Adam Fish certainly knows how to get people’s attention. While still a PhD student at UCLA, he fired a shot off my bow — a challenging blog post critiquing my discussion of critical utopianism and critical pessimism in the concluding chapter of Convergence Culture. It certainly got my attention — he was fearless, a bit merciless, but for the most part, right in his critiques, and I found myself responding through the blog in ways that forced me to rethink my own positions.
We’ve remained in touch off and on since, and I’ve had the pleasure to watch him develop into an important and distinctive voice at the intersection between critical studies, cultural studies, and media industry studies. When Nick Couldry and I pulled together a large-scale academic conversation around the participatory turn in cultural studies for the International Journal of Communication, Fish was one of the people we included, even though he was one of the most junior participants, because we knew he would have important things to say and he did not disappoint.
He has now released his first book, Technoliberalism and the End of Participatory Culture in the United States. As with his original blog post, the title got my attention and as you will see, it is one of the first things I asked him about in the interview which follows. We do have somewhat different understandings of the scope and limits of participatory culture — not surprisingly — but I really admire what he accomplishes in this book, which I suspect is going to be one which many of us will be engaging with in the years to come, whether because of its contributions to the debates around media policy, its nuanced interpretation of different modes of participation, its rich ethnography in the production studies tradition, or its historical analysis of the evolution of opportunities for grassroots contributions to American television as it undergoes technological change.
We need critical, skeptical voices within the context of debates around participatory culture, but what I value about Fish is that he does not throw the baby out with the bathwater. He does recognize what is worth fighting for in the struggles around participatory culture. He proposes more rigorous criteria in terms of what counts as meaningful participation; he demonstrates the forces we work against when we advocate for more grassroots participation in the production and circulation of media; he doesn’t mince words when something falls short, but at the end of the day, I walk away with a sense that we are both engage in the same struggles from different tactical and theoretical vantage points.
I threw some challenging questions his direction and he responded with the usual thoughtfulness and originality. Enjoy!
While the book’s title describes the “end” of participatory culture in the United States, a more nuanced reading of the book suggests that your predictions are a bit less dire than that. After all, you begin with some discussion of the ways that videos of racialized police violence has fueled the #blacklivesmatter movement. So, is it more accurate to say that the book describes the struggle of some forms of participatory culture to survive or have an impact in a world of increasingly corporitized digital media? What do you see as the stake for those of us who advocate a more participatory media scape in the face of the trends you document and analyze throughout this account?
Hi Henry, thanks for inviting me to talk with you. I need to begin by speaking to this funny experience I just had with my 4 year old. It is a good segue into different concepts of participation. Her favorite thing to do is this YouTube kids yoga class called Cosmic Kids, wholesome stuff for a family of techno-hippies from California stuck in northwest England! When it ended she came to ask me to start another episode. When I said, “No, honey you can’t watch another,” she retorted with a consternated brow, “Daddy, I am not watchinganything, I am doing something, I am doing yoga!” This illustrates my graded categories of participation. In my opinion, watching is OK, doing is better, and making is the best. (I let her do another one because of this sophisticated answer.)
This hierarchy can be interpreted as elitist, I know, but it is based upon ethnographic work with amateurs and activists stretching their skills, pushing their technologies, and challenging themselves to make things usually only made by paid professionals: television.
Following the typology of Nico Carpentier there is a difference between interaction and participation, as there is between slacktivism and activism, as this spoof video recently parodied. As you and Nico correctly note in a recent discussion, it is a question of intensities, engagement, and ultimately effectiveness. I celebrate intense forms of participation, not interactive engagement, but robust maker culture. If the only option that exist for amateur and activist participation with television is the rare inclusion of the witty tweet or a few seconds of a witness video in a newscast, just to add a bit of cinema verite and social media marketing to a newscast—that to me isn’t participation but rather the circulation of affect or what Jodi Dean calls communicative capitalism. My book, Technoliberalism and the End of Participatory Culture, is about those exceptional and short-lived moments when television was opened up by new technologies for radical participation—citizen-produced documentaries designed to foment political action.
I’ve wanted to clarify the title of the book in particular to you because it does contain the phrase, “participatory culture,” which you have advanced in media studies. I’ll be the first to admit that “The End of Participatory” part is a bit hyperbolic and the result of some pressure from the publisher. The book does not hypothesize the end of the convergence of bottom-up and top-down collaborations you describe in your book Convergence Culture. Such a statement would be far too normative and universalizing—there is no single “participatory culture” to end or begin.
