nyr 2012

Write 500 new words of fiction every day.

I’m already 1500 behind, because I’m sick. No big deal.

I know this isn’t as mind-crogglingly impressive as, say, Phil Tucker’s First Million Words project (site now defunct, looks like), which got him through three novels or so before it went off the rails. But much as I would like to do a NaNoWriMo or two every month of 2012, the facts are these:

(a) With a job, a job search and a baby in the present and possibly a move in our future, it’s doomed. Less relevant, actually, than

(b) I have other fictional things I want to do.

THE DANDELION KNIGHT is basically done; I need to do some polishing, gin up some samples, and query. If something good comes out of that, I’m certain to have more editing, polishing, creation of various sorts of packages, and other stuff to occupy my fiction headspace. And I might be doing some editing for other purposes, e.g. of short stories or novellas to submit to Writers of the Future or magazines, or of any new things I manage to complete on this 500-word-per-diem schedule. So I want to leave room for that.

But historically, when I’ve taken months and months off writing new words to edit, I’ve gotten demotivated. When I’m not making any obvious or measurable progress, work slows down on all fronts. So I want to make sure I’m always making just a little bit of progress on something new, something I can count and feel good about and recover from even if I drop a few days here and there, as I most likely will.

500 words a day means 183,000 words in 2012 (it’s a leap year). That means I will surely finish a draft of the sequel to THE DANDELION KNIGHT and probably make a good chunk of progress on at least one other thing. I can write 500 words in 20 minutes. I can write 500 words before I go to bed even if I’m dead tired; I can write 500 words before I leave for work without setting the alarm all that much earlier (to say nothing of how much I can write on the train). And every couple of days, I might catch fire and write 1000, or 1500, or however many.

This is much like the “12 sentences” thing I was doing a while back. If there’s a difference, which there may not be, it’s just in the recognition that writing new words has a salutary effect on revision. There’s no point in stopping writing to revise; writing feeds revision. Or so the theory goes.

Now to figure out a similar treatment for exercise…

2011 reading retrospective

75 in total. * denotes a reread. There are a lot of those. 14.5 are by women (SLEIGHTS OF MIND is co-authored by a man and a woman), or 19.33%, but in terms of number of authors women do a bit better — 13/43, or 30.23%. I’m going to guess they do even better in terms of new authors, since most of my rereads and series-reads are men (Martin, Rothfuss, Eddings, Brust, Wolfe, Erikson, Mieville, Vance). I’m not even going to try to calculate how much of the list is genre; I think we can all be satisfied with “a commanding majority.”

I don’t usually have plans around reading, but to the extent I do, the plan is to do the she-read I mentioned in my last (pre-Una!) post and try to be a bit light on genre otherwise. At the same time, though, I kind of want to reread A DANCE WITH DRAGONS and THE WISE MAN’S FEAR, which will require reading THE NAME OF THE WIND and the first four of ASOIAF as prelude; and I’m not quite done with my Dragaera reread, for which I’m currently on FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER, leaving me with the three Viscount of Adrilankha books and BROKEDOWN PALACE; and I will certainly be reading Phil Tucker’s THRONE, which I downloaded when it was free, and realistically I will probably continue reading the Malazan Book of the Fallen, though I may not finish it until 2013. I’m in the middle of THE CANTERBURY TALES, THE OUTLAWS OF THE MARSH, and WAR AND PEACE, so I should probably finish at least one of those by the end of 2012. And I will definitely be reading 1Q84 and probably all of FINDER. Through reading John Gardner’s criticism (in a book of essays I haven’t finished yet, downloaded for like $0.99 on some Black Friday promo) I’m getting interested in Williams Gass and Gaddis, John Cheever, and Bernard Malamud, as well as a bit more in John Fowles and maybe even in Gardner himself. So there are a few things on the table. Should probably get some more non-fiction and some more women into the mix… but no reason to plan it all out in advance.

