Well, are you? Likely, no. I'm not surprised. Couches are usually pleasant sorts of things, squishy and inviting, places to unwind. But, you know what? There is one couch that is a little scary. It belongs to me (technically), it lives in my basement, and it is chiefly used by the girls to watch movies. Truth comes out now....
I pulled the cushions off said couch yesterday, and. although I should no longer be shocked at what I find there, I was. Again. This is a partial inventory of what I found INSIDE the couch:
-a lunchbox sized cool pack
-a veritable "Who's Who" of the Shrek films--2 or 3 Shreks, a Fairy Godmother, Donkey, the Gingerbread Man, the Three Blind Mice (Ray Charles glasses and canes and all), a donkey-dragon baby, half a castle, some stairs, the milk-blasting cannon, and other assorted tiny accoutrements for Shrek playing.
-3 or 4 pens, pencils, and felt markers.
-2 spoons and a fork
-a pair of pajama bottoms
-a slipper, the mate of which has departed this house long ago.
-Spitz sunflower seed shells
-about a cup and a half on ancient, stale popcorn
-an empty pudding cup
-a gnawed-on crust of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, which had clearly been made the year before God was born
-a dessicated lip gloss
-a balled up scarf containing a unicorn figurine
*and now, the last, and my personal favourite*
-a single, uncooked lasagne noodle
Nice, hey? Geez, girls. You both now are, for the most part, civilised, interesting, trustworthy and entertaining little humans. Between the two of you, you babysit yourselves and others regularly and with aplomb. You present projects with poise in front of your respective classes. You can take a big horse over jumps. You read 5 grade levels ahead. You try out for stuff, and either win or lose with grace. You make cakes from scratch by yourselves. You help fundraise for the family cause, the AIWC. You make me coffee when I am too sick to get out of bed. You do Lee and myself proud. You are amazing little gals. SO WHAT, IN THE NAME OF JESUS MURPHY, IS UP WITH THE COUCH?!?!?!
I have no answers to this question. It makes my head hurt to think of what I've pulled out of there over the years. Seriously. And I know that next time I muster up the balls to pull out the couch cushions, I will, once again, reel back from what is unearthed. Maybe I should just leave it, and let it become some sort of bewildering, archaeological relic for future times.
Lee raged at the girls, too, about the state of the couch, and stated that the dens of wild animals are a cut or two above their couch. He mentioned that leaving piles of food in a lair will only attract predators. He brought it all to a stunning conclusion with the phrase, delivered in a sinister tone, "Consider yourselves PREY, girls..." Hysterics ensued with both of us, and with it, we probably undermined all that we had said. But it was pretty funny. And the couch, having evolved into some sort of slowly pulsing macroorganism, probably laughed, too. Just 'cause it could.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Drool....
I have been pretty quiet on the handbag front lately. Strange, I know. I really haven't found much that has caught my eye. I've done my usual prowls through thrift shops, Value Village, a garage sale here and there, plus my regular Ebay quests, but nothing really of note has leapt out and onto my arm. (Ok, I lie, sort of. I DID buy a bag on Ebay recently, and while it is quite a jolly, little number--an appliqued bird on a swirly background, quite swell--it is, by no means, the answer to my current handbag prayers.
But that one up top there kind of is. It is the Fendi Arazzo peekaboo bag, and I swooned a little when I first saw it. There is a bit of slobber in the computer keyboard. I might trade a kid for that bag. It is all so glorious in every way, save one. I hope y'all are sitting down when you read this, cause you might keel over in shock. The price, you see, is a bit of a problem. I could buy this bag right now, from Neiman Marcus online for $6,980.00. Yes, I am afraid you read that correctly. Oh, my giddy aunt! Seven K!!! Considering that my fundraising bake sale to purchase at auction Elizabeth de Bohun's Book of Hours (well into the 7 figures, price-wise) from Christie's hasn't really come off, I guess I'd better abort the mission on the ol' Fendi Arazzo. *sob*
BUT. I do hold onto hope. I may well find a seriously lower-rent needlepoint bag on ebay for the here and now, and then look to the future for my ultimate fulfillment--one of the many, friendly, eager to please, designer knock-off dealers on the web will doubtless have a version of my bag sometime soon that even I might be able to swing. AND I won't even have to sell a kid!
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Costume Institute Gala and My Disdain of the Strapless Dress.
