It was raining today, so instead of taking her usual spot on the bench, Irma decided to just sit in and stare out the window. She didn't offer me a seat. I stood behind her chair for a few minutes but then began to feel weird about it, so I pulled up a chair for myself and sat down next to her.
We sat there in silence, watching the rain drops trickle down the glass window. Not many people were out.
Sometimes I thought I would catch a hint of a smile come across Irma's face, but I was never sure because it was just slight enough to make me consider whether or not I had hallucinated it. But I think it was real, because I felt like each time I noticed the corners of her mouth begin to angle up, her eyes were focused on some unfortunate person caught in the rain, running to catch a bus on the corner or shielding their head with a newspaper in the downpour.
I think that she amuses herself through the discomfort of others.
After an hour or so, the Kit-Kat in my pocket began to beckon, so I quietly pulled it out and started to open the wrapper, trying not to disturb the silence. Finally I broke off a section of wafer and looked back up at Irma before biting into it. Her gaze didn't move. She just extended her hand towards me and muttered, "Gimme a break."
Monday, September 27, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
My Issue With Fun Dip (Part 2)
A Nestle representative finally emailed me back today!
(Not quite within 48 hours of my inquiry, I'd just like to note...)
Here's the response to my question:
Dear Ms. Sacerdote,
Thank you for contacting Wonka Lik-m-aid Fun Dip.
Our research has shown that two sticks are enough to enjoy all the powder candy. In addition, we want to keep the price as low as possible for our consumers and adding a third stick would increase the product cost. We will report your comments to our Marketing personnel.
We appreciate your interest and hope that you will visit our website often for the latest information on our products and promotions.
Sincerely,
Patricia A. M. Scott
Consumer Response Representative
Well, I guess that's the reason.
But I've got to say, I could see why their research may have pointed to only two sticks being enough for all of the powder in one sitting because technically speaking, it is.
But most people don't eat three packets of Fun Dip powder in one sitting (then again, maybe it's just an issue for me, considering I live in the country with the highest rate of both diabetes and obesity...).
I'm tempted to ask Ms. Scott to elaborate on the details of the marketing research that went on, but I feel like she may not be the kind of person who would humor me, or even get where I'm coming from.
Sure, she works for Nestle which is a candy company. But we have to consider the fact that she works for the consumer relations division of the company, which means that she may not even partake in the consumption of Fun Dip to begin with.
There may in fact be no one that I would be able to easily contact at Nestle that would be able to empathize with my specific problem.
After all, I am probably part of a relatively small demographic of people between the ages of 15 and 25 who actually purchase Fun Dip for personal consumption. I'm not sure how small that demographic actually is, but logically speaking, the demographic for people age 25 and above who purchase Fun Dip for personal consumption is probably a lot smaller, if not completely non-existent.
I don't think that I will ask her for more details on the study because I don't want to be irritating and really, it doesn't matter that much.
Maybe I will just accept the fact that there are only two sticks for three packets as one of those things that just doesn't make sense. There are plenty of other more serious things that don't make sense in the world, so why not let Fun Dip add on to the nonsensical workings of the world?
But it still bothers me. It bothers me because I know that unlike forces of nature or complicated world histories or medical mysteries, there was no complex process that was involved in the creation of Fun Dip.
One person some odd decades ago had an idea and then had it marketed, and then somewhere along the line that same person (or perhaps someone else) decided to include one less stick than was needed. There was intention in this decision. There was no mistake made; there was no unexplained force at work here.
This decision came from a human mind, and it is completely illogical.
(Not quite within 48 hours of my inquiry, I'd just like to note...)
Here's the response to my question:
Dear Ms. Sacerdote,
Thank you for contacting Wonka Lik-m-aid Fun Dip.
Our research has shown that two sticks are enough to enjoy all the powder candy. In addition, we want to keep the price as low as possible for our consumers and adding a third stick would increase the product cost. We will report your comments to our Marketing personnel.
We appreciate your interest and hope that you will visit our website often for the latest information on our products and promotions.
Sincerely,
Patricia A. M. Scott
Consumer Response Representative
Well, I guess that's the reason.
But I've got to say, I could see why their research may have pointed to only two sticks being enough for all of the powder in one sitting because technically speaking, it is.
But most people don't eat three packets of Fun Dip powder in one sitting (then again, maybe it's just an issue for me, considering I live in the country with the highest rate of both diabetes and obesity...).
