Pissoceros
I would not advise you to look it up in the dictionary; most likely you will only be disappointed.
Tuesday, February 24
Thursday, February 19
'Average' wedding expenses
It was widely reported yesterday that significant numbers of Australian weddings now cost an average of $50,000. The ABC's version is filed in their Global Financial Crisis section which seems about right, considering that they don't seem to have a Globular Meringue Dress Costing $6000 Crisis section. And also considering that this kind of dashing, heroic, devil-may-care, no-thought-of-personal-safety spending is what's going to save all of us from economic ruin, if anything is. Oh, hang on a sec - isn't it the getting into stupid, worthless debt thing what set all this going in the first place?
Even though the 'data' derives from an online poll carried out by a bridal magazine, which presumably has advertisers to whom it wants to sell the prospect of reaching a cashed-up and, frankly, heavily suggestible readership, I don't actually doubt that quite a few weddings do indeed cost about this much money. Which is sick.
Discuss......
On the domestic wedding front, perhaps you might like to see the invitations we made.
Geez I've gotten good value out of that book of dressed up kitty photos; thanks Zoe.
Even though the 'data' derives from an online poll carried out by a bridal magazine, which presumably has advertisers to whom it wants to sell the prospect of reaching a cashed-up and, frankly, heavily suggestible readership, I don't actually doubt that quite a few weddings do indeed cost about this much money. Which is sick.
Discuss......
On the domestic wedding front, perhaps you might like to see the invitations we made.
Geez I've gotten good value out of that book of dressed up kitty photos; thanks Zoe.
Friday, February 13
cold, hard currency
We all want, badly, to help the bushfire victims.
Indeed because so many of us want urgently to do this there is no way any kind of material object donation (short of stockfeed, or long-term lending a house or caravan you own) can be helpful. To donate goods that haven't been specifically asked for is both wasteful and a nuisance. So don't do it. Send money. Sell the stuff you've got that you were going to donate, and donate money instead. If it's not sellable, then it's certainly not donatable.
I know that this is frustrating because we want to give meaningful gifts, we are not comfortable with giving plain old money and we do not think it adequately conveys the depth of our feeling.
Frustrating, yes. But, too bad - get over it, and send money. If you've bought stuff, take it back, get a refund, and send the cash.
Send money to the Red Cross. (International readers, this totally means you, too. Consider it a token of appreciation for whatever fun you've got out of reading this blog over the years.)
Indeed because so many of us want urgently to do this there is no way any kind of material object donation (short of stockfeed, or long-term lending a house or caravan you own) can be helpful. To donate goods that haven't been specifically asked for is both wasteful and a nuisance. So don't do it. Send money. Sell the stuff you've got that you were going to donate, and donate money instead. If it's not sellable, then it's certainly not donatable.
I know that this is frustrating because we want to give meaningful gifts, we are not comfortable with giving plain old money and we do not think it adequately conveys the depth of our feeling.
Frustrating, yes. But, too bad - get over it, and send money. If you've bought stuff, take it back, get a refund, and send the cash.
Send money to the Red Cross. (International readers, this totally means you, too. Consider it a token of appreciation for whatever fun you've got out of reading this blog over the years.)
Monday, February 2
Emma '09
The BBC did say a while back that they were not going to do any more classic novel adaptations for a bit, but the credit crunch seems to have sent them straight back to devotedly doing what they sell best, because they are shortly about to produce a new four-parter of Emma. I enjoyed the defensiveness in that press release, viz, Ben Stephenson, Controller Drama Commissioning: "2009 will also see Desperate Romantics and Small Island burst onto the screen and we believe that this offers viewers a real range of stories about our heritage." Desperate Romantics is about the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, 'a real range of stories' lol! Small Island by Andrea Levy I read a few years ago - it's about postwar Carribean migrants to GB - and it's slightly more plausible to speak of it as being some distance away from the Jane Austen classic serial gold standard, but anyhow, moving along... maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the press release really seems to me to be offering a string of justifications for yet another Austen serial, knowing how much complaining there's been about the prevalence of austeny television over the last two years, but at the same time without actually genuinely believing any of the points it halfheartedly puts forward. And why on earth not? Emma is one of the greatest novels in the English language. BBC folks, it's really OK to say that. Ah, well. I also appreciated the snarky postscript about the 1996 ITV version.
A few musings:
1) it's nice to see somebody else is being given a turn at writing an Austen television adaptation
2) the serial will be four hours total which strikes me as almost long enough to do a good job of getting to grips with Emma
3) Over at Austenblog there is a delightful spontaneous proletarian uprising demanding the instatement of Richard Armitage in the role of Mr Knightley.
(Armitage as John Thornton in North & South)
Several Austenblog commenters pointed out that Armitage is almost exactly the right age (37) for Mr Knightley; this does seem to clinch it somehow but assuming he's not available who else might be good for the part? (Please don't say Colin Firth.) And the other parts, who do you like for them?
(that's really all I wanted to write but I'm reminded that in the 'Filmography' section of a recent book about Jane Austen movies, they have listed a 1994 Northanger Abbey starring Anna Paquin, Anthony Hopkins, Ioan Gruffud and other terrific actors, which unfortunately does not exist in reality and was totally invented by Austen fangirls wishlisting away on the internet. Oops.)
A few musings:
1) it's nice to see somebody else is being given a turn at writing an Austen television adaptation
2) the serial will be four hours total which strikes me as almost long enough to do a good job of getting to grips with Emma
3) Over at Austenblog there is a delightful spontaneous proletarian uprising demanding the instatement of Richard Armitage in the role of Mr Knightley.
(Armitage as John Thornton in North & South)
Several Austenblog commenters pointed out that Armitage is almost exactly the right age (37) for Mr Knightley; this does seem to clinch it somehow but assuming he's not available who else might be good for the part? (Please don't say Colin Firth.) And the other parts, who do you like for them?
(that's really all I wanted to write but I'm reminded that in the 'Filmography' section of a recent book about Jane Austen movies, they have listed a 1994 Northanger Abbey starring Anna Paquin, Anthony Hopkins, Ioan Gruffud and other terrific actors, which unfortunately does not exist in reality and was totally invented by Austen fangirls wishlisting away on the internet. Oops.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
