Finding that Holmes was too absorbed for conversation, I had tossed aside the barren paper, and leaning back in my chair I fell into a brown study. Suddenly my companion's voice broke in upon my thoughts: "You are right, Watson," said he. "It does seem a most preposterous way of settling a dispute."
"Most preposterous!" I exclaimed, and then suddenly realizing how he had echoed the inmost thought of my soul, I sat up in my chair and stared at him in blank amazement.
- from "The Adventure of the Cardboard Box" in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes
(Illustration by Sidney Paget)
Similarly, in his original script for the Star Trek episode "The City at the Edge of Forever," Harlan Ellison writes of a couple being so in tune with each other that if the man complains in the morning that his shoes are too tight, and there is no further mention of the shoes all day, the man will still understand if that evening the woman says, "Maybe we can loosen them a little."
This is a game I play with my beloved husband fairly often. Our 28 years of mutual history give us a huge backlog of personal and pop culture references to draw on in conversation, stuff I know he knows, and that he knows I know (and that I know he knows that I...stop that!). So if he says the word "thing," and I then mention a certain episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show, John knows that I was thinking of the robot Mrs. Mudd saying "thing...thing...thing" in the Star Trek episode "I, Mudd," guest starring Roger C. Carmel, who was not the same Star Trek guest star who played the real estate agent in the Dick Van Dyke episode with the boulder in the basement. (That particular actor was Cyrano Jones on Star Trek, not Harry Mudd, but the characters are somewhat similar.) Yes, I can present John with the end result of a fairly convoluted chain of thought, and more often than not he knows how I got there. Yay, John!
Okay, that's the game. But what, you ask, has this to do with lemurs? You promised us lemurs!
Yes, I did. I alluded to lemurs earlier today, in a comment thread on By the Way. John Scalzi, in response to something Paul Little (of CarnivAOL fame) said, mildly suggested that it might be better if people spoke out against the banner ads in comments to entries that were actually about banner ads, rather than in every single entry of his, be it about Athena, romantic love or the planet Venus. (Come to think of it, those three blog topics can be seen as an interesting train of thought on Scalzi's part - two mythical goddesses, both associated with love (although Athena is more properly associated with wisdom). And would it be wise to address the question of whether people should write about banner ads in every comments thread? (That's debatable.)
But I digress. That's part of the point, isn't it?
Anyway, in the thread about whether it's not merely permitted, but actually a Good Thing, to post an angry and sarcastic comment to every single By the Way entry, regardless of how irrelevant it is to the subject at hand, I posted the following comment:
I would just like to take this opportunity to speak out about lemurs. I'm in favor of them, no matter what anybody says.
(a little obscure, I know.)
Karen
Comment from mavarin - 11/30/05 5:14 PM
Judith Heartsong, bless her, followed this up withlet's hear it for lemurs.
judi
Comment from judithheartsong - 11/30/05 6:47 PM
Several other people also came out in favor of lemurs:
Oh, and Lemurs are cool!
http://journals.aol.com/astar
http://adventuresofaneclectic
Comment from astaryth - 11/30/05 8:13 PM
I love, "So, in essence, you are asking for more respect from us than AOL will give back to us. " and the Lemur comment! HA!
Comment from psychfun - 12/1/05 12:46 AM
oh yeah, go lemurs!
Comment from aiibrat - 12/1/05 1:37 AM
Now, I'm genuinely pleased that other people like lemurs, or profess that they do. They're interesting animals, small, furry "prosimians" that were isolated ages ago in Madagascar and neighboring islands, and consequently developed along a very different evolutionary path from the rest of the primates. They're really cute, and they really need protection. Quite a few lemur species have died out already because of humans.
But that's not really why I mentioned them. I was playing my little game, and wondering what people would make of my comment.
So what the heck was I talking about?
Well, it might help if I post the following passage from So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish by Douglas Adams, in which Arthur Dent is flying (or trying to) outside Fenchurch's Islington flat:
He swung down sharply, nearly catching himself a nasty crack on the jaw with the doorstep and tumbled through the air, so suddenly stunned with what a profoundly stupid thing he had just done that he completely forgot the bit about hitting the ground and didn't.
A nice trick, he thought to himself, if you can do it.
The ground was hanging menacingly above his head.
