A Likely Story

The Farley Mowat

Wed, 07 May 2014 17:09:52 GMT

Here’s Never Cry Wolf—
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Jolly good, Never Cry Wolf,
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Here’s the loner, the ennui, the journey, the Yukon,
The wilderness and the brown wolf.
Here’s a book, a book by the Farley Mowat.

Here’s A Whale for the Killing—
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Jolly good, Whale for the Killing,
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Here’s the moral, the loner, the ennui, the journey, the Yukon,
The wilderness and the brown wolf.
Here’s a book, a book by the Farley Mowat.

Here’s Sea of Slaughter—
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Jolly good, Sea of Slaughter,
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Here’s the whales, the moral,
The loner, the ennui, the journey, the Yukon,
The wilderness and the brown wolf.
Here’s a book, a book by the Farley Mowat.

Here’s The Curse of the Viking Grave—
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Jolly good, Curse of the Viking Grave,
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Here’s the Viking, the whales, the moral,
The loner, the ennui, the journey, the Yukon,
The wilderness and the brown wolf.
Here’s a book, a book by the Farley Mowat.

Here’s Owls in the Family—
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Jolly good, Owls in the Family,
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Here’s the angst, the Viking, the whales, the moral,
The loner, the ennui, the journey, the Yukon,
The wilderness and the brown wolf.
Here’s a book, a book by the Farley Mowat.

Here’s Canada North Now—
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Jolly good, Canada North Now,
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Here’s the winter, the angst, the Viking, the whales, the moral,
The loner, the ennui, the journey, the Yukon,
The wilderness and the brown wolf.
Here’s a book, a book by the Farley Mowat.

Here’s The Siberians—
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Jolly good, Siberians,
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Here’s the arctic, the winter,
The angst, the Viking, the whales, the moral,
The loner, the ennui, the journey, the Yukon,
The wilderness and the brown wolf.
Here’s a book, a book by the Farley Mowat.

Here’s The Dog Who Wouldn’t Be—
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Jolly good, Dog Who Wouldn’t Be,
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Here’s the dog, the arctic, the winter,
The angst, the Viking, the whales, the moral,
The loner, the ennui, the journey, the Yukon,
The wilderness and the brown wolf.
Here’s a book, a book by the Farley Mowat.

Here’s Born Naked—
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Jolly good, Born Naked,
a book by the Farley Mowat.
Here’s young Farley by dog to the arctic in winter,
Where angst-ridden Vikings eat whalemeat immorally,
Loners and ennui and baths in the Yukon,
The wilderness and the brown wolf.
Here’s a book, a book by the Farley Mowat.

comments

20th birthday party

Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:30:33 GMT

I threw a big party on my twentieth birthday. My notebook records all of the people I invited; everyone who RSVPed; and everyone who showed up (in order, with the exact time).

It also lists all the presents I received that year. The bagels were not my idea.

-----
From Mum & Dad, a card & address book / timetabler
From PN., the Batman TV soundtrack
From MJ., 3 bagels & a custom T-shirt
From MF., 1 bagel & a U of Ant T-shirt & a card
From AB., 1 bagel & a jar of pickles & a cake mix
From DP. & MH., 2 window balloons & a discrete telescope & a card
From LB. & B., a sky map & a card & a paper airplane book
From AG., a card & a book & a pun book
From PE., a card & $50
From AM., 2 poems & a letter & Pringles
From PS., a card & a bagel
From SD., 4 buttons
From PS. & KC., 6 bagels & a blank mug
From MD., 1 bagel
From CM., 1 bagel
From JB., a card
From JT., a card & a letter & a crane, paper
From E., N., etc., a card
From Gramps, a card & $20
From W., a card & a pencil & chic. dino's & $20
From JW. & MJ., a card & Ç.P.P.M. lyrics
From EG., a card & a fish

comments

A mad lib

Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:22:04 GMT

On family vacations, we used to write a mad lib every evening to tell some version of what had happened that day. Here's an entry from our summer vacation in England in 1987, when I was 17.

-----
Simultaneously crying, "Hoist the mizzenmast!" the entire Osmie family tinkled out of bed to face the world yet again. Everyone was very flowering; there was nobody who simply sat there and itched; no, nobody at all. While Mum and Dad went down to tickle the laundry, the intrepid kids synthetically set out to find a table for breakfast. The going was tough, but they found one just before Mum and Dad started salivating. A delicious breakfast was had by all, although both X and Osmie refused the stained glass and eyelid. Unfortunately, the fruit juice tasted like vinegar, but no-one really cared.

After collecting the slightly pungent laundry and hanging it over the hail, the family left for Waterloo Station. Mum and Dad confused themselves about tickets while Osmie and X discussed bowling balls. Finally, they arrived there, just 1001 nights before their train was due to flatten, necessitating a fairly overinquisitive run for the rear carriage.

The kids were soon horrified to discover that they were shining through Ladner, but they bore it out. Suddenly, the vista of their destination gagged before them: Hampton Bookmark. Agreeing to meet in the wallpaper stop at one, they separated to see the blimp, the castanets of Henry VIII, the other cassettes, and the Maze, where Osmie evaporated until 1:15. Everyone proceeded to plasticize each other for 12 centuries, but once the group was together again, they started buying assorted knitting needles, both to keep and to send to Edmond Halley as presents.

By this time, the entire family was pragmatic. They headed for a shock absorber to remedy this. X, as usual, slithered more than anyone else.

This time, when they went to find a train, they had no trouble elongating it. They now returned to London — Tottenham Court Bedspread this time, to pop into the Virgin Megadoorknob to buy a book on snakeskin and a record.

Stopping off at Dillon's — named after the famous speck, Matt — on the way back, Osmie realized that flypaper was falling outside so she'd better get back to the hotel before it squished her. Once there, people trotted — for they were leaving for behind the chimney pot the next day — read a Degenerating Image book, and listened to their new bicuspid. Finally, Osmie wrote and sipped a Mad Lib, cleverly starting at the end and working backwards so the first word given was Diamond Tooth Bo: she has no idea why.

comments

Lemmings

Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:06:38 GMT

My notebook contains an unfinished song called "Lemmings." It's strongly influenced by Jethro Tull, to judge by the time signature variations.

The rhythm is charted quite carefully, but the notes aren't. Amazingly, I remember exactly how it goes.

-----
People are like lemmings.
Won't you throw yourself into the sea?

I am a lemming.
I'll die if I want,
Suicide if I want.
Ask me why, 'cause I want to.

[4/4] [4/4] [9/8]
[3/4] [3/4] [3/4] [3/4]
[5/8] [5/8] [5/8] [5/8] [5/8] [5/8] [5/8] [6/8]
[7/8] [7/8] [7/8] [3/4]

comments

Hank

Wed, 13 Nov 2013 06:58:18 GMT

This evening, while tidying my basement, I found the old notebook which I used to carry around in my late teens.

I am inspired to post excerpts from it.

Here, then, is the beginning of an epic poem I once began about Hank, and notes about where I wanted to take it. Hank was a running joke among my friends -- the saviour of a fictional religion which only valued money.

Yes, we honestly thought that was a joke. We were so naïve that we didn't realize there were people in the world who really thought that way, and certainly not that they were in power. We thought we were being ridiculous; in fact we were just spouting the rhetoric of economic control.

