Friday, May 18

a momentus and thrilling day

this morning did not feel like a Friday. it didn't feel like any normal day of a week at all.

now, several hours later, it does feel more like a Friday, but only a little.

in between earlier this morning and now, there were a few exciting hours of the least normal thing. something I will most likely only do once. over in the third-floor conference room of Heavilon Hall, I defended my little dissertation project about LibriVox.org

it was really great. a tiny bit daunting. the almost-two-hours it took felt both long and short at the same time. my committee members asked productive, important questions for me. I have revisions to make over the next month, and then I'll probably blog about the thing again and include a link to where you can read the five-chapters-plus-appendices of academic prose, if you're so inclined.

Dr. Sullivan and me, her advisee, the brand-new Dr. Chesley

one of the most important pieces of this work that I still have to finish writing is the acknowledgements section. there are so many people to thank. so many people who deserve at least a nod for the small and medium and big ways in which they've helped me and my research and my writing on this ongoing journey.

now that it feels more like Friday, I think it's time for fancy cheesecake at a fancy restaurant somewhere.

Friday, May 4

questions about invisibility and value

this is a fascinating and enlightening and somehow very important thing to note, I think:

"...the platform replaces labor that was previously invisible. We have a hard time figuring out what Facebook actually is because we have a hard time admitting that at least part of what it supplanted is emotional labor—hard and valuable work that no one wants to admit was work to begin with."

it's from an article by journalist Sarah Jeong about why it's such an ordeal to extricate ourselves from facebook once we start letting it connect us to people and groups and events and things.

this particular passage above is not the only thing that has pushed me toward thinking about invisible labor, lately (there was this call for papers last fall, for one thing, and various feminist chatterings on twitter, also). but this has me also asking why we don't want to admit that social/emotional labor is labor at all.

what makes it so difficult for society at large to "count" these things—Jeong lists things like keeping address books up to date, knocking on doors to make invitations to neighbors, and putting together cards to mail out for holidays—as work? do we feel obligated to count them as fun, instead? as leisure or play? is it because the social value resulting from all that work has always been enough to compensate for it, such that the work itself seemed like its own reward in a way? or maybe we feel like categorizing holiday cards and such as work would open up too many wheedling excuses for us not to do all these social-connection-making things anymore?

is it because social-connection-making activities are coded as domestic and therefore feminine and therefore "less important" than work you might go into an office somewhere to do?

even if the answer to that rather loaded question is yes, I am still going to ask why.

invisibility serves a purpose sometimes. it can be an awesome superpower, enabling accomplishments that might not get accomplished otherwise. or so the stories say.

or invisibility can be oppressive and dehumanizing. isolating. life-ruining. 

how do you tell the difference? are there times when it's both at the same time?

has anyone written a superhero story about a lonely, invisible-turning vigilante who is both empowered and crippled by his abilities? probably. I haven't read any H. G. Wells in a long time.

{ green treetops blocking the sun }

when is it valuable and affirming to be noticed, acknowledged, seen, and appreciated? and when is it valuable, even more empowering, not to be seen or noticed at all?

and does someone have to see you doing a thing to value the effort you put into it? is seeing/valuing the results at all the same as seeing/valuing the effort?

this reminds me suddenly of black boxes + related thoughts from Glasgow four years ago. (maybe it's terribly self-involved to enjoy rereading my own writing so much but I really enjoy re-reading that post.) black boxes hide things. sometimes that's useful. sometimes it's frustrating. or, as in this Invisible Bread comic, it's just really weird. 

part of my brain is telling the other part to stop asking questions and think of more concrete examples of this to talk about. I think I will, eventually. but tonight... I just want to wonder about the best ways to crack open black boxes like Facebook or Google, and whether the cracks will break them forever or not. when is the impenetrable blackness of any given magical black-box tool actually essential to the functioning of the tool, and when is it not? is the opacity of a black box correlated in any way with the amounts of labor it might be erasing or replacing? if what functions as a black box to one person is actually pretty transparent to another person, what does that mean? and do we ever black box ourselves and keep our emotional labor hidden on purpose, on accident, or out of some social pressure to keep pretending that it isn't really actually "work" work?

