It Takes a Genius

I got my copy of the comic Genius #1 today, from Top Cow's 2008 Pilot Season. The rest of it lives up to the sample pages. There are some beautiful and subtle artistic renderings in there -- the watermarked equations, the chalky play-by-play diagrams, the tiny emblems tagging different narrators' speech boxes. How do you show the inner workings of a brilliant mind, through illustrations? Like this.

I'm also thrilled to discover that Genius is one of the two winners to be extended into a full series! Yay, yay! I plan to follow it. The announcement of winners is here. Here's a message from the winning creators.

Genius provides many topics for possible discussion. I want to nab one that can be generalized beyond this specific work. The pilot opens with the killing of several police officers, with no setup. Some people's life experience is that cops are the enemy -- they'll go after you because of the color of your skin or simply the neighborhood you're in. Some people's life experience is that cops are protection from the enemy. The way a story is pitched can affect the audience it attracts: some people were turned off by that opening, because it didn't establish these particular cops as especially worthy of death -- they didn't show up yelling "nigger" or shooting unarmed characters, for instance. To some readers, that would have been redundant; to others, vitally necessary.

So, from the perspective of an author, which of the following is better?

Set detailed context for what happens in a story. This may widen your fringe audience by allowing more people to connect with your work. Conversely it may annoy or bore your core audience if they feel that you're overstating the obvious. It can also slow down the action.

Set minimal context for what happens in a story, leaving much unspoken or else adding it in snippets as you go along. This allows a much faster pace and shows readers that you respect their knowledge base. However, it may limit your potential audience to people who already understand all that unspoken stuff.

Discuss.

It Takes a Genius

I got my copy of the comic Genius #1 today, from Top Cow's 2008 Pilot Season. The rest of it lives up to the sample pages. There are some beautiful and subtle artistic renderings in there -- the watermarked equations, the chalky play-by-play diagrams, the tiny emblems tagging different narrators' speech boxes. How do you show the inner workings of a brilliant mind, through illustrations? Like this.

I'm also thrilled to discover that Genius is one of the two winners to be extended into a full series! Yay, yay! I plan to follow it. The announcement of winners is here. Here's a message from the winning creators.

Genius provides many topics for possible discussion. I want to nab one that can be generalized beyond this specific work. The pilot opens with the killing of several police officers, with no setup. Some people's life experience is that cops are the enemy -- they'll go after you because of the color of your skin or simply the neighborhood you're in. Some people's life experience is that cops are protection from the enemy. The way a story is pitched can affect the audience it attracts: some people were turned off by that opening, because it didn't establish these particular cops as especially worthy of death -- they didn't show up yelling "nigger" or shooting unarmed characters, for instance. To some readers, that would have been redundant; to others, vitally necessary.

So, from the perspective of an author, which of the following is better?

Set detailed context for what happens in a story. This may widen your fringe audience by allowing more people to connect with your work. Conversely it may annoy or bore your core audience if they feel that you're overstating the obvious. It can also slow down the action.

Set minimal context for what happens in a story, leaving much unspoken or else adding it in snippets as you go along. This allows a much faster pace and shows readers that you respect their knowledge base. However, it may limit your potential audience to people who already understand all that unspoken stuff.

Discuss.

It Takes a Genius

I got my copy of the comic Genius #1 today, from Top Cow's 2008 Pilot Season. The rest of it lives up to the sample pages. There are some beautiful and subtle artistic renderings in there -- the watermarked equations, the chalky play-by-play diagrams, the tiny emblems tagging different narrators' speech boxes. How do you show the inner workings of a brilliant mind, through illustrations? Like this.

I'm also thrilled to discover that Genius is one of the two winners to be extended into a full series! Yay, yay! I plan to follow it. The announcement of winners is here. Here's a message from the winning creators.