We had no concept of how offensive we were.

This is the first entry in my notebook. I was seventeen.

-----
Urania! Hear my call, and guide my pen
Through verses which must be made known to men,
Through lines to equal Virgil, Milton, Pope,
And Homer, past the Odyssey in scope,
To tell of how one man, one recent year,
Became the first of mortal men to hear
The one true gospel, how he spread its words
Past obstacles too high for Earthly birds,
And how, at last, he turned the final bend
Awaiting him alone, devout, as end.

A Monday it had been, the twenty-first
Of March when onto him the knowledge burst
Like thunder clapping bricks upon the floor
As ocean battles earth in constant war.
But long before that time, in 'eighty-one
Did all the powers decide the time had come.

-Hank's father gets cancer & dies (April '82) leaving everything to Hank (IIII)
-Hank's school career gets worse and worse
-Hank travels all over the world (to the fashionable areas) [II]
-Hank goes to Venezuela (thinking mistakenly that it's fashionable) and almost loses favour [III]
-Revelation (end of IIII) and church [V]
-Hank's discontent: baseically description [I] - decides to travel, heads for airport for Paris

I
-> Paris

II
travels ->

III
growing favour. Father sicker. Tricked into Venezuela by ??? Nemesis. Comes in earlier.
-> almost lost

IIII
-leaves Venezuela.
-Comes back into favour
-father dies (had recovered a bit in III end)
-> Revelation

V
-Church
-aftermath
-sets everything up, finishes his life's work, leaves a supply of X pennies (he knew the total # of people ever to be in the church at once (but no-one knows exactly how many there are)
-becomes pure money
-> how great he was

Nemesis = Mother Teresa? = Benji? = Reincarnation of the Mahatma Gandhi? of
The Book of Hank: $3.00

comments

I am getting rid of books!

Sun, 21 Oct 2012 03:48:24 GMT

And I have a new blog about it at http://iamgettingridofbooks.wordpress.com. Come have a look.

comments

Incidental poetry

Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:06:06 GMT

I haven't written occasional doggerel in a while. Today it happened. And so I share.

Ahem.

I put a mace through someone's face,
And now the cops are on my case.
They trace my travels pace by pace,
And I expect I'll lose this race
By bending down to tie my lace,
Or brace my side, or hide someplace
Inside a dead-end corner space.
But maybe I could end this chase
By vanishing without a trace?
Now there's a thought. Perhaps I'll--

comments

Too Vague for Google

Sat, 29 Oct 2011 19:42:57 GMT

Folks, it's time to sit down and record my music.

I've said this before — usually in a sentence like, "I really want to take some time off this year and record an album." But you know what's happened then? I've thrown up my arms instead of drawing up a project timeline. I've obsessed over getting the arrangements perfect. I've set up a microphone and promptly dropped into an oubliette of stage fright.

Over and over again, I've run into the wall of, "I don't know how!" and spontaneously forgotten that this complaint has only two answers:

(1) Ask for help.
(2) Sit down and do the work.

Sometimes answer #1 is the right one; sometimes it's answer #2. If you do both, you're always covered. If you do neither … well … you're me for the past mumblety-odd years.

Today I'm doing both.

As of January 1st, 2012, I will be recording and releasing — through YouTube, which seems to be this decade's model for indie music distribution — at least one song every fortnight.

I need help from the following sorts of people:

⇒ Vocalists!

I can sing every one of these songs, but most of them deserve a better voice than mine. Besides, the more vocal styles, the better! If you know my music well enough to have a favourite, let me know and I'll probably give it to you — but if you don't, please speak up anyway. We'll talk.

(Not to mention that some of these pieces are arranged for multiple voices. I'll need five vocalists for "On the Checkerboard," and eight for "Love Abides.")

⇒ Musicians!

The only instruments I play well enough for recording are keyboards and alto recorder. At everything else I'm a hack. If you play accordion or drum kit or bassoon or cello or mandolin or bass guitar or euphonium or theremin or saxophone or tympani or flute or harmonica or oboe or fiddle or marimba or udu or pretty much anything else — and if you're interested in backing me up on a piece or seventeen — then I want to hear from you. For each song, I will send you sheet music, chords, a demo track, or whatever I've got, two or three weeks before a recording session.

Some of you have already worked with me — either by expressing interest before my latest project whimpered out, or even by coming over for one or a dozen or twenty-five rehearsals. I'm hoping for help from you folk especially. There's a reason I asked you once before, and it's because I like your work. I only stopped calling because I got scared.

Some of you are established artists, with a schedule that doesn't lend itself well to helping tyros like me stumble through their first recordings. Even so, I'd be thrilled if you've time for a cameo!

⇒ Recording professionals!

One place I've often gotten hung up is the process of recording itself. On paper, I know how to set up a mic and play into it, but whenever I actually try this, I wind up thinking about the mic instead of the music. It just doesn't sound as good. I need somebody else to sit by the computer and tell me, "Okay, go."

I also need somebody to coach me through the mixing and mastering process. I *think* I know what I'm doing, but I am nervous and easily frustrated, and I could really use a coach. If you can teach me, I want to hear from you — or if you're interesting in doing the mixing and mastering yourself, then for sure let's talk. Anything which leaves me more time for arranging and rehearsing will result in more songs, faster!

⇒ Videographers!

If there's one thing I've got *zero* skill at, it would honestly be the high jump. But if there are two, videography is a contender.

I expect that I will be releasing these songs on YouTube. If that means pointing a webcam at myself and lip-syncing the finished song, then so be it. But if you've always wanted to shoot a music video, then my friend, now is your chance.

⇒ ~~A manager!~~ ETA: hired! yay!

Yeah, I know my failure points, and one big one happens three weeks after I start a project. Without somebody keeping me going, I may glide to a stop.

I need a friend who is willing to harass and cajole me into (1) asking for help, or (2) sitting down and doing the work — as often as necessary. If I'm really in a funk, you may have to schedule time for me to arrange next week's sheet music, send arrangements to those musicians, and invite everyone to a recording session. This is a (badly) paid gig, because I can be a right stubborn quitter if there's no money on the line.

⇒ An audience!

Even if you can't help me make music, I hope you'll tune in, listen, and spread the word as we start releasing songs next year.

Thanks to all!

comments

Why I like the HST

Sun, 03 Jul 2011 19:20:00 GMT

Yes, I'm a heretic.

Many of my friends have been actively fighting the HST since it was first announced. And I've tacitly encouraged them, because on any issue I'd rather see political action and involvement than passivity.

But — much as it pains me to agree with the BC Liberals on anything — I think those particular friends are wrong.

The problem is, I don't agree with most of the pro-HST propaganda either. The commercials I've seen are full of terrible arguments, which alternately misrepresent basic economics or sidestep the question … or both. Very little upsets me more than a bad argument in favour of a good position. It makes my opinions look stupid.

So let me break things down. And let me start with a few opinions that have nothing to do with our current referendum. I won't defend them here; they're not the centre of my current argument. I will state them partly to situate myself politically, but mostly because they have nothing to do with our current referendum.

You see, almost every argument that's been advanced on either side has nothing much to do with our current referendum.