Monday, April 2

actually mushrooms seem pretty charismatic to me

on Tuesday last week, Dr. Michael Salvo gave a talk sponsored by our Purdue chapter of the Rhetoric Society of America. it was about place and animals and all the interactions among human and non-human that make the world what it is, what it will be.


a high (very high) percentage of Dr. Salvo's slides were photographs of puffins. and that is why this ornithologist's photograph instantly reminded me of the talk.
the whole idea of designing sunglasses for a puffin so you can study it without damaging its pudgy little puffin body also fits with some of the talk's themes of conservation and properly caring about the non-human. worrying about a puffin's eyesight is a nice thing to do. considerate. ethical.

and practical, too. you don't want the puffins you are studying to get damaged or die. that would mess up your studying, I imagine.

but some might say that a few blinded, damaged puffins sacrificed in the name of science is probably worth it for what we could learn that might change the world. who knows. but as long as it isn't so much work to design sunglasses for your puffin research participants, it seems more worth it to do that.


related:

George Lakoff's FrameLab podcast makes an argument for calling them human survival issues, rather than environmental issues.

I want to read this book about mushrooms. mushrooms are beautiful.


Wednesday, February 28

deadly light

we searched out an audio-short-story with which to pass the time on our way to and from Chicago several weeks ago. it was "The Call of Cthulu," by H. P. Lovecraft, streamed on Spotify. it begins with a few lines that I've since thought about over and over again:
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

I've been writing (in what is shaping up to be chapter 2 of a sure-to-be-marvelous dissertation project) a little bit about what Lovecraft's narrator here describes as a terrible horror--the distant someday when knowledge from every possible corner of the world will finally be pieced together into a comprehensive whole. such a vision is what plenty of people seem to be working toward now. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales boasts that the the Wikipedia project will make it happen. The Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle insists that such a thing is more than possible. in 1926 when "The Call of Cthulu" was written, I expect it didn't seem quite so possible.

despite all the fancy internet-connected technologies that make access to information so incredibly and amazingly simple compared to how past centuries must have done things, I do have rather many doubts about whether access to knowledge could really ever be comprehensive and universal. knowledge isn't quite the same as information, after all. and whether or not it'd be easy to gather up and store some version of all the knowledge any human has ever professed to know, what would that actually look like? and how would one actually interact with it? I have a feeling that human knowledge is so diffuse and multiple and embodied that it can't ever be summed, can't ever be so singular as to be stored in any static form. no matter how interdisciplinary things get, all the kinds of knowledges out there in the world will always be in some way dissociated.

but it is interesting to imagine it differently. to dream for a moment, with Wales and Kahle and Lovecraft, that all the edges might someday match up.

and if they ever did, and if we dared to let ourselves read through the everything, would we really go mad?

or run as fast as we could back into a blissful pool of ignorance?

or both? or neither?

Friday, January 26

non-human athletes

two weeks from today, a series of sporting events like no other will be aired via youtube for audiences around the world to enjoy: the 2018 Winter Marbleympics.




husband Jeremiah and I discovered these via an amusing (if shouty and quite uncensored) internet-famous Australian fellow who did commentary on a marble race last month. how fateful that discovery turned out to be. who knew there was a whole world of marble racing out there?

from there we discovered Jelle's Marble Runs and over the break between semesters, we feasted on pretty much everything the channel had to offer. including the 2016 Marblelympics and the the 2017 Marblelympics.

it's quite an experience, these videos. they transfix in a way you don't expect them to, really. I still keep trying to figure out exactly why they are so entertaining.

it's the humor and curiousness of juxtaposing inanimate marbles with all the physics and dynamism of athletic competition, I think. it's the adorableness and pure fun of anthropomorphizing those marbles to a nearly absurd degree, and all the dedicated creativity and attention-to-detail in the team names and fan behavior and backstories and everything. the fellow-humans who make these videos happen are to be admired.

if I had the brainpower on this Friday evening to make some additional academicalish comments on how these beautifully-commentated marble races and our fascination with them could link up interestingly with some of the tenets of object-oriented ontology, I would. but I don't know all that much about object-oriented ontology myself, and should probably not let it distract me much more than the Marblelympics already have from writing up nicely finished dissertation chapters about digital ethnography and distributed commons-based peer-production and what that all may mean for technical communication and human culture and such.

you can watch the 2018 Winter Marblelympics (including all qualifying events) here.