Gotta get something off my chest, right off the top.....I HATE strapless dresses. Hate 'em. Loathe 'em. Almost nobody can pull one off, and as evidence, I bring up the 2010 Costume Institute Gala at the Met last night. I have been much enjoying scrolling through the photos; it is always a night of amazing fashion, and it's fun to see people pull out all the stops, dress-wise. There were some spectacular threads on display, but it really came clear to me as I examined the fashion eye candy on display that I really, truly hate strapless dresses. I don't get them. They just look...wrong. I can't even put my finger on what bugs me there. The bodices always look so artificial, with the clutchy-looking boob encapsulating frames, and if a body doesn't feature height, small boobs, wide shoulders and a perfect neck, fuggedaboudit!! I get that a body might want to bust out some skin, and work the sexy on an occasion like the Costume Institute Gala, but girlfriends, there are better ways. A lovely halter neck, say. One of my personal favourite choices...Or, a one-shoulder number, of which there were a few lovely examples at last night's Met Ball.
I will now go to specifics. Ladies and Gents of the jury, I give you this: http://ca.eonline.com/photos/gallery.jsp?galleryUUID=2105#74427. Kristen Stewart looks unutterably heinous. This is apparently a sad excuse for Chanel couture. Poor old Karl Lagerfeld may well have finally lost it, his four inch high collars having choked the last of life and sense out of him. This is a bad, bad gown, and though K. Lag. has much to answer for in designing it, Kristen has even more to answer for in choosing to wear it. Did she think it added to her vampire street-cred or something? I tend to think that Kristen did a bunch of bong hits and then went dress shopping. Regardless, she slumped and scowled her way up the red carpet last night, in this grim AND STRAPLESS Wicked Witch of the West number, and did herself no favours. None. To boot, it appears as though she brylcreemed her hair and opted out of make-up whatsoever. *head shakes with bemusement* I think the next worst strapless had to be Donatella Versace, in Versace, and she looked like a saran andgift ribbon-wrapped old ghoul.
I turn now to this: http://ca.eonline.com/photos/gallery.jsp?galleryUUID=2105#74409. Doesn't young Taylor Swift look lovely? I don't know much about her, or about her counterpart in the Hall of Tragedy above for that matter, but I do know that Swift looks so pretty, glamourous, and yes, sexy, in a gown WITH SLEEVES. See, there they are...say hello to them. Sleeves...small sleeves, that leave her collarbones and shoulders bare, but do not feature the bodice of doom that characterises dresses with a lack of strap. This dress of Tay's is Ralph Lauren, and Ralph, please stand up and take your dues. You done good. Seriously pretty, this dress. Interestingly, it seems as though Taylor took a little flak for looking young and innocent in this number last night, to which I say, "Hello? The girl is 18, for the love of God. What do you want her to look like? A 42 year old crack-addled streetwalker? Joan Collins in her nasty Dynasty gold buttons and shoulder pads? Yeesh..." Taylor 's pretty earrings, soft, floaty hair and perfect red lipstick make this a winner. Score one to the sleeve department.
There were, admittedly, a few strapless numbers which weren't half bad: much as I dislike her, Jennifer Lopez rocked her Zuhair Murad sparkly number, Anne Hathaway was pretty in her blush Valentino, and Claire Danes looked really lovely in her metallic Burberry, and one of my favourite necklaces of the night. Thandie Newton wore a purple Vivienne Westwood strapless, with emerald jewellery, and looked spectacular, though it must be said that she would look spectacular in a grocery bag.
Likewise, there were some epic fails in the sleeved department, and I point out Padma Lakshmi's godawful satin Roberto Cavalli, Demi Moore's shiny Lanvin number, with her mopey hair and mopey face, and one of my personal worst, Gisele Bundchen's revolting, black leather woven Alexander Wang. This dress is a horror, and she ought to have stopped at a mirror, and had the self-satisfied smirk wiped clean off her face at the sight of reflection.
A few other folks need a mention: gold stars to the ever glamourous Iman, in a perfect, bluey-black, 30s-inspired Prada, the lovely young Emma Watson, Princess Burberry herself, in a one-shouldered white from her home base, Burberry, and Sienna Miller's funky-yet-sophisticated navy Pucci. Slaps across the face with a soggy fish sandwich to Renee Zelwegger, who's be-bowed Carolina Herrera left me a little ill, Eva Mendez, who got caught up in the curtains and came anyway, Maggie Gyllenhaal's Vuitton, which looked as though it was crafted out of used Glad bags, and Kristen Bell's Diane Von Furstenberg, which the cats clearly got at before she left the house. Oh, and Andre Leon Talley, who apparently wore his housecoat. Not sure what to do with Katy Perry, who wore a light-up dress. Yes, a light-up dress, with rows and rows of tiny LED lights. This choice clearly showed balls and creativity both, and while the light-up dress looked cool from certain angles, I'm just not sure. The jury is out. What do you think: http://fashionista.com/2010/05/in-defense-of-katy-perry/katy_perry_met/
Well, I'll shut up now. Thanks for indulging my "fashion critic" flight of fancy. I really do have to let it out every now and again, or I get a headache which canonly be cured by a few swift whacks with a rolled-up copy of Vogue. If you want to view most of the aforementioned dresses further, here's a link to a nice encapsulation of the fashion last night: http://ca.eonline.com/photos/gallery.jsp?galleryUUID=2105#74384
p.s. again, Kristen Stewart, you ARE NOT an extra on the Munsters, ok?
