Day 92: Beware the vegimal.

Last week the younger and I were walking home from preschool. She was talking about Phineas, as usual.

“Are you friends with anyone else?” I asked. “Are you friends with any of the girls?”

She stopped walking and looked at me, perching herself on a wall thoughtfully and shrugging her shoulders up to her ears.

“Well, it’s like, I’m kind of a serious person?” she stated, her intonation rising with a perfect SoCal inflection while her hands simultaneously rose in a what-can-you-do? shrug.

“The girls aren’t serious,” she continued.

“What about Phineas?”

“Yeah,” she said in a tone that said “duh, Mom.” “Yeah, we are both serious.”

“What do you mean ‘serious’?” I asked.

She looked at me impatiently, “well, you know, like, if someone falls down, we’ll go over and see if they need help … maybe we’ll tell the teachers …” she says, making a spiraling “and so on and so forth” gesture with her hand.

“And what about the girls, wouldn’t they do that too?”

“No,” she declared flatly.

“Well, what would they be doing?”

“Oh, you know—” and here she broke spontaneously into a dialogue by way of explanation, a dialogue she performed in two high-pitched voices:

“‘I wanna be a fairy-princess!’

‘And I wanna be a brave knight!’

‘Well, you can’t be a brave knight because you’re a girl!’

‘Girls can be brave knights too!’

‘No they can’t—’

Here she broke off and shot me a look that said “so unbelievably tedious, right?”

“Don’t you ever play those games too?” I asked. “You like pretending too ….”

“No, because I wanna do serious stuff.” She paused. “She’s right though that girls can be brave knights,” she observed. “That part’s actually true.”

As we were crossing the road she turned to me.

“Mom, what was in the spell apart from the mouse droppings?”

“What was in the what?” I asked.

“The spell!”

I was at a loss. “What spell?”

“The spell from last night! To stop things turning into ice!” She looked at me incredulously. “Remember????”

“Oh, right, I remember!” I said finally.

It was from the last story I’d told her in bed last night. I remembered it only vaguely now.

The origins of the current iteration of the bedtime ritual are now lost in the misty sands of spring 2015, but at some point in the last few months it became Established Protocol at Mom’s House that after reading the regulation three bedtime stories, I would then, in addition, make up four stories that I would tell after turning the lights out.

I dread this every night. I don’t know why I ever agreed to it. It’s a kind of mental torture to generate narratives when you’re already knackered. And yet resistance is futile. The prospect of proposing some alteration to the current regime seems infinitely more exhausting than simply submitting to it.

I have a limited range of stories. Most fall into two categories: animal stories and knight stories. The knight stories always center on a quest; I’m not reinventing the wheel here. The animal stories typically involve a peripeteia in which the child-protagonist suddenly discovers that its seemingly ordinary animal companion is in fact a creature with magical powers including the power of human speech. Oh, la! Or else, it’s about an animal with a counter-intuitive learning deficiency. The pigeon who didn’t learn to fly. The giraffe who was afraid of heights. I do a nice line in those.

But last night the younger had had enough.

Not. Another. Fucking. Animal Story. She said. OK, well, she didn’t say it like that, but that was what she meant.

“Fine,” I said. “once upon a time there was a knight.”

“Jesus fucking Christ,” she said. She didn’t literally say that either, but that was what she meant.

“All right, all right,” I said.

I dug deep and came up with a story about a princess who has a curse put on her that means everything she touches turns to ice. I didn’t say it wasn’t derivative. In all honesty, I haven’t actually seen “Frozen,” but evidently its cultural saturation is such that I can spin a variation on it without even consciously knowing the plot of the original.

Anyway, in my version, the princess wants rid of the spell, and so she asks her wise mother for help. Her mother isn’t a witch, but she does have a lavish library, and she’s amazing at tracking down obscure books, so she speedily locates the book containing the spell that will break the curse.

So they cast the spell and the curse is broken and they live happily every after.

Towards the end of the final story I typically start nodding off. This sometimes leads to non-sequiturs and surreal particulars. When it came to the casting of the spell, without really knowing what I was saying I found myself declaring that one of the necessary ingredients in the magical potion was “mouse droppings.”

“Mouse droppings!” repeated the younger. “What’s ‘mouse droppings!’”

“Oh, it’s … it’s just mouse poo,” I explained.

“Why did the spell to break the freezing curse need mouse droppings?” the younger asked.

“That’s just what it said in the spell book,” I snapped.

“Well OK,” said the younger doubtfully.

I thought that was that. But then, today, in the clear light of day, the younger confronted me. What else was in the spell, she demanded to know.

I couldn’t remember.

