a wedding, among other things

i admit; i was slightly annoyed when i found out i had to attend a wedding the weekend after moving into a new apartment, and that the wedding was four hours away, and that the wedding was a, well, wedding. because, honestly, i wouldn't have wanted to go to ANY wedding at any time in any place. but mark already knows that, so i figured if he asked me to go it was pretty important. i am learning more about this compromise thing all the time.

it turns out there are a Few Good Things about weddings, which makes it hard for me to complain that i had to go to a wedding; however, i can easily combat those things with something ridiculous, annoying or disappointing:

• Good--Toasts. i soooo love this literary outpouring of feelings by everyone who's ever known the groom/bridge. well, really it seemed to be limited to a few key people--but more than i thought would be allowed to speak for a lengthy amount of time while dinner was not being served so that they could outpour their feelings. but, truly, do not omit these from your wedding (just serve the food DURING instead of AFTER) because i didn't know one single thing about either the bride or groom prior to these toasts (though, i could presume they were the "hip" and down-to-earth sort of couple from their choice of locale and "not another wedding" url for their wedding website). whereas, afterwards, i really knew that they were hip and down to earth. i also learned about their shared love of books & music and that dave matthews band isn't cool to like anymore (ever?). oops....do not mention that i like DMB at my wedding when you give the toast!!! in fact, of all the things i did not absolutely hate about this wedding, the toasts are definitely the thing that would get me to say I Do in public once again. only this time, i'd skip the singing, crying, walking down the aisle and the 15 cakes on an antique planter, and just ask everyone to show up and read a toast. but, i guess i will save this for my funeral. (you will understand this when you've finished this post)
  
• Bad--the humanist wedding statement and a very philosophical officiant. i am usually pretty good at following a wedding ceremony; it's like, do you want to do this and do you want to do that...you know, fairly simple, hand-holding instructions on the very complex idea of spending your the rest of your life with one person who you may or may not like at any given moment. face it: the bride & groom are A) exhausted and B) very weepy; so, they're not really listening. save the rilke quotes and the existentialist theories about communal love and just Marry Them, Already. later, when they realize that sex doth not a marriage make, they will seek out such advice and then you can wax and wane to your heart's content about how if they give love to everyone around them they will also somehow impart it to each other and, in their desperation not to be the first sibling to get divorced, they will believe you.
  
• Good--open bar all night long. Brilliant idea: instead of inviting everyone you know to your wedding, having an open bar for an hour and then overcharging them the rest of the time for watered down drinks to make up for what you're going to have to spend on the open bar tab, only invite those people you truly love and, as a display of that love, give them an all-night open bar. also, you should advertise this in some way, especially since it's completely kosher these days to list wedding details online instead of having aunt marge tell aunt sue who will tell uncle joe, etc. etc. because, it is a proven statistic that guests who are attending an open bar wedding are 10 times more likely to bring you cash. lastly, for alcoholics like myself and my stepfather, a timed open bar can actually be much more detrimental to the overall mood of your wedding reception. take my word for that.
  
• Bad--Jewish weddings that aren't really Jewish. honestly, it's weird to have a chuppah and the breaking of the glass when the bride doesn't have 5 ugly uncles to carry her around in a chair and sing Tradition! i was actually lucky enough to sit at the matchmaker's table and he wasn't a little old lady who offered endless matches even to people who are already matched. wait, i think i'm getting weddings confused with musicals. well, still. the mixing of faiths clearly calls for ignoring such a thing all together! i, for one, was very uncomfortable when they forgot to mention that weddings are simply a precursory obligation to legally sanctioned procreation.
  
• Good--Salmon and a Veggie option.
• Bad--roasted rack of lamb. am i really the only person on the planet that thinks lamb should NOT be eaten??? sigh. whimper. throw up.
• Good--non-church affiliated locations. having your wedding at a winery is a brilliant idea because it conjures up that beloved tale of wine at a wedding without actually having to book jesus. that's a stress you don't need when planning a low-key, modern wedding.
  
• Bad--the winery was fake! well, no longer functioning is more accurate. Worse--the bartender refused to tell guests that the wine was from the winery because he "isn't a liar." i find a bartender that says he isn't a liar much like a single person marrying off two young lovers-- laughable and slightly dirty. (disclaimer: other than this, i thought the bartender was nice and kinda cute. i can say this because most of the other people working the event thought my boyfriend was nice and kinda cute. so there!)
  

honestly, all jokes aside, this wedding wasn't so bad...and i am *i hope you're sitting down for this* grateful that i got to go because i know how much thought and preparation goes into such things as a guest list and seating arrangements and the cost of a plate for someone you don't really know but they are dating your cousin after all.

now that i've said that, i can probably go ahead and kill myself. for the end is nigh... don't you think?

craptastic!

i've been reading a lot of other blogs (mostly by mom's) lately; it started out as a kind of time waster, when i need a break from spreadsheets but quickly became a frustrating pursuit for quality writing by people other than myself who also raise a child, or children. i won't say much more about that...except for: WHERE ARE YOU, Literati/Mothers??? i even joined this network called blogher that is by for and about women bloggers. i don't know if there are quality blogs on there because their site runs too slowly for my i-live-in-the-21st century, impatient & spoiled self.

as a total aside: i love that i freudian-slippishly wrote "myselves" instead of myself in that first sentence. how great is that???

