caper_est: The Liberty Bell strikes! (liberty)
"These revolutionary posts will change the economic platitudes of a generation!" - Daily Stenograph

In these recessionary times, there's one thing that's never been in bigger demand - armchair economic punditry! Whether it's cutting through the forest of futilitarian facts with the trusty machete of timeless folk wisdom, or whomping up a super sciencey argument for why Master should be counter-intuitively congratulated for giving the dog a good kicking, we are living through a paradigm-asploding age of unprecedented economic explaininess! Could this unquenchable public demand for Genuine Knowledge Advantage™ ironically become the very consumer-spending kickstart that bumps our anxious society out of the surly slough of a quintuple-dip depression!?!!!

Sadly, nope.

"What is this shit?" - Ickenham & District Sciolist-Intelligencer

And that is why we need a new kind of popular economics writing - I call this Feconomics, with an eye to the failure of popular oeconomics writing to occur anywhere anyhow ever. It absolutely ought not to be confused with any other movement which may sound accidentally similar. The subject matter of Feconomics!!eleventy!!!™! is divided, like my arse, into two parts:

(1) Such economic notions, simplifications, and slogans as make useful foundations or provocations in the academy, and thereby make the roses grow; but in the workaday world serve no purpose except to foul the turbines at which they are projected. These are mostly deployed to make complex problems sound trivial.

(2) Processed economix food product - real, pure, clear-quill Frankfurtian bullshit. This is mostly deployed to make a complex and intractable problem out of the fact that some bastard is kicking your dog.

"This Goat Thinks Your Economic Clichés Are Killing You" - Clickbait Platinum Preferred Reviews

So. There may be a few posts coming along with this tag, as I happen across the raw material from time to time.

Feconomics™. Because we're up to our arms in it...

caper_est: The Liberty Bell strikes! (liberty)
Tired of reading liberals' lazy anti-libertarian caricatures on the Internet, I thought it was time I created a properly researched one of my own. All of the wisdoms below the cut have been encountered in speech, text, or action, up and including Number 30, from persons professing some sort of libertarian affiliation or other. Whilst I could certainly come up with a selection just as bad from other political stances, it is not my job to suggest to anybody how to be a piss-poor progressive or a crappy conservative, so I shall leave those tasks to others more closely concerned with them.

Thirty-six ways to fox your freedom )
caper_est: The Liberty Bell strikes! (liberty)

A proposed rule for political radicals, drawn from various experiences in Green, libertarian, and left-liberal politics:

If you can't even recruit the people who are getting it hardest in the neck from the existing system, you're not ready to change it.

This doesn't say what is wrong with your strategy. Maybe your policies are at fault, maybe your priorities, maybe your ambitions just vastly outrun your skills at this time. Maybe the system is so badly stacked that it needs some gradualist subversion-from-within before it allows any room for movement at all. The one thing you can't safely blame it on is the stupidity or viciousness of all those naughty disprivileged people who are inexplicably failing to rally behind you. Like turning into a snake, this never works. Actually, 'turning into a snake' is a pretty good functional description of what this tactic does to the doer.

A libertarian whose freedom the most constrained and bossed-at people in the country do not think is freedom, is not working towards liberty.

A Green movement whose sustainability sounds to people on shitty urban Council estates like the straw that will break their back, is not going anywhere sustainable.

An egalitarian whose equality feels like being ordered around in menacing high-priestly gobbledegook to 99% of the population, is not striking the blow against 1%-ocracy that they may, perhaps, suppose. And so forth.

Unfortunately, the people doing worst out of any social injustice really will be wrong about a lot. For one thing, a lot of very serious injusticiars will be working diligently to keep them that way. There is an even more practical side. All other things being equal, somebody who spends all day dodging kicks to the head is not likely to be the clearest thinker on most subjects. They will probably be unusually expert on such subjects as Whether Jackboots Are A Myth, How To Avoid Getting Kicked, Where Kicks Are Likely To Come From, and How To Sustain A Precarious Livelihood In A World Full Of Hard-Driven Jackboots. They may well show uncommon ingenuity in related skills, such as How To Regenerate Some Spoons In Moments Of Precious Leisure Despite The Worst Efforts of Jackbooted Jackasses. But jobs such as Carefully Sifting All Reports To Determine Whether Jackboots Are Ultimately Sent By Good King Richard Or Against His Will By His Evil Advisors may be better executed when possessed of more money, more leisure, and fewer daily kicks to the head. All this is true - as far as it goes.