* A STORM OF SWORDS, George R. R. Martin
* A FEAST FOR CROWS, George R. R. Martin
HIS MAJESTY’S DRAGON, Naomi Novik
THE FOUR-HOUR BODY, Tim Ferriss
* HOME GAME, Michael Lewis
THE THREE MUSKETEERS, Alexandre Dumas
* FOOLED BY RANDOMNESS, Nassim Nicholas Taleb
SLEIGHTS OF MIND, Stephen Macknik & Susana Martinez-Conde
SHARDS OF HONOR, Lois McMaster Bujold
* HIGH SOCIETY, Dave Sim
BELOVED, Toni Morrison
AN EVIL GUEST, Gene Wolfe
FAITHFUL PLACE, Tana French
* THE NAME OF THE WIND, Patrick Rothfuss
THE WISE MAN’S FEAR, Patrick Rothfuss
I AM NOT A SERIAL KILLER, Dan Wells
THE GREAT STAGNATION, Tyler Cowen
QUARANTINE, Norman Spinrad
THE HUNGER GAMES, Suzanne Collins
CATCHING FIRE, Suzanne Collins
MOCKINGJAY, Suzanne Collins
THE WAVE IN THE MIND, Ursula K. Le Guin
TIASSA, Steven Brust
THE SORCERER’S HOUSE, Gene Wolfe
THE BLUE SWORD, Robin McKinley
MIDNIGHT TIDES, Steven Erikson
SLEEPWALK WITH ME, Mike Birbiglia
CONSIDER PHLEBAS, Iain M. Banks
THE LOST CITY OF Z, David Grann
THERE ARE DOORS, Gene Wolfe
THE GRAVEYARD BOOK, Neil Gaiman
* THE CITY & THE CITY, China Mieville
GRIFTOPIA, Matt Taibbi
THE GRIND SHOW, Philip Tucker
ONE BY ONE, Philip Tucker
* SOLDIER OF THE MIST, Gene Wolfe
NIGHT OF KNIVES, Ian C. Esslemont
THE TIGER, John Vaillant
A DANCE WITH DRAGONS, George R. R. Martin
SLEEPLESS, Charlie Huston
ADVENTURES IN THE SCREEN TRADE, William Goldman
THE DYING EARTH, Jack Vance
THE EYES OF THE OVERWORLD, Jack Vance
CUGEL’S SAGA, Jack Vance
RHIALTO THE MARVELOUS, Jack Vance
THE SPEED OF DARK, Elizabeth Moon
THE IMMORTAL LIFE OF HENRIETTA LACKS, Rebecca Skloot
THE FOREST OF HANDS AND TEETH, Carrie Ryan
* THE PHOENIX GUARDS, Steven Brust
CRUDE SUNLIGHT, Philip Tucker
THE BONEHUNTERS, Steven Erikson
THE THEORY THAT WOULD NOT DIE, Sharon Bertsch McGrayne
EMBASSYTOWN, China Mieville
REAPER’S GALE, Steven Erikson
* ON BECOMING A NOVELIST, John Gardner
* PAWN OF PROPHECY
* QUEEN OF SORCERY
* MAGICIAN’S GAMBIT
* CASTLE OF WIZARDRY
* ENCHANTER’S END GAME, David Eddings
THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, B. Traven
THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN, John Fowles
THE HELP, Kathryn Stockett
* JHEREG
* YENDI
* TECKLA
* TALTOS
* PHOENIX
* ATHYRA
* ORCA
* DRAGON
* ISSOLA
* DZUR
* JHEGAALA
* IORICH
* TIASSA, Steven Brust

sff she-read 2012

It’s come to my attention that I’m really not aware of most of the new feminine voices in science fiction and fantasy. I’ve done due diligence on Butler, Le Guin, Russ, and Weis, as well as the YA bunker-busters (Rowling, Collins, and yes, even Meyer), but I know there are a lot of newer writers whose work I should know — especially since I’m having this daughter any day now, whose gastrulating geekery I would like to encourage by showing her that women write sf too. So I’m going to list a few of the new and well-regarded women sf authors I’m aware of, of whom I’d like to read at least one per month in 2012. (I usually read a minimum of 60 books a year, so this shouldn’t represent a serious cramp in my style, even on a baby-adjusted schedule.) Anyone who’s got a better suggestion than one of the authors here, post it in the comments; remember I’m looking for WOMEN who are STILL ACTIVE writing SF AND FANTASY. I’d prefer to do stand-alone novels to maximize my range, although I’ve violated that in several cases below.

The list is in alphabetical order by last name of first author. Because that’s how we roll in the 08550.

