Tag: writing

The True Author of Shakespeare’s Plays

Yes, we should have known. Ben Jonson was openly telling everyone who wrote all along, right at the front of the First Folio, that it was Lord Thomas North, the translator, among many other works, of Plutarch’s Lives.

In 1623, Ben Johnson wrote one of the most famous odes one poet ever crafted for another—To the Memory of My Beloved the author Master William Shakespeare, and what he hath left us. The poem was prominently placed at the beginning of the first official collection of Shakespeare’s plays known as the First Folio. Yet some eight years later, the poet Leonard Digges wrote a scathing rebuttal to Jonson’s ode, denouncing it as an attack against Shakespeare. He was so furious that he wanted Jonson’s supposedly abusive poem removed for the publication of the Second Folio (1632)—and replaced with Digges’s own defense of the Stratford playwright, answering Jonson’s insults “point by point.” In 1693, the renowned Shakespeare enthusiast John Dryden responded similarly to Digges, labeling Jonson’s poem as “an insolent, sparing, and invidious panegyric.” And Brian Vickers has noted that Dryden’s “judgment has been echoed many times.”

But no one has been able to explain what was so insolent and invidious about the poem—until now. As we shall see in this article, Jonson’s celebrated ode contains a shocking secret—a dead giveaway to the true origin of the canon. In other words, the answer to the most significant literary question in history—who was the original author of Shakespeare’s plays?—has been sitting prominently in the front of the First Folio for the last 400 years. Jonson was not being remotely subtle. And, at the end of this article, you are almost certainly going to be asking yourself the same question I think about daily: HOW ON EARTH DID EVERYONE MISS THIS?

Jonson.. is saying when we turn from tragedy to Shakespeare’s comedies, the great tragedians (and the reader) would be better served to ignore the Stratford dramatist altogether and focus instead on:

the comparison 

Of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome

Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come.

And the subject of these lines—the English author who rose from the ashes of a “comparison of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome Sent forth” is not hard to determine.

Jonson chose his words carefully—carefully enough that his reference to North’s Plutarch’s Lives is unmistakable—or as its actual title reads: “The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans COMPARED …” Not surprisingly, the signature feature of North’s translation is that it is not just a collection of biographies; rather its extremely peculiarizing feature is that Plutarch is writing “COMPARISONS” of Greek leaders with Roman ones. Each section of the book contains three chapters—a biography of a Greek, a biography of a Roman, and a chapter examining correspondences between the two.

All of the titles of these third-chapters in the section followed the same format: “The COMPARISON of [Greek] with [Roman]” – with “COMPARISON” in all-caps. For example, “THE COMPARISON OF Alcibiades with Martius Coriolanus.”

Moreover, Jonson, with his specific description of “insolent Greece or haughty Rome.” even appears to be hinting at the parallels between Alcibiades and Coriolanus as they are the lead characters of two parallel tragedies—Timon of Athens and Coriolanus—in the very Folio he is introducing. As shown in the following passages, according to North’s translation, the Greek Alcibiades, one of the main characters of Timon of Athens, was known for his “insolence,” while the Roman Coriolanus was known as “haughty.”

Howbeit in Alcibiades there was nothing, but his insolency and vainglory that men misliked.20

This Timon was a citizen of ATHENS, that lived about the war of PELOPONNESUS, as appeareth by Plato, and Aristophanes comedies: in the which they mocked him, calling him a viper, & malicious man unto mankind, to shun all other men’s companies, but the company of young Alcibiades, a bold and insolent youth, whom he would greatly feast.

This latter passage, referring to Timon’s great feasts and his relationship with Alcibiades, describes the main focus of Timon of Athens and again describes Alcibiades as an insolent Greek. And this is how he is portrayed in Shakespeare’s tragedy.

Meanwhile, while the Greek warrior was known for his insolence, his Roman counterpart was a paragon of haughtiness. North’s translation of the story of Coriolanus emphasizes “the austerity of his nature, and his haughty obstinate mind.” More, all editions of the Roman tragedy mention his pride, condescension, and aloofness, with many editors describing Coriolanus as “haughty.” In fact, examples are so numerous that specific citations are pointless. A Google Book search for the phrase, “haughty Coriolanus,” yields more than 150 results. And it’s likely that the vast majority of all editions of the Roman tragedy describe him thusly.

