![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Oct. 4th, 2007 05:48 amInsomnia is still hitting me fairly badly. The depression about the bathroom must be worse than I thought. Oh well, they say that you can get used to everything, and maybe it won't seem such a disastrous idea when it's finished. But a nice bath was one of the few things that I used to look forward to in my generally sad and unfulfilled life. Now I don't even have that pleasure. The new bath is too narrow, the sides are too high, it's too 'plasticky' and the taps are in the wrong place. Oh, and it's the wrong way round and there's no way it can be replaced without ripping the whole bathroom apart and starting again, which I have neither the willpower nor the money to do straightaway. Bummer.
++++++++
I didn't play that well last night -- the first time I've felt this for a week or so. Lack of aggression was one problem (I'd been heading towards 'winner's tilt' and I think that I overcompensated the other way), plus the opposition was better than usual. One guy set-farmed me with remarkable efficiency for half my stack (and half his stack) when I flopped TPTK . Then again, if he's only going to get 10x his investment back, and then only when he flops a set and I flop TPTK, then, in the long run, I make money on the deal. Problem is, does he call my continuation bet with a rag flop? If so, the maths become more marginal.
And I did run into quads twice in five minutes..
+++++++
I was quite attracted by William Whyte's mention of LibraryThing.com — like him, by the cataloguing part of it rather than the social networking. William's listed the "unread" books (not sure how this works, but presumably it's the books that the network's users wish they have read but have not). A quick glance at this shows what kind of book club social network you are likely to be getting into (a significant preponderance of Jane Austen and George Eliot), and once again it's a case of not wanting to be a member of any club that would have me.
I was always baffled by the decision of my school to put Pride and Prejudice on the reading list, and I can only assume it was there because it was a book that our (female) English teacher adored. The book had no relevance to a boy's school in inner London; indeed, the book has little relevance to me today. The characters are little more than adolescent female stereotypes (kind of an early chick-lit counter-balance to the stereotypes found in poor science fiction) and the plot is little more than adolescent female wish-fulfilment. Darcy, of course, was the David Beckahm of his day - and a metrosexual to boot, before the word had been invented.
This stuff continues to be peddled as "literature" at its best, when in reality it just happens to touch an emotional chord with a certain type of reader. Nothing wrong with that (Phil Dick does the same for me, as does Graham Greene), but this does seem to lead to people putting the stuff on a higher plane than it merits from the quality of the writing.
++++++
Woodhouse writes that it is "form" to only cover one subject in a single blog entry. Fuck that. Who invents these moronic rules of etiquette?
++++++++
I didn't play that well last night -- the first time I've felt this for a week or so. Lack of aggression was one problem (I'd been heading towards 'winner's tilt' and I think that I overcompensated the other way), plus the opposition was better than usual. One guy set-farmed me with remarkable efficiency for half my stack (and half his stack) when I flopped TPTK . Then again, if he's only going to get 10x his investment back, and then only when he flops a set and I flop TPTK, then, in the long run, I make money on the deal. Problem is, does he call my continuation bet with a rag flop? If so, the maths become more marginal.
And I did run into quads twice in five minutes..
+++++++
I was quite attracted by William Whyte's mention of LibraryThing.com — like him, by the cataloguing part of it rather than the social networking. William's listed the "unread" books (not sure how this works, but presumably it's the books that the network's users wish they have read but have not). A quick glance at this shows what kind of book club social network you are likely to be getting into (a significant preponderance of Jane Austen and George Eliot), and once again it's a case of not wanting to be a member of any club that would have me.
I was always baffled by the decision of my school to put Pride and Prejudice on the reading list, and I can only assume it was there because it was a book that our (female) English teacher adored. The book had no relevance to a boy's school in inner London; indeed, the book has little relevance to me today. The characters are little more than adolescent female stereotypes (kind of an early chick-lit counter-balance to the stereotypes found in poor science fiction) and the plot is little more than adolescent female wish-fulfilment. Darcy, of course, was the David Beckahm of his day - and a metrosexual to boot, before the word had been invented.
This stuff continues to be peddled as "literature" at its best, when in reality it just happens to touch an emotional chord with a certain type of reader. Nothing wrong with that (Phil Dick does the same for me, as does Graham Greene), but this does seem to lead to people putting the stuff on a higher plane than it merits from the quality of the writing.
++++++
Woodhouse writes that it is "form" to only cover one subject in a single blog entry. Fuck that. Who invents these moronic rules of etiquette?
