On People, Ideas and Law School Distractions.

Today I was overcome by the idea of making little factual labels for the people around me. I am sure I absorbed this idea subconciously from a book I read; that, or all revision and no play over the past damned week has made me a person who sees everything in terms of little study cards.

So while brushing my teeth this morning, I started making mental notecards for all the people I knew, even filing them alphabetically like I would ever be able to achieve in reality (dear friends, update: no, I have not yet achieved the fine art of being organized). The cards would be 85.60mm by 53.98mm, white, type-written, containing the name and just one prominent fact of the said individual, as known to me of course. I would even write the names down the way the university did: Surname, - a nice little comma, then first name, bracketting all "other" names.

It was a great way of examining my relationships with them, reflecting on what I noticed about them, and pondering over their good characters, not least interesting to note that:

"Turk, Alexander:
is sharp."

while

"Sim, Roy (Siong):
bought and renovated a flat."

While dunking my ginger snaps into milk, I encountered the dilemma of whether I should exclude my judgment of the individuals. While biting into the soggy cookie, I realised how it would be impossible to exclude judgments, or at least, separate them from mere facts, if I had to condense an individual into a single statement. I could not, for instance, do any more than conclude that

"Tan, Su Hui:
is defensive."

And then there were categories of people to whom I did not even have to apply such "judgment-facts". These proved much more fascinating, and no less telling of their characteristics or quirks.

Some 'cards' made me stop to ponder the choices that people made.

"Bastrup-Birk, Tancred (Eric):
squints his eyes in concentration."

"Arczynski, Jessica:
wears her hair and nails in a lush red."

Some facts I could not even believe I noticed, and had to register surprise that I've been considering them the most prominent features of the people they were attached to:

Like "Campbell, Kenneth:
wears a navy blue blazer with gold buttons every tutorial."

and

"Watkins, Michael:
holds the opinion that the distinctions between the various forms of the estoppel, on the point that the estoppel cannot be used as a cause of action, should not exist."

And then I was jerked back most awfully into the reality of the upcoming contract law exam. I suppose, in conclusion, that this is why distractions (from studying) are sometimes good for you.