![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
the night. at length because after the style of wodehouse, a wee bit.
the night's happy beginning and unexpectedly upsetting interval
was greatly agitated tonight--it is our regularly scheduled night for dinner with my favorite gay boys. unfortunately l was driven to and from a rehearsal by another inmate of the church who then stayed after bringing her back for about an hour and a half. she's a person i like, but large and overpowering. i don't really consider f & e 'company'--they do not make me nervous or keyed-up. dinner with them is relaxing, conversation is stimulating in a highly salutary way. it's all very pleasant.
l and her ride returned and the whole vibe vanished. ride dominates conversations which she enters. she is loud and laughs often. she seems surprised by the concept of gay erotica as a hobby, then says dismissively 'oh, slash. everyone is slashing everything.' i was in a good and expansive mood so inclined to let that pass, but i really do not appreciate being condescended to. pride is a failing of mine. discussion of southpark bores me, but is acceptable. implication that i do not like it because i'm immature is not. (i readily admit that pride is a failing of mine. i am a delicate and imperious creature. i take condescension, attempts to make me look ridiculous, and teasing all in a uniformly bad light.) sharp sarcasm turned on. when she said 'i don't agree with what you just said,' i enquired in a courteous tone whether she meant she disagreed that i disliked slapstick. she said, 'no, what you said before that,' so i said, 'oh. i thought you meant what i had just said, because that was what you said.' after that i was still somewhat inclined to calm down, but teasing was shortly followed by a long discussion of the 2000 presidential elections. f and e and my parents and i, as well as the impostor, all agree completely about this occasion except in that i don't feel the need to discuss it at length every week, whereas f, e, and the parental units display an alarming tendency in that direction.
i consoled myself by reading wodehouse.
but i was deeply agitated by the whole episode. at a time when i was made vulnerable by rousing conversation and one smirnoff ice, having let down my guard somewhat and become extremely animated and carefree to the extent of behaving absent mindedly and consuming large quantities of water--to this is introduced a challenge to my imperious dislike of southpark? i do not ask that other people dislike it or that they refrain from discussing it, even though i find such discussions boring. i reserve the right to snark, which could have made it entertaining. but i do reserve the right to be imperious without challenge. my nature is imperious. it does not appreciate challenge. furthermore, my nature is homebodyish. it prefers to let its guard down only in very safe circumstances, such as weekly dinners with some of its favorite friends. it prefers not to have conversations to which it is party be wholly dominated by any one person whatsoever. conversation-dominating people and extremely dominating people are two categories which my nature finds extremely wearisome. that they unhappily have a large intersection means there are more people thus armed as threats to my composure than my nature can quite like.
the loveliness of p.g. wodehouse
a short drive and singing loudly did something to calm me. curling up in bed did something more although i shivered and frowned a bit, and tried to call![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hollsk twice, before i was able to settle down to reading. fortunately i slept very late this morning and was plenty awake to finish leave it to psmith. i cannot regret having exhausted my supply of wodehouse when it takes this delightful turn--romance meets comedy of manners meets farce, with a debonair hero who seems to mix the best qualities of a miles vorkosigan, a lord peter wimsey, and a hint which might remind the unwary of terry pratchett*?
the unfortunate holdup with karl and viggo's manly yet gay and so on
my calm is now largely restored. i can't go to bed just after finishing a marvelous book. so i read my e-mail. it seems k'sal and i disagree possibly gravely about the ending of karl and viggo's manly-yet-gay camping adventure. one of us is wrong, or she has somewhere been led to an interpretation of the situation i did not intend. but she informs me she is getting six hours' sleep and programming madly in some kind of work-related crunch. clearly she has no time to spare just now for arguing the finer points of the story with me, or the coarser points, for that matter. just as clearly, i cannot finish the story without thoroughly hashing these issues out with her.
and i had thought i was finished!
