Frames at the Hermitage, St. Petersburg
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ee20e/ee20e48ce883a20a62945f2e5f4cc789ad5bfc4a" alt=""
He said, "I only ask because you never know what people will tell you." Skills at deflecting inappropriate questions were not yet acquired by me. I admire this ability of other people.
I was eating whipped cream spiked with Grand Marnier --which I had scratch-made for the potluck. The loft was shared by four men. A good friend met his future wife while living there.
Many people in their early twenties have not been engaged. Also, the question of marriage was not important to me. Now, I can't imagine myself occupied by talk, the natural progression of which is the question, "Have you ever been engaged?"
I did not feel invaded. But he was attempting an invasion. These are different things.
I felt unengaged. He was eating Turducken.
Also, unexpectedly, I had a scruple based on little but my sulkiness to answer a question about my prior or non-existent engagements. (I just Roget-ed a word that brought me to page one. That was thrilling.) I was sidestepping some indefinable trespass.
After, I thought, 'There are people who ask questions only to acquire data. These people are successful.' I divide the world's people into two groups. Those who ask questions to acquire data, and those who ask questions in ignorance of the act of acquiring data. I thought, 'Every vouchsafing of information puts you at a disadvantage, if you are not, then, vouchsafed information.'
I blame this man for making me think of talk in terms of advantage and disadvantage. Blame for other divisions is as of yet undecided.
No comments:
Post a Comment