Saturday, December 23

stories and truths of many sizes

I was just barely thinking about Jean ­Francois Lyotard, and then about Clay Shirky, and then about blogging, and when I opened up all my draft blogposts I found this one. what an odd little coincidence, it seemed.

this post began as notes copied from a reading response I must have written and turned in for my Postmodernism course several semesters ago. I'm going to revisit it and see what happens.

that semester, I wrote rather candidly that I'd thought I would tiredly skim Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition. it is a short treatise, but nonetheless skimming is fairly expected in graduate school. however, apparently I almost couldn’t put Lyotard down that week. something about his little exploration of The Postmodern Condition sparked against my jumbly thoughts and I just had to finish it. and I wanted more.

my reading response post for the class eventually congealed around two main topics: technology and money. I'm going to reverse the order for this post, and put money first. mostly this is because I'm smiling at the memory of the Megan I met on a train, and I want that very small story to exist here on my blog.

the other reason is that the technology thoughts seem to loop back nicely into the current and future trajectories of my scholarship, and ending with them will perhaps as more light and insight to that trajectory as it continues unfolding for me and my brain.

money
in his section 11, "Research and Its Legitimation through Performativity," Lyotard leads us, his readers, around to a (by now fairly obvious) perspective on power and truth:
“A new problem appears: devices that optimize the performance of the human body for the purpose of producing proof require additional expenditures. No money, no proof—and that means no verification of statements and no truth. The games of scientific language become the games of the rich, in which whoever is wealthiest has the best chance of being right. An equation between wealth, efficiency, and truth is thus established.” (44-45)
I found this obvious then because I'd read various other bits and pieces about the construction of proofs and the materialities of epistemology. I would go on to read more, too. Barad's Meeting the Universe Halfway gets at many of the same conundrums. what it means to know something, to make known something, to verify and prove to others that you have verified it-- these are huge questions. Lyotard says that money makes it easier. money is very persuasive stuff. material. rhetorical. powerful.

and Lyotard puts this thought to us in such a clear, direct way. resigned, almost, but thoughtfully so. I was reminded by this section of a conversation I had with a medical student named Megan on a train from Dundee to Oxford this summer. she sat across the table from me and offered to share her gummy sweets, and eventually we both looked up from our studying and fell into a gloriously fluid conversation about who knows how many interesting thoughts.

one of our many topics was medical research, and Megan explained how unfortunate she found it that most useful, successful medical research is driven by capitalist, consumerist ideals. developing nations don’t have the resources to carry out their own research, nor the resources to pay for research on any of the diseases or treatments that make the most difference to them. the citizens of developing nations won't have the resources to pay for such treatments, so why should medical researchers invest their time there? no money, no science. no truth. and on the other hand, in developed countries, we have plenty of time and money with which to worry about cancers and heart diseases and such, and those are the things that get studied.

I’d never really thought about that manifestation of privilege. and it is just one example of what Lyotard points out about how power and proof and rationality and funding and research are all tied very tightly together. I have been lucky to have funding and support from handfuls of institutions, and having that has allowed all the thinking and making that I've been doing as an adult. so far I think I can count on that support remaining, in some form or another, as long as I can make myself useful in some way to the institutions providing it.

anyway-- I think the “no money, no truth” slogan, paraphrased from Lyotard, should go on an ironic t-shirt or something. somebody make one.

technology
in an earlier section of the book, Lyotard makes a bewilderingly simple (to me) claim about technology-- that it only has two principal purposes. the line appears in section 1 in the context of the sciences/technologies of language and communication, where he says this: “Its two principal functions— research and the transmission of acquired learning—are already feeling the effect, or will in the future” (4). I had to stop there, puzzled and frozen and what? The vague pronoun and the bold claim both held me up for several minutes.

in the margin, I added this note: what?

I wondered and puzzled over this claim. technology is principally for gaining knowledge and sharing knowledge? who says? since when? in what arena?

