Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Days off spent in College

...or, how I like to find new and interesting ways to procrastinate!

So I decided that I'd walk into college today, like I did yesterday, and walk home as well. Can I just say now, downhill walking is deceptive when you have to take the same route home! Nice and relaxing one way, torture the other way! It added five minutes to my journey having to trek uphill! That's not fair. I was hungry. On the brightside, I had had a breakfast and a lunch... which is more than I can say for Liam, who had to leave shortly after five to drive back to Meath. All of a sudden, Liam is broke and can't afford to even buy himself a cup of coffee (so I bought one for him...when someone says "I can't even afford a coffee" and you're spending the day in the same room as them studying, then you can't really ignore them if you can afford to buy them said coffee.)

So, ten kilometres... that's not fun. That's the total distance I walked today, excluding the travelling about the college. So I suppose it's not a total for the day, but more a total for the trips to and from college. (It just reminds me of Tommy Tiernan, saying he had to walk fifteen miles to school. Uphill. Both ways!)

On a lighter note... except for the weight in my bag... I had my laptop with me. I felt very happy to be able to save myself some printing money by just looking at documents on my laptop instead. Power Save is a hero. And then I had the IT guy from France set up the Internet for use in the college (which actually caused me problems when I got home...). So I was able to go on Facebook and Twitter in college, without having to go to the computer rooms!

I did do some study, of course. I'm a good little nerd. I got through the Galilean Ministry of Jesus (don't worry, I won't bore you with the details) and I got my notes on the Decalogue written up (the Decalogue, for those who don't know, is just the fancy term for The Ten Commandments).

But then there was more procrastination. Anthony and I traded YouTube knowledge; I showed him John WIlliams is the Man (look it up!), and the entirety of Meet Sam, the Movie, while he showed me things like a Carlow nutcase and a song about Jesus that was very hilarious but made no sense.

And as a closing term word... Paddy Reilly really ought to return to Ballyjamesduff sometime soon...

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Study Time

I have my first exam in a week. I have started study... eventually. I started by reading two of the three texts I ought to cover for my Varieties of Fiction module; books one and ten of Ovid's Metamorphoses, and the delightful novella by Herman Melville, Bartleby the Scrivener. I've read something of Melville's before, Billy Budd, and I have to say, he didn't fail to impress a second time. In fact, I loved Bartleby even more than I did Billy Budd. It was a funnier story, with a much more powerful voice behind the story. The narrator was fantastic!

I've also prepared a question for my exam on the Pentateuch (that's the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Number, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.) One of the topics we were told to cover was the creation stories in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. For those who don't know, that's the stories about the creation of the universe and the Garden of Eden. They are, in fact, two seperate and contradicting stories. Just to show off (well, actually, this also serves as helpful revision...) I'm going to write what I can about the books from memory.

Chapter 1 of Genesis was written by the author known typically by scholars as the Priestly writer, while Chapter 2 was written by the Jahwist writer. There are twelve differences between the two stories, going into detail on the content. For a start, Gen 1 begins with the creation of "heaven and the earth" while Gen 2 begins with "earth and the heavens" being made. The two have subtle differences; heaven is more important in Gen 1, along with the idea of creation, while Gen 2 focuses on the importance of the earth before the heavens, and things being made, such as Man from the earth.

On the subject of Man, there are a number of differences regarding his creation; Gen 1 refers to Man being made in the "image and likeness" of God, while Gen 2 tells of how Man was man from the dust of the earth, with the breath of God being blown into his nostrils. Gen 1 also dictates that Man and Woman were created at the same time, whereas Gen 2 has Woman made last of all God's creatures, from Man (interesting note: Hebrew for Man is ishsh, while Woman is ishshah, meaning "from Man"). Gen 1 tells us that God named all of His creatures, while in Gen 2, it is Man, in this case, Adam (from the Hebrew adam, meaning Earth).

The very name of God is different in both texts; in Gen 1 He is referred to as God, whereas in Gen 2 He is called The Lord God. It is from this point of information that we determine who the author is; "lord" in the Bible is written as LORD when referring to God, which, in Hebrew terms, is displayed as YHWH - this is where we derive the term Yahweh, though the true pronunciation of the term isn't known.

The texts also differ in length; the creation story of Gen 1 ends shortly into chapter 2 (but is generally just referred ot as the creation story in Gen 1), whereas the story in Gen 2 continues into chapter 3, where we meet the Serpent. (side note: at this point, I am now struggling to remember the smaller points - I know there's a larger one, but I want to avoid it for the time being).