⇒ I believe the BC Liberals have done far more harm than good to this province. I have never voted for Gordon Campbell, either in person during his years as Mayor of Vancouver, or by proxy when he became leader of the provincial Opposition and later Premier. Nor can I support Christy Clark after her education cuts during the last decade — they were the profoundest and most damaging since those of a previous education minister-turned-premier, Bill Vander Zalm.

But this has nothing to do with tax structure. Gordon Campbell is not an idiot, and even if he were, idiots are allowed to have good ideas once in a while. Voting for the return of the PST because one doesn't like the BC Liberals? Bad reason. Voting to keep the HST because one does? Bad reason.

⇒ I'm not terribly fond of Bill Vander Zalm either. He's a fine gardener and a very good auctioneer — the one time we met in person, he auctioned off a performance by my recorder ensemble — but I don't appreciate his politics.

But this has nothing to do with tax structure. Bill Vander Zalm is not evil, and even if he were, evildoers are also allowed to have good ideas once in a while. Voting to keep the HST because one still harbours resentment against the Socreds? Bad reason. Voting for the return of the PST because one remembers them well? Bad reason.

⇒ I have seldom seen a political move so clumsy as last year's introduction of the HST. The BC Liberals campaigned on a platform which rejected a harmonized tax, and then promptly rammed through its legislation without debate or consultation. Their actions were contemptuous and antidemocratic.

But this has nothing to do with tax structure. As a parent, I've often legislated good ideas (e.g. "eat your vegetables") without adequate consultation among my constituents. As a manager, I'm also aware of how easy it is to screw up client communications. Lowering one's opinion of the BC Liberals because they act antidemocratically may be reasonable, just as I'd expect anyone to lower their opinion of me, at least a little, when I fail to announce a server upgrade. But my communication failures don't mean we should return to our old server — and voting for the return of the PST because the HST was terribly introduced? Bad reason. Voting to keep the HST, not that I've heard anyone venture this opinion, because one approves of its manner of introduction? Bad reason.

Those are all knee-jerk bad reasons. By now most British Columbians have thought the matter through a little better than that — but I believe it's important to articulate the knee-jerk reasons first. Otherwise they creep in and contaminate one's decision. As a lefty, I find that voting for the PST is tempting just so I can stick it to the BC Liberals, and that makes it harder to think rationally about my vote. Revenge is fun, but it's almost never wise.

Onward, then.

⇒ The most common argument I've heard in favour of the HST is that it saves businesses money. Well, this is true as far as it goes. Since the HST came along, I've had to program just one tax (HST) instead of three (GST/PST/PVRT) into all my applications at work. My job is easier; I am happier and get more done; this saves my business money and improves our service level. Nor am I the only employee whose job is made simpler; nor is mine the only small business which saved money.

Some of you, reading this, are about to pounce: "But, Karen, you work in the only industry whose taxes went down when the HST came in! Many businesses have way less revenue, because their taxes went up. They sure haven't saved money." You're right, but you're actually addressing my next point. Please have patience. Even the worst-hit businesses have a lower administration cost under the HST, and right now I'm only discussing the administration cost.

This argument is, however, fairly weak. What happens when businesses save money? Well, the TV commercials would have you believe that they pass their savings along to their customers. This is standard neoconservative dogma, the same stuff they've been peddling since the 1970s. It's hogwash and it's always been hogwash. Businesses almost never pass savings along to their clients through lowered prices. They're perfectly aware that prices will increase over time; at best they might defer their next price increase. Certainly a few of them do so, but more often a business will stash away the money against its next lean year. Often it will improve its service level, which could mean expanding, but more often means letting its current employees catch up on their backlog. Maybe it'll issue a dividend to its shareholders, or pay a bonus to its executive.

If we lower costs for businesses, dividends will go up. Employment might go up. But prices certainly won't come down.

Voting for the HST because you want lower prices? Bad reason. Voting for the PST because … um … I'm having trouble here … because you don't believe that businesses ought to have an easier time filing taxes? Bad (not to mention mean) reason.

⇒ The most common argument I've heard for the PST is that it's effectively a lower tax rate for the poor. Well, this also is true as far as it goes. Since the HST was introduced one year, low-income families have paid noticeably more in taxes.

But the problem with this argument — and I'm afraid that for me, it completely demolishes the argument — is that there's nothing integral to the PST which makes it a lower tax rate than the HST.

All sales taxes have exemptions. Before our sales tax was harmonized, the PST came with a great many exemptions, including restaurant meals, books, and medical treatment, which were taxed under the GST. When we harmonized our sales tax, these industries all saw their taxes increase.

But that didn't happen because of the HST. That happened because the BC government decided to tax those industries. Children's clothing was exempt from the PST, and it's still taxed at 5%. The BC government didn't lift its exemption on children's clothing; it could have chosen to keep its other exemptions too.

Effectively the HST legislation came in two parts. One part extended the reach of the PST, removing most (but not all) of its exemptions. The second part eliminated the PST processing department, delegated all collections to the federal government, and renamed our sales tax.

The provincial government could just as easily have stopped after removing those exemptions. We'd have exactly the same consumer tax rate that we have now, but divided into two taxes instead of one. Without an HST structure to distract us, we'd be left with two things: the tax rate (5% federal GST + 7% provincial PST), and the set of tax exemptions.

Personally I believe both of these are worth protesting.

Taxes may be charged on income (income tax, estate tax), on assets (property tax, head tax), on debt (credit card interest), or on transactions (sales tax, service charges). Every tax out there is a combination of these four categories. Some jurisdictions have managed to eliminate one or more categories, but most people will pay all four in various proportions. What those proportions should be, in an ideal society, is a substantial political question. I'm socialist enough to believe that progressive income and asset taxes should make up the bulk of taxation, while debt and transaction taxes should be held as close to zero as possible. There are other opinions.

But this debate has nothing to do with how many sales taxes we have! Repealing the HST won't restore those exemptions, if the government decides to lift them again. This referendum isn't about what industries get taxed, nor at what rate. It's about whether we ought to remit some of our tax federally and some of it provincially.

Yeah, it's actually a pretty wonky referendum. That's what happens when referenda proceed from a petition. I don't think most people signing it actually understood what they were demanding. I wish the referendum had demanded a lower HST rate, or more HST exemptions, instead of just demanding the status quo — that I could have gotten behind.

Voting for the PST because you want fewer industries taxed? Bad reason, unless you trust the current provincial government not to raise taxes. Which personally I don't, seeing as how they already did it once.

Voting for the HST because you want more industries taxed? Bad (and very mean) reason.

⇒ Since the referendum process started, Christy Clark's government has announced a long-term plan to reduce the HST. She says they'll start by issuing refund cheques this fall to all families with kids, then kick taxes down to 11% in 2012, and 10% in 2013.

The PST forces have quite rightly heard this as a bribe. Among other things, it assumes that she'll still be in power by 2013, which is by no means certain. And a lot can change in the economy in two years: if we enter another recession, her government has lots of time to renege on its current promise. I'd believe her a lot more if she reduced the HST to 11% right away as an act of goodwill, even if that meant we couldn't afford 10% until 2014.

(In fact I thought that was Mr. Campbell's plan all along: wait for the protests, then knock down the HST to 11% at the last minute. It's precisely the sort of manœuvre that he gloried in. I was genuinely surprised when it actually came in at 12%.)

