« Of course, with my luck this is all a dream | Main | Timelines. »

Wednesday: If Ray seduces any of them over the phone, I'm going to cry.

I started out tonight by being disappointed in The Trek Life, a cynical fan-niche comic strip. The characters are Star Trek fans having tepid, faintly amusing Trekkie experiences. The most remarkable thing about the strip is that it's Paramount-sanctioned; it looks for all the world like something they're going to try and pitch to newspapers once they've gotten some buzz out of the startrek.com placement. It does nothing that piles of other geek-subculture comics haven't already done, and usually done better. The poorly socialized protagonist isn't ironic enough to be resonant, but he's too bland to be offensive. And it's obviously a cash grab; there's already t-shirts, for crying out loud.

So, I went and had a look at the character profiles to see what they were setting us up for. (That link goes to the press release, actually; the gallery's in a popup. If you open the page directly instead, it tries to forcibly resize your window. So you're warned.) Got a couple of doughy, ordinary-looking guys. The slightly doughier one is more pathetic than the less doughy-looking one, and the less-doughy one has a bloatee. Okay.

Kate from The Trek Life.I got to page three -- "Carl has made it his mission in life to catch Kate up on all things Star Trek, even if it means loaning her episodes from his growing DVD collection (with property damage insurance, of course)" -- and thought three things:

  1. Wow. That's pink, all right.
  2. Yeah, those are definitely some biouxbies up there. Stickin' out and everything. Yep. Those are some hooters.
  3. She doesn't match the other two at all. She clearly leads a completely different lifestyle.

Why is this still happening?

We can complain all we want about the range of acceptable humour in geek-subcultural webcomics right now, the limits of characterization and plotting and gags available to female characters there compared to the male ones -- but that situation is improving somewhat. (It's not fantastic. It sucks that the solace there comes from the process existing at all. It angers me somewhat that geek males of all types can find some well-realized representation of themselves in webcomics right now, but women are still comparatively constrained -- and that we still have to think in terms of exceptions there. It pisses me off considerably that I could just cut and paste my Comixpedia article from last year and still have very little else to add. But that's also not the point today.)

Something this targeted and insipid, though, is only going to do what's well within the bounds of safety. I've got a hard time believing that someone -- several someones -- at Paramount didn't sit down, read PvP and Dork Tower and so on, and say to themselves, "Hey, how can we cash in on this 'online comic' lark without pissing off Joe Q. Eighteen-to-Thirty? He's just a regular guy doing the best he can. What about these comics would he like? What makes him uncomfortable?" And, don't get me wrong, that depresses me too.

But the two bland guys in your "Normal" Range of Trek Fans there? They don't have to be attractive. And that's just as problematic as Kate up there, really; why can't a hardcore Trek fan have luck with the ladies, for example, or be less doughy than the midrange fan, or have good hair and decent clothes? Why the hell is the tacit implication that, the less fixated upon Trek you are, the smaller you get, anyways? (Near as I can tell, the smaller I've gotten, the more serious I've been about Trek fandom, and vice versa. At the height of my little Deanna Troi fixation there, my ribs were showing!)

It's just depressing. These are the Generic Star Trek Fans, folks. That's the lowest common denominator; that's the safe, marketable, plush, baby versions right there.

Maybe they're aiming for Dilbert or FoxTrot readers here to some extent. I suspect, though, that The Trek Life, if it lasts that long, is more likely to end up resembling Cathy.

Posted by Wednesday Burns-White at September 17, 2005 8:28 PM


Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at September 17, 2005 9:18 PM

I often think that essay from a year ago when I design new characters. The males too. As a rule, since my characters are mythic anyway, with a few exceptions I let them be idealized - certainly the first rank, the ones who are young and healthy right now because they're at the beginning of a twenty-five year story in which, depending on the time zone, they're the premier adventurers of their age. When they're in the present, however, they're all internet/screen geeks, to bring this comment on topic for the post. And still with the same physiques, cuz I agreed with the points made in that essay.

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at September 17, 2005 11:05 PM

"Writes and draws for Garfield." How am I not surprised at this? What a boring strip.

Comment from: unliz posted at September 17, 2005 11:15 PM

Actually, this has been a huge consideration of mine for years. See, I was raised in the Trek fandom (it wasn't to the same extend I was raised in the STAR WARS fandom, mind you, but it was still very present in my childhood). I actually used to DATE boys who spent hundreds of dollars on action figures. I've lived the life, yo. I be STREET. Word.

