Smell The Black Glove
August 19th, 2008
Mustn’t let like the finest issue of Batman in years come out and not do a bit about it. Maybe some annotations, but honestly there’s a few good people doing that so I’m a bit annotated-out.
So we’re just going to have the big question and answer it, right before your eyes, with perfect accuracy. How this works is, we’re going to run through my favouriite suspects and ask the I-Ching who The Black Glove is, and then we’ll know. A couple of posts back Savage reminded me of the same Storm Shadow 6 page story story Morrison wrote for Marvel UK’s Action Force Monthly about twenty years ago, which was my earliest memory of anything at all I-Chingy. Genuine comics knowledge, one of those genuine four-colour epiphanies – that pedagogic element they always talk about. That was how I learnt of the I-Ching. The man himself has appeared in Morrison’s Batman’s run too, remember, so it all somehow seems appropriate. I don’t do the I-Ching much (going to call it Yijing from now on, I think that’s more proper nowadays), because Yijing is never wrong, and always eerily accurate. That’s a bit freaky, and raises a few questions I rarely have time to mull over these days, so I tend to leave it alone. But in all my experience of using it, it’s never wrong, and that means it’s sometimes been often useful, like now.
Hold tight!
Suspect 1: The Joker
I kind of think it should be The Joker. In any given Batman story, when you up and ask ‘Who is this ultimate villain?’ The answer to that has to be: ‘The Joker’ – there’s no badder or scarier villain than that, no matter how you big them up. But there’s too many issues still to go, and a sense the revelations coming are bigger even than Mr. J’s latest stab. I think he’s a good candidate though: Le Bossu deliberattely called him ‘master’, right at athe end of the last issue, so you’re probably supposed to think he’s The Black Glove at this stage. Got to count against him really. That’s just what I think – what do you think, O Book of Changes, Wilhelm Baynes 1989 edition? Is the Joker the Black Glove?*
Hexagram 50. Ting. The Ca[u]ldron.
Supreme good fortune. Success.
Fire over wood,
The image of the Caldron.
Thus the superior man consolidates his fate
By making his position correct.
That looks pretty clear – seems the Joker’s our man… The Fire over wood, black-and-red thing is too close. But wait. I had moving lines in rows 3 and 4, which gives:
Nine in the fourth palace means:
The legs of the ting [caldron] are broken,
The prince’s meal is spilled.
And his person is soiled.
Misfortune.
By referring to the Clown Prince of Crime by name, I think it’s pretty clear that after all, old whit-hands, as nobody calls him, is not also The Black Glove. And it looks like his person is going to get soiled.
Suspect 2: Thomas Wayne.
I think, following what Alfred says to him in 679, that TBG is not going to be Bruce’s dad (or rather, that Dr. Hurt bloke who’s running around currently claiming to be Bruce’s dad).
However, I like the theory here, that the killer could be Bruce’s long-lost brother, Thomas Wayne Jr. This theory has to get food points from me because it that it came to blogger Tim Callahan in a dream. That’s well Morrison. This theory is also helped enormously by the Earth-2 connection – going on the JLA graphic novel he did with Frank Quitely way back when, Morrison obviously likes bad, maybe mad Thomas Wayne Jr., and he’s a good type of character to have around, a Rico to Bruce’s Dredd. TWJr could be Dr Hurt, or he could be the real, final, nasty TBG, who’s been shucking fit up behind the scenes for yonks but not actually appeared on-screen yet. This is an iffy one, no doubt, but there’s a lot that make it good. So let’s see what the old book’s got to say about it:
Hexagram 56. Lu. The Wanderer.
Success through smallness.
Perseverance brings good fortune
To the wanderer.
Fire on the mountain:
The image of THE WANDERER.
Thus the superior man
Is clear-minded and cautious
In imposing penalties,
And protracts no lawsuits.
I think TWJr. is The Wanderer – one of the various aliases he’s gone by over the years is the Boomerang Killer – but that doesn’t make him TBG. ‘Protracts no lawsuits’ is the one here – I mean, what would his vengeance against his sexier brother be if not a protracted reckoning? ‘Law suit’ obviously here = superhero costume, so he’s not Dr. Hurt, who is as I type wearing Daddy Waynebucks’ prototype Batman outfit.
