![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Before deciding yesterday was the day to take back my N4 library books, I really should have remembered what a busy day it was for the subhumans. I don't think I've ever used the Station Place exit on match day before, and I hope to high heavens I never do again. Managed to make my way back home against the torrent of human detritus for a QNI where every ad break seemed to be full of detox horror. Question: if 'Dr' Gillian McKeith is so bloody healthy, why does she look so horribly haggard? Anyway, that wasn't what I was trying to watch. Having decided last series that Shameless had gone a bit sitcom, and noting now that my favourite character has left to be Mr Tumnus, I decided I needn't bother this time round, and flicked back to the CSI:Miami double bill, guest-starring the Master, Ryan O'Reilly and Dan Dority from Deadwood. Now that's quality entertainment.
Also quality entertainment: Dig!, which I'd been meaning to watch for some time and received for my birthday. I like a fair bit of Dandy Warhols stuff, which was what originally brought my attention to the film, but you don't need to in order to enjoy the film; so long as you enjoy seeing people with massive egos in meltdown, you'll love it. I'm puzzled, though, that in all the press nobody mentioned one key factor; the Dandys friends-then-rivals Bryan Jonestown Massacre are not just unstable people, they're incredibly rubbish.
Calling in a foxhunt to deal, non-lethally, with boars strikes me as rather a poor plan. I mean, boar hunts were serious business, requiring special spears, a different breed of dogs and some serious bravery. Perhaps I'm just worrying too much because of how badly one goes in George R R Martin's A Game of Thrones, which I read over my holidays. I'd always bracketed him with the Feists and Eddings and Donaldsons as another purveyor of interminable, incontinent, ill-written Tolkein derivatives, but having been convinced by the folk of the V to give his Song of Ice and Fire a try, I'm utterly hooked. Which is somewhat unfortunate given that means I'm now committed to at least 5,000 more pages of text.
According to a new study on the effect of booze prices on consumption, the 'answer' isn't to raise all prices, just the prices of cheap drinks. So, in other words, it's fine for the rich to drink, but not for the poor. Why do I suspect that our allegedly socialist government will find that idea strangely attractive?
Is anybody else going to tonight's Vichy Government show on Frith Street around 10pm, and if so are there any plans for a prior rendezvous? Obviously, I appreciate that those of you with true loves will probably be far too busy working out where in blue blazes to put the ten lords a-leaping you've received today.
Also quality entertainment: Dig!, which I'd been meaning to watch for some time and received for my birthday. I like a fair bit of Dandy Warhols stuff, which was what originally brought my attention to the film, but you don't need to in order to enjoy the film; so long as you enjoy seeing people with massive egos in meltdown, you'll love it. I'm puzzled, though, that in all the press nobody mentioned one key factor; the Dandys friends-then-rivals Bryan Jonestown Massacre are not just unstable people, they're incredibly rubbish.
Calling in a foxhunt to deal, non-lethally, with boars strikes me as rather a poor plan. I mean, boar hunts were serious business, requiring special spears, a different breed of dogs and some serious bravery. Perhaps I'm just worrying too much because of how badly one goes in George R R Martin's A Game of Thrones, which I read over my holidays. I'd always bracketed him with the Feists and Eddings and Donaldsons as another purveyor of interminable, incontinent, ill-written Tolkein derivatives, but having been convinced by the folk of the V to give his Song of Ice and Fire a try, I'm utterly hooked. Which is somewhat unfortunate given that means I'm now committed to at least 5,000 more pages of text.
According to a new study on the effect of booze prices on consumption, the 'answer' isn't to raise all prices, just the prices of cheap drinks. So, in other words, it's fine for the rich to drink, but not for the poor. Why do I suspect that our allegedly socialist government will find that idea strangely attractive?
Is anybody else going to tonight's Vichy Government show on Frith Street around 10pm, and if so are there any plans for a prior rendezvous? Obviously, I appreciate that those of you with true loves will probably be far too busy working out where in blue blazes to put the ten lords a-leaping you've received today.
