The Elements of Style: 10 Rules

[Stubbly]

Rule 6. Avoid the pretentious, the exaggerated, the coy and the cute.

This rule is frequently violated, and the offenders seem hopelessly unaware.

 

[Oldsarge]

Mostly because designers push pretense, exaggeration, coyness and the cute. If one looks dignified, how would anyone know they were wearing a designer suit?

 

[Stubbly]

Mostly because designers push pretense, exaggeration, coyness and the cute. If one looks dignified, how would anyone know they were wearing a designer suit?

However, cute yellow chinos & Nantucket reds are available from no-name brands.

 

[Flanderian]

This rule is frequently violated, and the offenders seem hopelessly unaware.

Ah, very true, but as the writer acknowledged, this principle can be tricky.

"The first two words are tricky, Kings may wear ermine without offense. And there are men who can carry off a scarlet-lined opera cape or a ten-gallon hat. But if wearing such things make you feel as if you are showing off, or masquerading, don't. As to the coy and cute, we feel queasy when we see an adult male in love beads."

I.e., context is supreme. I am well aware that someone unaccustomed to the ascots I sometimes wear might find them pretentious. And in some venues they certainly would be. But for myself it is "adult males" wearing string bracelets and going sockless in fine tailoring that are the contemporary embodiments of the coy and the cute.

 

[Oldsarge]

Yeah, that sockless thing with loafers instead of sandals and in custom suits is pure "cute" and in no way stylish.

 

[Stubbly]

I am well aware that someone unaccustomed to the ascots I sometimes wear might find them pretentious. And in some venues they certainly would be.

Ah, but you have situational awareness. Many men do not.

Yeah, that sockless thing with loafers instead of sandals and in custom suits is pure "cute" and in no way stylish.

Also, bit loafers/no socks and rolled-up trousers of any kind.

 

[Flanderian]

Yeah, that sockless thing with loafers instead of sandals and in custom suits is pure "cute" and in no way stylish.

Actually, I had that one down as coy!



Particularly lovely on seniors!

 

[Flanderian]

Ah, but you have situational awareness. Many men do not.

Thank you, I try.

But we all have to start somewhere.

 

[L-feld]

I think that may be missing the point.

Less left-brained.

The lounge suit is often touted as a garment which makes a man look his best. The continuity between the jacket and trousers draws the eyes in a straight line, making men appear taller, trimmer and more muscular. And whatever other nonsense people want to add to it. And yet 150 years ago, the lounge suit was considered the most garish thing a man could wear. It was derided as mere fashion for classless dandy wannabes.

I'm all for resisting the ever changing whims of the fashion industry and I even see great value in tradition. I just don't think that there is such a thing as "timeless" style that exists outside the confines of history and culture. If you want to dress in clothing that is unfashionable, go for it, but you should be aware that you are sending a particular social message and that your non-fashionable clothing will be perceived in relation to the current fashion of the times, not in some sort of aesthetic vacuum.

And I say this as someone who wears clothes that make me look like an old fuddy duddy professor, even though they were intended to project the image of a young college student when they were conceived.

TLDR : fashion vs. style is a false dichotomy. We shouldn't take for granted that any particular thing is "stylish."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[HamilcarBarca]

Very wise words there.

 

[Stubbly]

Yeah, that sockless thing with loafers instead of sandals and in custom suits is pure "cute" and in no way stylish.

Actually, I had that one down as coy!

Particularly lovely on seniors!

The only shoes I wear without socks are boat shoes, and only around the house.

Sandals? The last time I wore sandals, my daughter RAOTFLOL. She was about 10 years old at the time. Now, more than 15 years later, her response would be the same. She has very good taste, and I trust her judgement.

 

[Flanderian]

The lounge suit is often touted as a garment which makes a man look his best. The continuity between the jacket and trousers draws the eyes in a straight line, making men appear taller, trimmer and more muscular. And whatever other nonsense people want to add to it. And yet 150 years ago, the lounge suit was considered the most garish thing a man could wear. It was derided as mere fashion for classless dandy wannabes.

I'm all for resisting the ever changing whims of the fashion industry and I even see great value in tradition. I just don't think that there is such a thing as "timeless" style that exists outside the confines of history and culture. If you want to dress in clothing that is unfashionable, go for it, but you should be aware that you are sending a particular social message and that your non-fashionable clothing will be perceived in relation to the current fashion of the times, not in some sort of aesthetic vacuum.