Moving on to the creation as a whole, the stories differ on a number of points; Genesis 1 takes place over seven days - 6 days of creation, 1 of rest (the Sabbath) - while Genesis 2 takes place in one day. Over the longer period of time, God's Master Plan is kept, while in Gen 2 the process is more about trial and error. Similaraly, everything in Gen 1 is, at the very least, "good", while something is not right in Gen 2: 'Then the LORD God said, "Is is not good that man should be alone"' - Genesis 2:18.

As a final note (as I've forgotten the 12th point.... I'll check that when I'm done showing off), the order of creation in the stories is different. Genesis 1 portrays creation in this way: Heaven and the earth, and light, on the first day; the dome, Sky, around the earth on the second day (also containing water); dry land and vegetation on the third day; heavenly bodies, such as the sun, the moon and the stars, on the fourth day, though they are not directly named as they are technically, at the time of the story's writing, pagan deities, and therefore not to be mentioned within a then-Jewish text; on the fifth day the fish and all the creatures of the sea; and the creatures of the land on the sixth day, including Man, at the very end of this creation. Genesis 2, on the other hand, tells the story in this order: first earth and the heavens; then Man; Eden and vegetation; water, in the form of rivers; then the creatures of the land and all the birds in the air; and finally, out of Man, he created Woman. It is quite noticeable, the differences between the stories, when the information is presented; much more importance was placed on the world than Man in the first story, whereas the world seemed to have been made for Man in the second story.

As to the forgotten information... the stories present God in two different ways. Genesis 1 tells us of a God being a transcendant being, and therefore without a form for us to worship (as is intended for both Christian and Jewish faiths - there shall be no false idols before the Lord; in other words, no statues). Genesis 2, on the other hand, tells us of an anthropromorphic God, with the shape and form of a human, and the image most used in art.

I hope this hasn't been a boring blog for you all; it's a little unusal, I know, for me to write about religion here, but I think that the topic is the comparison of two stories, regardless of them being from a religious text, is enough to save me from turning completely over to the Christian side; I still very much believe in God, but I'm not a bible-pusher by any means. Each to his own, so long as it is in respect of other people (and everything else too!).

Opinions on the blog post are very much appreciated, but I don't intend on this becoming a religious debate; remember that the Old Testament is largely a metaphorical text to help explain some of the deeper mysteries of the universe, and in the context of the time at which it was written it was an extremely useful text. It wasn't, however, accepted a science; no one truly accepted that the creation stories were absolute truth, but they accepted the hugely important religious messages behind the texts regardless.

order of creation
created as intented/trial and error (Master Plan)
Everything good/something not good

Saturday, April 24, 2010


SAND, or: Summer, Assuming Nothing (Dis)Improves. This is what I am calling my intended summer; assuming nothing gets worse for me, and assuming nothing drastically improves very suddenly, I have a set plan for my summer months. It involves organised chaos, time and words. Lots of words.

These are all fairly well linked attributes of my three and a half months off; organised chaos is interwoven with time, and is part of the process of creating words. Time is vital to achieve words. Words are the offspring of organised chaos and time, and can actually create different worms of them. Yeah... I'm a bit weird that way.

Okay, the plan for the summer. I know you're all dying to know this. Let's take this as one big plan, with smaller sub-plans that interrupt other plans (organised chaos in practice!). There will be, in the social way of looking at things, a trip to the zoo, about a dozen trips to the cinema, four poetry nights, far too many nights out (the sort of things that will make my bank account angry), and more than a few trips into town to meet more than a few people, though not all at the same time. Ever.

That's one sub-plan. Another is writing. Writing a lot. James told me not to. He said, "Well don't spend all your time doing it." No, I will. Well, in accordance with the plan. The plan that insists on my writing being interrupted by friends. Damn them. Damn them to their happy little place that I wish I could stay in for longer than I do. Damn them there twice! (hey cool, I typed that without even looking at the screen, let alone the keyboard!)

