Monday - A New View INSIDE the Sailing Ship Columbia - Part 1

So one of my great loves is Disneyland, and I also love (the fantasy ideal of) pirates and privateers.

Sail boldly forth into the wilderness on a full-scale replica of a majestic 3-masted ship from the 18th century. Sailing Ship Columbia recreates the grand pioneering adventures of the famous vessel that discovered the Columbia River and became the first American ship to circumnavigate the globe.

--Disneyland website

How could I not love this?



At one point in time they had sails (not sure if they ever let them down)--but they got in the way and I reckon weren't helpful for Fantasmic! (a nighttime show that re-dresses the Columbia as a pirate ship!). Now, the masts are bare, which aids visibility, but makes the Columbia move a bit like a ghost ship...



The top of the ship is where most people hang out, as the ship floats past Frontierland, New Orleans Square, and Critter Country. (Also lets me try out my zoom lens.)





But, you can go below deck to what is supposed to be a recreation of what the real Columbia would have looked like back when it was doing fur trading.






Either the stair lighting is not exactly historical, or those mean 1700s fur traders kidnapped a lot of tiny pixies.



Looking up above from below deck. Good reason to be careful when wearing a skirt...





The displays in the center of the ship are gently roped off to keep them undisturbed. (Being a ship AND at Disneyland, of course everything is glued down.)



Easy to get a good view of the galley:





But for some reason, Disney seems concerned about people climbing in the bunks, so they're rather aggressively roped off, making a good picture near impossible.



From the shadows, it appears I put my camera through the ropes here?


And even worse, the beautiful (tiny!) cabins and such around the ship are blocked by doors with large wooden spindles to block your view.

They look fairly historically-accurate, but they're also view-blockers...

Or are they? Check back next Monday and we'll see!


Close up on the map on the desk

Sunday Special - Football and History

I'm not exactly a fan of football, to put it mildly. I do thank God that I was blessed with a brother who loves sports, so I know enough to at least listen politely and interject an occasional comment when people are talking about sports. (I know we're not talking college football, but isn't the BCS awful?)

I looked up some stuff about history from the NFL website but frankly I'm not sure my audience has much overlap with football fans.

Still, this note stuck in my mind:

1904 - Halfback Charles Follis signed a contract with the Shelby (Ohio) AC, making him the first known black pro football player.

This would help explain why in the 1934 Middletown, Ohio yearbook ("The Optimist"), there are several African-American players.

Bear in mind, Arizona schools were still segregated by race at that time. :P

Two more, relevant to the 1920s:

1920 - Pro football was in a state of confusion due to three major problems: dramatically rising salaries; players continually jumping from one team to another following the highest offer; and the use of college players still enrolled in school. A league in which all the members would follow the same rules seemed the answer.

(They called themselves the American Professional Football Association; soon to become the NFL)

1921 - At the league meeting in Akron, April 30, the championship of the 1920 season was awarded to the Akron Pros.

A) The Akron team getting the title at a meeting in Akron? That sounds more crooked than the BCS (thanks, Bill!)

B) Isn't it nice that in just a few hours we'll know the champion once and for all? That's great if you love football, and also great if you don't love football. No offense, but I don't want to be hearing MORE football news in April.

1922 - The American Professional Football Association changed its name to the National Football League, June 24.

--From the 2010 NFL Record & Fact Book via the NFL website

Flashback Friday - War brides, Tokio, CLOTHES, Men Cooking - February 1-5, 1921

A good amount of my (admittedly limited) search engine traffic is people Googling "What happened" (insert date from 1921 here). So I figured I could try covering a few more days instead of just sticking to one day.

Though if you're really interested in the 1920s, check out Only Yesterday by Frederick Lewis Allen. It's a remarkable history of the 1920s, particularly considering it was published in 1931.

THIS is a romance novel plot if I've ever heard one, though Mr. Spiker could work on his sweet-talk.

SPIKERS WILL CELEBRATE.

Marriage a Success, Says Bride of Brother of First Woer...

--The New York Times, February 4, 1921

Emily Knowles Spiker came to the US in search of Perley Spiker, the father of her baby who had promised to marry her in London...and since Perley had a family in the US, they talked her into marrying his brother Guy. At the time of the marriage, it was predicted the marriage wouldn't last a year.


Flashing forward to September--not surprisingly, it didn't end too well.

MRS. SPIKER TELLS WHY SHE RAN AWAY

Asserts She Was Ill Treated by Her Husband and His Relatives.

WANTS HER BABY RESTORED

Woman Who Married Brother of Her Child's Father Plans to Wed a Soldier.

--New York Times, September 15, 1921

I guess whether it's a happy ending depends on where you end the story.

HALF TOKIO BUDGET FOR NAVY AND ARMY

Opposition Member Predicts That the Proportion Will Rise to 75 Per Cent.

WANTS MORE FOR SCHOOLS

Party Split Threatened Over Proposal to Join in Curbing Armaments....

--The New York Times, February 4, 1921

Japan was an interesting problem for the Western world (and not just because of the lack of a standardized spelling of "Tokyo"!). You can see one major reason why they were such a concern. Eventually they agreed to the Five-Power Naval Treaty, which I think my history teachers simplified into 5:3:2. The US and Great Britain could have 525,000 "aggregate battleship tonnage" apiece, with Japan at 315,000 and France and Italy at 175,000.

