Unclench Yonder Butthole

Amputation saw with ivory handle, Spain, 17th century

the french images above ↑ (a woman facing away from her two children; two women), get 'edited' (or rather like. recomposed) into the american ones below ↓ (two images of women facing their children).

from the article (Americanizing French Fashion Plates: "Godey's" and "Peterson's" Cultural and Socio-Economic Translation of "Les Modes Parisiennes" by Karin J. Bohleke):

In contrast, French mothers in Les Modes Parisiennes are frequently completely disengaged from the children depicted with them: they look elsewhere and even turn their backs (see Figures 1-2). Again, this is a function of the contrived poses necessary to depict certain key stylistic features of garments. However, this is one aspect of French fashion plates that American editors found unacceptable: when the French mother is looking at her children, Peterson's frequently re-engraved the plate in its entirety (see Figures 3-6). But when the mother's pose has her ignoring the very objects that give her life its meaning. Peterson's was more likely to re-engrave the children without this unacceptable mother, or another French fashion plate woman whose gaze was basically in the right direction was substituted (see Figures 7-8). Concerned that French plates might send the wrong message regarding a woman's ultimate role, American editors eliminated the unacceptable depiction. There are consequences to this substitution: French plates depicted appropriate garments in a suitable setting, thereby instructing their readers in the social etiquette of dress through context; American substitutions resulted at times in socially absurd juxtapositions, such as a ball gown on a clifftop boardwalk (see Figures 9-10).

Black Lace & Silk Velvet Evening Dress

c. 1906

Except now I’m envisioning:

Standard King Arthur movie with the usual ‘back in the 6th century…’ establishing blub, which looks a little odd because it started with a specific year, which was crossed off and replaced by another, which was also crossed off and replaced by ‘~6th century, give or take’ along with a few other editorial addendums.

Opens with Uther and Merlin discussing the siege of Tintagel. Things go smoothly until Uther’s name is used, cue the first interruption to explain that Uther was probably an ‘invention’ of Geoffrey of Monmouth, but then that academic is interrupted by a Geoffrey apologist (possibly yours truly) to defend his work with a complicated spiel that gets interrupted by the actor who plays Merlin insisting ‘we should get back to the story’

What follows slowly unravels into a poorly disguised academic debate mediated by the Merlin actor as the voice of ‘well I was actually There!’ And it slowly becomes clear that not only does he genuinely believe he’s Merlin, but his version of the story is absolutely the most unhinged and least academically supported version and relies largely on the French Romances for some reason*.

Eight women in high hats having tea. They are, as far as is known, not a coven of witches but rather members of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Castle Rising, Norfolk, England.