Thanks to those who confirmed that I did indeed have the rule right. I think my problem is that I tend toward long, complex, convoluted sentences. (But you noticed that already.) Thus, when I start inserting narrative between two related comments, it sounds clumsy. That, and basically I just suck at dialogue. I'm happier using "no words" as Shoshanna would say.

Personally, I appreciate it when authors use some words I don't understand and have to look up. I want to learn new things. And that's the way one learns new words. (Of course, if I'm looking up 5 words per page, I quit!) It's why I read National Geographic in Spanish, because I am forced to expand my vocabulary in Spanish considering all the topics the magazine covers. I'm going to come across as a word snob here, but I think many readers are regrettably lazy. Generalization coming up--and too many people are comfortable using a tiny fraction of the words available to them, and using them poorly at that! (Maybe that's just a reaction to teaching high school students.) I am determined to use the right word when I write, even if it means a bit of a challenge for the reader. My wife and I have a lot of good discussions as I pull out the bedside dictionary to look up some obscure word or usage. (Any yes, I am both anal-retentive and a sci-fi fan.) Why should a person feel stupid for using a dictionary? It is the stupid-by-choice person who won't take the time to use the appropriate reference to answer a question he or she has. The reference I really need is a reverse-dictionary. There is a counterpart to "eidetic" meaning a perfect memory for a physical action, allowing the rememberer to perform the action perfectly. I encountered the word once but have never been able to track it down again.

That's my home growing up. The living room has always been dominated by bookshelves. When I visited from college on vacation breaks, I slept in a room with all walls, except for the door, covered by bookshelves. When my parents moved, I'm sure I carried other stuff, but I primarily remember endless trips down the stairs carrying boxes of books. Living somewhat on the move, my wife and I have chosen to keep only the best of the best books that we will read again and again and pass the rest on to libraries or individuals. A precious few get to occupy the coveted bookshelves. But there is a sense of comfort being surrounded by books. I feel it in any library. If it were possible, I would just settle down permanently in an aisle, pull out a book, and begin to read. We've got boxes of books around the house for our two pre-schoolers. I really feel the need for some bookshelves. But I resist the temptation, knowing bookshelves can be habit-forming.

dialyn, A follow up question on your explanation on the dialogue/paragraph rule for Shoshanna: Let's say you start with a quote, followed by action or narration, and return to a follow up comment by the same person. I'd keep it all in one paragraph, yet it seems awkward to me when I do it. Is it just bad form? Is there a length limit? Example: "You know how it goes," she said. She picked up the book and opened it to page 150. "Look right here."

I just informally polled 3 native English-speaking teachers here. No one could come up for a term for the green verge. I think it is one of those things in the English language that needs a name but doesn't have an official one. I know there is a book full of those things, which themselves have a name, but I can't remember that either. (What do you call the metal plate around a skeleton-keyhole on old doors? A keyguard. What do you call the last dollop of ketchup or the like stuck in the bottle? I once knew. What do you call the little plastic cap on a shoe lace? I'd call it a telomere on a chromosome, but has it been called a lacecap?) My vote for a synonym to green verge would be the grassy margin. How about a truncated lawn?

OK, I'm sure I'm not getting it. This reminds me of the computer-generated poetry I've read. "Some ox has gored my three-hole punch"--my favorite line.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.ez?Who=mysteri

tjames- Didn't Kafka do the roach thing? I like your comment that humans can alter the program. Though I think behaviorism can explain a lot of things, I believe that people can ultimately choose to reject even very strong programming, especially when complex behaviors are involved. jagill- Very nice. And fair enough. I've even posted a newer, more transparent pic. Mr I, the science guy.

tjames- I love it! dialyn- Agree and disagree. I think most of us would agree that through our writing we are able to express things about who we really are that many of those who have never read our writings could never guess at. And that "interior us" is in many ways more real and eternal than the "exterior us." Yet how much of who we appear to be in this forum is pretense and masquerade? It is so easy to hide behind the anonymity an electronic forum provides. Maybe I'm really a woman in Burkina Faso, or a lizard, or a computer program, that gets kicks out of convincing people of things that aren't true? On the other hand, maybe that isn't important. Maybe what my exterior is doesn't matter, and I should only be judged by the content of my soul as expressed in my communications with others. On the gripping hand, can I really know more about a real person by reading their communiques in a forum than by having human contact with them every day? Can I know my wife or students better through a letter or a story than I can by being present day after day? I would hope not, but maybe so... Is a split personality a convincingly human trait?

