
I have a confession to make. Since before our marriage my darling husband has had to tolerate my disloyalty. I have always had a coterie of literary boyfriends (fictional characters, and poets and authors long since departed from this earth) with whom my affections were shared. His only consolation was that none of them actually existed on the physical plain.
I have always had a soft spot in my heart for rogues and scoundrels. That's why I married one. This morning I learned that we lost one of our finest rogues, Mr. George Carlin.
Even when they reject your work there is an inexplicable compulsion to maintain it in some sort of unread, virginal purity on the off chance that some day – gush and gasp – they might publish it. I write because I love to. I will continue to write regardless of whether I ever earn a single dime. Doesn’t it seem stupid to leave those stories moldering on a shelf, unread and unloved, because allowing you to read it might ruin my chances of getting published, despite the fact that my chances of getting published are slim to none? I’d rather my stories be read.
The truth is computers and the Internet have changed publishing forever. They have changed publishing the way the printing press did back in 1440. You only have to look at cutting-edge authors like Cory Doctorow to get some idea of where things are heading. This future excites me and not because it increases the possibility that I might some day see my work in print. It excites me because it suggests a democratic revolution in publishing. Imagine a world where which books are translated into print isn’t decided by an elitist echelon of agents and editors sitting in their offices on




Whilst shopping last evening . . .
This article made me smile. I'm not a huge Prince Charles fan. He strikes me as more of a farmer than a prince. Which is perfectly fine, it just isn't the glitter and sparkle that interests the little fox* that lives in my brain (* foxes like to collect/steal shiny things). Can you imagine paying a bill from the 1600's?!GREGORY KATZ
AP News
Jun 11, 2008 11:51 EST
Prince Charles has paid off a royal debt from the 17th century, but showed modern-day fiscal prudence by declining to pay the accumulated interest, which would have been substantial after more than 350 years.
Charles made the payment of 453 pounds and 3 shillings — about $900 — during a visit Tuesday to
The debt was incurred in 1651 when King Charles II — at the time recognized only as the king of
He had asked the Clothiers Company of
Charles II never got around to paying it after he returned from exile in 1660 to claim his throne as king of
For the last 15 years,
The prince handed the payment — enclosed in a 1650s-style gaming purse made by the Royal Shakespeare Company — to Andrew Grant, master of the Clothiers Company. Charles received a receipt for his payment after the brief ceremony at the Commandery, which served as the royal headquarters during the Battle of Worcester.
"We are very grateful to the Prince of Wales for repaying the debt to the Worcester Clothiers Company," Grant said.
The Clothiers Company, founded in the 13th century, is one the last of the medieval-era guilds still active in the area.
Prince Charles said he was happy to take care of the debt, but said he would not be paying the interest because "I was not born yesterday."
With interest, the bill would have exceeded 47,000 pounds ($94,000), according to the British Broadcasting Corp.




| And indeed there will be time | |
| For the yellow smoke that slides along the street, | |
| Rubbing its back upon the window-panes; | 25 |
| There will be time, there will be time | |
| To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet; | |
| There will be time to murder and create, | |
| And time for all the works and days of hands | |
| That lift and drop a question on your plate; | 30 |
| Time for you and time for me, | |
| And time yet for a hundred indecisions, | |
| And for a hundred visions and revisions, | |
| Before the taking of a toast and tea. |
Liz and I have been fast friends since discovering early in our acquaintance that we both dislike Faulkner and Hemmingway. It's a brave thing for a Southern writer to openly admit that she doesn't like Faulkner. As for me, I prefer Eudora Welty.
By the way, Sex & The City was pretty good. Rebecca, Liz and I (first three from the left in the above) had a fabulous time making snarky comments and disapproving 'tsk, tsk' sounds. What was that thing on Sarah Jessica Parker's head?! Some of the outfits defied logic and fashion. There was a bit of gratuitous nudity so definitely not a movie for young children you wish to remain pure of heart. I just avert my gaze until given the all clear by braver souls.