A startling article in the paper keeps Oscar's dad's attention for an extra ten minutes on a very special episode of Clone^H^H evening in Oscar's life and as a result the baby who results while being in many respects similar to the Oscar we know and love (Including, sadly, the dental issues) has in addition to his artistic interests a talent for building gadgets.
So what, you ask?
One of the interesting comments OTL Wilde made was
"Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends." -Oscar Wilde, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism", 1895
Now, obviously mechanical servants, in the Robby the Robot sense, are well beyond the technological abilities of the Victorians, however pleasing the idea of a coal-buring steam power butler may be. What I think Oscar the tinkerer might be able to do is to introduce some of the labor saving devices earlier or to improve on the available designs a little sooner. He can't invent the vacuum cleaner early enough to make a difference, perhaps (1899-1901, depending) but he could improve on the design that was to come so soon after his 1895 comments.
Since a lot of drudgery is woman's work and since one can argue that the current status of women is due in large part to the invention of labour-saving devices for the home, this gives Oscar the chance to be the Great Liberator of Womankind, not that he will get the credit. It also gives him the chance to become extremely wealthy and who knows, perhaps Bosie will expire from inappropriate use of the home vaccuum long before meeting Oscar, thus improving history in yet another way.
-- It's amazing how the waterdrops form: a ball of water with an air bubble inside it and inside of that one more bubble of water. It looks so beautiful [...]. I realized something: the world is interesting for the man who can be surprised. -Valentin Lebedev-
James Nicoll wrote: >What I >think Oscar the tinkerer might be able to do is to introduce some of the >labor saving devices earlier or to improve on the available designs a >little sooner. He can't invent the vacuum cleaner early enough to make >a difference, perhaps (1899-1901, depending) but he could improve on >the design that was to come so soon after his 1895 comments.
Hm. A lot of home appliances were in prototype form in the US of this period, picked up by brave early adopters, but their development lagged in Europe. Cost of gadgets (cheaper system of mass production in the US) compared to hiring servants (relative labor shortage in the US); delayed electrification; perhaps cultural reasons.
If this explanation is correct, it's a little hard to get around.
On the other hand, let's look at it from the perspective of Wilde as aesthete. People are living _inelegantly_. They should have a cleverly made device do clever things for them.
Instead of mass appeal, appliance development is driven by snob appeal. This gets around the initial cost problem; other people can develop the cheaper versions. There should also be a cascade effect -- as richer household adopt more gadgets, they would need fewer servants (of course, they might keep them around as a form of conspicuous consumption).
Let's see:
(Sewing: the sewing machine had already been widely adopted.)
Sweeping and dusting: the portable electric vacuum cleaner.
Washing: the washer, the dryer, the dishwasher. Unfortunately with a top-down adoption model, the early versions of these appliances would not deal well with fine fabrics or china, though maybe tablecloths and bedsheets?
Food preparation: here I think is the other likely big time saver. Oscar Wilde's Cuisinart? Mr. Coffee? Hm.
> Since a lot of drudgery is woman's work and since one can argue >that the current status of women is due in large part to the invention of >labour-saving devices for the home, this gives Oscar the chance to be the >Great Liberator of Womankind, not that he will get the credit. It also >gives him the chance to become extremely wealthy and who knows, perhaps >Bosie will expire from inappropriate use of the home vaccuum long before >meeting Oscar, thus improving history in yet another way.
>>What I >>think Oscar the tinkerer might be able to do is to introduce some of the >>labor saving devices earlier or to improve on the available designs a >>little sooner. He can't invent the vacuum cleaner early enough to make >>a difference, perhaps (1899-1901, depending) but he could improve on >>the design that was to come so soon after his 1895 comments.
>Hm. A lot of home appliances were in prototype form in the US >of this period, picked up by brave early adopters, but their >development lagged in Europe. Cost of gadgets (cheaper system >of mass production in the US) compared to hiring servants >(relative labor shortage in the US); delayed electrification; >perhaps cultural reasons.