Well how did they do the spell, she pressed me.

I couldn’t for the life of me remember what I’d said the night before, so I improvised.

“Well, they put all the ingredients in a cauldron … and then they stirred it with the magic wand and said the magic words and then ta-da, the curse lifted.”

“Who stirred it?”

“The princess?” I suggested, hopefully.

She shook her head.

“That wouldn’t work.”

“Why not?” I asked, a little testily.

Because,” she said, “when the princess picked up the wand it would have turned into a brine-icle.”

“A barnacle,” I repeated, completely flummoxed, “why would it turn into a barnacle?”

“No no, not a barnacle,” she said, “a brine-icle.”

I smiled a little condescendingly.

“I think you mean a barnacle,” I said. “There’s no such word as brine-icle. But, in any case, I don’t see why it would have turned into a barnacle. That makes no sense.”

“It is a word,” she said stoutly.

“Fine, what does it mean?” I asked.

“It’s an icicle that grows underwater,” she explained. “And when the princess touched the wand it would have turned to ice in the cauldron. Like a brinicle. Because they hadn’t done the spell yet.”

I considered her hypothesis.

“Well, that’s a good point about the wand turning to ice when she touched it,” I conceded. “I didn’t think of that. I suppose you’re right,” I admitted.

“But,” I continued (and here I contemplated the word “brine-icle”; it was clearly a portmanteau of brine and icicle … clever … too clever for a four year old to come up with, yes? But also … fake sounding, right?), “I still don’t think ‘brinicle’ is a real word, but I’ll look it up later.”

“It IS real,” insisted the younger. “Because it was on Octonauts, and everything on Octonauts is real.”

“OK, that is not true,” I said, feeling on surer ground.

“Yes it is!” she said.

“Not it’s not!” I exclaimed. “The vegimals! The vegimals are not real. That is not a real thing, a ‘vegimal,’ half vegetable, half animal.”

“Vegimal,” indeed! Bloody Octonauts and its cute portmanteaus deceiving preschoolers everywhere into believing in the existence of these hybrid abominations of nature. Like “vegimals.” And “brinicles.”

Later, I typed “brinicle” into Google.

bri·ni·cle

/ˈbrīnikəl/

noun

“a long, tapering vertical tube of ice formed in the sea around a plume of very cold seawater produced by a developing ice sheet.”

Huh.

I have only one more thing to say. Beware the manxome vegimal, my friends. Beware the vegimal.

Standard

Day 91: love letters.

Sometimes I wonder if the very richness of the relationships that women have with other women means that their relationships with men will inevitably always feel thin and insubstantial by comparison. You know, like a thin gruel as compared to cassoulet.

I’ve been pondering this as I’ve been struggling with the communication protocols of twenty-first-century dating. I’ve been struck by a palpable difference in tone and texture between the messages I write and the messages I receive from men; maybe that difference is not solely attributable to gender, but I suspect that it is a factor.

So far as I can glean from the messages I receive, when exchanging texts with a possible suitor, one is meant to affect a languid carelessness, a kind of apathy about the whole endeavor.

But the duck-rabbit is an enthusiast if ever there was one. It finds it very hard to dampen its enthusiasm.

Moreover, the duck-rabbit positively despises the sleight of hand that goes along with affecting a kind of nonchalant-oh-I-just-stumbled-upon-your-profile-casualnesss when both parties have profiles on a dating website. You have an account on this sorry website because you’re lonely. You didn’t just fall over and accidentally send me a message. So don’t be such an insouciant dick about it.

The stylistic differences between the messages I send to suitors and the messages I receive from them are comically stark. The messages (and here I’m referring mostly to text messages) I receive manage to be both circumlocutory and reticent.

That’s actually quite an impressive rhetorical feat, to be both periphrastic and taciturn at the same time.

The messages I send suitors are the opposite. They are blunt and copious.

I’ll give you some examples.

I send a lot of messages that say something like “so do you wanna go out again or what?” That’s actually a direct quotation from a text I sent last week. Blunt. Straight to the point. No beating around the bush.

But then I also frequently compose texts that are just, I’m gonna say, arabesques. That is, they are long and extended flights of silliness.

Here’s an example. I texted another suitor a fairly long, elaborate idea for a screenplay. This is one of those texts that was so baroque and silly that I still can’t believe he didn’t reply to it. (Don’t worry, readers, I won’t leave you in suspense; since I don’t believe he’ll be capitalizing on the amazing idea I gave him free of charge, it will be my parting gift to you today …) I live to receive copious, baroque messages. Is it possible that this is not in fact a universal human quality?