Furthermore, definitive beginnings, ends, causalities, and dualities seem increasingly unlikely—a theme I’ll take up later. A better title would be “the end of a participatory culture in cable and satellite television production”—doesn’t quite have the same ring, the editors thought. That more nuanced title gets a bit of the irony I hope would be apparent.
Readers of your book Textual Poachers and Sonia Livingstone and Peter Lundt’s earlier work understand that television did provide abbreviated apertures for audience interactivity. But many consider participatory culture to be something that began in earnest with social media. There were brief moments of amateur and activist involvement in television production that usually coordinated with the first few months of the development of a new platform—8mm film, portapak cameras, satellite, cable, camcorders, mobile phones etc. Much of this history in thebook is potted from the excellent historical research of Patricia Zimmerman, William Boddy, Lauri Ouellette, and Lisa Parks and the idealistic work of guerilla television producers such as Michael Shamberg.
So the book looks at the origins and ends of participatory culture in television production during those historical moments as well as the more recent amateur and activist involvements in television production facilitated by the internet. So while the video evidence of police brutality–Eric Garner being choked to death or Walter Scott shot in the back—might be featured as part of a nightly news segment, there does not exist an activist or amateur network where these videos and the public sphere and activism they inspire can develop into social movements.
Its old news now and probably a bit romantic, but this was something Al Gore’s user-generated network Current was at times and what Participant Media’s Pivot network could have done with Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s HitRecord on TV program. As you know, both Current and HitRecord are dead, Current in 2013 in HitRecord in 2016, and with them the idea that television production could and should be democratised.
The media democratisation thesis will emerge again but only in the early halcyonic days of a new transmission medium. One point of the book is that the opening of television provoked by the internet has ended and with it a robust form of participatory culture on television. This concern, however, has provoked me to look for the beginnings of new transmission/networking systems capable of creating that rupture where amateurs and activists can again gain entry into the hegemonic public sphere.
My new book, co-written with Ramesh Srinivasan, After the Internet poses the question: what comes after an internet that is thoroughly surveilled by the NSA, increasingly centralised into gated communities like Facebook, monopolised by corporate mergers like AT&T and Time Warner, unshackled from network neutrality regulations, and manipulated by Russian bots and hackers? We look at activists, indigenous people, politicians, and programmers who are attempting to re-make an internet that is more in-line with their cultural and political ideals and ontologies.
My new research funded by the Leverhulme Trust is looking at how new atmospheric information infrastructures—mesh networked drones, balloons, and the like—can be mobilised by formerly occluded communities to generate new possibilities in participatory networked communication. So I have always studied the more engaged forms of participation which requires higher forms of socio-technical expertise and understanding of policy. Elites, probably, but that is the tribe who create the platforms and affordances that structure communication.
The consequences during periods of participatory closure are that this level of inventiveness, experimentation, and playfulness will decline. As far as diverse content in the hegemonic public sphere is concerned, this will create a deficit of the type of voicefulness Nick Couldry describes. So I see a materialist, softly deterministic and dialectic relationship between the transmission hardware and the messages they transmit. Open systems create the opportunities for radical speech, it isn’t that controversial of a thesis for a student of open source software or a participant in Burning Man.
You describe in your introduction a shift from the internet delivering “community theater” to the internet delivering “Hollywood” entertainment. Is this necessarily a zero-sum game? Does one preclude the other? You describe here historically cycles between amateurism and professionalism in media production, but one could argue that there is still much more amateur media being produced and circulated today than ever before and that this grassroots media content is gaining a level of visibility and impact in the culture that would not be matched by earlier versions of this cycle. Without being naive about the ways corporate ownership of platforms and delivery channels potentially restricts what is taking place with amateur media makers, should we also acknowledge that some ground has been gained as a result of the struggles over media access and power your book documents?
This duality between “community theater” and “Hollywood” came from one of the unrecognized historians of media participation, the cybernetician JCR Licklider, who criticised television of the 1960s for not being participatory. Licklider understood that the affordances of television would create a path dependency leading not to greater participation, increasing diversification of voice, and a more robust democratic dialogue but less of each. Licklider was writing in the 1960s, and cable in the 1970s, satellites in the 1980s, camcorders in the 1990s, and the internet in the 2000 did, indeed, provide new openings for robust, generative participation online for active individuals and communities.