The writing will consist of a number of things; it has sub-categories of its own! There will be the editing of Meet Sam, en masse until it's completion. During this time, there will also be the planning and writing of two novels: Dignity and Love, Sam. About two people know about Dignity (the aforementioned James, and Liam, because it was his Facebook status and his hilarious stories that inspired the idea of the book!). About one person knows about Love, Sam. That's Monica. I told her because she insisted on a sequel to Meet Sam, and then suddenly there was one. And another one. I don't know how that happened. There might also be the writing of a third novel, written entirely in letter and diary format, with another author. She's a very good friend of mine, so it could be very interesting! And then there's all the poetry I might write, because poems attack my brain spontaneously. And the plays I might write. And the short stories. And the auto-biography I've had in my head (a letter to my younger self), that, if I complete it, will be sold online.

And, believe it or not, there's more. I plan on trying to learn the ukulele. I have one, just sitting there like a beaten puppy, begging not to be hit by the door again as I open it. I know, what a cruel analogy!

And that's my summer. My whole summer in its entirety. I'll have to take a leaf from Liam's book and keep a record of everything I do during the summer. Every little detail, every little anecdote. Everything that can be fictionalised and used in Dignity or The Sam Richards Trilogy. This is SAND. As it is written, so it shall be. (and due to the nature in which in what written, just about anything can happen!)

Monday, April 19, 2010


The wonderful Charlie McDonnell, charlieissocoollike on YouTube, recently (very recently) posted a video about fame, using a recent issue of the UK's Heat Magazine as his case study as he discussed, rather seriously, the idea of fame. In short, he suggests that if you only want to be famous for the sake of being famous, stop right now, because it's not all you think it is; it's walking to work and getting photographed; it's being spied upon so that your body can be used as the 'best beach bod of the year'; it's being followed by paparazi who obsess when you eat a frozen yogurt. Fame is possibly one of the worst things that can happen to someone (one of the worst things with an upside to it, I might add - illness/death/unemployment/homelessness/etc are not included, because there's not really much of an upside if any of these happen to you or someone you know).

I won't mince words; I do sometimes wonder at the idea of fame. What would it be like? Exactly how famous could I get (for being me, I might add - not how famous can I try to be)?  How long would the fame last? And when I think about fame, I always, always, think about it as something I've earned through merits, through achievement, not as a result of, say, a lotto win, or a reality television show. Fame as a result of popularity, popularity that might well be based on how you look, is one of the worst ways! The celebrity status of Big Brother winners is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen; before the show, any of those people could pass you in the street and you wouldn't care less unless they handed you a lump sum of money with no strings attached... or you knew them already. Whatever the case may be, overnight fame for a show so ridiculous is not a merit or an achievement - it's a joke to the system of deciding who's famous and who's not.

But why do we care about famous people? Oftentimes, it's because of a) an attraction to them, b) they're genuinely nice people, and we want to know them or c) we want to be them. The fame phenomenon has hit everyone at some stage; in my case, it's "whoop"ing at a Darren Shan book signing as he enters the room. I'm very loud. It's lots of fun.

Non-rhetorcial question of the day - if you were to be famous, what would you like to be famous for?

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

In Summary...

I may have been gone for a week... that was bold of me, I know, but there are always good reasons for my blunders. Okay, not for every day, but in general, I've been busy with something. So, in summary...

Thursday, Friday and Saturday were wasted on gaming. Really badly wasted. But from what I've told myself, that's the last of my gaming until... well, at least June. I'm putting myself on gaming probation until then, so that I can focus on my studies. Whether or not the probation continues is based on how well I can get into writing mode again. If I fail tremendously at that, I will allow myself a cooling-off period, then it's back to the books... editing and writing them, and reading many a book not related to my course.

Thursday was also choir day... that's allowed, right? You know what, I'm not asking. That's allowed. And Saturday was mass day. That's encouraged!

Sunday... well, Sunday began my nightmare: Coursework Journal for English. Due in on Friday. I have barely gotten anything done... I am well and truly screwed. You see, on Monday, I went to see How to Train Your Dragon, and last night I went to see OneRepublic live... tonight I was watching Glee... tomorrow I plan on watching Lost... though I might jus watch the episode recorded... but I also have a Poetry Night at the Gutter Bookshop to attend, and choir, again. Which means, in short, that I need to work my ass off: Tonight, getting things ready to be typed; tomorrow morning, typing up at least one movie, preferrably two; at lunch tomorrow, after a drama meeting; and as soon as I get home, until it is done, but not if that intrudes on time getting out for the aforementioned Poetry Night. If I don't get it done... tomorrow night will be busy!! And if it's still lacking just a little bit then... well, looks like I'll be up early on Friday morning typing it up, then rushing into the computer room in the morning to print it and submit it and swear my head off in rejoice that it's done.

