Wed Reading Meme...
Dec. 31st, 2014 12:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI'll get to the Wed Reading Meme eventually, this is sort of in lieu of it or rather along side of it?
What Jars Me or You or Anyone out of a Story?
Interesting question. For one thing, it is unlikely to be universal. For another, as a writer, it has always worried me and often brought my own writing to a crippling halt. See, what interests me isn't necessarily the same thing that may interest someone else. We don't think the same way or process information in the same manner.
I occasionally forget this. Well that is until I do the reading meme or a review, and I get a response about how "that" would throw "the responder" out of the story. Or read a critical review of something I loved, and the reviewer is upset with things that I was either oblivious too or barely noticed. I know that this has happened to everyone.
For example? In June of this past year, a co-worker loaned me his favorite sci-fi novel of all time - The Lord of Light by Roger Zelzany - after plodding through the first 100 or so pages, I finally gave up on it. Frankly, dear reader, it bored me to tears. The characters felt derivative, the female characters pure stereotypes, and the story...ugh. I could not figure out why people liked it. Was it the world-building? Seemed somewhat simplistic to me and the logistics didn't work. Was it the religious philosophy? Possibly, co-worker is agnostic/atheist and he loved the idea of space travelers finding a primitive planet and setting themselves up as Gods over it, which he hadn't seen done before. (I had and rather more subtly and far better else where.) I don't know. Our mileage varied. In stark contrast, the less well-reviewed series of novels by Illona Andrews, featuring Kate Daniels, spoke to me.
I loved the characters, loved the use of Russian and Persian mythology, rarely used.
Or it was new to me. Others didn't see what I liked in it, or thought it was uhm..okay but nothing to squee about (not that I tend to squee, rave maybe but not squee, ahem). My co-worker didn't like it.
And...while watching the documentary on Mark Twain, it hit me that for every person that was moved by the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, there are quite a few who view the book as racist due to the language (they can't get past the language, the use of the word "niggah" jars them out of the story - even though it is essential to the story and gets across how people thought at the time).
The problem withwriting storytelling - is you want to connect with another mind. You have this story to tell. It fills you up. And its desperate to get out.
Notice, I scratched out writing and put storytelling instead? That's because two different things. Writing - is a craft, you can write about anything. But storytelling is ...magic. It doesn't come from the head so much as the spirit or the heart. And everyone has a story to tell. They just may not know how to tell it or convey it to someone else.
But I've come to the realization that when it comes to stories - it takes two. The writer isn't the only person with the responsibility of communication - the reader has some responsibility too. You sort of have to put aside some of your own baggage in order to truly appreciate another person's story. Or suspend your disbelief a bit.
Jump out of your perspective and accept the fact that maybe another interpretation exists or maybe the sky isn't blue today or green or purple. The ability to do that?
Is hard. I actually think reading is not a passive sport. It requires work. You have to consciously decide to read something, to judge it on its own merits, and to let the person communicate their story to you - without projecting your wants, desires, views, judgements, knowledge, etc on to it. And I think this can be close to impossible for us to do in some situations. I'm not saying we shouldn't be critical or question what is being told to us, but perhaps set aside that bit...and allow it to be told?
For example? One book that I attempted to read this year, Jo Jo Moyes best-selling novel "ME BEFORE YOU" jarred me so completely out of the story - that I could not finish the novel, and felt the need to rant about it. I wrote scathing reviews on Amazon and Good Reads, which many people enjoyed. People like scathing reviews, actually people like violence (as long as it is not directed towards them), because it can feel cathartic. A release. As Alan Turning in the film The Imitation Game repeatedly states..."people do violence because it feels good", albeit briefly. The consequences not so much. What jarred me out of Ms. Moyes book? My own knowledge and values clashed with the story. The story was about a billionaire playboy and adrenaline junkie who had become paralyzed. He wants to be put of his misery, because he can't do any of the things he enjoyed doing. At wits end, his emotionally distant and inaccessible parents make a deal with him. Give them 6 months to change his mind.
To this end they hire a sort of flaky perpetually unemployed and rather self-involved but cheeky 20 year old woman to care for him. They fall in love. But he still wants to die. So she helps him. And as a result, her parents disown her. But all is well, since he leaves her a lot of money so she can go find her bliss.