Genius provides many topics for possible discussion. I want to nab one that can be generalized beyond this specific work. The pilot opens with the killing of several police officers, with no setup. Some people's life experience is that cops are the enemy -- they'll go after you because of the color of your skin or simply the neighborhood you're in. Some people's life experience is that cops are protection from the enemy. The way a story is pitched can affect the audience it attracts: some people were turned off by that opening, because it didn't establish these particular cops as especially worthy of death -- they didn't show up yelling "nigger" or shooting unarmed characters, for instance. To some readers, that would have been redundant; to others, vitally necessary.

So, from the perspective of an author, which of the following is better?

Set detailed context for what happens in a story. This may widen your fringe audience by allowing more people to connect with your work. Conversely it may annoy or bore your core audience if they feel that you're overstating the obvious. It can also slow down the action.

Set minimal context for what happens in a story, leaving much unspoken or else adding it in snippets as you go along. This allows a much faster pace and shows readers that you respect their knowledge base. However, it may limit your potential audience to people who already understand all that unspoken stuff.

Discuss.

It Takes a Genius

I got my copy of the comic Genius #1 today, from Top Cow's 2008 Pilot Season. The rest of it lives up to the sample pages. There are some beautiful and subtle artistic renderings in there -- the watermarked equations, the chalky play-by-play diagrams, the tiny emblems tagging different narrators' speech boxes. How do you show the inner workings of a brilliant mind, through illustrations? Like this.

I'm also thrilled to discover that Genius is one of the two winners to be extended into a full series! Yay, yay! I plan to follow it. The announcement of winners is here. Here's a message from the winning creators.

Genius provides many topics for possible discussion. I want to nab one that can be generalized beyond this specific work. The pilot opens with the killing of several police officers, with no setup. Some people's life experience is that cops are the enemy -- they'll go after you because of the color of your skin or simply the neighborhood you're in. Some people's life experience is that cops are protection from the enemy. The way a story is pitched can affect the audience it attracts: some people were turned off by that opening, because it didn't establish these particular cops as especially worthy of death -- they didn't show up yelling "nigger" or shooting unarmed characters, for instance. To some readers, that would have been redundant; to others, vitally necessary.

So, from the perspective of an author, which of the following is better?

Set detailed context for what happens in a story. This may widen your fringe audience by allowing more people to connect with your work. Conversely it may annoy or bore your core audience if they feel that you're overstating the obvious. It can also slow down the action.

Set minimal context for what happens in a story, leaving much unspoken or else adding it in snippets as you go along. This allows a much faster pace and shows readers that you respect their knowledge base. However, it may limit your potential audience to people who already understand all that unspoken stuff.

Discuss.

Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart

Wow. This is so true.

In the debate class I took in high school, this behavior would've gotten a D. At best.

In the various classes I teach, not answering the question(s) asked gets either "Redo this" or a failing grade.

Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart

Wow. This is so true.

In the debate class I took in high school, this behavior would've gotten a D. At best.

In the various classes I teach, not answering the question(s) asked gets either "Redo this" or a failing grade.

Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart

Wow. This is so true.

In the debate class I took in high school, this behavior would've gotten a D. At best.

In the various classes I teach, not answering the question(s) asked gets either "Redo this" or a failing grade.

Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart

Wow. This is so true.

In the debate class I took in high school, this behavior would've gotten a D. At best.

In the various classes I teach, not answering the question(s) asked gets either "Redo this" or a failing grade.

In case you thought you still had rights...

... you don't. This list explains their legislative removal.

If you don't like this, consider getting involved with the ACLU.

In case you thought you still had rights...

... you don't. This list explains their legislative removal.

If you don't like this, consider getting involved with the ACLU.

In case you thought you still had rights...

... you don't. This list explains their legislative removal.

If you don't like this, consider getting involved with the ACLU.

In case you thought you still had rights...

... you don't. This list explains their legislative removal.

If you don't like this, consider getting involved with the ACLU.

Farmer's Market Tip: Seconds

When you shop at a farmer's market or roadside stand, ask if they have "seconds" for sale at a lower price. "Seconds" are fruits/vegetables that are slightly damaged but still usable for canning, juicing, or other purposes where appearance is not important.