It’s certainly true that my tastes were formed by my earliest correspondents: Mahin, who sent from India and many other exotic locales long letters on thin gold embossed paper adorned with hearts and kisses; Tamsin, whose letters from Australia, a sunflower always adorning the envelope, were works of art in themselves because of the curving loveliness of her handwriting. And then there were Liz’s! I still remember the thrill of seeing the envelope bearing a stamp from that region yet more exotic than India: the Isle of Man; I remember seeing my name written in blue fountain pen on the envelope (first it was “Miss Duck-rabbit” and then, once she knew me a bit better, it was “Ms Duck-rabbit”); most of all, I remember giddily and gleefully registering the weight of the pages folded within as I snatched up the envelope from the doormat.

Of course, electronic messages have mostly replaced the paper letters; but there is still a thickness, a copiousness, to the way these women write. Sometimes it’s in the warp and woof of the writing itself. Do you doubt me? Consider a couple of snippets from some of Liz’s messages:

“… TT [an annual motor-cycle race on the Isle of Man] really is an extraordinary thing – for two weeks, this island is a place of pilgrimage for 40,000 Swedes, Germans, Americans, Brazilians, Australians, Dutch, French… all here for what’s known as ‘the greatest road race on earth’. And then, when it’s over, it’s back to fielding rapier-sharp barbs from Shakey Phil, who cleans the toilets on the prom, and Norma on her mobility scooter…

“ … The only mantra in the English Language – after three years’ exposure to the best and brightest literary minds dead and living – which means anything to me is ‘oh, fuck it’, which is attributable to anon/me. Perhaps ‘nunc est bibendum’ – ‘now is the time to drink’ (or something like that) – from Horace’ Odes. But not because I care for the Classics; it’s just the tagline from the very first Michelin poster …”

Do you not envy me, as the recipient of such brilliant and funny letters? What I relish in Liz’s messages is what Schlegel calls “the perennial alternation of enthusiasm and irony.” [1] There’s feeling – real feeling! But there’s also that spritz of acid.

Other times the copia inheres not in the texture of the sentences, but rather in the sheer consistency of the correspondence. I literally emailed Em while I was sitting on the toilet, my laptop on my knee, while my waters were breaking before giving birth to the younger. Why did I email her? Because I had been reading a draft of an essay she’d written and needed to explain why I couldn’t finish reading it that evening, of course!

Other times, the correspondence may be more sporadic or minimal (and I know that I’m awfully inconsistent myself) but when it occurs there’ll be a phrase that’s just so characteristic of the person that I’m startled by how vividly I feel her presence; like when KJ Rabbitt, in response to a particularly cringe-inducing story I had emailed her, responded, “face palm to the power of hiding under the covers!!!”

Compare, now, with the response my suitor wrote in reply to my “so do you wanna go out again or what” message. [2]

“I’d lean towards the going out again option but just in more of a casual when it’s convenient for both of us time frame.”

I really feel like I could write an essay about this sentence. It’s truly virtuosic in its equivocalness. I mean, where to start? Oh, how about the first three words, each a qualifier? “I’d”; “lean”; “towards.” Note, moreover, that it’s not simply that he would lean towards going out again. No, no, he would, if he were going to lean—and he’s not necessarily going to, mind you, but if he were to—he would lean towards the-going-out-again-option. But, just in case you are thinking, “dude, let’s not get carried away with reckless abandon here, maybe let’s put on the brakes a bit,” he goes on to further specify that the said going-out-again-option is not one that should be undertaken intentionally, or in some premeditated fashion, or, perish the thought, at any specific time but rather, “just-in-more-of-a-casual-when-its-convenient-for-both-of-us-time-frame.” I did appreciate his specification that “convenient” here means “convenient for both parties” – not just convenient for you, Ms Bossypants!

Oh, la!

Periphrastic AND taciturn, am I right?

Before my combined copiousness-and-bluntness undoes me, let me move swiftly along, as promised, to my screenplay outline, which is really just a long silly riff on a tagline Joshua proposed for a Breaking Bad-style TV show that someone should write inspired by the recent finding that “narcotic drugs can be coaxed from yeast.”

His tagline: “Breaking Bad 2: this time it’s a biology teacher!”

My TV show, provisionally titled, Breaking Bread, was an adaptation of this idea. This is how I described it in my text to the screenwriter I went out with a couple of times (and yes of course I prefaced it by declaring “I have an AWESOME crime show idea for you,” and sending him the link to the article, you know, so that he understood that this was all based in fact and not some kind of whimsical flight of fancy):

“It’s like Breaking Bad but the protagonist is a disaffected baker at Tartine in San Franciso. He gets diagnosed with, oh, I don’t know, chronic fatigue syndrome, and isn’t able to get up at 3 in the morning to bake brioche any more. And SO he turns to a life of crime, coaxing narcotics from the finest organic yeast.”

