I often feel like a child playing with a large wooden toy.
It's flat and wooden box, tilting back at a 60° angle. At the top you place in a marble and drop it. There are a series of pegs and levers, and paddles you use to navigate the marble wherever you desire. Along the way are loops and buzzers and flashing lights that get activated, like a pinball machine, whenever the marble interacts with them. When it gets to the bottom, it drops out, and I take it in my hand again.
Off to the right side is a tunnel that leads into a pipe that is mounted into the wall. I have no idea where it goes, or what happens if I even get it in there. There is an instruction booklet hanging from the pipe with hundreds of thousands of detailed instructions written by several hundred people explaining what they know will happen if I get it into the tunnel. But none of them really agree.
Determined to write my own instructions in the back, I put the marble in the top to begin again. It isn't until the marble drops into the cup at the bottom that I realize that I wasted a go. I was supposed to be putting the marble in the mysterious tunnel to the right. I don't get upset, I just shrug my shoulders, put the marble back in, and there, before you know it, the lights stop flickering, the music stops, and the marble is in the bottom cup.
I can't focus my efforts better until I convince myself that at least one of the instructions is correct, and well worth all the trouble. I also need to better enjoy the flashing lights.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
ONE THOUSAND POINTS FOR GRYFFINDOR!
I'm sure this has been addressed a thousand times on the internet by now, but I am more comfortable being unoriginal than traversing the dregs of the internet that are Harry Potter discussion boards.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a game of quidditch is only over once the golden snitch is caught, and the golden snitch rewards a completely unbalanced amount of points, why would anyone bother with the other six players?
In most games, there are rules that say you must have a certain number of players, and some of those players have specific advantages or rules pertaining to them. However, there doesn't seem to be any reason to just split the quidditch team into the correct seven required players, and then ignore whatever their standard objective is in order to exploit a loophole in the rules.
I'm reminded of the thankfully short lived game show on Nickelodeon called Make The Grade. Just your standard uninteresting game show whose flimsy gimmick wasn't enough to make it stand out. The largest problem with the game was that the final round gave so many points, that the entire first round was completely meaningless.
Several times the child they plucked out of the line at Universal would not fully understand how to play the game until the second round. Leaving the score 0 - 55, or something equally unbalanced. By the time the second round arrived, and the points became worth far more. All the child had to do was become slightly more lucid, and it was like that first round never existed.
If I were given a quidditch team to manage tomorrow, I'd assign the seven appropriate titles to correspond with the rules, but for all intents and purposes, there would be three keepers, and four seekers.
There is no point in having team members worrying about ten point goals if the golden snitch gets you one hundred and fifty points. So while the three keepers keep the other team from getting anywhere near one hundred and fifty points, we have our other four players out looking for the snitch.
If one of the three who is not the assigned seeker is the one to catch it, he simply has to deliver to the official seeker, ending the game.
So...yeah. Someone give me a quidditch team.
I hope the age demographic for both of the games mentioned here hasn't escaped anyone.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a game of quidditch is only over once the golden snitch is caught, and the golden snitch rewards a completely unbalanced amount of points, why would anyone bother with the other six players?
In most games, there are rules that say you must have a certain number of players, and some of those players have specific advantages or rules pertaining to them. However, there doesn't seem to be any reason to just split the quidditch team into the correct seven required players, and then ignore whatever their standard objective is in order to exploit a loophole in the rules.
I'm reminded of the thankfully short lived game show on Nickelodeon called Make The Grade. Just your standard uninteresting game show whose flimsy gimmick wasn't enough to make it stand out. The largest problem with the game was that the final round gave so many points, that the entire first round was completely meaningless.
Several times the child they plucked out of the line at Universal would not fully understand how to play the game until the second round. Leaving the score 0 - 55, or something equally unbalanced. By the time the second round arrived, and the points became worth far more. All the child had to do was become slightly more lucid, and it was like that first round never existed.
If I were given a quidditch team to manage tomorrow, I'd assign the seven appropriate titles to correspond with the rules, but for all intents and purposes, there would be three keepers, and four seekers.
There is no point in having team members worrying about ten point goals if the golden snitch gets you one hundred and fifty points. So while the three keepers keep the other team from getting anywhere near one hundred and fifty points, we have our other four players out looking for the snitch.
If one of the three who is not the assigned seeker is the one to catch it, he simply has to deliver to the official seeker, ending the game.
So...yeah. Someone give me a quidditch team.
