Here are the rules:

1. Include the award logo in the post.
2. Link back and thank those that nominated me.
3. Answer 10 random questions about myself and/or tell seven random facts.
4. Nominate 10 other bloggers and link them to the award in their comments

So, there's the logo.

Thanks again, Laura. Everybody should check out Laura's blog, which covers a variety of interesting topics, including... (wait for it)... style manuals! (squee!) (To anybody who thinks I'm joking, I just say, hey, welcome to my blog – I hope you like it here )

Laura said some very nice things about my blog in her post. I'm too modest to quote them here, but I'm not too modest to say that you could go over and read them in her post.

Ten random questions. Well, these aren't really random because I got them from Laura's post, but here they are:

1. What's one of your favorite books from childhood? Hmmm. I was always a big Pooh fan, but I have particularly fond memories of Doctor Doolittle because it was the first book I read on my own (my father had been reading it to me, but I got impatient and wanted to read more).
2. What are you reading right now? Oh, gracious. Word Virus by William S. Burroughs. The Master Mind of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Swing Zone, Issue 2, by Jodi McClure. Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke. Various comic books.
3. What's a go-to meal you make on busy weeknights? Eggplant with garlic sauce from the takeout place around the corner.
4. Favorite thing to do in your free time? Well, writing (duh!).
5. Favorite season? Any of the ones that aren't summer.
6. Favorite magazine? The New Yorker.
7. Favorite author? Thomas Pynchon, I suppose.
8. Favorite teacher (and why)? Professor Maurice Baudin. He taught me a lot about writing (and he liked my stories, which didn't hurt). He taught me how to enjoy and appreciate Henry James while freely acknowledging how ridiculous the Master was in a lot of ways.
9. AP Style, Chicago Style, neither, or a mix of both? 85% Chicago with a few eccentric (but completely consistent!) rules of my own.
10. Do you prefer reading short stories or novels? Novels.

Nominate ten other bloggers. This is where I usually fall down, since I don't follow many blogs, and I don't like to give them to the same people over and over. (I'm thinking of writing a blog post about all the various reasons I stop reading blogs – I'm really quite finicky.) So, I'm sure I won't make it to ten. Anyway, these are the worthwhile blogs which have not yet received an award from me.

1. YA Indie. What do you get when a bunch of young adult independent writer/publishers get together to start a blog? Especially when two of them are Emerald Barnes and Dalya Moon? Well, a great resource for indie YA writers. I read it all the time, and I'm not even a YA indie writer. (Since there are several bloggers over there, maybe I can use this to fill out my list to ten.)
2. Aly Hughes Writes. Always interesting, particularly her "Sunday vs." series, where she poses things against each other to understand them better (for example. "Series vs. Stand Alone Novels").
3. Already Not Published. A pretty new blog, but off to a very strong start. I'm not sure of the blogger's name, though (unless her name is really "alreadynotpublished," which seems unlikely), but she's worth reading.


4. Okay, I just checked and YA Indie has a bunch of contributors, so I'm saying this is ten. Do check out the excellent blogs in my (somewhat outdated) sidebar, all of which are worthwhile and all of which have already received awards from me.

Happy reading! Thanks again, Laura.

I do wonder who is the intended audience for this movie. It's not really the wacky comedy that the trailer promises (most of the "fish out of water"/"weren't the 1970s weird?" jokes are in the trailer, in fact), and it's not really clear what it's trying to do or why. Which was also true of the show at times, of course. But the movie tonally all over the place, which the show never was (the show was mostly relentlessly serious).

The plot has some holes in it, and there are a lot of things which are hinted at and then dropped abruptly, but so what? It's Tim Burton. Relax and enjoy it. Sometime I need to check the credits for his movies to see if he even uses a continuity supervisor. I would guess not.

The movie seems set up in a lot of ways to lead into a sequel, which is unusual because Burton is not exactly Mr. Sequel, but maybe that's just what happens when you're adapting a soap opera. It is difficult to imagine that the movie will be so popular that there will be demand for another one.

The movie continues a grand tradition, which is that Barnabas inexplicably falls for wide-eyed, dewy innocents, while cruelly spurning the infinitely more interesting (and fun) Angelique, just because she turned him into a vampire (and perhaps because she was a servant 200 years ago). As she says to him in the movie, "Oh, Barnabas, get over it!" He really should, but he never does (though he is willing to have some very active sex with her). Some guys just don't have a clue.

There is a nice gag based on the breakfast scene in Citizen Kane. Who would be more likely to be down at the far end of that long table from the rest of her family than the surly teenager? (And what teenager wouldn't be surly, growing up in this family?)

