|
|
Thursday, February 4th, 2010
| |
4:27 pm - Birthday #1 meme thing
|
Okay, so ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) furikku posted a meme about looking up the Billboard #1 song on your date of birth. I got Rapture by Blondie, which is neither the best nor the worst possibility for someone my age doing this meme, even with the somewhat ill-advised and rather surreal rap section. As an added bonus the lyrics work surprisingly well for a nerd determined to interpret the song as being about the city from Bioshock.
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, December 25th, 2009
| |
7:43 am - MERRY
|
|
| Friday, December 11th, 2009
| |
3:27 pm
|
|
| Tuesday, December 1st, 2009
| |
11:26 am - BeauSeigneur wasted a good start
|
So as some folks know I started in on the "Christ Clone Trilogy" on the basis that I had heard it was a decent science-fiction treatment of the premises of Left Behind (about which I have been reading this excellent blog) and it was off to a good start. The leadup of the events is considerably more plausible than LB, the characters come off as believable, and the timescale for the events makes considerably more sense.
And now I'm incredibly pissed off.
I already knew that there were "messianic Jews" in the story, but I was giving it a chance. But now some bullshit comes in where an Israeli deli owner, all wide-eyed with delight, is telling his pal the main character that he did some figuring with his calculator - see, Daniel says that the Messiah will come in X years, and Ezra says that Daniel was written in Year Y! And look, if you work them out together, you see that Daniel was prophecying 27 CE! How can we have been so blind? And our devout Jewish major character, who is not a Messianic Jew but a supposed Actual Jew, says, essentially, "Cut it out, Solly! You know that the rabbis laid a curse on anyone who uses Daniel to calculate the Messiah's coming! It's just not allowed!" And the author gives a citation for a passage in Masechet Sanhedrin.
Except that if you read that passage of Daniel, he talks about "a prince coming to Jerusalem" - not "the Messiah". If you read that passage of Ezra, the only mention of dates is what year Ezra went to visit Jerusalem, nothing about Daniel. If you read that passage of the Talmudic writings, what it actually says is that the Lord will curse those who prophecy falsely in His name and cites passages from Daniel as illustrations of the Lord's readiness to do this. Checking this takes less than ten minutes if you have the texts available.
The claims of prophecying date and year are presumably the literalist-oracular kind of hackwork in which evangelical Christians revel to patch together the words of the prophets into something that supports them. In other words, it's their interpretation, not a Jew's. It's not a conclusion that Solly would ever come to by reading any copy of the Tanakh. But okay, let's say that the author has a selectively-translated Evangelical Bible and chose to read its retranslated-for-convenience version of the Prophets. He thought he did his research there.
The bit about the Talmud, though, is a flat-out lie about what that passage says. It is a lie presumably made up so that evangelical Christians can point to it and say "See? Jews secretly know Jesus is Lord, they just try to deny it to themselves!". Using that lie as factual basis for your writing about Jews is like using the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion. It's offensive, it's slanderous, and it's an easily-disproven lie if you actually bother to check.
|
|
(5 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, November 18th, 2009
| |
5:53 am - Low-content post
|
|
| Sunday, November 15th, 2009
| |
8:06 pm - Today: Chicken
|
This is a pretty simple recipe but I was asked to post it. It tastes pretty good and it's one of the few recipes I use that I didn't modify from someone else's recipe. The recipe is kosher; if you're not worried about milk and meat you will probably want to replace the margarine with butter. The measurements are not precise, sorry.
Ingredients:
Chicken breast (I use Empire which comes in a pack of 3 cutlets)
Olive oil
Red wine vinegar
Herbes de Provence
Shallots (I used about 4 shallots tonight)
Margarine (I think the brand we use is Earth Balance, the more butterlike its properties the better)
Flour
Chicken broth
Well before you start cooking, stab your chicken breasts repeatedly with a knife. Get a quart-sized Ziploc or similar large sealable plastic bag, and pour in olive oil and vinegar; you'll want enough to coat your chicken but don't need much more. Pour in some of the herbes de Provence as well. Add in your well-stabbed chicken breasts and seal the bag, forcing out the air as much as possible. Massage the bag a little to work the marinade and herbs into the holes you stabbed, then let it sit for at least an hour before the rest of the cooking. Longer is probably better.