Anyway, I don't date geek boys anymore. Not because we don't share interests, I'm still "in the life" to some extent. Not because I have a problem with foods ending in "ito" either, because I'm a fan of unhealthy things. Hell, I still drink regular coke. The reason I don't date geek boys? Their standards are TOO high.

I'm not a Kate kind of girl. I'm pudgy (a proud owner of Jeph Jaques' "aerodynamically curvaceous" shirt), I occasionally get breakouts, and I have a face that would make an anime character envious (tiny little mouth, big eyes, wide jaw). I'm not a 7 of 9 look-alike so most geek boys won't GIVE ME THE TIME OF DAY.

I don't know if this is some primitive self-defense mechanism wherein they automatically go for girls they KNOW are out of their league so they won't have to worry about dealing with an actual, mature relationship or some form of social conditioning where they expect hot girls to love them for being smart or what, but it's sort of sad when it's happening to you repeatedly or when you're watching it happen to others. It got to the point that I was getting repeatedly turned down by guys who, I don't think I'm entirely being conceited here but who knows, I was WAY out of their leagues in any other social setting. Especially since I used to be pretty thin. Not anorexically so but thinner than average. *I* was getting the "why can't I find a girl like you?" speeches.

I just realized that I forgot what my point originally was because I'm doing a couple of things. If it comes back to me I'll post an addendum.

Comment from: William_G posted at September 17, 2005 11:32 PM

You're helping evolution, unliz. Fanboys shouldn't breed.

Comment from: Wednesday posted at September 17, 2005 11:47 PM

Hrm, that's odd. I'm not desperately attractive in any sense of the word, nor what we would call particularly Popular With The Cool Kids. But I've never noticed an overwhelming tendency of geekboys to prefer Sevens of Nine so very much over me and mine that we didn't even stand a chance. My boyfriend's a total geek, and so is my recent ex. And, back when I *was* slightly cute, it wasn't a problem then either.

I *did* have problems with geekboys who were trying really hard to suppress that element of themselves, though. Like, somehow, if they went for the Sevens, they'd transform into Standard-Issue Suburban Happy People or something. It was kinda scary.

(I don't think, these many years on, that I could really deal with getting into a relationship with a nongeek. The kinds of things the self-repressive geekboys were trying to purge from themselves tended to be the things I found essential to copacetic relationships.)

Fanboyism is something else altogether, albeit strongly overlapping.

Comment from: unliz posted at September 18, 2005 12:17 AM

It might have just been a result of my natural tendancy to date friends, but it was pretty weird getting the "I wish I could find a girl like you" speech. Or it could just be that Star Wars geeks (who I mostly was attracted to) are worse at it than Trek geeks. It also might have involved the fact that when I was dating geeks, it was when Anime was at its peak in the country and the boys were all totally into Japanese girls. I actually dated one boy who thought that since he liked Japan so much, it meant he MUST be a reincarnated Samurai. He converted to shinto and everything. Since I'm not Asian, that petered out REAL quick.

I ended up just dating a guy who wasn't into Sci-Fi and then getting him into it with me.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at September 18, 2005 1:08 AM

"It sucks that the solace there comes from the process existing at all."

I've got to counter this on two points.

First off, should we be satisfied that there's progress, no matter how incrimental? Are we geeks so condition to society at large reacting in various types of revulsion that we should find solace in mild teasing-revulsion instead of "Burn the unclean one!"-revulsion? We're basically saying that it's better because non-geeks aren't laughing as hard at us.

Moreover, has there really been progress? I've been hearing since at least the early 90's that the portrayal of geeks has been improving and we're becoming more respected and respectable. I'll grant you that I'm still a bit of a youngling, younger than several other geeks here (including Eric and Paul Gadzikowski), but it seems to me that this supposed "imrpovement" about how society treats geeks has been going on for a while now, and things aren't much different than they were a decade ago.

To me, that decade is important, because that's when I managed to do what is stereotypically the least geeky thing to do - get a girlfriend (well, as of October 21st. But I actually met her 10 years ago on the 23rd of September). So I've looked, and seen how things have improved for geek image. I don't see it. I don't see a friendlier environment towards geeks. I don't see more media portrayals of positive geekiness (compared to before - there were some then and some now).

