That’s the writer’s museum in Edinburgh. Great cobblestone side street 10/10 would recommend
I read “explode” and was very concerned there for a moment
LOL, I just happened to visit there {the BG img} last week on holiday! Isn’t a book store, but close: The Writers’ Museum in Edinburgh, Scotland.
Then get yourself to Northern posh villages, I’d recommend Bakewell as they have a few independent book stores that have the dark academia vibe you’re going for.
I wish. Best I can do is that but regular street.
It’s a good store though. They used to have punk shows! Like…10y ago. But they ruled, and they still sell VHS.
Hrrrrng!
Man! The seats in this reading nook are really low.
I want to know what such a book store smells like inside. Is it more books or more building?
Books.
Can confirm. I have many fond memories of when book stores were still around.
I have spent significant lifetime in 2nd hand book stores. The only reason I (mostly) stopped is that the library system in my new home country is so amazing that I simply don’t need bookstores anymore, at least not for myself.
Anyhow, the smell of these stores will not be forgotten. And libraries are usually too well ventilated.
?
When your mate knows your likes and interests, and suggests doing things you like to do unprompted, thats showing deep love. That’s hot.
the hottest
But that’s not talking dirty. Talking dirty is crude (and sexual). The “Me” is describe some cozy, homebody fantasy.
Making it crude would be going to mom-and-pop bookshop that was retrofitted to sell physical copies of Amazon self-publishers.
But that’s not talking dirty. Talking dirty is crude (and sexual).
The phrase “talk dirty to me” has the meaning you’re describing. However, the intended result of talking dirty is to sexually excite your partner with sexually explicit intimate details that you know your partner likes.
The “Me” is describe some cozy, homebody fantasy.
So in our example here the “me” is describing an activity he knows the “her” would like: shopping for books/exploration. Further, “me” adds extra details that “her” likes because he has spent time learning her likes/dislikes/interests because he loves her that would further match her desires. That time spent shows a deep romantic commitment “me” has made to “her”. Someone showing a deep commitment to you (that you want that affection from them) is extremely attractive. A physical expression of extreme attraction is wanting to have sex with them. So we’ve reached the same *intended result * as the traditional “talk dirty to me”, but we did so in a pleasantly unexpected way.
Lastly, this post has humor it in too, and the element of humor here is “subverting expectations”. “Her” says “talk dirty to me” and the audience expects “me” to start describing sexual acts, however he describes the bookstore adventure, which is unexpected for both “her” and us as the audience. Having a good sense of humor is also usually seen as an attractive feature, so “her” is extra into “me” because he demonstrated humor while also reflecting his deep loving commitment to her.
To continue the joke dissection discourse:
That whole scenario is predicated on a deeper background to the “characters” that we cannot assume. However, though I don’t agree with it, I’ll proceed under the assumption that these two characters have the level of interiority you prescribe them.
Responding to the “humor’s subversion of expectations” bit: I get that, which is why I was initially confused/unsatisfied. My expectation was a crude/debauched way of interacting with books. “I’m gonna dogear the pages.”, “I creased the book’s spine.”, etc. What I got felt like a non-sequitur that was a step or two above “* holds up spork *”. (I guess people liked that type of joke back then too).
A more nuanced interpretation of the joke than is apparent requires so much relatively heavy-lifting from the audience and/or for the audience to work backward from the decision that “the joke must be competent/fulfilling”.
My expectation was a crude/debauched way of interacting with books. “I’m gonna dogear the pages.”
Right, that’s way too literal (pun not intended). Too superficial. Too easy.
A more nuanced interpretation of the joke than is apparent requires so much relatively heavy-lifting from the audience and/or for the audience to work backward from the decision that “the joke must be competent/fulfilling”.
Yep, there are several leaps of logic the audience must go through to arrive at the author’s position. Hence it being much more satisfying when we get the joke. Moreover, there’s also a transference of appreciation, and perhaps a bit of envy on the part of the audience that the “her” in this case has such a loving mate that we would all want the same.
