
I love the Victorian era. So I decided to live in it - diodorus
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9275611/victorian-era-life
======
JorgeGT
It's nice to enjoy the "good ol'" things of Victorian era and bash our
"hollow, heartless" society, conveniently omitting the brutal inequality that
allowed wealthy Victorians to enjoy that "beautiful" lifestyle.

They see the kerosene burning, but they don't see the 5yo coal children dying
lonely deaths miles underground. The workers burning their life away in 16h
shifts without barely any rest, medical leave, right to strike, right to
unionize, nothing but the might of their bare bodies exploited so a high class
Victorian socialite could enjoy her life.

But even that same 19th century socialite couldn't think of voting, or being a
member of the parliament. She has strange looks around the city now? Imagine
the looks, the back-turning and street-crossing she would get if she wanted to
exert a life independently of a man in the conservative Victorian society.

Not to speak about access to culture, education (in 1840 only about 20% of the
children in London had any schooling), information, and crucially, medical
care. I wonder if this couple follows medical advice, procedures and
pharmacopoeia of that era as well. Toothache? Cocaine drops. Surgery? Often
without anesthesia or any asepsis. Tuberculosis? Horrific slow death sentence.
Small infected wound? Too bad, no antibiotics in Victorian age.

Mind that as an engineer, I marvel at the boost of technology of that era, and
the early marvels of engineering and construction. But I cringe at this
whitewashing articles that glorify "simpler, truer times" and bash our vastly
more advanced, secular, open, just and equal society that so many lives and
fights has required.

~~~
hugh4
I feel like the Victorian era already gets enough hate for being less
"enlightened" than our own. (No doubt they would feel the same about us.)

Much like the 1950s, I feel like it's an era which gets a bad rap because of
the way the people immediately following it reacted against it and then
proceeded to write all the history books about how much better their own era
was than the one that preceded it.

In any case it gets rather tedious when one can't admire something like
Victorian architecture and fashion without someone butting in to tell you that
the Victorians were less morally enlightened than us.

~~~
JorgeGT
I agree, but my criticism was directed at those who write about "the old days"
bashing today's society as "empty", "out of touch", "vane", "mindless",
"hostile", etc.

Victorian and post-1945 were both incredible times and I have devoted so much
time reading about them! But they weren't some kind of "golden days" either.
My grandmother ate country rats to survive in the 40s, and only on lucky
days...

------
vezzy-fnord
I don't know. The sheer amount of effort they put in replicating artifacts and
mundanities of everyday Victorian life is admirable, but there's no way I can
ignore the fact that their use of networked computers stands out like a
complete blot.

It's hilarious how she notes she's never owned a cell phone, but ignores that
crucial detail.

(They maintain a website at thisvictorianlife.com and Sarah A. Chrisman
appears to have a Facebook page, so I'm extrapolating that they use
computers.)

Looking at some of the pictures on their site is eery. Here they are dressed
in Victorian attire... with a landline telephone in the background. [1]

The exercise here isn't Victorian life, it's an odd retrofuturism at best -
lots of clashing between anachronistic time periods.

[1] [http://www.thisvictorianlife.com/leisure-
activities.html](http://www.thisvictorianlife.com/leisure-activities.html)

~~~
DennisP
So they're taking the Amish approach: being selective about which modern
technologies they use.

------
ridgeguy
This was a lovely read, thanks for it.

It's true they're no purists - computers, and I'm sure they're glad of modern
dentistry, to name two anachronisms in their Victorian construct - but I think
they're doing something interesting.

On the infrequent occasions I can get off the grid and away from modernity, I
become a different person. Not better or worse than my usual self,
just...different.

I can follow a train of thought for a day or two to see where it might lead,
rather than having to bookmark myself at email interrupt intervals. It makes a
difference in how I perceive and think about the world.

I wouldn't return to Victorian times for anything, but some aspects of them
seem worth preserving.

------
bendykstra
If you like this, check out the BBC's excellent series, Victorian Farm. In the
show, a historian and two archaeologists live and work on a farm for a year,
using only tools and techniques of the Victorian era. Experts in period crafts
and trades visit the farm to demonstrate tasks like building barrels or
creating lime mortar to use in the building of stone walls. Here is a farrier
creating a horseshoe in minutes from a plain metal bar:
[https://youtu.be/-x1hP8zisUI](https://youtu.be/-x1hP8zisUI)

Although the farm is the focus of the show, a good amount of time is given to
domestic labor. I used to grumble when I had to do laundry, but now when
trudging down to the basement, I can only think about how much of my day has
been freed up by the washing machine.

~~~
JorgeGT
I read two separate AMAs on reddit of +90yo German ladies. When asked what was
the favorite invention of their lifetimes (telephone and electricity
spreading, radio, TV, antibiotics, modern surgery/dentistry, aircraft, cheap
automobiles, Internet, etc.) the answer of both was the washing machine. It
was a real life changer for women everywhere.

~~~
jacobolus
Now go back another 150 years earlier before the era of carding/spinning
machines or industrial looms, and you get even dramatically more time spent on
clothing. Making cloth by hand out of raw wool or cotton is an unbelievably
time-intensive process, which is why most people only had a couple sets of
clothes.

------
ams6110
_Our heat comes from 19th-century gas heaters and from an antique kerosene
space heater_

Hope they at least make an allowance for a carbon monoxide detector.