He tried not to think about the ground, what an extraordinarily big thing it was and how much it would hurt him if it decided to stop hanging there and suddenly fell on him. He tried to think nice thoughts about lemurs instead, which was exactly the right thing to do because he couldn't at that moment remember precisely what a lemur was, if it was one of those things that sweep in great majestic herds across the plains of wherever it was or if that was wildebeests, so it was a tricky kind of thing to think nice thoughts about without simply resorting to an icky sort of general well-disposedness towards things, and all this kept his mind well occupied while his body tried to adjust to the fact that it wasn't touching anything.
See, according to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, the secret to flying ("throw yourself at the ground and miss") is largely predicated on distraction. When Arthur is busy working out what a lemur is, he's too distracted by this irrelevant thought to worry about hitting the ground, so he doesn't.So why did I speak out for lemurs, in a thread about banner ads? Have you figured it out yet?
It's simply this. When John Scalzi is writing about his daughter or the planet Venus, a comment about banner ads is a distraction, and irrelevant to the subject at hand. People can do it anyway if they want, and there's a school of thought that says that they should. But the fact remains that there's little or no logical connection between the planet Venus and banner ads, other than John Scalzi's contract with AOL.
So, if people like to post distracting banner ads protests in threads about other subjects, I figure it's only fair that I post a distracting comment on another subject in a thread about banner ads. Lemurs seem like the perfect distraction, not just because of Arthur Dent, but also because they're unusual animals with an odd name. Also, I thought it would be nice if my satirical distraction was positive and cheerful, rather than negative and angry. Thus: lemurs. If someone happens to be intrigued enough to find out more about lemurs, that's gravy.
And no, they don't sweep majestically across the plains.
Plus, I'm glad to say my worst case scenario didn't happen. I was a little worried that people would confuse lemurs with lemmings, and think I was criticizing some faction or other in the banner ads controversy. No, I wasn't calling anyone a lemur (or a lemming), and apparently nobody thought that I was.
Go, lemurs! Good night!
KarenLemur photos courtesy of the Smithsonian National Zoological Park / FONZ website.









Since that soul-crushing one week turnaround in 1997, I've rewritten Heirs of Mâvarin in a major way. I've reimagined both the psychology and the physical characteristics of tengremen (Mâvarin's only species of monsters), making them much more interesting to read about. Have you ever tried to imagine what goes through the mind of a horse as it grazes, or of a wolf as it hunts? Now imagine that it's an intelligent wolf-horse (etc.) that used to be human. Sometimes it can still think like one, but other times its rational mind is buried in instinct. The result is that some of my characters are much more interesting than before, more unpredictable, and more dangerous.
So I clicked on the link. The comment was attached to "Meet Joshua Wander, Part Nine," originally posted January 1st, 2005. There was nothing unusual about this particular installment in my VIVI-nominated serial (Best Entry or Series of Entries) - except that it already had a comment. It was a one-word, much appreciated comment from Becky:



Before church this morning I rushed into my office and, while checking my email, quickly scanned a sermon by one of our priests. I've had the thing for four weeks, but hadn't yet turned the hard copy into an electronic one. So I put it on my scanner it this morning, in the hope that later I would be able to save the file both as a jpg or something and as a Word file. I needed to do both, because this particular priest does a lot of underlining and hand-edits on his printouts. When I do OCR (Optical Character Recognition - cheap software trying to "read" the words), the poor thing gets confused by all those underlines and hashmarks and squiggles and handwritten words. I have to type what it's supposed to be, and clean it all up in Word when the OCR is done.
1. At the end of Mass, the Sunday School kids came up and sang two verses of O Come O Come Emmanuel. They were so cute! I know Father John wanted me to take pictures of them, so I obliged. But I was also mindful of the AOL Guidelines that another John S. mentioned a few months ago, that one shouldn't post pictures of other people's kids without parental permission, especially if you identify where predators can find them, such as at a particular school. Or St. Michael's, I suppose. So, since I was serving as Mass anyway, and was therefore sitting behind the kids, I took pictures of them from behind. The photo has no identifying features for anyone to use to get to these children. Did I do the right thing? Should I post this picture? I'm not sure, but here it is.



























