This gap in my blogging doesn't mean we didn't make it cross country. In fact we made it very safe and sound, without much muss or fuss at all. Not one flat tire, rude local, or disgusting rest stop to be found. Given the chance I'd do the drive again but I'd take much longer.
For example, due to time constraints we were forced to pass up the Oz Museum and Larry Bird's hometown. Seeing as they are related to two of my top five obsessions, visiting them would have been something.
If you are a fellow Oz fanatic, allow me to recommend Was by Geoff Ryman. It combines an abused and fictional Dorothy Gael, a very real Frances Gumm (before she became Judy Garland), and an actor stricken with AIDS who plays the Scarecrow and is on the search for Dorothy's house. Why is the Wizard of Oz so ripe for dark re-imaginings?
While I was gone, my Google Reader collected thousands of unread items, my fantasy football teams tanked due lack of consistent quarterbacks, and lots of world things happened that I'm just catching up on now. Amanda Knox, better Kindles, and a new iPhone released. Farewell Jobs and Davis. Occupy Wall Street is spreading. The NBA is on serious lockout... I'm still digging out of two weeks ago. It's gonna take awhile.
If you're looking for something to read right now, can I suggest this? "In Memory of Troy Davis." Regardless of how you feel about the death penalty, the article has a lot of interesting things in it. For example, a fact embedded about halfway down surprised me greatly: apparently a chimera isn't just a mythological creature. "In modern biology, a chimera is the result of the death, in utero, of one of two non-identical twins, and the subsequent blending of two types of DNA in the surviving individual." That seems like it could make one hell of a story. Someone please write something riveting involving real life chimeras. Or maybe a criminal organization that exclusively recruits them.
Also, the article talks the etymology of "witness" and points out how eyewitness accounts tend to sway juries quite a bit but in an entirely different context, an eyewitness is something justifiably unreliable. Just read the article, it's good. Well, unless you don't like this kind of stuff, in which case, don't read it. It's PG-17ish probably.
"It’s as if we forget, when we are under that spell, about the other possible meaning of 'first person.' Taken in a different context -- in literature -- it means almost the opposite of unassailable authority. It means limited omniscience. It means unreliability. It means subjectivity. It means, quite simply, one person's story."
-In Memory of Troy Davis-