I hope the age demographic for both of the games mentioned here hasn't escaped anyone.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Ramble
This cat seems stout. Properly built. Her curiosity is fake. She is putting on a show for believers of evolution. There is no real method to her madness.
All she can or cares to understand is that we are all watching her. Watching her every move. Void of calculation she plots to and fro on the deck. Pacing slower than her mind which has a constant inner monologue:
“Should I jump around at this point? Are they still watching? Yes. Should I leave the deck, no, they can’t follow me. Are they still watching? Yes. Oh thank god. OK. Let’s go. What’s over here? Just keep walking, you have a few more feet left to decide what you’re going to do. Are they still watching? Yes…”
The cat is a distraction. We would subscribe to her if we could, tune in every week. Her inability to plan ahead is an extra appeal to those with enough creativity left to realize that sort of thing.
She is reality. This is what is happening. And we are all watching. So we don’t have to watch ourselves.
All she can or cares to understand is that we are all watching her. Watching her every move. Void of calculation she plots to and fro on the deck. Pacing slower than her mind which has a constant inner monologue:
“Should I jump around at this point? Are they still watching? Yes. Should I leave the deck, no, they can’t follow me. Are they still watching? Yes. Oh thank god. OK. Let’s go. What’s over here? Just keep walking, you have a few more feet left to decide what you’re going to do. Are they still watching? Yes…”
The cat is a distraction. We would subscribe to her if we could, tune in every week. Her inability to plan ahead is an extra appeal to those with enough creativity left to realize that sort of thing.
She is reality. This is what is happening. And we are all watching. So we don’t have to watch ourselves.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
A CLOSE-UP YA JERK!
Strengthening Forms
There is an episode of Merry Melodies called Duck Amuck that I absolutely adore.
It's arguably one of their most famous episodes and for good reason. It's hilarious, and surreal.
I love how the beginning of the episode feels like any other, right down to the Three Musketeers motif with the title credits. It doesn't take long for you tell something is wrong, and then the rest of the episode is just a completely delightful ride, ending with a wonderful punchline true to both of the characters involved. I only wish it could have been five minutes longer for more opportunities to play with the form.
The attached wikipedia article on the episode in question elaborates on the concept that I heard Chuck Jones speak about in some interview from long ago that may or may not have happenedt:
" ...Jones (the director) is speaking to the audience directly, asking "Who is Daffy Duck anyway? Would you recognize him if I did this to him? What if he didn't live in the woods? Didn't live anywhere? What if he had no voice? No face? What if he wasn't even a duck anymore?" In all cases, it is obvious that Daffy is still Daffy; not all cartoon characters can claim such distinctive personality."
A nice little jab at other cartoon directors at the time. One which I feel is more than appropriate. (Sorry Chilly Willy)
I was thinking about all the other strong cartoon characters in our collective animated media, and while I could think of several that are more distinct and entertaining than our friend Daffy, I was more interested in how this is a rare case in which having a static form is a positive thing.
The strongest aspect of The Venture Bros., for example, is how the characters develop over time. The show wouldn't be as strong without the different character arcs. Hank, and Dean Venture have come a long way in terms of their personality, and who we identify them to be.
If they had just stayed the same people up to season four, it would still be a hilarious show, but not one worthy of discussion necessarily.
In Steven Johnson's surprisingly good book "Everything Bad Is Good For You" he demonstrates how the television we watch and then complain about watching and then secretly judge others for watching, is actually far more complex and interesting than what was considered good in the past.
There are hundreds of anecdotal examples that you no doubt just thought of, and if we were having a conversation about it, I would agree. Mr. Johnson attempts at making his findings more scientific than that, but the success of such attempts are certainly up for debate.
My point is that this is an example showing that our media has advanced slightly since 1953, so Hurá!
This, however takes nothing away from my love of Daffy Duck. It's perhaps mostly nostalgia at this point, but I don't tire of seeing Daffy getting troubled over nothing. I still smile, and laugh, and yearn to smack that Bill Maher level smug look off of Bug's face.
It was just an appropriate step in the evolution of our entertainment.
Which leads us to an example further down the line:
Parody of Forms
Crispy Pops Commercial
This is my favorite sketch from The State, which is arguably my favorite sketch comedy group of all time.
I don't know how this sketch was created, but it would sure help my point a whole bunch to think that they realized how you could make the idea of an early nineties breakfast cereal commercial stripped completely of dialogue, and it would still be completely identifiable.
