I finished Mike Schmidt(the former third baseman and Hall of Famer Michael Jack Schmidt, not the former third baseman Michael Glenn Schmidt)'s book "Clearing The Bases", and also finished Tim McCarver's "Diamond Gems" within the last few days.
Mike Schmidt made a somewhat amusing statement-if you're trailing by four runs with one man on, he would rather the hitter walk than hit a home run, because if you walk, you're continuing the "momentum" of the inning. Now, a lot of things factor in to this analysis, of course-if the walk brings up Albert Pujols, your chances look a lot better than if you bring up, let's say, me.
But if you are trailing by four runs, in the 7th inning, none out, runner on first, historically speaking, you win the game 5.7% of the time. (Check my math here: http://tangotiger.net/wins.html) If you walk, putting runners at first and second, you win the game 7.3% of the time. But if you hit the home run, so you now trail by two, but with the bases empty, you win 15.35% of the time.
McCarver's book also brought me two stories I hadn't ever heard about an event I thought I had read everything about: the 1986 World Series. In the interviews McCarver did, Ron Darling claimed that the Mets noticed that Roger Clemens had shaved during the late innings of Game Six, thus implying Clemens expected to be on television soon. Wade Boggs also said the third base umpire asked Boggs if he (the umpire) could have his hat, because he collected World Series winner caps. Boggs said he replied that the game wasn't over yet. Boggs was wrong, of course-the game was soon to be over, only not the way he intended.
My wife uncovered our Calvin and Hobbes books from whatever corner they were lingering in. Did I mention that I loved this woman?
CURRENTLY READING: Beyond the Sixth Game, Peter Gammons. (Library) Shockingly, Gammons' only book. I had it soon after it came out in hardcover-goodness knows where that copy is.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
They're dropping like flies...
Actors Ricardo Montalban (Fantasy Island) and Patrick McGoohan, along with painter Andrew Wyeth, have passed away recently.
All three were significant, I think, probably Wyeth the most important, if such things can be measured.
When you look back on lives like that, you can't help but compare your own. It isn't fair, but there you go. I have lived approximately 40% of their lives, and it is fairly certain the New York Times will not carry my obituary.
Then again, it is not entirely certain, assuming I live out the year, that there will be a New York Times to have a obituary in.
The world is changing, my friends. I'm not sure I'm happy about this. I'm also pretty sure the Universe doesn't care what I think.
All three were significant, I think, probably Wyeth the most important, if such things can be measured.
When you look back on lives like that, you can't help but compare your own. It isn't fair, but there you go. I have lived approximately 40% of their lives, and it is fairly certain the New York Times will not carry my obituary.
Then again, it is not entirely certain, assuming I live out the year, that there will be a New York Times to have a obituary in.
The world is changing, my friends. I'm not sure I'm happy about this. I'm also pretty sure the Universe doesn't care what I think.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school...
Read Joe Garagiola's "Just Play Ball" this morning. There's a bit of old man crankiness in it, which you have to expect from a guy who played in the 1946 World Series, but it was okay otherwise. I haven't given up on the Jackie Robinson book, I just had a chance to hit the library before I got too far into it, so I'm going to work on those books first.
Firefox led me to last.fm this morning, which is proving to be pretty cool. Programmable Internet radio FTW!
More West Wing this morning, and, as it usually does on Bravo, the dramatic tension ended in favor of The Unattractive People Being Unpleasant Show, otherwise known as the Real Housewives of Orange County. How that is a television program amazes me.
There is a documentary on PBS about comedy on tonight that I want to catch. The filmmaker was on Bob Edwards' show, which I finally heard last night, and it sounds very interesting.
Firefox led me to last.fm this morning, which is proving to be pretty cool. Programmable Internet radio FTW!
More West Wing this morning, and, as it usually does on Bravo, the dramatic tension ended in favor of The Unattractive People Being Unpleasant Show, otherwise known as the Real Housewives of Orange County. How that is a television program amazes me.
There is a documentary on PBS about comedy on tonight that I want to catch. The filmmaker was on Bob Edwards' show, which I finally heard last night, and it sounds very interesting.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
How do you DO that?
