« These Things Used To Be Mine, I Want 'Em Back | Main | bad news: catching up with george w. »
everybody needs a bosom for a pillow, everybody needs a bosom. mine's on the forty-five
by mg at 01:15 AM on January 31, 2003
I’ve been feeling a little blue the last couple days. Nothing I can put my finger on, but definitely nothing serious. I’m probably just coming down with a cold or need to readjust my meds or something. But, when I’m feeling blue I like to buy things.
I know it’s very selfish, and it’s a totally awful American consumerist thing to do. There are starving children in Bangladesh. Still, it makes me feel better, and because of that I can push everything that’s wrong with it out of my mind. Even the fact that I don’t actually have any money.
Today, I wanted to purchase something. I needed to purchase something. But the lack of funds weighed heavily on my mind, in direct inverse proportion to the nothing weighing heavily in my wallet. That meant options for my acquisitions were severely limited. In such cases, I usually hit a used bookstore, or H&M for some cheap clothes (thereby making myself not feel so bad about the starving Bangladeshi kids. Since all H&M’s clothes are made in the third world, I’m helping those kids, because that job making me sweaters, pays a whopping 11 cents a week. Besides, children, with their tiny little hands, sew such tight seams).
I decided to hit my favorite spot for some old vinyl. I’m on a Motown kick at the moment, and I wanted to see what I could find. Don’t ask, because I will not tell you where this place is because all you hipster fucks will start shopping there and I wont ever be able to find anything good anymore. (Like I’m not a hipster; I mentioned used books, vinyl and H&M in the same breath. God I hate myself).
So, I dug through the stacks and scored five really great finds (Lou Reed’s Rock ‘n’ Roll Animal, U2’s Joshua Tree, Madonna’sLike A Virgin, The Rolling Stones’ Some Girls, and Patsy Cline’s Songwriters’ Tribute), all for less than the cost of a brand new CD. Speaking of - $18.99 for a new CD!? No wonder the record industry sold 100 million less records last year than they did in 2000 (well, that and the economy, thank you very much Mr. Greenspan).
As I was flipped through the stacks, I noticed something strange. It didn’t really click in my head until I got home and saw this. In case the image is too blurry, it’s the name “John” written on the Lou Reed cover. It hit me that a lot of the other albums had names written on them too, all in the same color marker and handwriting. The two names on the albums were “John” and “Mary.” And in my head, a story started to develop.
It was 1979, and two crazy kids named John and Mary decided to finally take the plunge and live together in sin. But John, being a guy and therefore secretly afraid of commitment, even if he was willing to make this big step, decided he’d write his name on all the records he was bringing to the relationship, and Mary’s name on hers. You know, just in case they ever did break up. “Not that we ever will, Mary. Baby. Don’t be angry. Do we have to talk about this now? We’re going to miss the 7:30 showing of Kramer vs. Kramer.”
Time passed. Eventually John and Mary got married. They were very happy, for very many years. But Mary, she started feeling restless with her life. One night she was working late at the non-profit she began volunteering at when their son started college in the fall. In a moment of weakness, she gave way to passion with another man (What? This is my story, Of course the woman is the problem. I’ve got issues. Like you don’t?).
John was crushed. They divorced. Mary, thinking it would make him feel better, left John all the records, even the ones with her name written on them. But to John, they weren’t “his” and “hers” anymore, they were “theirs.” When he put Lou Reed on the old victrola, he realized he he was, again, only “John.” To him, the records were a constant reminder that “he” and “her” were no more an “us.” So, he gave them away. If those sounds could no longer be “theirs,” he didn’t want them to belong to just “him” any more.
And that was how the ended up in the racks, and in my hands, and on my record player. Bad news for John, lucky for me.
comments (13)
No matter how many bands cover Sweet Jane, it will never compare to the version on Rock 'n Roll Animal. Where do you find styluses (styli?)
by Anna at January 31, 2003 7:41 AM
There are so many typos in this post that I'm embarrassed for you. Actually, no I'm not. Did you write this piece on your Palm Pilot? Because if it was just a Graffiti issue, I could understand it. And also if you were holding the stylus with your butt. But I did want to point out that "direct inverse proportion" is a contradiction. Something is either in "direct proportion" or in "inverse proportion," but not both. Loser.
by Eviltom at January 31, 2003 10:30 AM
Ah, EvilTom. You beat me to the punch. Here are some things I think need revising:
MG said: "But the lack of funds weighed heavily on my mind, in direct inverse proportion to the nothing weighing heavily in my wallet"
Lucy says: But the lack of funds weighed heavily on my mind, in inverse proportion to the weight of my wallet.
*Inverse Proportion: When one of the values changes positively (increase), the other changes negatively (decrease), and viceversa.
MG said: "As I was flipped though the stacks. . ."
Lucy says: As I was flipping through the stacks.
You didn't mention any samurais, ninjas or abnormally sized individuals of any sort. You also didn't mention gravelly upsetting anyone. Who flipped you?
MG said:"To him, the records were a constant reminder that "he" and "her" were no more an "us""
Lucy says:To him the records were a constant reminder that 'he' and 'her' were no longer an 'us'
That is all, because I'm not gonna get into the comma splicing issue. I've only two words for you my friend: Proof Reading.
by Lucy at January 31, 2003 12:36 PM
Ah, I was gonna correct your post, but it seems my work has been done for me.
Instead, I just posted something twice by accident, and can't seem to delete either one, but I DID do something that fucked up the comments. Yeah!
Help!
by Linz at January 31, 2003 2:03 PM
Phew!
Okay, they went away. Redo!
by Linz at January 31, 2003 2:06 PM
Man, tell the people your feeling blue, get whacked by the grammar police.
Nice story.
BTW -- we is the photo you promised. You are a bad blogwhore. ;o)
by sydney at January 31, 2003 5:03 PM
This comment thread is more living proof that pundits who claim you education system in shambles is wrong. Clearly we's churning out skolars whom knows they grammar 'n properly usage thereof outside and in. I'm bet someone even know what a "dangling participle" is for.
by Jethro at January 31, 2003 6:43 PM
Damn Jethro, I must be stupid, I can't tell if you are with me or 'gainst me.
by mg at January 31, 2003 6:47 PM
Sydney, I won't point out your grammatical error because it is a common one and besides, you raise an interesting question.
MG, I supported you I showed you love and received nothing in return. I demand a refund!
by Lucy at January 31, 2003 8:17 PM
The pics in question, Lucy, Syd, everyone, will be either emailed or posted up here (for the world to see) tomorrow.
To get back to the point (though this is hardly the point), I bought a handful of styluses several years ago. I had to have them ordered special for me at and thought it wise to stock up. That was when I was living in Iowa, so I'm guessing they'd be a little easier to find here in NYC (or even DC).
by mg at January 31, 2003 8:22 PM
I am with you, of course. As to the styluses (styli?) they are most definitely hard to come by in DC. Which is why I've spared no expense methodically sending my SO on a wild goose chase to replace 250 hopelessly scratched, out-of-print vinyls w/ CDs. Including my latest obsessions, the Jim Carroll Band's Catholic Boy and Les McCann's Swiss Movement.
by Jethro at January 31, 2003 8:35 PM
You're absolutely correct Lucy. I just got so excited thinking about that picture that I lost my head. ;o)
by syd at February 1, 2003 1:42 AM
I really liked your fantasy about John and Mary. It was sad but touching.
by Ben at July 17, 2005 5:06 PM