No warning, no nothing. Just *BAM!* new photo. We, her reading public, are expected to adjust accordingly (a concept that is often referred to as "adapt or parish" on ANIMAL PLANET, but I digress).
This is not the first time that Katie has done this, either. Her first profile picture (at least to my knowledge) had her staring at the ground - looking rather pensive. It always made me speculate:
Then, because my mind wonders, I'd imagine that she was really pondering:
or (after today):
Anyway, I was (originally) a little sad about this latest change in "Katie Imagery" because I never got to ask about the "random nose" in the old...errrrr...I mean, second profile picture.
I’ve always assumed that the nose belonged to Jes who – for whatever reason – was dressed up like JEM, the cartoon rock star from the mid 1980's...
...but that would mean the picture was taken at some sort of Halloween or costume-requisite event or party. However, since Katie did not appear to be in costume, this did not make a whole lot of sense (unless, of course, Jes is the kind of person who randomly puts on a masquerade, which - quite frankly - might be a possibility when it comes to Jes...who knows?!).
Then, I saw something that made me think differently:
This further supported the costume party idea, but I was still lacking in the "proof" department. Well, that is until I remembered seeing THIS POST from Halloween, 2005, on Katie's BLOG.
So, Katie HAD posted about it - complete with pictures - way back in October! My mystery was really not a mystery at all! It's a wonder that I didn't make the connection before today (actually I find it to be a little embarrassing, to be honest).
The worst moment for me, though, was in learning that Jes's costume that night was, in fact, "Sydney Bristow" - not JEM.
Anyway, no worries. I am never "mystery-less" for long (I'm special that way). I already have a new one surrounding Katie's most recent picture.
Want to know what it is?
Okay, here you go:
That's not what I really think about when I see the picture (although, I can't say that I'm not curious, never-the-less).
The new "Katie Photo" actually makes me think of a very specific story - a story that, might I add, was the reason that I decided to post about Katie's new picture in the first place.
Every time I see the new photo of Katie in black and white, it reminds me of last spring when a group of kids came to the museum on a tour. They were young (probably 4th graders) and I was showing them a bunch of pictures that were taken in Texas back in the in the 1930's.
Needless to say, the pictures were all in black and white.
One little boy raised his hand and asked me, "So, when the world got color, why didn't they add color to these old pictures, too?"
The little booger actually thought that, in the past, the ENTIRE world - not just old photographs - was in black and white. People were in black and white, and they only saw each other in black and white. Water, mountains, the sun - all were represented in shades of gray. It wasn't the film or the technology of the time - it was the WORLD that was colorless.
Where do you even begin to correct this...this...this misconception?!
After all, this little boy had seen old movies, so he knew that it was true. According to him, the very concept of "color" was a quasi-recent phenomenon.
So, every time I see Katie's new profile photo, that is the story that will come to my mind. I will think of THAT little boy and wonder aloud, "Katie, you must be a whole lot older than you say you are if you had your picture taken WAY back before the Earth had color".
Alas. Kids today...