Looking rather plucky -- yay!
Now that I am no longer at the club, ever, I no longer have to suffer having People Magazine flung into my field of vision, ever. Even though it's been 2 or 3 months since that photo of Johnny Depp appeared in it -- the one that was seared onto my corneas & made me feel so enraged -- Jesus. (See some sort of post from August where I was spewing rather mightily about it.)
You know, I really, really hate invasive photographs of people. Even people that I don't know -- and I have to say that most of the famous people nowadays -- I have no clue who they are. I don't watch TV (except my beloved Mad Men) and I don't see too many American movies. Anyway, regardless, I react really badly to invasive photographs of people and when they are photos of people I actually care about... it's like seeing some sort of horrible accident on the road. Why do people (and People) find this so appealing to look at? You know: full-color proof that you're seriously bothering somebody? (In this case, the person was going to throw a rock at you.)
Anyhow...there is finally a much nicer invasive photograph of Johnny Depp (and Keith Richards) in this week's Rolling Stone. (Or is that this month's Rolling Stone? I swear that every time I turn around, another issue arrives in the mail. Perhaps it's a daily now?) He's looking rather plucky and happy for a change! So I will give a brief tiny sigh of: "yay." And now I'm off to the eye surgeon to have that photo from a couple of months ago stripped from my corneas and have this new one etched onto them instead. Sort of like an eye tattoo! What could be more better than that? It's absolutely hard to imagine, gang!
Well, for your benefit, I tried to find the photo online to regale you with here, but I could only find a similar one--taken, like, a few moments later. Consider yourself regaled! And now, onward.... (Oh, and also -- do you think they conspired beforehand to be wearing very, very similar color themes? What's with that? Except for the 700 million years difference in their ages, they could be twins!)
You know, I really, really hate invasive photographs of people. Even people that I don't know -- and I have to say that most of the famous people nowadays -- I have no clue who they are. I don't watch TV (except my beloved Mad Men) and I don't see too many American movies. Anyway, regardless, I react really badly to invasive photographs of people and when they are photos of people I actually care about... it's like seeing some sort of horrible accident on the road. Why do people (and People) find this so appealing to look at? You know: full-color proof that you're seriously bothering somebody? (In this case, the person was going to throw a rock at you.)
Anyhow...there is finally a much nicer invasive photograph of Johnny Depp (and Keith Richards) in this week's Rolling Stone. (Or is that this month's Rolling Stone? I swear that every time I turn around, another issue arrives in the mail. Perhaps it's a daily now?) He's looking rather plucky and happy for a change! So I will give a brief tiny sigh of: "yay." And now I'm off to the eye surgeon to have that photo from a couple of months ago stripped from my corneas and have this new one etched onto them instead. Sort of like an eye tattoo! What could be more better than that? It's absolutely hard to imagine, gang!
Well, for your benefit, I tried to find the photo online to regale you with here, but I could only find a similar one--taken, like, a few moments later. Consider yourself regaled! And now, onward.... (Oh, and also -- do you think they conspired beforehand to be wearing very, very similar color themes? What's with that? Except for the 700 million years difference in their ages, they could be twins!)
Comments