I just realised I don't know what to do for a cover for it!!

Ahem... I'll just ask tomorrow. I'm sure our lecturer isn't so cruel that he would leave us to figure it out for ourselves... no wait, he might be. And he might do a song and dance about it too...

In other craziness, I seem to be acquiring ideas at a much faster rate than usual. I think this happens when I don't have time to actually use the ideas. Three things that inspired my ideas: "General Justice", "Materialistic Bishop" and one of my own tweets! I know, crazy. I remind myself of Walt Whitman now... only there's no way I'm posing naked for my own book! And I won't insist on multiple editions of it, just for the ego-feed!

Oh hey, you know what's fun.... I actually don't know. I typed that while reading a tweet (that didn't include those words) and I have no idea how to conclude that sentence. Someone conclude that sentence for me! There will be a prize of some sort for the best answer. I might write you into a story... or write a poem for you. Anything to procrastinate just a little bit more.

Days of lectures left: 7

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Judging by the Cover

I'm sure we're all familiar with the age-old cliche, "Don't judge a book by its cover." I'm not even asking; if you're reading this post, you most definitely are familiar with cliches (I am... just look at the title of my blog-site!!)
Now, I'm not saying the cliche is right, but there are certain boundaries that should be put on covers; obviously, it has to be relevant to the book; it has to give some indication as to what to expect. But, and this is my opinion, the main character should be presented in photographic form on the cover. Some people might think, "That's most books though." They're right. I agree, most books do it. But some books, I think, take it perhaps too far.

This cover of Michael Grant's Gone is a prime example of what I'm talking about; we have two models representing two of the characters in the book (Astrid and Sam, I believe). What's my problem with it? Well, in my mind that's not how they looked. This is someone else's vision of the characters.

And here's the cover of New Moon by Stephenie Meyer; it's the movie tie-in. This is both better and worse - better, because at least it's obvious to people who've seen the large posters everywhere who the characters are, worse because the cover is now dependant on another form of telling the same story.

And finally, Sarah Rees Brennan's The Demon's Lexicon; we are given, once more, a visual representation of the main character, leaving nothing to the imagination. This is my real problem with book covers; many readers perceive the image on the front as a basis for what the character described to them is like. I'm not pointing fingers, but it's a fact. I imagine people who saw a movie of a book before they read it will see the actors in their head, not the characters described to them.

So, how do we stop this? Well, I think UK cover artists are already working on it. With the exception of Brennan's book, these titles all have UK original covers that don't show very much of the story (Gone having just the cover Gone in big highlighted letters, against a black background, New Moon having a flower on it, again with a black background). These covers are both more modern, if done correctly, and leave us to imagine the characters as we read them, not as someone else does. Leave the visuals after that to fan-art and movies!

What do you reckon? Will modern-art type covers finally come to the fore, or will we be eternally forced to see someone else's interpretation of what a character looks like before we've even read the description?

Monday, April 5, 2010

Review - Hunger

Hunger: A Gone NovelThere are four words that summarise Hunger by Michael Grant quite nicely, something that is said in the book and on its blurb - Hungry in the darkness.

A slightly longer, albeit still short, summary is probably required though.

Sam Temple is fifteen years old. Three months ago, all the adults vanished. Poof. (Note: Gone is the first book in the series, the events of which have led to Hunger.) In three months, the food began to get low in Perdido Beach, a small town in California (small, but with its own Nuclear Power Station, which is possibly also small, relative to other Nuclear Power Stations). In three months, more kids have developed powers - more kids are mutants. In three months, Sam Temple has been dealing with the problems of everyone. And as the food runs out and the town find fields of food ripe for the picking, things seem to get easier.

But the kids aren't the only ones mutating...

I think that's about as far as I can go with the summary without spoiling the book for you. The real surprises begin to unfold early on, and I can promise you that they are wonderful ideas! Onto the review!

Is this book worth reading? Unless you've read Gone no. I wouldn't recommend starting the series at book two. So go read the first book before you read this (reviewed here). Now, assuming you've read Gone, liked it, and are wondering if you should continue - yes! You have to continue! In fact, you have to start the series if you haven't already. It's YA writing at its best, and it's a fabulous idea for a book (I wish I'd had it!)

But, isn't this series "too weird"? Someone once said that it was. She was wrong. Well, not wrong, but her bias of the series wasn't due - she clearly hadn't read the book. The series is weird, but that's the point. You can't exactly tell a normal story about everyone over the age of fifteen disappearing!

