Peter - did you ask him about a companion for females (from the blog discussions)? Ha!

No. Next time.

I had an idea about that. The book on dress for women ought to come from Austen, that most feminine of authors. I propose Sense and Sensibility as a possible starting point. The idea being that dressing with sense offers comfort, functionality and decorum. On the other hand, dressing with sensibility is to follow fashion and to seek to express the emotions as well as excite the emotions of men. However sense entirely without some measure of sensibility, has drawbacks as well.

I haven’t thought it through completely, obviously, but does it have possibilities?

Dear Kate, Michael Anton (aka NA) 1) has a long-standing (in my judgment, somewhat disquieting) interest in Machiavelli and 2) he dresses like a dandy (I mean no disrespect by that term). The personal coincidences that produced The Suit unsuit Mr. Anton from penning something for the distaff side, I’m afraid. There may be an opening for you.

I am glad that is the case Mr. Seaton. The last thing I want is for Machiavelli to have his name dragged through the cleaners with the likes of Tide with Bleach Austen. That is like mixing Trump and Martha Stuart...only worse.

I have to say my appreciations to the good american public for lining the pockets of KBR, this in turn has given us AFN which comes packaged with the Fashion Channel.(I must admit that less than 5% of women could wear such clothing and it would probably be appropriate in less than 5% of all situations...nevertheless it is quite popular with troops.)

Truth be told the troops might be interested in a womans clothing book by Machiavelli...I should look into this and pitch it to Maxim.

Serious question for Micheal Anton? or NA: Is growing acceptance of homosexual culture a direct result of the sharp dressing habits of this group vis a vis the indiferent attitude of the normal 25 year old?

I find myself "googling" like a fiend trying to get a grip on John’s anagrams and the Fashion Channel reference, which latter led me to this Fashion Channel 21 which has some eye-poppers. Fashion’s attitude towards women is so often unkind. (as in that 5%/5% model) Yet I can see the appeal to the troops in many instances.

I was not suggesting that Michael Anton write the book I was suggesting. I was suggesting it was the way to write a companion book for women as per Tony’s comment and referring to our former blog comments. And I was asking if it made sense as such to anyone but me.

A Machiavellian book on dress for women would be aimed only at those women engaged in careers and seeking power. It is a very modern sensibility, and to whom could we look in history for a prior pattern beyond queens? Modern models abound and there is whole different logic to their dress, a different sense. But surely there are books out there on "power dressing for women" or some such thing, and those ideas could be transposed and made to fit the form. Perhaps?

Where is Julie when I need her?

I appologize for jesting Kate. When I say I am going to write a book I am almost always kidding. I understood you well enough, and I think you should go for it. You could end up saying something to the effect that those who dress without Prejudice eventually lose all Pride, or that those who have Pride dress with Prejudice. Of course refferences to Pride might have homosexual connotations especially in the fashion world. I could just see all the interesting noise it would make if somehow someone believed you advocated prejudice against Pride...lol

Don’t worry about my anagrams I struggle with them as well, also you shouldn’t worry about my fashion knowledge since I know very little about it, I joined the army at least in part because wearing a uniform makes fashion life simpler(I am joking again but you get the point:)