Too bad it didn't prevent World War II...



Does the upper-class still change clothes for the afternoon and evening? I apologize for the lazy cultural shorthand, but if you read the article, the descriptions almost sound like something you could picture on the Titanic.

DAY WITH DESIGNERS TIRES MRS. HARDING...

GOWNS ARE CONSERVATIVE

The Skirts Will Be Not More Than Five Inches From the Ground...

--The New York Times, February 4, 1921

You can argue that just a few shorts year ago, the 5" above the ankle hemlines would've been pretty scandalous, especially considering Mrs. Harding was 60 years old (!).



Speaking of clothes (which I love!). The prices are fascinating.

FIX $332.75 AS COST OF WOMAN'S OUTFIT

Chicago Fashion Experts Include Only Necessities in Their Estimates.

--The New York Times, February 2, 1921

I'm pretty sure that story is mostly for shock value. I thumbed through my partial reprint of the 1927 Sears, Roebuck catalog and took the LOWEST prices I saw (the highest were at least twice most of the prices below; in some cases several times more; in the case of actual fur coats, they were up to $198!):

Union Suits: 63 cents
Corsets (if used): $1.29
Silk hose: 3 pairs for $2.25 "Silk Reinforced With Rayon From Top to Toe"
Shoes: $2.98
Full-body slip (I think that's what they meant by chemise): $1.00
Bloomers: 29 cents
Camisole: The only thing I saw that looked like it might be a camisole was labeled "vest" at $1.98
All-day frock: $1.98
Nicer dress (not sure what a "street suit" is to be honest, but they have some labeled "Unmistakably New York"--or might those be all-day frocks?): $5.98
Hat: $1.33
Evening gown: Didn't spy one of those
Coat: $6.48 (with "velour coating"!)
Nightgown: 89 cents (69 was sleeveless)
Panama negligee: I don't know that Sears sold that; the only "negligee" I spied was $6.98

So I'm not convinced that the average woman was spending $332.75 for a day's clothes. Especially given that the average wage for a woman working in 1921 may have been something under $15 a week. (An unskilled man made about $4 more.)


My dad says that the only people who should know how to cook are people who eat. It's amazing to think this would be even marginally newsworthy 90 years ago:

MEN JOIN COOKING CLASS.

Pennsylvania State College Giving a Course to Twenty.

--The New York Times, February 5, 1921

Winning Wednesday

So winning refers to something that was "luck" (or Providence), not anything to do with writing skills. Be warned!

And for my writing progress report...could be worse. I did finally finish the last full chapter of Endwood (just need to complete the epilogue). I probably should have split the ending into two pieces but I really didn't want the story to continue too terribly far after the climax. I'm SO looking forward to being done with it!

So I joined American Christian Fiction Writers a while back and sometimes people will post about when they have agents or editors on their blogs. So someone at Seekerville posted on ACFW about how they were having a costume party and invited everyone to come. I'm not sure if they mentioned a giveaway or not, but I didn't notice. I just wanted to dress my avatar up!

So the real story is that Tina James, senior editor of Love Inspired Historical and Love Inspired Suspense, was announcing they are printing four Historicals a month instead of two. Since I've never actually wrote historical romance (or any historical fiction without a major speculative element) I'm not sure if that's relevant for me or not, but squee! Historical clothes!

So I posted.

Aside from sewing the ribbon on the hat, this is all items I found at Ross and/or TJ Maxx. I do love making historical and fantasy costumes, but I suppose that's a story for another time. Anyway, I chose to dress in 1920s garb because if I WERE to write an outright historical, I reckon that's when I'd set it. And I love the Coney Island pictures, LOL.

Anyway, long story short, I was just outright SHOCKED to have won a contest that I believe was just a random draw. Really? I don't know how many entrants there were (well over 200 comments but some were from the same people). And I won four books? Shipped from the Senior Editor at the one Love Inspired line I could ever imagine writing for??? I didn't even know there were four books to win!

I used to believe in, if not luck, then things just happening randomly. But after going through Beth Moore's study of Esther, I'm not so sure. It's pretty much impossible for my mind to wrap around how every single little thing (as small as misplacing my keys and taking a minute to find them) could happen for a reason, but it certainly wouldn't be outside the range of God's power.

At any rate, winning four books is a lot bigger deal (and more unusual!) than losing my keys. A little part of me is wondering--maybe I should try a historical romance?

Another historical outfit I made (perhaps the most accurate, and completely made by me) is a 1770s dress. It would take so much work and research, but I believe people were getting into 1770s historical recreation in the 1920s...it seems to me that could be a very fun romance, with characters from a past era trying to recreate an even farther past era. And anything on Coney Island could be interesting (although I'm not so sure that would fly, given that the place used to be nicknamed "Sodom by the Sea"...).

Anyway. For now I reckon I will need to settle down and read them. I'll likely review them here, but I'm both a picky reader AND not much of a reviewer, so we'll see.

Oh right! In the comments from last week, I promised a picture of my phone, too.

If you want your Samsung Comeback to also look a bit like EVE from WALL-E, here's the photo.

I modified a page to print a paper EVE mask (of all things) I saw online, then shrunk it to a 240 height so it looks nice on the inner flip screen (I suggest you set your phone to "Black theme"--Menu, Settings, Display settings, My Theme, Black theme for the Comeback).

So, have you had anything recent happen that might be Providential?