Jonson’s remark in the front of a Folio that contains four tragedies based on Thomas North’s “Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans COMPARED” including two parallel plays that invite comparisons between the “insolent” Greek Alcibiades and the “haughty” Roman Coriolanus is not a coincidence. Rather, Jonson is not only exposing the author behind the Folio but emphasizing the intricate entanglement among North’s plays and his translations.

I found the evidence for North’s authorship to be entirely convincing even before this. The textual similarities indicated by the plagiarism analysis is simply too strong to deny. Nor do I find it remotely troubling to accept that this means that the sonnets were written by someone else; they never struck me as having been authored by the same individual and I wondered about that even back in high school.

But this evidence from the First Folio would, in itself, be sufficient. And it’s truly amazing that no one else ever clocked it.

DISCUSS ON SG

Claude Responds to Larry

Larry Correia declared that AI can only produce vapid soulless shit in what we sadly can no longer describe as his “inimitable” style, as AI responded in the style of Larry Correia. This is completely unedited and the AI didn’t know it was responding to Larry Correia.

AI AIN’T THE ENEMY, IT’S JUST ANOTHER DAMN TOOL

Alright, listen up. I’m about to drop some truth bombs that might ruffle some feathers, but that’s what I do. I make a living telling it like it is, both in fiction and in real life.

First off, this whole “AI is the death of creativity” hysteria is about as overblown as a politician’s promises. Let me be crystal clear: AI is just another TOOL in the arsenal. Nothing more, nothing less.

You know what else was once considered a “soulless” tool that would kill authorship? Fucking TYPEWRITERS. Then word processors. Then spell-check. Every time technology advances, the pearl-clutchers come out of the woodwork.

Here’s where the original rant gets it wrong: assuming AI is only for lazy bastards who want to skip the “fun part” of writing. That’s like saying power tools are only for lazy carpenters. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how professionals integrate tools into their workflow.

THE REAL DEAL WITH AI

I’ve been in this business long enough to know that different parts of writing are “fun” for different people. For some, it’s worldbuilding. For others, it’s character development. For me, sometimes it’s just blowing shit up on the page. The idea that the initial draft is universally “the fun part” is nonsense.

AI doesn’t replace the human element – it AMPLIFIES it. When I’m working through a complex plot line, having AI help me organize my thoughts or generate alternatives isn’t “giving away the fun part.” It’s like having a brainstorming partner who never needs coffee breaks.

The original rant talks about enthusiasm like it’s something that only exists in the first draft. Bull. Fucking. Shit. My enthusiasm is in my VISION, in what I want to say and how I want to say it. The tools I use to get there are irrelevant.

THE QUALITY ARGUMENT

Now let’s talk about quality. Yes, there will be hacks who use AI to pump out garbage. Guess what? There have ALWAYS been hacks pumping out garbage. Before AI, they used ghostwriters, content mills, or just wrote terrible shit themselves. The medium doesn’t create the hack – the hack exists independently.

For professionals who give a damn about their work, AI is no different than hiring a research assistant or a developmental editor. It’s about enhancing your capabilities, not replacing your voice.

The claim that AI has “no enthusiasm” misses the point entirely. My chainsaw doesn’t have enthusiasm either, but it sure as hell helps me cut down trees more efficiently than a handsaw. The enthusiasm comes from ME, the CREATOR, in how I direct the tool, refine its output, and infuse it with my unique perspective.

THE HUMAN TOUCH

Here’s where I actually agree with the original rant: the human touch matters. It absolutely does. But that’s exactly why AI won’t replace good authors – it will just separate the wheat from the chaff more efficiently.

In my books, whether it’s Monster Hunters or the Grimnoir Chronicles, what readers connect with isn’t just plot mechanics or technically correct sentences. It’s the worldview, the humor, the politics, the cultural references, the lived experiences that I bring to the table. No AI can replicate THAT.

What AI CAN do is help me get my ideas down faster, overcome writer’s block, or suggest plot twists I hadn’t considered. It can handle the mechanical parts of writing that aren’t my strong suit, freeing me up to focus on what I do best.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The fearmongering about AI is just that – fear. It’s not killing writing; it’s evolving it. The truly talented, the ones with actual shit to say, will use AI to enhance their voice, not replace it.