JANUARY: Elizabeth Bear, HAMMERED.
FEBRUARY: Lauren Beukes, ZOO CITY.
MARCH: Mira Grant, FEED.
APRIL: N. K. Jemisin, THE HUNDRED THOUSAND KINGDOMS.
MAY: Jaida Jones & Danielle Bennett, HAVEMERCY.
JUNE: Mary Robinette Kowal, SHADES OF MILK AND HONEY.
JULY: Kelly Link, STRANGER THINGS HAPPEN.
AUGUST: Sarah Monette, MELUSINE.
SEPTEMBER: Nnedi Okorafor, WHO FEARS DEATH.
OCTOBER: Ekaterina Sedia, THE ALCHEMY OF STONE.
NOVEMBER: Catherynne M. Valente, PALIMPSEST.
DECEMBER: Jo Walton, AMONG OTHERS.

INELIGIBLE:
Nalo Hopkinson, Jane Lindskold, Karen Miller, Naomi Novik, Cherie Priest, Carrie Ryan. I’ve read all of these authors and haven’t been swept off my feet (I recognize that Hopkinson is very good, I just don’t really connect; Miller is really very bad; the rest are just OK). Also ineligible: K. J. Bishop, whose THE ETCHED CITY was great and who should really write more, and Carla Speed McNeil, whom no one would ever think to suggest but who is really absolutely incredible and whom you should read now. (You’ll find her in comics. No, no take-backs, just buy whatever volumes of the FINDER library are out and thank me later.)

Also, Kage Baker is ineligible because she’s dead, but after reading “The Green Bird” in SONGS OF THE DYING EARTH I consider myself obliged to pick up one of her books as soon as my current list is through. (Current list: SONGS OF THE DYING EARTH [ed. Martin & Dozois], THE THEORY THAT WOULD NOT DIE [McGrayne], THE HELP [Stockett], EMBASSYTOWN [Mieville], THE GOOD SOLDIERS [Finkel]. At my normal pace, I’d be certain to finish these by the end of 2011, but the arrival of the Webermelon may constrain my normal pace.) I wouldn’t have thought someone who wasn’t Jack Vance could write a Cugel story worthy of the name, but hers is somehow both (a) of a seamless piece with Vance’s Cugel stories, and (b) told in the author’s own voice, which is to say inflected but not deformed by the high Vancian diction in which lesser writers in the same anthology flail and founder. So, in any case, IN THE GARDEN OF IDEN or THE HOUSE OF THE STAG will constitute a floating baker’s-dozenth entry, to be read at convenience.

sips for batch image conversion

I love the Internet. Here’s a UNIX one-liner to convert images from one format to another en masse. (I don’t know how widely available sips is, but it came installed on my 2009 work iMac.)

fantasy, complexity, myth-building, and ground truth

I wrote most of this a while ago and then, for reasons I don’t really understand, left it in the Dustbin of Not-Quite-Finished Drafts. But a post from Phil Tucker knocked some of these thoughts loose again. So here we go.

The first thing I did with my Christmas Kindle was download Steven Erikson‘s book, GARDENS OF THE MOON. I did this because I was in the mood for a big epic fantasy series, but I hadn’t gotten into one for a while, in part because of physical constraints on what I can carry on the train; and because I’d been hearing good things about Erikson, starting a long time ago with this SALON article by Andrew Leonard. I’m into THE BONEHUNTERS now, and my experience is more or less the opposite of Leonard’s; I think GARDENS OF THE MOON is a really excellent book, but instead of finding myself “more and more willing to trust Erikson,” I’m finding myself a little bit frustrated with the fusillade of new characters, new history, new continents, and so on — and then, when the old ones come back, I’m frustrated again because I don’t really remember what Quick Ben and Kalam were up to, what I’m supposed to know about Fiddler, &c. I say this only because some kind of reviewing sentence seems apropos here; what I’m really interested in isn’t Erikson, but Leonard.

“Successful fantasy does not require magic swords, or the triumphant overthrow of whatever Evil Dark Lord of Black Shadow Midnight Murk is currently torturing the poor denizens of Happiland. It doesn’t even require a subplot involving a teenage boy (or increasingly often, girl) who becomes a Man (or Woman) while on a dire quest to find (or destroy) the Holy Trinket.

