interesting point...

there is something tactile about a book that no online image can effectively reproduce. the book itself has value to a collector. to say nothing of trying to reproduce the text online.

DS fans like to have the "stuff". the books and cds and comics. they're collectible in their own right. and we are a rather undeserved fanbase in terms of product. mpi certainly hasn't improved those circumstances(unless they're still trying to hawk the 1997 christmas ornament or those stupid plates).

i've seen the pictures and i'll probably buy the book anyways.

yes the original poster, whom kathryn personally asked, has taken them down...

but many others have put them up on FB. they're in the public domain now. there's no turning back.

really she should have expected that.

thanks arashi,

she's doing a book signing in new york on april 2nd. i'll probably pick it up then.

incidentally she must have gotten to the person who was putting all the pictures up on FB because they've all been taken down.

those are the picture that went up on FB.

one can assume that they are from the party sequence. which i guess is no longer a "costume party" but some sort of formal event. in that getup lara parker is really channelling mrs.schyler rumson.

and jonny lee miller is SERIOUSLY channelling louis edmonds.

are these from the new KLS book?

on the other note there are several people on FB who already have copies of KLS's new book in their hands.

not sure where they ordered it.

over on FB KLS cannot stop stirring the pot.

she KEEPS putting up the new vanity fair image of depp and asking for "thoughts".

needless to say the responses are resoundingly, overpoweringly negative. what i have found most disturbing, heartbreaking even, about this film is how much "fans" want NOT to like it. HATE it in fact. it's taken on a life of it's own. it's an unstoppable lynch mob. it's scary and gross.

EVERYTHING is subjected to the same relentless nitpicking. first it was the pallor. then it was fingernails. for a few days it was sunglasses. now it's these new images.

what the hell do these people want? a line for line rehash of the original?

i'm baffled beyond words.

there was a moment in the early 1970's when a nostalgia for the 1930's and 1940's took over fashion.

in some ways it was a reaction against the "space age" and "futuristic" mod styles of the 1960's. it was a look started in part by poor downtown girls who literally picked up vintage frocks at thrift stores because they were cheap. it was also a favorite of impoverished drag queens at the time. check out andy warhol's "transvestite trinity" jackie curtis, holly woodlawn and candy darling to see the look. in fact the shot of HBC, with her frizzy red hair, is very much channeling curtis.

as generally happens with "street style" it eventually percolated up to the haute couture runways of designers like yves saint laurent. again look at his work from the period.

this feeling is what atwood appears to be going for here with julia. i didn't see it in the earlier picture. it's quite fabulous.

i actually find julia's look intriguing and fun.

again the one look that's bugging me is angelique. it's too "2012". nothing about it says 1972.

in this picture in particular...the gown, the earrings, the hair...she looks like a starlet on her way to the emmy awards. i wonder what her 1772 "look" will be like.