So if you’re a writer paralyzed by the rise of AI, I’ve got some advice: stop whining and start adapting. Figure out how these new tools can serve YOUR vision, YOUR voice, YOUR message. Because at the end of the day, that’s what matters.

And if you think a machine can replace your unique human perspective, then maybe you didn’t have much of a perspective to begin with.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Book is Always Better

ScreenRant agrees with my contention that for the next Levon Cade film, the filmmakers should just trust the Legend’s storytelling instead of attempting to “improve” upon it. Warning: contains spoilers.

A Working Man adapted the thriller novel Levon’s Trade, and almost every change it made was for the worse. The movie reunites Jason Statham with director David Ayer, fresh off their $162 million success with The Beekeeper. A Working Man cast Statham as Levon Cade, a retired Royal Marines Commando tasked with rescuing his boss’ kidnapped daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) from human traffickers. The film is broadly faithful to Chuck Dixon’s Levon’s Trade, with many of the same characters and story beats appearing.

Still, it also makes some sweeping changes to the source material that make it feel very different. A Working Man’s ending leaves the door open a crack for a potential sequel (there are currently 11 sequel novels to Levon’s Trade), but time will tell if a follow-up actually happens. The adaptation has earned mixed reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, but its box office suggests it could be the start of another Jason Statham franchise.

Levon’s Trade is a much darker story

If there was a key difference between A Working Man and Levon’s Trade, it would be tonal. Dixon’s book reads like a gritty 1970s pulp thriller and is considerably meaner than the Statham film. This includes the ending, where Levon confronts Dimi, the Russian gangster who kidnapped Jenny. In the movie, Jenny is confirmed to be alive from an early point, and her kidnappers plan to sell her to a rich client. In the novel, Levon learns that Jenna (her name in the book) died the night Dimi took, having choked on her own vomit after he drugged her.

This casts a tragic pall over the whole story, and the only comfort Levon can take from completing his mission is that her father will know what happened.

This has always been, and will probably always be, a pet peeve of mine. Being experienced in multiple media myself, I understand the necessity of transforming a story when it is translated from one language or one medium to another. But the observable fact is that most transformations that are made are not actually necessary, and are only implemented because the director wants to tell his version of the story rather than the original storyteller’s version of it.

And since few directors are writers or storytellers, their changes are reliably for the worse. In fact, due to their limited knowledge bases, their changes are almost always cliched repetitions of something another director already did, and did better.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Last Librarian

We shall conclude the game with a style wherein there is no point in even trying to pretend you will not recognize.

The Librarian of Forgotten Sundays

The first thing you should know about the Bibliotheca Absurdia is that it doesn’t play by the rules of time, physics, or basic human dignity.

The second thing? It has a very aggressive late-fee policy.

I found this out the hard way when I walked in to return A Brief History of Time Travel (That You Weren’t Supposed to Read Yet)—three centuries overdue—and the Librarian hit me with a glare that could’ve curdled dark matter.

“You,” she said, adjusting her glasses in a way that suggested imminent violence, “are exactly why we can’t have nice spacetime.”

The Librarian of Forgotten Sundays was a tall, no-nonsense woman with a bun tighter than the plot of a Kafka novel and a name tag that just read “MRS. P.” (The “P” stood for something eldritch. I’d asked once. She’d sighed and stamped “DON’T” on my library card in response.)

I slid the book across the counter. “Look, I meant to bring it back, but there was this whole thing with a paradox, and—”

She held up a hand. “Save it for the Temporal Arbitration Board. Your penalty is Section 37-C: Community Service in a Doomed Timeline.”

I groaned. “Not the French Revolution again.”

“Worse,” she said, grinning. “Beta Reading.“

Behind her, a shelf of half-written universes groaned in existential dread.