Yesterday I bought a whole bunch of tomatoes for half price that way. Since I'm making spaghetti sauce, it doesn't matter if the tomatoes are oddly shaped, lightly bruised, or bug-nibbled on one end. I can cut off the bad part and still come out way ahead. So instead of having to choose between options, I was able to buy enough for two batches of sauce: one with yellow romas and yellow beefsteaks, and one with red romas, red beefsteaks, and black plum tomatoes.

Cross-posted on cheap_cookin.

Farmer's Market Tip: Seconds

When you shop at a farmer's market or roadside stand, ask if they have "seconds" for sale at a lower price. "Seconds" are fruits/vegetables that are slightly damaged but still usable for canning, juicing, or other purposes where appearance is not important.

Yesterday I bought a whole bunch of tomatoes for half price that way. Since I'm making spaghetti sauce, it doesn't matter if the tomatoes are oddly shaped, lightly bruised, or bug-nibbled on one end. I can cut off the bad part and still come out way ahead. So instead of having to choose between options, I was able to buy enough for two batches of sauce: one with yellow romas and yellow beefsteaks, and one with red romas, red beefsteaks, and black plum tomatoes.

Cross-posted on cheap_cookin.

Farmer's Market Tip: Seconds

When you shop at a farmer's market or roadside stand, ask if they have "seconds" for sale at a lower price. "Seconds" are fruits/vegetables that are slightly damaged but still usable for canning, juicing, or other purposes where appearance is not important.

Yesterday I bought a whole bunch of tomatoes for half price that way. Since I'm making spaghetti sauce, it doesn't matter if the tomatoes are oddly shaped, lightly bruised, or bug-nibbled on one end. I can cut off the bad part and still come out way ahead. So instead of having to choose between options, I was able to buy enough for two batches of sauce: one with yellow romas and yellow beefsteaks, and one with red romas, red beefsteaks, and black plum tomatoes.

Cross-posted on cheap_cookin.

Farmer's Market Tip: Seconds

When you shop at a farmer's market or roadside stand, ask if they have "seconds" for sale at a lower price. "Seconds" are fruits/vegetables that are slightly damaged but still usable for canning, juicing, or other purposes where appearance is not important.

Yesterday I bought a whole bunch of tomatoes for half price that way. Since I'm making spaghetti sauce, it doesn't matter if the tomatoes are oddly shaped, lightly bruised, or bug-nibbled on one end. I can cut off the bad part and still come out way ahead. So instead of having to choose between options, I was able to buy enough for two batches of sauce: one with yellow romas and yellow beefsteaks, and one with red romas, red beefsteaks, and black plum tomatoes.

Cross-posted on cheap_cookin.

A Populist Bailout Plan

The government would never go for this, but I think it would be more effective than the piece of trash they're currently pushing.

A Populist Bailout Plan

The government would never go for this, but I think it would be more effective than the piece of trash they're currently pushing.

A Populist Bailout Plan

The government would never go for this, but I think it would be more effective than the piece of trash they're currently pushing.

A Populist Bailout Plan

The government would never go for this, but I think it would be more effective than the piece of trash they're currently pushing.

What Makes a Good Title/Cover?

Recent comments have gotten me thinking: What makes a good title for a poem, story, or book? What makes a good book cover?

What makes a good title for a poem, story, or book?

A good title should be distinctive. It should not be easily confused with other titles; ideally, it should be unique. This makes it easier for people to find when they search for it. Titles which are overly colorful or metaphoric may be distinctive at the cost of relevance and clarity.

A good title should be relevant. It should indicate the work's topic/theme as precisely as possible. It should not be misleading; there's no use hooking a reader with a cool concept that isn't in the work.

A good title should be clear. It should contain words that are pronouncable and comprehensible. It should have a discernible meaning. Titles which are relevant are likely to be more clear than titles which are irrelevant.