Chop up your shallots. Melt some margarine in a pan and saute the shallots on medium-high heat until they are just starting to turn golden. Put the chicken breasts in the pan and continue to saute at the same heat until you can see the paleness of cooked chicken approaching the top. Turn the heat up higher and turn the chicken breasts over; the goal now is to get a gold-brown color on the side you're cooking, then turn it back over and finish getting a nice gold color on the side you cooked first. By that point the chicken should be cooked through. Set it aside on a plate.
Put a little more margarine into the pan and scrape to loosen things up a bit. You should have a lot of thoroughly-browned shallots by now. Sprinkle in some flour gradually and let it brown, then pour in some chicken broth. Scrape the pan thoroughly while letting it cook to a proper gravy consistency - add more flour to thicken it if you have to. Pour the gravy into a bowl and serve with the chicken. This gravy is extremely delicious, at least if you like shallots (and I do).
I served some garlic mashed potatoes with this tonight. For this I just made regular mashed potatoes but also garlic-pressed some garlic into a pan with margarine, sauteed it until it smelled delicious, and mixed that in while I was mashing the potatoes. It worked pretty well.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Monday, November 2nd, 2009
| |
11:00 pm - Computer gettin' fixed
|
|
So yeah, I gots to get my computer fixed of various woes. Hopefully it won't be a big deal, but I dunno how long it'll be - I might not get my computer back for a couple days. So I might be offline for a bit, or I might not, I dunno.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, October 19th, 2009
| |
3:47 pm - I'm Not On Robinson's Justice League
|
So recently I decided to catch up on Justice League, and by "catch up" I mean "read from the 2007 volume change up to the past few months". (Actually, the span that I wasn't reading JL for goes back longer than that, but the 2007 changeover made a convenient starting point.) Some of it was pretty good, some of it was pretty bad, but whatever. I ended up making a joke with a friend that the way you know Dwayne McDuffie's been taken off the book is that it goes from "six members: three black, one Asian, two white, 50/50 gender split" to "eleven members: one black, one Asian, eight white, one alien-written-as-white, 8:3 male/female." In case it's not clear, the difference I'm talking about is not McDuffie writing a smaller League. Even "better": the Atom on the JLA is going to be white Anglo Ray Palmer instead of the recent Ryan Choi, the Green Lantern is going to be white Anglo Hal Jordan instead of until-very-recently JL member John Stewart, and the Guardian is going to be yet another relaunch of the character as a white Anglo with the previous iteration of the character (Grant Morrison's, who was black) pushed into limbo with no explanation.
Why does this bug me so much? Let's leave aside liberal white guilt and give my purely personal motivation: I'm Jewish. Now, I'm not going to pretend that a white male Jew faces an amount of discrimination in modern American society that matches that of a more visible minority. However, what it does mean is that I'm very used to popular culture and society reflecting a belief and culture system of which I am simply not a part. The "holiday season" is not the season when major holy days of world religions coincide: it is the season when Christianity, and Christianity alone, has its central holy day, coinciding with a rather minor Jewish holiday which is artificially elevated by assimilationists trying to fit in.
Mainstream superheroes, as a general rule, are Christians. Even when Superman is portrayed as a follower of the Kryptonian sun-religion, he is written by Christians as Christian. Kryptonian sun-worship beliefs end up bearing a startling resemblance to Christian beliefs, and Kryptonian sun-temples look like modernist cathedrals because, to the Christian sensibilities of the writer and artist, that conveys religious grandeur in a way they don't see as charged. Batman doesn't celebrate Christmas or believe in supernatural forces - but he feels wistful for "holidays" with his parents. Mr. Terrific is an atheist, but Dr. Mid-Nite convinces him to give church a chance. We are all meant to feel uplifted that Mr. Terrific can finally have the void in his soul filled. The Spectre serves as God's wrath but is an outdated form of divine power which Hal Jordan must wrangle into the Spirit of Forgiveness. And so on, and so on.
Yes, Superman was initially created by Jews. A lot of DC characters were. I know. But as written today, they are written by Christians with Christian assumptions about how people think, act, and believe. They are not me, and when I look at Robinson's Justice League I see a wall of Christians who assure me they are not a single religion because they believe in different flavors of Jesus, and that they are just like me because, y'know, my religion's beliefs are part of their beliefs. (My religion's beliefs are not part of Christian beliefs. Some Jewish holy texts are, in heavily edited form, incorporated into Christian texts. There is a huge difference.)
