He approached me like Santa opening his Christmas sack, and slipped the glasses over my nose.
Immediately his face loomed huge, covered with deep, unsightly pores. I could see each angle the razor had taken as it clipped his whiskers. The lines of his face turned to furrows.
"Um", I said, unwilling to throw cold water on his glee, and trying not to recoil. But, there was no doubt that the world looked better without these specs.
"Read this, " he said triumphantly. "I can read it without the glasses," was the truth, though I tried to soften it for him.
Why did I get them, anyway? Well, I thought it was about time, and there is no doubt that I can't read the fine print that I used to.
Truth is, the $2 shop ones that someone gave me do a better job.
"If you read much without glasses you would get headaches," he said.
Right. I only read 4 or 5 books a week, so I will try not to read more. I'm assuming that web hours don't count.
It seems to me that all kinds of perfectly fit and able people assume that their eyes are a bodypart that will fail them at an early age? Why is this?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
TakeawaySoulfood
3 comments:
Hi Frances. This is intriguing. Wherever do you buy $2.00 glasses that actually work?
Elizabeth! I'm thrilled to see here someone I respect so highly!
Oh, and I'm sure that $2 specs are available at Coles. And, where I first came across them, was when they were worn by a friend, one of the top obstetricians in Sydney!
That is, Coles supermarkets, Elizabeth.
The $2 glasses vaguely magnify everything.
My "prescribed" glasses magnify to the uncomfortable extent that I feel as if I am reading "large print" books. In adition, they overcompensate for my weaker left eye by magnifying that hugely, so that my perfectly competent right eye now does nothing.
"I feel discombobulated when I take them off," I said.
"Oh yes, that's normal," he said.
I'm avoiding discombobulation by not wearing them. Except for occasionally checking the fine print.
Post a Comment