*in his early years and/or less exuberant moods. pratchett is rather further along the wodehousean path than wodehouse himself. w's more sophisticated style is more to my taste.
was greatly agitated tonight--it is our regularly scheduled night for dinner with my favorite gay boys. unfortunately l was driven to and from a rehearsal by another inmate of the church who then stayed after bringing her back for about an hour and a half. she's a person i like, but large and overpowering. i don't really consider f & e 'company'--they do not make me nervous or keyed-up. dinner with them is relaxing, conversation is stimulating in a highly salutary way. it's all very pleasant.
l and her ride returned and the whole vibe vanished. ride dominates conversations which she enters. she is loud and laughs often. she seems surprised by the concept of gay erotica as a hobby, then says dismissively 'oh, slash. everyone is slashing everything.' i was in a good and expansive mood so inclined to let that pass, but i really do not appreciate being condescended to. pride is a failing of mine. discussion of southpark bores me, but is acceptable. implication that i do not like it because i'm immature is not. (i readily admit that pride is a failing of mine. i am a delicate and imperious creature. i take condescension, attempts to make me look ridiculous, and teasing all in a uniformly bad light.) sharp sarcasm turned on. when she said 'i don't agree with what you just said,' i enquired in a courteous tone whether she meant she disagreed that i disliked slapstick. she said, 'no, what you said before that,' so i said, 'oh. i thought you meant what i had just said, because that was what you said.' after that i was still somewhat inclined to calm down, but teasing was shortly followed by a long discussion of the 2000 presidential elections. f and e and my parents and i, as well as the impostor, all agree completely about this occasion except in that i don't feel the need to discuss it at length every week, whereas f, e, and the parental units display an alarming tendency in that direction.
i consoled myself by reading wodehouse.
but i was deeply agitated by the whole episode. at a time when i was made vulnerable by rousing conversation and one smirnoff ice, having let down my guard somewhat and become extremely animated and carefree to the extent of behaving absent mindedly and consuming large quantities of water--to this is introduced a challenge to my imperious dislike of southpark? i do not ask that other people dislike it or that they refrain from discussing it, even though i find such discussions boring. i reserve the right to snark, which could have made it entertaining. but i do reserve the right to be imperious without challenge. my nature is imperious. it does not appreciate challenge. furthermore, my nature is homebodyish. it prefers to let its guard down only in very safe circumstances, such as weekly dinners with some of its favorite friends. it prefers not to have conversations to which it is party be wholly dominated by any one person whatsoever. conversation-dominating people and extremely dominating people are two categories which my nature finds extremely wearisome. that they unhappily have a large intersection means there are more people thus armed as threats to my composure than my nature can quite like.
the loveliness of p.g. wodehouse
a short drive and singing loudly did something to calm me. curling up in bed did something more although i shivered and frowned a bit, and tried to call
hollsk twice, before i was able to settle down to reading. fortunately i slept very late this morning and was plenty awake to finish leave it to psmith. i cannot regret having exhausted my supply of wodehouse when it takes this delightful turn--romance meets comedy of manners meets farce, with a debonair hero who seems to mix the best qualities of a miles vorkosigan, a lord peter wimsey, and a hint which might remind the unwary of terry pratchett*?the unfortunate holdup with karl and viggo's manly yet gay and so on
my calm is now largely restored. i can't go to bed just after finishing a marvelous book. so i read my e-mail. it seems k'sal and i disagree possibly gravely about the ending of karl and viggo's manly-yet-gay camping adventure. one of us is wrong, or she has somewhere been led to an interpretation of the situation i did not intend. but she informs me she is getting six hours' sleep and programming madly in some kind of work-related crunch. clearly she has no time to spare just now for arguing the finer points of the story with me, or the coarser points, for that matter. just as clearly, i cannot finish the story without thoroughly hashing these issues out with her.
and i had thought i was finished!
*in his early years and/or less exuberant moods. pratchett is rather further along the wodehousean path than wodehouse himself. w's more sophisticated style is more to my taste.