When I look at McDuffie's League, I do not see a boys' club that takes Easter off but schedules mandatory meetings on Yom Kippur. I see a club that takes anyone and accepts who they are - if a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Rastafari joined that League, he would be accepted on his character as a superhero. When I look at Robinson's League, I see a boys' club that quietly voted out all the blacks and girls. I'm sure they'd let me stay on board, but only as long as I didn't try to make them schedule around my weird little holidays. Can you guess which League I like better?
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, October 14th, 2009
| |
1:08 am - What the hell was James Robinson thinking
|
Okay, so out of curiosity I decided to read the first four issues of Justice League: Cry For Justice (or, as it's apparently better-known due to questionable font choice on the cover, Gay For Justice). Now, I'm used to an obscure character who I liked dying in any crossover event. It's a staple of the genre these days. But this one is... different. If you want to read a good post on what I'm about to say, probably a better post than mine, this guy appears to be the only other person on the Internet who noticed A Pretty Bad Problem here.
I was not all that emotionally attached to Freedom Beast. I liked his first appearance (a few issues in Grant Morrison's 80s run on Animal Man) but, y'know, he was just kind of there, a supporting character in a run I liked. Now, for those of you who don't remember Freedom Beast (almost everyone apparently): He was a black South African named Dominic Mndawe who was imprisoned on political grounds. He was rescued by Animal Man and the almost-as-obscure B'wana Beast. B'wana Beast, seeking to retire, turned his powers over to Mndawe, who used them to prevent a massacre and went on to oppose apartheid as Freedom Beast. After that story arc, his appearances were limited to guest panels here and there to establish the international scope of one crisis or another.
In the first issue of JL: Cry For Justice, Freedom Beast appears for one page. He stumbles on-panel bleeding, falls into Congorilla's arms, and apologizes for failing to stop the unknown villains, saying he "tried to be the hero you [Congorilla] taught me to be." He then dies, motivating Congorilla to Cry For Justice.
Now, Congorilla is not just a white guy, nor is he just a gorilla. He originated as Congo Bill, one of the classic "great white hunter" types - he had a film serial in the 40s, plenty of outwitting savages and taming the dark continent and all that stuff. In the 60s, a dying tribal handed over the great treasure of his tribe to this beloved white man, giving him the ability to transfer his mind into a superpowered golden gorilla that lived in the area. As far as I know, there are no previous connections between Congorilla and Freedom Beast (see also footnote).
Let's put it all together. The only superhero who ever directly opposed apartheid, a black African, stumbles into the arms of the Great White Hunter, apologizing for not being as good a hero as the Great White Hunter, and dies for no narrative reason other than to establish to the reader that the Great White Hunter is really angry now.
And nobody on the internet apparently notices. There are the usual complaints of "why do they kill off obscure characters", the usual jokes of "at least we're rid of that terrible name". But, with one exception (the quite good blog post mentioned above), nobody appears to have noticed that, holy shit, James Robinson just wiped his ass on the most politically forward black hero DC or Marvel has ever had and threw him on the fire to fuel Big Bwana Bill's rage boner.
Seriously. What the hell was James Robinson thinking?
(Footnote from my pedantic continuity nerd part, only tangentially relevant to this matter. The obvious reason they are assumed to be close friends is because they both lived in Africa, and hey, Africa's not that big a place, right? Only, what, two-three superheroes there after all. Well.. Congo Bill presumably lived in the Congo region, and Freedom Beast explicitly lived in South Africa. They lived half a continent apart, and it's a pretty big continent. For reference's sake, that's just under a thousand miles measuring between the two closest cities in those regions. This is like assuming that two heroes are buddies because one of them lives in New York and the other lives in Florida. As for why Freedom Beast is assumed to have been Congorilla's student/apprentice/whatever, one presumes that Congo Bill, from sheer charitable force of habit, took it upon himself to educate the young savage.)
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, June 22nd, 2009
| |
10:22 am
|
Hey wow, I finally post and it's a meme response.
Reply to this meme by yelling "Words!" and I will give you five words that remind me of you. Then post them in your LJ and explain what they mean to you.
From kouaidou
Shoujo: I guess I'm not as much into shoujo above shounen as I used to be, but I think part of that is a matter of availability and what is and was popular at any given time in the US. I feel like US shounen distributors have a much higher tolerance for absolutely formulaic bullshit than shoujo distributors, or at least a higher tolerance for badly-executed formulaic bullshit. Then again, I don't even know if that's true anymore.