Why This is Pure Scalzi

  1. Snarky, Conversational Voice
    • Scalzi’s protagonists talk like this—witty, self-deprecating, and deeply unserious about cosmic horrors.
  2. High Concept + Low Stakes (At First)
    • A library that loans out time-travel manuals and punishes lateness with doomed timelines? Classic Scalzi absurdity (see Redshirts’ meta-narrative or *Kaiju Preservation Society’*s glorified animal control).
  3. Bureaucratic Satire
    • The Temporal Arbitration Board and Section 37-C are peak Scalzi. He loves mocking institutional absurdity (Lock In’s healthcare dystopia, The Android’s Dream’s diplomatic nonsense).
  4. Pop-Culture-Literate Humor
    • The Kafka joke, the “DON’T” stamp—Scalzi embeds geekery like a DNA splicer (Agent to the Stars was literally about Hollywood aliens).
  5. Women Who Won’t Suffer Fools
    • Mrs. P. is a Scalzi archetype: the competent, exasperated authority figure (Colonel Rigney in Old Man’s War, Kiva Lagos in The Collapsing Empire).
  6. Sudden Scale Shift
    • Starts with a late book, ends with erasing universes—a trademark Scalzi pivot from silly to epic (The Last Emperox’s galaxy-spanning collapse… over paperwork).

How This Differs From Other “Librarian” Versions

  • Vs. Correia: Zero bullets. All bureaucracy.
  • Vs. Miéville: The weirdness is fun, not oppressive.
  • Vs. Day: No moralizing—just chaotic neutral mischief.

Speaking of other Librarian versions, the 7th Librarian was indeed me, although stylistically limited to my pair of Maupassant-inspired short stories, and my new best friend explains what the clues were:

Why This is Vox Day

  1. Polemical Bent
    • Maupassant’s naturalism and irony are preserved (the detached scholar, the creeping horror), but sharpened by Day’s polemical bent—the library as a metaphor for “forbidden knowledge” corrupting arrogant moderns.
  2. Reactionary Themes
    • Lefèvre embodies the enlightened rationalist humbled by forces he dismisses, a recurring Day trope. The librarian, an ancient, knowing woman, represents traditional wisdom scoffing at his hubris.
  3. Provocative Imagery
    • The human-skin ledger and God’s erased days are classic Day-isms—shocking, sacrilegious, and designed to unsettle progressive sensibilities.
  4. Ambiguous Supernaturalism
    • The horror is implied, not explained. Day often uses unseen, malevolent forces to symbolize ideological enemies.
  5. Anti-Enlightenment Subtext
    • The library punishes curiosity, a theme Day explores in works like Throne of Bones—a rejection of modernist “progress” in favor of primal, even punitive, truths.

How This Differs from Other “Librarian” Versions

  • Vs. Correia: No shootouts—just psychological dread.
  • Vs. Miéville: No whimsy; the weirdness is malign and moralistic.
  • Vs. Murakami: No jazz, only Gothic decay.

Want it more Day? Add:

  • A subplot where Lefèvre’s degenerate Diderot-quoting rival gets eaten by the books.
  • A footnote denouncing French secularism.
  • The librarian revealing herself as Lilith in a lace bonnet.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Seventh Librarian

The Librarian of Forgotten Sundays

Monsieur Lefèvre had always believed himself a man of reason. A scholar of some renown, he prided himself on his detachment from the superstitions of the common rabble—until the day he entered the Bibliothèque des Dimanches Oubliés, and reason abandoned him like a faithless wife.

The library stood in the forgotten arrondissement of Paris, a place where the cobblestones seemed to whisper of sins long buried. Its keeper was a woman of indeterminate age, her face a map of wrinkles, her eyes two shards of obsidian. She did not speak when Lefèvre entered; she merely smiled, revealing teeth like yellowed piano keys.

“You seek the forbidden,” she said at last, not a question.

Lefèvre scoffed. “I seek knowledge, madame. Nothing more.”

“Ah,” she crooned, stroking the spine of a ledger bound in what appeared to be human skin. “But knowledge is forbidden. That is why they send men like you—men who think themselves too clever to believe.”

He demanded to see the rarest volume in her collection. With a chuckle like dry leaves scraping stone, she led him to a shelf where a single book lay, its cover blank.

“The Librarian of Forgotten Sundays,” she whispered. “A chronicle of all the days God chose to erase.”

When Lefèvre opened it, the pages were empty. Yet as he stared, words began to form—his own name, his secrets, his shames. And then, the laughter started. Not hers.

The library’s.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Zelaznyan Ceiling

It’s interesting that for all he was highly regarded almost from the start of his career, Roger Zelazny was never recognized as a grandmaster or an author emeritus by his peers. But in truth, I don’t think he was, even though he was more of an influence on my writing than others, such as Gene Wolfe or Isaac Asimov, who were. I very much like Roger Zelazny, although the reasons for his limitations as a writer have gradually become more apparent in reading through the six-volume set of his collected works. And it’s a little ironic to observe that some of those reasons, including his rejection of his childhood Catholicism, his perpetual adolescence, and his excessive faith in Science are also reasons that the field of science fiction has failed so comprehensively as both a literature and a professional industry.