A good title should be memorable. It should stick in a reader's mind. Titles which are clear, distinctive, and concise tend to be more memorable than titles which are confusing, general, and/or lengthy.

What makes a good book cover?

A good cover should be eye-catching. It must snag the attention of casual browsers and cause them to focus on this one book out of hundreds. Bright colors, high contrast, vivid imagery, and a sense of motion or action in the illustration are all conducive to this.

A good cover should be legible. Plain or lightly ornamented fonts and layouts are easier to read than elaborate ones. It doesn't matter how pretty that stuff is if nobody can read it. Legible from a distance is even better.

A good cover should be inviting. It must make the reader want to find out more about what's inside the book. To accomplish this, it must give some kind of foretaste or teaser of the content. (See above for discussions of relevance and clarity as these also apply here.)

What's the point of all this?

A book cover's job is to make a reader pick up a book. Whatever does that is effective. Whatever fails to do that is ineffective.

The job of the cover text (front and back) is to make a reader open a book. Once the book is in hand, the reader must be enticed to venture further.

Once the book is open, it is up to the author's content to hook the reader and complete the sale. Everything else is just aimed at getting to that point. It doesn't matter how good the content is if the setup is so poor that nobody ever gets that far; and it doesn't matter how good the setup is if the content flops.

What are your thoughts on titles and cover art?

What Makes a Good Title/Cover?

Recent comments have gotten me thinking: What makes a good title for a poem, story, or book? What makes a good book cover?

What makes a good title for a poem, story, or book?

A good title should be distinctive. It should not be easily confused with other titles; ideally, it should be unique. This makes it easier for people to find when they search for it. Titles which are overly colorful or metaphoric may be distinctive at the cost of relevance and clarity.

A good title should be relevant. It should indicate the work's topic/theme as precisely as possible. It should not be misleading; there's no use hooking a reader with a cool concept that isn't in the work.

A good title should be clear. It should contain words that are pronouncable and comprehensible. It should have a discernible meaning. Titles which are relevant are likely to be more clear than titles which are irrelevant.

A good title should be memorable. It should stick in a reader's mind. Titles which are clear, distinctive, and concise tend to be more memorable than titles which are confusing, general, and/or lengthy.

What makes a good book cover?

A good cover should be eye-catching. It must snag the attention of casual browsers and cause them to focus on this one book out of hundreds. Bright colors, high contrast, vivid imagery, and a sense of motion or action in the illustration are all conducive to this.

A good cover should be legible. Plain or lightly ornamented fonts and layouts are easier to read than elaborate ones. It doesn't matter how pretty that stuff is if nobody can read it. Legible from a distance is even better.

A good cover should be inviting. It must make the reader want to find out more about what's inside the book. To accomplish this, it must give some kind of foretaste or teaser of the content. (See above for discussions of relevance and clarity as these also apply here.)

What's the point of all this?

A book cover's job is to make a reader pick up a book. Whatever does that is effective. Whatever fails to do that is ineffective.

The job of the cover text (front and back) is to make a reader open a book. Once the book is in hand, the reader must be enticed to venture further.

Once the book is open, it is up to the author's content to hook the reader and complete the sale. Everything else is just aimed at getting to that point. It doesn't matter how good the content is if the setup is so poor that nobody ever gets that far; and it doesn't matter how good the setup is if the content flops.

What are your thoughts on titles and cover art?

What Makes a Good Title/Cover?

Recent comments have gotten me thinking: What makes a good title for a poem, story, or book? What makes a good book cover?

What makes a good title for a poem, story, or book?

A good title should be distinctive. It should not be easily confused with other titles; ideally, it should be unique. This makes it easier for people to find when they search for it. Titles which are overly colorful or metaphoric may be distinctive at the cost of relevance and clarity.

A good title should be relevant. It should indicate the work's topic/theme as precisely as possible. It should not be misleading; there's no use hooking a reader with a cool concept that isn't in the work.