But as the once opened windows provided by those technologies closed, television returned to being a much more closed media ecology wherein professional ruled not only entrance into studios and networks but, more ominously, a professional logic also ruled the imagination.
Patricia Zimmerman in her history of the different marketing logics between 8MM film and 16MM film cameras showed how the camera manufacturers truncated the realm of possibility in order to sell more cameras. 8MM users were branded as incapable of producing film or television grade footage, while 16MM cameras, those were for the aspirational and would-be professional. Had this of been different there could have been the first citizen film journalists in the 1950s, instead we waited until the 1970s or more likely the 2000s for the idea of politically-motivated moving picture production democratization to occur.
There are always outliers but technological path dependencies and socio-cultural expectations cornering the imagination plays a large part in determining the possible future. Again, I admit this is elitist. I celebrate all forms of robust participation but I am also cynical about banality.
Take YouTube for instance, I don’t see “haul videos” and make-up tutorial vlogs as hallmarks of a renaissance of cultural creativity. I understand from reading Brooke Duffy that there is some important gender work going on in these videos but I am concerned that the convergence of bottom-up hype and top-down algorithmic promotion make it seem like this style of video is one of few options for would-be creative individuals. I know there is more than this on YouTubre, but I worry what this limiting of possibility does to the diversity of politicized voices in the public sphere.
YouTube now thinks itself ready to be a proper television network in five cities with branded, syndicated, commissioned, and sponsored content and it is ready to charge subscription fees like a regular cable network. As the book describes, YouTube got to this point of confidence not by empowering citizen video journalists, activists, community organisers, etc. but by patiently pairing simple content creators and advertisers and professionalizing the look of this content through multichannel networks, talent agencies, revenue sharing deals, and building small studios around the world.
The content for the most part is safe for sponsors—when it is not a backlash and public shaming occurs such as with PewDiePie. In this age of fake news, climate change denial, and economic nationalism I doubt this is the tenor of the public sphere the present needs. Unfortunately, this is the kind of content that emergent television networks—even those that come from the grassroots of participatory culture like video sharing sites like YouTube—are producing.
Adam Fish is cultural anthropologist, video producer, and senior lecturer in the Sociology Department at Lancaster University.He employs ethnographic and creative methods to investigate how media technology and political power interconnect. Using theories from political economy and new materialism, he examines digital industries and digital activists. His book Technoliberalism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) describes his ethnographic research on the politics of internet video in Hollywood and Silicon Valley. His co-authored book After the Internet (Polity, 2017) reimagines the internet from the perspective of grassroots activists and citizens on the margins of political and economic power. He is presently working on a book about hacktivist prosecution called Hacker States and a book and experimental video called System Earth Cable about “elemental media”–atmospheric and undersea information infrastructures in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Iceland, and Indonesia. This project deploys drones to map the undersea fibre optical cable system as seen here at Landeyjasandur, Iceland.
From a book on kimono and poses with people in and partly out of it:
Making a manga artist Pose collection Delusional pose collection SPROUTThe pictures are nice, but I have so little call to draw people (or ducks) in and out of kimono that I can't justify ¥2500 for it.
Suzuya called the strongest bang of this century. The second popular series that Mr. appointed Mr. as a model.
For this time, we will
raise your new delusions on the theme of kimono, such as Yukata and Hakama! Of course, the figure of bare duck is exposed as well!
This is one of the aspects of the coolness factor, the seduction of competence and striving for a sense of right that has always sparked for me.
Not that there won't be questions. But that's coming.
When Aragorn finds the dying Boromir, the latter confesses, and Aragorn tries to give him peace. When Gimli and Legolas catch up, they find him grieving over Boromir, and over his own failure to keep the company together and safe on their perilous road.
He’s not just grieving but weeping, and I do want to talk about tears, but later. There’s a passage I’ve always remembered where I think it’s important. Meanwhile, the three search the Orcs, but don’t think about decent burial for them as they do Boromir, who gets sent over the falls, Aragorn making a poem and commenting that in Minas Tirith they endure the East wind, but don’t look to it for news.
After finding clues of the hobbits—and of two separate orc forces—they take off in pursuit. Aragorn regrets bitterly turning away from the south, but duty calls, and they start running northwards.
In chapter two, they encounter the remains of dead orcs, also unburied. More about that later: as a kid reader I was not bothered, but later on, I was.
