okay, so this struck me as pretty odd. (but alas not really as a sign of/for anything.) i received another copy of fashion rocks--a text that came bundled with the latest issue of wired and that refers to itself as a "supplement to wired."
if it hadn't been for the photo of sean lennon on the table of contents page, i might have pitched the supplement or (what's more likely) stuck in on the shelves with all the other issues of magazines that i've been telling myself, for the past two years now, that i will soon (maybe) finally get around to reading and then disposing of.
to be fair, if not for my having watched the linda mccartney story yesterday i wouldn't have taken note of and/or been interested in the pic of lennon in the first place and would likely have pitched the supplement. as it was, i began to wonder if the lennon connection was a kind of sign (not sure a sign of what though--a sign that i should read or view those pages before tossing the supplement out?) and i decided that i'd take a look at the lennon feature to see if it referred, in turn, to the linda mccartney movie. this, to my mind, would be proof positive that this whole thing was indeed a sign. though i'm still not sure of what.
oh--and i should clarify this point: i'm not really a beatles or sean lennon fan. the whole linda mccartney thing only came up because i think having a good cry would do me well at this point, so i was searching for movies that i thought might make me cry. her story seemed to me to be a good choice.
eager to test my sign hypothesis, i decided i would check out the lennon "feature" before dumping the supplement and this is when i realized the folks at fashion rocks don't use page numbers of their table of contents page, or for that matter, anywhere in their (however many page long) supplement. if my biorhythms weren't still flatlining, i might have had read the editor's letter to see if the lack of pagination was discussed there. in the meantime, i'm wondering how many other magazines or print-based texts have done away with pagination. and it's not like the folks at fashion rocks are employing another navigational device here, like color coding pages, changing the texture of pages, or whatever. strange.
although it's not something i'm proud to admit, i have taken the pagination thing personally (i.e., i feel like they have set out to trick me and succeeded in doing so), so i may never learn if the lennon feature makes reference to the linda mccartney story. i should mention that while confirming that the pages of the supplement did, in fact, lack page numbers, i happened to note that many of the rocking fashionable people featured on these unnumbered pages had been photographed wearing stella mccartney fashions. this too struck me as having sign potential.
as for my interest in biorhythms. well, it continues. i called my mom last night to see what she remembered and she seemed to think that my grandfather did the charts himself. importantly (and i say this only because it's in keeping with my memory of the man), my mom said that he probably never did his own charts but he did do them for almost everyone he knew. she wasn't sure how he learned about biorhythms, how or where he did the charts (i.e., what books or tools he might have used, how long it took him to do one), so she suggested i ask my uncle--who, in turn, seemed to recall that my grandfather had picked up a paperback on biorhythms and used that for the charts. man, what i'd give to get my hands on that book, on the paper he used, on one (or better yet several) of the charts he did for others in the 70s or late 80s.
though unable to share with me one of my grandfather's old charts, my uncle did pass along a photo of my grandfather taken during one of his, well, more emotive/expressive moments--a pic taken at the 49th academy awards the year john won the oscar for directing rocky. confirms for me that my taste in eyewear is, indeed, inherited.
No comments:
Post a Comment