On this week's "Car Talk", they had a call from a woman who had moved from San Francisco to Puerto Rico to open a restaurant. The call wasn't particularly interesting, at least, no more so than usual-but the notion stunned me.
You can do that? Just pick up, and leave, and go to another country, and open a restaurant? I mean, I know people do that sort of thing, but the sheer audacity of it stunned me. The notion of just leaving, up and taking off, and doing something new. Wow. Not being consumed by guilt, or remorse, or fear, or anything else? Just doing it?
Wow.
You can do that? Just pick up, and leave, and go to another country, and open a restaurant? I mean, I know people do that sort of thing, but the sheer audacity of it stunned me. The notion of just leaving, up and taking off, and doing something new. Wow. Not being consumed by guilt, or remorse, or fear, or anything else? Just doing it?
Wow.
A comment so good I had to share it...
From the always entertaining Wicked Pissa Dude Radio, an attitude and humor filled Boston sports podcast: (www.wickedpissadude.com)
The point I try to emphasize about the steroid thing is that there are all kinds of skew inherent in baseball's numbers.
From 1876-1947 not all the best players were allowed to play.
From 1900-1919 the game was essentially fast pitch softball-spitballs were legal, and the cover practically had to come off before you got a new ball.
From the 1970s on, you have the evolution of the closer and specialized relievers.
From the mid 1990s-to the mid 2000s, you have steroids, but also smaller ballparks, expansion, and a strike zone about the size of a dinner plate.
So all of baseball's numbers, and all of life, really, has to be viewed in the CONTEXT of the game within which they were accomplished.
The point I try to emphasize about the steroid thing is that there are all kinds of skew inherent in baseball's numbers.
From 1876-1947 not all the best players were allowed to play.
From 1900-1919 the game was essentially fast pitch softball-spitballs were legal, and the cover practically had to come off before you got a new ball.
From the 1970s on, you have the evolution of the closer and specialized relievers.
From the mid 1990s-to the mid 2000s, you have steroids, but also smaller ballparks, expansion, and a strike zone about the size of a dinner plate.
So all of baseball's numbers, and all of life, really, has to be viewed in the CONTEXT of the game within which they were accomplished.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Feel Old?
# It is 277 days until your next birthday.
# In dog years you are 259 years old.
# You are 13,603 days old.
# You are approximately 326,473 hours old.
# You are approximately 1,175,303,245 seconds old.
(From dayofbirth.co.uk)
# In dog years you are 259 years old.
# You are 13,603 days old.
# You are approximately 326,473 hours old.
# You are approximately 1,175,303,245 seconds old.
(From dayofbirth.co.uk)
The Votes Are In, Such As They Are...
And Rickey Henderson (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-wonder-of-rickey/) and Jim Rice(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rice) are official, fully vested, 100% prime Hall of Famers. It's a shame that Bert Blyleven couldn't make it, as a strong argument can be made for him, too. But as I did, I don't care that much about it. I'm happy that they are in.
More importantly, in Molly Ivins' felicitous phrase, the only president that we've got apparently had himself a little tantrum during his final press conference.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/12/ST2009011202472.html)
Among others, the quote that kills me is this one:
"Do you remember what it was like right after September the 11th around here?" Bush asked, his voice rising. "People were saying, 'How come they didn't see it, how come they didn't connect the dots?' Do you remember what the environment was like in Washington? I do. When people were hauled up in front of Congress and members of Congress were asking questions about, how come you didn't know this, that, or the other? And then we start putting policy in place -- legal policy in place to connect the dots, and all of a sudden people were saying, 'How come you're connecting the dots?'"
No, Mr. President. Nobody objects to your connecting the dots. No sane person is going to say that they don't want you to try to protect them.
What people object to is your breaking the law, and then lying about it. Breaking known, settled, nearly one thousand year old protections in Western law, and shattering them, and then lying about it. Demonizing those who dare question your behavior, and then lying about it. Your subhuman, sneering contempt for people who don't look like you, or people who didn't grow up the son of a President.
THAT's what we object to.