Furthermore, Stephen Harper's federal government has threatened to cut off a huge amount of federal funding from BC if we reject the HST. This is almost definitely a threat, and only questionably legal … indeed, exactly the sort of manœuvre that Mr. Harper glories in.

Even thinking about caving to bribes and threats makes me angry. I don't want to vote for the HST if it means supporting Mr. Campbell, Ms. Clark and Mr. Harper! Not if it means cowing to federal threats and accepting provincial bribes!

But these are bad reasons. If somebody makes a credible threat to steal your money or slit your throat, for goodness' sake give them your money — and then memorize their face and gait, so that you can come after them later with the full force of law. Similarly, if somebody offers a credible bribe, accept the money and then turn it over as evidence. Going vigilante is the wrong answer.

And … well … let's consider for just a moment the chance that I'm misinterpreting both leaders' words because I already dislike their governments. Is it possible that they're simply articulating economic facts, in a way that sounds like a threat or a bribe? "Stay out of that SkyTrain track or you'll die," is not the same threat as, "Give me all your money or you'll die." And it's much more innocuous to hear, "Redeem that lottery ticket and you'll get $10," than, "Eat your vegetables and you'll get $10." Is it possible that I'm mishearing economic facts?

Well, yes. Whatever our disagreements on policy, Ms. Clark knows a lot more about BC's long-term budget forecasts than I do. And even that federal funding might be entailed, by laws I haven't researched for even a minute, so that Mr. Harper can't give it to us under the PST. I may not trust either of them, but I can't be sure they're being dishonest in this particular case.

If Mr. Harper is threatening us, if Ms. Clark is bribing us, then by all means let's unseat them in the next election. But if they're just poor communicators, they deserve no such umbrage. And in either case, we're better off taking the money.

Supposing we want sales taxes to come down — and that's precisely my goal — we end up with a decision matrix.

Under the HST, taxes will come down…

* …to 10% across the board, if we trust Ms. Clark's word, and if her government lasts until 2013;

* …maybe, if Adrian Dix forms the next government, plans to lower sales taxes, and can afford to do so;

Under the PST, taxes will come down…

* …to 5% on selected industries, if Ms. Clark's government lasts, and if we believe that she won't simply raise them again — either to 6%/13% across the board, or back to 12% on those very same selected industries;

* …to 5% on selected industries, if Adrian Dix forms the next government, and if we believe that he also won't raise them again.

I believe that under the PST, we're unlikely to see any tax reduction for years to come, and with a decrease in federal funding and increase in provincial tax-processing costs, we may — especially under Ms. Clark — even see a few tax increases. Meanwhile, under the HST, I don't trust that sales taxes will come down, but I believe it's possible. And — especially under Mr. Dix — I believe that we can negotiate many of the same exemptions we used to enjoy under the PST. Or maybe even better ones.

(I'm leaving aside any possibility of propitiating Mr. Harper toward adding cultural exemptions to the HST at a federal level. It's theoretically possible, I suppose. There were protests of this nature against Brian Mulroney when he first introduced the GST in 1988; I do wonder why there weren't similar ones against Jean Chrétien or Paul Martin, who unlike Mulroney were running a surplus, and who you'd think would have been more favourably inclined. —But such exemptions would be helpful no matter how this referendum goes.)

In short: I like the HST because it's a lower administration cost for the provincial government, and it's less work for employees of BC small businesses.

And that's about it. Because all of this talk about raising or lowering the tax rate is a diversion from what this referendum is actually about. And any talk of businesses passing on lower prices is just hogwash.

What do we believe should be taxed? What rate should it be taxed at? These are important political questions which the current referendum won't affect at all. At least not directly. If we vote for the PST, some taxes will come down right away, and then probably go up again later. If we vote for the HST, no taxes will come down right away, but most of them will probably come down later. Over the long term there's not a lot of difference. Our provincial government may be richer under the HST, but my point about businesses passing on lower prices still applies: whether any surplus gets transmitted into lower sales taxes on cultural events or lower income taxes on millionaires is a matter of political will; it will be decided in an election, not this referendum.

This referendum is not about punishing or rewarding our politicians; it's not about raising or lowering taxes. It's about whether we should continue to remit all our sales tax to the federal government, or whether we should remit about half of it to the provincial government, and half to the federal government.

Adding a level of complexity would be crazy.

Am I in favour of extinguishing the HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) and reinstating the PST (Provincial Sales Tax) in conjunction with the GST (Goods and Services Tax)?

No, I am not. Sorry.

comments

A note on voter turnout

Tue, 03 May 2011 17:21:33 GMT

I recently noticed a comment on a friend's Facebook feed which complained that Harper got only 24% of the possible vote.

Although I agree with the point the comment was trying to make—that an alternative voting system would suit Canada better than first-past-the-post (personally I prefer Condorcet methods, particularly Ranked Pairs)—the stats geek in me is annoyed. Good points are never strengthened by bad arguments, and this is a bad argument.

Let's start with a slightly pedantic digression. We live in a parliamentary democracy, not a republic. The only people who could possibly have voted for Harper are the 93,707 electors who live in Calgary-Southwest. Everybody else voted for their local candidate. Stephen Harper is very popular in his riding; he won 75% of the vote, with a 61% voter turnout.

Yes, I know how metonymy works; I know one aspect can stand in for a larger whole, and I know "Harper" means "The Conservative Party." But I'm also wary of what metonyms erase, and this particular metonym erases the "parliamentary" aspect of our democracy—which I happen to think is very important. I won't claim I voted for a party leader unless I actually voted in their riding.

Wording is important. But numbers are more important.

The Conservatives got 39.6% of the Canadian vote, with 61.4% voter turnout. This means that 24.3% of the people on the voters' list both showed up to the poll and voted Conservative. I'm sure it's where the 24% number came from.

But let's think about the 38.6% of people who didn't show up. I'm going to present a few guesses about their preferences.

Guess #1. What if every single one of them preferred the Conservative candidate? Well, then the total Conservative vote would be 24.3% + 38.6% = 62.9%. That's quite a mandate…but it's also ridiculous. The one thing we know for sure is that the Conservatives can't possibly have achieved more votes than this, so let's declare it an upper bound.

Guess #2. What if every single one of them preferred someone other than the Conservative candidate? Well, then the total Conservative vote would be 24.3% + 0% = 24.3%. Here's the assertion my friend's friend made! But…well…this is every bit as ridiculous as the last guess. The one thing we know for sure is that the Conservatives can't possibly have achieved fewer votes than this, so let's declare it a lower bound.

What do we know so far? The level of Conservative support in this country is somewhere between 24.3% and 62.9%. And that's why the comment annoyed me. You can't go around saying that Harper (or his party) got 24% of the possible votes, any more than you can say that he got 63% of the possible votes. It's cherry-picking the most ridiculous possible number which supports your point.

In fact, the party's true support is probably somewhere close to the middle of this range, for the same reason that if you flip a coin a million times, you'll probably get close to 500,000 heads. How close to the middle? Well…

Guess #3. Well, what if exactly half of them preferred the Conservatives? Then the true level of support is right in the centre, at 43.6%.

That's a whole lot likelier than either edge case, but it's still not the best we can do. Of the people who bothered to show up, only 39.6% preferred the Conservatives. We've got no reason to assume that support was much higher among the folks who didn't show up. So...