>If this explanation is correct, it's a little hard to get around.
>On the other hand, let's look at it from the perspective of Wilde >as aesthete. People are living _inelegantly_. They should have a >cleverly made device do clever things for them.
>Instead of mass appeal, appliance development is driven by snob >appeal. This gets around the initial cost problem; other people >can develop the cheaper versions. There should also be a cascade >effect -- as richer household adopt more gadgets, they would >need fewer servants (of course, they might keep them around as >a form of conspicuous consumption).
>Let's see:
>(Sewing: the sewing machine had already been widely adopted.)
>Sweeping and dusting: the portable electric vacuum cleaner.
>Washing: the washer, the dryer, the dishwasher. Unfortunately >with a top-down adoption model, the early versions of these >appliances would not deal well with fine fabrics or china, >though maybe tablecloths and bedsheets?
>Food preparation: here I think is the other likely big time >saver. Oscar Wilde's Cuisinart? Mr. Coffee? Hm.
It occurs to me that WWI should have created a labour shortage in the UK (anywhere that supplied bodies to the front actually) thus opening up a market opportunity for Mr Wilde. A bit later than I'd like, though. -- It's amazing how the waterdrops form: a ball of water with an air bubble inside it and inside of that one more bubble of water. It looks so beautiful [...]. I realized something: the world is interesting for the man who can be surprised. -Valentin Lebedev-
James Nicoll wrote: > It occurs to me that WWI should have created a labour >shortage in the UK (anywhere that supplied bodies to the >front actually) thus opening up a market opportunity for Mr Wilde. >A bit later than I'd like, though.
Let's try this. Wilde starts the social fad of the blended drink, using an invention of his own design. It starts off as a gentleman's device, but the kitchen servants find it useful too. George Bernard Shaw discovers that the blender can be used to produce healthful vegetarian purees which he advocates. It's also useful for the food adulteration practices of the time.
(It also accelerates British biological sciences twenty years.)
The French respond with a motorized chopper and mixer, promoted by Escoffier as producing a finer range of textures than the clumsy but well-meaning British product. Soon there is a western European arms race in culinary appliances.
Meanwhile, Wilde develops the electric iron, to get his shirts looking just so with ease and elegance.
The US develops the multifunctional motorized appliance (and as in OTL, with the vibrator attachment) but now the European market is more open to the possibilities. They also pick up on the idea of power tools, though World War One interrupts that development except in Sweden and Switzerland.
Hm. Harder to get a greater reliance on the automatic washer without more ready-to-wear, I think. Not very Wildean.
Anyway. World War One and the European home appliance industry will collide. Which nation gets to discover that increasing home productivity is more useful than another small arms plant? It almost has to be France.
>Hm. Harder to get a greater reliance on the automatic washer >without more ready-to-wear, I think. Not very Wildean.
>Anyway. World War One and the European home appliance industry >will collide. Which nation gets to discover that increasing home >productivity is more useful than another small arms plant? It >almost has to be France.
This may be were washing machines come in, as a military- industrial answer to keeping large numbers of uniforms clean. The problem may be scaling them down to civilian use. -- It's amazing how the waterdrops form: a ball of water with an air bubble inside it and inside of that one more bubble of water. It looks so beautiful [...]. I realized something: the world is interesting for the man who can be surprised. -Valentin Lebedev-
jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote: > "...On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, > the future of the world depends." > -Oscar Wilde, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism", 1895
> He can't invent the vacuum cleaner early enough to make a > difference, perhaps (1899-1901, depending) but he could > improve on the design that was to come so soon after his > 1895 comments.
He might've invented the steam carpet cleaner earlier than OTL 1927 (probably a literal steam-cleaner since electric motors aren't quite ready for home appliances in the 1890s)
BUT: is he business-savvy enough to get rich off anything he invents? Or does he end up as a penniless old grouch, with matted hair and an unhealthy green pallor, living amongst garbage cans in a New York alley?