“Give me, instead, the evocation of a rich, complex and yet ultimately unknowable other world, with a compelling suggestion of intricate history and mythology and lore. Give me mystery amid the grand narrative. There’s no need to spell it all out; no prefaces, please, elucidating the history of Middle Earth as if to students in a lecture hall. Instead, give me a world in which every sea hides a crumbled Atlantis, every ruin has a tale to tell, every mattock blade is a silent legacy of struggles unknown.”

“Readers of “Gardens of the Moon” are confronted with a world where very little is explained as it happens — like the characters in the story, we have to piece together what is going on from cryptic utterances by gods and warlocks and seers and the fragmentary record left behind by the detritus of previous empires. To leapfrog this process by making sense of it would defeat the purpose of the author.”

First, as Leonard acknowledges, there are magic swords (and at least one anti-magic sword), quests, and dragons; he does not acknowledge, although it is the case, that there is at least one Dark Lord of Black Shadow Midnight Murk, and although he observes that there aren’t many teenagers, two of them are main characters who are definitely discovering themselves and growing up. I observe this by way of suggesting, not that Erikson’s fantasy is in fact derivative or lazy, but that it isn’t the tropes per se that are the problem with the fantasy that Leonard doesn’t like.

(As an aside: Both Leonard and Stephen King tar Robert Jordan with the “peddler of derivative mass-market dreck” brush, with an explicit accusation of hobbit-baiting from King, and I just don’t buy it. Jordan has a reasonably well delineated set of Good and Evil characters, which can be tiresome, but his heroes face the kind of Sophie’s choices, realpolitik issues, and intermittently victorious inner demons that Leonard praises Erikson for evoking, and his world and cosmology are, if not his own, certainly not all that derivative of Tolkien’s. Jordan has serious problems — with women, most notably, and organization, and a certain flaccidity of prose — but, again, it’s not the tropes. And, by the way, whatever his flaws, it’s not as though David Eddings is obsessed with elves and dragons either; there’s a fair amount that’s original in his work as well. It’s tempting to use tropiness as a shorthand for poor quality because [a] it’s easier to score points on that than, say, prose style or deftness of character, and [b] everyone except nerds will believe you. But it really is beside the point. George R. R. Martin has fucking JOUSTS in his books; Pat Rothfuss’ child-prodigy street urchin has leveled up to sex with ninjas. It doesn’t have to be your thing. But it WORKS.)

Now that we’re back on the right side of the parentheses: The point of the extensive blockquoting above was to flag what Leonard likes about Erikson. He likes trope-avoidance, although again, the tropes are not all that assiduously avoided, and it’s not clear that they should be. (To be fair, Erikson also has lots of nonstandard characters, like military sappers, a fence, a sort of twisted Virgin Mary, a philosophical zombie, etc.; and his tropey characters often subvert expectations. But it’s plausibly argued that this latter treatment is more the rule for tropes than the exception.) He likes the complexity of history and society deftly suggested rather than presented as lecture or timeline; he likes the complexity of personality and moral judgment well and thoroughly explored.

Which brings me, finally, to my point — what fantasy is Andrew Leonard reading?

I have a perspective here, and by now it’s pretty obvious, so let me try to defuse accusations of bias: I know I pick books a certain way. Broadly, I go for things that Michael Moorcock praises in WIZARDRY & WILD ROMANCE and don’t go for things he pans. Moorcock introduced me to Gene Wolfe, K. J. Bishop, and Jeff VanderMeer; he speaks well of Fritz Leiber and China Mieville, and has an entire chapter on Tolkien titled “Epic Pooh,” in which I think he also lumps Narnia and WATERSHIP DOWN. The principle generalizes fairly well to, “I read what writers I like, like.” Wolfe alerted me to Jack Vance, Samuel Delany to Joanna Russ; Neil Gaiman bounced me over to Nalo Hopkinson; Pat Rothfuss has raised Peter Brett to my awareness, although I have yet to read THE WARDED MAN; another reason I picked up Steven Erikson was that he’s engaged in mutual blurbsturbation with Glen Cook. I guess the point is, I am mostly not going to the fantasy shelves and picking based on covers or blurbs or whatever; I have a reasonably-sized backlog and a relatively sophisticated scheme for adding to it, which amounts to a biased sample. And I’m aware that this is true, not because I am a superior human being, but because I am a bit of a genre whore. So when I say “what fantasy is Andrew Leonard reading?”, it’s not meant to be read with some silent pejorative (“that cotton-pickin’ muggle”) prepended to his name. But it is meant to be a gentle suggestion that, if he can’t come up with even a handful of writers who break the strictures of genre fantasy he finds so tiresome, it may not be because they don’t exist.

