divine angst

So it turns out I did get an interview for OCI. (Long story.) I am completely excited but I am also a little nervous, because I don’t have shoes to match my fabulous interview suit.

I know, I know. What a thing to be stressed about.

I need some advice, therefore. The suit is navy pinstripe. The jacket is long (not one of those hip-length, snug fit ones) and the skirt is a knee-length pencil skirt. I am short, therefore my inclination is to get a higher heel so that my legs balance nicely with the skirt and jacket.

The problem, of course, is COLOR. There are navy shoes out there, but they are either not in my size or have tassels or are slingbacks.

Three questions, then:

• Are slingbacks OK to wear to an interview in February?
• If they are not, are black shoes OK to wear with a navy suit?
• How sexy is too sexy for the shoes? Like, are pointy toe stilettos too sexy for my conservative navy suit?

I should add that I am on the verge of buying these, since Marshall Field did not have these in my size, and the website doesn’t have any more in navy. But the first pair are slingbacks and I am concerned that that makes them inappropriate.

Man. I need help with the corporate fashioning.

Update:

OK, Zappos is just weird. Two hours ago, the only color they had of my beloved shoe was black patent leather. Yet, two minutes ago, they suddenly had it in navy leather–and in my size! I threw it in my shopping cart, and Zappos told me they had only one in my size. Well, you know what? As of now, they have NONE left in my size. Because I BOUGHT the last one.

So there, shoe gods. Phbbt on you!

I think I enjoy the persuasive writing more than the memo writing. Unfortunately, I think I might be enjoying it just a little too much. Currently, I’m working on a statement of facts for an appellate brief. I represent the appellant*, and I really don’t like the appellee. I mean, really, really don’t like him. The record indicates that he’s pretty much a jackass.

Perhaps it would be more educational if I had to argue his side, given he’s a tool. But I bet there are people in my class who are representing him who empathize or sympathize with him and think my client is unfeeling and discriminatory. So it works out in the end. I get to rip on the litigious, egotistical idiot and they get to slam on the money-grubbing corporate machine.

I’m glad this portion of the assignment is ungraded, though. I’m still feeling pretty snarky about the whole thing. This will allow me to work through the snark.

*I should note there is no real appellant or appellee, so I am referring strictly to characters on paper.