Something that really strikes me is that I used to think that shounen vs. shoujo would describe what the story was interested in: shounen stories would be interested in action and therefore have presumably good action, shoujo stories would be interested in relationships and therefore presumably have good relationships. I think now I have a different perspective: the terms actually describe what the author doesn't have to work very hard at, because so much is considered encoded into the genre. A shounen author doesn't have to write good fighting or good sports; he can just indicate that fighting or sports is happening and the Jump audience will eat that shit right up. Similarly for low-grade shoujo, they don't have to write engaging characters in interesting relationships, they can just indicate who the characters are and how they related by their hairdos and how much they sparkle. The ones that actually do the genre's supposed strengths well are the flagbearers and trendsetters, and everyone else just gestures at the flag someone else is holding and considers the job done.
A corollary effect of this is that when shoujo decides to make sports or fighting its focus, or when a shounen story does a serious romance (not a harem comedy, holy shit those are low-effort) they don't have that assumed flag to gesture at, and you're more likely to end up with something at least interesting. I guess the idea I'm getting at is that if you're in Ribbon you don't try to write a fighting-heavy series because it's the easy thing to do, you write it because that's what you actually want to be writing or have a good idea for (as opposed to fighting series in Jump, which just conveys "I want to keep being published in Jump".)
Side note: I found out the other day I can still sing along with the Card Captor Sakura opening theme from memory.
Fuzzy: I like small mammals. Small mammals that are often fuzzy.
Guinea pigs are fuzzy. We kept guinea pigs from when I was a small child until quite recently. A guinea pig is a good pet for a small house, which is what we had; we kept the pigs in a central area that people passed through, so they got a lot of attention and affection. In a larger house, it's harder to do that; the pigs weren't neglected but they weren't really a constant element either.
So for our current pet, we have a cat. She is much more aggressive about being part of moment-to-moment life than a guinea pig is, and she is also fuzzy (despite her best efforts to put all her fuzz on other objects). I have asked her why she is so fuzzy, and the answer is apparently "meow". Pass it along.
Kashrut: So, this is going to start with a quick explanation of what the bar mitzvah is: it's the first time that a Jew reads that week's Torah portion for the congregation. This is an activity that only adults (in orthodox congregations, only men) participate in, so of course it's a rite of passage. At our congregation, it was also traditional for the reader to write a brief speech about the contents of the portion, not quite a proper sermon but something to get people thinking.
My scheduled portion was Parshat Sh'mini, or Leviticus 9:1 through 11:47. This portion starts out with the sacrifice of a bull, the description thereof, and an argument between Moses and Aaron over eating a sacrificed goat. After that, they go into the temple proper and God starts telling them which animals to eat and not eat.
I have a confession to make here: I have never sacrificed a cow. This stretch of the portion was not of great interest to me, and its historical and liturgical significance in the field of cow-sacrifice is way overshadowed by Parashat Parah, which has the red heifer shenanigans. So basically anything I could say about cow-sacrifice would end up being more about Parah than Sh'mini. The sacrifice is all of Leviticus 9. Leviticus 10 is then rules about eating the sacrifice, which is if anything less interesting than the actual sacrifice process because nothing is on fire. An argument ensues here and honestly I'm not even sure what the argument is about, which is not a great cornerstone for a sermon.
But then you hit Leviticus 11, which is a gold mine for a young Jew planning to make a speech. Lev 11 is the rules for which animals you can eat and which ones are unclean, and some of that shit is insane. If it lives in the water and has both fins and scales you can eat it - sharks have fins but not scales, so no shark! Why? Who knows. You can eat grasshoppers but not ants! If a gecko falls in your jug you throw out the contents and break the jug! If you accidentally bake a crocodile, smash your oven! For Heaven's sake, don't eat a bat! More day-to-day craziness among Jews arises from the Rabbis trying to make sense out of this chapter than almost any other chapter in the Torah.
So I made a speech about it. The speech wasn't great, but I did some research to figure out what the Rabbis thought about these rules and why they became the present-day rules. My favorite justification was the grasshopper one - "if a grasshopper comes to a pile of dung it can jump over, but an ant will crawl on it". Grasshoppers love to jump on dung, dude, it gives them a higher place to jump off of. I didn't actually phrase it like that, but let's face it, if a thirteen-year-old is given a choice of speeches to make and one of them is about what part of a sacrifice to eat and one of them is a totally legitimate excuse to talk about eating grasshoppers and jumping on dung in front of the whole congregation - well, what do you think the speech will come out being about?