There’s two moving lines again, so I also get:
Nine at the top means:
The bird’s nest burns up.
The wanderer laughs at first,
Then must needs lament and weep.
Through carelessness he loses his cow.
Misfortune.
Reckon this bit is saying that the idea ‘TWJr might be our guy is a burning bird’s nest’ (his Earth2 villain name is Owlman, remember, so that’s where the bird bit comes in), and that although the notion is initially appealing, there’s just too little groundwork in place for it to be him. I really don’t want to lose my cow.
Two pretty unequivocal NOs there. Lots of good suspects left to go, who we’ll have to look at next time as it’s getting very late. Come back soon for more cosmic universal wisdom, knowledge and insight.
Next: Alfred – The Butler; Bruce Wayne – The Batman; Satan – The Devil; Prometheus – Not The Greek One; and anyone else you’d like me to try.
*Warning Mindless Ones Dot Com is a Yijing expert-free zone. I am as ever haphazardly following the instructions here, which are the clearest I’ve ever read on this tricky topic. For each TBG suspect I asked the book to perform an ‘Oracle for the identity of xx being TBG’. Not the best kind of question to ask, but well, hardly the most idiotic thing that’s happened lately. Call me stupid in the comments.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:09 am
I’d like Robin, Martha and Darkseid plz bobsy.
No, scratch Darkseid – Joe Chill.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Don’t forget Philip K. Dick!
August 20th, 2008 at 6:01 am
i’m so angry that “satan” keeps being brought up as a valid theory, so i can’t wait to see those results
i think “hush” might be worth trying. as well as jezebel.
but honestly batman/bruce wayne is going to give the definitive answer.
oh and ra’s.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:15 am
You’re so angry that Satan keeps being brought up? Might I suggest you relax a little.
Hush is doubtful as he’s currently appearing over in Tec, and not in a way that would slot him neatly into the Black Glove. Ras? I don’t see anything of Ras’s MO about the Black Glove, and it’s worth pointing out that we’ve just had a Rascentric storyarc.
Satan on the other hand, well, Grant Morrison has a history of pitting Batman against Satan. Look ye to Batman Gothic, where-in Bats trounces the Prince of Hell. So that’s precedent and motive right there. There’s also the matter of episode 666 where it’s stated that the Evil Batman was sent about his business by the Devil. Whether the character was referring to the literal Devil or not remains to be seen (he might just have been talking about Dr Hurt), but, given the status quo handed down by Gothic, it’s certainly not inconceivable. Finally there’s this business of Morrison claiming that the wearer of the Black Glove is someone known to everybody in the whole wide world. Satan sure fits that bill.
A less compelling point, but one which won’t stop niggling me, is that Morrison clearly wants the Joker to be serious sauce, true archnemesis material, so if it turns out that the Joker isn’t the Black Glove, then I inclined to think that whoever it is has to naturally trump him. How do you trump an archnemesis? How do you sell that? Bringing on the Devil could work.
That said, I’m not entirely convinced Lucifer’s behind all this, it just wouldn’t surprise me, is all.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Top image fucked, Bob. You are making our site ugly.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
The appearance of the Devil shouldn’t make anybody angry. He’s a handsome man, his moustache carefully trimmed, and he can appear to us at night and stroke our funny bits. He’s primo Batman material, and the people who don’t like it should be asked, kindly but firmly, to STFU.
I don’t do Yijing, but in a ridiculously long (couple of) post(s) I will try to apply logic* to argue that it’s indeed the big, bad Devil behind everything. I will also explain why I think that Alfred et al. are rubbish.
Zom is a sharp lad (to whom I incidentally apologise for any misunderstandings that may have resulted from my irritating stylistic indulgences), and he has already mentioned much of what the Devil has going for him: #666, Gothic, everybody-knows-the-villain, the whole whom-but-the-Devil-would-the-Joker-defer-to thing etc. There’s more to be said, though.
First of all, one of the central motifs of Morrison’s run, and one which is central to his attempt to counteract the cheap grimness of most contemporary depictions, is the insistence on Bats’ spiritual greatness. Alfred made it quite explicit when he stated that Batman’s moral fibre is as essential to the character and requires just as much hard work as his physical prowess and his smarts. Honour Jackson mentioned the “kind eyes”. Now, the quest for enlightenment needs a Tempter, somebody to encourage the hero to abandon all hope and stuff. The Devil, DO YOU SEE.