A good title should be clear. It should contain words that are pronouncable and comprehensible. It should have a discernible meaning. Titles which are relevant are likely to be more clear than titles which are irrelevant.

A good title should be memorable. It should stick in a reader's mind. Titles which are clear, distinctive, and concise tend to be more memorable than titles which are confusing, general, and/or lengthy.

What makes a good book cover?

A good cover should be eye-catching. It must snag the attention of casual browsers and cause them to focus on this one book out of hundreds. Bright colors, high contrast, vivid imagery, and a sense of motion or action in the illustration are all conducive to this.

A good cover should be legible. Plain or lightly ornamented fonts and layouts are easier to read than elaborate ones. It doesn't matter how pretty that stuff is if nobody can read it. Legible from a distance is even better.

A good cover should be inviting. It must make the reader want to find out more about what's inside the book. To accomplish this, it must give some kind of foretaste or teaser of the content. (See above for discussions of relevance and clarity as these also apply here.)

What's the point of all this?

A book cover's job is to make a reader pick up a book. Whatever does that is effective. Whatever fails to do that is ineffective.

The job of the cover text (front and back) is to make a reader open a book. Once the book is in hand, the reader must be enticed to venture further.

Once the book is open, it is up to the author's content to hook the reader and complete the sale. Everything else is just aimed at getting to that point. It doesn't matter how good the content is if the setup is so poor that nobody ever gets that far; and it doesn't matter how good the setup is if the content flops.

What are your thoughts on titles and cover art?

What Makes a Good Title/Cover?

Recent comments have gotten me thinking: What makes a good title for a poem, story, or book? What makes a good book cover?

What makes a good title for a poem, story, or book?

A good title should be distinctive. It should not be easily confused with other titles; ideally, it should be unique. This makes it easier for people to find when they search for it. Titles which are overly colorful or metaphoric may be distinctive at the cost of relevance and clarity.

A good title should be relevant. It should indicate the work's topic/theme as precisely as possible. It should not be misleading; there's no use hooking a reader with a cool concept that isn't in the work.

A good title should be clear. It should contain words that are pronouncable and comprehensible. It should have a discernible meaning. Titles which are relevant are likely to be more clear than titles which are irrelevant.

A good title should be memorable. It should stick in a reader's mind. Titles which are clear, distinctive, and concise tend to be more memorable than titles which are confusing, general, and/or lengthy.

What makes a good book cover?

A good cover should be eye-catching. It must snag the attention of casual browsers and cause them to focus on this one book out of hundreds. Bright colors, high contrast, vivid imagery, and a sense of motion or action in the illustration are all conducive to this.

A good cover should be legible. Plain or lightly ornamented fonts and layouts are easier to read than elaborate ones. It doesn't matter how pretty that stuff is if nobody can read it. Legible from a distance is even better.

A good cover should be inviting. It must make the reader want to find out more about what's inside the book. To accomplish this, it must give some kind of foretaste or teaser of the content. (See above for discussions of relevance and clarity as these also apply here.)

What's the point of all this?

A book cover's job is to make a reader pick up a book. Whatever does that is effective. Whatever fails to do that is ineffective.

The job of the cover text (front and back) is to make a reader open a book. Once the book is in hand, the reader must be enticed to venture further.

Once the book is open, it is up to the author's content to hook the reader and complete the sale. Everything else is just aimed at getting to that point. It doesn't matter how good the content is if the setup is so poor that nobody ever gets that far; and it doesn't matter how good the setup is if the content flops.

What are your thoughts on titles and cover art?

23 Questions...

I'm intrigued by "23 Questions I Ask Everybody I Meet." Let's see...

1) No. Versatility is more impressive.

2) Yes. It would be a challenge given my petite stature, but I know enough about equine anatomy to have an idea how to proceed, beginning with putting a sharp point on the boot toes.

3) The turtle. The discorporeal housemates would object strenuously to the other option, and I'd rather not live in a war zone.