I could not finish this book. Others loved it. It is a best-seller. People found it deeply moving. Inspiring. Which I found to be mind-boggling. My own experience and knowledge not to mention my core values came into direct conflict with the story the writer was attempting to convey.
I'm hoping to self-publish a novel this year. I've had six people read it. Each person reacted to it - through the veil of their experience. One of the characters contemplates suicide in the first chapter - this jarred one of my readers out of the story - she had apparently been suffering from depression and considered suicide herself, so felt that I was incorrect in how I handled it. Or belittled it somehow.
Considering she knew I'd gone through it, I found this annoying. She felt that I "should" start with a murder, have the writer find a body - make it a murder mystery novel (as if there aren't five billion already). The next reader, a professional freelance editor, loved my book - and felt it just needed to be tweaked in a few places. She felt that I'd created some fascinating characters and the more she thought about it, the more she adored them. Two other readers equally loved it - and just wanted me to tweak a few things. The other two? Didn't find it compelling and wanted me to turn it into a mystery novel or thriller, much like my first reader did. Three people read my story and loved it, three didn't because it just wasn't their cup of tea.
Whatever story you tell...there will be people that just won't listen to it, hear it, read it, appreciate it, or understand it. There's nothing you can do about it. It's like what Alan Turning states in The Imitation Game - we think differently from one another. Just because someone doesn't find your tale compelling, doesn't necessarily mean it's not compelling to everyone. It's just not compelling to that person, it did not speak to them. Or just because something you wrote jars one reader or throws that reader out of the story, doesn't mean it will throw others out of the story. This I find to be rather reassuring. It's why I like to read Amazon and Good Reads reviews...because, I discover the broad range of opinions. For everyone who loves a book, there's someone who hates it, and whole group who fall somewhere in between.
This means, that I could publish all five of the novels that I've written - and most likely hit at least three or four people who are moved by them or love them. You never know. People are rather unpredictable - there's no way of telling what will work for them and what won't. And they aren't consistent. Plus moody. So what threw them out of a story one day, might not the next.
In sum? I don't really know what throws me out of a story. It depends on the story.
Often it's information that skews with my logic. If it isn't logical or I know that can't happen - I'll argue with the story. And that in turn throws me out of it. Which is what happened with the novel Me Before You. It actually happens to me a lot with chick-lit or contemporary romance novels, which are more or less the same genre, except one has sex and one doesn't (guess which). What can I say? It's a sloppy genre. The writers appear to write just for the heck of it and don't seem to have anything to say.
Less so with historical romance novels (I know weird), but in part that may be due to the fact that I'm not a historian and my knowledge of British History is rather sparse at best. Now if it were an American Historical Romance Novel - I'd probably have issues. Which may explain why I don't like them? I actually know American History - got a lot of it in school. British and European History- we got smatterings of - mostly in connection with WWII, the Russian Revolution and The French Revolution, also a little on Napeolean. Ancient History (Roman, Celt, pre-Medieval period - yes, I have a bit more of that as well, and I find it difficult to read historical romances set in those periods as well.) Mystery novels - I started to struggle with after I graduated from law school and did internships with Defender Projects, Public Defender, and the State Legislature. The inaccurate criminal and legal procedures will often throw me out of the story. I have the same problem with television series.
So there you have it. A rather long discourse on how I feel at this particular moment in time regarding the topic.
1. What you Just Finished Reading
Stealing Heaven by Madeline Hunter - Hunter, as far as I can tell, appears to have actually done some research or is a better historical writer than the last two writers (Sarah McLean and Lori Brighton). Although the dialogue was a bit better in the other two books, or I liked it better - possibly because it wasn't attempting to sync with the times? In short, it depends on what you are looking for. If you are a stickler for historical accuracy, go read Hunter, if you want banter, go read McLean.
If you want subversive gender flipping, read Brighton. Although, Hunter is rather subversive in her own way, yet remains somewhat accurate to the period (as far as I know).
The book takes place during the medieval period, or Edward the I's reign. Edward according to the blurb at the end of the book was responsible for taking control over Wales and Scotland, shortly after William the Conqueror.