In that vein, I like the idea that Batman’s relationship to Gotham as described by GM is like that of the hermit to the unforgiving landscapes that are both the stage of his or her spiritual drama and metaphors thereof. Gotham, bleak dark Gotham speaks to Bruce Wayne like the desert spoke to St. Anthony. Both are populated by daemons drawn from the portfolio of Hieronymus Bosch. I like the idea, and therefore it’s true. Say nay to the naysayers.
BTW, somebody over at Funnybook Babylon, I think, said that the Devil is a Judeo-Christian construct that would be incompatible with all the Buddhist stuff GM has been riffing on. The answer to that: Mara the Tempter.
Related to this idea of temptation and giving up is the motif of watching. The act of bringing about an upstanding man’s degradation, the whole idea of breaking the Batman, has a lot to do with voyeurism. As established by the “Robin dies at Dawn” issue and highlighted by GM, Hurt is a total voyeur. In that regard he has a lot in common with another element of Batman’s embarrassing past resurrected by the Morrison**, the cosmical Peeping Tom known as the Bat-Mite. The status of the Bat-Mite as handled by GM may be still unclear, but at any rate the Bald Menace is fond of setting up symmetrical relationships between the goodies and the baddies in his comics, to highlight their underlying unity. So, who would be comparable to the Mite in terms of sheer power and voyeurism? The Devil, that’s who.
This voyeurism, and this symmetry I’m conjecturing upon have an obvious meta-narrative element, about good readers and bad readers etc etc. But meta in comics has grown tedious these days and tends to bore me shitless so I won’t comment further.
The Black Glove. It’s a fucking great name for a villain, as threatening as the Yellow Claw or the Red Skull. The thing is, however, that a black glove is a most mundane object. It can easily refer to something that has become familiar through overuse but that is bloody terrifying upon cursory reappraisal. Just like the Devil, DO YOU SEE.
As I said in a ridiculous post over at Geoff Klock’s place and in another one here, my favourite line of the prose “Clown at midnight” issue is when the Joker springs to life like a Swiss Army Knife. But, here’s the rub, GM says that it is as if some demented god (or words to that effect) had animated the Joker. That’s a clue, DO YOU SEE.
In the throwaway-lines-that-lead-to-simian-fanwank-department, Batman has also commented on the omnipotence of the Black Glove, when he was addled from the torture inflicted by the third replacement Batman. In another post, I got advantage of that to plant the tongue in the cheek (and the head in the arse) commenting on a reference to Descartes’s Evil Genius. Whatever the case, it smacks of the Devil, DO YOU SEE.
In fact, these days Morrison is writing a love letter to Kirby after another, and the use of the Devil to fuck with Batman’s head is as big an act of one-upmanship as the creation of Galactus was in the pages of the Fantastic Four. There’s that story of Stan & Jack coming up with Galactus as a way of pitting the FF against –essentially– God, in case you don’t know what I’m talking about. One-upmanship, excess and the supernatural are right at home in a run that has the return of the weird elements of the Bat-mythos as a central element of its mission statement.
Please do note that, simplifying a bit, it might be said that Darkseid = the Devil in the age of excess, industry and totalitarianism, as filtered by Kirby. So we can be vindicated by two reveals of the BG’s identity, for the price of one.
There’s more to be said but that should be enough to show why the Devil pwns the opposition, which will be weighed and found wanting in the next post.
*: it goes without saying that the brand of logic we’re talking about is Cold, Hard Logic, Logic that’s Relentless as a Fist in the Face when My City Screams and My Parents are Dead and Are You Retarded or Something I Love Being the Goddamn Batman and Oh, the City, the City HAHAHAHAHA.
**: that’s a bit inexact, because the Mite has had a couple of notorious appearances in the recent past. The “Legends of the Bat-mite” issues by Alan Grant and the redoubtable Kevin O’Neill, or the “World’s Funnest” one-shot, for example.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Alfred and the Waynes suck as Black Gloves, honestly. First of all, it’s all soap operatic shenanigans. I mean, the Devil would be a cheap cop-out but Alfred would be kosher and proof positive of GM’s brilliance OMG he’s pulled it off, the butler did it? I mean, WTF?