It is also true that the radical is likely to be wrong about a hell of a lot. But this is unpleasant and potentially undermining to the cause, and it will be far more agreeable to return at once to ranting about the ignorance, bigotry, and ingratitude of the sheeple. This has the additional advantage of ensuring that the radical's favoured reforms will never come so close to reality as to demonstrate their defects. Thus we get libertarians who despise the poor (whilst ironically working in their realio trulio best interests, oww my martyr's crown hurts!);Green activists who pretty much despise the general population (WIWITRTBI, OMMCH!); progressive egalitarians who warn anybody without an appropriately expensive credential to cease their ignorant and objectively harmful challenges to the informed socio-political judgement of the expert 0.01%, such as themselves (WIWITRTBI, OMMCH!) - and generally the whole familiar bed of political narcissi.

I was such a misunderstood narcissus as a teenager.  I was better at spotting and opposing the tendency by the time I got into the Green movement.  Most of my accelerating leftwards progress through libertarianism has been about repeatedly realizing how many miles I had still to go. Radical narcissi are not mostly bad people - at least, I hope for my own sake that they aren't, since I doubt that my fannish slannish soul will ever be wholly cured of the fault - but they are bad for people, and they had better get down of their soapboxes and start talking on the level, if they expect to do their neighbours any good instead.

Full-spectrum egalitarians are not generally that great at rallying the disadvantaged, these days. Greens are noticeably worse. Libertarians are shit at it on burnt toast. As a left-libertarian heavily influenced by eco-politics, this probably makes me the poo of Pluto on scorched cycad starch. As J Random Petty-Bourgeois living in excessively interesting times, this definitely makes me worried.

If you can't even recruit the people who are getting it hardest in the neck from the existing system, you're not ready to change it.

We have got to get less shit at this, and toot sweet.  All thoughts gratefully received.

caper_est: The Liberty Bell strikes! (liberty)
"[The lords] are clad in velvet and camlet lined with squirrel and ermine, while we go dressed in coarse cloth. They have the wines, the spices, and the good bread: we have the rye, the husks, and the straw, and we drink water. They have shelter and ease in their fine manors, and we have hardship and toil, the wind and the rain in the fields. And from us must come, from our labour, the things which keep them in luxury."

- Notorious radical cleric John Ball, 1381, reported by Froissart, tr.Geoffrey Brereton (1964).

You'd think that in seven hundred years people would learn to appreciate the value of a properly incentivized executive class, wouldn't you? Banky banky!

Excuse me.  There seems to be some vulgar commotion outside Our royal windows.

Hard Work

May. 14th, 2012 11:44 am
caper_est: caper_est, the billy goat (Default)
I ran across this and it seemed like the season for it was coming round again:

When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him: 'Whose'?

- Don Marquis

That's Don Marquis the author and journalist, of archy and mehitabel fame (d. 1937) - not Don Marquis the professor of moral philosophy (b.1935), whom I am not apt to be quoting any time soon.

caper_est: The Liberty Bell strikes! (liberty)
Has anybody ever heard a Daily Mail or Fox-style conservative rant receive a response anything like this?

"I'm not being unpatriotic, but you need to calm down. Nobody's going to listen to you when you sound white-hot angry all the time. I'm not saying it's fair, I'm just being a realist. Ordinary urban folks are going to be scared and switch off when you sound like you've got so much hate in you - when it's like whatever they say they get jumped on for not being somehow culturally correct, you know? I get that you feel like your traditions are being attacked on all sides, and I agree that still happens and it's really bad. Yeah, there is a really nasty futurist minority, and they have way too much power. But to be brutally frank, modern cities have most of the people and most of the money, and when you go on like this, all you're doing is strengthening the old WRONG angry-backwoodsman-with-torches stereotypes, and driving people straight into arms of the Socialist Workers or the Panthers or the Liberal Democrats or something... [etc., ad lib.]"

Now, since the style of rant this would respond to is all about the victimhood and disempowerment of 'ordinary'/'real'/'traditional'/'mainstream' English/American/Western Civilizationian people -

- why, in the ranter's terms, would this not be sensible advice?

If it would not be sensible advice for them, why would anyone given to such rants expect its reverse to be sensible for anybody else?

