Neither is it an original title – I’m pretty sure I’ve used it before.
Anyway, yes, this isn’t a post where I tell you anything interesting or important, or one where I witter on about something inconsequential but amusing. It’s not really a post at all, just a sort of propitiation, a hope that, by throwing something up here, I will overcome the vague feeling of unease that a yawning gap in my blogging schedule always causes me.
I am continuing ok. I’m having the devil’s own time concentrating on anything, particularly anything that originates from inside myself, if that makes any sense. Hence the lack of a proper blog post. My mind just doesn’t want to concentrate on serious stuff. It wants to skitter off and lose itself in memories. I’m not particularly keen to stop it, either, because I’m happy there. It’s the mental equivalent of hiding under the duvet, and hiding under the duvet is always a good thing. If there’s trouble in paradise, it’s a vague feeling of unease caused by the fact that Not Thinking About Things is, I’m aware, probably not an especially good sign, especially since it’s not something that’s happening consciously, but a thing I am finding it hard to avoid doing. Hence this not-a-blog-post, in which I consciously avoid unconsciously not blogging. Or something. I really hate living inside my head sometimes.
I’m feeling a little odd – sort of flighty and giddy and not exactly happy but not exactly not-happy either. Kind of simultaneously thinking that I might burst out laughing, or burst into tears. That’s weird, I know. Skittery and hard to concentrate, and with a kind of ache in the middle of my thinking, but an ache that doesn’t actually hurt, but is still an ache. If that makes any sense. Which it doesn’t – what in the hell does ‘an ache in the middle of my thinking’ even mean?
Hmmm, have re-read this, and this is sounding like a half-witted attempt to pretend hypomania or something. I’m not hypomanic.* Or, it I am, it’s a kind of hypomania that leaves me able to sit quietly in front of my computer for hours at a time, gently sculling my way around some of the more conducive corners of the internet, even if I do find concentrating tricky. In other words, definitely not hypomania. I don’t know how to characterise it or, I suppose I mean, how to account for it. It’s a reaction to the anxiety I guess, or like the anxiety but translated into a realm where it doesn’t cause anxiety, but the nervous mental energy is still there, but in different ways and coming out differently.
Including in words, it would seem. I know I promised you more of this stuff – or, rather, promised myself that I wouldn’t not write it anymore – but this still feels desperately self-indulgent to me. But, who knows, maybe my new legions of fans will enjoy it. That’s a weird thing, you see – there are quite a lot of people reading these days. It fluctuates over time anyway, but still, there are about a 100 people a day coming here at the moment, and I know that proper bloggers get that many hits in five minutes, but it’s a lot for me. I’m grateful, needless to say, if a little surprised, and a smidgeon OMG!! WHAT ARE THEY LOOKING FOR??!!? – but only a smidgeon. (Though, it has to be said, a proportion of folk arrive having here looking for photos of named individuals in a state of undress, and others are interested in David Cameron and Incapacity Benefit – understandably enough – rather than my general witterings and whinings.)
The increased readership seems to be getting me noticed anyway. I got an email from a company selling therapy (or online alternatives to therapy, or a directory of therapists – something to with therapy anyway), asking me what I charge by the quarter for having a paid-for link on my page. I deleted the email without replying, naturally – I have zero interest in monetising this blog, I even hate the word – though part of me was tempted to reply naming a ridiculous figure like £5,000. But I didn’t, because they might have said yes, and then I’d have had to have some company’s ad on my blog, which would rather knacker the whole not-for-profit-thing, which is rather important to blogging, I think. (Unless you’re offered money to whore out your old blog once you’ve already abandoned it, like someone I know was – that seems like entirely fair play to me.)
I’m still floating round the blogosphere. My latest speciality would appear to be writing long, detailed comments and then not posting them. Probably for the best, given that I’m rambling semi-coherently at best. Quite a lot of the blogosphere seems to be going dark, and those parts of it that aren’t are turning rather bleak. That’s one of the reasons why I’m posting this – I worry horribly when people disappear without explanation, or with a semi-explanation that suggests things are getting pretty desperate for them, so I try to avoid doing it, although heaven knows I’ve had my times in the past. This isn’t one of them, though. Well, not yet, anyway.
* – Ok, that’s weird. This is what happened when I spellchecked the post, specifically with regards to the word ‘hypomanic’:
It’s not that the dictionary doesn’t know that the word hypomanic exists, although it does seem a little odd that someone taught it the state of hypomania, but not the state of being hypomanic. It’s not even that it suggests hypo manic as a two-word phrase, although that’s (a) wrong, and (b) surprising – I can’t think why it would have been programmed to think of hypo as a standalone word, it’s surely most likely to appear as an orphaned prefix separated from another word by a typing error – hypo tension, for example (or hypo manic, come to that). No, it’s the fact that the number one preferred replacement is hippomanic.
I’ll be honest I hadn’t heard of the word, but apparently it’s real, and it means being obsessed with horses. Now, I don’t object to the dictionary including the word, but three things occur to me: (1) I’m surprised the word hippomanic is used so much more commonly than the word hypomanic that it’s worth including the former in the dictionary, but not the latter; (2) it surprises me that it was thought worthwhile teaching the dictionary to recognise hippomanic alongside hippomania, but not hypomanic alongside hypomania – why not the same rule for such similar words?; (3) this is one of those suggested substitutions that have the potential to make people look a bit silly – if I wasn’t confident of the word (especially if I had only heard the word spoken aloud, especially if I didn’t know about the ancient Greek origins of the prefixes hypo- and hyper-, and what they mean) I might well assume that hypomanic was spelled hippomanic. In fact, when I googled hippomanic I came across a few forum posts and the like where that had obviously happened, and google also asked me, in its patronising way, if I’d meant to type hypomanic, which suggests it’s a reasonably common error.
Of course, if hippomanic really is used more commonly than hypomanic then that’s just one of those unfortunate things you have to shrug your shoulders over (and a case-study of the reason one should never blindly accept spell-check auto-suggestions). But, on the other hand, it’s a very odd decision by the program team if more people have more reason to write about low-grade mania then they do an obsession with horses. And I strongly suspect they do – it’s worth noting that google don’t assume searches for hypomanic might be looking for hippomanic instead.