i had supervision yesterday. which means i spent all of today in an emotional tailspin of 'oh my god, WHAT THE FUCK HAVE I DONE WITH MY LIFE.' and tomorrow i will pick up the pieces (which is a lie, because actually tomorrow i'm fleeing to the north for faux-giving) and remember, oh yes, i am doing this for jackie. and i'm doing this because i can't not.
slooooooooooooooooooowly things are moving. they're falling together. i may land an interview. a really major interview. or i may not come anywhere near. the stars have to align. we'll see if they do. it could always be a near-miss.
i read brian's jim henson book in two days. both because it was good and because we were discussing it for the podcast today. so i kind of can't see straight. but you should really go pick it up in a bookstore and at least read the prologue. because it is amaze. do it. immediately. go right now.
after supervision, i was struck by the realization that i need to read gone with the wind again. you guys, AGAIN. that'll be the third time this year, which is, even i'll allow, excessive. but it's dawning that, in strange way, it fits, and i need to see how, and the only way to do that is to read the whole thing again.
that and portrait of a lady and the silent woman. and maybe american wife.
there are so many opposed rotations of books that i need to be reading... all of the jackie biographies, all of the jackie-esque novels, that one sally bedell smith biography of princess diana that i've read at least twice a year since 2003. all in a constant rotation. a reality so beyond the realm of practicality that it's laughable. and yet i'm pretty sure i'd be a better writer if i could swing it.
i said i'd been feeling it was just about time to read portrait of a lady again and my supervisor, without missing a beat and in all earnesty, said, 'when is it ever not time to read portrait of a lady?' and we all nodded our heads as though this were the greatest possible truth. i'm undecided as to whether it is.