Guess #4. What if exactly 39.6% of them preferred the Conservatives? Then the true level of support was perfectly measured by the election, at 39.6%.

This is the assumption that our electoral system is built on—that a fairly representative sample of Canadians will show up to the polls. And it's pretty good. But we can still do better.

The laws of statistics are quite clear that if you choose 61% of the voting population at random and ask them who they prefer, you'll get the right answer within a very small margin of error. But the people who show up at the voting booth are not selected at random. They choose themselves, based on a variety of criteria.

The most important criterion for humans is always convenience. The easier it is to vote, the more people will vote.

So anyone who moved on May 1st, and had to scramble new ID together for their new riding and wait in a registration lineup, is less likely to have shown up. Anyone who was homeless on May 2nd, and had to find someone to vouch for them at the poll—someone who hadn't already vouched for another voter—is less likely to have shown up. Ditto anyone who was bedridden, hospitalized, incarcerated, or just sick that day. Ditto anybody out of their riding on a long trip. Ditto anyone who's working two jobs, who can't get childcare, or who has mobility and access issues.

Also important are freedom and power. So anybody who felt unrepresented by their available choices—for any reason, rightly or wrongly—is less likely to have shown up.

There's a lot of reasons why people don't show up; each reason fits a different range of demographic profiles; and each profile votes for the parties in a different proportion.

But when you add them all together, you consistently find that—compared to the people who actually voted—the folks least likely to show up tend to prefer left-of-centre and fringe parties. To be sure, some of them vote Conservative: that's why we threw out the 24% estimate. But in an election where 39.6% of the votes fell to the Conservative party, it's a safe bet that rather fewer than 39.6% of the non-voters preferred the Conservative party.

I don't know what the proper weighting is. But I'm confident that the true level of support for the Conservatives is somewhere less than 39%, and I would be very surprised if it's less than 33%. So I'll guess somewhere in the middle of that range, and say 36%.

Now the outrage over our voting system has a good argument. Only 36% of Canadians prefer the Conservative party! So how can they deserve a majority government? Fair enough. But arguing the same point from 24% is making a bad statistical mistake.

-----
In real life, not every person on the voter rolls actually exists. Some of them are deceased; some are duplicates of people who've moved to another riding (especially if they married and/or changed their name at the same time); many of them are data entry errors. Elections Canada likes to err on the side of keeping people on the lists, and they still have huge lineups at the registration table every election…I believe almost all of those new registrants have a doppelgänger on the wrong electoral list. I've never seen an estimate for this number, but after scrutineering elections for twenty years, I'd guess it might be as high as 10%.

But this doesn't really change my argument above. It just reduces the margin of error. If 10% of Canadian voters aren't real, then we had 68% voter turnout instead of 61%—but Conservative support among actual votes cast remains at 39.6%. The possible range around that number becomes a bit narrower, and maybe I arrive at a final guess of 37% support.

ETA: 39.6% Conservative support + 38.6% nonattendance = really easy typos. Fixed a few of them, and tweaked any numbers which were based on them.

comments

How to vote

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:00:42 GMT

With one foot in front of the other until you get to the polling place.
With confidence that you have the right to be there,
that the most officious officer can make it hard for you but no one can turn you away.
With admiration at the people around you,
for they've accepted that citizenship is a privilege,
and take enough pride in that privilege to be here, now, voting, with you.
With amazement at their diversity,
here in the one place and time when you cannot hide from that diversity,
where everybody is as Canadian as you are.
With your kids beside you.
With your parents or your parole officer in tow.
With your guests from out of town.
With pride in your privilege, and sympathy for the most officious officer,
who probably didn't get enough training,
and maybe there's something you and the proud Canadians around you can do to help calm them down.

Travel to the first advance poll if you can. The second if you can't.
Pretend the third advance poll is election day itself.
Tell all your friends you voted in advance. Applaud as they tell their friends. Rave.
Turn voting into a trend.

Give your name. Give your address. Show your photo ID.
If you don't have any photo ID, show a piece of mail.
If you don't have a piece of mail, go visit the public library
and ask them to mail you something before election day.
If you can't receive mail before election day, because it is election day,
or because you have no home with a mailing address,
or because you live in a town without a public library,
bring a friend and sign an affidavit.

Say hello to the poll clerk and deputy returning officer, sitting all day behind a ballot box.
State your name for the poll clerk.
Take your ballot from the DRO.
Scoot, walk, shuffle to the voting screen. Pick up the pen.
Unroll your ballot like a Tim Horton's cup,
admiring the crown printer's even black ink across its face,
admiring how clearly each box matches one candidate,
so that you can never make a mistake without catching it a moment later.

Read every name. Notice if two names sound similar.
If you can't read, ask the poll clerk for someone to read the names to you.
Draw one large X in the empty white box next to the name of one candidate.
If you can't draw an X, ask the poll clerk for someone to draw an X for you.

Turn your ballot over. Breathe once with your eyes closed.
Turn your ballot over again and read it as though you've never seen it before.
If you made a mistake, ask the DRO for a second chance,
and they will seal your first ballot in an envelope to be destroyed.

Roll up your ballot and hand it back to the DRO.
Together you'll place it in the ballot box.

Go home and tell all your friends. Applaud as they tell their friends.
Let there be lineups at the polls.

You might not know who to vote for,
but maybe you can figure out a couple of people to vote against.
If you can't decide among two candidates, pick the one whose name you like best
as you roll it around your mouth.
If you can't decide among three candidates, play one-potato-two-potato
as you count the letters of their names.
If you can't decide among four candidates, close your eyes and shuffle the paper back and forth
as you point with the stub end of your pen.

If you can't decide among any of the candidates,
maybe you're the sort of person who likes math
and who hates getting the wrong answer.
There's an equation if you want it.
List all the decisions you can make. List all the possible election outcomes.
Guess a probability for each decision-outcome,
and make sure the numbers in each decision-row add up to 1.
Then multiply each probability by how much regret you'll feel if it happens,
and vote for the candidate with the lowest total.

Or maybe you're the sort of person who likes policy.
Visit their party websites and read their policy handbooks.
Phone your candidates and ask what they'll do, how they'll do it,
what specific actions they plan to take in the world.
Everyone can talk about vague intentions.
Learn from them, if you haven't already learned all you'll ever learn,
if they have anything at all to teach you.
Ask honest questions, and learn which candidates are honest enough to say I don't know.

Or maybe you're the sort of person who likes to watch people's faces.
Your candidates all had a debate on YouTube last week: go find it.
So did their party leaders. Go find that debate too.
Visit your candidates at their riding offices.
Watch the debates at your public library,
and tell all the other library patrons you're getting ready to vote.
Turn voting into a trend.

This isn't a standardized test, a Foundation Skills Assessment of citizenship.
The right answer is whatever name you choose,
and you make it right the moment you choose it.

If you don't like any of the candidates in your riding,
if you really don't like them, and you don't just hate the party leaders or the institution of voting,
then vote anyway,
and next election, make sure one of those candidates is you.

The only Canadians without a vote are children and the Chief Electoral Officer,
but minor election officials can only vote at the advance poll;
on election day, poll clerks and DROs lose their franchise too.
Maybe one officer forgot to vote. Maybe that's why they're being so officious today.