Here we have same principles of Duck Amuck being applied, only now in mockery. True it's towards an advertisement, so parody is far more appropriate than an homage would be. However, I still think this hints at a larger issue with our culture, and the direction we've headed. Mainly the dismissive and sarcastic nature of current generations, and the effects it has on our media.
This is too large and innappropriate a derail for this already lengthy post about cartoons, but I will likely cover this in the future.
You could easily do the same thing with an entire sports movie. The protagonist watches others play with dreams in his eyes. He tries out, fails, meets a girl, tries again, maybe fails again, whatever, remembers something from earlier in the movie, succeeds. Eighty nine minutes long, all dialogue replaced with complete gibberish.
I wouldn't bother with such a thankless task, as the idea has largely been examined, which brings me to Tim & Eric.
Tim & Eric: A Parody of Comedy, Posing As Smart Surrealism, Defended By Arrogant Crap Like "Yeah, It's Not For Everyone. I'm Not Surprised That Most People Don't Get It."
I don't think I could dislike Tim & Eric more.
Perhaps I'm over looking something, and if I am, I'd love to hear exactly what that is. But to me, Tim & Eric's entire existence is in essence, the Crispy Pops sketch. They simply made it more grotesque, and then stretched it out to represent their entire career.
I admit that I haven't watched an entire season of their content, but I don't see the point. It seems to be a variant on the same thing over and over again. They take a form we're all used to seeing (Low Budget Instuctional Videos, Cable Network Programming, etc.) and they distort it to the point that we still understand what we're looking at, blah blah blah. You see the connection I'm making here.
It's incredibly odd to see them take a premise from over a decade ago, and make it the basis for everything they do. (Honestly, I'm willing to learn, link me to a single sketch they've done that has a punchline.)
In the interest of balance, I submit a sketch of theirs that would have been perfectly acceptable if it was the only one of its kind: iJammer & eBumper.
Again, the problem is that this is just one of many. This is likely an acceptable example to me because it was the first video of theirs I had ever seen, and I grew up watching weird gimmicky toy commercials.
I take no issue with media that lacks narrative, if it has larger implications. But leaning on their surrealism crutch just feels lazy to me.
The Next Step
I'd love if the next leap past The Venture Bros. were something along the lines of The Wire only with a complete emphasis on comedy.
The "Arrested Development" of comedies, if you will.
There is an episode of Merry Melodies called Duck Amuck that I absolutely adore.
It's arguably one of their most famous episodes and for good reason. It's hilarious, and surreal.
I love how the beginning of the episode feels like any other, right down to the Three Musketeers motif with the title credits. It doesn't take long for you tell something is wrong, and then the rest of the episode is just a completely delightful ride, ending with a wonderful punchline true to both of the characters involved. I only wish it could have been five minutes longer for more opportunities to play with the form.
The attached wikipedia article on the episode in question elaborates on the concept that I heard Chuck Jones speak about in some interview from long ago that may or may not have happenedt:
" ...Jones (the director) is speaking to the audience directly, asking "Who is Daffy Duck anyway? Would you recognize him if I did this to him? What if he didn't live in the woods? Didn't live anywhere? What if he had no voice? No face? What if he wasn't even a duck anymore?" In all cases, it is obvious that Daffy is still Daffy; not all cartoon characters can claim such distinctive personality."
A nice little jab at other cartoon directors at the time. One which I feel is more than appropriate. (Sorry Chilly Willy)
I was thinking about all the other strong cartoon characters in our collective animated media, and while I could think of several that are more distinct and entertaining than our friend Daffy, I was more interested in how this is a rare case in which having a static form is a positive thing.
The strongest aspect of The Venture Bros., for example, is how the characters develop over time. The show wouldn't be as strong without the different character arcs. Hank, and Dean Venture have come a long way in terms of their personality, and who we identify them to be.
If they had just stayed the same people up to season four, it would still be a hilarious show, but not one worthy of discussion necessarily.
In Steven Johnson's surprisingly good book "Everything Bad Is Good For You" he demonstrates how the television we watch and then complain about watching and then secretly judge others for watching, is actually far more complex and interesting than what was considered good in the past.
There are hundreds of anecdotal examples that you no doubt just thought of, and if we were having a conversation about it, I would agree. Mr. Johnson attempts at making his findings more scientific than that, but the success of such attempts are certainly up for debate.
My point is that this is an example showing that our media has advanced slightly since 1953, so Hurá!