So the upshot of all this is that I ended up actually reading what the Torah has to say about what Jews should and shouldn't eat, and what the rationales were for all the rules we've built up around it, and being informed enough to make my own decision. And you know what? The Torah tells us not to eat bacon, but it does not tell us not to eat cheesesteak. I checked, seriously. It also doesn't tell us not to eat cheeseburgers or pizza with ground beef. The rationales we have for that only make sense if you assume an insane conspiracy of anti-Semites trying to force you to accidentally break the rules of kashrut without being aware of it instead of, I don't know, shooting you. That is one petty frigging conspiracy. So yeah, I don't really follow the traditions of kashrut - I follow the law as the Torah gives it. Cheesesteak is delicious and the Jews were never commanded or even suggested against it. I owe that to my bar mitzvah.
Linguistics: This is kind of an inherited interest for me. My father's a professional linguist, so I've grown up around linguistics - my knowledge is absorbed secondhand from ordinary conversation with him. I think it's a neat subject, but I've never studied it in a formal way - anyone who's taken a class in linguistics honestly knows more than I do about it. I can read a linguistics article and sort of understand what's going on, and I've learned some stuff about the neurological end of it from psychology classes. But, yeah, my public confession here: I'm not really a linguist. I'm sorry, everyone.
Superhero: I am, however, really a superhero.
..well, no. But I really want a meteor to fall from space and give me superpowers. I think it would solve a lot of my problems while at the same time giving me entirely new ones. I just don't even know where to start with superheroes and superhero comics. I love them, I hate them, I read them, I avoid them.
When I was a kid, I tried to buy comics. There was a good comics store in my town, Bop City Comics, but even when I was a kid comics prices were already outpacing the spending power of a child, and comics narratives were less and less something a kid could follow, especially when he could only buy intermittent issues. The first comic I was able to start buying on a regular enough basis to track the narrative was the Giffen Justice League, and I think that's really had its effect on what I think heroes should and shouldn't be. I kept up with JL and JLE until the Breakdowns arc when they basically wrapped up the Giffen league. (Note: Timeline from here on in may be very imprecise.)
Around that time, my sister started getting interested in my collection, and she showed me some videos she'd borrowed from a friend of some cartoon called Ranma 1/2. I started getting more interested in anime, and she got more interested in comics. Through high school and the start of college, my interest in comics went on the backburner, and I got more and more into anime.
Then I went to visit my sister at MIT one time during break. I brought a bunch of copied fansubs and HK DVDs. And in her living room were bookcases full of trade paperbacks - some she owned, some from the library, some from the private collection of Henry Jenkins. She was writing a thesis on overt and ciphered homosexuality in superhero media, so I read all her stuff - we watched some Utena and a little Rose of Versailles, and some Giant Robo also.
She was really interested in Utena. I was really interested in the superheroes.
Move forward a little more - at this point I discover BitTorrent. I also discover Z-Cult. Around this time, I'm in a rut and spending all my time in my room. This is the perfect circumstance for someone to immerse himself to an unhealthy degree in a collection of comics that, before the age of Internet piracy, would have cost thousands of dollars to even familiarize oneself with - and I can have them all, to read at my leisure, for free!
And that's how I became a comics meganerd.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, December 17th, 2008
| |
2:59 pm
|
Screw you people and your drabble copouts! First five to request it get STICK MEN of their requested characters/situations. Yeah, I can't draw and that's not stopping me. Whatever.
Usual "spread the meme" applies I guess? Whatever, if you want to draw stick men you're going to do it and if not you won't.
|
|
(10 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, August 20th, 2007
| |
5:44 pm
|
So, when Clark Kent's name comes up for jury duty, does he reveal Superman or lie under federal oath?
(For practical reasons I know it has to be the latter. Still, this had to be easier in the days when the President knew who Superman was. Somehow, it had to be.)
|
|
(8 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, April 15th, 2007
| |
7:49 pm - Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane
|
So I recently read through Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane 1-17, a move that totally has nothing at all to do with anyone posting it on BT. It's a fun series and I enjoyed it, and i was quite pleased to see that (at least until more recent issues) it actually took Mary Jane as the primary character and kept Peter and Spider-Man as supporting characters in her story - I mean, that's what it's sold as, but I wasn't expecting it to necessarily hold up.