They reach the plains of Rohan, where Aragorn finds Pippin’s brooch lying a little ways off the trail—evidence, I think, that Pippin has quick wits, though he’s still a kid.
They camp, then Legolas gives the ground a listen, after Aragorn comments that the earth must groan under the orcs’ hated feet. They push on, then comes an interesting passage. Aragorn says he’s tired:
"There is something strange at work in this land. I distrust the silence. I distrust even the pale moon. The stars are faint; and I am weary as I have seldom been before, weary as Ranger should not be with a clear trail to follow. A weariness that is in the heart more than in the limb."
"Truly!" said Legolas. “ That I have known since first we came down from the Emyn Muil. For the will is not behind us but before us."
Saruman’s magic seems to reach out beyond anyone being able to hear his voice. Right? I want to discuss Saruman's magic, but later.
On they go, until they meet the Riders of Rohan, who nearly go past them until Aragorn asks them for news.
It doesn’t start out well: when Aragorn says that they had recently come through Lothlorien, Eomer infuriates Gimli by commenting about Galadriel, “Few escape her nets, they say.”
It’s Aragorn the peace maker who comes between Eomer and the other two, who are ready to do battle on the spot. He explains their quest, but then he reveals who he is, and demands that Eomer choose swiftly.
Then comes one of those cool moments that thrilled me chitlins as a kid reader, when Eomer says, “These are indeed strange days. Dreams and legends spring out of the grass.”
I’ve always loved larger than life characters, especially when they live up to the promise.
Anyway, they find out that the orc band that took the hobbits is toast, but no sign of the two prisoners. The Rohan knights are skeptical about hobbits, and when Eomer comments, “Do we walk in legends or on the green earth in the daylight?” Aragorn comes back with, “A man may do both.”
Zing, more coolness factor. They exchange news—all pretty bad—and Eomer insists that Rohan does not pay tribute to Mordor, nor would they sell black horses to Mordor, for they are put to evil use.
This demand for specifically black horses passed me by when I was young, but it caught my attention this round. But I think that will belong to the discussion of black and white, light and darkness.
They discuss Gandalf, and then what to do. Eomer for the third time comments on the strangeness of these days, but when he wonders how he is to judge what to do, Aragorn says:
"As he ever has judged," said Aragorn. "Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves and dwarves and another among men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."
They decide to go on, though Gimli feels about horses the way Sam feels about boats. They reach Fangorn, where the trees act oddly, Aragorn saying that Fangorn holds some secret of his own. What it is he doesn’t know.
To which Gimli replies with heartfelt truth, “And I do not wish to know! Let nothing that dwells in Fangorn be troubled on my account!”
Gimli gets the first watch—and their camp is disturbed by an old man. Who vanishes, along with their horses. Aragorn comments that he had a hat, not a hood . . . and they wait out the night.
So, all kinds of setup for later payoff.
For the first time ever, our Cassini spacecraft dove through the narrow gap between Saturn and its rings on April 26. At 5 a.m. EDT, Cassini crossed the ring plane with its science instruments turned on and collecting data.
During this dive, the spacecraft was not in contact with Earth. The first opportunity to regain contact with the spacecraft is expected around 3 a.m. EDT on April 27.
This area between Saturn and its rings has never been explored by a spacecraft before. What we learn from these daring final orbits will further our understanding of how giant planets, and planetary systems everywhere, form and evolve.
So, you might be asking…how did this spacecraft maneuver its orbit between Saturn and its rings? Well…let us explain!
On April 22, Cassini made its 127th and final close approach to Saturn’s moon Titan. The flyby put the spacecraft on course for its dramatic last act, known as the Grand Finale.
As the spacecraft passed over Titan, the moon’s gravity bent its path, reshaping the robotic probe’s orbit slightly so that instead of passing just outside Saturn’s main rings, Cassini would begin a series of 22 dives between the rings and the planet.
With this assist, Cassini received a large increase in velocity of approximately 1,925 mph with respect to Saturn.
This final chapter of exploration and discovery is in many ways like a brand-new mission. Twenty-two times, the Cassini spacecraft will dive through the unexplored space between Saturn and its rings. What we learn from these ultra-close passes over the planet could be some of the most exciting revelations ever returned by the long-lived spacecraft.
Throughout these daring maneuvers, updates will be posted on social media at:
Updates will also be available online at: https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/
Follow along with us during this mission’s Grand Finale!