4) No. Football was designed as a monospecies game and lacks the necessary provisions for multispecies play -- and since many people regard it with religious fervor, alterations would be unacceptable to the populace.

5) No. And by this time I'd be looking for the existential freak of a deity playing with Daddy's key. I know cosmology, you little brat, so you better watch your back.

6) No. The occasional mis-delivered dreams from various folks' dreamcraft Gifts are awkward enough.

7) "Cryptozoology Explained," covering the Loch Ness monster and Sasquatch from a scientific perspective. Obviously the President's story should wait until the test results are available; no point dithering over what might be nothing.

8) No. There is deeper philosophy in that movie; it's rather heavy mythic material.

9) Increase: I'd be looking for the mechanism.

10) I'm not familiar with either, and don't care.

11) Go into the lobby and call my mother. If nothing is wrong, missing a few minutes won't ruin the movie. Otherwise I can always rewatch the whole thing later, if I want to.

12) None. Too much attractiveness is a darned nuisance; I learned that early on. But I would chat him up regarding magical techniques.

13) Writing. What else do I talk about when I don't have anything particular to talk about?

14) Insulting. "Garfield" is funny but simplistic. Me, I'd rather show them "Girl Genius."

15) Plotting my escape to a third-world country where I can live out the remaining 6 months of my life in peace.

16) No. There's no point wasting additional time on a pointless topic.

17) The man with no past. A character with no background is usually more trouble than one with background.

18) The Moon. Duh! *ponder* Assuming that option comes with appropriate transportation and life support.

19) No excuse: "Sorry about that. I had a compelling reason; I'll explain after the conclusion of our natural lifespans. You can hit me back if you want."

20) Neither, really. I'm not all that fascinated by strangers' opinions of me.

21) A little later, year or two maybe, with a particular person in mind.

22) The untrue one. But rumor campaigns against me usually wind up with people coming to me for clarity anyhow. *shrug* Very tedious, rumors.

23) Bored. *pick up book*

23 Questions...

I'm intrigued by "23 Questions I Ask Everybody I Meet." Let's see...

1) No. Versatility is more impressive.

2) Yes. It would be a challenge given my petite stature, but I know enough about equine anatomy to have an idea how to proceed, beginning with putting a sharp point on the boot toes.

3) The turtle. The discorporeal housemates would object strenuously to the other option, and I'd rather not live in a war zone.

4) No. Football was designed as a monospecies game and lacks the necessary provisions for multispecies play -- and since many people regard it with religious fervor, alterations would be unacceptable to the populace.

5) No. And by this time I'd be looking for the existential freak of a deity playing with Daddy's key. I know cosmology, you little brat, so you better watch your back.

6) No. The occasional mis-delivered dreams from various folks' dreamcraft Gifts are awkward enough.

7) "Cryptozoology Explained," covering the Loch Ness monster and Sasquatch from a scientific perspective. Obviously the President's story should wait until the test results are available; no point dithering over what might be nothing.

8) No. There is deeper philosophy in that movie; it's rather heavy mythic material.

9) Increase: I'd be looking for the mechanism.

10) I'm not familiar with either, and don't care.

11) Go into the lobby and call my mother. If nothing is wrong, missing a few minutes won't ruin the movie. Otherwise I can always rewatch the whole thing later, if I want to.

12) None. Too much attractiveness is a darned nuisance; I learned that early on. But I would chat him up regarding magical techniques.

13) Writing. What else do I talk about when I don't have anything particular to talk about?

14) Insulting. "Garfield" is funny but simplistic. Me, I'd rather show them "Girl Genius."

15) Plotting my escape to a third-world country where I can live out the remaining 6 months of my life in peace.

16) No. There's no point wasting additional time on a pointless topic.

17) The man with no past. A character with no background is usually more trouble than one with background.

18) The Moon. Duh! *ponder* Assuming that option comes with appropriate transportation and life support.

19) No excuse: "Sorry about that. I had a compelling reason; I'll explain after the conclusion of our natural lifespans. You can hit me back if you want."