If you're at the wrong polling place, they can still direct you to the right one,
so ask a party scrutineer to arrange you a ride.
Tell them you think you might vote for their side,
even if you'd rather vote Natural Law or Rhino,
even if you might play one-potato-two-potato with the names on the ballot,
even if you can't read with your own eyes, draw with your own hand, walk on your own feet.

Roll up your ballot.
No one can turn you away.

comments

It came to me in the shower…

Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:10:38 GMT

…and bit me with the tune from Shenandoah:

O Hall & Oates, I long to see you
For one last reunion concert
O Hall & Oates, I long to hear you
So play, record and play
Your eighties Motown music

comments

Last night's dreams

Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:07:55 GMT

First I was the entire Battlestar Galactica fleet, squadrons of Vipers departing and recombining and intersecting myself; I felt each ship as a part of myself, a tactile sensation interacting with other tactile sensations. This was a glorious strange synæsthesia whose like I've never experienced before.

This is the sort of dream which I like to imagine hundun has frequently.

Second I was myself again, back at UBC in preparation for a major, Olympic-scale sporting event. I was part of an emergency engineering team setting up a course for a brand new event, which had been invented and approved on paper but which had never been tried in the world: inner-tubing down a waterslide through a stream of chocolate peanut butter sundae. Unfortunately the viscosity was wrong, and my team had to dismantle and reassemble the track before the festivities started.

Most of my team was working on the track design: the slope, the turning radius, the time between tube launches. A few were working on the chocolate peanut butter recipe. My job was screwing bolts into the arena wall.

I went for a walk over lunch break; it seems the waterslide arena occupied most of the Hennings building.

Although I didn't run into her, by the time I came back peristalsis had somehow put me onto an amazing techno track, which played at high speed the entire colonial history of Minnesota: one (highly percussive) waveform for battles, another for cultural events, another for political events, and so on. The history rigorously provided the rhythm, but the composer had put together some compelling melodic and harmonic riffs on top of it.

So I played this song over the speakers while we tested the track—and discovered that if I hooked the music system into the sundae distribution software, everything worked perfectly. The gunfire-peanuts were expelled at just the right moments to propel each inner tube along the track instead of restricting it; the chocolate and peanut butter sauces mixed with the ice cream in a perfect consistency and aroma.

We tried other colonial-history pieces by the same composer, but none of them worked as well as Minnesota.

This is the sort of dream which I like to imagine Yo has frequently.

comments

A few more books!

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 04:48:34 GMT

Perdido Street Station by China Miéville is freakin' brilliant. I started reading it several years ago, on the urgent recommendation of anonymaus and eggdropsoap and fimmtiu, who pressed a copy into my hands—and for the next several weeks it was my constant companion.

Like an Umberto Eco novel, its first twenty pages are quite difficult going. Persevere. It is worth the early effort. Know this.

Then I left it behind on the counter at an open mic. The next day I went back, but nobody had seen it. I scoured new bookstores—always new, when one is replacing a friend's lost book—for years, but could never find a copy. (I'm sure White Dwarf would've had one, but I'm simply never in that neighbourhood anymore.)

Finally in Minneapolis last fall, scotia_girl brought me to Uncle Hugo's, where I bought a replacement for anonymaus—and to a lovely used bookstore where I bought a copy for myself. At last I could finish it!

And finish it I did. Wow. It kept gut-punching me right through the last ten pages. I'm just not going to say anything about its dense, meandering plot, its vivid characters, or its rich extraordinary cityscape, because there's too much joy in the discovery.

'Tain't a perfect novel. Two or three of its characters, who might as well be visitors from a neighbouring (and far more conventional) fantasy novel, actually fall flat. The title is lovely and evocative, but doesn't have much to do with the book itself. Um, and those first twenty pages are hard going.

Otherwise it's pretty darned close.

Dæmonomania by John Crowley is the third novel in his huge Ægypt sequence, following Ægypt itself and Love and Sleep, preceding Endless Things (which I hope I shall be starting soon).

The series took him more than 20 years to write, and in the richness and depth of his sentences, you can tell why. Each one is perfectly lilted, and few are shorter than fifty words long. You want to roll every one of them around on your tongue for half a minute before going on to the next.

In this volume, circa 1979, Pierce Moffett and Rose Ryder engage in tumultuous BDSM until she follows her ex Mike Mucho into a Christian cult. Mike is involved in a custody battle with his other ex (and Pierce's employer), Rosie Rasmussen, over their five-year-old daughter Samantha, who's developed an undiagnosed form of epilepsy. Rosie wants to give her the latest medicines; Mike believes the medicine is making her sick and wants to cure her with prayer. Meanwhile, circa 1600, John Dee has fled England for Prague, where he continues his alchemical researches; Giordano Bruno is likewise wandering central Europe as an itinerant heretic; and the angel in Dr. Dee's crystal ball is starting to bear an uncanny resemblance to Samantha, who will happen upon possession of the same crystal ball four centuries later.

Everyone—whether they confront them, converse with them or run from them—is seeing dæmons.

I've been reading this series since 1990, another book each decade. They're slow but luscious. We'll see whether Endless Things takes me as long. I can't wait.

comments

One Dreamwidth code available.

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:38:19 GMT

Like -- I have no doubt -- every other Dreamwidth user out there, I have a spare invite code today.

Who'd like it?

This message will be posted on Dreamwidth, LiveJournal and Facebook. First person to comment on any of these platforms wins the code.

ETA: In fact, by the time I posted this, I had two codes available! Alas, both codes are now claimed.

comments

An experiment.

Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:32:35 GMT

There are currently 26 urban agglomerations -- also known as "cities" -- in the world whose population numbers above 10,000,000.

I'd like you -- yes, you -- to name them. Please write down the 26 world cities which you think are most likely to have over 10,000,000 inhabitants, in the order you think of them.

This is actually an experiment, and so I have a few rules...

(1) Don't post your guesses publicly.

If you're reading this on Dreamwidth, go ahead and comment (they're screened).

If you're reading this on LiveJournal, why are you still on LiveJournal? Well, no matter. Visit my Dreamwidth post via the link at the bottom, and comment there using your LiveJournal ID. Or send me a private message on LJ if you must.

If you're reading this on Facebook, send me a message -- and then post a comment saying you've done so, because notes with lots of comments will show up on more people's news pages. Please don't mention any city names when you comment.

(2) Do post your guesses quickly.

Don't worry about getting everything right. You probably won't. That's okay. That's not actually what this experiment is about. There are no penalties for wrong answers.

(3) Don't use any atlas, almanac, encyclopædia, search engine, or other source.

This is about what comes into your brain, not what comes up on your all-knowing screen when you ask it a question. If I just wanted the correct answers, I wouldn't be asking the world for a list.

(4) Do write down 26 cities, in the order you think of them.

The order is important. Please don't alphabetize them, or organize them by continent, or format them any other way. Just write down the 26 world cities which you think are most likely to have over 10,000,000 inhabitants, in the order you think of them.

If you give me more than 26 cities, I'll ignore #27 and onward. If you give me fewer than 26, I'll take your submission ... but wouldn't it be just as easy (and a lot more fun) to fill in the empty spots with guesses you know are wrong?

I asked something like this a few years ago on LiveJournal -- but you won't find it; I've hidden those posts. Back then I was looking to start a conversation. This time I've got a different experiment in mind, and I hope you'll help me out.

