As you'd probably read in my first entry - different thoughts are constantly flying in and out of my head. Where do we start writing from? From the article? No, usually I don't do that. I write the entry and then decide on the article. Now, it's been the other way round. Actually, I just wanted to share a simple, lovely, 11 o'clockish recipe, but...

What actually  a pot of love means? No, I'm not gonna talk about people, love and romance; it's an endless topic, but let's leave it for another day/night. I will talk about food (obviously, as I had mentioned it already in the first paragraph). I ♥ GOOD FOOD.

Is the good food, the delicious one? Yes. Not, exclusively. Yes, I might have the tastiest whatever, but if it's "just" served, half of its taste will just disappear. Fade away. At the same time, a "wanna be feng shui" restaurant, serving frozen Tesco Value salmon with "Noodles in Pot" might be even worse.

Here is my late night, as simple as (the simplest thing you could think of) recipe:



1 box of half-priced Tesco (the country equivalent) strawberries
1 low-fat plain yogurt
1 (real) lime
3-4 spoons of mascarpone

This won't be qualified even for the iPhone "Stupidity test" - Simply stir together the yogurt, the mascarpone and the lime juice. Cut the strawberries into halves (or fours) and mix them with the "mixture".

The hardest part:

1. Serve it in a proper pot (a white Whittard (of Chelsea) pot will be suitable)
2. Make it with love (though that must be the first one)
3. Serve it with love.
4. Share it with love. (Just couldn't escape from the cliche)
5. Ok...just enjoy it.

The mission:
Just choose the right time.  (Even if it's gonna be in the middle of the night and even if you're just sitting and doing nothing.)


That must be enough.


"Great things are done by a series of small things brought together."  Vincent Van Gogh

The other day I had this conversation with a group of friends - do we buy from Primark (note: Primark is an Irish chain clothing retailer, with nearly 200 stores in the UK and a few around Europe. It operates at the budget end of the market, which in this case means top for a quid and a pair of jeans for 6 pounds. The other major point is that all the trends that can be seen in the rest of the high-street retailers are there as well, i.e. Primark wants to be "fashionable". Besides the clothes, you can find "Home" stuff there as well, i.e. bed linen, duvets etc.), do we like Primark, do we think that quality of the clothes is the same as that of the rest of the retailers, and so on, and so on. Although, last, but not least - "Are we ashamed to say that we buy from Primark and is that a reason not to go there?" - a question that was not directly posed, but you could definately "feel it in the atmosphere" and again, feel (not hear, becuase not many people will dare to admit it) what the person facing you is actually doing.

Let's start from the cliche - "I don't buy from Primark, because the people, actually making the clothes are 5-years-old kids from China". Ok. Seriously, is that the reason why you're not buying from Primark, but you are buying from River Island, Dorothy Perkins, Topshop, Zara and so on? Because if that's the reason, all those people saying that they don't like Primark, but still love the rest of the high-street retailers will be completely wrong. And they know it. The bigger the production is, the cheaper the labour must be - as simple as it could be. The bigger companies might be able to invest in machines (though it's easier to say it, but harder to imply it) and be ECOLOGical, while the small companies can be ETHICal, i.e. not using third world labour (the 5-years-old kids mentioned above), but they won't have the resources to be ecological, because will be close to nothing compared to that of the massive production retailers. And here is a pretty self-explanatory table...
If you want to be ecological and ethical, please buy clothes from small boutiques or...couture. At least we are sure that the couture is not being made by kids living in third world countries or pregnant eastern European women, working for 16 hours in a factory, just because it's impossible. Chanel for example is being made by old Parisian women, with at least 30 years experience. Ah, yes and the interns, who are helping around. Not paid of course. (I am intern at the moment and I am not getting paid as well, but I am not complaining, because we all have to start from somewhere.

So that's about the ethical side of the things. On other hand, some people say that they don't buy from Primark, because the quality of the clothes is different. Ok, all cotton shirts are made from the same type of cotton, which costs the same amount of money. Shht! Someone coming from a design background might confront me, by saying that the Primark shirts are being made that way, so that after 1-2 washings they'll just start falling apart. Ok, from personal experience I can say that this is wrong. I am not blind and I must admit that even the different clothes in Primark, have got different quality. Some will start falling apart, others won't; some will start losing the color intensity, other's won't - just open your eyes and pick up the right thing. 