~~~
Aloha
If you're in a 19th century house - you don't need one - most of them were and
are somewhat drafty.

------
shostack
It's funny, but I often find myself longing for "simpler times" without the
modern day distractions my life is saturated with (by my own choice/fault
obviously).

Then I think about the chores I have around the house and realize that
"emptying my fridge's water pan" potentially 2 or more times/day would be a
giant PITA.

Of course it all comes down to free time, and I have this assumption that life
was lived at a slower pace back then. I wonder how much of that is actually
true though. You had a ton more little chores to maintain things, and there
was less automation for sure. And a lot of it was highly dependent on your
class and wealth. If you were poor, life may have been "slower paced with
fewer distractions," but you were still working 12-16hr days in a factory in
shitty living conditions.

Ironically enough I'm watching a UK reality series called Time Crashers right
now that takes some celebs and sticks them into various time periods in
different roles to see how they fare. I normally loathe reality TV and love
documentaries, and this is striking an oddly pleasant middle ground.

------
joe5150
A key component of being middle class in the Victorian era was
enthusiastically embracing new technology! A Victorian would kick your ass for
not using a smartphone if it's available to you.

------
jspiral
can anyone comment on the level of affluence that would have been needed in
victorian times to meet the standard of living depicted?

~~~
hugh4
It's a bit of a weird one, because anyone in the Victorian era who could
afford that much _stuff_ could also afford servants.

~~~
JorgeGT
Reportedly, in Agatha Christie’s autobiography, she mentioned how "she never
thought she would ever be wealthy enough to own a car - nor so poor that she
wouldn’t have servants". Worth a thought.

~~~
Aloha
The cost for living is dramatically higher than it was before.

------
Aloha
I'm torn - I'm not sure if I'm envious, or think she's crazy - such a fine
line between beauty and madness.