And if white/male/straight/orthodox/foo were really now the new black/female/gay/heretic/bar, why would they not expect the prevailing direction of Helpful Advice On Tone to have turned around with it?

I'm serious about asking for examples of the Reversed Tone Argument in the wild, but I'm not seriously expecting to get many, if any. I've been around a lot of sites pretty much across the political spectrum, and this particular argument is looking predictably monotone to date. (I've found plenty of examples of offensive speech-policing moves couched in progressive terms - but nothing that remotely qualifies for this slot.)

caper_est: The Liberty Bell strikes! (liberty)
Living as I do in one of the USA's loyallest subject-allies, I have a certain personal interest in the forthcoming elections across the pond.  The Tea Party has not exactly lived up to my libertarian hopes, but nevertheless I wish to offer its new improved GOP some campaign ideas that may help it fulfil its... historic destiny.  Which I have come to very much hope it will.

1) "Government ought to be small enough to drown in a bathtub.  Romney for God-King in November!"

2) "Tom Turkey says: Vote for me, or Barack O'Gander will abolish Christmas!  Gobble gobble!"

3) "We stand for Government small enough to fit inside a woman's body!  'Big' Dick Santorum for President!"

4) "When we've done the jobs you elected us to do, we promise to go straight back to our boardrooms, and fulfil our Contracts with America!"

5) "We need to bring the wisdom and rigour of the marketplace to Washington.  Who'll start the bidding?"

6) "Is it just us, or does Obama's having a FOREIGN policy sound kind of unpatriotic to you?"

7) "The Founding Fathers believed in a government of laws, not women!"

8) "Government is rubbish at everything but killing people and stealing their stuff.  We'll keep Washington focused on what it's good at!"

9) "Work camps not food stamps!"

10) "Darwin, we double dog dare you!"

And in a spirit of bipartisanship, I will offer the Democrats a similar list of hard-to-beat campaign themes, guaranteed to play to their own best strengths:

1) "Dig, baby, dig!"

Any other helpful contributions to either side will be, no doubt, gratefully accepted.
caper_est: The Liberty Bell strikes! (liberty)
( You're about to view content that the journal owner has advised should be viewed with discretion. )
caper_est: The grey wolf in the red gloaming. (golden kate)

Killer-Kate and Luke Lackland: A running problem with the revision has been trying to make Evil Lord Evil's behaviour make consistent sense that doesn't boil down, on closer analysis, to "Everything I do, I do it cos I'm Stupid Evil!"   Yes, he is what at least in parlour-psychological terms would be called a high-functioning sociopath; but, hello, high-functioning!

But I've finally worked out what he's about, and why he's always slipped out of my grasp like a greased pig up till now.  I've been thinking of the less-evil antagonists as the cautious, canny, reluctant modernizers, and Lord Evil as the defender of the worst of the bad old ways - he is, after all, pretty much the poster boy for viciously irresponsible aristocratic privilege.

Actually, everything he does starts making a hell of a lot more sense now I understand him as the modernizer - the improver - the guy who's really good at figuring out how to make oppression pay and look shiny, instead of cost and smell stinky.  His rivals are rationalists, but they're conservative mediaeval rationalists: not his kind at all.  But Lord Evil's found the hole in their law-web, and - for all his early mistakes - he's found a 'progressive' way to mine money out of it, at the peasants' expense, without destroying them.   And it's an exploit that only a certain sort of... focused... mind could have thought of.

In a way it's the inverse of Our Heroes' existential challenge to the old manorial regime.  Our lad might be really at home today, in the ministries and boardrooms of the prison-industrial complex.

Anyhow, now I know where his policy's coming from, and why some of his existing advice goes the way it does.  From where he's standing, Katy & Co. just threw the Dale-Lords the opportunity of three lifetimes.

And I think he's finally thrown me the master-clue to the Revised Political Plot.

caper_est: The grey wolf in the red gloaming. (golden kate)
Killer-Kate and Luke Lackland: So I've finished knocking down all the bits of the political plot that don't make sense, and generating the brainstormy alternatives.  Now all I have to do is hammer the pieces of the New Plot into place, and prove that they fit.  If I've put the last month to proper use, this shouldn't be too drawn-out a processes.

It's about removing all the senseless plotty complications I can, and replacing them with consistent story complexity.