What about those weird numbers on the back? Ah the weird numbers; what this question refers to is: 106 hours 29 minutes. That's how long the book goes on for, before the crisis can be averted, or the characters FAIL. I won't tell you what the crisis is, because that's a spoiler, a big spoiler, but I'll tell you that the timer really helps keep the reader going. When you see those last few minutes creeping by, that time running out, you can't help but think, "Here we go!" and expect a big BANG!! Those numbers on the back of the book are anticipation brewing inside the reader, involuntarily.

Okay, so is Hunger as good as Gone? Most definitely. In fact, it's at least as good as Gone! I can't say for sure whether I loved it more, but I certainly didn't love it less. Definitely loved it though, that much is clear.

What's next? Presumably Michael Grant plans on releasing the third book before the fourth book. The third book, Lies, is due out in 2010 (May in the US, September in the UK, I believe). And, as far as I have discerned from Twitter, Grant is coming to the UK for the release of Lies.

Now, I'm just curious, but is this series as good as other books you've reviewed? I'd go as far as to say it's actually one of the best series of books I've started reading. I'm still a huge fan of Darren Shan until the end, so I can never place anything higher than him on the charts, but it's definitely better than The Seventh Tower series by Garth Nix, and the and books by Andy Briggs. Okay, so the age difference is there, but I still think the idea for the Gone series is better - it fulfills every kids dreams: all the adults are gone, and the kids are superheroes. But it also shows that dreams aren't all that fun when they actually happen (you know, because of the hunger thing...)

Now, what are you waiting for? Go read that book!

Saturday, April 3, 2010

The Time Lord Returns!

So, today was a big day for British television: Doctor Who returned, with a new Doctor! Now, I will admit I was a bit worried (and extremely excited) about the return of Doctor Who, namely because:
  1. The conclusion of The End of Time (Part Two), Matt Smith was acting too much like David Tennant. Now, this might not seem like something too dreadful, but it seemed like they'd just gotten rid of David Tennant to bring in a new face. But the Doctor was the same otherwise. Or so it seemed.
  2. Matt Smith looked weird. I don't mean to sound critical, but he didn't look right. He looked a little bit off (a little bit left?). It had to do with the size of his head. His forehead looked too big. I knew straight away that how he looked would make watching him act a bit difficult. I wouldn't be able to look at him and just let it be. At least the other's were easy on the eye - all their good points and all their bad points were obvious from the start (like the size of Christopher Eccleston's nose and ears... at least I was able to look at him!) 
  3. Everything was on fire. I know a Time Lord bursts into golden timey-wimey fire when he regenerates, but the TARDIS was burning up too! Scary stuff! 
  4. There was no companion to turn to for safety. When we first met Eccleston, we knew we had Billy Piper for some comfort. She was a fairly big league actor in her own right, so we knew she wouldn't be killed off by the Autons in the first episode (entitled Rose.) But Smith was alone out there, all new and with his clothes all torn and burnt, and unlike the regeneration of the Doctor to Tennant, we didn't have a companion to keep something the same.
So, all of that slightly plagued my mind ahead of the Season Five premier of Doctor Who, the first episode in a long while without David Tennant after the sorrowful goodbye, and the first episode with a new Doctor and, presumably, a new companion. And, it seems, an altered TARDIS. The internet was full of stories of how the TARDIS was going to be redecorated...

But there was something else that carried on from The End of Time (Part Two) - the big damage done to the universe. This, I believe accounts for both the change in the opening sequence (the time vortex is like a big storm!) and the first alien villain of the new season. It's also something I think Moffat is planning on keeping throughout the season; the Doctor and his new companion have to try fix the hole in the universe caused by the Master. Note: This is my own theory!

