Monday, August 18, 2008
What do you think of these new "booties" that they're showing everywhere for fall? I agree with your opinions on mandals and gladiators, and I wanted to know what you think.
This is an excellent question and one the requires the keenest of analyses. I believe you're referring to the Victorian shoe-boot, popular with stern governesses, librarians and sepia "ancestor" pictures taken at Ye Olde Tyme Photo while on vacation in Bethany Beach, Delaware. The shoe-boot is a tricky - it can look normal and maybe even "good" under pants, but shoe boots can be horrifying in the hands of people who unfortunately reside in Narnia. For instance, I've seen people walking around the street wearing shoe boots with short skirts and/or shorts and acting like this was ok. This is obviously unacceptable. Wearing shoe boots with anything OTHER than pants makes it look like you can't afford to buy the entire boot and so you just bought 25%. It also makes peoples' legs look like they're being engulfed by a pilgrim.
The acceptability of the shoe boot also depends heavily on the classification of the bootie, with certain genuses being immediately off the table. Although further data is required for full classification status, the following phyla are preliminarily unacceptable: Gulliver's Travels (often confused with Plymouth/Crucible booties, also unacceptable), suede tee-pee wigwams, Siegfried & Roys, with the most egregious offenders being booties that come with their own raincoat and/or neckerchief.
I urge readers to proceed with extreme caution when purchasing shoe boots and to remain vigilant at all times against known and unknown unacceptable species. I hope this answers your question.