I wasn't sure, that semester, why I was so skeptical here. (husband dearest would say it's because such a stance is my habit, and I can't help myself. maybe he is right.) mainly it seemed to be because I hadn't thought about the idea before. it was new. while I reveled in the puzzlingness of it, I questioned myself too. if Lyotard means communicative technologies, not all of them, does his claim make more sense then? but then again, which technologies aren’t at least a tiny bit communicative? really? as a rhetorician I take a position that everything sends some kind of message. are those messages always based in "acquired learning" somehow? perhaps they are. everything around us is teaching us, even if we aren't paying attention. perhaps especially then.




as a rhetorician, it is my habit and my training to notice what the everything is teaching us, and then to try analyzing how it does so. right now with my dissertation work I'm pondering what the crowdsourcing work of LibriVoxers may have to teach us, and trying to connect that to professional/technical writing scholarship and practice generally. the ideals and methods of LibriVox are inspiring, I think. every voice is welcome. every tiny contribution valued alongside the tiny (and not so tiny) contributions of thousands of others.


one of Lyotard's more memorable contributions (at least as far as my brain is concerned) is the idea of the petit récit or 'small story' in contrast to the grand narratives of epic myths and stereotypes that sometimes dominate our ways of thinking about ourselves as humans. that idea--many small stories bubbling around, opening up many new perspectives, adding difference and color to places that looked old and flat before--seems important. right now, in this early 21st-century digitally networked time, we have space for millions of small stories. millions of different voices. it can seem an overwhelming abundance sometimes. what do we do with it? how do we handle the abundance? is this a chorus of voices or a chaos of noise? these questions seem worth asking. one person's chaos may be another's chorus, I imagine.

I may need to go reread Lyotard, and this time I might skim.

{ photos taken by Dr. Michael Salvo, over a year ago, in room 306 of Heavilon Hall, where I defended my dissertation prospectus using my voice and some words and chalk } 

Wednesday, November 22

times of year, times in general

I love this time of year so much. I love waking up to the cold, late dawn and breathing in the brisk, frosty air. I love the short afternoons that seem so extra golden.

it feels a bit like my love of this time of year is oozing into everything else:
I love the prospect of revising the messy drafted prose of my dissertation.
I love figuring out what to make for dinner.
... taking my car to the carwash for possibly only the third time since it became my car.
... sifting through the cluttery piles on my desk, trying to make room for work to happen.
... chasing Wesley around the dining room when he's in a crazy playful mood.
... cleaning out the refrigerator and washing all the dishes before we leave town this evening.
... putting on podcasts and making pie crust.

this will probably be my last Thanksgiving as a resident of Indiana.


Indiana has a nice flag, too, though it's very different in tone from that of my last residence.

what will happen next? will the next place I end up living have a nicely-designed state flag, or not?

I haven't kept track of exactly how many of the 63 jobs I've applied for (so far) I've heard back from (so far). a handful. let it be said that preparing for video-call job interviews is seventeen thousand times more stressful than preparing printed job application materials ever will be, for me.

aside from job interviews and possibilities, there are plenty of other things to worry about. then again, what some people call worrying is what I just like to call thinking-lots-about. I'm not sure where the line between those might be, or if it matters.

I have been wanting to blog for some weeks now about a noticed resonance among podcast episodes and other news, on resentment, on republicans, on ethics, on who is encouraged to think which thoughts about which topics. this episode of Theory of Everything left a few very vivid thoughts in my head. concrete sculptures. politics. prejudices. the episode cites a book called The Politics of Resentment by Katherine Cramer. it's not a book I'm likely to go read any time soon, but it sounds at least mildly fascinating--an exploration of why rural parts of America feel they way they do and take up the politics they do. 

resentment came up in this episode of On the Media, too. that wasn't the part of the episode that grabbed, me though. this, from a discussion on internet/tech companies, was: 
PAUL FORD: They have to pretend that they're not media. They can. But the thing is, is you don't have the definition around tech ethics in the same way you do around media.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Mm-hmm. [AFFIRMATIVE]
PAUL FORD: Aside from a few thinkers, there isn’t like some giant academic discipline that they can just go to and say, hey, what should we do? Media ethics, I can go read two books and then I kind of know how I need to behave as a journalist. There's nothing like this.
I gaped at this wild-seeming assertion. no academic discipline that engages with the ethics of technology, hm? none at all? even if, as Mr. Ford implies, there aren't two central, more or less comprehensive, conveniently at hand textbooks on the subject of technology and ethics, it's quite crazy to claim nobody in academia is thinking about it. that's what the humanities are about. half of all the tech comm courses I've ever taken touch on ethics and human-centered design.

perhaps the problem is that the 'wrong' people are thinking about ethics? I noted this twitter thread shortly after listening to Ford and Gladstone wring their hands about the absence of any definitive ethical rules for technology companies. and maybe it's a stereotype, but maybe it's not untrue either, that those in technology fields tend to want definitive answers, definitive processes, black and white, yes or no. but that isn't always the best way to think about things.