More importantly, in Molly Ivins' felicitous phrase, the only president that we've got apparently had himself a little tantrum during his final press conference.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/12/ST2009011202472.html)
Among others, the quote that kills me is this one:
"Do you remember what it was like right after September the 11th around here?" Bush asked, his voice rising. "People were saying, 'How come they didn't see it, how come they didn't connect the dots?' Do you remember what the environment was like in Washington? I do. When people were hauled up in front of Congress and members of Congress were asking questions about, how come you didn't know this, that, or the other? And then we start putting policy in place -- legal policy in place to connect the dots, and all of a sudden people were saying, 'How come you're connecting the dots?'"
No, Mr. President. Nobody objects to your connecting the dots. No sane person is going to say that they don't want you to try to protect them.
What people object to is your breaking the law, and then lying about it. Breaking known, settled, nearly one thousand year old protections in Western law, and shattering them, and then lying about it. Demonizing those who dare question your behavior, and then lying about it. Your subhuman, sneering contempt for people who don't look like you, or people who didn't grow up the son of a President.
THAT's what we object to.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Belinda Carlisle is no joke!
Another weekend day, wasted away to nothing.
Finished A Game Of Brawl, moving on now to "Baseball's Great Experiment", another Jackie Robinson book. Waiting for the baseball jag to exhaust itself.
Tomorrow at 1:30 PM, the members of the 2009 class for the Baseball Hall of Fame will be announced. The HOF is a curious institution-a private organization, it answers to no one, really-and yet it stirs up hornets nests of debate from baseball fans about who should be there and who shouldn't.
I don't care, myself, all that much. I am interested to see who goes in, but I'm not going to fly into a rage if someone does or doesn't.
The consensus is that Rickey Henderson will slide (so to speak) into the Hall. The question and controversy comes up when you ask who else goes in. There are a number of other deserving candidates, but generally speaking, only 2 or at most 3 go in each year. Ideally, for me, it would be Henderson, Tim Raines, Jim Rice, and Bert Blyleven. But that's just me.
I played some "Rock Band 2" with my son today. It's more fun, and more difficult, than I really want to admit. Even seemingly simple songs, like "We Got The Beat" by The Go Gos, are harder than one might think. Playing "Rock Band 2" is to playing music like looking at a picture in a cookbook is to eating a meal. But it's fun as hell.
Finished A Game Of Brawl, moving on now to "Baseball's Great Experiment", another Jackie Robinson book. Waiting for the baseball jag to exhaust itself.
Tomorrow at 1:30 PM, the members of the 2009 class for the Baseball Hall of Fame will be announced. The HOF is a curious institution-a private organization, it answers to no one, really-and yet it stirs up hornets nests of debate from baseball fans about who should be there and who shouldn't.
I don't care, myself, all that much. I am interested to see who goes in, but I'm not going to fly into a rage if someone does or doesn't.
The consensus is that Rickey Henderson will slide (so to speak) into the Hall. The question and controversy comes up when you ask who else goes in. There are a number of other deserving candidates, but generally speaking, only 2 or at most 3 go in each year. Ideally, for me, it would be Henderson, Tim Raines, Jim Rice, and Bert Blyleven. But that's just me.
I played some "Rock Band 2" with my son today. It's more fun, and more difficult, than I really want to admit. Even seemingly simple songs, like "We Got The Beat" by The Go Gos, are harder than one might think. Playing "Rock Band 2" is to playing music like looking at a picture in a cookbook is to eating a meal. But it's fun as hell.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Three Degrees of Paul Stanley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvmiOsKjTKM
The parody of the parody of the Paul Stanley Weatherman bit.
http://pardcast.com/blog/?p=26
The parody of the Paul Stanley Weatherman bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvpk-F9pXkw&NR=1
The Paul Stanley Weatherman bit.
The parody of the parody of the Paul Stanley Weatherman bit.
http://pardcast.com/blog/?p=26
The parody of the Paul Stanley Weatherman bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvpk-F9pXkw&NR=1
The Paul Stanley Weatherman bit.
Back In The Saddle Again
So, I'm back.
I realized with a bit of shock that I hadn't blogged anything since Tuesday. Tuesday? Heavens to Murgatroyd.
So here I am.
The Red Sox have apparently signed Rocco Baldelli and John Smoltz to contracts because, as we all know, it's 2003.