However, I noticed sort of offhand that most issues don't pass the Bechdel Test.
Now, I'm not of the feeling that media that can't pass the Bechdel Test aren't worth consuming - like I said, I enjoyed the series. But it's weird to notice that in what's more or less pushed as a girls' comic, the only issues that pass the test are the drama-club arc. At least, that's the only case I remember where the characters are talking to each other about things in their lives other than members of the opposite sex.
To be fair, though, the male characters also only talk about girls or their relationships with girls. Is there an exemption for that situation?
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, March 25th, 2007
| |
5:42 pm - About Sexing Up Mary Marvel
|
|
| Thursday, February 1st, 2007
| |
5:02 pm
|
|
Remember, if the wired-up metal boxes you've affixed to strategic locations around a major city without informing any authorities have pop-culture characters painted on them, they're obviously not bombs, and anyone so utterly ridiculous as to treat them as if they might possibly be should be ridiculed as hard as possible. Everyone knows that if they were bombs, you would have drawn a big black ball with a fuse coming out the side instead.
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, January 16th, 2007
| |
12:37 pm
|
In my latest dream, like in real life, I was having trouble with getting reinstituted to college (although a much classier college in the dream). I had also forgotten several important documents and people were accusing me of doing so deliberately.
At that week's gladiatorial games, the intercom abruptly cut out and started playing crappy techno. Both teams of gladiators were slaughtered by a masked figure with two rapiers who effortlessly parried bullets and vanished again, As the dust settled, the figure was seen elsewhere removing his mask - it was me, and my inability to get back into college had made it necessary for me to have my genetic superpowers reinstated.
Since I am going to the advisors' office today, hopefully it will not become necessary to reinstate my superpowers.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, December 16th, 2006
| |
9:08 pm - I have had a marvelous idea
|
You start with a room that has preferably no windows and sturdy walls - a cinderblock basement would be ideal.
This room is then furnished and decorated with things from garage sales, sidewalk throwaways, etc. with no individual object worth more than, at most, five dollars.
This room can be used for normal purposes, but no object of value takes permanent residence in it.
When you feel a fit of rage, you go into the room and close the door, and you are free to damage and destroy anything you see without having any worry or guilt about it. You can just let your rage fly.
I was thinking of calling it a "rampage room" but that sounds a little too cute.
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, November 23rd, 2006
| |
8:13 pm
|
In the dream I had, humanity had almost completely died out, but the androids had not.
I was an older man with a British accent and a plan for putting things right. In Boston I found a surviving human, who was not important to my plans, being listlessly guarded in the absence of threats by two bodyguard-model androids, sexless and identical, who unknown to him had named each other Kelly and Kenny, after Gene Kelly; although they disliked him, they treated him with deference because they had to guard a human. Kenny attacked me, but I persuaded her it had a chance of working, and that if she were protecting the future of humanity she wouldn't need to protect this person she disliked. They chose to travel with me, but I was not treated with deference, leading me to believe that my character was also an android.
I had needed to recruit them because the next stop was to visit a shapechanging and dangerous android named Seth, who was a prototype with an unstable personality. When in human shape he swaddled himself entirely in a worn yellow blanket, but he also turned into a horse and a wolf. He was essential to my plan, but I woke up before discovering what the plan was.
My role was credited as The Traveller and the nameless man in Boston was credited as The Last Human.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, October 13th, 2006
| |
6:11 am - Why I Think Okami Is An Unfinished Game
|
|
| Tuesday, October 10th, 2006
| |
5:33 am
|
The first five people to respond to this post will get some form of art, by me. It will be about or tailored to those five lucky folks.
This offer does have some restrictions and limitations.
* I make no guarantees that you will agree with what I perceive as art and/or quality. Don't get your hopes up.
* What I create will be just for you or how I perceive you. If I don't know you it'll probably be crap from your interests list.
* It'll be done within two weeks. Maybe.
* You have no clue what it's gonna be. Stick men are the most likely outcome.
* I reserve the right to do something extremely strange. Or stick-man.
And last but not least, the greatest catch:
If you sign up, you have to put this in your own journal as well, though you can limit your media/schedule/policies as you please.
|
|
(6 comments | comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
