ROBUST discussion

Daniel A. Roberts
This topic is about Daniel A. Roberts
22 views
Rants: OT & OTT > The deliberate, commercial confusion of fiction with reality

Comments Showing 1-50 of 61 (61 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Andre Jute (new)

Andre Jute (andrejute) | 4851 comments Mod
"Those who cannot keep reality and fiction on the levels they aspire to be, I feel pity for them." -- Daniel A. Roberts

First, apologies to Daniel for separating his remark from its context, but I want to avoid confusion with a particular case currently (7July) before us, which is bedeviled by peculiar circumstances, and discuss the generality.

I know exactly what you mean, Daniel. I am daily amazed at perfectly well educated, travelled, middle-class people wanting to discuss fictional characters from books or television with me as if they are real.

The problem is that writers are guilty, right next to the film and television industries, of deliberately fostering that confusion for gain. At its crudest, we see this in "Y Actor *is* Z Character!"

Even the discussion of real people from the celebrity magazines to me has an entirely unreal flavor. I want to ask these people, "Don't you understand, someone has carefully crafted this image of X Celebrity that you have in your mind? Why do you let them mess with your head?"


message 2: by Kathleen (new)

Kathleen Valentine As a writer of fiction I am continually flummoxed by people who read my novels and short stories and then imagine that those people are real people in my life and want to know more about them. They are not -- they are real inside my head but that is all.

I sometimes think that television has gotten a lot of people so confused that they really do not know fiction from reality, especially with reality TV being so popular now. I'm not a TV person -- haven't had cable or anything like it in over 20 years and only rent DVDs occasionally. BUt I know people who talk about their little TV pals like they were intimate friends.

Those of us who make up stories and write them down have very lively worlds inside our heads but we know that's where they are -- that's why we write them down.


message 3: by Patricia (new)

Patricia (patriciasierra) | 2388 comments A fictional character is the author of the book I'm writing right now.


message 4: by James (new)

James Everington | 187 comments Agreed. I also get annoyed when people say things like "I didn't like this book because I didn't like any of the characters in it".

a) I wasn't aware that books were some kind of weird popularity contest
b) why do you have to like someone to find them interesting or believable?
c) maybe your lack of empathy is the problem, not the book


message 5: by Katie (new)

Katie Stewart (katiewstewart) | 1099 comments While I do think that a reader needs to at least connect with the characters in a book to enjoy it (which isn't necessarily the same as liking them), talking about characters as if they are real does seem strange. Even though I tend to use actors' faces to help me picture a character as I write him/her, I don't then always think of my character when I see that actor. They remain two completely different identities. There's a certain immaturity in considering book characters to be real, but I guess people could be using it as a way of relating to the author. After all, often the characters are the only connection they have with the author, the only thing they 'know' about them.

As for celebrities being crafted images, Andre, do you mean Lady Gaga is not really like that? What a relief!


message 6: by Andre Jute (new)

Andre Jute (andrejute) | 4851 comments Mod
I'm also a bit disturbed people who assume I share the outlook and attitudes of my characters and necessarily approve of them.

@ Katie re Lady Gaga: At present I must plead lack of street cred. Tomorrow, when the pedalpals have filled me in, I'll be an expert.


message 7: by Katie (new)

Katie Stewart (katiewstewart) | 1099 comments No, Andre, save your grey cells for more important things! Believe me, you're not missing anything. Or watch this by Weird Al Jankovic, which is far better than her -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss_BmT...


message 8: by Claudine (new)

Claudine | 1110 comments Mod
Lady Gaga is a remake of Madonna in her extreme phase, when she did that sex book. A cheap imitation at best. Her music, while massively popular with the tween Bieber lovers, lacks a compelling depth and doesn't resonate with me beyond the remixed beats that some djays are putting out now.

Ok, now that I have gotten off my soapbox about Her Cheap Imitationess....

I agree that you have to at least connect with something in a book, whether it is a character or a particular storyline.

I also think that with the huge part reality tv plays in so many peoples' lives today, the line between what is fictional and what is real has been blurred somewhat. Shows like Big Brother have a tendency to leave people wanting more out of something as complexly simple as a well written book. There just has to be something more to it and when the reality hits that there isn't, it's mostly make believe, they don't seem able to process how something could just be a figment of someone's imagination.