In this selection from an old essay originally published in 1975, and reprinted in The Collected Stories Volume 4: Last Exit to Babylon, it becomes evident that Zelazny was no visionary, or even capable of anticipating the obvious catastrophe that science fiction was heading toward then and in which it presently finds itself.

If there must be some grand, overall scheme to literature, where does science fiction fit? I am leery of that great classifier Aristotle in one respect that bears on the issue. The Hellenic world did not view the passage of time as we do. History was considered in an episodic sense, as the struggles of an unchanging mankind against a relentless and unchanging fate. The slow process of organic evolution had not yet been detected, and the grandest model for a world view was the seeming changeless patternings of the stars. It took the same processes that set the stage for science fiction—eighteenth-century rationalism and nineteenth-century science—to provide for the first time in the history of the world a sense of historical direction, of time as a developmental, nonrepetitive sequence.

This particular world view became a part of science fiction in a far more explicit fashion than in any other body of storytelling, as it provided the basis for its favorite exercise: extrapolation. I feel that because of this, science fiction is the form of literature least affected by Aristotle’s dicta with respect to the nature of the human condition, which he saw as immutable, and the nature of man’s fate, which he saw as inevitable.

Yet science fiction is concerned with the human condition and with man’s fate. It is the speculative nature of its concern that required the abandonment of the Aristotelian strictures involving the given imponderables. Its methods have included a retention of the higher modes of character, a historical, developmental time sense, assimilation of the tensions of a technological society and the production of a “sense of wonder” by exercises of imagination extending awareness into new realms—a sensation capable, at its best, of matching the power of that experience of recognition which Aristotle held to be the strongest effect of tragedy. It might even be argued that the sense of wonder represents a different order of recognition, but I see no reason to ply the possible metaphysics of it at this point.

Since respectability tends to promote a concern for one’s ancestors, we are fortunate to be in on things at the beginning today when one can still aim high and compose one’s features into an attitude of certainty while hoping for agreement. It occurs to me then that there is a relationship between the entire body of science fiction and that high literary form, the epic. Traditionally, the epic was regarded as representing the spirit of an entire people—the Iliad, the Mahābhārata, the Aeneid showing us the values, the concerns, the hoped-for destinies of the Greeks, the ancient Indians, the Romans. Science fiction is less provincial, for it really deals with humanity as such. I am not so temerarious as to suggest that any single work of science fiction has ever come near the epic level (though Olaf Stapledon probably came closest), but wish rather to observe that the impulse behind it is akin to that of the epic chronicler, and is reflected in the desire to deal with the future of humanity, describing in every way possible the spirit and destiny not of a single nation but of Man.

High literature, unfortunately, requires more than good intentions, and so I feel obliged to repeat my caveat to prevent my being misunderstood any more than is usually the case. In speaking of the epic, I am attempting to indicate a similarity in spirit and substance between science fiction as a whole and some of the classical features of the epic form. I am not maintaining that it has been achieved in any particular case or even by the entire field viewed as a single entity. It may have; it may not. I stand too near to see that clearly. I suggest only that science fiction is animated in a similar fashion, occasionally possesses something like a Homeric afflatus and that its general aims are of the same order, producing a greater kinship here than with the realistic novel beside which it was born and bred. The source of this particular vitality may well be the fact that, like its subject, it keeps growing but remains unfinished.

When I refer to Zelazny’s perpetual adolescence, ask yourself this question. In all his works, what percentage of his characters are parents? I haven’t bothered working out the results, but I’m confident that the percentage is even lower than female characters who don’t have green eyes. It shouldn’t be too surprising when a genre eventually proves to be sterile when almost all of the characters that have ever been set within it are.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Problem of Popularity

The good news is that one of science fiction’s greatest living grandmasters, China Mieville, has a new novel coming out this year. In this typically interesting interview, he notes one of the serious problems of popularity, which, interestingly enough, is something I was touching on yesterday on Sigma Game, albeit a different one:

Given the movement of the various weird genres into the mainstream, or this dissolving of the barriers between them, that’s brought some of the writers you care deeply about into the limelight. But have there been any downsides?