This, however takes nothing away from my love of Daffy Duck. It's perhaps mostly nostalgia at this point, but I don't tire of seeing Daffy getting troubled over nothing. I still smile, and laugh, and yearn to smack that Bill Maher level smug look off of Bug's face.
It was just an appropriate step in the evolution of our entertainment.
Which leads us to an example further down the line:
Parody of Forms
Crispy Pops Commercial
This is my favorite sketch from The State, which is arguably my favorite sketch comedy group of all time.
I don't know how this sketch was created, but it would sure help my point a whole bunch to think that they realized how you could make the idea of an early nineties breakfast cereal commercial stripped completely of dialogue, and it would still be completely identifiable.
Here we have same principles of Duck Amuck being applied, only now in mockery. True it's towards an advertisement, so parody is far more appropriate than an homage would be. However, I still think this hints at a larger issue with our culture, and the direction we've headed. Mainly the dismissive and sarcastic nature of current generations, and the effects it has on our media.
This is too large and innappropriate a derail for this already lengthy post about cartoons, but I will likely cover this in the future.
You could easily do the same thing with an entire sports movie. The protagonist watches others play with dreams in his eyes. He tries out, fails, meets a girl, tries again, maybe fails again, whatever, remembers something from earlier in the movie, succeeds. Eighty nine minutes long, all dialogue replaced with complete gibberish.
I wouldn't bother with such a thankless task, as the idea has largely been examined, which brings me to Tim & Eric.
Tim & Eric: A Parody of Comedy, Posing As Smart Surrealism, Defended By Arrogant Crap Like "Yeah, It's Not For Everyone. I'm Not Surprised That Most People Don't Get It."
I don't think I could dislike Tim & Eric more.
Perhaps I'm over looking something, and if I am, I'd love to hear exactly what that is. But to me, Tim & Eric's entire existence is in essence, the Crispy Pops sketch. They simply made it more grotesque, and then stretched it out to represent their entire career.
I admit that I haven't watched an entire season of their content, but I don't see the point. It seems to be a variant on the same thing over and over again. They take a form we're all used to seeing (Low Budget Instuctional Videos, Cable Network Programming, etc.) and they distort it to the point that we still understand what we're looking at, blah blah blah. You see the connection I'm making here.
It's incredibly odd to see them take a premise from over a decade ago, and make it the basis for everything they do. (Honestly, I'm willing to learn, link me to a single sketch they've done that has a punchline.)
In the interest of balance, I submit a sketch of theirs that would have been perfectly acceptable if it was the only one of its kind: iJammer & eBumper.
Again, the problem is that this is just one of many. This is likely an acceptable example to me because it was the first video of theirs I had ever seen, and I grew up watching weird gimmicky toy commercials.
I take no issue with media that lacks narrative, if it has larger implications. But leaning on their surrealism crutch just feels lazy to me.
The Next Step
I'd love if the next leap past The Venture Bros. were something along the lines of The Wire only with a complete emphasis on comedy.
The "Arrested Development" of comedies, if you will.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
07/16/11
UEDIT
A newswoman is filming an out of studio report, holding a microphone. She is in a large bookstore. There are tons of people bustling around. The bookstore is filled with reams of paper stapled together that have a very DIY quality to them. The piece opens with shots of different goings on in the bookstore while the newswoman’s voice plays on top.
At the line “Every UEdit you buy comes unbound.” We finally see her. She holds a UEdit, and gestures at the different parts to make her point.
“Book sales are on the rise across the country, and today should be another banner day for DogEaredBooks here in Mewton, Pennsylvania. Hundreds of people have turned out to take part in a growing trend in the book community. UEdits. A new way to publish fiction that experts are calling the future of the artform.
Cuts to a clip from a previous interview where a guy in a nice comfortable suit, and glasses says “The visceral notion of this product is something that I find truly remarkable.” His tag line is “Robert Chizik - Author”
Then it cuts back to the newscaster holding up a UEdit, a pen, and a highlighter. Gesturing each one appropriately at the screen.“Every unit comes with Xeroxed copies of the artists original hand written work, a yellow highlighter, and a red pen. Allowing you to take the work home and edit your own version of the story.
Here’s what some fans of the new format had to say:”
(Cut to a person holding one of the UEdits) “Normally I skip over parts of books I don’t like, but now I can make it so they never happened.”
(A different person who is not holding an UEdit.) “Editing these makes me feel like I’m part of something important finally. I like to give myself deadlines for when it has to be finished.”