The movie looks great, of course, and the music is good. There is a heavy use of 1970s pop, but it's always appropriate and enjoyable, even including an appearance by Alice Cooper, which works really well.

The cameo by the original cast members is quick, but very nice. It's good for a moment to see Quentin, and Maggie, and the real Josette, and the real Angelique, and, for one last time, the real Barnabas Collins.

1) Amazon has stopped selling the hard copy version of A Sane Woman. Which is not that surprising (nobody was buying it). The peculiar thing was that it was on sale there in the first place.

I had originally started to do print-on-demand with CreateSpace, partly because they are owned by Amazon and I thought that would be helpful. But their customer service was so dismal that I jumped to Lulu. So, I figured I wouldn't get on Amazon, but that was okay. I'm not trying to sell a lot of books.

But then it appeared on Amazon anyway, I don't know why. And now it's gone again. Weird.

As I've said before, I'm not going to do an e-book of ASW because I'd rather my first e-book be something more current., but I did just spruce up the e-book-ready HTML version, which is available here. If you have an e-reader, just download this and transfer it to your device, and you'll be ready to read it.

2) I've been thinking about Creatures of Light and Darkness by Roger Zelazny. I've had a note for a while to write about it, and that I should link back to the post on Maggie's blog which had started me thinking about it, but now I can't remember which post it was. (Memo to self: write better notes.)

The point was that writers often get locked into focusing their efforts on a specific genre, a specific style, a specific audience and market, rather than occasionally letting things go and seeing where they end up. As an analogy, sometimes musicians work on songs, but sometimes they just jam, and the jamming can get you to some things that you won't get to the other way. And sometimes it won't get you anywhere, and that's cool, too.

I wrote about Creatures of Light and Darkness in a series called "The Ten Pillars of Modern Literature," which started in the novel U-town and then appeared in other places until it had (IIRC) more than ten entries. I'm gradually posting the entries here (not very systematically – I keep getting distracted). The ones I've posted already were Dhalgren and The Time of Your Life, so today I've added Creatures of Light and Darkness.

3) Speaking of three, I saw a post on Yahoo recently about romantic triangles. One thing that was striking was that the person who wrote it clearly didn't understand the concept of a "romantic triangle" (Bella and the boys? Yes. Camelot? Yes. Harry, Hermione, and Ron? No. Blomkvist, Salander and Berger? No – the geometry is far more complicated than that; Berger is married and the other two both have other lovers).

But it also made me think of the predictability of romantic triangles, which made me think of the comic book Secret Six, where a romantic triangle was resolved by Scandal Savage marrying both of her lovers. The book was about to be canceled, which is probably how they got away with a three-way gay marriage. But why not? Vicki Cristina Barcelona was another example.

So, that's today's writing challenge. The next time you have a romantic triangle in a story, try thinking beyond the obvious.

More of Stevie One is posted. This is the ending of Part Four and the beginning of Part Five. The new parts start here.

For one thing, Zelazny creates his own mythological characters to exist alongside Osiris, Set and Anubis, such as the Steel General who has fought throughout history on the side of the oppressed. He is periodically destroyed by his enemies, but he is always rebuilt by people who need him. Sometimes he's a robot wearing a ring of flesh, sometimes he's a man wearing a ring of iron. There is also Typhon, a god who appears as a shadow of a horse and who may be a black hole.

There is also quite a bit of dry humor, and a chapter in verse,

It's not Zelazny's best work, but it's a fascinating and unpredictable ride. It's interesting to see how much wilder he was when he thought nobody was looking (though some of his later work also goes in this direction – age can make you more fearless).

Oh, and it includes the Agnostic's Prayer:

"Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen."

I always read his posts on the subject, though I don’t always read the posts he links to and quotes from (my interest only goes so far, since I’m not really considering either independent or major publishing). But sometimes I do follow the links, and the thing which has struck me most is how emotional some bloggers get about the whole thing.

A lot of independent-publishing enthusiasts talk like they’re plucky Rebel fighters trying to explode the Death Star of traditional publishing (and they seem confident that the Death Star is about to implode anyway). Others stand firm in the camp of the traditional publishers, sarcastically dismissing small-press and indie works (often while cheerfully admitting that they’ve never actually read any).

My comment on one recent post (“Logic Error“) said:

I’m getting the idea that some people have a really strong emotional reaction against traditional publishing – the endless waiting, the rejection, the loss of control – and so they decide to go indie. But then, since this is a “business decision,” they feel obligated to construct an edifice of logic (good or, in this case, bad) to justify their choice. (This goes back to what we were discussing a few days ago – the anger that some people seem to feel about Big Pub.)