And it’s meant to point out that these things he’s praised in Erikson as exceptions to the rule are actually kind of viewed as best practices. And it’s meant to point out that, if I went to the “literature” shelf in the bookstore and made a bunch of generalizations about the “genre” based on random selections, a reasonable person would respond to those generalizations, not by disputing that my sample approximates the mean, but by opening up the world of possibilities — by pointing me toward the good stuff. And, along the way, that person might point out that my call of “Give me psychological depth! Give me beautiful language! Give me the human heart in conflict with itself!” is in fact amply, if not on average, answered by the body of work I thought deaf to it.

The tor.com blog hosts a fair amount of vitriol about genre these days (or did back in late 2009/early 2010). I’m not super-comfortable with the politics of the idea that sf readers have a particular skill set that non-sf readers don’t — it may be true, it just doesn’t sit well with me, especially given that sentiments of similar condescension seem to undergird the occasional spurts of intolerance from the community. And it’s not apparent to me that “mainstream” readers and viewers especially need crutches to deal with mainstream literature’s borrowing from the sf toolbox — THE YIDDISH POLICEMEN’S UNION did just fine among non-sf readers, as did THE WEST WING (which is an alternate history, with the facts of its uchronia revealed subtly and at necessity as in the best sf). As did THE HANDMAID’S TALE, as did NEVER LET ME GO, &c &c &c. And let’s not even speak of YA, which is pretty much 100% post-apocalypse and paranormal romance these days. If your common-or-garden teenage Barnes & Noble customer can read sf by the boxload, I don’t think we have much to congratulate ourselves about.

So I’m not much interested in the critique of the sf and fantasy genres from the literary side, and I’m not much interested in the critique of literary fiction from the genre side. Controversial, I know. And if I can attempt to induce a little bit of wisdom about it, I think both critiques come from a sophisticated reading of one’s own side and a nonselective or indiscriminate reading of the other.

To which, happily, the only possible remedy is more reading. Because there really is no shortage of top-shelf books out there. Not even close.

“once it was a man, and it did you service in its fashion.”

A professor of mine linked to Andrew Sullivan’s recent article, Republicanism as Religion. I try to resist my own partisan tendencies, but it’s hard for me to disagree with any of the particulars in Sullivan’s article — except the coda:

If [Obama] defeats [the GOP] next year, they will break, because their beliefs are so brittle, but will then reform, along Huntsman-style lines. If they defeat him, I fear we will no longer be participating in a civil conversation, however fraught, but in a civil war.

First, there’s the idea that the battleground is Obama vs. the GOP; if Obama retains the White House but the Republicans keep the House and take the Senate, I don’t see them “breaking.” (I don’t know whether this is a realistic scenario now; I know it was viewed as one after the midterms, but things change.)

Second, isn’t this the kind of wishful thinking that made all of us starry-eyed liberals so disappointed the last time around? Election 2012 as Gandalf vs. Wormtongue, with the fate of all Middle-Earth in the balance? I don’t want to be too dismissive here, especially as the referring professor is a friend of Sullivan’s, but it’s kind of disquieting to see Obama reappropriated as an object of center-right wish-fulfillment, having apparently outlived his usefulness in that role for the left.

And yet, now that I’ve heaped scorn on the analogy, the Tolkien rings true here:

See, Théoden, here is a snake! To slay it would be just. But it was not always as it now is. Once it was a man, and it did you service in its fashion.

kindle dx screen savers

In the grand tradition of making minimal modifications to other people’s hard work and then taking all the credit, I have transmogrified Sean Hartter’s Dark Tower movie posters and M. S. Corley’s retro Harry Potter covers into black-and-white screen savers for the Kindle DX, which you can grab below. I realize that most Kindle owners don’t have DXs, but I also realize that most Kindle owners don’t read this blog; if enough people request them in a standard Kindle size, I’ll do them. (If I have time. I do have a baby on the way.)