I actually had a pretty good day Wednesday, followed by two pretty awful ones-waves of work-oceans of it-buckets of it. I know, I should be grateful. But there are times when I'd gladly hand you my job, and its attendant paycheck. Thursday and Friday was one of those times.
I have been restlessly moving from book to book, lately. I finished the Baseball Forecaster, and then moved on to Bill Felber's "A Game of Brawl", about the 1897 pennant race. I then drifted again, polishing off a freelance writing project, and finally settled on rereading Roger Angell's "A Pitcher's Story", a baseball autobiography about David Cone. I just finished that minutes ago, and I'm back into "A Game of Brawl" again. I still have "The Savage Detectives" sitting here-it lost me once, but I have been meaning to start it again, and I took down a PJ O'Rourke book, too, but that didn't do much for me, either.
Nothing has grabbed me in a while-not in the way that "Twilight" did.
It's a little more than a month before pitchers and catchers report to spring training.
I realized with a bit of shock that I hadn't blogged anything since Tuesday. Tuesday? Heavens to Murgatroyd.
So here I am.
The Red Sox have apparently signed Rocco Baldelli and John Smoltz to contracts because, as we all know, it's 2003.
I actually had a pretty good day Wednesday, followed by two pretty awful ones-waves of work-oceans of it-buckets of it. I know, I should be grateful. But there are times when I'd gladly hand you my job, and its attendant paycheck. Thursday and Friday was one of those times.
I have been restlessly moving from book to book, lately. I finished the Baseball Forecaster, and then moved on to Bill Felber's "A Game of Brawl", about the 1897 pennant race. I then drifted again, polishing off a freelance writing project, and finally settled on rereading Roger Angell's "A Pitcher's Story", a baseball autobiography about David Cone. I just finished that minutes ago, and I'm back into "A Game of Brawl" again. I still have "The Savage Detectives" sitting here-it lost me once, but I have been meaning to start it again, and I took down a PJ O'Rourke book, too, but that didn't do much for me, either.
Nothing has grabbed me in a while-not in the way that "Twilight" did.
It's a little more than a month before pitchers and catchers report to spring training.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Word Freak
"I'm a word freak. I like words. I've always compared writing to music. That's the way I feel about good paragraphs. When it really works, it's like music...I found out then that writing is a kind of therapy. One of the few ways I can almost be certain I'll understand something is by sitting down and writing about it. Because by forcing yourself to write about it and putting it down in words, you can't avoid having to come to grips with it. You might be wrong, but you have to think about it very intensely to write about it. So I use writing as a learning tool."
-Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, 1990
-Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, 1990
Monday, January 05, 2009
Try to look at this and not cry
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2009/01/05/legsabidkatibgetty.jpg
The legs of a small dead Palestinian child.
Yes, I know, I don't live there.
Yes, I know, if buses were blowing up in my town, I might feel differently.
Yes, I know, if rockets fell on my brother's house, or my mother's, I might feel differently.
But I don't know.
The legs of a small dead Palestinian child.
Yes, I know, I don't live there.
Yes, I know, if buses were blowing up in my town, I might feel differently.
Yes, I know, if rockets fell on my brother's house, or my mother's, I might feel differently.
But I don't know.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
The Magic WHAT?
Another brilliant Dan Carlin this week (www.dancarlin.com) about the Arab-Israeli problem. The dead right certainty of both sides, the fiendish merchants of death on both sides, the senseless waste of human life…like Dan, like all thinking beings, it sickens me. Dan points out that, to Americans, the struggle is nonsensical-what is worth sacrificing, and slaughtering, anyone’s children, especially one’s own?
Dan cleverly links it to the old Kinison routine about feeding Ethiopians-why pay money to feed people who live in a desert? Why not pay them to MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS? Thus, why not move the decent people, the people not bound by ancient historical grudges,
I think one of the factors here is that, as Americans, we have always had more room, more land, more everything. If you don’t like life in Houston, you move to Fort Lauderdale, or Portland, or Flint, or Sacramento. Palestinians and Israelis can’t do that.