Argument "numero" 3 - "the pattern and the cutting is really shitty". Ok, that's true in most of the cases. I don't have jeans/trousers from Primark because of that. I just look much fatter, becuase most of the times their cut is just horrible. I'm normally wearing size 8 and don't think that the problem is with me. Even if you're size 6, there is chance that you just won't look good wearing their jeans. Most of the times we can apply the same rule to the coats and dresses. I've got only one dress from Primark and the cut is just perfect, or maybe perfect for my body. However, it's an exception. But I'm really happy, because no one can believe that I got it from Primark. On SALE. For ... 5 pounds.


Another reason that makes most of the people in the fashion industry or those that just love/can afford spending TONS of money on designer clothes hate Primark - Primark just loves stealing designs and copying clothes/shoes/accessories bit by bit. Example:
Of course, the quality is different. I'm not trying to say that. What I'm trying to emphasize on is a only one word - "marketing". Most of the people (yes, MOST of the population) can't even think of buying Gucci shoes. At the moment I can't because I'm a student and an unpaid intern, but I rally hope that in a few years time (at some point), I'm gonna be able to buy Gucci (I don't like Gucci, but something from that range, like my favorite Chloe or Lancel) shoes with my own earnings. However, that's not the aim of the most of the people living around the world. And Primark knows it. That's why it brings the absolute copy to the mass public. Some people will say - yes, but it's not the model, we are buyin THE brand, thus they shouldn't copy it, because the mass public doesn't know anything about expensive brands. Wrong. First of all, everyone had heard of (ok, almost everyone) Gucci, Versace, D&G, etc. Second - as soon as Primark announces (media coverage is what I mean) that they're selling something similar to what Ann Demeulemeester (using her as an example, just because is not that common name among the mass public), who is an amazing designer, is selling, they'll automatically buy it. And they'll know who Ann Demeulemeester is. This will just bring many people the confidence that they're wearing something really FashionWeek-able. I don't think that this is something bad, because that's how things are sold - again the name sells. Maybe "sex sells" as well, as another really famous brand emphasized recently, but that's another story.

Last, but not least - "I can't buy from Primark, because it's below my level." Below which level? Definately not intellectual level, because the working people in the developed countries know how to "mix and match". A smart person can wear plain white Primark shirt and branded coat/suit/trousers etc. A smart high-street shopper can wear Primark accessorizes and many people will start asking - "Ah is that from Topshop?". No, it's 1.50 and it's from Primark, it's not 20 pounds. So, please don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to defend the chain - yes, they're not ethical and yes, they want to make money, but as far as I know, that's aim of most of us. Also, I am not trying to say that Primark are making clothes with high-quality -  I just want to emphasize that  there are many exceptions even there. Last point - buy Primark and if you're good enough, no one will notice that it's from Primark. They might even say "OMG where is that from?" - "Ah, I bought it from a small boutique in Florence 2 years ago" (blink).

"Only great minds can afford simple style." Stendhal

Good Morning! And yes, I've been rubbish at blogging during the last month and I must admit it. I'm not going to start justifying myself, because I'm not proud of that. I finished with my exams, finished with my 2nd year of university, had an amazing time at Beach Break Live 2010 and came to London for an internship at Felicities PR. I started loving London even more, but I might dedicate another entry, proving the statement that you can never be bored, while in London.

Another thing, that apparently happened to me, was the fact that I finally read "Breakfast at Tiffany's", although I've been in love with Audrey Hepburn since year 10, when chose her as my "wanna be" celebrity for the yearbook. I would love to dedicate a separate entry to Audrey Hepburn - the style icon, although there are far too many books on the "fashion books market" recently. Now, I want to share a few thoughts on the book - some of you will love it, others not.

Firstly, if you haven't read the book or haven't watched the movie (though you must have seen the black glasses and the white pearls) - "It's New York in the 1940s, where the martinis flow from cocktail hour till breakfast at Tiffany's. And nice girls don't, except, of course, Holly Golightly. Pursued by Mafia gangsters and playboy millionaires, Holly is a fragile eyeful of tawny hair and turned-up nose, a heart-breaker, a perplexer, a traveller, a tease. She's irrepressibly "top banana in the shock department", and one of the shining flowers of American fiction". Copied as from the back of the book.