And it’s all retcon fodder. I’m a self-conscious kind of comic geek and I don’t give a fuck about continuity and I try, I really try to enjoy Morrison’s run on its own merits yeah yeah I know, my precious, Gollum…BUT…the reveal of Alfred or any of the Thomases might as well have “futility” written in big, bold letters all over it.
The swift-boaters supporting Alfred’s candidacy should also explain why their man only has –at most– inconsequential cameos in the old 50′s issues which GM has been referencing verbatim . At least in “Robin dies at dawn” there’s a big fuck-off daemonic statue stomping around the place and doing things like killing Robin and making Batman go mad and shit.
Most importantly, casting Alfred or Thomas W as the Black Glove would be IMHO quite redundant. There’s already an Evil Daddy in the Bat-mythos, Damian’s granddad, and he’s not exactly an obscure character. Perhaps one could argue that Ra’s would lose his Evil Daddy status if, say, Nightwing were to take on the mantle of the Bat and that in such a case somebody like Alfred would better fit the bill but, then again, soap-operatic parlour tricks and all.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
The Joker would be a fine Black Glove, admittedly. That being said, Morrisonism is a crowded field and it’s necessary to specialise.
So, the Devil, it is.
I’ll shut up now.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Don’t forget that Morrison had the ultimate bad guy in X-Men turn out to be Magneto. He’s not above going for the classics…
August 20th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Magneto wasn’t the ultimate bad guy, though – Sublime was. Magneto was a puppet like everybody else.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Don’t forget Philip K. Dick!
I’m not sure if this is wry mock or… something more? Because the Blind Chessman, as mentioned by FBB as analogous-to-TBG, does seem – suddenly – having read the Satrap laying the voudoun down, like a very relevant figure. And, ah, if you read what you can of Dick’s Exegesis (a very Morrisonian text + one that features I-Ching – though not as embodied by him or as centrally as my fave The Man in the High Castle, alas) then you’ll see PKD prefigure this description of Satan there. The Shifting Realities of Philip K. Dick: Selected Literary and Philosophical Writings, ed. Lawrence Sutin, if you fancy a gander – something I’d recommend.
Yeah, so basic gnosis stuff I think, Grant rewrites himself again, I’m pretty convinced… you can chuck in the Bat’s Western mythology assignation as Hades (from JLA) to the mix as a rider there. I’m a little disappointed that i) no Thomas Wayne, Jr. the Owlman seems forthcoming because those are about the best bits in Earth-2, Batman in Gotham-One, in an OGN which remains even now brimful of ace, and we do normally get a tulpa figure (Doom in FF1234, Cassie Nova) and ii) it isn’t really a ‘fair-play’ mystery, though it didn’t even become a mystery to me until the NYCC interviews I think, unless – well, hasn’t someone got to play against Satan/TBG, sort of, a bit like that bit with Dane in the spaceship? If it’s Robin, who has been throughout the most consistently visible red’n'black motif, or if it’s for Robin (Tim or Damien,) that’d be… actually a lot better than if Tim was a baddie or something so humdrum.
By way of self-justification, I’d like to point out my guesses are so terrible normally because I absolutely want to be misdirected, and “blogger Duncan Falconer had a dream about it being Martha, who does seem like the most overtly notable lacuna thus far in MozBats, and one which he’d like to see gain some status above a scream, clutch and broken string of pearls, the end”.
DC likes merchandising though, eh? It’s their main recoupable or whatever the business term is, sure it is. I have an idea that is bound-ta-be a license for printing money and would probably force me to finally learn to play the game to any competent standard: three words, one hyphenated – Black Glove Chess-set. Pewter-cast queens Jezebel Jet and Harley Quinn (Talia al-Ghul?) hoovering up foes such as bishop Charlie ‘Little Boots’ Caligula, those New Joisey gargoyle pawns, castle Arkham Asylum… it’d probably have to be one of those 3D sets like in Star Trek or – wait – Darkseid’s set. Send in The Knight!
August 20th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Gawd, some of this 3D chess stuff is quite involved; Asimovian hyperchess seems the closest to the slow-vision user model – can you see the grids?
August 20th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Witless, portentous blather III: 512 cubes in Asimovian hyperchess (8 cubed) and Batman #512 is the first post-Zero Hour Batman and from what I can divine appears to be – yup, looks like – the first issue in which Dick Grayson, post-Azrael, takes up the Batmantle.
