Graeme

When I travel with Qantas, I will typically listen to the "From The Heart" radio channel. Yeah, I know... I just like that sort of music They include dedications to people who are travelling that month, which are read out by the person hosting the 'show'. On today's Qantas flight, I listened as Bruce made a dedication to his partner of 14 years, Murray That's the fourth definite same-sex couple dedication I've heard over the years, and there have been a few others that I haven't been sure of. I feel it is little things like this -- where the same-sex couples are being treated exactly the same as mixed-sex couples -- that goes towards steering our society to being more accepting. So... Thank You, Qantas, and Best Wishes to Bruce and Murray (whoever you are).

And would now be a good time to admit that I hate using Picasso as an example, because the vast majority of us are not in that league...? But I see Duncan's point. The only problem is, as he admitted, that the reality is more likely to be the other way around.

These aren't rules, but guidelines. And you can break them if you want, but you should be doing so deliberately, not accidentally. That's my view -- educate yourself on the guidelines, and then work out for yourself how you want to vary from them and (most importantly) why.

Happy Birthday, Greenmann!

Happy Birthday, CoLeYy!

Happy Birthday, Michelle!

A belated Happy Birthday, Jovian!

Interestingly, the latest edition of the DNA magazine in Australia as the results of a sex survey (not scientific, so take the results with a grain of salt). It reported that 47.3% of the respondents admited to having has sex with a woman. It also reported that 18.1% (I think) of males in the 18-21 age range said they were virgins. There were also a lot of other results, but I can't remember them (I only flicked through the magazine at the local Border's store).

Happy Birthday, James! What does one give The Beast for his birthday? :wacko:

I would like to thank all the authors who have contributed to the Anniversaries Anthology. It was a challenging task, as the request was for stories of a greater than normal length, but I think they've done a brilliant job. I would also like to thank all the editors and early readers. They have an important role to play in the process of producing such great entertainment, and they shouldn't be forgotten. In particular, I noticed one name that kept cropping up in the author notes, so to Sharon goes an extra special thank you. Finally, to Steph who has managed the technical tasks, and CJ who has helped mentor me through my first job as Anthology Coordinator, my most heartfelt thanks. I've enjoyed reading all of the stories and I'm sure you all will, too. Graeme GA Anthology Coordinator

It's "sown" and it's been driving me nuts ever since you started this thread. Up until now, I've been good, though, and haven't asked you to fix it... Back on topic -- don't drink too much before you tell your sister. You want to be at least comprehensible when you speak And, yes, I know you don't drink that much, but stress does strange things to people

Don't forget, James, that I wouldn't have my two boys if I didn't do breeder sex But it's not for everyone

I'm not an editor, so I could be wrong on this, but I believe it's based on context. Everyday is an adjective and a noun. The examples from http://dictionary.reference.com are: "an everyday occurrence." "We use inexpensive plates for everyday." In these example, it is clearly everyday, not every day. The same applies to everything: "This news means everything to us." In the case of everything and anymore, where they could be separate words, it appears to be acceptable to treat them as one word. The main thing is to be consistent. I know my editors have a preference for "any more" over "anymore" but I believe both are valid. I don't think "overwith" is a word.

I generally don't write a second story in the same universe as an earlier one. There are a few exceptions to that rule, but unless I'm happy that I have an idea that is at least as good as the original, I won't even start. A poor second story will drag down the original, and I don't want that. When it's done well, though, it can be great. But I don't know of how many print authors I've read who have fallen into this trap. The first few stories may be fine, but so many fall down and seem to be writing in that universe because they've made money from it in the past -- the stories just don't have the spark of the original(s). I would hate to fall into that same mistake.

Face to face is definitely better, but I came out to someone on the phone. I didn't really have a lot of choice -- they now live in the USA and when I happened to be in the same country I took the opportunity to ring them A lot will be a personal judgement call. Do you feel you'll be able to explain things better in person, if an explanation is needed? Do you think there's a chance she'll just hang up, and then do who-knows-what? If so, wait. If you think you can do it all over the phone, including reasonable worst-case scenarios (eg. she thinks you're just fooling her, or she responds "No, you can't be!" and then hangs up -- what ever you think is reasonable for her to do), then go for it. But if you can hold off, it is definitely better to do it face to face.

Nick and Razor, I think you're both right in the vast majority of cases. People need to be responsible for their own actions, and, as I told my eldest son after he hit his younger brother, just because someone does something to you, that doesn't mean you should do something back. There are too many problems today because people don't take responsibility for their actions. HOWEVER, the question used the word "ever" and I feel that there is a small minority of cases where, yes, a person can be culpable for another's actions. In a much larger set of cases, they can be an influence in another's actions, but the majority of responsibility lies with the person who acted, and that is where I agree with Razor and Nick. Razor -- you were looking for a realistic scenario where someone else controlled a person. Would you consider the drugging a person with a hallucinogenic drug such a case? I'm not talking about where someone has taken such a drug voluntarily, but the case where a person gave it to them without their knowledge. I can't see how the victim in this case can be responsible for their own actions.

Happy Birthday, Jamie!

What's the point in posting anything when Kevin's said it already? I voted "Yes" to because of the word "ever" in the question. There are, in my mind, circumstances where a person can be culpable for another's actions. Unlike Kevin, though, I believe there are also times when the person whose actions are in question can be innocent. Again, it will be exceptional circumstances, but they would include situations such as where a person was given a hallucinogenic without their knowledge. Similarly, when it involves children, people with a lowered mental capacity or other situations where the person concerned can be ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but the person enticing them is not: "Go on. Pushing that big red button will mean you get all the lollies you'll ever want." "Are sure? You're not fibbing me, are you?" "Why would I lie? Trust your Uncle CJ and push the red button. I promise you, you'll be famous!" The little boy pushes the red button, launching the nuclear missile....

I agree with Benji. It's up to Robbie to decide what he wants to do and when.

:king: :king: :king: Congratulations! :king: :king: :king: There's nothing more to say

Best wishes, Robbie (I'm not saying good luck, because I don't believe you'll need it )

CJ, now is the time when you can take a break if you want to. I know you well enough that you'll put yourself under pressure as soon as you start posting. If you want to take an extra two or even four weeks out before you start posting, then take the time -- your fans will still be here. You know you won't stop once it starts, so this is the time to catch your breath. Good luck! Graeme

If I remember correctly (and I could be wrong), the taxi was in New York City -- enough said....

Kevin's right -- it's a personal taste issue. What some people consider to be too much description, others will consider to be not enough. I think there should be enough description to make the situation 'real', without detracting from the story itself. It doesn't take a lot to lift things out of the ordinary, but it shouldn't be laboured. The example I read in a creative writing book was a character got into a taxi. The taxi driver, peering through beer-bottle glasses, pulled out into the traffic. That little bit of description made the taxi-driver more than a cardboard cut-out, but it didn't take a lot. Having the taxi driver explain about his history while driving the character to his/her destination would be over-kill -- unless that driver made a re-appearance a few times, it's useless information that's just padding. If the description breaks the flow of the story, then it had better be important. As much as possible, the descriptions should just appear 'naturally', as part of the flow, to the extent that the reader should be almost unaware that it's there. There will always be exceptions to this -- such as setting a scene for future events -- but description is a tool, not an end in its own right. It needs to be used judicially or it'll smother the story.

My view is that unless a character's sexuality is part of the story, it doesn't need to be stated. So, unless there is a reason to reveal a character is gay (or straight), why do it? It could be because it's part of the characters personality. It could be because they have to fend off an inappropriate love interest. But unless there's a reason to show a character's sexuality, is it that important?