Make sure to follow us on Tumblr for your regular dose of space: http://nasa.tumblr.com
Here’s your mid-week reminder to forgive yourself if you’ve had a crappy/tired/unproductive day/week/month/year. You are doing the best you can. Look after yourself, do what you need to do. And it doesn’t matter what time of day/week/month/year it is, it’s never too late to make a fresh start.
Harry Potter/Avengers AU
The Avengers are a team of Witches and Wizards fighting against the Dark Lord Thanos.
Tony is the mad Wizarding inventor who is a genius with a wand. Bruce is a part-time healer, full-time shape-shifting werewolf. Clint and Natasha are Unspeakables. Thor is a Quidditch beater. And Auror Steve has one hell of a shield charm.
(Oh, and Loki is a Death Eater, which no one is surprised about)
Just needed to add an imperio’d Bucky as the Winter Sorcerer and Peggy in Steve’s compass…
Oh! And Peter going to Hogwarts having Harry Potter like adventures. And Mad Eye Fury is Head of the Department of Mysteries…
And T’Challa, who is from the completely magical kingdom of Wakanda (and has an Animagus that is a black panther). And Scott, who has been incarcerated in Azkaban.
Oh, and I missed Quidditch Warrior Thor the first time (who usually prefers being a beater) so here he is with Wanda, who is a defected ex-Death Eater
Doesn't mean I won't be doing that in a couple of weeks or so. I'm giving notice now that I expect to be more than a bit bitchy toward the end of June. But that's a while away. And it might not be as bad as last year, when I had no notion what to expect.
Still waking up absurdly early -- I haven't been awake that far before dawn since elementary school days, when I had to be outside, fed and washed and clothed and waiting for the school bus before 7:30, or when I did factory work and had to get up at 4:30 to drive 20 miles to do a 9-hour shift, get home and fall in bed exhausted at 7:30 p. m. Still, waking up before the birds is weird. I am used to them waking me; I listen for them, for which ones are calling when. Can't identify them all, but some are familiar. Wake up early enough, and the Beltway is nearly silent -- which really only happens during snowstorms or ice storms. Who knew it happened at 2 a.m. also? No trucks cranking their gearshifts and brakes on the turns, grinding gears so the sound bounces off the barriers and over the top.
I opened the patio door early this morning so Harry could go out before I left for work. About ten minutes later, I wandered toward the kitchen and watched MF run for his life out of the kitchen back onto the patio. He fled to the corner of the patio. I shut the patio door. He immediately returned to the patio door and looked at me winsomely. Harry was inside and growling.
What to do? Call hanarobi to give me some backbone. "Don't feed him! He's a player! He's playing you! Be strong!"
I gave Harry a can of food and when I left the house, MF was nowhere to be seen, probably casing the rest of the neighborhood in case someone else left their patio door open.
Fly With Me
Fly With Me by Chanel Cleeton is $1.99! This is a contemporary romance and the first book in the Wild Aces series. Readers say that anyone who had a love for Top Gun growing up pretty much needs to buy this book. However, some felt the ending was a bit abrupt. It has a 4-star rating on Goodreads.
From the author of the Capital Confessions Novels comes the first in the steamy Wild Aces Romance series.
U.S. Air Force fighter pilot Noah Miller—call sign Burn—loves nothing more than flying hard and fast. When he meets a gorgeous and sassy woman while partying in Las Vegas, he immediately locks on to her.
Jordan Callahan owns a thriving clothing boutique, but her love life is far less successful. Her luck changes when six feet, two inches of sexy swagger asks her to dance and turns her world upside down.
One scorching weekend becomes an undeniable chemistry that they can’t leave in Vegas. But the long distance relationship and their different lives threaten to ground their romance. And when the dangers of Noah’s job become all too real, Jordan learns being with a fighter pilot means risking it all for a shot at love…
Alpha Wolf Need Not Apply
Alpha Wolf Need Not Apply by Terry Spear is 99c at Amazon and $1.99 elsewhere! This paranormal romance seems to have all sorts of catnip. It has a park ranger shifter and the heroine is a she-wolf who is a forester AND the leader of her pack. Readers assure this can be read as a standalone, given that it’s number 19 in a series (whoa). They loved the strong heroine, but noted that the romance gets off to a slow start. It has a 3.9-star rating on Gooreads.
