Reality Check

E@L just wishes to point out, before rumours to the contrary start to fly, that there are NO, NONE, and ZERO Ruth Rendell novels currently extant and not destroyed by being torn to pieces in a fit of pique in his impressive, elitist and exclusivist literary library. Ian Rankin, no problem, guy's a legend, dude.

Just wanted to point this fact out before anyone gets home and blogs about this issue.

Seriously, I DID NOT buy this RR crap. It must have been one of The Mouse's pick-up, though I doubt he would stoop so low, being more of a Saul Bellow fan. Somehow or other it got there temporarily true, but it is now in tatters on the floor, torn apart by the malicious ghost of E@L's credibility...

Maybe it was previously snuck into there by a Russian spy, since terminated with full prejudice with an incomplete amount of plutonium. As will anyone who attempts to gain brownie points by bringing up the matter in future...

E@L

MORE...


Posted by: expat@large on Dec 02, 06 | 12:40 am | Profile


OTHER MONKEYS SAID



"Just wanted to point this fact out before anyone gets home and blogs about this issue."

i knew there was a reason i've never set up a blog!
thank you for just letting me comment on yours
*bless your heart*


Posted by: savannah on Dec 02, 06 | 12:59 am

Then I won't mention the Stephen Fry novels either...your literary credibility is blown my friend, no longer will I have to shamefully hide my Clive Cussler before your arrival. ~grin~


Posted by: Indiana on Dec 02, 06 | 3:07 pm

Stephen Fry is FUNNY! Clive Cussler is SAD - at least for the reader!

Sav: get your own blog and we can cyber-stalk each other... It's been so very one way thus far... ;-)


Posted by: expat@large on Dec 02, 06 | 3:31 pm

"..., allow me to explain about the theatre business. The natural condition is one of insurmountable obstacles on the road to imminent disaster.
...So what do we do?
...Nothing. Strangely enough, it all turns out well.
... How?
... I don't know. It's a mystery."

movie?

seemed appropriate if you sustitute "blog" for theater and you have my answer. ;-)


Posted by: savannah on Dec 02, 06 | 10:09 pm

First guess is "The Producers" - even if I'm wrong I just want to say that Gene Wilder is (apart from being my doppleganger when I was younger) so much funnier than that wooden fuckwit Matthew Broderick.


Posted by: expat@large on Dec 03, 06 | 12:42 am

good guess, considering i removed the character's names..but no...shall i tell you or would you rather try again?

re matthew broderick...darlin, have you seen "the freshman" or "ferris bueller's day off"...he's a character actor...

ps. i am a techno doofus and trying to do the blogspot thingy now... it's a mystery :-/


Posted by: savannah on Dec 03, 06 | 1:55 am

http://savmarshmama.blogspot.com/

how droll


Posted by: savannah on Dec 03, 06 | 7:01 am

I thought a character actor could, by defnintion, play more than one character.

It's Alan Ruck as Cameron that makes FBDO.

In Freshman, the komodo dragon showed more emotion.


Obviously there's hidden depth to the man if he can keep Sarah Jessica Parker happy, or there's specious shallowness in her...


Posted by: expat@large on Dec 03, 06 | 11:23 am

i am easily amused, i guess..i see him as the "straight man" or that lovely cliche "everyman" totally befuddled by his surroundings...re his marriage...i have no response to that

but what of the movie quote earlier?

(now off to MY blog to see if you've started stalking)


Posted by: savannah on Dec 03, 06 | 11:39 am

OK. Um. My next guess would be Get Shorty.


Posted by: expat@large on Dec 03, 06 | 6:04 pm

Or Shakespeare in Love... (damn, I had to google it!)


Posted by: expat@large on Dec 03, 06 | 6:11 pm

ohh, "get shorty" lots of great lines there...but yes, "shakepeare in love"


Posted by: savannah on Dec 03, 06 | 7:55 pm


THIS MONKEY SAYS




Notify me when someone replies to this post?
Submit the word you see below:




Powered by pMachine