Sadly I think that newer generations are losing the power of their imaginations.


message 9: by Coral (new)

Coral (coralm) Andre Jute wrote: "I'm also a bit disturbed people who assume I share the outlook and attitudes of my characters and necessarily approve of them."

That really bugs me. A lot of the time I write about characters who have very upsetting motivations. One of my characters abuses women and thinks that is the way things should be. Obviously he's not the main character of the book or even portrayed as a good or likeable fellow. A beta reader asked me if I really thought that way. I couldn't even get my head around the question so I chose not to answer it rather than go off on her about why suggesting that was stupid.

Seriously, does anyone ask Stephen King if he agrees with the monsters in his books? I just don't understand.


message 10: by Patricia (new)

Patricia (patriciasierra) | 2388 comments Just to set the record straight: I write about killers a lot and I'm not one.


message 11: by James (new)

James Everington | 187 comments Well, you *would* say that Patricia...!


message 12: by Andre Jute (new)

Andre Jute (andrejute) | 4851 comments Mod
Claudine wrote: "Lady Gaga is a remake of Madonna in her extreme phase, when she did that sex book."

Ha. I left Secker when they published that piece of pornography. A few years later I was on a talking heads thing, and when I came home from the studio asked my family, "Who was that woman staring daggers at me?" That was Madonna, they said. "Ah," I said, "I didn't recognize her with her clothes on."

Thanks Katie, Claudine, I shall rest easier for knowing no more than the essential minimum about Lady Gaga.


message 13: by Andre Jute (last edited Jul 08, 2011 04:34PM) (new)

Andre Jute (andrejute) | 4851 comments Mod
James wrote: "Well, you *would* say that Patricia...!"

The net tells the truth:

"Of all the things Patricia Sierra denies as she reinvents her life, the one we surely can all understand is the serial killer who hooked up with the profiler who caught her, together to write a novel from "inside the experience". [[author:Sierra Philpin|2849160]] Her time may be served, but many people think such sentences should be for life, no remission, no redemption. And, now that the CIA is so unfashionable, the patriotic act by which Sierra earned redemption, the assassination of the misappropriator of American property, Salvador Allende, on behalf of unnamed American secret institutions and corporations, is perhaps best swept under the carpet. But why should Sierra deny that, in the more spacious years before she became a serial killer and a grandmother, she was Bob Dylan's "touring girlfriend"? Sierra, with her bright blue eyes and her spotless white tennis shoes, is an enigma to the end.""Of all the things Patricia Sierra denies as she reinvents her life, the one we surely can all understand is the serial killer who hooked up with the profiler who caught her, together to write a novel from "inside the experience". Her time may be served, but many people think such sentences should be for life, no remission, no redemption. And, now that the CIA is so unfashionable, the patriotic act by which Sierra earned redemption, the assassination of the misappropriator of American property, Salvador Allende, on behalf of unnamed American secret institutions and corporations, is perhaps best swept under the carpet. But why should Sierra deny that, in the more spacious years before she became a serial killer and a grandmother, she was Bob Dylan's "touring girlfriend"? Sierra, with her bright blue eyes and her spotless white tennis shoes, is an enigma to the end."

-- http://cookiesbookclub.blogspot.com/2...


message 14: by Patricia (new)

Patricia (patriciasierra) | 2388 comments Ooooh nooo... my Rolling Stone past comes back to haunt me.


message 15: by Claudine (new)

Claudine | 1110 comments Mod
Niiiiice.

Andre, I never got into the whole Material Girl thing either. My taste in music is too obscure and way too 80s influenced to be mainstream. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search... or http://www.youtube.com/results?search...)


message 16: by Patricia (new)

Patricia (patriciasierra) | 2388 comments I'm a Leonard Cohen kind of girl, myself. This video is supposedly "official" but then they bleep out some of the language:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D97OxH...


message 17: by Claudine (new)

Claudine | 1110 comments Mod
Ja Leonard Cohen is good too. On a rainy day.


message 18: by Alina (new)

Alina (firegal) | 25 comments Funniest take off of Lady Gaga eva:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuISQJ...


message 19: by Andre Jute (last edited Jul 10, 2011 08:33PM) (new)

Andre Jute (andrejute) | 4851 comments Mod
Leonard Cohen, a Canadian poet, sort of thinnish wannabe-Elvis hairstyle when he shoulda been content with a Richard Widmark. Not a bad poet but can't sing. Is that him? If I dig in the attic, I'm sure I'll find an LP by the guy I have in mind. My wife's, of course.

