thoughts on re-reading Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell

What a peculiar book this is.

I’ve said before that I kind of feel like it’s alternate genre history: if fantasy had been established as a publishing category on the basis of Lud-in-the-Mist instead of The Lord of the Rings, then books like this would be our giant blockbusters. Which is why it’s so peculiar that it was a giant blockbuster; sure, I can see the appeal of Harry Potter for a broader audience, but how on earth did an eight-hundred-page nineteenth-century fantasy novel, complete with footnotes, get so much mainstream love? Heck, how did it get published? You hear all these stories about editors reading a manuscript and saying, “I love it, but I can’t buy it because our sales people have no idea how to market it” — yet somehow they decided they could market this one. And they were right, but I’m still boggled that it happened in the first place.

It’s such a sprawling narrative that I know I lost track of many details the first time I read it; things were clearer a second time around. I was particularly struck by the resemblance to The King of Elfland’s Daughter — “We want magic!” <they get some> “Aaagh no take it back takeitback!” — the powerful sense of Elfland/Faerie being untamed, untameable, and not everybody’s prepared to deal with it but that’s what’s awesome about it. I think it’s no accident that everything I find myself comparing it to was written in either the 19th century or the 1920s. And it’s possible that’s why I find myself still a bit disappointed by the ending; the lead-up seems to be climbing this epic mountain, but it diverts just shy of the summit, as if the author can’t quite bring herself to do something so vulgar. But I really wanted to see the view from that summit, because it isn’t the same mountain all the so-called epic fantasies are climbing, and I think it could have blown the top of my head off. Instead it stopped about one step short, and started climbing back down.

For all that, though — and various other flaws — it still gives me many things to love. The footnoted commentary on different books and articles is a particularly excellent touch, at least if you’re the sort of geek I am, and of course I adore the humour created by an elegantly-phrased understatement. I just wish it would have climbed that one last step.

video games as art

Link from jaylake: Roger Ebert on why video games can never be art.

I’ve got a lot of respect for Ebert, but in this instance I think he fails signally to construct a rigorous argument for his point, even as he’s taking apart Santiago for the same failure.

I could go through his article responding line by line, but that would produce an incredibly long and rambling post, so I’ll try to just hit the central points. First off, he dings Santiago for “lacking a convincing definition of art.” Given that no one has yet managed to come up with a truly convincing definition, that’s a bit unfair. And indeed, he immediately follows that criticism by asking, “But is Plato’s any better?” Okay, so he recognizes the contentious nature of definitions in the first place — but then the rest of the paragraph is spent on his own definition, which at the end, boils down to taste. Art is the amazing stuff. Everything else is . . . something else.

He clearly means “art” as a category of quality, rather than anything structurally defined. Which is an approach I fundamentally disagree with. To pick the simplest way of pointing out the flaw of that argument: Ebert says video games aren’t art (and won’t be) because none of the examples he’s seen impress him. But I guarantee you there are movies that do impress him which would bore me stiff, while there are video games I consider artful. The message I take away from his argument is that my opinion doesn’t matter; only his does, and people who agree with him. And that’s why quality as the delimiter of “what’s art?” is a bad way to go.

More ways in which he’s wrong . . . .

GOT YOU.

Okay, fine, I was totally wrong about the remaining wordcount; you’re 7,410 words and obviously want to be a novelette since I know I rushed the ending. FINE. You can be a novelette.

You can be a novelette later, once I’ve mustered the will to revise you. But for now, “Mad Maudlin,” you are DONE. And that’s all I care about.

I go fall down now.

so. close.

Gaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh I am thisclose to being able to finish “Mad Maudlin” (no, I didn’t get it done last month) and the end of it is driving me batty. (Which is a funny joke, given the subject matter.) I just need to figure out what message Maud gives Peter, and then how to make the next bit happen in a dramatic way, and somewhere work in Peter doing that thing he shouldn’t do (moreso than he’s done already), and then it’ll be the tag scene and I’m done. We’re at 5,698 words, and there can’t be more than a thousand left, and WHY IS THIS STORY NOT DONE ALREADY.

Because I haven’t threaded my way through the last few twists yet, that’s why. Come on, brain, help me out on this one, and then we can sack out and watch Dexter. But until you do, we’re not going anywhere other than this chair, except maybe the bed to roll around and stare at the ceiling and try to figure things out. Work with me, here. We’re almost done.