I'm too fried to even think about the Chocolate Story at present.

caper_est: The grey wolf in the red gloaming. (golden kate)

Killer-Kate and Luke Lackland: Oy! Still bogged down in the political revision, largely because the Puffin Superior's part in the later story has also had to put out back-roots that will support it - and some of her issues are metaphysical more than political, hence even more bewildering to deal with. This is the trouble with her rise from "plot person who knows something critical to the climax" to "significant major character in her own right". It's only a somewhat outrageous parallel to say that I got three-quarters through the first draft, and then Father Brown stepped out of Chestertonia to join the opposition. The Puffin is not a negligible quantity.

And she seems to have decided that what is best for my soul is lots of lovely work. Pah!

There are only so many hours one can spend on this sort of thing every day, so I've decided to start reserving at least one of them for Chocolate and the Gods, before it starts going all blotchy and bloomy on me.

caper_est: The grey wolf in the red gloaming. (golden kate)
Killer-Kate and Luke Lackland: Good news - lots of work done over weekend - and bad - lots turned out to be needed.  It turns out that I came up with the idea of Saturnist popular agitation as a serious plot issue... rather later in the book than I remembered.  Which means that for about the first third of the story, nobody mentions it or factors it into their plans at all.

This would have been rather idiotic of them.  So I haven't quite finished the political reworking after all, because I've had to sort all that out before progressing.  It's been a long slog, and I still have a weekday or three's hard labour ahead of me before I can get to the Big Bad.


caper_est: The grey wolf in the red gloaming. (golden kate)

Killer-Kate and Luke Lackland: A breakthrough!  I've finally teased apart the threads of the infamous Four Agenda Pile-Up at Garcastle.  Lord Evil now has something to do that is... worthy... of him; Relatively Okay Genius's masterstroke, disentangled with few changes from the former muddle, shows up as much more shocking and brilliant; and there is lively and desperate action to replace the worst passages of talking heads and ominous introspections.  The cost of all this is another chapter in the middle, provisionally dubbed Hell-Stalk.  That's the third, now.  Even at an optimistic estimate, I'm going to have to allow a month for this trio.  Depending on how the rest of the revision goes, the Easter deadline may still be attainable.

Coming to the end of the political critique now.  By this weekend, I want to have the revised structure it implies up and running.  The simpler critique of the Big Bad's thread, and the unpredictable process of trying to integrate Kate with Katy around Kit's pivotal untold story, will then conclude the structural issues, and set me free for the big new sections and deletions.  This will surely take me up to the beginning of March, when I can start the detail edits; after which, beta-reading, final polish, and submission I guess in mid-spring.

Quiet worldbuilding and fantasy for Chocolate and the Gods continues to lighten these sloggy hours, though it's not yet ready to be told directly.  Chocolate qua chocolate begins to seem an unexpectedly minor detail of its flavour.

caper_est: The grey wolf in the red gloaming. (golden kate)
...Killer-Kate and Luke Lackland doesn't half have a lot of political errors, inconsistencies, implausibilities, and handwaves in it.  So I'm still stuck critiquing them, hours a day.  My revision guide documents are getting to be a small book of their own.  On the other hand, the end is slowly coming into sight.  As well it should do, since I've already used up a fifth of my allotted revision time on this alone, and will surely hit a quarter before it's finally done.

Yes, I know I said "biggest single task", but...!  Next time, I think I'm going to do a lot more note-making in parallel with the writing.  Even, or especially, when I know I'm keeping several different options in play.

Onwards and slogwards!

caper_est: The grey wolf in the red gloaming. (golden kate)

Killer-Kate and Luke Lackland: Making castles less EFPy and lords less idiotic since early yesterday evening. 

Garcastle was way top-heavy, and my always-shonky first move in the fall of Carrowglaze is pretty much officially a stumble.  I think I'm going to have to enlist at least one of the marginal, late-mentioned players in Langdale - the ones I'll here designate the Bookdrake, the Thresher, and the Great Gull - and have my heroes hitch a ride on those operations, established for purposes that run clean across their own.  The Knifewitch can't possibly carry that load without help, in the time she's got to work with.  I don't see how anybody could.

I now have to add some additional sense: some consistent and logical account of the long-standing grudges between the lords of Allingdale and Langdale.  To date they've pretty much been a plastic excuse for random things I've found necessary along the way.