If you don’t know how to jailbreak your Kindle, you can learn here (and download 66 Wonder Woman screen savers, if that’s your bag). If you want your screen savers to show up in random order, though, make sure you follow the directions for randomization in the comments — the original post is wrong. For the links to the original images, I’m indebted to John Struan of Super Punch.

on the appeal of paired villains

A seriocomic dialogue. To be prepended to THE EIGHTH KING, if I ever work on THE EIGHTH KING again. Apologies for any lingering LaTeX markup. I try.

“Did you ever notice,” said the swordsman with the cat’s step, “that all the best villains come in twos?”

It took the woman with the quill a moment to respond; she was making a note of something in a script too perfect to be handwriting, yet too expressive to be print. “You know I don’t read that sort of trash,” she said, putting no particular inflection on the word “trash” but rather uttering it as she might a perfectly inoffensive noun, like “bowl” or “pagoda.”

“You should. You really should.” The cat-walking swordsman stretched both arms out wide and arched his back, and though his yawn was not needle-fanged it gave the impression that perhaps it might once have been, or one day be so. “It gives you a sense of your place in things. There’s nothing new, you know. It behooves you to learn from your forebears.”

“I never seem to grasp the thrust of these discussions,” said the perfect-script woman. “My duties are clear enough without literary referents.”

The crossroads nudged up over the horizon, a rare enough sight in this land of mountains. The sun was sinking in the west; a late-spring dusk was gathering, pleasant enough but beginning to ripen with heavy summer night-heat. It perhaps need not be mentioned that neither the cat-walking swordsman nor the perfect-script woman was so much as misted with sweat.

“I’m not sure I much like being called a villain, though,” the perfect-script woman said at last.

“Heroes don’t scheme,” said the cat-walking swordsman.

“We are agents of law.”

“We’re agents of the Judge.”

“Don’t split hairs,” murmured the perfect-script woman, touching the tip of the quill’s plume to the corner of her mouth.

“Don’t make spurious elisions.”

The perfect-script woman looked up from her note-taking at that. Her gaze met the swordsman’s in an old dance, amusement wrapped in skepticism intertwined with waggishness concealing eagerness to please. They had the good sense to cut that dance off after a few bars, as they always did.

“I will always regret schooling you in letters,” said the perfect-script woman, returning to her work. “You have no sense for the turn of phrase. It’s like a village fireworks show–so ill-sequenced that even the flashes of brilliance seem awkward.”

“Consistency is a virtue in writing, Secretary, but not in all things.” The cat-walking swordsman made no special flourish to provoke his companion, as he might; but here a mortal observer would have found his gaze drawn to the hilt of the swordsman’s straight blade, which was filigreed with the stylized body of a rat; the weapon’s blade met the hilt where the rat’s head would have begun. (I use the male pronoun non-generically, for no woman would have wasted her time watching these two when she could have been running. Or few women in any case. I suppose I am aware of exceptions.) “Some of us rely on volatility. Another example of what makes us a good pair. Your power lies in complementarity and suasion, mine in opposition and brute force.”

“In my records,” said the perfect-script woman, “I have summaries of at least three but no more than seven philosophies of the fence, issued by you in various altered states of mind, to which you have been adherent for intervals ranging from three weeks to the better part of a century. All espouse notions of redirection, suasion, and deception, specifically highlighting their superiority to the tactics of opposition and brute force to which you claim to subscribe.”

“The Lotus,” said the swordsman, “it is impossible to converse when one’s interlocutor exhumes every lapse in inference or judgment in a lifetime’s catalogue. Do I hector you so?”

“You have not the prehensility of recall that I have cultivated.”

“Which accounts for my ability to take my pleasure out of life. In any case, have I not just given short shrift to consistency?”

“You have,” said the perfect-script woman, “but, given a few minutes, you are likely to retract it.”

The cat-walking swordsman thought on his rejoinder until the moment for rejoinders had passed, then shrugged in acknowledgement of its passing. They walked in a companionable silence, a pace apart, and although their strides seemed neither stretched nor rushed, they drew up on the crossroads rather faster than a trotting horse might have managed.

“Complementarity is key, of course,” said the cat-walking swordsman. “I refer here not to your powers, but rather our own complementarity to one another, and its efficacy in promoting our collective villainy, which I have already described. But I think what I will miss most is the dread that an appropriately menacing dialogue can inspire. There is something sinister in the first and third person that vanishes with direct apostrophe. How many good men have we brought to their knees merely by discussing veiled hypotheticals?”