EDIT: Sings better than Brian Ferry, but then everybody sings better than Brian Ferry.


message 20: by Patricia (new)

Patricia (patriciasierra) | 2388 comments Thin, but there's nothing Elvis-like or wannabe-anything about him. Definitely can sing. Walks on water. Is beloved worldwide. Cult following. Mainstream following. Music often used in movies. Robbed by a money manager while he was off being a monk. Back working in his old age, trying make up the loss. I want to bear his babies.


message 21: by Andre Jute (new)

Andre Jute (andrejute) | 4851 comments Mod
Poor fellow.


message 22: by Katie (last edited Jul 10, 2011 09:52PM) (new)

Katie Stewart (katiewstewart) | 1099 comments Thin, but there's nothing Elvis-like or wannabe-anything about him. Definitely can sing. Walks on water. Is beloved worldwide. Cult following.

Sorry, Patricia, I'm with Andre on this one. The dear old feller (Leonard, that is, not Andre) writes some of the best songs in the world, but the only reason I know that is because other people sing them. I can't bear to listen to him, just as I can't listen to Bob Dylan (though if I were forced to listen to one or the other, I'd choose LC). He doesn't sing. He intones.


message 23: by James (new)

James Everington | 187 comments Someone bad-mouthing Dylan? Now we really will have a Robust conversation..!


message 24: by Andre Jute (new)

Andre Jute (andrejute) | 4851 comments Mod
I know who Dylan is! I HAVE STREET CRED!


message 25: by Andre Jute (new)

Andre Jute (andrejute) | 4851 comments Mod
Katie quotes Sierra: "Thin, but there's nothing Elvis-like or wannabe-anything about him. Definitely can sing. Walks on water. Is beloved worldwide. Cult following."

Then Katie says, "Sorry, Patricia, I'm with Andre on this one. The dear..."


Yup, now I remember why my wife put that LP away. It was the pained expression I couldn't help passing ever so fleetingly across my face every time he started a new song and I realized the disc wasn't finished -- yet.


message 26: by Claudine (new)

Claudine | 1110 comments Mod
Oh no! Dylan is a hasbeen! God the man can't sing anymore. I liked his early stuff though.

The only singer I'd do depraved stuff for is Jim Morrison. Or maybe Dave Gahan as he is now.

The 60s was a sublime decade. At heart I am a 60s and 80s kid.

Hated Elvis, liked the Beatles. Especially this one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpr2WO...

Sex Pistols is a riot. Never could get into all that hype of metal bands or rockers. So not my style.

These days I'm much more mellow in my music choices. A bit of Ojos de Brujo, Soap and Skin. Tribal stuff, house beats. Ja, I'm a weird old lady, the only mother at the school who is continually asked to put her music softer :D my kids are so screwed.


message 27: by Katie (new)

Katie Stewart (katiewstewart) | 1099 comments My kids always lean over and turn off the CD player in the car when we get to school. They might tolerate their mother playing Colm Wilkinson full bore along the bumpy country road on the way there, but letting their peers hear it? No way!


message 28: by Claudine (new)

Claudine | 1110 comments Mod
Fortunately mine like the weird choices. My dd's favourite song right now is Africa, by Toto. My ds can't decide between Chumbawamba and anything by Queen. I can see them acting more embarrassed as they get older though, high school might be pretty awful.


message 29: by Sharon (new)

Sharon Tillotson (storytellerauthor) | 1802 comments Leonard Cohen is no singer, as proven in his official Hallelujah, but he can sure write a song, as kd lang, Canada's version of Madonna, Gaga, et al, proves here.

As the snobby Brit drinking from a porcelain cup with his pinky finger in the air says in the tea commercial, only in Canada, eh? Pity...

Claudine, my dd loves Queen too, as do I!


message 30: by Patricia (new)

Patricia (patriciasierra) | 2388 comments No one sings Leonard Cohen songs better than Leonard does. No one. I even love the album his die-hard fans trashed: Dear Heather. Played it every night for years for its hypnotic qualties. I love his voice, even as it turns to gravel with age.

Claudine, I'm the opposite of you. Loved Elvis (the ballads, not the other stuff), but never "got" the Beatles.

