2003-08-25 - 4:55 p.m.

On the internal soundtrack: [on hiatus]

Monday, August 25

I found this old notebook, in which I scribbled things during the summer of 1991, when I was 19.

In this notebook, mixed in with people's addresses, unsent letters, a WP for DOS cheat sheet, lists of boys I had crushes on (split into three groups: major crush, minor crush, and "almost but not quite"), lists of clothes to take on vacation, etc. is a list of qualities of "THE PERFECT MAN". Present-Day-Evelynne comments in italics.

Makes me laugh
Is low-key, not easily upset over nothing
Does not *expect* much from people (I think I mean "low maintenance")
Has infinite tolerance for my hearing; willing to learn signs
Good kisser, etc. ("etcetera", huh? Well, I was a virgin.)
Affectionate
Can talk about his feelings
Likes to have philosophical conversations for hours
Doesn't sulk; isn't mad for long
Good father
Tells me often what he loves about me
Spontaneous
Likes the beach and mountains
Potential househusband (we'll talk and decide who stays home)
Faithful

Interesting that Poindexter meets every one of these criteria except "likes the beach". I can live with that. We haven't tested the "good father" part, but going on his childraising theories I think he'd be a good one. Also interesting is "tells me often what he loves about me". Eight years into it, Poindexter and I are still doing this. Sometimes I will just ask for it, as in, "Tell me something I did recently that you liked" or "Tell me a mushy thought". He rolls his eyes, laughs, and then tells me.

Anyway. On the very next page in the notebook, I have made a list of reasons I was going to use to convince my boyfriend at the time why "talking about things" was so important to me, and why it didn't mean we were "too serious" or "stifling". It includes things like:

We each have our own friends
We don't spend every moment together
I'm not the jealous type
We have other interests -- it's not like we're each other's whole life

To help you understand what I mean by "talking about things", I mean I wanted someone with whom I could talk about anything and everything, from the mundane to the deeply philosophical. In other words, everything you see in my LiveJournal. Not such a big deal, eh? Although I suppose there are less-open people, not to mention people who aren't interested in what goes on in other people's heads, who flee in terror at what they consider Too Much Information around here.

Now, all of this was written shortly after a visit with Poindexter. Apparently spending a week in Poindexter's company (not to mention his best friend Justin, who has many of the qualities I admire in Poindexter), had put into stark relief exactly what was missing in my current relationship.

Also in this journal are little nuggets of wisdom that I'd picked up, as well as notes to myself as a future mother. Heh. This should supply me with LJ entries for the week.

I'm so tired I can't think straight. I've been working on the same stupid little program all day (it should be easy) and not getting anywhere.

Also, when I was trying to the pickle jar, I was having a hard time breaking the seal. So I sat on the floor and put it between my knees to get a better grip. I got it open. I also got pickle juice all over my jeans.

boohoo.

From Steph (LJ user kiwihead), I found this link:

[Johnny Depp] may be foregoing the rum for some everlasting gobstoppers--he's the frontrunner to play Willy Wonka in director Tim Burton's update of Roald Dahl's classic Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, sources confirmed Wednesday.

[...]

Warners has long wanted to redo the twisted kiddie story, but Dahl was never a big fan of the 1971 adaptation, titled "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" and starring Gene Wilder (news), which the author thought was half-baked (even though it's now considered a cult classic). Since his death, Dahl's estate has been hesitant to greenlight another movie version.

Ok, people. You've read the book, right? Have you read James and the Giant Peach or Danny the Champion of the World or any of Roald Dahl's other children's books? (The latter two are special favorites of mine.)

Is it just me, or was the 1971 film a little darker and weirder and meaner and ... sicker than the books were? I mean, Gene Wilder had a sinister edge in that movie, but in the book he just seemed kinder and gentler, somehow, even though he was so unsympathetic about what was happening to the awful children. And in James, for example, although his aunts were just horrible women, the creatures in the peach were such sweetheart misfits, so my overall impression of the book was a warm one.

Or is it just me? I do tend to always assume the positive.

Anyway, if I'm wrong, and if there is a sinister edge to Willy Wonka, then Tim Burton could do a fabulous job.

previous index next