20) Neither, really. I'm not all that fascinated by strangers' opinions of me.

21) A little later, year or two maybe, with a particular person in mind.

22) The untrue one. But rumor campaigns against me usually wind up with people coming to me for clarity anyhow. *shrug* Very tedious, rumors.

23) Bored. *pick up book*

23 Questions...

I'm intrigued by "23 Questions I Ask Everybody I Meet." Let's see...

1) No. Versatility is more impressive.

2) Yes. It would be a challenge given my petite stature, but I know enough about equine anatomy to have an idea how to proceed, beginning with putting a sharp point on the boot toes.

3) The turtle. The discorporeal housemates would object strenuously to the other option, and I'd rather not live in a war zone.

4) No. Football was designed as a monospecies game and lacks the necessary provisions for multispecies play -- and since many people regard it with religious fervor, alterations would be unacceptable to the populace.

5) No. And by this time I'd be looking for the existential freak of a deity playing with Daddy's key. I know cosmology, you little brat, so you better watch your back.

6) No. The occasional mis-delivered dreams from various folks' dreamcraft Gifts are awkward enough.

7) "Cryptozoology Explained," covering the Loch Ness monster and Sasquatch from a scientific perspective. Obviously the President's story should wait until the test results are available; no point dithering over what might be nothing.

8) No. There is deeper philosophy in that movie; it's rather heavy mythic material.

9) Increase: I'd be looking for the mechanism.

10) I'm not familiar with either, and don't care.

11) Go into the lobby and call my mother. If nothing is wrong, missing a few minutes won't ruin the movie. Otherwise I can always rewatch the whole thing later, if I want to.

12) None. Too much attractiveness is a darned nuisance; I learned that early on. But I would chat him up regarding magical techniques.

13) Writing. What else do I talk about when I don't have anything particular to talk about?

14) Insulting. "Garfield" is funny but simplistic. Me, I'd rather show them "Girl Genius."

15) Plotting my escape to a third-world country where I can live out the remaining 6 months of my life in peace.

16) No. There's no point wasting additional time on a pointless topic.

17) The man with no past. A character with no background is usually more trouble than one with background.

18) The Moon. Duh! *ponder* Assuming that option comes with appropriate transportation and life support.

19) No excuse: "Sorry about that. I had a compelling reason; I'll explain after the conclusion of our natural lifespans. You can hit me back if you want."

20) Neither, really. I'm not all that fascinated by strangers' opinions of me.

21) A little later, year or two maybe, with a particular person in mind.

22) The untrue one. But rumor campaigns against me usually wind up with people coming to me for clarity anyhow. *shrug* Very tedious, rumors.

23) Bored. *pick up book*

23 Questions...

I'm intrigued by "23 Questions I Ask Everybody I Meet." Let's see...

1) No. Versatility is more impressive.

2) Yes. It would be a challenge given my petite stature, but I know enough about equine anatomy to have an idea how to proceed, beginning with putting a sharp point on the boot toes.

3) The turtle. The discorporeal housemates would object strenuously to the other option, and I'd rather not live in a war zone.

4) No. Football was designed as a monospecies game and lacks the necessary provisions for multispecies play -- and since many people regard it with religious fervor, alterations would be unacceptable to the populace.

5) No. And by this time I'd be looking for the existential freak of a deity playing with Daddy's key. I know cosmology, you little brat, so you better watch your back.

6) No. The occasional mis-delivered dreams from various folks' dreamcraft Gifts are awkward enough.

7) "Cryptozoology Explained," covering the Loch Ness monster and Sasquatch from a scientific perspective. Obviously the President's story should wait until the test results are available; no point dithering over what might be nothing.

8) No. There is deeper philosophy in that movie; it's rather heavy mythic material.

9) Increase: I'd be looking for the mechanism.

10) I'm not familiar with either, and don't care.

11) Go into the lobby and call my mother. If nothing is wrong, missing a few minutes won't ruin the movie. Otherwise I can always rewatch the whole thing later, if I want to.