I'm a non-musical person to the bone. I need words, thus listen to very little classical music. And I need to hear the words above the music, so no rock, thank you. Rap makes no sense to me. I'm stuck in the '30s and '40s, mostly. Old standards knock me out. That terrible sin -- enunciation -- must be present or I won't listen.

There is only one non-square performer I enjoy watching and that's Rhianna. Hate her songs, don't even remember her voice, but I think she has sex all figured out. I'm counting on being her in my next life, otherwise there's no point in dying.


message 31: by K.A. (new)

K.A. Jordan (kajordan) | 3042 comments Andre Jute wrote: "I know who Dylan is! I HAVE STREET CRED!"

Andre - when it comes to street creed it's 'has' as in "I haz street cred."

There is a photo I'd like to post. Don't know how.


message 32: by Andre Jute (new)

Andre Jute (andrejute) | 4851 comments Mod
Tsch! And I was so enjoying having street cred for the first time in my life. Oh, never mind. Anyone want to talk about J S Bach and the mathematical mind?

You'd do better to have one of the fancy shells write the code for you, for your blog for instance, and then just copy and paste it to Goodreads. But if you want to do it the hard way... To post a pic, this is the code you need:

?img class="aligncenter" src="theURLofYOURimage.jpg" alt="nameOPTIONAL" /?

except that the two question marks are replaced by < at the left and > at the right. Okay, here's code for showing you an elegant borzoi bitch, after you replace the question marks with < and > :

?img class="aligncenter" src="http://coolmainpress.com/miscimage/Bo..." alt="Borzoi_Nikki" /?

Borzoi_Nikki


message 33: by Claudine (last edited Jul 11, 2011 10:17PM) (new)

Claudine | 1110 comments Mod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_...

Patricia it might surprise you to learn where rap and hip hop comes from. I've been listening to this stuff since the 80s and while rap/hip hop is by far not my favourite, there is a huge sense of history behind what the old timers especially sang about and why.

Ok, this is going back a way - I don't like rap or hip hop much either except for Run DMC, NWA (Niggers with Attitude for those who don't know) and 2 Live Crew. They were both quite a force when rap hit the mainstream music scene here in the mid 80s. Their lyrics give new meaning to the words PARENTAL ADVISORY on music lables.

My favourite all time remixed rap song is this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjRO89...

The one time my husband played this at a night club, the club was raided by the security police (picture South Africa at the height of a permanent state of emergency during the apartheid era in the late 80s early 90s). I love this song purely because of that one time.

Patricia, I sadly have to stop speaking to you now. Rhianna????? Really????? :D


message 35: by K.A. (last edited Jul 11, 2011 10:59PM) (new)

K.A. Jordan (kajordan) | 3042 comments I took the easy way out. Pulled this one off LOLCATS.

As for music - I listen to U2, Eddie Money, Eric Clapton, Genesis.

Back in my wasted youth I used to hang out with a number of local bar bands. I was a fixture on the local music scene because I wrote about bands for the local newspaper. It was lots of fun.


message 36: by Claudine (new)

Claudine | 1110 comments Mod
LOL! icanhascheezburger is a brilliant site!

Genesis....now that brings back memories.


message 37: by K.A. (new)

K.A. Jordan (kajordan) | 3042 comments That cat picture actually inspired a character in my next book.


message 38: by Patricia (last edited Jul 12, 2011 05:51AM) (new)

Patricia (patriciasierra) | 2388 comments Claudine, thanks for the history lesson. What I remember is rap coming on strong in the mid '80s (I guess it took it's time getting to where I lived) and being asked to write some lyrics so we could toss some into ads. There couldn't possibly have been anyone less qualified than I to do that.

About Rhianna: It's totally against my will that I think she's gorgeous. I promise not to let it get in the way of our friendship.

K.A., that cat is lovely. I want it.


message 39: by Claudine (new)

Claudine | 1110 comments Mod
1979 the first rap song - Rapper's Delight. Love that song. I was 9. :D

Ok I won't let your like get in the way of our friendship either. I have a very strong opinion about modern music.

It's not easy to rap. I had to help my 10yo son come up with a poem for art appreciation that could be translated to music and dance. It didn't work at all.


message 40: by Ken (new)

Ken James wrote: "Agreed. I also get annoyed when people say things like "I didn't like this book because I didn't like any of the characters in it".

a) I wasn't aware that books were some kind of weird popularity ..."


