Man, a twelve-part review? I mean, really, less “review,” more . . . more “extended interaction with the novel, the characters, the world, the genre. With some wonderful little side rooms packed with trivia (as in: they call me out on “tresayle,” which is right. my only defense? I liked the way it sounded*). Anyway, only thing I can think of that’s sort of like this as regards my stuff, it’s only like this as regards “twelve”: back when ATBS came out, I thought it’d be fun to annotate twelve copies of it, a few pages at a time. Say, fifty? I forget—I just sectioned the book off into twelve pieces, and then just thoroughly marked each section up, numbered those ATBSs in some fancy way, and sent ithem out to various someones (really, zero memory who has them). However, I think I didn’t ever complete it? Went maybe six, eight? I’d finish it if I could ever figure out where I’d stopped. Idea being it might be fun for someone to go on a big quest to get the whole twelve-volume “set.” Or, for me to, to see what I was thinking back in 2003.
Anyway, Reactor‘s read-along is complete, here, and very, very cool. Such an honor, to have the story engaged this deeply. Thanks so much, Ruthanna Emrys and Anne M. Pillsworth.
(fingers crossed I got the right URLs under all those bulletpoints. that’s far, far from my strong suit. or, “suite”—never can remember the etymology of that. I think it’s from cards, and card-playing? I mean, it’s not about “suits of armor,” I don’t think. but I don’t play any form of cards, don’t even like trying to frisbee them into a hat, so . . . it’s all quite alien to me)
* well, okay, I DO like the way it sounds, but, the actual story of how this happened is that I had my “greats” stacked wrong . . . according to someone at the very, very, very last possible moment. and? I believe them: it was always a mystery to me, once I factored “grand” into those prefixes, exactly how many “greats” actually were called for. meaning, when I had the “greats” stacked wrong, “tresayle” was right. where I then went wrong was in not fixing “tresayle” to match. however? I don’t think I would have. let that prof be wrong, if it sounds better . . .