I'm tempted to ask Ms. Scott to elaborate on the details of the marketing research that went on, but I feel like she may not be the kind of person who would humor me, or even get where I'm coming from.
Sure, she works for Nestle which is a candy company. But we have to consider the fact that she works for the consumer relations division of the company, which means that she may not even partake in the consumption of Fun Dip to begin with.
There may in fact be no one that I would be able to easily contact at Nestle that would be able to empathize with my specific problem.
After all, I am probably part of a relatively small demographic of people between the ages of 15 and 25 who actually purchase Fun Dip for personal consumption. I'm not sure how small that demographic actually is, but logically speaking, the demographic for people age 25 and above who purchase Fun Dip for personal consumption is probably a lot smaller, if not completely non-existent.
I don't think that I will ask her for more details on the study because I don't want to be irritating and really, it doesn't matter that much.
Maybe I will just accept the fact that there are only two sticks for three packets as one of those things that just doesn't make sense. There are plenty of other more serious things that don't make sense in the world, so why not let Fun Dip add on to the nonsensical workings of the world?
But it still bothers me. It bothers me because I know that unlike forces of nature or complicated world histories or medical mysteries, there was no complex process that was involved in the creation of Fun Dip.
One person some odd decades ago had an idea and then had it marketed, and then somewhere along the line that same person (or perhaps someone else) decided to include one less stick than was needed. There was intention in this decision. There was no mistake made; there was no unexplained force at work here.
This decision came from a human mind, and it is completely illogical.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
My Issue With Fun Dip
My one issue with Fun Dip is one that I feel like many people encounter when trying to enjoy this amazingly delicious and fun treat. It's a very simple issue that seems very illogical to me, and I would really like to know why it exists.
My issue is that a full package of Fun Dip comes with three packets of candy powder, but only two candy sticks to eat them with.
It really boggles my mind.
I just don't get why people who make candy for a living would be so inconsiderate.
So of course, I looked it up and got a bunch of Yahoo! Answers that were just blind guesses by random people who don't get it either. I looked and looked, but to no avail. There just didn't seem to be any logical reason behind it. However, I did find out that originally, it was sold under the name Lik-M-Aid and usually came with two powders and one stick (so still, wtf?) and that the flavor of the sticks is marshmallow!
Anyway, the question was still bugging me so I decided to get the answer from someone who may actually know it: the Wonka candy people.
(That is, the people who work for the Wonka division of Nestle, not the oompa loompas...)
So I went onto Nestle's website and clicked on "Contact Us" and wrote them with my question.
The message is as follows:
To the person in charge of the Wonka candy division,
I'm not sure if you get a lot of questions about this or not, but I thought I'd go ahead and ask: Why is it that "Fun Dip" candy packs come with three packets of candy powder, but only two candy "Lik-a-Stiks"? Is it a cost issue, or is there another reason behind this decision?
It's just that I can't always handle eating all three packets at once, so I like to cut them off and eat them one at a time. This usually means that I end up using the first stick up on the first packet, and then when I get down to the last two packets, I'm only left with one stick so I use it for the first of the two and then try to save it for later use with the last one. As you can see, this poses a problem because not only is my stick now half licked, but there is also the issue of what to do with that sticky stick. Where should I put it?
I just feel that it would be a whole lot easier for everyone if you included a third stick in the package, and I hope that you will consider this as something worthwhile, because it would make a lot of Wonka candy consumers very happy.
Yours,
Marguerite Sacerdote
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Dog's Best Friend
As I was browsing CDs at Mystery Train Records (a small used CD/record store in Amherst, MA) yesterday, a strange thought came to me.
I was with a few friends from school and being new college students, we were still at the stage of missing our homes and families, but more commonly, our pets. We walked into Mystery Train and immediately everyone's attention was drawn to a very enthusiastic looking dog who was sitting on a couch just waiting for anyone to come over and play. Everyone immediately headed over to the dog and started petting it and talking to it, and let me tell you, that dog was ecstatic. It just kept on looking up with its happy eyes, through a mass of hands scratching and petting.
I'm not even a dog person and I ended up sitting down right next to it and scratching its ears.
It was then that a strange thought came to me. I was thinking about how a lot of people rush over to dogs and immediately start to pet them and talk to them because they think they're cute. I was thinking about how little kids constantly stop on the street and ask people to pet their dogs because they think they're cute.
