Telephone Interviews? Pfft. It’s The Face To Face Ones You Have To Worry About!

Today I had my very first telephone interview, for a Merchandise Assistant job, working at a well-known retail store that will remain nameless for now.  The interview lasted for about 15 minutes, and despite feeling rather shaky about the whole ordeal (as with all retail jobs, they ask you theoretical questions about customers, and I’m always wary I’ll say the wrong thing), I passed with flying colours! Go me!

Of course, that isn’t the only thing to do. On Friday, I have to go up to Newcastle for a recruitment session with some other applicants. It’ll last for two hours, and as well as a ‘task that everyone has lots of fun with,’ we talk to the manager and presumably, show how we deal with customers. I was quite excited for this until I realized something. Something bad.

I’ve never done this before!

The thing is, I really do like helping people. In my old jobs, I would often go the extra mile to help someone (like look for a file in places I knew it wouldn’t be, just in case). I tend to feel happy and satisfied when they are happy and satisfied, which is, I feel, a good trait to have. However, this positive attribute is cruelly counteracted by my general awkwardness around people. Once I’m in my stride, I’m golden, but the thought of going up to a customer strikes fear in my heart. Initially I’m thinking yeah, this will be fine, and then they’ll ask me something I don’t immediately know the answer to and…oh man, oh man what do I do?! This could just be my brain freaking me out, and I might actually be good at it once I’ve got some training (I find that I have no problems once I know what I’m doing…). But the simple fact is I have never worked at a store before, and I have no clue as to how it’s going to go. Who knows?

So, it is safe to say I’m a little nervous for Friday. I feel like I can do it, yet at the same time, I’m worried about how it will go. But whether I succeed or fail, I just have to learn from the experience, and use the knowledge for next time (if there is a next time). I’ll keep calm, and try my best.

Well…that’s the plan anyway.



In other news…

Despite my early criticisms, I have persisted to watch Under The Dome, because, well, what else am I supposed to do on a Monday night? Joking aside, though I still stand by comments here, I cannot deny that the show has improved. Mind you, I think this mostly down to how they have deviated so far from the book, there is no comparison between the two, and I can enjoy it as a standalone show.

However, the book is still far superior, and I can’t help but think Under The Dome would have been the best show on television had they followed the novel more closely. Okay, maybe that’s an exaggeration, but it definitely would be better than the version they’ve got on now.

But I’m not getting into that again; Stephen King was involved, and decisions were made. Point is, it isn’t half bad, and  I do want to see how it’ll end.  I’d even go as far to say that I’m enjoying it, but I feel that word has been overused lately, as it seems like I enjoy everything regardless of quality. If only I blogged back when I was 18, because I was critical of anything and everything in those days. Clearly, I’ve mellowed out in my old age (unless I’m talking about buses, of course).

And finally….

Rather conveniently, once Under The Dome finished, the Swedish adaptation of The Girl Who Played With Fire began (on a different channel before you get smart). Last week I mentioned how keen I was to see how the second book was transferred to film…turns out, not that great.

Well, that’s a little harsh. After all, there was nothing wrong with the film; it covered all the key points, the suspense carried on from the first, and I had no niggling complaints about it. But much like Under The Dome, I just think the novel is better. In this case, I reckon it is no fault of the people involved, and more to do with the general problem movies have copying from books; simply put, there isn’t enough time for it cover everything the book has to offer.

The Girl Who Played With Fire is a slow-paced book, but the build up is what makes it so good. Inevitably, the movie loses that element because it can’t afford to have hours and hours worth of background. I imagine The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest (which I’ll watch next week) will have the same problem, as both the second and third book have so much going on, it’s impossible for the films to keep up. They can’t convey it all the various subplots. The first one worked for the Swedes and Hollywood because there was one main plot line; the mysterious disappearance of Harriet Vagnar. The sequels, because of all those story arcs, are difficult to replicate. At least that’s my opinion.

Anyway, The Girl Who Played With Fire wasn’t a bad film at all. Had I not watched the novels, I probably would have liked it a lot more. But I did, so I can only give it a 7/10. A valiant effort, but ultimately cannot compete with Larsson’s work. Still, glad I watched it.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s