“If by `good men’ you refer to scofflaws and other undesirables,” said the perfect-script woman, “thirty have kneeled to beg clemency after such discussions, and seven have gone past their knees to abase themselves entirely. Of the seventeen who have fainted, six fell forward, bringing their knees in contact with the ground by physiological and kinematic necessity–”

“This grandstanding ill suits you, Secretary.”

“I have not yet spoken of the two legless men,” said the perfect-script woman, “or the dragon.”

“These incidents are graven in my mind and do not require rehearsal,” said the cat-walking swordsman.

“In answer to your question, though: The three good men who knelt before us were laboring under a misapprehension.”

The swordsman made a noise of disgust or disbelief. “You forget, Secretary! We had the entire village of G___ worshipping us as gods!”

“That was a misapprehension,” said the perfect-script woman, “and G___ was not rich with men of quality.”

The cat-walking swordsman sighed with considerable pathos. “I would say your standards are too high,” he said, “but I fear to invite the obvious riposte.”

“Riposte?” said the perfect-script woman. “Is it not timid, Retainer, to apply such terrifying metaphors to an innocuous conversation?”

The swordsman grinned as men do to stanch the pain of wounds. “And you, Secretary,” said the swordsman, “rarely do the obvious. Which I should have remembered.”

The perfect-script woman nodded in acknowledgement of her due. (I will not say “as if.” Why should I?)

At last, the pair set foot where the roads met. Signs indicated the direction from which they had come: Pongyo Gorge, and where, had they continued, they would have gone: Rassha. A man slept at the south corner under a cabbage-cart. The swordsman made a noise of disgust at this. “Sleeping at a crossroads,” he said with great scorn. “At dusk, no less? He begs to be menaced.”

“This is a secular age,” said the perfect-script woman, “and not everyone has time to read ghost stories at their leisure. In any case, we are not ghosts.”

“Well, I know a few.”

“Your necromancies are inapposite and of questionable efficacy,” said the perfect-script woman. “You must learn to discipline yourself in the weeks to come, Retainer. I cannot do it for you.”

“She says `weeks’ and thinks she does a mercy,” said the cat-walking swordsman. “But the cat knows better. It will be more than weeks, my dear. The Judge spoke bravely, as great men know they must–but he is not ready.” His body undulated with a supple shrug. “And neither are we. This king was well loved, and the mice whisper that he mastered the Reflecting Pool Mind before his death.”

“He is dead, though,” said the perfect-script woman, “which hampers its application.”

“Its application is immaterial.”

“I know.”

The cat-walking swordsman gave her an annoyed glare. “Your japes are harelipped and incongruous. I mean to say it is irrelevant. It is the whispers that are of concern. They only strengthen his grip on the people’s fancy.”

The perfect-script woman looked long and level at the cat-walking swordsman. “You forget, Retainer. We had the entire village of G___ worshipping us as gods.”

“It is easier to be worshipped for an hour than believed for a day,” said the swordsman. “And in any case, G___ was not rich with men of quality.”

“And these provinces are?” said the perfect-script woman. “Not a moment ago you pronounced them full of mice.”

“I do grow bored with all this talk of consistency,” said the swordsman, “though doubtless it will amuse me again in moments.”

“I will not wait for those moments to elapse,” said the perfect-script woman. “We must part.”

The swordsman grinned a familiar grin. “You go,” he said. “I shall conjure a balm for your departure by terrifying this cabbage-monger until his hair goes white.”

“No,” said the perfect-script woman. “I have said you must learn to do without this nonsense. You will leave the crossroads first, and I will protect this worthy peasant from your depredations.”

“Bah,” said the swordsman. “He is of no account.”

“And we no longer have the leisure of sporting with men of no account. Our lazy centuries are done, Retainer. We can no longer be spendthrift of decades; we must attune ourselves to the rhythms of men’s lives again.”

“To call them `rhythms’ is a surfeit of euphemism,” said the swordsman, with a gesticulation that wrapped the entire plain in scorn; prey-rodents hid in their holes, and two starving vultures took to the air, heckling, from some bear’s abandoned kill. “Men’s lives are sordid, frantic things, no more rhythmic than the thrashings of rats scrabbling at the walls of a marble basin–”

“Enough,” said the perfect-script woman, allowing into her voice a minim of reverberation that silenced the swordsman most effectually. “Such gassy metaphor ill becomes the Judge’s right-hand man, and it is always gratuitous to terrorize animals. Will you force me to record yet more of this bootless prolixity and display?”