everyone on twitter also got up in arms about this opinion piece. oh, academia has been ignoring all these technological developments has it? nobody is taking the time to critique big tech companies? there are disciplines and subdisciplines all over the place that do just that. yes. really.

if the mathematics scholar who wrote that opinion piece has little enough idea of all those disciplines and subdisciplines that she can claim "no distinct field of academic study" "takes seriously the responsibility of understanding and critiquing the role of technology..." then whose fault is that? is it the humanities people's problem, for not making their work visible enough? is it the STEM people's problem, for not paying attention? is it a problem of definition, where what counts as "serious" for one side doesn't for the other, and vice versa?

my optimistic hope is that more interdisciplinary scholars will help figure it out. I'm sure that will come with its own challenges, of course. but what else can we do? we need to talk to each other. communication makes everything better, eventually. right?

Tuesday, October 24

autumn timewarp collage

this week has brought the first cold rains of the season. half of October stayed quite warm and muggy, but autumn is properly settling in now. the time of hats and sweaters has arrived.


yesterday it seemed to rain and rain all day long. I spent the morning grading, the afternoon putting together job applications and writing bits of dissertation chapters. the pug spent most of his day snoozing, as usual, but we also went for a glorious long walk in the pre-evening. having a dog is such a great excuse for going on walks every day. I never thought I was a dog person, but walking a little pug around the neighborhood has become an unfading pleasure for me. I like being outside. it's amusing to watch him sniff at everything.


it's also amusing to watch him in general, whether he is curled up in a puddle of wrinkly fur or whether he is stretching up to look out the windows and grumble at bicyclists. 


my time this semester has an interesting grounded uncertainty about it. I'm teaching an online course, so my teaching efforts fit into whatever slots and nooks they need to. and so does everything else. morning walks, housework, reading and writing and research, cooking, spending time with dear husband, writing and reading and research, notebooks, evening walks, and making lists of more job applications that need filling out. 


the mountain photo there is from two weeks ago when my youngest brother was about to get married. the Chagall above is from a trip to the Art Institute of Chicago several years ago now--I'm not exactly sure when. maybe it was during an October.

last October had art in it, too. Washington DC art. and also Hamilton.



there are ten Octobers chronicled in this blog. ten sets of intermittent records of my thoughts during the tenth month of ten different years. much has changed since the October of my senior year of undergraduate work, when I was neck-deep in building websites and waxing exuberant about the first USB drive I ever owned. so much has changed.

and many things have not changed. autumns are still the best. academia is still a great cozy, challenging cocoon of crazy curiosity. I am still writing.  


Thursday, September 21

must be seen as

I have been wanting to write something about this newsworthy mess that unfolded in Virginia ever since it happened over a month ago. but what to write? and why? and why now?

my thoughts have needed time to percolate. I still don't know if they are done percolating. is there an ideal thought-percolation time? is there a point at which you have thought enough about something? I kind of don't think so. but probably it depends on what your thinking-goals actually happen to be. are we thinking to do something, or solve something, or...? usually I am thinking for the sake of it, and in that case there is never enough. but I usually have to stop at some point, because only so many things can fit into the whole percolation.

more and more thinking about Charlottesville would also need more and more data about Charlottesville. and while I've been able to get some, there is no way to get it all. I wasn't there. what I have to think with are observations and thoughts that other people have written down on twitter and facebook and other internet spots. such places become the avenues by which I find my news and my sense of newsworthiness. there is so much room in the world for so much news these days. so many stories and voice. this twitter-essay is less directly related to the Charlottesville mess, but it's a story and a message I keep thinking about.

to supply my brain with more informed view, I could, I suppose, listen to more newsy podcasts. or watch some more newsy videos. the podcasts I tend to put on while I wash the dishes are more ponderous, less newsiness. although, in the way of timeliness, 99% Invisible did recently re-run this Memory Palace episode about a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

I don't know if there are any confederate monuments in Indiana anywhere. there is this place, though, just up the road a bit. though it fits the theme of memorials to dead white guys who participated in the general ruination of many, many non-white guys, I don't think anyone is likely to get all enraged about it. I'm not sure though.

it's difficult to think about the complexities of causality and blame. I wonder quite often, what good does blame do? what use is it to spend so much time investigating the precise sources of evils and ills and wrongs and badness, even if we are able to figure it out? does investigating it all make us think we will have any control over the wrong?

maybe just knowing is control enough, in some way. however complex and impossible, we have to try to make things less bad, if we can, right?

sometimes it's hard to see how. sometimes it's easier. sometimes listening is enough. and sometimes listening isn't even that easy.