And I say this as someone who wears clothes that make me look like an old fuddy duddy professor, even though they were intended to project the image of a young college student when they were conceived.

TLDR : fashion vs. style is a false dichotomy. We shouldn't take for granted that any particular thing is "stylish."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think you're still missing the point, and what you're missing is that dressing stylishly isn't about wearing this thing or that thing, but about creating a stylish whole. And such is almost never achievable by wearing only fashion.

You wish to argue about whether one fashion remains fashionable for all time, but I'm not making that argument. Rather, style transcends fashion, and as such, the original principle is most certainly a valid dichotomy.

Though as a point of fact, you can find old classic clothing that can still be worn in such a way as to be stylish. So it might be fair to say that it is intrinsically stylish, or at least, that it lends itself to dressing stylishly. And you can find fashionable clothing that looks dreadful, and makes its wearer look ugly or ridiculous, and is therefore not stylish, and can never be so.

Fashion that looks good, sticks around and becomes classics. And this is because it flatters most men. And inevitably in each epoch there are more or fewer items of fashion that can qualify as such.

 

[Bjorn]

I don't think I can agree wholeheartedly with any of those "rules". Time governs everything, and there can be no real stylishness completely devoid of a contemporary element. Rule 10 is for example absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Bjorn]

The lounge suit is often touted as a garment which makes a man look his best. The continuity between the jacket and trousers draws the eyes in a straight line, making men appear taller, trimmer and more muscular. And whatever other nonsense people want to add to it. And yet 150 years ago, the lounge suit was considered the most garish thing a man could wear. It was derided as mere fashion for classless dandy wannabes.

I'm all for resisting the ever changing whims of the fashion industry and I even see great value in tradition. I just don't think that there is such a thing as "timeless" style that exists outside the confines of history and culture. If you want to dress in clothing that is unfashionable, go for it, but you should be aware that you are sending a particular social message and that your non-fashionable clothing will be perceived in relation to the current fashion of the times, not in some sort of aesthetic vacuum.

And I say this as someone who wears clothes that make me look like an old fuddy duddy professor, even though they were intended to project the image of a young college student when they were conceived.

TLDR : fashion vs. style is a false dichotomy. We shouldn't take for granted that any particular thing is "stylish."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed.

 

[Gurdon]

Ah, but you have situational awareness. Many men do not.
Also, bit loafers/no socks and rolled-up trousers of any kind.

OTH, barefooted, wearing suit and tie with rolled up cuffs while walking along the beach is stylish as well as practical. And it reflects situational awareness.

Gurdon

 

[Natty Beau]

It depends on the fabric. On something with a bold, distinct pattern, like seersucker or madras, I find that darts make the jacket seem "off" to me, while on a solid navy or subtle POW check the darts are much less obvious.

Makes sense to me. If/when I replace my seersucker sport coat, I'll look for a sack cut version.

 

[Natty Beau]

When a man first begins to drink he learns to distinguish between beer, wine and hard liquor. As he gets a little experience he begins to distinguish between ale, stout and lager; between Bordeaux, Rioja and Chianti; between Vodka, Tequila and Scotch. As he gains more experience he can distinguish between different Scotchs , different Tequilas , and different Vodkas etc, etc,


Sack and darted, to some there is little difference, to others the difference is clear.

As a connoisseur of drinks I can relate to your analogy, but what baffles me is the dogmatism, not that someone can notice the detail in question. It's like if a gentleman was to make it well known that he only drank bourbon, no other kind of whiskey, and made a point of telling all young men that bourbon is the only kind of whiskey for a man of taste, and all other recipes are beyond the pale.

 

[arkirshner]

As a connoisseur of drinks I can relate to your analogy, but what baffles me is the dogmatism, not that someone can notice the detail in question. It's like if a gentleman was to make it well known that he only drank bourbon, no other kind of whiskey, and made a point of telling all young men that bourbon is the only kind of whiskey for a man of taste, and all other recipes are beyond the pale.

There is no dogmatism on my part. Personally, I believe a man, depending on his body shape, should chose darted or undarted jackets on the basis of which is more flattering.

Dogmatism is an unfortunate human characteristic that at its worst can result in wars and other misery. On the other hand, if a man must be dogmatic it is benign to have his dogmatism directed to darts or bourbon.

 

[Natty Beau]

T...if a man must be dogmatic it is benign to have his dogmatism directed to darts or bourbon.

Well said! Thanks for humoring my little rant.

 

[Flanderian]

Rule 10 is for example absolutely ridiculous.

How so?