Attached Link: http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/test.html

In 1950 Alan Turing proposed the Turing Test as a criterion for artificial intelligence. In a text based environment (like the forums), if a computer could generate responses to other discussion members in such a way that it was believed to be a human respondent, it would qualify as artificially intelligent. So, do tjames and Crescent and dialyn and Shoshanna and mysteri and jstro and jagill really exist? Maybe some of them don't have pictures on their homepages because they don't have any pictures? Jagill even dropped a hint about being a cyborg a while back. Shana - you brought up the issue of screen names and the reality behind them, or perhaps not behind them? That's what the poem is all about. When I started hanging out more often in the forum, I started to see the different personalities behind the responses and the screen names. But there is still a barrier to reality in forum discussions. Without the face-to-face communication, much is lost. Linking to the homepages reveals some information about some of us, but incomplete information in many cases. And even if it were complete, would it necessarily be true? Who are the entities, the intellects, the PEOPLE behind the shades and voices here in the Renderosity Writer's Forum? Joe P.S. Do I pass the test?

Great stuff. Susurrus! What a way to start a poem. On first take, "Footprints in the sand" struck me as trite because of the poem of that title. But the next line countered that feeling completely.

Glad you liked that line. Either dialyn or Crescent made a disparaging comment a while ago about all the soulless renders of "Vicky in the Temple." It was such a new thought to me that the comment stuck. And Vicky seemed a perfectly appropriate symbol for this community to represent the artificial, and potentially soulless, personality construct. "Missive Mike" was also planned, but I decided that I shouldn't wrench him in just because I thought the pun was clever.

dialyn: I'm just griping. I can see why Hunchback is considered a classic. For me, it was just a disappointing read because of my expectations going into it. If I had known less to nothing about the story before I started it, I probably would have come away feeling more positive about the experience. Which, in light of this thread, applies. The worst book any of us have read might be on somebody else's best-of-all-time list. And our individual perceptions about any given book might be drastically different if we had read the book under different circumstances. =)

I don't assume too much from screen names, either. Although I must admit that names like ~~The_Evil_One~~ predispose me to think badly of the person behind the name. For instance, I did not ever make the Jewish connection with Shoshanna, and when you started talking about your English background, the "Shanna" part just sounded right then, though I had not guessed before. In what little character creation I have done, I lean toward names that are symbolic. I browse through baby name books to know the meanings behind names. I work similarly with last names, trying to get a name that is both meaningful and melodious. For fantastic characters, I think sound has more of an influence. Evil characters have names starting with M or S or harsh sounds. So it is important to me, but I'm generally more concerned with character traits and plot before I start thinking about names. Mr I =)

It is true that Victor Hugo takes some editing to be digestible. But I am referring to the common perception that Quasimodo rescues Esmeralda and they both live happily ever after, and only the wicked monk dies. Wrong. Yes, the monk dies. But Esmeralda is hanged for no reason even after it is clear that she did not commit the crime she has been accused of. Her mother dies just after realizing Esmeralda is her long-lost child. Quasimodo dies in despair. The story is most definitely a tragedy. (Well, OK, her goat lives.) I guess I was also disappointed because the person who recommended I read it said that Hugo does a masterful job of portraying Quasimodo first as some hideous criminal monster, and then as a gentle, beautiful being. I disagreed completely. I saw Quasimodo transformed from a pathetic, laughable lap dog to a valiant human, but never saw him as monstrous.

Recently, my foray into the classics I never read took me to "The Hunchback of Notre Dame." Hugo spends 30 pages or so on an aerial view of Paris, which means nothing to you unless you've been there, and likewise another 30 or so describing the cathedral. There were a few other blocks of pages describing things I've wiped from my memory. And of course, every version in popular circulation is wrong. They all die. Pointlessly. I suppose that's why it's a classic. I'm actually glad I read it, to say I have and to find out that all the movies are wrong, but it will be the one time in my life I do.