I've been listening to a few new podcasts lately. Malcolm Gladwell's pet research-and-thinking-aloud project Revisionist History has been a mix of interesting and meh. this very first of the episodes struck me--it's about art and snobbery, patriarchy and sexism, and the concept of "moral licensing." go listen. learning about moral licensing was worth it despite Gladwell's rambling self-important tone.

moral licensing. a justification for keeping all our old and toxic ways of thinking because we spent a little time poking a hole or two in their edges.

so much to think about. I've also been reading a little from a book called Intersectionality. the chapter on how educational institutions play various roles in perpetuating injustice has been thought-provoking for me, now, as I consider my future as a small piece within larger systems of educational institutions. my favourite part of Intersectionality was a quote from Audre Lorde.
"Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic. Only then does the necessity for interdependence become unthreatening." (qtd in Collins & Bilge, p. 169)
necessary polarities. necessary and productive difference. no consensus, no flattened-out unity. difference. to see difference differently changes it. is that what Lorde means? that what might be threatening to us if we resist will transform into a beautiful, wonderful thing is we'd just learn to see it that way?

or is it actually that the threat was all in our heads to begin with?

I'm not sure who the we is. hypothetical we. everyone we.

or me and you. maybe. partly.

and then there is the whole paradox of tolerance to grapple with. what belongs in this world we are creating, and what doesn't? what things are okay, and what things are so bad we shouldn't even look at them? think about them?

Thursday, August 24

a baker's dozen years ago

while searching for some old article by Susan Leigh Star, which I think I found and now need to re-read, I also came across the old archives of my very first online journalspace.

I decided to open the files for August 2004 and August 2005. August 2005 mostly contained mopey nonsense. August 2004 was more amusing, even if not less nonsensical.

here is the entry from exactly 13 years ago today, spun from the silly head of a twenty-year-old amelia.

2004-08-24 23:57:45 yipee and etcetera

SOCKS i folded all my socks into pairs on saturday. this will probably never happen again.

BOOKS i finished robert rankin's the Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocolypse last night. brilliant. as brilliant as. as hilarious as. go read it, you'll see. i'm also halfway through Exodus. yes, the one in the old testament. yes, i'm probably going to fail to read the entire old testament. i'm trying anyway.

WORK two jobs. two jobs, and school starts next week.... i pray that i don't go insane. it's twelve forty a.m. already... why am i still awake?

WRITING untitled semi autobiographical novel coming along fairly well. the plaid identity getting somewhat intense, if i do say so myself. hopefully now that i've got internet in my very own bedroom, there'll be lots more opportunity to develop that epic. mathematecal allegory progressing slowly. for all this is only technically a rewrite, it's been a long and arduous one so far. starcustard. we're working on it. lazily. poems? hang the poems. I don't care about poems. scrapbook? technically not writing, but a project nonetheless. it's on a shelf. to do lists. i have too many of these.

OTHER STUFF there is a sign pasted onto the door of the apartment opposite mine, and it says, in very clear block letters, "I eat kittens" with a heart in red pen underneath. i looked at it and thought... hm... men in hats. anyway. i think i'll get some sleep now that it's nearly one in the morning.



thoughts and reflections:

it's a rare evening when I'm awake in the middle of the night like that, these days. hard to remember when that was normal.

since that day, I actually have folded all the socks I own, multiple times. but not always. what would past self think of such, I wonder?

I don't remember if I finished the whole old testament or not. I imagine that if I did, it took me quite a long time, and that I didn't read the thing in any particular order.

none of that writing I used to be doing is writing that I am still doing, though The Plaid Identity still has a dormant email thread to its name, somewhere. hmm. I have different writing now. but I still do some of it on the internet, which perhaps means something...

the Men in Hats comic seems to still exist. interesting.

while we're talking about looking backwards in time, have I mentioned that I made a little podcast? it's a LibriVox podcast, for the community, in celebration of LibriVox's 12th anniversary. you can listen to it if you like.