Ehhh?? EHHH???!
August 21st, 2008 at 12:20 am
guys it only makes me angry because, well, it’s a bad theory. nor do i think the ones i mentioned were good theories, but they would make for interesting answers from the yijing. satan is going to be a great one too, i’m just amused that it is a theory that many are taking seriously.
i’ll laugh if it rings true, because i sure didn’t see it coming. now if black glove is something otherworldly like neron or some satanic supernatural figure out of left field and then the joker kills him, now that would just be the tits.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:22 am
Phil Dick was a sincere suggestion, at least on a meta-level. I was thinking more along the lines of the Horselover Fat relationship from VALIS applied to the Black Glove, but the more I think about it, the more I see there is to see. Much like the VALIS.
And the Yijing thing from Man in the High Castle just clinched it.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:44 am
Satrap,
re: voyeur aspect in the role of the outsider-viewer in the degradation and trials of the hero (as well as torture porn, cheap griminess of comics etc).
I think meta might be tired by now. But Morrison’s meta has a certain metaphysical whiffs that fit more with each other instead of just being “why do u make my childhood characters dark, readers?! WHY DO U MAKE ME DO THIS!? WHY!!!???”. It aligns the inside with the outside better than usual metas in a more proper portrait.
Marry me and make blogs.
GIVE ME UR BLOGS!!!
August 21st, 2008 at 7:39 am
Manvstrees, the things is, when you off-handedly say “it’s a bad theory” you’re inadvertently being rather irritating, in that the Satrap and I have gone to some effort to explain why it’s just the opposite. I’m not saying you have to agree with us on every point (I’m unconvinced by some Satrap’s arguments, although they’re all worthy of further discussion) just that it would be politer not to dismiss the work we’ve done.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:50 am
oh yeah i don’t mean to dismiss you guys, it’s just that even with the points you bring up it doesn’t seem to fit the arc at all, or the run so far, or grant’s mindset (despite mr whisper etc). this sort of revelation would be just the beginning of a huge meganovel and i don’t get that sense at all, the sort of massive upheaval that such a thing would necessitate.
that said, i’d be pumped if it happened anyway.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:17 am
I think ‘Batman dies and goes to Hell’ maps across what we’ve seen of this arc very well indeed, at least figuratively speaking. A bit of literal Devil action would work just fine, if you ask me.
There’s a much bigger argument to be made here, to do with imagery and motifs and the sense that the supernatural is lurking in the background (Batmite being seen by Caligula, Honor Jackson, Batman’s death prior to this arc, all that stuff in 666, other wotsits) but I don’t have time at the moment.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am
I really want to shut up, but my Parents are Dead, and My City Screams.
If I were to create a blog it would be a failure, because my wank-o-matic would overload and explode. It wouldn’t be pretty.
Re: voyeurism. I do think that the voyeurism is very interesting, even though it’s partly meta. Hurt, his unknown patron and the Bat-Mite all show in their way that there is no such thing as a detached observer in the (cod-)Enlightenment tradition. But Batman’s intelligence proves that this does not mean that one has to throw the baby of reason out with the bathwater. And the act of watching, precisely because it’s inevitably meddlesome and interactive, can be as beneficent as it can be harmful. It’s eminently sensible work on GM’s part. If I were Benny Hill I’d lovingly slap him on the chromium pate.
In that vein, there’s an interesting contrast between Hurt as elitist, depraved cod-Decadent icon, together with masque Bat-costume and all, and Batman as eye-popping pop hero for the masses. This seems to be addressing the but-Bruce-Wayne-is-old-money “class warfare” bit. GM seems to say, see, Batman is not a character from an age of rising inequality, if you want to complain about this second Gilded Age, I give you a character redolent of the first one.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:37 am
Re: The Devil as “bad” theory. Well, yes, it’s a bad theory. The Batman mythos/franchise as a whole is rubbish too, really. Pointy ears and a fucking cape , too-good-to-be-true characters galore, overwrought melodrama (his parents were killed so he wages war on the underworld, etc). In the world of popular entertainment, “quality” is a very fuzzy notion indeed. I tend to judge these things on the basis of how much they make the thoughts race in all directions, how much “juice” one gets out of them. I wring out the Devil-as-Black-Glove and get lots of juice running down the pants, forming a puddle around the feet. My Pants. In the City. Good Soldier.
