A No-Love Letter to Foot Locker

Dear Foot Locker:

I have never been into running, in any sense of the word, but I have recently decided to try again anyway. The last time I bought any sort of athletic shoe was in 2004, and my PUMAs don't look older than 6 months, but they don't fit the way a running shoe should. So I went into your store yesterday with the sole purpose of buying a new running shoe, one that would be good for both treadmill and trail running.

First of all, I was appalled at your choice of shoe colors. I understand that this isn't your fault, but don't you think a muted shoe color (that ISN'T black) should be available? Can't you suggest that to shoe manufacturers? Not everyone enjoys running around in neon pink, green, purple, etc. There was ONE shoe that I could even see myself in: mainly grey with some dark orange laces and detailing. This was, in fact, the shoe I was immediately drawn to in the neon swirl of colors that made up your limited female selection.

Sadly, this particular color was unavailable in 7 1/2, my desired size choice. It was available in neon purple, so I put it on, only to be disappointed that it was a full size too big. I tried on the grey/orange size 7, and it seemed to fit, although a little tightly. I discussed this with your boy on the floor, and when he saw how I was ready to buy a shoe that day, he eagerly went about grabbing a size 7 in every female shoe you carried. Almost all of them were a little tight, just enough to be uncomfortable when I walked. while the 7 1/2 sizes were, for the most part, too large. Your boy then told me that this was just how shoes fit nowadays, because of the new "minimalism" belief when it came to running shoes.

Since I was assured that most of these shoes were designed to be worn without socks, and I was not about to try on a shoe with no sock, I purchased the original grey/orange pair that drew me to begin with. I was told repeatedly that the New Balance Minimus Trail shoes were supposed to be worn without socks, and that was why they were a little tight. And the fact that it said "Winter Run" inside the shoes? A complete non-issue according to your boy! That just means that they don't slip on ice, but they're perfectly acceptable as a summer running shoe!

Goodness, I really wish I hadn't been so eager to purchase a new running shoe. Wearing them about town was fine (although the promise that they don't slip on ice proved to be untrue when I almost took a tumble on a normal linoleum floor), and I was happy with the feel and weight of the shoe, so very different from my 8 year old PUMA clunkers! I decided to really break them in, I should take them on the short circuit of the nearby Nolan Trail. Just a short, walking jaunt with the dog, nothing extreme.

Almost immediately, I noticed that my feet were hot. Disgustingly hot. Like they couldn't breathe at all. Then, the dog and I were not even halfway through the 1.5-mile short circuit when I started to feel a twinge in my right foot. A very painful twinge. I was forced to turn around and limp back to the car when the twinge became full out pain in two different places on my right foot.

I have learned two things about this shoe. Clearly, Winter Run means just that, for running in the winter. By no means should these shoes be worn in the overly hot summers in Virginia. I can't *believe* how badly my feet were sweating the moment I stepped outside. It's also pretty clear that these shoes should be worn with socks, and your boy on the sales floor sold me shoes that do not fit my foot correctly. I have three very painful blisters, one on my right foot pinky toe, one on my right foot heel, and one on my left foot arch. I was only walking for a steady 10 minutes before they started to develop, so I know there is no way I could run anywhere in these shoes.

So Foot Locker, I could look past this little predicament, if it wasn't for your store return policy, which clearly only allows *unworn* merchandise return. Thanks to this, and your unknowledgeable sales boy, I now own $100 shoes that I will never wear again. I can assure you that I will take my business to one of the 3 other athletic shoe stores in the mall, and will tell all my friends to do the same, unless they wish to purchase shoes that will completely maim their feet.

Thank you very little for your non-help in purchasing a running shoe.

Love,
Me

Jessica Fletcher Double-Take

To stem the boredom that has been a result of my current unemployment, I recently took up cross-stitching again, a favorite activity that has fallen to the wayside since early in my college years. Of course, it's just not possible to stitch in complete silence (for me, anyway), so I decided to Netflix a show everyone my age has heard about, but few have actually watched. I'm well into the fifth season of "Murder, She Wrote" and it has most definitely NOT been a disappointment.

Now, I will grant you that, given today's abundance of "didn't see that coming"-s in modern television, the very formulaic style used for every episode has become a little tiresome - but that's to be expected of a show produced in the 80s. There have been very few episodes where I haven't guessed the killer within 20 minutes of the episode's beginning (and those that surprise me are always a delight!). There is one episode in the 109 that I've watched that has stuck with me since the beginning.

Season 1, Episode 5: Lovers and Other Killers had a character named David Tolliver (played by Andrew Stevens) that skeeved me out more than I expected. He seemingly preyed on older women with his charmingly handsome smile, and, to be honest, I had him pegged as the killer (of his latest conquest) from the get-go. Andrew Stevens had a way of making the character seem both at once innocent and sinister, charming the hotel maids to let him into Jessica Fletcher's room after she had asked him not to enter unless she was there, but working on typing up her most recent novel (a job for which she had hired him).

I'm happy to admit that I was not the only one fooled by Andrew Stevens, or should I say not fooled? Jessica had no qualms with letting him know that she didn't think he was as uninvolved as he claimed either. It turned out that he truly wasn't responsible for or connected to the deaths of the two women, but the episode ends ominously with the following conversation:

David: You know, I was enjoying the writing. Send me a copy of the book when it's finished?  Jessica: I may do better. You may end up being a character. David: What would I be? A victim, a suspect, a killer? Jessica: I don't know. I haven't made up my mind yet.

The look he tosses at her retreating back was enough to give me chills. Like I said, he already had me skeeved out, thinking he was the killer, and that certainly didn't help. I was so sure he would return to the "Murder, She Wrote" scene, possibly as a killer, or perhaps as another suspect who was relying on Jessica to clear his name.

It only took 104 episodes (and almost 5 complete seasons) for him to return again. But this time, Andrew Stevens was not playing David Tolliver. In Season 5, Episode 19: Double Exposure, he was the unassuming doctor brother-in-law of the victim who didn't even warrant the label of suspect.  Sadly, this background character did not get enough air-time to completely dispel the lurching of my stomach any time his face flashed across the screen. I had realized early on that the show utilized the same actors for different small  roles (I've noticed it especially with the females), which isn't surprising considering there were 258 episodes (just 1 killer and 1 victim each show would require over 500 different people, and that doesn't include the MANY suspects, policemen, and other extras!). I was definitely surprised by the re-use of this actor though. After playing such a prominent role in an early episode, one I was certain would make a reappearance, why would they choose this man to take such a minor role?

His face is burned into my mind, and will be for quite some time, as the almost-killer, the not-quite-innocent, the guilty-of-something. I have assured myself, through use of IMDB.com, that Andrew Stevens will NOT be returning as David Tolliver. For that, I am both grateful and dismayed. No other minor character has stuck with me like his, but to see him in another episode, where his mysterious guilty-innocence could be confirmed as one or the other, might take away the mystique, the staying power of a character so well-portrayed, and that would be a huge disappointment.

Until next time!