Edward I (17 June 1239 – 7 July 1307), also known as Edward Longshanks and the Hammer of the Scots (Latin: Malleus Scotorum), was King of England from 1272 to 1307. The first son of Henry III, Edward was involved early in the political intrigues of his father's reign, which included an outright rebellion by the English barons. In 1259, he briefly sided with a baronial reform movement, supporting the Provisions of Oxford. After reconciliation with his father, however, he remained loyal throughout the subsequent armed conflict, known as the Second Barons' War. After the Battle of Lewes, Edward was hostage to the rebellious barons, but escaped after a few months and joined the fight against Simon de Montfort. Montfort was defeated at the Battle of Evesham in 1265, and within two years the rebellion was extinguished. With England pacified, Edward left on a crusade to the Holy Land. The crusade accomplished little, and Edward was on his way home in 1272 when he was informed that his father had died. Making a slow return, he reached England in 1274 and was crowned at Westminster on 19 August.
He spent much of his reign reforming royal administration and common law. Through an extensive legal inquiry, Edward investigated the tenure of various feudal liberties, while the law was reformed through a series of statutes regulating criminal and property law. Increasingly, however, Edward's attention was drawn towards military affairs. After suppressing a minor rebellion in Wales in 1276–77, Edward responded to a second rebellion in 1282–83 with a full-scale war of conquest. After a successful campaign, Edward subjected Wales to English rule, built a series of castles and towns in the countryside and settled them with Englishmen. Next, his efforts were directed towards Scotland. Initially invited to arbitrate a succession dispute, Edward claimed feudal suzerainty over the kingdom. In the war that followed, the Scots persevered, even though the English seemed victorious at several points. At the same time there were problems at home. In the mid-1290s, extensive military campaigns required high levels of taxation, and Edward met with both lay and ecclesiastical opposition. These crises were initially averted, but issues remained unsettled. When the King died in 1307, he left to his son, Edward II, an ongoing war with Scotland and many financial and political problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_I_of_England
The book takes place in 1276 and focuses on the minor rebellion in Wales, spearheaded by the heroine, who as a young girl had been seduced and ravaged by the King. Although that wasn't really the reason behind it - as she makes clear, so much as it is that the Welsh or Cymru People don't particularly like being under English rule.
(I don't know if this has changed any in the last 1000 years...because when I was in Wales in the 1980s, the Welsh pretty much felt the same way. And I know Scotland was voting this year to secede from the union. [ETA to clarify and correct spelling error, thanks to comment below. Oh, they voted not to, which was most likely a wise decision. I think the time for that has long past...]) Can't say I blame them - I wouldn't like it either - the English, god love them, tend to consider anyone who isn't English to be beneath them or at least they did in this book and historically (Twain comments on it in the documentary and in his writings). Although to be fair, it's not just The English - pretty much everyone has this problem. We do have that problem as a human race, don't we? We think people who are different than us are beneath us. Stupid, gets us into all sorts of trouble.
Anyhow, the heroine, who is a Welsh princess falls in love with an English Knight who has been commissioned by the King to marry her younger sister (mainly because the King still has feelings for the Welsh princess, and her sister inherits the father's land and title) and quell any issues in Wales. In return he'll make him a Baron and give him back his fathers lands and title. The English Knight sneaks into a courtyard to get a look at his bride, who claims to be ill and thus far unavailable. Instead he finds her sister, but doesn't realize it until later. They fall madly in lust. Much chaos ensues...and well most of the book focuses on the political conflict between the two characters. The heroine's devotion to her father's cause and to Cymru (Wales), and the hero's devotion to his King.
I liked it for the Welsh history bits...which didn't jar me because they synced with my own, admittedly limited, knowledge of the time period.
What I'm reading now?
Leviathan Wakes by J.A Corey - just started it on the plane. So far rather interesting. Begins with a mystery. Then jumps back to explain the world. I'm reading it in part to satisfy my space-opera/mystery genre craving, and because I've decided to rework my own sci-fi novel, which I wrote 15 years ago, and never finished. Came close. It has potential. Needs some tweaking.
What I'll be reading next?
No clue. Depends on how engrossed I get with Leviathan Wakes, I suspect.
Right now, debating if I want to go grocery shopping again or really need to. Got a bunch of stuff yesterday. But admittedly won't be able to again until after work on Friday. Have taken today off, and tomorrow is a holiday.
