I just got an e-mail from my agent advising me to pull out of the Amazon Connect thing. I'm not exactly sure why, something about the fine print (which I must admit I did not read). Probably, it says that by participating Amazon.com will heretofore own my first-born child's adenoids or something. Won't they be surprised. Anyway, yeah, I'll just drop it. I have too many online things going on, anyway, and that's surely the least interesting of the lot.
Mirroring the LJ at my MySpace hasn't proved to be much trouble. Before I mirror it at Blogger, I always have to convert any LJ tags to HTML, so the Blogger version is already suitable for MySpace. It adds about five minutes to the whole process. Of course, if I pull back and look at The Big Picture, I see that comes to 1,820 minutes a year or 30.33 hours. Simply by choosing to mirror the LJ at MySpace, I lose more than a whole day over the space of a year, and since I frequently make more than one post a day, the number may be nearer a day and a half. Well, at least this isn't as scary as the time I calculated how much of my life would likely be spent on the toilet.
Yesterday I did, in fact, begin a new vignette, which seems to actually have a title, which seems to be "pas-en-arrière ". I did 1,004 words and spent a lot time reading old Stephen Jay Gould essays and all sorts of other things about babies who've been born with tails, atavistic traits, polydactyl cats, etc. I'll probably finish this one tomorrow afternoon. So far, it's all been conversation, which is nice. However, I didn't get around to resuming the eBay auctions yesterday. Maybe today. Vince sent the final version of his artwork for "Untitled 20," and it's gorgeous. I think it precisely captures the mood of the vignette. And I'm becoming increasingly nervous about my agent and editor's reactions to Daughter of Hounds. Will I be asked to cut the lengthy appendices? Will they think I botched writing child characters? Will they love Emmie and Soldier and Pearl as much as I do? Will they think there's too much reference to Low Red Moon? Too little? These questions will all be answered in due course, but at the moment they're eating at me like hagfish working over the decaying carcass of a humpback whale.
We watched Jim Jarmusch's Broken Flowers last night, and I liked it a great deal. I think that Bill Murray is fast becoming one of my favorite living actors.
Poking around yesterday, looking for embryological and ontogenetic data, I could not help but notice once again how creationists have well and truly infested the web. This is an audacious sort of hypocrisy, embracing the fruits of science as a tool to pervert and dilute science. But I suppose it's no different than creationists using antibiotics or driving automobiles or watching television or using cellphones. Is "cellphones" one word or two? Never mind. I think most people in this country don't understand the connection between "pure" science and technology. Nor to they understand the interconnectedness of science, that it's really not the sort of thing where you can pick and choose which parts you want to believe. Biology doesn't work without genetics and evolutionary theory and chemistry and physics, and you can't toss in an ad hoc explanation or plead "special case" whenever something threatens a cherished belief. Sure, it's a great way of resolving pesky dilemmas. For example, claiming we can see stars which are 15,000 light years away, when young-earth creationism dictates the whole universe is only about 10K years old, because God created the light already partway to Earth. Sure, it resolves your dilemma, but it also makes you look dumb as hell. Mostly, I think creationists, and fundamentalist Xtians in general, are imagination impaired and more afraid of dying than they are interested in living. I'd simply pity the poor, retarded fuckers, if they'd just shut up and leave the rest of us alone. Anyway, time to pimp the platypus, speaking of poor things...