Updated with revelation: Duh. You promised yourself this was a hack draft. This is you getting the framework down on the page, so you can go back and have experts help you make it better. So all that crap you’re worrying about is stuff you can fiddle with later. You’ll run it by three or four people to get the research stuff right, and then once you have that you can apply writer-brain and make it more exciting, and then you can have your crit group look at it and tell you where it still needs improvement. Obsessing over the finer points now may even prove to be a waste of time, as your clever ideas might get cut on account of being Wrong.

So just write the end, and let it suck, and worry about it later.

calling all occultists

I need references for books on the history of spiritualism, theosophy, the Golden Dawn, etc. Not modern New Age books on their ideas, but scholarly works on what those movements were doing in Great Britain in the nineteenth century, up to (you guessed it) 1884. Overview-type references would be a good place to start, though I’d also be interested in books that really delve into the nitty-gritty, so if I decide to make use of particular people or events I’ll be able to do it properly.

Any other occult movements of the period that I haven’t mentioned here are also welcome. This is a topic that especially needs sorting of wheat from chaff, so if this is a subject you know, please do point me at the reliable books.

a question

What is it with the writers of Dexter and incompetent female police lieutenants who only got their jobs for political reasons?

LaGuerta lied to earn her promotion, flirts with her subordinates, allows her a priori dislike of another female officer to hamper the progress of an investigation, and generally has the sole redeeming professional quality of being a media darling. It wouldn’t bug me so much if her replacement were an improvement, but no — Pasquale’s even worse. Granted, the chief of police is a jerk who makes plenty of his own mistakes, so it isn’t like women are being singled out as bad leaders. But the ep I just watched had the chief saying Pasquale “set back women in this department by twenty years,” while the only alternative the show has yet offered me is LaGuerta.

And the only other female cop shown in detail is Debra Morgan, who is sometimes so stupid and clueless and clumsy in her interactions with people that I want to kick her in the head. (Seriously, Debra — you’ve been a Miami cop for how long, and yet your Spanish is worse than mine?) Yes, she sometimes does things successfully, and so does LaGuerta — but it feels like those things happen despite the characters’ manifest incompetence at basic aspects of their job.

I’d like there to be one woman on the police force, in a leadership position or otherwise, who’s decent at her job the way that Doakes and Angel and Masuka are. The men’s character flaws don’t make me question their fitness for the job. And given that women in male-dominated fields generally have to be more competent to earn respect and promotion, the scenario Dexter presents me with feels all the more implausible.

incentives in schooling (and games)

Time has a fascinating article up about the use of monetary incentives in schooling.

The first thing that struck me was the title: “Should Kids Be Bribed to Do Well in School?” I was glad to see my immediate response echoed during the article. As Fryer points out, we do this all the time as adults; we give bonuses and raises and other forms of monetary reward to employees who do their jobs well. So why is it “bribery” when we offer kids the same kind of incentive we give ourselves? Granted, there are differences between work and school; your son’s math test isn’t used for any purpose other than judging how well he understands math. It doesn’t feed (directly) into a larger economy of labor. And there is definitely merit in learning for the love of learning — as the article duly describes. But the difference is maybe not as absolute as people assume.

What really gets fascinating is the finer-grained material, the evidence for what works and what doesn’t. Rewarding kids for good test grades? Not helpful. Not because they don’t care enough to try and earn the reward; they do. But they don’t know how. Test scores, to the type of kids this study worked with, are not sufficiently under their control. They don’t see how to get from where they are to where they want to be, because the educational system has already failed them on that front. It appears to be more useful to target the things the kid knows are under her control, like attendance, good behavior, and the successful exercise of skills she already possesses. That lays the groundwork for the belief that other things — like test scores — can also be controlled. Education is a game she can win.

I use that phrasing because this morning’s blog-crawl produced a semi-terrifying juxtaposition between that article and a piece on Cracked.com, about 5 Creepy Ways Video Games Are Trying to Get You Addicted. It lays out how MMOs (which operate on a subscription model) use psychological tricks to make you keep playing, even when it isn’t fun. Which is all about incentives and reward.

Maybe if we ran our schools more like MMOs . . . ?

first update of the season

We’re in the season of noveling now, and so I’ve broken out the old progress icon.