Thank you! I'll publish results once I've received about 50 submissions.

comments

Reading again

Tue, 07 Dec 2010 07:54:20 GMT

For a couple of years there, I almost completely stopped reading fiction. I don't entirely know why. Non-fiction, especially political analysis, grabbed me; I had no trouble with scientific treatises on probability theory or general relativity. But I crawled and stopped halfway through any work of fiction I picked up.

Apparently I'm back.

Someday soon I may start posting long reviews once again, but for now I'll content myself with a capsule list.

In late October, I read Lois McMaster Bujold's Cryoburn, her first Miles Vorkosigan book in some years. Miles seems to be keeping up with my age: it's been about ten years in both story and real time since his last adventure. I missed Ekatarina, who spent most of the book far offstage, but enjoyed the story: 'twas a clever exploration of how cryonics might affect both voting and insurance law.

Then I moved on to Steven Brust's Jhegaala. Some interesting similarities between these series: Minneapolis writers, wisecracking protagonists, enough temporal leaps that you're never sure, at the start of a novel, when it fits in the series' timeline. And between these books: protagonist and familiar travel to a foreign land, become haplessly enmeshed in local politics, and blow the whole local political scene to pieces while figuring out the plot. But I found that Jhegaala fell flat. Too many characters were holding the <TV Tropes warning>Idiot Ball</TV Tropes warning> far too often. "Maybe not asking reasonable questions is part of their social upbringing," said a friend to whom I confided this opinion, but honestly a society with that many Idiot Balls in the air wouldn't have lasted long enough for Vlad to find it. Pity, because Brust's writing is always enjoyable; I just couldn't suspend my disbelief for this one.

Patrick Rothfuss' The Name of the Wind came with splendid reviews from many sources. Despite this, for more than 600 pages, it almost completely failed the Bechdel Test. Of its very few female characters, none has a personality of her own. They're walking adjectives, except for the romantic lead, who specializes in being whatever the main character projects onto her. And only twice do two women ever appear in the same scene. The first time, one of them just glares at the other, over (you guessed it) a man, and then flees without asking any questions. The second time…ah, well, the second time, I'm still not sure about. They don't communicate directly; a man has to intercede before one of them has enough trust to approach. But when they do communicate (via a man), it isn't about a man. —This is, in other words, a world completely free of female relationships. And so despite its strong plot, its good ear for language, its interesting magic system, and its devoted fan following, I couldn't quite believe that its narrator was a tenth as observant and brilliant as he makes himself out to be.

I reread Gregory Maguire's Wicked, ten or more years later, and enjoyed it at least as much the second time. Knowing more of what was coming, I noticed his beautiful, subtle foreshadowing; I also thrilled at his tender depiction of a never-quite-explicit poly triad. Wicked is still one of the best fantasy works of the past fifty years.

Don DeBrandt's—er, that is, D.D. Barant's—Dying Bites didn't catch my excitement as well as most of Don's books. I think the difference was stylistic; somehow for me the present tense didn't mesh as well with the hard-boiled detective language, and I hiccoughed over the writing many times. But that's not a flaw in the book; it's just a feature. 'Twas a delightful conceit, a world of vampires & golems & lycanthropes in which "original recipe" humans are an endangered species, with a great couple of twists at the end which I didn't see coming. One slightly earlier plot reveal, though—a variation on a theme he'd used in Angel: Shakedown—I remember talking with Don about, somewhere around 1997. I'm sure our conversation was the smallest part of his idea generation, but I'm glad he found a place to use it.

comments

PicoWriMo 3 ends.

Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:22:51 GMT

Talk hangs beside him without music.

comments

The only real BBC book list

Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:28:39 GMT

For many years, a meme has circulated around the Internet challenging people to have read lots of books on a certain list. The list is always slightly different, although it's often credited to the BBC. It's often accompanied by an arbitrary (and rather low) benchmark: "Most people have read just 6 of these books!"

Well, the BBC has only once published an extensive reading list of popular books. In 2003, they sponsored a competition called The Big Read, in which Britons wrote in nominations of their favourite books in English. The top 200 vote-getters were published on their website. At no point did they challenge anybody to have read more than 6 of them.

So I'll follow your meme, O taggers of me, but I'll go straight to the source. Here are the BBC's 200 most popular books in Britain, as of seven years ago. Yes, some of them are short stories. Yes, some of them are series. Yes, some books appear on the list twice because they were nominated both within and without their series. Yes, some of them weren't actually written in English, but were nominated anyway, by people who didn't know or who didn't care. All of these caveats would be silly within a juried list, but in a popular election they're hardly unexpected.

Yes, a few of the titles—notably "Winnie-the-Pooh" and "Moby-Dick"—are inexplicably missing their hyphens. I'm a little less forgiving here, because you'd think a rudimentary copy edit would have turned up the errors, but introducing one's own amendments is how this meme strayed so far from any authoritative list in the first place. No, I'll stay true to the list as actually published by the BBC, thanks.

I've emboldened the books & stories & series I've read in full. I've italicized the ones I've begun but put down. I've underlined the ones where I've only seen the movie.

1. The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien
2. Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen
3. His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman
4. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
5. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, JK Rowling
6. To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee
7. Winnie the Pooh, AA Milne
8. Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell
9. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, CS Lewis
10. Jane Eyre, Charlotte Brontë
11. Catch-22, Joseph Heller
12. Wuthering Heights, Emily Brontë
13. Birdsong, Sebastian Faulks
14. Rebecca, Daphne du Maurier
15. The Catcher in the Rye, JD Salinger
16. The Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Grahame
17. Great Expectations, Charles Dickens
18. Little Women, Louisa May Alcott
19. Captain Corelli's Mandolin, Louis de Bernieres
20. War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy
21. Gone with the Wind, Margaret Mitchell
22. Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone, JK Rowling
23. Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, JK Rowling
24. Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban, JK Rowling
25. The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien
26. Tess Of The D'Urbervilles, Thomas Hardy
27. Middlemarch, George Eliot
28. A Prayer For Owen Meany, John Irving
29. The Grapes Of Wrath, John Steinbeck
30. Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
31. The Story Of Tracy Beaker, Jacqueline Wilson
32. One Hundred Years Of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez
33. The Pillars Of The Earth, Ken Follett
34. David Copperfield, Charles Dickens
35. Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl
36. Treasure Island, Robert Louis Stevenson
37. A Town Like Alice, Nevil Shute
38. Persuasion, Jane Austen
39. Dune, Frank Herbert
40. Emma, Jane Austen
41. Anne Of Green Gables, LM Montgomery
42. Watership Down, Richard Adams
43. The Great Gatsby, F Scott Fitzgerald
44. The Count Of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas
45. Brideshead Revisited, Evelyn Waugh
46. Animal Farm, George Orwell
47. A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens
48. Far From The Madding Crowd, Thomas Hardy
49. Goodnight Mister Tom, Michelle Magorian
50. The Shell Seekers, Rosamunde Pilcher

