Blue really is my favourite colour. Most of my house is decorated in shades of blue with cream shading to Gold as contrast ..nothing to do with politics.