I’ve given myself April to tiptoe around in, before I settle down and really start grooving. What does that mean? 500 words a day instead of 1000, and it’s not a huge deal if I miss one, so long as I have 15K by the end of the month. I’m a bit behind that curve right now, actually, but it’s easy enough to make up the difference.

So far I like what I’ve got. The Onyx Court books have gradually been moving down the social food chain — from the royal court, to Parliament, to the gentry, to a pair of thoroughly lower-class protagonists for this book. Dead Rick is in debt to criminals, and Eliza (sorry, d_c_m, she underwent a sudden name change) is currently scraping by as a housemaid. I’m actually kind of enjoying the grit.

Word count: 5146
LBR census: Given that half of this scene was spent talking about Fenian bombings, I think blood wins.
Authorial sadism: I think the Special Irish Branch may be after Eliza.

Sirens deadline

Recap for newcomers and those who have forgotten: this fall I’ll be one of three Guests of Honor at Sirens, along with Holly Black and Terri Windling. It’s a conference/convention on women in fantasy, and reports of last year’s event make it sound incredibly awesome; I’m looking forward to it more than I can say.

Which I bring up because the deadline for programming proposals is May 7th. You can read the latest newsletter here, which includes links to the forum where you can brainstorm ideas, arrange group events with other people, etc. Previous posts on that LJ comm give more info on what kinds of programming they’re looking for. This is very much a participant-driven thing, so if you’re at all interested in Sirens, dive in and share your ideas. The more, the merrier!

new pleasures in reading

I’ve said before that I’ve never been a regular subscriber to any magazines — “regular” in the sense of keeping up my subscription for more than a year. (I might have done for Paradox, but they folded.) That’s changed a bit lately, though. First via podcasting: a good deal of my short fiction consumption now comes in via my ears, as I listen to Podcastle (for fantasy) and Escape Pod (for SF), and I strongly suspect the addition of a narrator’s voice has led me to enjoy stories I might have skipped past on the page. Second, as I’ve mentioned before, Beneath Ceaseless Skies has turned out sit squarely in the middle of What I Like when it comes to fantasy, with the result that I’ve become a regular reader.

As a result, I’m discovering heretofore unknown pleasures, that come when you’re a dedicated follower of a particular magazine. It’s like the reverse of Cheers: rather than everybody knowing my name, I know theirs. Certain authors, whose work sits squarely in the middle of What The Editors Like, keep showing up, and so BCS becomes (among other things) “the place that brings me Aliette de Bodard’s stuff.” Since I very much like her work, I bounce a bit in glee when I see a new piece show up there. Sometimes it goes even further, not just an author but an author’s series: Escape Pod has Jeffrey R. DeRego’s Union Dues superhero stories, and BCS has so far published two of Richard Parks’ Heian-period Japanese fantasies, featuring the duo of Yamada and Kenji, the reprobate priest, with a third one on the way. Carried too far, this sort of thing can make a magazine stale — you get the feeling they only ever publish the same dozen people, over and over, and the assurance of a sale makes those dozen lazy in their work — but so far it’s been a source of familiarity and satisfaction for me.

Since I started this by talking about subscriptions, I should mention that both the podcasts and BCS are supported via donations; if you want to toss a few bucks their way, to help ensure they keep putting these stories out, the relevant places to do so are: Podcastle (right-hand sidebar), Escape Pod (ditto), and BCS. (I noted when catching up on stories this weekend that BCS has also added itself to the Kindle Store, in addition to the pdf, mobi, and epub formats of before, if you’re an e-reader type.)

Let’s close with a question: for those of you who are dedicated subscribers to one or more short story sources (print, web, or audio), are there particular authors or story series that are, for you, part of the appeal of that magazine? Conversely, are there any who show up a lot that you skip over automatically, because you know from past experience that they just aren’t your kind of thing?

Victorian Book Report: The Great Stink of London, by Stephen Halliday

The title of this book is a bit of a misnomer. While it does indeed report on the Great Stink of London — the summer of 1858, when the sanitary condition of the Thames got so bad that Parliament almost had to flee the stench — it’s more properly an overview of the great engineering works of Joseph Bazalgette. These include road improvements, bridge improvements, new parks, three river embankments, and (of course) the sewer system that saved London from cholera and is still in use today.

