Subsequently, On “A Trout In The Milk”…

An interview with the Mindless Ones…!

The thing we call “Panel Madness Week”…!

The Blog-Game of Mike Loughlin (sounds sinister, don’t it?)…!

And the annual Entry Into February…celebrated as usual by my inability to keep my gums from flapping. If the beer’s not ready for bottling, I’m afraid you’ll just have to drink it out of the bucket.

Welcome Holly; swift recovery RAB; RIP McGoohan.


14 responses to “Subsequently, On “A Trout In The Milk”…

  1. I love the interviews with the Mindless Ones. Look forward to that.

    And thanks; you’ve made me feel awfully welcome!

  2. Well, natch.

    That interview’s gonna be a monster, I think.

    Also I have to create some kind of grading system for the enjoyable critics on my sidebar…and now David Allison’s got me thinking about a year-end post, HAH! Might get one done by next year…

  3. How are you going to grade them?

    I can’t do year-end things because I never remember the year by the end of it. I don’t even know what I was doing on Tuesday.

  4. Thought I might finally do that “All Books Are Connected” post — the James Burke thing, what kind of serendipitous things I ran into this year that made stuff congeal in my head. Dunno if I can remember a whole lot of those though…but it might be a fun kind of linkblogging to do, sketch out some of the web of influences…

    I’ll have to give it some serious thought once Panel Madness is done.

  5. Ha — glad to hear I’ve been a bad influence on you Plok! I’m sure any 2008 post you put up would be brilliant, and I’m flattered to hear I’ve got you thinking that way.

    Also: bring on the panel madness week!

    Also also: welcome Holly! Your blog has been brilliant so far!

  6. I like “All Books are Connected.” L-space is one of my favorite things in all of Pratchettdom.

    And thank you, David! I haven’t felt very brilliant lately, more busy and ill, so it’s lovely to be told I am wrong. :)

  7. L-space! I’d totally forgotten.

    I have a friend in university — whenever I talk to her I try to drop an “all books are connected” into the conversation somewhere.

    It’s how you do research when you’re at a complete loss!

    Yet sometimes it just sounds like I’m saying “books are like hyperlinks” — not true at all, I suppose it’d be closer to say “there is no book that is not the cause of another book.” That doesn’t quite get to it either, though. “All books have hidden causes in other books”? You see, it’s difficult: it isn’t just the old James Burke thing, but I can only find the exact words to explain how it isn’t, about every other full moon.

    “Any given book X has a chance of producing a more useful reading of any given book Y.”

    Not quite.

    “Reading any given book X will reveal a previously-undetectable causal connection between some books Y and Z read in the past, that necessitates the existence of some unknown book N.”

    Getting closer. What it really is, is that reading any given book X will always reveal a previously-undetectable Pattern X of influence, that is inseperable from an already-known Pattern Y associated with some book Y already read…in the presence of some book Z.

    Meaning: Book Z is out there somewhere, but there’s no way of knowing what it is until you read it.

    Aaaaah, that needs a lot more work…

  8. If you’re thinking in terms of influence as a DAG, then you *need* to read Anathem, by Neal Stephenson. Which also is the closest thing to a *good* use of Hypertime ever…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s