Dan’s second half was a brief disquisition about presidential power, how powers that appear tyrannical and dictatorial in the hands of President McFlightsuit look downright reasonable in the hands of President Obama, or, alternatively, powers that are right and just now, under Obama, appear oppressive. I have to admit he has a point here-I oppose expanded presidential powers, but I feel more comfortable with these powers in the hands of Obama. Dan’s conclusion is an excellent one-in order to fix the problem of presidential authority, he not only has to give up the power, he has to get Congress to TAKE the power-and the corresponding responsibility.
I can’t believe it took me this long to notice this story-apparently a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee circulated a CD of Christmas songs on which he sung a parody of “Puff The Magic Dragon” which was called “Barack The Magic Negro”. I don’t think I have anything to add except, to borrow a phrase from Bill Simmons, ladies and gentlemen, your 2008 Republican Party!
Well, no, maybe I do have something to add. The traditional defense in these matters is to note that the speaker/writer “was just trying to be funny”. Uh…no. Not funny. Sorry. Unless you’re referring to a defunct baseball league, that word is not uttered in polite company. Not because it’s politically incorrect, just because it’s rude.
As John Oliver points out on The Bugle this week, there wasn’t somewhere in the process of creating this musical masterpiece that someone said, “Hey, wait a minute.”?
Unbelievable.
Then again, that word doesn’t really apply when applied to the Republican Party in 2008. As someone smarter than me wrote, not so much a political party as an organized criminal conspiracy.
Dan cleverly links it to the old Kinison routine about feeding Ethiopians-why pay money to feed people who live in a desert? Why not pay them to MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS? Thus, why not move the decent people, the people not bound by ancient historical grudges,
I think one of the factors here is that, as Americans, we have always had more room, more land, more everything. If you don’t like life in Houston, you move to Fort Lauderdale, or Portland, or Flint, or Sacramento. Palestinians and Israelis can’t do that.
Dan’s second half was a brief disquisition about presidential power, how powers that appear tyrannical and dictatorial in the hands of President McFlightsuit look downright reasonable in the hands of President Obama, or, alternatively, powers that are right and just now, under Obama, appear oppressive. I have to admit he has a point here-I oppose expanded presidential powers, but I feel more comfortable with these powers in the hands of Obama. Dan’s conclusion is an excellent one-in order to fix the problem of presidential authority, he not only has to give up the power, he has to get Congress to TAKE the power-and the corresponding responsibility.
I can’t believe it took me this long to notice this story-apparently a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee circulated a CD of Christmas songs on which he sung a parody of “Puff The Magic Dragon” which was called “Barack The Magic Negro”. I don’t think I have anything to add except, to borrow a phrase from Bill Simmons, ladies and gentlemen, your 2008 Republican Party!
Well, no, maybe I do have something to add. The traditional defense in these matters is to note that the speaker/writer “was just trying to be funny”. Uh…no. Not funny. Sorry. Unless you’re referring to a defunct baseball league, that word is not uttered in polite company. Not because it’s politically incorrect, just because it’s rude.
As John Oliver points out on The Bugle this week, there wasn’t somewhere in the process of creating this musical masterpiece that someone said, “Hey, wait a minute.”?
Unbelievable.
Then again, that word doesn’t really apply when applied to the Republican Party in 2008. As someone smarter than me wrote, not so much a political party as an organized criminal conspiracy.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Culture Slagfest
I listen to the Slate podcast feed (www.slate.com), at least partially out of habit, but mostly because I enjoy hearing people smarter than me talk about things that I only partially understand.
After the success, I assume, of the Slate Political Gabfest, they introduced a "Cultural Gabfest", which is a similar format-three Slate writers tackle three topics, engaging back and forth in a semi serious, semi snarky way for about 25-30 minutes.
The Culture Gabfest has always bothered me, partially because I am an ignoramus about much of modern culture, and partially just because, like a lot of critics, they assume a very snide, cutting tone towards works they consider unworthy. My ire started with a discussion of "Beautiful Children", a novel which I adored that they ragged on for no discernable reason, but this week's podcast was especially egregious.
They first of all mock Tom Cruise. Now, Tom Cruise has many things about him that are mockable. After crediting him for films like "Magnolia" and "Jerry Maguire", they see "A Few Good Men" as campy and ridiculous, and dismiss it as somehow impossible that Cruise can play his role in the new film "Valkyrie".