Tonight - considering doing a marathon of my musical DVDs. Sort of in the mood.
What Jars Me or You or Anyone out of a Story?
Interesting question. For one thing, it is unlikely to be universal. For another, as a writer, it has always worried me and often brought my own writing to a crippling halt. See, what interests me isn't necessarily the same thing that may interest someone else. We don't think the same way or process information in the same manner.
I occasionally forget this. Well that is until I do the reading meme or a review, and I get a response about how "that" would throw "the responder" out of the story. Or read a critical review of something I loved, and the reviewer is upset with things that I was either oblivious too or barely noticed. I know that this has happened to everyone.
For example? In June of this past year, a co-worker loaned me his favorite sci-fi novel of all time - The Lord of Light by Roger Zelzany - after plodding through the first 100 or so pages, I finally gave up on it. Frankly, dear reader, it bored me to tears. The characters felt derivative, the female characters pure stereotypes, and the story...ugh. I could not figure out why people liked it. Was it the world-building? Seemed somewhat simplistic to me and the logistics didn't work. Was it the religious philosophy? Possibly, co-worker is agnostic/atheist and he loved the idea of space travelers finding a primitive planet and setting themselves up as Gods over it, which he hadn't seen done before. (I had and rather more subtly and far better else where.) I don't know. Our mileage varied. In stark contrast, the less well-reviewed series of novels by Illona Andrews, featuring Kate Daniels, spoke to me.
I loved the characters, loved the use of Russian and Persian mythology, rarely used.
Or it was new to me. Others didn't see what I liked in it, or thought it was uhm..okay but nothing to squee about (not that I tend to squee, rave maybe but not squee, ahem). My co-worker didn't like it.
And...while watching the documentary on Mark Twain, it hit me that for every person that was moved by the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, there are quite a few who view the book as racist due to the language (they can't get past the language, the use of the word "niggah" jars them out of the story - even though it is essential to the story and gets across how people thought at the time).
The problem with
Notice, I scratched out writing and put storytelling instead? That's because two different things. Writing - is a craft, you can write about anything. But storytelling is ...magic. It doesn't come from the head so much as the spirit or the heart. And everyone has a story to tell. They just may not know how to tell it or convey it to someone else.
But I've come to the realization that when it comes to stories - it takes two. The writer isn't the only person with the responsibility of communication - the reader has some responsibility too. You sort of have to put aside some of your own baggage in order to truly appreciate another person's story. Or suspend your disbelief a bit.
Jump out of your perspective and accept the fact that maybe another interpretation exists or maybe the sky isn't blue today or green or purple. The ability to do that?
Is hard. I actually think reading is not a passive sport. It requires work. You have to consciously decide to read something, to judge it on its own merits, and to let the person communicate their story to you - without projecting your wants, desires, views, judgements, knowledge, etc on to it. And I think this can be close to impossible for us to do in some situations. I'm not saying we shouldn't be critical or question what is being told to us, but perhaps set aside that bit...and allow it to be told?
For example? One book that I attempted to read this year, Jo Jo Moyes best-selling novel "ME BEFORE YOU" jarred me so completely out of the story - that I could not finish the novel, and felt the need to rant about it. I wrote scathing reviews on Amazon and Good Reads, which many people enjoyed. People like scathing reviews, actually people like violence (as long as it is not directed towards them), because it can feel cathartic. A release. As Alan Turning in the film The Imitation Game repeatedly states..."people do violence because it feels good", albeit briefly. The consequences not so much. What jarred me out of Ms. Moyes book? My own knowledge and values clashed with the story. The story was about a billionaire playboy and adrenaline junkie who had become paralyzed. He wants to be put of his misery, because he can't do any of the things he enjoyed doing. At wits end, his emotionally distant and inaccessible parents make a deal with him. Give them 6 months to change his mind.
To this end they hire a sort of flaky perpetually unemployed and rather self-involved but cheeky 20 year old woman to care for him. They fall in love. But he still wants to die. So she helps him. And as a result, her parents disown her. But all is well, since he leaves her a lot of money so she can go find her bliss.
I could not finish this book. Others loved it. It is a best-seller. People found it deeply moving. Inspiring. Which I found to be mind-boggling. My own experience and knowledge not to mention my core values came into direct conflict with the story the writer was attempting to convey.