I'm not sure I understand what the problem is with requiring characters that the reader would care about. Even the most postmodern of authors, take David Foster Wallace and Kurt Vonnegut, fellas who broke convention for the heck of it, tried to stick to characters that they cared about. If the writer can reasonably require that, then why not the reader? Maybe I'm paraphrasing what you said poorly--i.e., 'liking' characters and 'caring' about what happens to them are different things. However, both cases, IMO, get at a similar point: empathizing with the characters.


message 41: by Ken (last edited Jul 19, 2011 11:30PM) (new)

Ken Andre Jute wrote: ""Those who cannot keep reality and fiction on the levels they aspire to be, I feel pity for them." -- Daniel A. Roberts

First, apologies to Daniel for separating his remark from its context, but..."


What gets confused first is the nature of fiction. Anything else is symptomatic of that. Let me explain: fiction, cut to its base, is artifice. This is why, I suspect, readers sometimes mix up person and persona; few writers want to admit that his/her book is artifice, a creation of his/her mind. Of course, were writers to do so, it wouldn't detract from the value of their work, for although fiction is inexorably artifice, some are clearly more artificial than others. However, it does sort of demote fiction from the level of exaltation that some critics place it on (e.g. Shelley's assertion that poets are the only other being besides God who creates the universe).

There are plenty of writers who are not forthcoming about the limitations of their craft. This type of dishonesty has reached epidemic levels in light of the memoir hey-day, the works of which tend to carry a 100% Guarantee that everything therein is a True Story. So cynical has this business gotten that some writers have begun to polish their sordid 'True Story' underneath a filmy varnish of postmodern devices; as though a self-reference here and some irony there is enough to establish writerly credibility (see: "Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius"). My point being that enmity about the fiction/reality confusion (if indeed there must be any such enmity) would be more deservingly directed at the writer than the reader. To reproach the reader for a dishonesty propagated by writers is quite unfair. In the words of Milton, "They who have put out the people's eyes, reproach them of their blindness." Before the remonstrations start rolling in, I should clarify one thing: Not all authors are dishonest about the limitations of their craft; but those who are dishonest about the craft of fiction are always its practitioners.


message 42: by Andre Jute (new)

Andre Jute (andrejute) | 4851 comments Mod
Ha, that's very good, Ken. Fortunately, I am on record in no fewer than four handbooks about the limits of writerly crafts, so I stand up gleefully beside you, ten fingers pointing.

But there's a point I thought I made that you overlook. Readers, the general public, the avid consumers of celebrity doings, *want* that confusion, or otherwise they would not stand for it. Readers are not stupid. They're your girlfriend, your wife, you mother. It's a moot point whether writers or readers are more guilty when both are complicit.


message 43: by Ken (new)

Ken Andre Jute wrote: "Ha, that's very good, Ken. Fortunately, I am on record in no fewer than four handbooks about the limits of writerly crafts, so I stand up gleefully beside you, ten fingers pointing.

But there's a ..."

Thanks. I'll try to respond to your argument with minimal cheekiness (of which I'm at times guilty of) because you gave a reasoned response. Here's mine:

"The general public...want that confusion"
I used to think this, but it doesn't stand up to the facts, or at least the ones that I see. The argument you make here is very similar to the arguments made whenever an inane politician is elected in my country (USA)--that the people deserve such a leader, since they voted for him/her. First, this assumes participation of the electorate, and to apply this to our discussion, the participation of readers. In both cases participation is nowhere near the full population of the "voters," or "consumers" or whatever you like. That's easy to quantify with voters--in the US, even general elections squeeze out a mere half of the electorate (at best). I suspect it's even worse with books; not by any fault of the voters, which I'll explain. The braindead (mainstream) news media covers only qualitative issues in elections--the candidate's religion, family history, lurid affairs, etc. Given this poor information, it's understandable that the electorate would opt for fellows like Bush. Exceptionally well educated people, on the other hand, are familiar with the process by which one finds credible sources of substantive information. What does this all have to do with reading? Well, the media doesn't only cover candiadates; they cover books, too. To assume that the vapid books driving the market are reflective of the common person's tastes is just as erroneous as assuming that politics is the embodiment of the will of the people. Moreoever, to say that the "general public" "wants" the confusion we're discussing is false for the foregone reasons.