Maybe it's the circles I travel in, but I know very few people that are actually stereotypical geeks in various varieties (including, but not limited to, video gaming geeks, otaku, computer geeks, RPG geeks, LARP geeks, music geeks, and comic geeks), despite being geeks of those varieties. It honestly seems to me that the proportional portrayal of stereotypical geeks versus non-stereotypical geeks does not mirror the proportion of said two groups in real life at all.

Comment from: Alun Clewe posted at September 18, 2005 2:07 AM

One thing that bothers me is when "geeks" promote those stereotypes themselves. There was one webcomic that shall for now remain nameless which included an entire storyline portraying RPG gamers as complete social misfits and borderline devil worshippers. I was surprised to find out that the cartoonist was a gamer himself. In fact, at one point he e-mailed me explaining why he included that storyline even though he knew the stereotype wasn't true; I can't find the e-mail right now (I suspect it was long enough ago it was before I had my current computer), but I remember the explanation didn't strike me as holding a lot of water; IIRC it was something along the lines of "Well, yeah, it's not true, but it's a common joke."

Yeesh. It's bad enough that others portray RPGers (and other categories of "geek") that way; do we really have to encourage those stereotypes ourselves?

Comment from: gwalla posted at September 18, 2005 2:24 AM

Why is her face cubist?

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at September 18, 2005 2:31 AM

I'm not desperately attractive in any sense of the word

That is an untruth bordering on being libelous. Just for the record.

Comment from: William_G posted at September 18, 2005 3:10 AM

Couple of thoughts:

1- A woman is in possession of a vagina. Thus, men will always be available. This is as true as the sun rising in the morning.

2- The reason to date Japanese girls is because they put-out with a minimum of relationship bullshit. All hail the Japanese girl!

3- I've never met a second generation fan-person who wasn't mentally screwed up beyond belief. So when I say "Fanboys shouldn't breed" I'm not just saying it out of spite. Somebody please think of the children.

4- Geek "integration" into the rest of society is nothing more than exploitation. Companies with something to sell know that geeks will follow their obsessions like lemmings into the sea. Which means guarranteed paydays for them, as well as some very effective free advertising for whatever movie, tv show or product (iPods for example) they're selling.

Comment from: W. I. Shane M. posted at September 18, 2005 3:16 AM

Most Trekkies are middle-aged men, and most middle-aged men are pudgy. This is a case of a stereotype being basically true, which isn't an unusual thing.

My experience with Trekkies is limited to the fathers of some of my friends. These guys are the biggest geeks in the world, and they obviously didn't have any trouble finding women.

The only bachelors over 40 I know are too picky and unwilling to change. Fewer women are committed to being single for their whole lives than men. Women accept almost anything by a certain point, and geek hobbies are a whole lot less off-putting than alcoholism, hunting, NASCAR, or most hobbies old guys enjoy.

P.S. I am 19 and know nothing about anything.

Comment from: Tice with a J posted at September 18, 2005 4:02 AM

i think that the worst part is the way she's drawn. The guys are generalized shapes, while Kate is detailed like an Orion slave girl.

Thinking about geek girls, especially the real-life ones I know, I think the best portrayal can be found in Queen of Wands. The women there remind me of several people I know in real life, including my sisters (except my sisters are both active Latter-Day Saints). The Qow folks aren't computer geeks or anime geeks, but they remind me of people who are.

Of course, this begs the question, "what is geek?" I think being a geek is more about being naturally quirky than anything else. Most people who try to write a "geek girl" fail to grok this. I think Kurz gets it in his portrayal of Marcy.

I just used the word "grok" casually. I am such a nerd (Does nerd mean about the same thing as geek? I can never remember the distinction).

Comment from: Frisco posted at September 18, 2005 4:10 AM

for W. I. Shane M. ,

Dude, I'm 37 and I still know nothing about anything.

Ahhh the mystery that is woman.

Comment from: Zaq posted at September 18, 2005 4:57 AM

"Maybe they're aiming for Dilbert or FoxTrot readers here to some extent."

I happen to like FoxTrot. It's not without its flaws, but I find it genuinely funny as often as a lot of other good comics, on and offline. Just saying.

Other than that, I have little to add that hasn't already been said, I'm afraid.

Comment from: MrPerson posted at September 18, 2005 8:21 AM

1) Foxtrot is, for the most part, funnier than Dilbert because it sticks -slightly- less to a formula than "Stupid boss character says something stupid, cynical office worker character comes with cynical remark" Dilbert.

