It was interesting in spots, but it's (obviously, since it was written in 1981) outdated.
A lot of her assertions were dubious at best, like her theory that the widely-set stripes on baseball uniforms symbolize the long periods of inaction in the game. Um, what?
Also, a lot of it just seemed to be personal opinions, e.g. wearing a Tyrolean hat makes you look like a "ninny". (Which, okay, is kind of true in most cases.) ( )

This is an excellent study of fashion showing how history, class, economics and social mores influence the clothes we wear and how we wear them. A reminder that the language of clothes may be even more telling than body language. Well written, astute, and entertaining. ( )

Not content with recognizing the simple statements--your sex, age, and class--expressed in the language of dress, Lurie looks for the grammar and syntax. No actual linguistic structure is really presented, perhaps of course.

What is presented is brilliant, sensible, with many very acute photographs. For example: Jenny Churchill [71], the women of Sousa's family in Edwardian plummage [72]. Beautiful and interesting.

Primary focus is Americana, some British modes. Something "missing"--the unrelenting influence of product "advertising" is minimized or even dismissed. For example, "the lowering of the age of menarche has been exploited and even anticipated by manufacturers..." [47]. Isn't there really more causation here? Also missing is the enormous and direct influence of European--French, the Mata Hari postcard industry, and even Arab (as in veils, flowing and "arabesque" design)--fashion.

Her point seems to be that we can dissemble, costume, disguise and lie, but we cannot be "silent" in this language. She assumes the victims of the time and place of culture have actual "choice". The subject is far more complex than the disposition granted here; the writing is consistent and clear, and dilimited. ( )