Gwen Stefani, I learn from this morning's Times of India, has a "fashion line" and it's "not like the rest". Why not like the rest? Because it includes "cameras, underwear, stationery and baby clothes."
Ah, got that. (Did you?) You see, all the other fashion lines, they include cows and trees, nailclippers and dictionaries, possibly even bus-stands and sugarcane. Gwen's is "not like" those.
In any case, the lady herself graciously explains: "Everyone has a camera as an accessory. I thought it might be cute to have a camera that will go with your outfit. It will match the underwear I'm making."
Ah. I think I got that. But nevertheless, I have two questions.
One, I don't have a camera as an accessory. I have a camera, sure, but let me put it this way: it's not exactly light. Not exactly what I want to carry around my neck, or anywhere on me, for long stretches. If I tried to use it as an accessory, I rather suspect I will develop immediate plumbago of the back (thank you Billy Bunter) -- at any rate, I'll be nursing major aches and pains.
Two, what would a camera look like that "matches" underwear? Will it have a prominent white elastic band across it that says "Victor V-Front Under-weear?" Bits of lace embroidered onto the shutter release?
But more important by far, how will anyone come to know that it matches your underwear, always presuming you are wearing Gwen Stefani's underwear? (Not her underwear in the sense of the stuff she wears, you understand ... but the stuff from her fashion line that's not like all the rest. The things I've gotta make clear!).
Will your clothes have to be entirely transparent? Or will you have to wear the underwear as outerwear? Or is it that every time you stop to take a photo, you will need to oh-so-casually yank down your neckline, or your waistband, so everyone knows that your camera matches your underwear? (Might make photo-taking a tad difficult, but that's neither here nor there).
Whichever of those three options it is, or perhaps all three, I'm waiting anxiously for Gwen Stefani to take the lead and show us. Looks like a good thing to wait anxiously for, going by her picture in the Times.
May 27, 2005
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Hilarious post. Kudos.
Another celebrity nutbar. Funny Post.
I think you may have misunderstood what she was trying to say. It could very well be a camera inside the underwear. Now if you look at it in that context, everything falls into place..er sort of. To what end will this help..ummm maybe 'Reality TV: Down Under'. The possibilities are limitless.
Anyway, terming camera as an "accessory" in itself is offending. A camera is a gadget. Accessories are bangles, bags, etc. :-).
Really loved this witty post.
Dilip......perhaps they mean the superhero technique needs to be adopted. The brief is on the outside.....andar ki baat no longer.
The big mash-up of celebrity, fashion and media could not possibly come up with the fashion-line as described by you :))
But real fashionistas wear thesauruses, not dictionaries.
Wrong on accessories. See dictionary meaning
n., pl. -ries.
A subordinate or supplementary item; an adjunct.
Something nonessential but desirable that contributes to an effect or result. See synonyms at appendage.
dilip marketers would argue that your camera is an implicit representation of your identity. You see yourself as seriously amateur (or amateurly serious) no-frills rational writer-photographer (and indeed that might be a salient social identity) and your heavy camera reflects that identity.
therefore by the definition of accessory "something nonessential but desirable that contributes to an effect" you could argue your camera IS an accessory!
tell me what camera you carry (or don't) and i will tell you who you are...
This looks like a job for Superman!
Or Paris Hilton.
On another note, what she has to sell isn't exactly weird out here in the US I guess ... Different people appear at different stages of evolving into a superhero. :)
I see the Superman comments are taken:(
Post a Comment