Everything I've discussed is admittedly abstract. The only quasi-empirical way I can think of, off the cuff, would be to actually flip through a magazine presumably written for middle-America; e.g., Time Magazine. You'll notice page after page of ads for cars that cost more than the median income in my country (~50k/yr). What this demonstrates is that media, and indeed the media that covers fiction, does NOT market to common people, and does NOT therefore reflect the wishes of them.

As a final point, to include "the avid consumers of celebrity doings" in your list of people who "want confusion" is practically a redundant.

Let me know where you agree/disagree. I have a feeling this discussion isn't close to over.

Ken


message 44: by Andre Jute (new)

Andre Jute (andrejute) | 4851 comments Mod
Oh, I agree with you, Ken. I actually have a novel, and radio- and screen-plays adapted from it, which explains who gave away the journalistic high ground of politics to the soundbiters and why. It was done by surprising people for the highest possible motives.

I expect a novel about such an important principle to sell all of 2000 copies, and to be excoriated in the "popular" review columns, if mentioned at all. Of course, it will be a success d'estime but that doesn't put a lot of caviar and Crystal on the table.


message 45: by Ken (new)

Ken Andre Jute wrote: "Oh, I agree with you, Ken. I actually have a novel, and radio- and screen-plays adapted from it, which explains who gave away the journalistic high ground of politics to the soundbiters and why. It..."

Well, it is to be expected that such a book would be met with lukewarm success, esp. in our climate (am I right in assuming you live in the US?). A media machine funded by moneyed interests is going to reflect those interests. That's practically tautology. So don't let it get you down (assuming, from the gallows tone of your last sentence, that it is getting you down). For all I rip on the moneyed class, I'm part of it--perhaps you are as well--and I can tell you that it's far from impermeable. The trick, in my experience, is finding out where the gaps are and exploiting them. A fine example of this is David Simon's "The Wire," a social novel told in serialized TV form. I'm without a doubt that the only reason the show's socially conscious themes reached the millions it did was because its message was marinated in the trappings of the crime genre.


message 46: by Andre Jute (new)

Andre Jute (andrejute) | 4851 comments Mod
A good book will always out. That's why there's a film script before I even publish the book, and a radio script suitable for the public radio networks in the States, Canada and Britain to co-produce to demonstrate the viability of the concept to filmakers. The point isn't money -- the book will eventually earn its keep -- but influence.


message 47: by Patricia (new)

Patricia (patriciasierra) | 2388 comments Too much here to respond to in any depth or at any length. Haven't even had coffee yet. But...

1. I don't personally know any writer who'd pretend his work isn't artifice or who'd think his readers don't know it is, and I know a lot of writers. ("His" in this case also includes "Her")

2. Skimming over my list of friends, semi-friends, family, and a handful of enemies, I don't see even one that would think a "true story" is true. At best there can be true perspective, but that's it.

3. David Simon didn't marinate his "message" (in fact, he had no message -- he had stories) in the trappings of the crime genre. He told his stories from the perspective of a former crime reporter covering Baltimore who had seen it, lived it, done it. The reason his stories reached millions was because the series had good characters, good acting, good writing, and good production values. The reason it didn't reach many more millions is because it was on a premium channel and because the stories required one to concentrate in order to make sense of them.

4. Never knock the moneyed class. That's where I've found my best Sugar Daddys.


message 48: by Ken (last edited Jul 20, 2011 03:35PM) (new)

Ken Patricia Sierra wrote: "Too much here to respond to in any depth or at any length. Haven't even had coffee yet. But...

1. I don't personally know any writer who'd pretend his work isn't artifice or who'd think his reader..."


Your conviction that David Simon "had no message" is a great example of artists denying the artifice inherent in art. Thanks for the illustration.

The rest of your arguments are anecdotal, and since the last anecdote you shared about that nonexistent movie was so laughably implausible, you've lost your anecdote privileges with me.


message 49: by Patricia (new)

Patricia (patriciasierra) | 2388 comments I guess you mean to insult me. Sorry. Bait refused.


message 50: by Ken (new)

Ken Patricia Sierra wrote: "I guess you mean to insult me. Sorry. Bait refused."

'Bout time.


« previous 1
back to top