I'm hoping to self-publish a novel this year. I've had six people read it. Each person reacted to it - through the veil of their experience. One of the characters contemplates suicide in the first chapter - this jarred one of my readers out of the story - she had apparently been suffering from depression and considered suicide herself, so felt that I was incorrect in how I handled it. Or belittled it somehow.
Considering she knew I'd gone through it, I found this annoying. She felt that I "should" start with a murder, have the writer find a body - make it a murder mystery novel (as if there aren't five billion already). The next reader, a professional freelance editor, loved my book - and felt it just needed to be tweaked in a few places. She felt that I'd created some fascinating characters and the more she thought about it, the more she adored them. Two other readers equally loved it - and just wanted me to tweak a few things. The other two? Didn't find it compelling and wanted me to turn it into a mystery novel or thriller, much like my first reader did. Three people read my story and loved it, three didn't because it just wasn't their cup of tea.
Whatever story you tell...there will be people that just won't listen to it, hear it, read it, appreciate it, or understand it. There's nothing you can do about it. It's like what Alan Turning states in The Imitation Game - we think differently from one another. Just because someone doesn't find your tale compelling, doesn't necessarily mean it's not compelling to everyone. It's just not compelling to that person, it did not speak to them. Or just because something you wrote jars one reader or throws that reader out of the story, doesn't mean it will throw others out of the story. This I find to be rather reassuring. It's why I like to read Amazon and Good Reads reviews...because, I discover the broad range of opinions. For everyone who loves a book, there's someone who hates it, and whole group who fall somewhere in between.
This means, that I could publish all five of the novels that I've written - and most likely hit at least three or four people who are moved by them or love them. You never know. People are rather unpredictable - there's no way of telling what will work for them and what won't. And they aren't consistent. Plus moody. So what threw them out of a story one day, might not the next.
In sum? I don't really know what throws me out of a story. It depends on the story.
Often it's information that skews with my logic. If it isn't logical or I know that can't happen - I'll argue with the story. And that in turn throws me out of it. Which is what happened with the novel Me Before You. It actually happens to me a lot with chick-lit or contemporary romance novels, which are more or less the same genre, except one has sex and one doesn't (guess which). What can I say? It's a sloppy genre. The writers appear to write just for the heck of it and don't seem to have anything to say.
Less so with historical romance novels (I know weird), but in part that may be due to the fact that I'm not a historian and my knowledge of British History is rather sparse at best. Now if it were an American Historical Romance Novel - I'd probably have issues. Which may explain why I don't like them? I actually know American History - got a lot of it in school. British and European History- we got smatterings of - mostly in connection with WWII, the Russian Revolution and The French Revolution, also a little on Napeolean. Ancient History (Roman, Celt, pre-Medieval period - yes, I have a bit more of that as well, and I find it difficult to read historical romances set in those periods as well.) Mystery novels - I started to struggle with after I graduated from law school and did internships with Defender Projects, Public Defender, and the State Legislature. The inaccurate criminal and legal procedures will often throw me out of the story. I have the same problem with television series.
So there you have it. A rather long discourse on how I feel at this particular moment in time regarding the topic.
1. What you Just Finished Reading
Stealing Heaven by Madeline Hunter - Hunter, as far as I can tell, appears to have actually done some research or is a better historical writer than the last two writers (Sarah McLean and Lori Brighton). Although the dialogue was a bit better in the other two books, or I liked it better - possibly because it wasn't attempting to sync with the times? In short, it depends on what you are looking for. If you are a stickler for historical accuracy, go read Hunter, if you want banter, go read McLean.
If you want subversive gender flipping, read Brighton. Although, Hunter is rather subversive in her own way, yet remains somewhat accurate to the period (as far as I know).
The book takes place during the medieval period, or Edward the I's reign. Edward according to the blurb at the end of the book was responsible for taking control over Wales and Scotland, shortly after William the Conqueror.