2) This comic, to put it bluntly, sucks so far. Out of nine strips, it made me crack half a smile once, and that's while using a "plot" point that was just desperate. 72 hours locked in a hotel bathroom... Yeah... And housekeeping wouldn't have noticed this? I can think of a dozen explanations as to why someone would manage to be locked in a hotel bathroom for 72 hours straight, and they're all vastly funnier than the fact that he locked himself in a bathroom for 72 hours.

Oh, and the girl's hot in the same way that the women in Garfield are hot: I.e. you know you're supposed to think that she's hot, but the way she's drawn, she's not.

Comment from: Brendan posted at September 18, 2005 8:24 AM

Obvious link.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at September 18, 2005 10:05 AM

I've never met a second generation fan-person who wasn't mentally screwed up beyond belief.

I'm a second-generation fan. Sort of. Actually I got hooked on Star Trek twenty minutes before my mother did. But she was active in fandom in the 70s (ever read Ni Var in the first New Voyages?) (actually, don't; that version was drastically edited) while I didn't really get active till the 80s.

My stepkids grew up with four parents active in fandom. They're in their early twenties now. One gets offered promotions and is planning on business school. The other is engaged, a new father, and about to publish his own LARP.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at September 18, 2005 11:28 AM

Though it might prove the point of the poster above, I suppose I count as a second-generation geek too. My dad is a closet movie geek. His favorite movies read like an AV club festival - Brazil, Yellowbeard, Blade Runner, and so on. He's into animation in general, and he was in fact offended that I hadn't watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail before I turned 13 (which he promptly corrected). This is also the guy who decided that I should play video games at the age of 2, holding me up to the controls and sowing the seeds of my own future geekdom.

Of course, the fact that he tries to hide it means that not many people outside of the family see him as a geek. But still, I'm the son of a geek. I married a geek, and my kids will be third-generation geeks.

Comment from: William_G posted at September 18, 2005 11:35 AM

Oh noes! War of the anecdotal evidence! The only winner will be the one who matches the reader's desires the best!


Yeah, you don't match my experiences. Good on you.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at September 18, 2005 12:52 PM

Yeah, you don't match my experiences. Good on you.

Actually it's not at all hard to believe that there are screwed-up second-generation fans. A lot of them. Perhaps a majority are screwed up. Maybe the ones who aren't are the anomaly, and your sample is more representative than mine. I actually don't know a lot of second-generation fans (my kids know more than I, naturally), or maybe I do and don't know it (Hi, 32!). But the ones I do know are at least as successful and/or happy people as I am.

Comment from: Merus posted at September 18, 2005 1:47 PM

I've basically resolved that when I have children I'm going to try to give them the chance to make their own decisions. This is partly from my own experience - I don't really see the point to introducing games to my kids until they're old enough to at least understand the game, and I'd prefer not to feel like I'm 'indoctrinating' my kids into anything, or to have them rebel against it later.

Also, Wednesday's article on the geek girl stereotype and how it often leads into the Amazon Playmate archetype was thought-provoking - the webcomic I'm coaxing into existence (everyone has one by this point) is going to use ideas in that article for an early story.

Also, I know this is from somewhere but I can't quite place it:

"He's just a regular guy doing the best he can."

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at September 18, 2005 2:29 PM

Not to bring us back on topic, but since there are only nine I went and read the cartoons Wednesday snarked. Anyone remember when Spock, Messiah! came out, or at least read it? It was the first paperback Star Trek novel after James Blish had adapted all the episodes. It was all trappings and no essence. So are these. The bio page says the cartoonist's a Star Trek fan but I sure can't tell form the cartoons.

Comment from: Connor Moran posted at September 18, 2005 2:32 PM

Is it possible to have a conversation about the nature of relationships or the realities of a group of people without it collapsing into a quivering pile of hasty generalizations?

Perhaps not.

Comment from: unliz posted at September 18, 2005 2:59 PM

Now now now, Connor. If we didn't collapse into a quivering pile of hasty generalizations, would this REALLY be the internet? How can I know whose side I'm on until I determine which generalization is most appealing to me?

Comment from: sylvan posted at September 18, 2005 2:59 PM

All I know for sure is that the illustration attached to this snark is embarrassingly ugly. Come on, people! If you're gonna do a slick, corporatized, unfunny take on webcomics, at least let it be professionally drawn!

Comment from: Wednesday posted at September 18, 2005 3:01 PM

I finally found a copy of Spock, Messiah! a couple of Christmasses back, when Second Foundation in Chapel Hill were clearing out all of their science fiction. I'd been looking for it for about fifteen years -- its reputation as Scary Dire outstripped even the Marshak/Culbreath semi-pro-fanfic anthologies.