So, y’know. If for some reason you need to know about the history of London’s sewer arrangements, and the political squabbling that surrounded their replacement with a better system, then this is a useful book. But I imagine that audience is rather small. 🙂

As is the book — only 191 pages, some of them heavily taken up by illustrations. It’s an overview, not a hugely in-depth study. It also suffers a little bit from repetition, as certain details crop up again and again; Halliday has a particular tic that annoyed me, which is his tendency to put an epigraph at the beginning of the chapter, and then re-quote it in its entirety elsewhere in the chapter, rather than just referring back. In most cases this was not remotely necessary, and contributed to the feeling that he was on occasion hitting me over the head.

But it is the book I needed it to be, namely, an orienting resource on one of the big upheavals that will have affected my characters prior to the beginning of the novel. Now I just need to find, or badger someone at Thames Water into giving me, a set of plans detailing the layout of all tunnels in the area of the City, and I’ll be more or less set.

Signal Boost: want to commission some art?

I’ve mentioned Avery Liell-Kok before; she’s the artist who did (among other things) this portrait of Invidiana, this painting for my game Memento, and the webcomic My Name Is Might Have Been.

She’s just launched a new website, and is actively seeking commissions. If you’ve always wanted a sketch or painting of something from one of your books (or works in progress), or a game, or something else entirely, drop her a line.

bloody paywalls

I would have to pay nine dollars for one day of access to the archives of The Times.

So yeah, that plan I had, of looking up the remainder of an interesting quote that might even have provided me with a title? Not happening. Not for nine dollars and a dubious return on my investment.

The grin I had when I realized the newspaper’s archives were online has quite gone away.

Victorian Book Report: Cockney Past and Present, by William Matthews

This book is a freaking gold mine.

It would be worth the purchase just for Chapter VI, “Pronunciation and Grammar.” Because this chapter lays out, very efficiently, all the characteristic quirks of Cockney speech, both in terms of how the words sound and how they are used. Here you will get statements such as “The raised pronunciation of short a, which resembles the ordinary sound of short e, has always been a feature of the dialect” and “The Cockney […] inclines toward the accusative rather than the nominative form of personal pronouns.” Followed by illustrative examples, often drawn from representative texts. If you want to know how to write Cockney dialogue, memorize this chapter.

(And then ignore the first half of it. I’m a firm believer in the axiom that you’re better off mimicking the speech patterns of a dialect, i.e. its word choice and grammar, than phonetically representing its pronunciation. The latter is just too damn hard to read.)

Of course, there’s more to the book than just Chapter VI. It also has Chapter V! Which is entitled “Mannerisms and Slang.” I haven’t read this one in great detail yet, and really, if you want slang (even period slang) there are other books that will give it to you in greater depth. More to the point, Chapters, I-III are a history of the dialect, reconstructed (to the extent that it can be) from period documents. These are a bit dry to get through, because it’s a lot of Matthews saying “this play shows some of the characteristics of Cockney” and then quoting a brief scene at you. But it serves two important purposes: first, it helps in tracking what features were early or late, and second, it establishes the basis for the claims given later. It’s truly amazing what we can figure out from written texts, even (or rather, especially) through the thicket of auricular spelling — which is to say, spelling a word how it sounds to you. If a particular vowel replacement or such shows up frequently in London texts (like diaries and parish records), and also in similar texts from outside the city, then it’s probably a period thing rather than a dialect one; but if it’s found primarily in London, and not elsewhere, then you’ve started to catch a whisper from the Cockneys of the past.

Which is the other interesting thing this book provides. I had heard before, but not seen it demonstrated, just where Cockney pronunciation came from. In short, it seems to have been the dialect of London and environs — a regional thing, rather than a class one. But a shift happened a couple of centuries ago; I’ve heard it said, but not read Matthews thoroughly enough to know if it’s in here, that wealthy families from the midlands moved into the city, at least for part of the year, and brought their pronunciation with them. Anyway, certain phonetic characteristics went from being something you’d hear out of the mouth of the Lord Mayor in Elizabeth’s day, to something you’d sneer at a costermonger for in Victoria’s.

(So yes, I have contemplated the spectacle of making all the fine lords and ladies of the Onyx Court speak like Cockneys, because they’ve been there for hundreds of years. But I figure they would have handled changing standards of speech the same way they have standards of dress, which is to say they copy what they like. Only the lower-class fae are likely to drop their aitches.)

Anyway, I see why Jerry White’s London in the Nineteenth Century cited this book as being the best work on Cockney speech out there. I’m sure there are ways to improve on it, but seventy-two years on, it’s still exactly what I need. If you ever need to write a Cockney into a story, try to find a copy of this book.