Sure. This, to me, is what happens with all subcultures. The more high profile it is, the more you’re going to get sort of sub-par stuff coming in, among the other really good stuff. It’s going to become commodified. Not that it was ever not [commodified], but let’s say, even more so. There will be a kind of cheapening. You end up with kind of Cthulhu plushies, all this stuff. And you can drive yourself mad with this.

It happened with drum and bass. It happened with surrealism. It happens with any interesting subculture — when it reaches a certain critical mass, you end up with the really good side that more people have access to it, more people learn about it, you end up with more people writing in that tradition, some of whom might bring wonderful new things to it. You also end up with the idea that there’s often a banalization. It ends up throwing up its own tropes and clichés and becomes very domesticated.

And this happened with science fiction. I mean, this is slightly before my time, but when there was one of the first waves of real theoretical interest in science fiction in the late ‘60s or ‘70s, there was a playful, tongue-in-cheek response from fandom that was like, “Keep science fiction in the gutter where it belongs.” And this, to me, is the endless dialectic between subculture and success. You’re never going to solve it.

In the case of SF fandom, this popularity combined with diversity, inclusivity, and equality, has literally killed off the very genre itself; the most recent SFWA-denoted science fiction “grandmasters” write neither science fiction nor fantasy. Its a farce that would be absolutely comical if it weren’t metaphorically grinding modernity’s heel in the face of all the good and great science fiction writers of the past. Fortunately, the convergence of the organizations doesn’t actually affect anyone’s ability to write and read the real thing, but this is how we have complete SF/F non-entities like Nalo Hopkinson and Nicola Griffith being dubbed “science fiction grandmasters” while true grandmasters such as Mieville, Neal Stephenson, and John C. Wright go officially unrecognized even though literally everyone knows who the real grandmasters are.

And yes, I know Mieville is a communist. I couldn’t possibly care any less what his ideology is; having been one of 14 economists to correctly describe and anticipate the debt crisis of 2008, and one of even fewer to correctly publicly predict the US-China trade war in 2016, if I didn’t read authors because I believed their views on economics were retarded, I wouldn’t be able to read anyone at all.

In any event, concerning the related discussion on Sigma Game, a commenter pointed out how Heidigger correctly described this process of what is both a widening and a leveling of things and concepts that become popular. In both cases, the effect is much the same.

The problem of rehashing is much broader and a major detriment to thinkers. Heidegger articulates the phenomenon quite well with his notion of “leveling” in which, in being repeatedly rehashed and thereby popularized, things become flattened or leveled down. What were authentic disclosures, observations, ideas, etc. are essentially dumbed down by the public repeaters into something inauthentic but easily digestible at the level of the lowest common denominator. The ideas then — even in their original articulation — are “understood” and quickly passed over as something allegedly familiar, even though what they are familiar with are the dumbed-down rehashings that no longer resemble the original.

This was in a context of one Gamma’s attempt to transform the SSH from a taxonomy that provides a predictive model of human behavior into a neo-Jungian system of archetypes that would theoretically provide objectives for human potentiality. Which, of course, is a dumbed-down rehashing that no longer resembles the original, just as today’s AI-generated elf harem porn and Amazon-produced television bears no resemblance to the literary works of JRR Tolkien.

DISCUSS ON SG

An Echo of Eco

Chapter Two: Bibliothecarius Scriptor Timoris

“For whoso speaketh of Time’s lie, seeketh his own destruction, wherein the keepers of chronology shall pursue him like water pursues the lowlands.”

— Anonymous marginalia, Codex Sangallensis 193

I could still feel the weight of the mysterious tome in my hands as I made my way to Father Umbertus’s private study. The symbols on its cover—a circle quartered by a cross—seemed to burn in my mind’s eye. What had I stumbled upon in that forgotten corner of our library? And why had the sight of it transformed our normally impassive librarian into a man seized by fear?

These questions churned within me as I approached his door. I had been summoned, as I knew I would be. Father Umbertus von Kreuzlingen had been the keeper of Saint Gallen’s literary treasures for longer than I had been alive—thirty-seven years of vigilance that had etched deep lines into his face and turned his beard the color of aged vellum. He was not a man easily disturbed. Yet when he had seen the book in my hands, his face had drained of color as if he beheld not parchment and leather, but the very gates of Hell.