Oh, man. Yeah. God. Holy cow.

Comment from: Wednesday posted at September 18, 2005 3:06 PM

Oh, and: Yeah. I read Ni Var. Which should be obvious from the above. But. See. I should actually say so.

I dimly remember actually liking Ni Var. (Didn't a lot of people? ISTR hearing that a ship by that name turned up in Enterprise.) That was... about it for the New Voyages stuff. Mostly, there was bristling.

Comment from: undauntra posted at September 18, 2005 3:09 PM

31. Female. Geek.

I am a geek. I am even (against my will) a Star Trek geek. See, I really like Diane Duane as an author, and she went and wrote these Trek novels... *ahem* Anyway.

On female geeks, relationships, etc:

1) Hunting is not an off-putting hobby in a mate, because venison is yummy. Mmm, venison...

2) Me, I've given up on dating non-geek guys. I don't need another boyfriend who's going to get insanely jealous of my gaming group. System/fandom isn't much of an issue.

3) Since I am reminded that Certain Parties are actually Star Trek geeks, come MUSH with me. The Romulan Star Empire needs you! (You know who you are.)

4) You know, I was going to have a point 4, but there's really not much point to the whole "Neener! My anecdotal evidence is different from yours!" Well, not much point except bragging, and I am all about the ego gratification. So: I am a babealicous non-loser geek girl with a real job and stuff, bwah hah hah hah. And I still look absolutely nothing like Seven of Nine.

Comment from: Shaenon posted at September 18, 2005 3:17 PM

Your boyfriend is a geek, Wednesday? Is he cute? I like the cute ones.

Comment from: Mista_B posted at September 18, 2005 3:19 PM

Because it seems to need clarification - the difference between geeks, and nerds.

Never seen it put better than those two comics there, myself.

Comment from: Wednesday posted at September 18, 2005 3:23 PM

You can't have him, Shaenon. Besides, you've got your own geek.

But yeah. He is. And he is.

Comment from: lmf3bthelma posted at September 18, 2005 3:57 PM

Well, I was trying to figure out if my kids are second generation Geek, which meant determining whether or not my husband and I are first generation geeks. I guess my question was answered with the references to Ni Var and Spock, Messiah. I did indeed read them, as a 16 year old Girl Scout counsellor in training.

Of course, the fact that our second date was to a Star Trek convention should have clued me in.

I'm not sure we passed the genes on, though. My nine year old daughter just made the "challenge-level" soccer team: the one you have to try out for.

Though the five year old *loves* the collected Superfriends comic volume I got him... sigh...

Comment from: Kate Sith posted at September 18, 2005 4:15 PM

Closeted geeks can be the best, I think. You know, the ones you'd never really suspect? I landed the captain of the football team once. Through role-playing.

(Granted, not *my* high school's football team. He was several states away, which took a bit of the fun out of things. But still. Dude.

Also: yes. Hot. And ridiculously charming.)

Comment from: Tice with a J posted at September 18, 2005 4:19 PM

I'm glad Angel Moxie groks the geek/nerd distinction. I guess that makes me a geek.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at September 18, 2005 5:02 PM

Wednesday - My mother borrowed the term ni var from a Vulcan poetry form created in the 1970s by fanfiction writer Dorothy Jones and which was still popular by the time alt.startrek.creative was created (or so I was informed when I posted an Enterprise ni var there). If there was a ship onscreen named Ni Var it wasn't necessarily after Mom's story, though I'd guess the odds aren't bad. (There was a Voyager episode very like Ni Var, with Torres getting split into her human and Klingon halves.)

Anyway, remember that the New Voyages books were edited by Marshak and Culbreath. They had to cut the story down for the book, and they added a scene. I recommend the full version, most recently known as The Thousandth Man. It's not on Mom's website so you'd probably have to scare it up in print, or talk me into lending you my copy, which would first entail my finding my copy.

Comment from: DocN posted at September 18, 2005 5:54 PM

Okay Eric, you are now going to HAVE to start up a Websnark Geek Dating Service. Match.com doesn't even have a "non-loser geek girl with a real job" section... I think that description is against their TOS or something...


Comment from: Wednesday posted at September 18, 2005 6:07 PM

Because, you know, just striking up friendships with people and not expecting anything to come of it? That never works.

Comment from: Grumblin posted at September 18, 2005 7:44 PM

Looking at the Kate character I can't decide...