An alpha werewolf meets his match in this sizzling paranormal romance from USA Today bestselling author Terry Spear
THERE’S A NEW WOLF PACK IN SILVER TERRITORY
Wolf shifter and park ranger Eric Silver is committed to his job policing spectacular San Isabel National Forest, and he’s hot on the scent of some mysterious wolves who are up to no good. When Eric’s investigation leads him to cross paths with forester Pepper Grayling, he’s fascinated to learn this she-wolf is her pack’s leader-strong, independent, and definitely not looking for a mate.
AND THIS TIME THE LEADER’S A SHE…
With unknown dangers on the prowl, Pepper is tempted to give in to her attraction to Eric and align her pack with his. But Pepper’s been pursued by many an alpha male out to take over her pack and gain her hard-won territory-and Eric is a born leader. How does Eric earn the trust of a she-wolf who’s been betrayed so often in the past?
Noble Intentions by Katie MacAlister is $1.25 at Amazon and $1.99 elsewhere! This is the first book in the Noble series and features a married hero and heroine. (They have a very brief courtship.) Readers were divided on the humor. Some loved the slapstick-esque comedy, while others felt it was too silly for them.
Noble Britton had suffered greatly at the hands of his first wife, and he refused to fall into the same trap again. This time he intended to marry a quiet, biddable woman who would not draw attention to herself or cause scandal. Gillian Leigh’s honest manner and spontaneous laughter attracted him immediately. It mattered little that she was accident-prone; he could provide the structure necessary to guide her.
But unconventional to the tips of her half-American toes―toes that one of them was constantly tripping over―his new bride turned the tables on him, wreaking havoc on his orderly life. And worse, demanding he surrender his heart. Perpetually one step behind his beguiling spouse, Noble suffered a banged-up head, a black eye, and a broken nose before he realized Gillian had healed his soul and proved that their union was no heedless tumble, but the swoon of true love.
The British Table
The British Table by Colman Andrews is $2.99! This cookbook alters traditional British recipes and the cover is making me all sorts of hungry. Readers loved the historical elements discussed prior to each recipe, but others mention that the cookbook is pretty heavy on meat dishes.
The British Table: A New Look at the Traditional Cooking of England, Scotland, and Wales celebrates the best of British cuisine old and new. Drawing on a vast number of sources, both historical and modern, the book includes more than 150 recipes, from traditional regional specialties to modern gastropub reinventions of rustic fare. Dishes like fish pie, braised brisket with pickled walnuts, and a pastry shop full of simple, irresistible desserts have found their way onto modern British menus—delicious reminders of the depth and breadth of Britain’s culinary heritage. The book blends these tradition-based reinventions by some of the finest chefs in England, Scotland, and Wales with forgotten dishes of the past worthy of rediscovery.
Before going we knew a dog cafe was going to open close to Mog, but getting there it seems it's actually right next door. Talking to staff they're not so happy about that, worried about barking disturbing the cats. Plus, worried about trade too, because I imagine it'll take some of their custom. I can see their points, but have to admit, once it opens I'm sure we'll be checking it out.
Today we booked theatre tickets. First to go and see Grease next week. The seats for that aren't that good as the show is so soon, but also tickets for Wicked. We've been thinking about getting those for a while, but the show isn't on until September next year and it felt really weird buying something so far in advance. But we asked about availability and they had great middle aisle stall seats about half way back, and for not a bad price for such a big production. So we got them. It'll be the first big staging I'll have seen, but people seem to like it, so fingers crossed we will too.
After that we walked -- and in James' case, got pushed -- into Sunderland town centre. We only intended to browse the shops, but somehow I walked into Yours and came out with a camouflage jacket. One minute I was looking at stuff, the next I'd seen this jacket and on a whim decided to try it on. Getting it off the hanger the material had no give, and I was sure it would be too small, but I tried it on, looked in the mirror and the assistant close-by said, that looks fantastic on you, but it's far too big. It turns out I needed a 22, which, the hell? How did that even happen?
I know I said no more buying clothes, but this is going to be perfect for the spring, it's lightweight and comfortable and should last for a good few months yet. Also, that assistant was amazing. We were talking and she was telling me how she'd lost loads of weight herself -- and still had a lot to go -- so totally understood about the body issues that come with dropping weight.
So yeah, a spendy morning, but I walked past Lush at least, I had some control. Just not a lot /o\
Tomorrow it's Guardians Day! And yes, it actually is tomorrow, my dates are right this time. It's also my FiLs birthday, so it's movie time at 12:30, then off to the in-laws.