Edward I (17 June 1239 – 7 July 1307), also known as Edward Longshanks and the Hammer of the Scots (Latin: Malleus Scotorum), was King of England from 1272 to 1307. The first son of Henry III, Edward was involved early in the political intrigues of his father's reign, which included an outright rebellion by the English barons. In 1259, he briefly sided with a baronial reform movement, supporting the Provisions of Oxford. After reconciliation with his father, however, he remained loyal throughout the subsequent armed conflict, known as the Second Barons' War. After the Battle of Lewes, Edward was hostage to the rebellious barons, but escaped after a few months and joined the fight against Simon de Montfort. Montfort was defeated at the Battle of Evesham in 1265, and within two years the rebellion was extinguished. With England pacified, Edward left on a crusade to the Holy Land. The crusade accomplished little, and Edward was on his way home in 1272 when he was informed that his father had died. Making a slow return, he reached England in 1274 and was crowned at Westminster on 19 August.
He spent much of his reign reforming royal administration and common law. Through an extensive legal inquiry, Edward investigated the tenure of various feudal liberties, while the law was reformed through a series of statutes regulating criminal and property law. Increasingly, however, Edward's attention was drawn towards military affairs. After suppressing a minor rebellion in Wales in 1276–77, Edward responded to a second rebellion in 1282–83 with a full-scale war of conquest. After a successful campaign, Edward subjected Wales to English rule, built a series of castles and towns in the countryside and settled them with Englishmen. Next, his efforts were directed towards Scotland. Initially invited to arbitrate a succession dispute, Edward claimed feudal suzerainty over the kingdom. In the war that followed, the Scots persevered, even though the English seemed victorious at several points. At the same time there were problems at home. In the mid-1290s, extensive military campaigns required high levels of taxation, and Edward met with both lay and ecclesiastical opposition. These crises were initially averted, but issues remained unsettled. When the King died in 1307, he left to his son, Edward II, an ongoing war with Scotland and many financial and political problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_I_of_England
The book takes place in 1276 and focuses on the minor rebellion in Wales, spearheaded by the heroine, who as a young girl had been seduced and ravaged by the King. Although that wasn't really the reason behind it - as she makes clear, so much as it is that the Welsh or Cymru People don't particularly like being under English rule.
(I don't know if this has changed any in the last 1000 years...because when I was in Wales in the 1980s, the Welsh pretty much felt the same way. And I know Scotland was voting this year to secede from the union. [ETA to clarify and correct spelling error, thanks to comment below. Oh, they voted not to, which was most likely a wise decision. I think the time for that has long past...]) Can't say I blame them - I wouldn't like it either - the English, god love them, tend to consider anyone who isn't English to be beneath them or at least they did in this book and historically (Twain comments on it in the documentary and in his writings). Although to be fair, it's not just The English - pretty much everyone has this problem. We do have that problem as a human race, don't we? We think people who are different than us are beneath us. Stupid, gets us into all sorts of trouble.
Anyhow, the heroine, who is a Welsh princess falls in love with an English Knight who has been commissioned by the King to marry her younger sister (mainly because the King still has feelings for the Welsh princess, and her sister inherits the father's land and title) and quell any issues in Wales. In return he'll make him a Baron and give him back his fathers lands and title. The English Knight sneaks into a courtyard to get a look at his bride, who claims to be ill and thus far unavailable. Instead he finds her sister, but doesn't realize it until later. They fall madly in lust. Much chaos ensues...and well most of the book focuses on the political conflict between the two characters. The heroine's devotion to her father's cause and to Cymru (Wales), and the hero's devotion to his King.
I liked it for the Welsh history bits...which didn't jar me because they synced with my own, admittedly limited, knowledge of the time period.
What I'm reading now?
Leviathan Wakes by J.A Corey - just started it on the plane. So far rather interesting. Begins with a mystery. Then jumps back to explain the world. I'm reading it in part to satisfy my space-opera/mystery genre craving, and because I've decided to rework my own sci-fi novel, which I wrote 15 years ago, and never finished. Came close. It has potential. Needs some tweaking.
What I'll be reading next?
No clue. Depends on how engrossed I get with Leviathan Wakes, I suspect.
Right now, debating if I want to go grocery shopping again or really need to. Got a bunch of stuff yesterday. But admittedly won't be able to again until after work on Friday. Have taken today off, and tomorrow is a holiday.
Tonight - considering doing a marathon of my musical DVDs. Sort of in the mood.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-12-31 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-31 09:49 pm (UTC)Also struggling to figure out how to spell secede. I tried several variations.
So yay, on both counts.