51. The Secret Garden, Frances Hodgson Burnett
52. Of Mice And Men, John Steinbeck
53. The Stand, Stephen King
54. Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy
55. A Suitable Boy, Vikram Seth
56. The BFG, Roald Dahl
57. Swallows And Amazons, Arthur Ransome
58. Black Beauty, Anna Sewell
59. Artemis Fowl, Eoin Colfer
60. Crime And Punishment, Fyodor Dostoyevsky
61. Noughts And Crosses, Malorie Blackman
62. Memoirs Of A Geisha, Arthur Golden
63. A Tale Of Two Cities, Charles Dickens
64. The Thorn Birds, Colleen McCollough
65. Mort, Terry Pratchett
66. The Magic Faraway Tree, Enid Blyton
67. The Magus, John Fowles
68. Good Omens, Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman
69. Guards! Guards!, Terry Pratchett
70. Lord Of The Flies, William Golding
71. Perfume, Patrick Süskind
72. The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Robert Tressell
73. Night Watch, Terry Pratchett
74. Matilda, Roald Dahl
75. Bridget Jones's Diary, Helen Fielding
76. The Secret History, Donna Tartt
77. The Woman In White, Wilkie Collins
78. Ulysses, James Joyce
79. Bleak House, Charles Dickens
80. Double Act, Jacqueline Wilson
81. The Twits, Roald Dahl
82. I Capture The Castle, Dodie Smith
83. Holes, Louis Sachar
84. Gormenghast, Mervyn Peake
85. The God Of Small Things, Arundhati Roy
86. Vicky Angel, Jacqueline Wilson
87. Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
88. Cold Comfort Farm, Stella Gibbons
89. Magician, Raymond E Feist
90. On The Road, Jack Kerouac
91. The Godfather, Mario Puzo
92. The Clan Of The Cave Bear, Jean M Auel
93. The Colour Of Magic, Terry Pratchett
94. The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho
95. Katherine, Anya Seton
96. Kane And Abel, Jeffrey Archer
97. Love In The Time Of Cholera, Gabriel García Márquez
98. Girls In Love, Jacqueline Wilson
99. The Princess Diaries, Meg Cabot
100. Midnight's Children, Salman Rushdie

101. Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome
102. Small Gods, Terry Pratchett
103. The Beach, Alex Garland
104. Dracula, Bram Stoker
105. Point Blanc, Anthony Horowitz
106. The Pickwick Papers, Charles Dickens
107. Stormbreaker, Anthony Horowitz
108. The Wasp Factory, Iain Banks
109. The Day Of The Jackal, Frederick Forsyth
110. The Illustrated Mum, Jacqueline Wilson
111. Jude The Obscure, Thomas Hardy
112. The Secret Diary Of Adrian Mole Aged 13¾, Sue Townsend
113. The Cruel Sea, Nicholas Monsarrat
114. Les Misérables, Victor Hugo
115. The Mayor Of Casterbridge, Thomas Hardy
116. The Dare Game, Jacqueline Wilson
117. Bad Girls, Jacqueline Wilson
118. The Picture Of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde
119. Shogun, James Clavell
120. The Day Of The Triffids, John Wyndham
121. Lola Rose, Jacqueline Wilson
122. Vanity Fair, William Makepeace Thackeray
123. The Forsyte Saga, John Galsworthy
124. House Of Leaves, Mark Z. Danielewski
125. The Poisonwood Bible, Barbara Kingsolver
126. Reaper Man, Terry Pratchett
127. Angus, Thongs And Full-Frontal Snogging, Louise Rennison
128. The Hound Of The Baskervilles, Arthur Conan Doyle
129. Possession, A. S. Byatt
130. The Master And Margarita, Mikhail Bulgakov
131. The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood
132. Danny The Champion Of The World, Roald Dahl
133. East Of Eden, John Steinbeck
134. George's Marvellous Medicine, Roald Dahl
135. Wyrd Sisters, Terry Pratchett
136. The Color Purple, Alice Walker
137. Hogfather, Terry Pratchett
138. The Thirty-Nine Steps, John Buchan
139. Girls In Tears, Jacqueline Wilson
140. Sleepovers, Jacqueline Wilson
141. All Quiet On The Western Front, Erich Maria Remarque
142. Behind The Scenes At The Museum, Kate Atkinson
143. High Fidelity, Nick Hornby
144. It, Stephen King
145. James And The Giant Peach, Roald Dahl
146. The Green Mile, Stephen King
147. Papillon, Henri Charriere
148. Men At Arms, Terry Pratchett
149. Master And Commander, Patrick O'Brian
150. Skeleton Key, Anthony Horowitz

151. Soul Music, Terry Pratchett
152. Thief Of Time, Terry Pratchett
153. The Fifth Elephant, Terry Pratchett
154. Atonement, Ian McEwan
155. Secrets, Jacqueline Wilson
156. The Silver Sword, Ian Serraillier
157. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Ken Kesey
158. Heart Of Darkness, Joseph Conrad
159. Kim, Rudyard Kipling
160. Cross Stitch, Diana Gabaldon
161. Moby Dick, Herman Melville
162. River God, Wilbur Smith
163. Sunset Song, Lewis Grassic Gibbon
164. The Shipping News, Annie Proulx
165. The World According To Garp, John Irving
166. Lorna Doone, R. D. Blackmore
167. Girls Out Late, Jacqueline Wilson
168. The Far Pavilions, M. M. Kaye
169. The Witches, Roald Dahl
170. Charlotte's Web, E. B. White
171. Frankenstein, Mary Shelley
172. They Used To Play On Grass, Terry Venables and Gordon Williams
173. The Old Man And The Sea, Ernest Hemingway
174. The Name Of The Rose, Umberto Eco
175. Sophie's World, Jostein Gaarder
176. Dustbin Baby, Jacqueline Wilson
177. Fantastic Mr Fox, Roald Dahl
178. Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov
179. Jonathan Livingstone Seagull, Richard Bach
180. The Little Prince, Antoine De Saint-Exupery
181. The Suitcase Kid, Jacqueline Wilson
182. Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens
183. The Power Of One, Bryce Courtenay
184. Silas Marner, George Eliot
185. American Psycho, Bret Easton Ellis
186. The Diary Of A Nobody, George and Weedon Grossmith
187. Trainspotting, Irvine Welsh
188. Goosebumps, R. L. Stine
189. Heidi, Johanna Spyri
190. Sons And Lovers, D. H. LawrenceLife of Lawrence
191. The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Milan Kundera
192. Man And Boy, Tony Parsons
193. The Truth, Terry Pratchett
194. The War Of The Worlds, H. G. Wells
195. The Horse Whisperer, Nicholas Evans
196. A Fine Balance, Rohinton Mistry
197. Witches Abroad, Terry Pratchett
198. The Once And Future King, T. H. White
199. The Very Hungry Caterpillar, Eric Carle
200. Flowers In The Attic, Virginia Andrews

comments

Penultimate picowrimo

Tue, 30 Nov 2010 07:09:25 GMT

Talk hangs beside him without musi

comments

PicoWriMo 3.28

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:28:07 GMT

Talk hangs beside him without mus

comments

PicoWriMo 3.27

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 02:13:27 GMT

Talk hangs beside him without mu

comments

PicoWriMo 3.26

Sat, 27 Nov 2010 06:48:58 GMT

Talk hangs beside him without m

comments

PicoWriMo 3.25

Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:27:54 GMT

Talk hangs beside him without

comments

PicoWriMo 3.24

Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:22:21 GMT

Catching up, with a very limited Markov distribution for the next couple of days...

Talk hangs beside him withou

comments