I will now go to specifics. Ladies and Gents of the jury, I give you this: http://ca.eonline.com/photos/gallery.jsp?galleryUUID=2105#74427. Kristen Stewart looks unutterably heinous. This is apparently a sad excuse for Chanel couture. Poor old Karl Lagerfeld may well have finally lost it, his four inch high collars having choked the last of life and sense out of him. This is a bad, bad gown, and though K. Lag. has much to answer for in designing it, Kristen has even more to answer for in choosing to wear it. Did she think it added to her vampire street-cred or something? I tend to think that Kristen did a bunch of bong hits and then went dress shopping. Regardless, she slumped and scowled her way up the red carpet last night, in this grim AND STRAPLESS Wicked Witch of the West number, and did herself no favours. None. To boot, it appears as though she brylcreemed her hair and opted out of make-up whatsoever. *head shakes with bemusement* I think the next worst strapless had to be Donatella Versace, in Versace, and she looked like a saran andgift ribbon-wrapped old ghoul.
I turn now to this: http://ca.eonline.com/photos/gallery.jsp?galleryUUID=2105#74409. Doesn't young Taylor Swift look lovely? I don't know much about her, or about her counterpart in the Hall of Tragedy above for that matter, but I do know that Swift looks so pretty, glamourous, and yes, sexy, in a gown WITH SLEEVES. See, there they are...say hello to them. Sleeves...small sleeves, that leave her collarbones and shoulders bare, but do not feature the bodice of doom that characterises dresses with a lack of strap. This dress of Tay's is Ralph Lauren, and Ralph, please stand up and take your dues. You done good. Seriously pretty, this dress. Interestingly, it seems as though Taylor took a little flak for looking young and innocent in this number last night, to which I say, "Hello? The girl is 18, for the love of God. What do you want her to look like? A 42 year old crack-addled streetwalker? Joan Collins in her nasty Dynasty gold buttons and shoulder pads? Yeesh..." Taylor 's pretty earrings, soft, floaty hair and perfect red lipstick make this a winner. Score one to the sleeve department.
There were, admittedly, a few strapless numbers which weren't half bad: much as I dislike her, Jennifer Lopez rocked her Zuhair Murad sparkly number, Anne Hathaway was pretty in her blush Valentino, and Claire Danes looked really lovely in her metallic Burberry, and one of my favourite necklaces of the night. Thandie Newton wore a purple Vivienne Westwood strapless, with emerald jewellery, and looked spectacular, though it must be said that she would look spectacular in a grocery bag.
Likewise, there were some epic fails in the sleeved department, and I point out Padma Lakshmi's godawful satin Roberto Cavalli, Demi Moore's shiny Lanvin number, with her mopey hair and mopey face, and one of my personal worst, Gisele Bundchen's revolting, black leather woven Alexander Wang. This dress is a horror, and she ought to have stopped at a mirror, and had the self-satisfied smirk wiped clean off her face at the sight of reflection.
A few other folks need a mention: gold stars to the ever glamourous Iman, in a perfect, bluey-black, 30s-inspired Prada, the lovely young Emma Watson, Princess Burberry herself, in a one-shouldered white from her home base, Burberry, and Sienna Miller's funky-yet-sophisticated navy Pucci. Slaps across the face with a soggy fish sandwich to Renee Zelwegger, who's be-bowed Carolina Herrera left me a little ill, Eva Mendez, who got caught up in the curtains and came anyway, Maggie Gyllenhaal's Vuitton, which looked as though it was crafted out of used Glad bags, and Kristen Bell's Diane Von Furstenberg, which the cats clearly got at before she left the house. Oh, and Andre Leon Talley, who apparently wore his housecoat. Not sure what to do with Katy Perry, who wore a light-up dress. Yes, a light-up dress, with rows and rows of tiny LED lights. This choice clearly showed balls and creativity both, and while the light-up dress looked cool from certain angles, I'm just not sure. The jury is out. What do you think: http://fashionista.com/2010/05/in-defense-of-katy-perry/katy_perry_met/
Well, I'll shut up now. Thanks for indulging my "fashion critic" flight of fancy. I really do have to let it out every now and again, or I get a headache which canonly be cured by a few swift whacks with a rolled-up copy of Vogue. If you want to view most of the aforementioned dresses further, here's a link to a nice encapsulation of the fashion last night: http://ca.eonline.com/photos/gallery.jsp?galleryUUID=2105#74384
p.s. again, Kristen Stewart, you ARE NOT an extra on the Munsters, ok?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