12) None. Too much attractiveness is a darned nuisance; I learned that early on. But I would chat him up regarding magical techniques.

13) Writing. What else do I talk about when I don't have anything particular to talk about?

14) Insulting. "Garfield" is funny but simplistic. Me, I'd rather show them "Girl Genius."

15) Plotting my escape to a third-world country where I can live out the remaining 6 months of my life in peace.

16) No. There's no point wasting additional time on a pointless topic.

17) The man with no past. A character with no background is usually more trouble than one with background.

18) The Moon. Duh! *ponder* Assuming that option comes with appropriate transportation and life support.

19) No excuse: "Sorry about that. I had a compelling reason; I'll explain after the conclusion of our natural lifespans. You can hit me back if you want."

20) Neither, really. I'm not all that fascinated by strangers' opinions of me.

21) A little later, year or two maybe, with a particular person in mind.

22) The untrue one. But rumor campaigns against me usually wind up with people coming to me for clarity anyhow. *shrug* Very tedious, rumors.

23) Bored. *pick up book*

Unique Interests

Meme discovered courtesy of lizamanynames:

Look at your interests list:

Is there an interest that you were surprised to find no one else had listed (i.e. one that isn't a link)?


No. The unique ones are personal coinage. Currently only "brightware" (magical jewelry) and "synthetic energy" remain unique. Somebody else seems to have pounced on syntropy (opposite of entropy).

I did add one from lizamanynames though, so "boundary-pushing fiction" is no longer unique. That's a favorite topic, just hadn't thought to include it specifically.

Unique Interests

Meme discovered courtesy of lizamanynames:

Look at your interests list:

Is there an interest that you were surprised to find no one else had listed (i.e. one that isn't a link)?


No. The unique ones are personal coinage. Currently only "brightware" (magical jewelry) and "synthetic energy" remain unique. Somebody else seems to have pounced on syntropy (opposite of entropy).

I did add one from lizamanynames though, so "boundary-pushing fiction" is no longer unique. That's a favorite topic, just hadn't thought to include it specifically.

Unique Interests

Meme discovered courtesy of lizamanynames:

Look at your interests list:

Is there an interest that you were surprised to find no one else had listed (i.e. one that isn't a link)?


No. The unique ones are personal coinage. Currently only "brightware" (magical jewelry) and "synthetic energy" remain unique. Somebody else seems to have pounced on syntropy (opposite of entropy).

I did add one from lizamanynames though, so "boundary-pushing fiction" is no longer unique. That's a favorite topic, just hadn't thought to include it specifically.

Unique Interests

Meme discovered courtesy of lizamanynames:

Look at your interests list:

Is there an interest that you were surprised to find no one else had listed (i.e. one that isn't a link)?


No. The unique ones are personal coinage. Currently only "brightware" (magical jewelry) and "synthetic energy" remain unique. Somebody else seems to have pounced on syntropy (opposite of entropy).

I did add one from lizamanynames though, so "boundary-pushing fiction" is no longer unique. That's a favorite topic, just hadn't thought to include it specifically.

Wall Street May Snub Bailout

O ... kaaayyy ...

I would be perfectly happy to see Wall Street refuse to participate. It would save money, and maybe they'd learn some valuable lessons.

Also this description is amusing.

Wall Street May Snub Bailout

O ... kaaayyy ...

I would be perfectly happy to see Wall Street refuse to participate. It would save money, and maybe they'd learn some valuable lessons.

Also this description is amusing.

Wall Street May Snub Bailout

O ... kaaayyy ...

I would be perfectly happy to see Wall Street refuse to participate. It would save money, and maybe they'd learn some valuable lessons.

Also this description is amusing.

Wall Street May Snub Bailout

O ... kaaayyy ...

I would be perfectly happy to see Wall Street refuse to participate. It would save money, and maybe they'd learn some valuable lessons.

Also this description is amusing.