The last few days haven’t been good. I shouldn’t admit to it since those who are less than well disposed towards me will make good use of it.
Still, shame is mine, so admitting to having made a mega mistake serves me right.
The Angel thinks blogging isn’t good for me, isn’t my medium. He was pretty pissed off seeing me under the weather because of some blogging fockers making me into something I am not. What the Angel doesn’t understand is that I don’t mind the fockers. Let them gorge themselves on my innards. What’s it to me? I can go without. The prospect of forty days in the desert amounting to bliss. Make it eighty.
No, what pisses me off big time and put me out of sorts the last few days that people in blogland can make up any old story about you. Well, I suppose even that is digestible. What upset me the most how one Rachel turned on me, again, just as I thought she and I had turned a corner. It was good while it lasted.
Over the years I got to know her, via her blog and comments she left on others, I often thought her vaguely unhinged; so are many people. Doesn’t make them lepers to be avoided. But to actually, on the strength of one post of mine nothing to do with her (now deleted), to get her claws out again, her throwing my offer of friendship aside, is unsettling. And yes, upsetting. I replied something to the effect that she isn’t the center of my universe and that that post was actually addressing someone else. Didn’t wash. It’s incredible that someone thinks all revolves around them. I suppose a psychologist would have field day. Which reminds me … oh dear, now I am laughing. Why I am laughing is for that circle to never find out (I am sworn to silence) and for me … well, laugh, I suppose. Yes, Circle Sweethearts, you don’t know the half of it. In the meantime stick to Chloe.
Yes, Chloe. She is an interesting character. I am not saying that because John and Rachel have decreed that I am Chloe.
Chloe is a character in her own right. She is a thorn in some sides. To the tune that some call her a troll. As we all know any self respecting blogger does have to have a troll. A bit like the Sculptor who – beast that he is – grabbed me, in despair and absence of anyone else, to be able to claim that he has a stalker. Stalkers (ask Nick – he reads all the right papers and magazines) are the latest fashion accessory. If you can’t claim you are being stalked you amount to nothing, nada, zilch. In absence of a real life stalker just make one up, a bit like what sculptors do. Making it up. With their chisel.
Back to Chloe. Whilst often I don’t get her point (say, when she mentions that Rachel, Cro and John are old – what’s that got to do with the price of cheese?), she also delivers some absolute pearls. Laugh out loud pearls. And she appears to be well read, intelligent. Yesterday, she recommended Rosa von Praunheim to John. John who doesn’t know whether he or his bulldog Winnie has farted, can’t differentiate one bit of snot from another, immediately dismissed her suggestion to google RvP. That’s what he does. Dismiss. Think again, John. Rosa (not his real name, his assumed name) did make films. Acclaimed films. Maybe that is what brought him to Chloe’s mind considering that your blog is called “Disasterfilm”. Or maybe the fact that Rosa is gay. Which influenced material matter of his films. What the hell am I doing? Next I know Chloe will berate me for second guessing her intentions. Never mind. I am getting it from all sides. One more won’t matter.
Lost my thread there. Yes, Rachel. I am upset that dinghy overturned. Wonder what would have happened, as has many times in my life on account of my father’s career us moving every five minutes, if I had come up to her, on my first break in my new school, never shy being forward: “Would you like to be my friend?” She’d probably spat at me. Her being full of fear, suspicion. Always seeing the bad instead of giving the good a chance. Fast forward a few decades and something that never happened to me has happened to me. Rejected outright. Maybe Chloe will have me.
I’ll shed one more tear on behalf of Rachel gone wrong and then put her – between John and Nick – into my hall of shame. The key is under the mat.
Hugs, hisses and general disenchantment,
U
Authenticity
Tags: approval, authenticity, balance, comment, false, fraudulent, good judgment, guilty as charged, indiscriminate, nerves, over the top, praise, saccharine, sincerity, sweetness
Every so often I do remember my blog’s name and that I have to honour it. And do a bit of bitching.
Yes, so there is someone in blogland (no blog of her own) who regularly and frequently leaves comments on blogs which we both frequent.
However, and I am annoyed with myself, she is beginning to get on my nerves big time. To understand – the few blogs I do follow I always read all comments, in detail.
Why is she beginning to get on my nerves?
I tell you why: It’s one thing to be human – foibles, tempers (good and all), being misguided, argumentative, under the weather either temporarily or permanently, whatever. It’s another to be saccharine to the point of dripping. That woman is incredible. If I were her I’d encourage myself to become a professional condolence letter writer. She is so CONSISTENTLY “sweet” it borders on insincere. I don’t like insincere.
I have “known” her for, say, a couple of years now and started imagining her life. I can’t give away her locality – let’s just say I can see her wafting through the wines, no, not daisy waving; an illusion of herself. I can see her being the saint of her, possibly and most likely vocal if faintly bored, family. What I mostly see is her weaving her sugar net of constant and indiscriminate approval of others (and thereby, by implication, approval of her in return). Everything any blogger does or says she approves of, not only lavishing praise but piling it on. It’s almost fraudulent.
Sweetheart, life doesn’t work like that. If you want people to take you seriously then the odd questioning or not agreeing with a blogging friend would add greatly to your credibility. The odd jarring note. A bit of critical distance. Not everything someone does or says is laudable. If any of my friends (blog or other) and family would be as approving of everything I do, say or cook as you appear to be of others I’d run screaming to the hills. I’d think they were taking the piss.
Still, in your defense – and it really really really wasn’t “nice” what you said there a day or so ago – who’d have thought it you had it in you; in a sort of underhand way you left a comment, somewhere, which makes you the bigot I thought you were all along. Yes, yes, sweet …… and what do you know … condemning a whole demographic group. Can’t say I enjoyed your (gentle – naturally) malicious thought. Prefer your saccharine. As cloying as it is.
And before any of my readers do an “Iris” (what’s happened to the oracle?) and tell me who I am referring to: Don’t. Because if you identify her she is guilty as charged.
U