(A third person with a UEdit) “They should let us do this to movies too.”
(Cuts to the newswoman again, doing that half a walk thing they do towards the camera where we can tell that the camera isn’t moving, so they have to stop before they get out of frame, so where do they think they’re going? They’re going to cut away soon. I can tell, because she can’t just stop strolling at us suddenly, but in another microsecond she’s going to be out of frame.)
“With it’s popularity growing, UEdits has recently expanded. Now offering a blogspace online where users can “publish” their own versions of the UEdit novel.”
(It will just show the website online that will look like any other blog creating site.)
“There are already dozens of users online. Several with over twenty online published pieces. One such amateur editor is Wendy Haverman.”
(Cuts to interview footage of Wendy speaking, but you can’t hear what she’s saying because they cut in video, but no audio. The newswoman is speaking over the video of Wendy speaking. Then after she says Wendy Haverman, you hear Wendy’s audio:) “We’re already a very tight community. It’s really great to be able to share your work with so many people, and hear what they think about it almost immediately.”
(After her line “We’re already a very tight community.” You cut to footage of her blog page, with all the things she’s put up. Each title changed to reflect that she’s just editing misogynistic things out of all the books. Anything that could possibly be about women’s suffrage is brought to the front, etc. The titles could be puns or variants of whatever modern books are out at the time this is filmed. A perfect example, Sidney Poitier’s book The Measure of a Man was on Oprah’s book club, so it could be used. Just make it The Measure of a Woman. The format would be as follows:
The Measure of a Woman by Sidney Poitier by Wendy Haverman
Hopefully, you’d just need to be familiar with one book to understand that it’s worth it to go back and figure each one out. And even if they don’t recognize a single one of the changed titles, they will still see nothing but women-aimed sounding titles, and the point will still stand largely.)
(Cut to a person in the bookstore flipping through an UEdit, thinking about a particular line, getting cross slightly, and then shaking their head no as they literally censor their own book with the red pen. Over which the newswoman speaks:) “With this new emphasis on participation, and consistent sales, UEdit expects big things for their future.”
(Cut back to newswoman standing around.) “For ‘Idea of News’ I’m Diane Waterly.”
(Cut to the major anchor in the studio.) “Alright, thank you Diane. For a UEdit copy of any of tonight’s news, you can visit our website at W W W dot Idea of News dot com.”
END SCENE
A newswoman is filming an out of studio report, holding a microphone. She is in a large bookstore. There are tons of people bustling around. The bookstore is filled with reams of paper stapled together that have a very DIY quality to them. The piece opens with shots of different goings on in the bookstore while the newswoman’s voice plays on top.
At the line “Every UEdit you buy comes unbound.” We finally see her. She holds a UEdit, and gestures at the different parts to make her point.
“Book sales are on the rise across the country, and today should be another banner day for DogEaredBooks here in Mewton, Pennsylvania. Hundreds of people have turned out to take part in a growing trend in the book community. UEdits. A new way to publish fiction that experts are calling the future of the artform.
Cuts to a clip from a previous interview where a guy in a nice comfortable suit, and glasses says “The visceral notion of this product is something that I find truly remarkable.” His tag line is “Robert Chizik - Author”
Then it cuts back to the newscaster holding up a UEdit, a pen, and a highlighter. Gesturing each one appropriately at the screen.“Every unit comes with Xeroxed copies of the artists original hand written work, a yellow highlighter, and a red pen. Allowing you to take the work home and edit your own version of the story.
Here’s what some fans of the new format had to say:”
(Cut to a person holding one of the UEdits) “Normally I skip over parts of books I don’t like, but now I can make it so they never happened.”
(A different person who is not holding an UEdit.) “Editing these makes me feel like I’m part of something important finally. I like to give myself deadlines for when it has to be finished.”
(A third person with a UEdit) “They should let us do this to movies too.”
(Cuts to the newswoman again, doing that half a walk thing they do towards the camera where we can tell that the camera isn’t moving, so they have to stop before they get out of frame, so where do they think they’re going? They’re going to cut away soon. I can tell, because she can’t just stop strolling at us suddenly, but in another microsecond she’s going to be out of frame.)
“With it’s popularity growing, UEdits has recently expanded. Now offering a blogspace online where users can “publish” their own versions of the UEdit novel.”
(It will just show the website online that will look like any other blog creating site.)
“There are already dozens of users online. Several with over twenty online published pieces. One such amateur editor is Wendy Haverman.”