anyway, i was trying to explain to my DBF (i think this means darling boyfriend???) what i'm looking for when i say "quality" writing, but it's hard to explain. there's not like a "category" of writing that's good or not-so-good; nor is there a type of writer who's good or not. it's basically like, there's SO much that goes into writing well, that many people really should just not do it at all. if they lack a reason, pick fear of failure. that's exactly why i don't write as much as i should...or at all, really...

never fear: that was not a joycean epiphany. i knew that all along. however, i would like to write that paragraph in a james joyce kinda way without all the dots and the dot-dot-dots...but, i can't. i love these little guys...!

what was i saying???

oh, right. why not to write... (as opposed to that other argument). so, i know there is the whole argument about blogging is personal and shouldn't be criticized because it's personal. but, let me dispel that myth right here. right now. these people are writing--as my first freshman comp. teacher used to say--to be read. they Want you to read their blogs, just as their mothers probably secretly wanted you to read their journals when they were trash talking their neighbors and kids and their neighbors' kids and their husbands and their husbands' kids (if different from their own). and i do NOT say that just to alleviate my guilt of reading other people's journals, because i don't have any guilt where that is concerned. ahem! the only difference between these modern day mloggers, if you will, is that they call their husband DH's---- now, i can only assume that doesn't mean Designated Hitter in this context; so, it must mean Darling Husband, right??? or, am i missing something? okay. so, assuming DH means what i think it means... ---they call their husbands DH's and then trash talk them. yes, it's cute. but, meant to be read nonetheless. which is the point i'm making. in case you didn't get my point.

how do i know they are meant to be read, you ask? well, because i believe everything written is meant to be read. but, that's a weak argument. so...i'd argue, for lack of a better word, that they're writing to be read because they have a community (see paragraph A) of people that they go read and comment on so that that community of people will then read their blog and comment on it and so forth and so on. they even have contests to promote commenting on their blog. also, they have cute nicknames for themselves, each other, their kids, and their DH's which you would not need in a truly private sphere. lastly, as far as i know a blog has to published for it to be a blog. but i could be wrong about that... there actually is a "keep this posting private" button on my wordpress blog (yes, i just linked to MYSELF. loves.) but i always wonder why anyone would use it.

if i may elaborate on the nicknames... i find those bloggers amusing who are so protective of their "true" identity. i mean, if you're writing something, and PUBLISHING it online for anyone in the whole wide world to see, then why be so secretive?? i don't care if joe blow knows that my name is Charrolee [Murphy] Thompson but i go by lee lee thompson and that i have a son named henri owen lee. what's the big deal? it's not like i'm giving out our social security numbers or bank account information. it's my name, and--along with the story i tell by PUBLISHING things online--i am proud of it.

therefore: if my argument above is clear *laughs out loud uncontrollably* then we can all agree that these bloggers should not be begging us to read them. they should be doing something else that they're totally capable of doing, like knitting, scrapbooking, attending conferences, etc. again, this is the same argument i use on myself (for "real" writing) and it works, as arguments go; however, i've taken a liking to my blogs, so those i keep writing.

uh-oh. this is going to sound Very...well...Very Crappy (not to be confused with craptastic, which is a word i have discovered while mlog surfing, and--well, to be frank: i don't know what it means. but i L-U-V it) by those other bloggers/moms who read my blog. i don't think any of them do...but, just in case they do, i will point out that A) i don't like ANYTHING i read (others will verify this) that either wasn't written by me or wasn't written before i was born. so, Please...don't take this personally. i'm simply searching for my mlogger soulmate and am pissed that i haven't found her yet; and, B) i have found one or two people who's blogs i return to occasionally (ok, i read them Every Day!!!!). and some of them are mothers (see disclaimer below).

one of them, who i will mention within the body of my text--because that seems to signify you're of importance in a blog that mentions a lot of other bloggers/best buds who you've never met (what do they call this? an "online community"?)--is this woman called the portuguesa nova, also known as the anchored nomad. her life is real and her wit/writing--though quite lengthy--you're right, who am i to talk?--lets life speak for itself. she also appears to be a genuinely nice person. why i find that attractive i don't know. but i do. don't take my word for it; go read her yourself.



***disclaimer: there are some mloggers i approve of, such as the suburban correspondent, the philosopher-mom, and the woman who writes motherwise cracks. i also find this blog semi-interesting in its self-deprivationness and this blog simple & sweet (really, i just like the name). last but not least, the bloggess and joy unexpected are worthwhile if only for their shock value. and by shocked, i don't mean: wow, i'm shocked that mothers use foul language or don't love their children 100% of the 24-hours in a day. finally, if you still have a taste for reading, or just for those days when no one else has updated their blog, check out Madame Pince. just because i said you should.

buyer's remorse

i always thought that i didn't like the shoes i bought after wearing them for a day because they were cheap and poorly made. not so, with my brand new shoes i have on today. i paid $100 for these from banana republic and they still hurt my feet like hell! i even got a size up to allow for post-pregnancy largeness.

and while i'm on the topic, i will NEVER buy a bra at victoria's secret again. the woman basically upsold me to the most expensive bra in the store and it is teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrbile. yes, i wear the same bra every day...but, i thought if i spent more money on it, that would be okay. what am i supposed to do? buy 10 $50 bras???

*sigh* i wish i had the time/energy to take both products back! but i don't, so--instead--i blog...