Sunday, August 13, 2006

Moving right along

Today my mother and sister came over to help me pack. Before they left, we filled thirty boxes, bringing my packed total to forty-one. I'm embarrassed to admit that twenty-three of those forty-one boxes contain books ... and that doesn't include the crate of books they took home or the three crates that are waiting to go to the used bookstore. ("Do you not have a library card?" my mother asked as she surveyed my collection.)

Anyway, it was good to have them here to help. I've been doing bits and pieces all week long, but it's hard to get much done on my own. G will help here and there, but then she loses interest and wanders off to play or watch TV. In contrast, the three of us managed to pack all five bookcases, the shelf of books in my walk-in closet, the DVDs, the games, P's action figures, and most of the pictures and knickknacks. The heap of boxes in my dining room looks like the Great Wall of China, and yet it feels as if we hardly made a dent.

I have too much stuff.

Also, moving without P is no fun. We moved together four times, and although it was always hard work, we had the excitement of a new place to look forward to, and we could make decisions about what to keep and what to get rid of together. Now it's all on me, and there's nothing at the other end but an escape from this house of tragedy. I don't like it. I don't want to have to make decisions about what to do with P's things. They're not mine, they're his. How can I say what's important enough to keep and what ought to be given away? I know P trusted me to do it, but I don't trust myself. I can't wait for all this to be over.


writermeeg said...

Don't be embarrassed about your book collection, V -- that's what got you so smart! And, oy, I can't imagine the weight of the emotions as you pack. It's not fair. Period. Sending love...

Anonymous said...

court explained the more basic and general the element "the more likely it is that restricting its use will significantly impair competition."The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has adopted its own aesthetic functionality test. Christian Louboutin SaleUnder Wallace International Silversmiths v. Godinger Silver Art Co., aesthetic functionality hinges on whether "trademark protection would significantly hinder c

view of other single color marks in fashion.The district court also erred in its broad construal of aesthetic functionality. Aesthetic functionality is based on the premise that the visual appeal of a trademark may be essential to effective competition or an important ingredient in the commercial success of the product, and must, therefore, be free for all to imitate. In Pagliero v. Wallace China

ly the shoes were left. These #7 pair of ruby slippers are said to be in mint condition since they were used for "pretty" shots in the movie, such as the one above.This is expected to be the last pair thatChristian Louboutin Women's Slingback will go up for auction and is expected to sell for $2-3 million. Interestingly enough, I wonder who the recipient will be. One of my guesses is Oprah Winfrey. "For a quarter of a century, O

-update, this will avoid a temporary emWith Fang's about, including the brain gradually sink monks live in harmony sketched the scene, only to suddenly hear she changed the subject, but also the future and think Christian Louboutin Women's Bootscarefully, before the body has reason to respond to swear nodded and said: "Mother told there is nothing."See Shen did not hesitate with his promise, the party's a bit embarrassing opening