“Of course not,” said the swordsman; and, with no more apparent effort than it took to raise himself on tiptoe, he leapt perhaps a quarter-mile into the air. The perfect-script woman watched him trace an elegant arc through the darkening sky, then land a tiny, perfect silhouette before the descending sun. Her eyes were good enough to see his sword flash red in a far-off salute, and to see him turn and strut down that branching dirt road for a moment before it turned behind a hill.

She was put off balance for a moment by the suddenness of the cat-walking swordsman’s exit. When she had regained her composure, which did not take long, she spent a few minutes composing a report of the evening’s events; in this, as usual, she was entirely accurate in her portrayal of the cat-walking swordsman but lavished no especial detail on his more egregious trespasses. That accomplished, she arranged her quill and ink, her papers, and the good wood slate on which she flattened those papers when she wrote, placing them all in a pocketed strip of leather which she had fashioned for that purpose. She folded it closed and tied it with a thong, as she often did–but this time she bound it tight and tied a good, strong knot that would not fall open at a pull. She looked once more down the road that the swordsman had taken, waiting patiently for a minute to make sure he would not return. When she was confident that he had truly left, she dug in a pocket of her dress and drew out two small, bright things, rather smaller than her smallest finger’s tip, which she quickly secured, one each, to the trailing ends of the thong that constricted her writing implements.

With all in order, she closed her eyes, drew a deep breath through her nose, and opened her eyes again. She then walked over to the cart and kicked it over, opening a great ragged hole in its floor as though some great beast had bitten it and filling the sky with a geyser of splinters and shredded cabbage. Needless to say, the perfect-script woman’s swift violence resulted in a fearsome rending sound, and the cabbage-monger sat bolt upright for a few terrified moments before the plummeting rear axle of his wagon robbed him of all consciousness. When he awoke, he would remember seeing a woman of considerable symmetry and polish, dressed in an elegant but faintly unfashionable qipao, although the details of her aspect would never return to his memory, not even in his deathbed-dreams; even the color of her silks would evade him. But never, for some reason, would that cabbage-monger forget the glinting ornaments that tipped the thong around the leather satchel that she held in her arms, ornaments whose style was typical of cheap brass baubles but whose weight and luster belied the true gold of their substance: a mouse, whose carved face held terror admixed with a dissonant trace of exultation, and on the other end of the thong, with exultation and terror in opposite proportions, a cat.

Tagged

on substituting oil for butter when baking cookies

I use a minimal variant of Jeff Dwoskin’s modifications to the Toll House cookie recipe — (a) melt the butter first, (b) use yolks instead of whole eggs (I use one whole egg and one yolk; all yolks makes a dough that’s too dry for me), (c) chill the dough and (d) start the oven at 375, then take it down to 350 as soon as you put the cookies in. I haven’t really tried to vary these factors systematically and see what works better; I mostly trust Jeff, who claims they are provably optimal, and consumer reports, which concur.

Anyway, I had to bake some cookies tonight for a lab meeting tomorrow, and I discovered that we only had one stick of butter. I’d spent enough time in transit for one day, so I figured I’d sub oil. And, unshockingly in retrospect, the dough turned out too dry. (Exegesis for non-initiates: Butter isn’t 100% fat; oil is, so you substitute a bit less oil for any given quantity of butter; some of the rest of what’s in butter is water.) (Note to Thompson-Schill lab members: “Too dry” doesn’t mean “inedibly dry” or even “dry to the point of less than deliciousness,” only “too dry to pick up all the chocolate chips.” Be of good cheer.) I only bother to post about this because, given the modifications I use, the fix is obvious: Just use two whole eggs. Bah.

kill the word beast

Stuck at the train station due to upstream switch problems. It was clever of me to make that Twitter list of the @SEPTA and @NJTRANSIT_NEC accounts (their Twitter updates are more reliable than their SMS updates), but if I don’t check it before I leave, it doesn’t do much good. I managed to figure this out about the weather report early on, but somehow transit status is more resistant to prospective memory.

OK, word beast. Here goes nothing.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 535 other followers