I love "A Few Good Men". Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see how that film fits the definition of "camp". And Tom Cruise's character isn't taking "batting practice" at the beginning of the film, he is hitting balls for his team to practice fielding. You don't have batting practice in slow pitch softball.
They then move on to mock Bruce Springsteen for selling his upcoming greatest hits collection exclusively at Wal Mart. Now, first of all, Bruce Springsteen's fans are no longer just blue collar-but if they are, they shop at Wal Mart because they're broke, not because they're happy about their labor policies. And, as far as I can tell, Wal Mart is one of the few places selling CDs anymore, so if selling them at Wal Mart is what you have to do, then you sell them at Wal Mart.
Then "film critic" Dana Stevens complains about having to make a Top Ten List for 2008. Really? Really? Isn't that pretty much what you DO, for pity's sake?
Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe criticism is all subjective, and I should stop getting antsy about people whose opinions I disagree with. Or maybe Slate's Cultural Gabfest is simply being hosted by a trio of effete snobs.
After the success, I assume, of the Slate Political Gabfest, they introduced a "Cultural Gabfest", which is a similar format-three Slate writers tackle three topics, engaging back and forth in a semi serious, semi snarky way for about 25-30 minutes.
The Culture Gabfest has always bothered me, partially because I am an ignoramus about much of modern culture, and partially just because, like a lot of critics, they assume a very snide, cutting tone towards works they consider unworthy. My ire started with a discussion of "Beautiful Children", a novel which I adored that they ragged on for no discernable reason, but this week's podcast was especially egregious.
They first of all mock Tom Cruise. Now, Tom Cruise has many things about him that are mockable. After crediting him for films like "Magnolia" and "Jerry Maguire", they see "A Few Good Men" as campy and ridiculous, and dismiss it as somehow impossible that Cruise can play his role in the new film "Valkyrie".
I love "A Few Good Men". Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see how that film fits the definition of "camp". And Tom Cruise's character isn't taking "batting practice" at the beginning of the film, he is hitting balls for his team to practice fielding. You don't have batting practice in slow pitch softball.
They then move on to mock Bruce Springsteen for selling his upcoming greatest hits collection exclusively at Wal Mart. Now, first of all, Bruce Springsteen's fans are no longer just blue collar-but if they are, they shop at Wal Mart because they're broke, not because they're happy about their labor policies. And, as far as I can tell, Wal Mart is one of the few places selling CDs anymore, so if selling them at Wal Mart is what you have to do, then you sell them at Wal Mart.
Then "film critic" Dana Stevens complains about having to make a Top Ten List for 2008. Really? Really? Isn't that pretty much what you DO, for pity's sake?
Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe criticism is all subjective, and I should stop getting antsy about people whose opinions I disagree with. Or maybe Slate's Cultural Gabfest is simply being hosted by a trio of effete snobs.
Still Watching, Still Reading
WATCHING (Well, Watched): "Gonzo, the life of Hunter S. Thompson", a documentary about the Good Doctor. Well worth your time.
READING: "The Baseball Forecaster 2009", still, "The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers" (a reread), "Sporting News Fantasy Baseball 2009". I have Roberto Bolano's "The Savage Detectives" on my shelf, too, that I have been meaning to get back to. I also have "New Moon", the second novel in the "Twilight" series, waiting for me. I'm actually afraid to start it, a little bit. I read "Twilight" so passionately, experiencing it so viscerally, I don't want to start it if I don't have time to finish it, because I know I will be mad if I can't. Isn't that stupid?
READING: "The Baseball Forecaster 2009", still, "The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers" (a reread), "Sporting News Fantasy Baseball 2009". I have Roberto Bolano's "The Savage Detectives" on my shelf, too, that I have been meaning to get back to. I also have "New Moon", the second novel in the "Twilight" series, waiting for me. I'm actually afraid to start it, a little bit. I read "Twilight" so passionately, experiencing it so viscerally, I don't want to start it if I don't have time to finish it, because I know I will be mad if I can't. Isn't that stupid?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)