And then I got to thinking about the other side of the person-dog relationship. How when a person enters a room, a lot of dogs will run up to them and try to lick their face or climb up on them. Even if it's a complete stranger, they run over and get overly excited about just seeing a person.
So, my question is: Do dogs think that we're cute?
It all adds up, but is that what it is?
It could be.
Is that why they're so loyal and attached to us? Do they use us in a similar fashion as we use them? Do they think our relative baldness is endearing? Do they think that our noises are adorable?
Would they still be man's best friend if they were more particular?
I was with a few friends from school and being new college students, we were still at the stage of missing our homes and families, but more commonly, our pets. We walked into Mystery Train and immediately everyone's attention was drawn to a very enthusiastic looking dog who was sitting on a couch just waiting for anyone to come over and play. Everyone immediately headed over to the dog and started petting it and talking to it, and let me tell you, that dog was ecstatic. It just kept on looking up with its happy eyes, through a mass of hands scratching and petting.
I'm not even a dog person and I ended up sitting down right next to it and scratching its ears.
It was then that a strange thought came to me. I was thinking about how a lot of people rush over to dogs and immediately start to pet them and talk to them because they think they're cute. I was thinking about how little kids constantly stop on the street and ask people to pet their dogs because they think they're cute.
And then I got to thinking about the other side of the person-dog relationship. How when a person enters a room, a lot of dogs will run up to them and try to lick their face or climb up on them. Even if it's a complete stranger, they run over and get overly excited about just seeing a person.
So, my question is: Do dogs think that we're cute?
It all adds up, but is that what it is?
It could be.
Is that why they're so loyal and attached to us? Do they use us in a similar fashion as we use them? Do they think our relative baldness is endearing? Do they think that our noises are adorable?
Would they still be man's best friend if they were more particular?
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
On Top Of The World
Today is my last day at home before I leave for college, and today I realized something miraculous:
I live in the sky.
The sky.
I never really thought about it like that before.
I had just finished folding my last load of wash on my parents' bed so I decided to lay down and watch Friends. My parents' window looks right out over Central Park, twelve stories up, and there was a wonderfully soft white light coming into the room in a mellow, five o'clock way. It was really quite lovely... almost heavenly.
It was the kind of light that reminded me of clouds and flowery spring days. It was the kind of light that reminded me of Mount Olympus; of a floating fortress in the sky... And that's when it hit me.
I do live in the sky.
I live in a house above the trees. I dwell just beneath the clouds. Every night I lie in my bed, surrounded by that purple New York sky. I was watching Friends while sitting hudreds of feet above the streets and stores.
It's amazing that it's taken me eighteen years to come to this particular thought, yet I completely understand why it's taken so long. It's all about relativity. If instead of living amongst other apartment buildings, I lived in the only apartment building in New York amongst two or three story houses, I'd constantly feel like I lived in a tree house. But I don't tower above everyone else. Other people live next to me on the same level, which destroys the cloudy fortress effect... which is why I've never before realized that I essentially live in the sky.
I live above one of the largest cities in the world. The greatest city in the world.
I've lived the majority of my life up in the skies of New York, and that is living on top of the world.
I live in the sky.
The sky.
I never really thought about it like that before.
I had just finished folding my last load of wash on my parents' bed so I decided to lay down and watch Friends. My parents' window looks right out over Central Park, twelve stories up, and there was a wonderfully soft white light coming into the room in a mellow, five o'clock way. It was really quite lovely... almost heavenly.
It was the kind of light that reminded me of clouds and flowery spring days. It was the kind of light that reminded me of Mount Olympus; of a floating fortress in the sky... And that's when it hit me.
I do live in the sky.
I live in a house above the trees. I dwell just beneath the clouds. Every night I lie in my bed, surrounded by that purple New York sky. I was watching Friends while sitting hudreds of feet above the streets and stores.
It's amazing that it's taken me eighteen years to come to this particular thought, yet I completely understand why it's taken so long. It's all about relativity. If instead of living amongst other apartment buildings, I lived in the only apartment building in New York amongst two or three story houses, I'd constantly feel like I lived in a tree house. But I don't tower above everyone else. Other people live next to me on the same level, which destroys the cloudy fortress effect... which is why I've never before realized that I essentially live in the sky.
I live above one of the largest cities in the world. The greatest city in the world.
I've lived the majority of my life up in the skies of New York, and that is living on top of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)