Overall, I think the episode went brilliantly! You see, for every point I made earlier, there is a rebutal upon having seen the episode:
  1. Smith quickly found his feet as the new Doctor. This is, I think, largely down to the writing of Moffat, making sure that viewers can see these two Doctors as something quite different. Aside from the fact that Smith is younger than Tennant (and indeed any of the previous Doctors at the time of their debut), his personality is shown differently. He's still slightly rude, as the Doctor ought to be, so long as it's funny. He's still crazy, as the Doctor ought to be, so long as it's controlled by the writer. He's still the Doctor. But he has his own little quirks. I'm still waiting for them to fully show themselves, but I think once he's friendly (on screen) with his new companion, Smith will be an excellet Doctor! And 'Geronimo' doesn't seem so silly any more! 
  2. I found out why Smith looked so weird, why his head looked to be the wrong shape; his eyebrows. They're too thin for his head. His forehead looks massive as a result, and it throws off his whole face. Throw in his rather pale complexion and the mad hairstyle, and the odd attire, and he's just... left. He's left. He's not right, he's left. But now that I know that, now that I'm not looking for what's wrong with his face (because there's something wrong with all of our faces... well, not wrong, but an imperfection). 
  3. The TARDIS had to change, because of the end of the era of Tennant. Plus, it worked into the episode so that: (a) The Doctor didn't have his TARDIS to fight the bad guys and (b) Amy Pond could be shown the new interior. These worked to progress the story a bit and show the change in who controls the show - Moffat replaces Davies back stage and Smith replaces Tennant on stage (don't talk to me about control - you know I mean in the eyes of the public, not literally running the show). Plus, the new TARDIS looks so cool! It's shiny and bright and it has a typewriter. Win! 
  4. The new companion, assuming she stays, is actually really fun! While Piper had a certain magic about her that made everyone love her, and Tate was just adored because of how human she was, the new companion (I need to learn the actor's name... - gender neutral term there: the actor is a woman) has her own little flair. She's not just the human of Tate and Piper, she's the crazy of them too, but in her own way! You'll see, if you haven't already, that she's pretty mad... just watch it! I know, though, that things with her are going to be great!
So, there's my points rebuted. I think this pretty much serves as a review for episode one of the season, The Eleventh Hour. I look forward to seeing what Moffat can show us later: his stories have been so brilliant and so terrifying in the past (such as Blink and Silence in the Library) that he has a huge standard to meet. And that's just on a personal note! He also has to live up to Russell T Davies! I wish him all the best of luck with it!
Now... when's episode two airing?

Thursday, April 1, 2010


Twitter's like a playground; there are games and there are fights, there are weird discussions and there are boring ones.

Twitter's like an assylum for the mentally ill; every day, over two million people talk to themselves, feeling an urge to tell the world (or whoever's listening) that they are there, and they are busy!

Twitter's like Hollywood; there are celebrities, there are creations, there are good deeds done and lots of pretentious attitudes about everyone else (side note: people on Twitter are both the celebrities and the people observing them, and pretentious attitudes, creations, good and bad deeds are all done by both sides of the coin of fame) and you're not likely to know everyone who has some interest in what you have to say.

That pretty much summarises my experience with Twitter in the 51 and a half weeks I've been there. I've see the fights first hand, and I'm not at liberty to discuss them. They're sort of a You-Had-To-Be-There thing, because even though they're broadcast publicly, they're private intimate things. But I've see the games too - they call them "hashtags." Things are tagged with, can you guess, the hash sign (# for those who don't know...). Generally the hashtags are used to get things trending and to identify similar tweets (that's Twitter lingo for what other social networking sites call "Status Updates."). Other times, they're used to spread jokes (for example: #threewordsaftersex)

As to the assylum reference... well, we're all guilty of that on Twitter. Especially me. I spent about an hour yesterday tweeting in the third person, just for the fun of it.

And Hollywood... well, I've seen friends gain a celebrity status (okay, one in particular), but I've also experienced something similar to the celebrity thing... I don't know most of my followers. It's kind of weird. I would have thought they would reply a lot more to the things I say, but no. Just out of the blue, on Writer Wednesday of course, a couple of people I don't know have me down as a recommendation. I don't know where that came from (but I appreciate it!).

Twitter's like a billboard for the masses; something can be advertised on it, and people can ignore it if they want.

Yeah, this comes back to Poetry Against Cancer. I'm sorry to say (if it annoys you that is... otherwise I'm not sorry), but I won't be stopping with the posts about this book for a long time. I want it to sell, and so I have no choice but to talk about it to remind you, again, that it's for a good cause, and we could do with every say.

My copies of it arrived today, by the way. I have twenty-five copies of it with me right now as I write this. And they look amazing! I mean, I knew they would, but I was still delighted with how well they came out. Rachel did a fantastic job on design work, and I'm not the only one to say it. Now, if you wish to buy it, you can click on the link (the name is hightlighted above - it's a link to buy it, like all the links of books I post, though most go to

Thanks for your time. Let me know what you think of the book if you buy it! (And please, buy it! I don't ask for much, and it's not too expensive!)