No reply.

My next text to him said:

“Genius right?”

No reply.

My next text to him said, “If you use it you can take the credit but I’ll need a cut of the profits.”

Nothing.

And there, in fact, our correspondence ended. I’m looking at the screen of my iPhone right now. It says “Delivered” under the blue speech bubble and then there’s just blank space below.

I feel reasonably confident that if I had texted this idea to Liz, she would have texted back approximately seven seconds later saying, “oh yes, and his name should be TARQUIN. Or, possibly, GIDEON.”

letter from Mahin.

letter from Mahin, undated but probably from the mid-80s.

Notes

[1] Yeah, yeah, sure it’s wanky to quote Schlegel. But I’ve already used the words “circumlocutory” and “periphrastic” so I figured why not go all out? See Friedrich Schelgel, from the “Talk on Mythology,” Trans. Behler, Ernst, and Roman Struc. Dialogue on Poetry and Literary Aphorisms. University Park and London: Penn State University Press, 1968. 81–93. 86.

[2] Before I go any further, let me say: I have no interest in being cruel or snide here. I like this person a lot! I asked him out and I’d ask him out again! Hey Scott! You wanna go out again? See? No, I’m merely singling out his response because it distills, quite masterfully in fact, a form of equivocation that I have encountered very frequently in the last several weeks. My point is not that he’s being mean or foolish; my point is that he’s being as non-committal as possible, and I think that if he read my take on it he’d smirk charmingly and say, “yeah, that’s about right!”

Standard

Day 90: Please provide your own punchline

A lot of you seemed to enjoy the post from Iona … you know, the one that was all poetic and poignant.

This post is not like that one.

Here’s the set up. I should have known it was too good to be true.

Act 1. Brandy, my fairy godmother, comes by my house one evening bearing a L’Wren Scott for Banana Republic black beaded cocktail dress that she says I CAN HAVE. I try it on and it fits perfectly. I never have any occasion to wear such a dress but I like knowing it’s in my wardrobe just in case such an event appears on the horizon …

Act 2. I go out on a date with a magician (technically, he’s a mesmerist. He also does palm reading and séances. No, he doesn’t believe in any of it.). It’s fun. He reads my palm. He promises a floating table illusion on the third date. He asks me on a second date to the Magic Castle, the clubhouse for the Academy of Magical Arts. He sends me the dress code, which is totally insane and not a bit sexist. But I love it! Because it says, and I quote, “Women must be in a dress, cocktail dress, elegant skirt & blouse combination, pant suit with a matching jacket (think business suit), or evening pant suit ensemble.”

It’s too perfect! I was just days earlier bequeathed a cocktail dress, and, lo, I now have a social engagement that requires I wear a cocktail dress.

Act 3. I am super excited. I watch an online tutorial about how Alexa Chung does her eye makeup, because I decide that a Chung-style-sixties-winged-eyeliner look will perfectly complement the dress and be oh-so-magic-castle. [1]

Act 4. The day approaches. The magician hasn’t confirmed what time we’re meeting; but perhaps he has communicated it to me by ESP and it hasn’t come through yet? Yes, that must be it. Be patient, duck-rabbit.

Act 5. It’s the day we’re supposed to meet. I still haven’t heard from him. I decide the ESP isn’t working and that we must resort to ordinary twenty-first-century communication technology. I text him cautiously … is everything OK?

He replies, “We are in totally different places right now.”

I am confused. Sure we are! You live in Santa Barbara and I live in Santa Monica! But that’s OK! Because: teleportation, right?

Also, as a back-up: Uber!

It turns out, dear readers, that he was speaking metaphorically. What “we are in totally different places right now” actually meant was, “you shall NOT go to the Magic Castle, duck-rabbit.”

I am crestfallen.

But I quickly cheer myself up by thinking of silly one-liners that sum up the indignity of being unceremoniously dumped by a magician. For example:

  • He was an escape artist!
  • It was a vanishing act!
  • He saw the writing on the wall!

You get the idea …

And I’ll bet that you can do better, dear readers ….

P.S. One for the dix-huitièmistes: next week I am going out with a guy whose name is Wieland. For real. Should I be afraid? What if he spontaneously combusts?

Notes

[1] Even if you don’t have the least interest in how to achieve a winged eyeliner effect, you should really watch this just so you can gawk at Alexa’s beauty, which is truly mesmerizing.

Standard