Update on the gimpy feet

So we’ve finished two weeks in the boot; two left to go. My biggest problem at this point is cramping: my right calf is incredibly tight, and my foot isn’t much happier. But I took my foot out of the boot this morning and rolled it over a little spiked rubber ball to massage my arch (being very careful to keep my ankle in position), which helped, and I’ve been stretching the calf as much as I can with toe-touches.

Every so often it gets cranky on me, just kind of aching for whatever reason, but mostly we’re doing okay. Not taking painkillers anymore — haven’t been for about a week — and I’m sleeping better at last.

Which gives me some hope I’ll stop PTFO’ing four afternoons out of five, for two hours at a stretch. kurayami_hime insists this is just surgical recovery in action; she blames a combination of anaesthesia working its way out of my system, and bodily resources being devoted to the task of healing. But now that I’m actually sleeping eight or nine hours at night, it would be nice if I weren’t also passing out on the couch all the time. This is why I haven’t been more productive on large projects requiring brainpower, like novels or game; I can’t seem to stay conscious long enough to make real progress on them! (I have, however, struck a mighty blow against the Paper Monster that eternally tries to eat my office.)

Having posted this, I’m now going to go downstairs and try to stay awake. Wish me luck . . . .

sort of needed, sort of . . . NOT

“I want to make a map of Driftwood.”

Making Last cough up his wine wasn’t the only reason Tolyat said it, but he had to admit that was part of the appeal.

On the one hand, more Driftwood stories = good, since the most common response to either “Driftwood” or “A Heretic by Degrees” is “You should write more in this setting!” (I’m working on it.)

Also, this appears to be that desperately-needed creature, a lighthearted Driftwood story. Given the inherently nihilistic nature of the setting, if I’m ever going to do a collection (which I would, I confess, like to do someday), then it would be good to leaven it with stories like this, where Last has an actual friend and they do something that’s just fun.

On the other hand . . . I did not need to start a new story right now. Seriously, Brain, we’re trying to clear things OFF the slate here, not add to them!

But this, uh, may be what I’m doing today. Depending on how much the brain decides to cough up. It would be just like it to hand me an opening and then quit, but maybe we can prod it into actually being useful . . . .

Writer’s Block(s)

matociquala posted this today, which reminded me of something I’ve been meaning to say for a while.

I think “writer’s block” is possibly the single most unhelpful idea in the world of writing.

Some people say they don’t believe in writer’s block. Me, I believe in writer’s blockS. In other words, there are many different causes that can produce the effect of Not Writing — and they each have their own particularized solution. If you lump them all under one umbrella term, though, you obscure the differences, painting over them with a mystique that allows you to feel like you’re suffering from something beyond your control (which, not coincidentally, absolves you of the need to do anything about it).

It isn’t beyond your control. But if you don’t really know what your problem is, it’s hard to figure out how to solve it.

My most common problem — since I don’t outline — is that I don’t actually know what should happen next. Or at least I don’t know it in enough detail to be able to put it on the page. Solution? I need to stop and think. I need to review what pieces are on the board, where they’re trying to go, how they might try to get there.

A lot of authors, at one point or another, find themselves with the problem that they’ve taken a wrong turn. The solution to that last conflict was unconvincing, or this subplot doesn’t really fit the story. Solution? Backtrack. Rip some words out, return to the place where you went astray, try again. It hurts, but it hurts less than beating your head against the wall of that error.

Or maybe you don’t want to write because you’re bored with the story. Solution? Un-bore yourself. Pinpoint the cause of your disinterest (character? conflict?), and then send in a man with a gun — by which I mean something that will wake your reader up again. Because if you’re bored, odds are pretty damn high your reader will be, too.

Could be it’s research. You’re about to write the scene where they make their thrilling helicopter escape, and the idea excites you . . . but you don’t actually know anything about flying helicopters. Solution? Do the research, or bracket it and move on and come back later to fill in the details.

In some cases you’re trying to use the wrong process. Somebody convinced you that the One True Way of writing is to do X, and so you’re trying — but your brain is wired for Y instead. Solution? If you can find your process, things will go much easier. Maybe it’s spates of logorrhea separated by days off, rather than the common advice of “write every day.” Maybe it’s taking the time to polish the story in your head first, rather than “vomit it onto the page; you can always fix it later.” Try different things, and see if they work better.