Do I "wanna be" Holly Golightly? No, I don't want to, although sometimes I feel exactly like her. She's 20. She's living in her own own flat and drinking (skimmed) milk. She loves pearls (although she admits that pearls are for older/much more mature women) and she loves Tiffany's, the morning croissant in a paper bag and the coffee in a cardboard mug. Sometimes, even most of you feel like that - especially due to the fact that now, in 2010, there is Starbucks (Nero, Costa, etc.) on every single corner and it's much easier to get a take away latte and not only a croissant, but a chocolate croissant. The difference between Holly and most of the girls/women aged 20-25 is that if they want to maintain the Holly Golightly life style, they cannot afford having a long long breakfast at Tiffany's; they will just "grab 'n' go". And as Hemingway says - "All good books have one thing in common - they are truer than if they had really happened.". And that's what makes Capote's classic a novel and not a real life story. However, there are many things that (unfortunately) we must admit as true.

Early twenties lady, i.e. a gold-digger? We all know (or maybe not) that very often success is measured by the amount of money you earn, thus we can all be classified as gold diggers. Even those of you, that will just turn head, thinking -"What is she talking about, of course we cannot be classified as such", better think once again. Of course there are different types of gold-diggers, but I'm obviously not talking about the ones, who just don't put any meaning in their existence. Because even Holly's got an aim - she wants to get married (at some point), travel around and be happy! At the end of the day, that's what most of us want. In the busy 2010 city life this means two things - good job and the right surrounding. And those two are very tightly bound. Very often the first leads to second. One of the major points in "Breakfast Tiffany's" is the one about the importance of being social and finding the right people to hang out with. Being realistic, that's crucial if you're young and ambitious women, because at some point you'll want to be "coupled" and I don't think that there is something bad in it. Many people will blame me for saying the truth, but if you need to meet someone you need to be among people that you can communicate with and be interested in having a conversation with. All that clearly excludes the feminist notion that we need to work 9am - 9pm and be equal.

Here it comes the second major point of the book (or at least according to me) - men and women have never been, and will never be equal. That's how the world had been created. Referring to the book - Holly is young, beautiful, looks after herself and wants to be taken care of. At the same time, we cannot classify her as weak, according to me, that's the last thing she can be. So...third major point - a woman might be strong, without being equal to men. That's what lacks in the feminist way of thinking. She lives on her own, and yes very often keeping all those relationships and contacts is even harder than sitting 9am-5pm behind a desk and doing nothing.

All that leads to another key topic - being lonely among the crowd. New York. Big city life, big apple, Mr. Big, everything is big. And you are small. You're just a tiny part of the whole city. The problem with the big cities is that you can remain anonymous and alone for the whole duration of your life. Although she is surrounded by tons of guys and guys and guys, Holly is alone. She doesn't have friends, she's got acquaintances. She doesn't have girlfriends, but most important - she doesn't have a family. Even if we consider the option of her family just being somewhere far away, the situation won't change. And that's one of her aims - to have a family. That's why she wants to desperately marry someone (valuable). She's not even rich, although she tries to live in the luxurious world. Her wealth is a day to day wealth - today is here, tomorrow is gone and no one knows when is it going to come back again.  

The themes about the loneliness and the wealth remind of another truly American classic novel - "The Great Gatsby". Gatsby is part of the new-rich during the first half of the 20th century. He's got the massive house with the massive swimming and (obviously) hosts parties with lots of alcohol (martini), men and women. At the end of the day (in the morning to be precise), he is the loneliest. The scene that is stuck in my mind is when he is staying near the swimming pool, watching the autumn leaves falling into the dirty water of the swimming pool. Sad. Pretty self-explanatory. 
 
So, all those were my thoughts and conclusions after reading "Breakfast at Tiffany's". It's worth reading not only because it's a classic novel, but because is one of those stories without a clear begging or an end. There is no "finito". The "finito" is in your head. And it's especially worth reading if you're - 1. a woman; 2. 20-30 years old.