(Cuts to interview footage of Wendy speaking, but you can’t hear what she’s saying because they cut in video, but no audio. The newswoman is speaking over the video of Wendy speaking. Then after she says Wendy Haverman, you hear Wendy’s audio:) “We’re already a very tight community. It’s really great to be able to share your work with so many people, and hear what they think about it almost immediately.”
(After her line “We’re already a very tight community.” You cut to footage of her blog page, with all the things she’s put up. Each title changed to reflect that she’s just editing misogynistic things out of all the books. Anything that could possibly be about women’s suffrage is brought to the front, etc. The titles could be puns or variants of whatever modern books are out at the time this is filmed. A perfect example, Sidney Poitier’s book The Measure of a Man was on Oprah’s book club, so it could be used. Just make it The Measure of a Woman. The format would be as follows:
The Measure of a Woman by Sidney Poitier by Wendy Haverman
Hopefully, you’d just need to be familiar with one book to understand that it’s worth it to go back and figure each one out. And even if they don’t recognize a single one of the changed titles, they will still see nothing but women-aimed sounding titles, and the point will still stand largely.)
(Cut to a person in the bookstore flipping through an UEdit, thinking about a particular line, getting cross slightly, and then shaking their head no as they literally censor their own book with the red pen. Over which the newswoman speaks:) “With this new emphasis on participation, and consistent sales, UEdit expects big things for their future.”
(Cut back to newswoman standing around.) “For ‘Idea of News’ I’m Diane Waterly.”
(Cut to the major anchor in the studio.) “Alright, thank you Diane. For a UEdit copy of any of tonight’s news, you can visit our website at W W W dot Idea of News dot com.”
END SCENE
Friday, July 15, 2011
"Crime-Addler" Update!
Hey guys, sorry I haven't posted in a while. I've been real busy. I just got the initial pressings in the mail. I'm really excited. They turned out great!
As an apology, I offer you a snippet from my book. I think this is the one that is going to get sent out with the press kits. Enjoy:
One car crash later, we’re back at my place, making a love. She turned to me after one of us finished and whispered: “I know what you’ve been lying about.”
She caught me in a lie! But which? The porous abuse, the uther woman, the lying?
I was in no hurry to help her, I just had to remain calm. Call her out, but with a compliment at the end.
“What have you figured out…. smart baby?”
She turned, hiding the disaster in her teeth. I felt like touching the parts of her.
“You salted without tasting…” she said softly, and then rose to gather her society shield.
I watched her brusk away, and out of my life.
Maybe I deserved that. Maybe I should have read the book. Or at least admitted when I didn’t.
But manners are for the gods.
Hope you got snagged, ha ha. They should be in stores this July.
In other great news, I've already gotten some ink!
We'reThePressOhYesThePressPleasedon'ttellmyfatherwhathappenedohlordIammostlyagoodman Magazine had this to say:
" Further inspection only reveals deeper layers of meaning. Perhaps the joke is on us. Or as this reporter would say 'Don't look so glum you smug pups.' "
It's been an exciting couple of weeks, and I couldn't have made it without all my friends and family supporting me.
Thank you everyone, and God Bless.
-Kevan eter
As an apology, I offer you a snippet from my book. I think this is the one that is going to get sent out with the press kits. Enjoy:
One car crash later, we’re back at my place, making a love. She turned to me after one of us finished and whispered: “I know what you’ve been lying about.”
She caught me in a lie! But which? The porous abuse, the uther woman, the lying?
I was in no hurry to help her, I just had to remain calm. Call her out, but with a compliment at the end.
“What have you figured out…. smart baby?”
She turned, hiding the disaster in her teeth. I felt like touching the parts of her.
“You salted without tasting…” she said softly, and then rose to gather her society shield.
I watched her brusk away, and out of my life.
Maybe I deserved that. Maybe I should have read the book. Or at least admitted when I didn’t.
But manners are for the gods.
Hope you got snagged, ha ha. They should be in stores this July.
In other great news, I've already gotten some ink!
We'reThePressOhYesThePressPleasedon'ttellmyfatherwhathappenedohlordIammostlyagoodman Magazine had this to say:
" Further inspection only reveals deeper layers of meaning. Perhaps the joke is on us. Or as this reporter would say 'Don't look so glum you smug pups.' "
It's been an exciting couple of weeks, and I couldn't have made it without all my friends and family supporting me.
Thank you everyone, and God Bless.
-Kevan eter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)