assessment

[truepenny]

It's the seventh day of February. Where am I?

1. p. 140 of Duffy (out of 593). I need to read faster, 'cause I've got a hell of a lot more reading to do and then a fair amount of writing, and three weeks left to do it in. No matter how lame this damn thing is on March 1, it's going to the godlike committee member, but I want it to be as unlame as possible.

2. finished w. editing Ch. 10 of The Project. Mesmerized by Ch. 11 as the mongoose is NOT mesmerized by the snake (*heart*Rikki-Tikki-Tavi*heart*), because it has some problems in it that I just flat out do not want to deal with. Tho' ineffective, avoidance remains a popular coping strategy among our respondents.

3. toying with vague ideas for a couple of short stories. I've been trying to write a werewolf story for seriously the last three years; may have finally reached an insight that I can build an engine around. Maybe.

4. presented with another nugget of pre-Raph trivia whilst searching for the correct spelling of Rikki-Tikki-Tavi: Rudyard Kipling's mother Alice Macdonald was the sister-in-law of Edward Burne-Jones. I wonder if she was present for the interment of the tube of mummy.

5. Mulling over ideas for next analytical collaboration with heres_luck.

Comments

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I am now picturing Kipling there as a small and grubby boy among the pre-Raphaelite drapes, asking 'But why? But why, but what are they doing, mummy?"

You should write this as a story.

It has everything.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Now if I can just work in the wombat (http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=truepenny&itemid=2999) ...

[papersky.livejournal.com]

Other people have written stories about werewolves, but I don't think anyone has written a story about the wombat, Kipling, and the tube of mummy.

(And with his nails he'll dig it up again?)

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Drat you.

"The Wombat, Kipling, and the Tube of Mummy" has such allure as a title, I may have to write this, despite knowing next to nothing about the private lives of the pre-Raphaelites and even less about Kipling--'tho Kipling as small grubby boy won't need much verisimilitude vis-a-vis Kipling in later life.

And (this bit I do know) wombats are DIGGERS. Having the wombat unearth the tube of mummy is probably the most plausible part of the entire idea.

I cannot believe I just wrote that.

[heresluck]

Well, while you're making lists of where you metaphorically are, don't forget the more literal

2.5 Downstairs from here's luck, who is more than happy to play sounding board for Ch. 11 if it would help up the mongoose factor.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Um, yeah. There's a specific thingamabob that would probably benefit from somebody else's attention, 'cause I've gotten it wrong, oh let's see, four times now.

Will take you up on most kind and generous offer, more likely than not.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

Kipling spent some vacations with the Joneses as a small boy, and appeared very fond of them, according to my Fitzgerald biography of Burne-Jones.

She did not mention the mummy.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

All right! Fine! I'm doomed!

Clearly there are Mysterious Forces at work here, channeling through you and papersky and the habitual perversity of the universe with regard to trivia, that want me to write a story about pre-Raphaelites, Australian fauna, and a jingoistic writer of good children's literature as a small boy. And mummies.

Pity I haven't the first notion about a plot.

*wanders off, muttering to self*

[papersky.livejournal.com]

The plot is inherent in the characters and situation, mutated by genre.

Genre allows you to answer questions like: is the tube of mummy a character?

BTW, Kipling wasn't jingoistic actually. He's have been against this coming war. But then Jerry Pournelle is against it, so that doesn't say much.