About halfway through the political critique now.  Need to up my pace further.

caper_est: The grey wolf in the red gloaming. (golden kate)

Killer-Kate and Luke Lackland:
Another short but intense phase of diplomacy  revised.  Huge matters got whooshed past in the first draft because I didn't know about them, and the emphasis left on more tedious stuff because I understood it and needed it to progress.  Structural changes indicated at present:

- Diplomatic infodumps, here and just before the climactic chapter, to be replaced with dramatic yarn showing the actual moves on the ground.  Two new chapters probably required, bringing the Debating of the Wood and the Doom-Riding episodes respectively to the fore.  Vividness and tension both thereby much increased from the original sketch, and space for some much-needed development work added.  Some signposting blah throughout the book can probably be removed at the same time.
- I may be able to get rid of one, or even two, of the shorter and less interesting chapters, by drawing off their vital spirits into one or other of the new ones.

- The manoeuvrings of the Duke's advisors now get spread much more evenly throughout the book.  The Puffin Superior can be contacted covertly as soon as it makes sense to do so, and so is no longer parachuted in late in the game.  As much delay as I need can be attributed simply to her age, the (tweakable) distance, and especially the combination of bad terrain and filthy winter weather.  Meanwhile, Lord Evil has a more interesting focus in the early part of the negotiations than lurking around plausibly upholding Evil.  I haven't got all the details yet, but I'm beginning to get a strong feeling for what the rebalanced plot must look like.

- I'm quite proud of Garcastle's physical presence and palpable weight of history, in the story as stands.  On review, I'm far less impressed with the way I've conveyed Garcastle as a living community.  This would be a fault even in a conventional epic fantasy.  In a commons'-eye tale like this one, it's simply not acceptable.  More research and imaginative exercise required here, and soon.

My pace isn't too horrible to date, but it's still not as fast as I'd like, and I think I'm going to have to do some heavy bashing over the weekend to keep to my schedule. 

caper_est: The grey wolf in the red gloaming. (golden kate)
I finished up my most pressing donkey-work on Killer-Kate and Luke Lackland, and am now the proud possessor of:

1) A complete scene breakdown, which I'm using as a template for all high-level revision passes;

2) A story calendar, which is considerably less buggy than I'd suspected;


3) A digest of all the political/diplomatic matter in the story, indexed by scene.

This is so that I can plunge into the first set of revisions, namely the ones which make everybody's agendas internally coherent.  (In the story, they make sense from the perspectives of the people involved, and evolve over two or three eventful months.  In the real world, they evolved over two or three years, and the plans I started writing aren't altogether the same as the plans I brought to a conclusion.  Also, I occasionally lost track of some of the multi-decker whoppers the Duelling Diplomats are exchanging in the background.  It's all right for the reader to skim that - background, and all! - but not for it to disintegrate when the reader does look twice at it.)

And now I'm started.

This is the one job which I need to get right in order for the story to hang together and make more than impressionistic sense.  I'm giving myself a week for it, or at least for the coarse-grained corrections which are all I need to make at this stage.  Some good stuff I can't discuss without absolute spoilerificity has already emerged from the shadows in which my subconscious or my good fortune hid it.

I'm expecting to lose a big chunk of wordcount in this phase, as I remove all the repetitious speeches and diplomatic blah in which various  characters kept me up to date on what they thought they were up to through different stages of the first draft.

After this is done, the next big job will be the handling of the Big Bad, which links up with the integration of Katy Elflocks and the Great Untold Story.  Successively finer-grained stuff after that.

My sinister master plan is to have a submission-ready manuscript by Easter.

Happy New Year, all!

caper_est: The Liberty Bell strikes! (liberty)
Because I'm in the preliminary stages of revising my fantasy novel, I've found myself dwelling on the ways in which its chief hero's methods do and don't work. This, not from the point of view of learning to be a better politician than she is - I almost certainly never shall be, either morally or pragmatically - but from the perspective that some of the things we each want to achieve aren't obviously compatible with some of the others.

Today's episode of Things People Inside My Head Told Me:

Good lordship is helping persons weaker than oneself, and acquiring a cut of power and status from every such deal. The good side of this path is that one becomes powerful in direct proportion to one's beneficence. The bad side of it is that after one has acquired a certain amount of power, one isn't so dependent upon the good opinion of the sort of people one is mostly helping, and has an obvious incentive to in ways which don't eliminate the need for one's lordship and assistance. This approach is also pretty much designed, by definition, to concentrate agency in oneself and leech it from humbler folk - indeed, to humble them further with every interaction. In a kindly way, to be sure, but not necessarily a less poisonous way for that.