Perhaps you’re coming down with a cold. Solution? Take some medicine, down a bunch of O.J., contemplate whether the influence of drugs and vitamin C is enough to perk you up for work, or whether you’re better off passing out on the couch and coming back tomorrow, once you can breathe through your nose again.

Or it’s a longer-term problem than that: chronic medical issues, or enormous stress from other parts of your life (like grief or moving across the country or day job complications). Solution? Varies from person to person. Maybe it will be better for all involved, you and your story, if you set it aside while you deal with other things. Yes, even if you have a deadline; talk to your editor. Sometimes writing can be a coping mechanism — but sometimes stress really does just drain the juice from your brain, leaving you with nothing. In these cases, beating yourself up with guilt will not help.

Possibly it’s not that anything has gone particularly wrong in your life, but you’ve been mushing on so fast for so long that you’ve burned yourself out. Solution? Figure out what helps refill your mental well, whether that’s taking a vacation or feeding your poor starved brain for a while. And look at your work schedule to see whether you’re asking yourself to do something unsustainable.

Or maybe your problem is that you’d rather play video games or surf the web or whatever. In that case, the solution is to plant your lazy ass in the chair and write.

All of these things can hamper your ability to put words on the page. But if you just call it writer’s block, you don’t know which problem you have, and you don’t know what to do about it. And your attempts to fix it might be counterproductive: if you’ve gone the wrong direction with the story, forcing yourself to sit down and start a new scene will only add to the word-count you’re going to rip out when you realize your mistake.

Having said all that . . . the difficulty lies in telling what your problem really is. I often can’t tell the difference between laziness and “I haven’t thought this through yet” — not until I’ve sat down in the chair and spent at least half an hour trying to make myself do work. By then I’ve usually either overcome my inertia, or figured out that I just wasted half an hour on the wrong solution. But at least I recognize that pattern now, and can try to adapt when I find myself caught in it yet again. Which is more than I could do if I was lying on the couch, one hand stapled to my forehead, saying, “la, woe is me, I suffer from Writer’s Block.”

London volunteer needed

Do you live in London, or close enough that you could make a day trip there without too much inconvenience?

Do you have an aversion to foul smells?

If your answers are respectively “yes” and “no,” then I have a psychotic request to make. One of the things I want to research in London is Bazalgette’s Victorian sewer system. Since his work is still in use, access is limited; my one shot, pretty much, is the “Sewer Week” visit (yes, really) that Thames Water hosts each year. Unfortunately, the tour is on May 18th, which is still inside my four-week physical therapy window after I get out of this boot. In other words, too early for me to go wandering around surface London, let alone its sewers.

So I can’t make it. But maybe you can.

I’m seeking one (1) volunteer who loves me and/or the Onyx Court books well enough to spend the evening of Tuesday, May 18th tramping around the West Ham trunk sewer, taking notes and photographs and questioning the guide on my behalf. If you’re able and willing, e-mail me (marie [dot] brennan [at] gmail [dot] com), and one lucky winner will get to endure dreadful smells in the service of historically accurate writing.

Reward is a signed advance copy of A Star Shall Fall, which I will hand-deliver during the dinner I buy you when I come to London in (probably) June. Or else mail to you, if dinner doesn’t work out.

Feel free to pass this request along to friends who might be able to help, if you yourself can’t (or don’t want to!) do it.

Not sure how long I can keep this up . . . .

. . . but it’s good while it lasts. I’ve spent a couple of weeks now bouncing between more narrative projects than I would have thought possible: the Victorian book, a Sekrit Projekt I can’t talk about, “Mad Maudlin” (not done; so close), the revision of “Remembering Light,” and my Scion game. It’s been a pleasant surprise, how much I’ve been able to gear-shift from one to another, but I feel like I’m nearing my limit: the brain can only be flexible for so long. Fortunately, the Sekrit Projekt thing pretty much just needs one more push from me, so if I can knock that and “Remembering Light” off the list I might have enough brainpower for “Mad Maudlin,” and then I’ll be down to two, the Victorian book and the Scion game.

Which is good, because both need a little more attention than I’ve been able to give them. I do want to get moving on another short story once “Mad Maudlin” is done, but I think it’s going to be a new draft of “On the Feast of the Firewife,” which will take less brainpower than a full-blown new story. I’ve figure out what I want to do with it; now it just wants doing.