Incidentally, I write all this as an agnostic who has a thoroughly jaded attitude towards organised religions, especially the monotheistic ones. But hey, comics.
Re: the Joker. Ah, but compromise is always possible. Nobody’s going to be offended if it’s the Joker who’s been fucking Bats over all along. He’d really be a great Black Glove. Towards the Batman, he’s always been a tempter and a voyeur, he obviously could be behind the fact that Batman’s attempt to fathom his mind backfired, everybody and their dog knows him, he’s certainly suffered from overexposure but remains a terrific character, he obviously has no problem deferring to himself, and by the time #666 comes around he could have mutated into a satanist of sorts.
The only problem is, either he trusts Hurt and Le Bossu a lot, or he possesses a hitherto unknown superpower enabling him to coordinate convoluted conspiracies from an asylum cell.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:46 am
Weeeeeeeeell, he is kind of – the movie certainly had him apparently plan (perhaps ‘ride’ is a better verb) a series of highly logistically improbable events, in what I thought was a particularly adept depiction of the character, what he is – kind of Kaos Magiqxky
August 21st, 2008 at 11:15 am
I wouldn’t really expect Morrison, notable for his (to put it charitably) light expository touch, to worry about explaining the all the ins and outs. I’d imagine he’d rely on the Joker’s arch-nemesis status – his narrative gravitational pull, if that makes any sense – to give weight, substance and authority to the situation.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:18 am
I live in Berlin, and the Dark Knight’s premiere here is exactly…today, so I cannot comment. IMAX, here we go, at any rate.
I didn’t like “Begins”, incidentally, being one of those who thought it was ponderous, preachy and an awkward attempt to convince everybody that donning a bat costume is really, really the most sensible thing in the world . A weak distillation of Miller’s City, Father and Fear schtick without the delirium. And with the exception of a couple cues, the soundtrack was crap. Danny Elfman and Elliot Goldenthal forever.
DK appears to be an improvement, so I’m curious. But the precedent set by “Begins”, and the reviews by people who seem to share my attitude towards Nolan’s vision predispose me to take the Joker’s Mad Super-Mastermind Skillz as something that will undermine the movie’s themes, a glib resort to the conventions of comic-book movies for the sake of plot expediency.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:21 am
Crosspost with Zom: Yeah, GM is not about crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s, and the Joker has more than enough charisma to “carry” the reveal.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:29 am
So, to sum up:
The Black Glove = The Devil = Darkseid = The Joker = Frank Miller = Christopher Nolan
Case solved, really.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:38 am
I think we can all give Mozzer a fair amount of kudos for creating both a truly compelling mystery and an amazingly psychedelic comic that features the Bat-bat.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I misread this line at first:
Through carelessness he loses his cow.
I read as:
Through carelessness he loses his cowl
August 21st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
You know, that’s the thing about the I Ching, you’re right, Bobsy, it is always right.
I love that thing.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
[...] Mindless Ones are still doing their own special thing, with bobsy using the I Ching to try to divine who the villain is in Grant Morrison’s Batman RIP, while [...]
August 24th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Yes it’s fucking staggering, every time. I was worried it wouldn’t work here, but the ‘prince’ ref in the Joker one was just crazy close.
Satrap – didn’t know you were in Berlin. I had a free evening there about a month ago, if I’d known I would have looked you up for sure. Don’t go and do your own blog, stay here and continue your commenting please.
There’s something tres familiar about the way you write – can’t put my finger on it though so I’ll ask straight – what iswas your name on barbelith???
August 24th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
You doin’ a part deux?
August 24th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Yeah for sure, going to do every decent suggestion, one a week leading up to the next ish I think. Might get around to the first sequel tonigh I’m only really online atm though because i want to bbci the brain surgery doc from last week…
August 25th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I’ve never been a member of Barbelith, actually. I’m a longtime lurker, though, so I suppose I tend to plagiarise many of the mannerisms of the community, shamelessly.
Visitors are always welcome. They provide a good pretext to get the sweaty socks out of the bathtub (or the fridge), and generally get the household in order.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:06 am
[...] to the comments on the last post, most of the explainful bits of this one are done already – thanks folks. As a possible, Satan, or [...]