Theme and Variations
There are a few blogs I read regularly. They would be listed here as links if I could figure out how to do it. As it is, they aren't. I find it unlikely (and in one case impossible) that these bloggers have read each other's most recent work. And yet, almost all of them have something in common RIGHT NOW:
Children.
One blogger has realized she is at peace with the possibility of procreation, another mentions the perils of childbirth and its prolonged effect on a parent's life, another plans for his progeny's literary perusal, another posts an actual birth proclamation.
What mechanism of fate, or message of media, is to be held responsible for this?
Children.
One blogger has realized she is at peace with the possibility of procreation, another mentions the perils of childbirth and its prolonged effect on a parent's life, another plans for his progeny's literary perusal, another posts an actual birth proclamation.
What mechanism of fate, or message of media, is to be held responsible for this?
posted by Jeanne at 22:37
9 Comments:
Not me. I ain't having kids any time soon.
For links, incidentally, use:
<a href="http://www.myfriendsblog.foo">My Friend's Blog</a>
That'll do it. Email me (you know where I live) if you want any other help.
Sam,
You were included in my draft with your smarties, but I decided it was too far-fetched.
Where do I use it? In the template, but where? How? Why? No, forget about the last one.
I haven't done anything even vaguely resembling computer programming in over 20 years. Even the self evident boggles me.
Yeah. Shove it in your template. Stick it under the link to your profile, if you like.
Smarties aren't really a pregnancy, no.
Umm, sideways?
That is, do you want me to shove it up, uh, in, sideways?
And below the link, at that? Sounds painful.
You aren't miffed, are you?
Perhaps the same mechanism of fate that makes a rash of unrelated people have dreams involving Oden?
Greg,
You are undoubtedly right. Which reminds me that I still haven't written to you about American Gods.
Sam,
you still haven't read it, but if you do, you have Greg to thank for suggesting it to me.
But, Mu-uuuum. It's Neil Gaiman!
<pouts>
1602 was rubbish.
I suppose if you used CSS you could shove it in sideways. This is Edgewise, isn't it?
Rubbish? That seems harsh. I thought it was flawed but still a lot of fun.
Regardless, Gaiman is better when he's playing with his own characters in his own sandbox. Have you read "Sandman"?
"American Gods" is excellent, too.
I'm curious to hear what you thought of it Jeanne.
Post a Comment
<< Home