~~~
bra-ket
she's a writer on Victorian epoch, it's a perfect way to get "into character",
similar to the way actors do

~~~
Aloha
Looking at her website, it appears its truthful, more or less.

------
DennisP
> We live in a world that can be terribly hostile to difference of any sort...

They'd probably like going to a science fiction convention. People at
DragonCon are very accepting of weirdos in all sorts of funny costumes.

They'd even find a fair number of people in Victorian garb, though admittedly
with fanciful steampunk gadgets attached.

------
cegev
As someone who is often incorrectly seen as being like this (and looking on
Facebook, the author and I seem to have no shortage of mutual friends), the
article is fascinating, even if I don't agree with some of the things being
said.

It's very difficult to accurately experience the life of another time period.
Minor, seemingly insignificant details can have significant effects on the
experience. One example I like to use was an event some friends of mine
attended that was trying to recreate the experience of a Regency era country
house. The hostess, not being particularly experienced in organizing such a
thing, didn't think about lighting.

Yet lighting is extremely important. It dictates the hours that people keep,
how people interact, and the appearance of much of what one sees after dark.
My friends pointed out the problem, and had all the lighting replaced with
candles and lamps. What some there thought would be a minor improvement in
environment and accuracy ended up having startling effects: several guests,
all adults, having always been accustomed to the constant light of electric
lamps, found the ubiquitous moving shadows in a country house lit only by
flames to be terrifying, and many of them became insistent that they were
seeing flitting supernatural apparitions. One was reportedly unable to walk up
the stairs to her room by herself.

Finding all these seemingly minor changes necessary to recreate an experience,
knowing what impact they have, and actually being able to change them, is
extremely difficult. One thing that immediately jumps out at me, for example,
is that the visibility and lack of distortion through the windows in the
photographs, and the pane sizes, makes me think they have panes of float
glass. How important is this to the experience? I don't know. It certainly
changes the way the outside world appears. Are their mirrors made with float
glass? Are they looking at the photographs of them? Both would significantly
change their own self-images.

And while I would love to know the tailor her husband uses, I do have to
wonder about whether the reproductions are actually accurate. Fabric, for
example, has changed considerably in the last hundred and fifty years. Over a
century of breeding and improved techniques mean that wool today is far finer,
and fine wool far cheaper, than it was in the Victorian era. Obtaining wool of
the correct coarseness and weight would likely involve commissioning it.
Tailoring has evolved, too: understanding of cutting and particularly fitting
techniques improved considerably in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Is
their tailor intentionally ignoring those advances? I doubt it.

Even beyond these visible issues, there are differences in upbringing, in
culture, and in perspective. There are differences in surroundings: the
building I live in may be almost 120 years old and in its original state in
many ways, but the sounds here are completely different. And there are
differences in the people around you. These are not things that can be
changed, and they have significant impacts.

The differences in perspective are particularly visible in the article. The
environmental focus, and suggestion that seeing resources being used results
in an appreciation of conservation, seem to me to be essentially modern views,
and I would argue are not reflected in typical Victorian perspectives. Nor do
I think that the view on understanding technology is entirely accurate either:
the typical Victorian, I would argue, would be unlikely to understand the
cylinder process of glass pane production, for example, or methods used for
metalwork, joinery, and the construction of much of what was around them. As
other have pointed out, very few would know about the production of the
resources they were consuming: I'd argue that people today have a much better
understanding of those things, given our frequent societal discussions of
them.

The idea that modern items are "trash," too, and Victorian ones are far more
reliable and usable, is perhaps unfortunate. Yes, there are problems with the
reliability, longevity, and repairability of many modern items, but that's a
choice in purchasing: there are many modern items that are more reliable. The
flexibility of my steel dip pen nibs may be impressive, and my early fountain
pens beautiful, but my modern fountain pens are far more reliable and
repairable, and modern ballpoint pens are simply so reliable as to hardly ever
need repair. Tips of modern alloys last far longer and are far less fragile.
Plastic is far sturdier and long-lasting than resin, and fine machining has
allowed for far more repairable mechanisms. Watches are not too dissimilar:
maintenance for 19th century watches often meant throwing out and replacing
parts, which is one of the reasons why they are so difficult to repair today.
Modern mechanical watches require far less maintenance, and good quality
modern quartz watches require essentially none.

All of this ignores, of course, that in looking for original items today, the
author and her husband are only obtaining things that were built well enough
to have already lasted for over a century.

I also get the sense that the author has a dislike of the academic study of
history. That's unfortunate. Primary sources can help to explain an era, but
can also mislead. They assume a certain perspective on the part of the reader.
Contemporary writers often have difficultly seeing elements of their own
culture, and even when they see them, often have their own agendas. Without
studying a wide variety of primary sources and analysing them as a whole, it
is difficult to come to accurate conclusions.

For example, I would argue that, in reading a large number of original dance
manuals of the 19th century, one would develop a wildly inaccurate perspective
on dancing in the 19th century. Dance manuals, perhaps like etiquette manuals,
represented the ideal visions of individual dance instructors, pushed complex
dances and elegant forms requiring more instruction (for obvious reasons), and
were often out-of-date. A preliminary statistical study I'm doing of 19th
century dance cards suggests that the vast majority of group dances and round
dance variations in dance manuals were hardly ever danced, if at all, outside
of dance studios. Analysis of dance instructor commentary, newspaper
reporting, letters, interviews, period works of fiction, and other sources
also suggest that many people dancing did so very inexpertly, that by the mid-
to-late 19th century quadrilles were very unpopular amongst trendier sets, and
that dancers often danced in very energetic and rambunctious ways not at all
reflected in dance manuals of the era except in their admonitions against
doing so. If anything, in "getting their own insights" rather than also
studying the era academically, I fear that they may be inadvertently
reinforcing their own stereotypes, as reflected in their modern perspectives.

As for the difficulties in dealing with those around them, I have to admit I'm
surprised that they would receive such reactions. Perhaps it because I live
behind high walls, insulated from the world around me, or because I'm
fortunate to live in a more tolerant area, or because I'm more private about
my lifestyle, but I have walked down the street for decades in clothes not too
dissimilar to theirs, and have never experienced any hostility—nor, I believe,
have many of my friends. I don't know why their experiences would be so
different.

With all of that said, that they are able to live this life, and be happy
living it, is wonderful. I think it gives, if not an accurate perspective on
life in another era, then a different and useful perspective on life in our
own.

~~~
JorgeGT
I have found your comment so interesting and thoughtful as somewhat shallow
and simplistic the article. Many, many thanks for spending the time to write
it and share it with us. I really think that you should submit it to Vox as a
"letter to the editor".

~~~
cegev
An unfortunate thing about Vox is that they don't appear to have normal
letters to the editor or, indeed, any way of responding to their articles.
Nevertheless, it's something I might consider.

------
adotout
The most impressive part is how she blogs with her vintage 1880s web browser.

------
jonknee
It's fun to think about what a Victorian era person would think of this
project. Having an ice box for fun?!

~~~
ams6110
Better than not having an ice box.

------
ebbv
I'm sorry, I know it makes me an awful person, but I absolutely loathe the
author and her husband. There are people starving around the world, dying
because of lack of basic medical care, clean water, etc. Whatever they do in
their own home, they live in a society and world of the 21st century. What
they are doing is like the worst form of privileged hipsterism I can imagine.

~~~
dstyrb
“When cheap modern things in our lives inevitably broke, we replaced them with
sturdy historic equivalents instead of more disposable modern trash.”

There it is, the inevitable disdain, the hallmark of the chronic hipster.

~~~
JorgeGT
The crucial difference is that cheap disposable modern trash can be afforded
by almost everyone. The purchase of a single automobile was a village-wide
social event when my grandfather was young. Same with a television when my
father was young.