There again, one thing a relatively good lord can be very good at, is the concentrated effort of fighting a worse one.

Good comradeship is also helping persons weaker than oneself, but sharing any net gain of power and status as far as possible. The good side of this path is that one deliberately diffuses power and agency amongst peers, eliminating the temptation to become a boss who can dole out good or ill with equal facility. The bad side of it is that strength won by good and frank action is thus diffused away from those most likely to repeat it, whereas well-meaning or downright malicious lords who do want to become bosses concentrate the power they win much more rapidly, and may therefore end up becoming the boss of the would-be good comrades in pretty short order. The personally egalitarian approach fosters independence and respect, but can't compel - and certainly may not receive - either.

One thing about a good comrade is that you don't necessarily notice one until you need them.

Another way to look at this is in terms of heroism.  A hero is a sort of good lord, at least in reputation; a villain is a sort of bad one.  A good comrade is just a mate, a good neighbour, the sort you want beside you in a pinch.  A bad comrade is, I suppose, a lowlife, a mook, a no-count bum.  They'll do you a bad turn as soon as look at you, but they haven't the mind to make any real gain from their dirty tricks in the long run.  That would mean taking on responsibility, if only to themselves, which they would enjoy about as much as a shit sundae.

Three Katherines of Allingdale is partly about the desperate need for, and desperate vulnerabilities of, the 'comradeship' mode of doing good stuff.  As a left-libertarian, that appeals to me both intellectually and by instinct - or perhaps I ought to say that this dual appeal is why my politics are like that in the first place.  But the lordly/heroic/villainous approach is strong in places where comradeship is weak, and sometimes it defends places where weakness can't be afforded.  Then the problem is how to get off the @$&!ing tiger afterwards!

I don't have much more of an answer to that, than I did before I thought of the story, or imagined this dichotomy explicitly.  Better questions, though.

Interested to know how far this makes sense to anybody else, or what other takes people have on it, and on how to handle it fictionally or in reality.  The heroic narrative is mighty dominant in fantastic literature especially, where its intuitive opposite seems to be not so much the comradely as the - well, anti-heroic! - mook-o-rama.  But an anti-hero doesn't look to me like the other positive pole from the Exceptional Levelling-Up Hero, at all, at all...

caper_est: The Liberty Bell strikes! (liberty)
Overheard by financial journalist Nick Goodaway of the London Evening Standard, from a group of youths travelling home on the Jubilee Line (the silver one on the Underground, and one of the two that serve my own district) - this change rung on an old seasonal song of my childhood:

Christmas is coming, the bankers are getting sacked.
Please put a billion in their fucking pay-off pack!
If you haven't got a billion, a million will do.
If you haven't got a million, then SOD YOU!

Vox populi, vox dei.

ETA: For those happening upon this post at random, and not already familiar with my opinions, note that I haven't got a million or an appreciable fraction thereof, yet notwithstanding I have been obliged with the rest of us to put money into rich chancers' fucking pay-off packs.  Please interpret my sentiments accordingly.

caper_est: The Liberty Bell strikes! (liberty)

Charlie Stross, whose opinion of libertarianism is not famously high, has a good rant inspired by attempts to suppress the Occupy... movement, and solicits political responses from his readers.  Lively discussion follows in the comment section.  In the course of it, I finally got around to spelling out exactly why I no longer buy the idea that liberty and vast economic inequality can long live together:

>So what harm can it possibly do me that they're richer than I am?

None - in a society where rent-seeking has become a marginal dumb criminal activity, rather than the major basis of power and authority. First, catch your rabbit!

My extended argument here - the heading also links back to the full comment that elicited it. 

Shorter me: even in terms of purely negative liberty, relative poverty lacks the power to defend its rights, and freedoms that can't be defended are only aspirations at best.  Therefore, lovers of liberty must find ways to spread wealth too evenly for anybody to forge crowns from it, or else resign themselves to howling for the Moon through all the age-long night.


caper_est: caper_est, the billy goat (Default)

August 2015

2 3 4 56 78


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 18th, 2017 12:51 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios