in defense of my fashion sense
i once had a pair of red shorts. they were sweatpant-like material, but thicker, & they said
"INDIANA
BASKETBALL"
on one leg. they were given to me by a girlfriend, who was moving to indiana &, apparently, thought i might like to become a hoosier fan for her memory's sake. in fact, i did not become a fan. i moved on rather quickly, but i kept the shorts.
the last time i saw them, they were actually an orange-ish shade, & read
"I___/NA
_A___T__LL"
on the leg. the only reason i realize this is the time someone mentioned that my pink shirt didn't match my orange shorts. the pink shirt was actually red, as well. they'd each faded in their own, unique way, & i'd failed to notice any change at all.
what were red shorts when i got them ought naturally to match what was a red shirt when i bought it. i still fail to sea the flaw in my logic, notwithstanding the aforementioned evidence to the contrary. and isn't there some merit to a thought process which, however erroneously, allows things to remain forever young?
my best blanket, even with the fresh cigarette burn, will remain my best blanket until the tattered threads crumble to dust in the wind; my favourite hat will never be anything but blue to me, no matter how many people call it grey; my wife will always be as youthful ,beautiful & mysterious as the day i 1st laid eyes on her.
as for the things that i allow to change -- my jeans, my children, my boots: they will only ever change for the better. a good pair of levi's 501 button fly's is never as perfect as the day before they fall to pieces; children, like lovers, only get better w/ each new discovery of the person inside there; boots are most comfortable after several years of breaking-in.
so maybe i have no fashion sense. or maybe i'm old-fashioned. maybe just out of fashion. most likely, i'm fixated on comfort, but i'm comfortable w/ my way of thinking, so i'm stickin' w/ it.
"INDIANA
BASKETBALL"
on one leg. they were given to me by a girlfriend, who was moving to indiana &, apparently, thought i might like to become a hoosier fan for her memory's sake. in fact, i did not become a fan. i moved on rather quickly, but i kept the shorts.
the last time i saw them, they were actually an orange-ish shade, & read
"I___/NA
_A___T__LL"
on the leg. the only reason i realize this is the time someone mentioned that my pink shirt didn't match my orange shorts. the pink shirt was actually red, as well. they'd each faded in their own, unique way, & i'd failed to notice any change at all.
what were red shorts when i got them ought naturally to match what was a red shirt when i bought it. i still fail to sea the flaw in my logic, notwithstanding the aforementioned evidence to the contrary. and isn't there some merit to a thought process which, however erroneously, allows things to remain forever young?
my best blanket, even with the fresh cigarette burn, will remain my best blanket until the tattered threads crumble to dust in the wind; my favourite hat will never be anything but blue to me, no matter how many people call it grey; my wife will always be as youthful ,beautiful & mysterious as the day i 1st laid eyes on her.
as for the things that i allow to change -- my jeans, my children, my boots: they will only ever change for the better. a good pair of levi's 501 button fly's is never as perfect as the day before they fall to pieces; children, like lovers, only get better w/ each new discovery of the person inside there; boots are most comfortable after several years of breaking-in.
so maybe i have no fashion sense. or maybe i'm old-fashioned. maybe just out of fashion. most likely, i'm fixated on comfort, but i'm comfortable w/ my way of thinking, so i'm stickin' w/ it.
posted by starbuck at 23:59
5 Comments:
you shoudl write a book. this is a great post.
i shuodl laern to spel
i SHOULD write a book!
that's it! i'm taking scoupe's advice, & quitting, to write the Great American Novel.
... anyone want to contribute to keeping my family alive, 'til it's done?
that's pretty cool. i never thought about the brain taking in the words that way. the only word that didn't read as quick as normal was "uesdnatnrd". i guess those cambridge guys are kind of smart.
i bet uesdnatnrd didn't work as well b/c it's a compound word. maybe your brain breaks it in two to read it, so the 's' should still be in the middle....
like this
its not too dficiulft to urendsnatd it wehn i wtrie it wiht tihs slpeinlg, huh?
haha that was fun!
Post a Comment
<< Home