Sillycones, or Armoured Bra ??

As for geek girls, I stick to Velma as the archetype. I works. Ith Thradhithional...

Comment from: Xelona posted at September 18, 2005 11:36 PM

I'm not only a second generation geek, I'm a second generation gamer girl. My mom started gaming when she was a kid, playing D&D with her brothers, and I started quite young myself.

I know a number of gamer girls, and none of them look like that Kate. There are some normal-looking ones (I and most of my friends shop in either Plus or Petite sizes), but none of us are drop-dead gorgeous. So why is every geek girl depicted that way?

There really aren't any places that come close to depicting what gamer girls like me and my friends are. The Devil's Panties comes closest. Even then, it doesn't cover everything (like the fact that I play male characters half the time, with no qualms).

Comment from: Kaychsea posted at September 19, 2005 4:57 AM

As a first gen geek I am now observing second gen growing up in my friends families and they are different.
My theory is that the first gens grew up knowing what they were doing was different, the young soon-to-be-crushed Second gen grows up knowing that geekdom (gamer, trekker, whatever) is normal and suffers a major disjunct when real life crashes through the plate glass window of their life.
Seven appears to be the age of crisis, when the rest of the class realise that knowing the name of Sisko's son's best friend, the colour of kryptonite that makes Superman flip out or the difference between D&D and Babylon 5's Rangers isn't more important than Wayne Gretsky's seasonal averages (just as geeky but far more mainstream acceptable).

Comment from: Alan Sharkey posted at September 19, 2005 5:51 AM

Wow. That comic was... awful. Yikes. I'm sorry, I can't contribute. Just... urgh. I feel dirty.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at September 19, 2005 12:40 PM

Just as a side adjunct - it occurs to me that Paul said he knows me (as opposed to knows of, or is remotely familiar with), despite the fact that our only interaction, ever, has been on Websnark. And his post made me feel warm and fuzzy inside. If there was ever any doubt I was a geek, it's gone now.

As for whether or not you are a second generation geek, you have two questions. Are you a geek, and how many generations of geeks were there before you? Thinking back, I might be a third-generation geek. My paternal grandfather (for these purposes, we'll call him 30_Footsteps) studied physics in college, and spent his leisure time either playing games (Othello and chess were his favorites) or doing math and word puzzles. And actually, it probably extends back further (29_Footsteps had several first-edition sci-fi novels and a first printing of Dianetics of all things, while all pictures of 28_Footsteps show him making faces at the camera which indicates at least a bit of weirdness).

And that's not even getting into my mom's side of the family.

As for the geek/nerd thing - to be fair, I've been in more debates over which one is the positive label and which one is negative than I care to remember. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to why someone would prefer one over the other, either. I just like calling myself a geek because I like the sound of the word better.

Also, as for how geek girls are depicted by geek guys... to some extent, that's because we're so smitten that we overlook any potential physical flaws our objects of affection may have. Rationally, I know my wife has a noticable overbite and she's got a very clumsy, almost painfully awkward gait that makes you think that she's constantly on stilts. But I'll swear to my dying day that she is the epitome of female beauty and no woman could top her.

Of course, on the flip side, she claims I'm the most handsome man alive, and I have an itemized list of my physical defects.

I also think we're one post away from having this thread being the most hilarious ever, but sadly it's a post that one two people can make, and I'm not one of them.

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at September 20, 2005 6:51 AM

Seduce them over the phone? Why would I want to do that?

Comment from: KingAndy posted at September 20, 2005 9:36 AM

Not so much geek, but on the subject of writing girls I'd be interested in a critique on the characterisation going on over .

I'm trying to work out if this counts as a shameless plug or not. Probably, but it is a subject that I occasionally worry about. (The writing, not the shameless plugs.)

Comment from: KingAndy posted at September 20, 2005 9:37 AM

... I forgot to put any text in that hyperlink. Oh well.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at September 13, 2006 2:28 PM

Anyway, remember that the New Voyages books were edited by Marshak and Culbreath. They had to cut the story down for the book, and they added a scene. I recommend the full version, most recently known as The Thousandth Man. It's not on Mom's website so you'd probably have to scare it up in print, or talk me into lending you my copy, which would first entail my finding my copy.

Say, since I wrote this comment one of Mom's 70s friends has put online all her old stories that weren't already. If you're looking to kill an hour Ni Var/The Thousandth Man is here.

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Remember me?