Re: Biggest plot hole
- From: "Helena Bowles" <helena.bowles@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:19:16 +0100
"drusilla" <me@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:e2s772$51k$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Philip Lewis escribió:
dicconf@xxxxxxxxx (Richard Eney) writes:
Dressing oddly is not so unusual.[...]
artists' colonies, beatniks, hippies, Goth and Grunge,Heck, add to that list: the SCA and LARP folks, robes and houppelandes
<http://images.google.com/images?q=houppelande> seem normal.
(I must say, I think I prefer the cioppa though. ;)
I do have an issue with many wizards not "understanding" muggle clothing.
We have jumpers (the famous Weasley sweaters) and socks (Dobby,
Dumbledore, etc), coats (hagrid's moleskin coat, Filtch's tailcoats,
several other mentions), and ties (dobby). Heck, in GOF Winky was
wearing "a neat little skirt and blouse with a matching blue hat". I
don't recall a mention of pants (other than snapes underpants).
Didn't Kreacher was snogging (spelling?) Sirius' dad's pants, IICR. And he
is a pureblood, he wouldn't be supposed to use pants, IMO.
Why wouldn't a pure blood want to wear underwear? I suppose that leads to
speculation regarding what wizards do wear under their robes... are they
like Scotsmen and kilts? Won't work for women at least some of the time plus
most women are more comfortable in some form of foundation garment even if
it isn't a bra like Muggles wear.
Sudden thought with added "Duh!" for me not thinking of this before. Pants
and underpants are interchangeable terms in the UK. Now I doubt a
traditional Pureblood would wear TROUSERS if that is what you meant but
underpants do have a comfort factor that wizards probably appreciate as much
- Prev by Date: Re: A certain Gryffindor will be VERY happy tonight!
- Next by Date: Re: Dumbledore A Danger to the School
- Previous by thread: Re: Biggest plot hole
- Next by thread: Re: Biggest plot hole