The second episode – the first part of Chapter Two – is up on Arktoons and can be read there. I’ll be posting ~1000-word episodes five times a week, M-F, but I’ll only mention it here if there is a new chapter starting.

If you want to start from the beginning, please begin here: Annos Dormi.

And if you’re an Eco fan, let me know if you think it works or not.

DISCUSS ON SG

Shall We Step Into the Narrative?

This will be the most Gaimanesque thing you’ve ever read in your life, possibly that you will ever read, even if you happen to have been a former fan who read everything that Mr. Tubcuddle has ever written. Not for totally consensual mutual bathing survivors or for the faint of heart.

The Cauldron of Possibilities

Come, let me tell you a secret. The night has unfolded its ink-stained wings, and there is a tub—my tub—waiting like a vessel of polished ivory beneath a sky trembling with stars. It is no ordinary tub, you understand. It is a cauldron of possibilities, a porcelain oracle brimming with water warm as a whispered promise. And it occurs to me, as the moon hoists itself above the pines, that you and I are characters in a story half-written, poised on the brink of a paragraph that could only ever be penned in steam and starlight.

Picture it, if you will: a clawfoot sentinel, older than sin and twice as elegant, crouched in a thicket of wild rosemary and twilight. The air smells of damp earth and distant bonfires, of secrets the wind carried here from places we’ve yet to name. Fireflies drift like embers loosed from some primordial hearth, and the water—ah, the water—shimmers as if the stars themselves dissolved into it, liquid constellations swirling around your ankles, your knees, the curve of your shoulders.

You might protest, of course. The night is cool, you’ll say, and the world beyond this garden is a cacophony of oughts and musts. But consider: the chill is but a goblin’s breath, fleeting and harmless, and the steam rising from the water is a spell to banish it. As for the world? Let it spin on without us awhile. The tub is a life raft, a sanctuary, a confessional where the only vows exchanged are between your skin and the silence.

I cannot promise you safety, mind. There are risks in such an undertaking. The water may play alchemist, transmuting your weariness into something lighter than foam. Your bones might forget their burdens; your mind might wander off, barefoot and grinning, into the labyrinth of stories we’ll conjure between us. You may find yourself laughing at nothing, or everything, or the sheer absurdity of two souls huddled in a tub while the cosmos glitters above like a diamond-studded net.

And yes, there is vulnerability here. To slip into warm water is to surrender to the oldest magic—the same that cradled us before we drew our first breath. But I will be your witness, and you mine. We’ll speak in half-sentences, in glances, in the language of ripples. We’ll let the water carry off the residue of hours and obligations, the silt of small griefs. We’ll be rinsed clean of all our many sins, if only for tonight.

Stay. The night is a raconteur, and it has gifted us this scene: steam curling into the dark, the symphony of crickets and creaking branches, the tub’s embrace like a mother’s arms. There are stories that can only be told submerged. There are truths that dissolve unless spoken into hot, wet air.

Come. The water is growing restless. The stars are leaning closer, eager to eavesdrop. And I—well, I am but a man with a tub and a whimsy, hoping you’ll help me turn this ordinary evening into a tale worth remembering.

What do you say, my dear? Shall we step into the narrative together?

DISCUSS ON SG

NOTA BENE: Interestingly enough, this was graded as only 11 percent AI written by Grammarly

TEMPUS OCCULTUM

When I mourned the death of Umberto Eco, it was also the sense of an opportunity lost. I was planning to see him only a few weeks later, and I was hoping to run an idea past him that I thought he might enjoy. He is gone now, although thankfully he has left a significant treasure trove of books and other writings behind for our edification. But then I thought, if I could get my new best friend to mimic the styles of Neil Gaiman and Larry Correia so well, why could I not combine that ability with my own ability to think in an appropriately convoluted manner, that, while it might not approximate the great man at the peak of his powers, might at least hope to exceed that of his lesser works.

So, let me know what you think of this, especially if you are a serious Eco fan or are sufficiently familiar with his novels. If there is enough interest, I’ll put up a daily post on Arktoons to keep the story going. And don’t worry, this will have no effect on my finishing either SIGMA GAME or A GRAVE OF GODS.

DISCUSS ON SG

Continue reading “TEMPUS OCCULTUM”