This goes the other way, too. To some people, publishing doesn’t seem “real” if it isn’t with a major. That feeling doesn’t have any effect on whether the traditional publishing model will continue to be viable over the next few decades or not, but once the decision is made, the retroactive logic is brought into play.

My reaction to both camps is the same: if your decision is based on logic, your logic needs to be good; but if you’re going with your gut, just relax and say so.

I publish the way I do because it gives me great pleasure to do so. Period. And for me, that is more than adequate reason.

So, here’s my question for any and all writers. How have you made your decision yet (small/indie press vs. trying to get picked up by a major)? If so, how much of it was based on analysis, and how much by gut? Or, if you haven’t yet made the decision, are you tending in one direction or the other? If so, is the tendency more from your gut or your head?

Speaking of which, more of Stevie One is posted. The new parts begin here. If you have been wondering whether there was going to be a murder in this story, the answer has turned out to be yes.

Since I am writing a quasi-YA* story with a strong female protag (Stevie One), this was interesting to look at.

Here are the five (six, really) tips, as listed by Dalya Moon:

1) As the author, don't constantly rely on characters not telling each other key information to prolong plot points or tension

Oh, yes. Do not conceal information for the sake of fooling the reader or building bad suspense. Roger Ebert calls this the "idiot plot," where the plot of the movie could have been resolved in fifteen minutes if the characters weren't all idiots.

(I'm not sure what this has to do with a "strong female protagonist," though.)

The worst example of false suspense I can think of is Halfway House, by Ellery Queen, where Ellery Queen (the detective) chases after, traps, and confronts the killer. Then the book jumps forward to some time later, where Ellery sits down with several interested characters and details the steps of his detective work, how he figured out who the killer was, and then, at the very end of this long explanation, the name of the killer is finally revealed to the reader.

Ish.

Every character knew the answer pages and pages ago, why does the reader have to wait?

On the other hand, my characters (unlike Dalya's) are often good at keeping secrets, but those are (this is the distinction that I make) character secrets, not plot secrets. I have two characters who were abused as children, and you can learn some of that by paying close attention, but they don't talk about it. Because they wouldn't. As I always point out, there is a major character in U-town whose sexuality is not revealed until literally the last page (though other characters speculate from time to time throughout the book). But this doesn't have anything to do with the plot of the book, it's just a character note, and it is entirely consistent with her personality to keep quiet about it until she actually takes a lover.

And Jan Sleet, the great detective, often conceals information from her assistant (Marshall, her "Watson"). As Nero Wolfe often did with Archie Goodwin. But the readers (when Marshall is the narrator) know what Marshall knows.

2) Make your character better than average

Makes me think of Lake Wobegon. U-town, where all the characters are above average.

But, yes, definitely. However, as we discussed in comments on an earlier YA Indie post, if your character has skills (as opposed to talents), there should be an explanation of why she has them. As I said there, Stevie One is a kick-butt character (and she is not the most kick-butt woman in the book), but there is a reason she has those skills.

3) Allow readers to relate to your character

Yes, I think Stevie is "relatable" (a word I've never liked). She has enthusiasms and and (as Dalya said in her comments) she is definitely somebody who DOES STUFF (even if it's stuff that nobody has ever done before).

4) Let us enjoy some "booyeah!" moments through the character

This is related to the "skills" question above. If you've established why the character is especially skilled, you get to reap the reward of having her triumph from time to time. In fact, most of the major characters in Stevie One are particularly good at least one thing, and the one who isn't DOING STUFF will get to figure out her particular thing by the end.

5) Never let anything come easily to your main character

Of course, things don't come easily to Stevie One, and there are situations where it is partly her own fault that things are as difficult as they are for her. But if they are difficult it's partly because she's aiming high, which I think is also important. The goal should be something worth struggling for.

6) Write the character you want to spend time with

This is the big one, since not only do I want the readers to enjoy spending time with her – the other characters have to want to spend time with her as well. She falls in with bad companions at the beginning of the story, and she is useful to them, but obviously they also start to like her, so this has to be convincing.

But I agree: no matter what the feedback, I never rewrite characters. I am willing to consider changing plot points, re-sequencing stories, even adding or removing characters, but I never change characters (except as they change in the course of the story, of course). They are who they are. I keep feedback in mind for future stories, for new characters, but that's it.

There are two characters in Stevie One who I've used before. I've taken those stories down, because the stories weren't right for the characters. This time I think I've got it, but the characters are the same as they ever were. They just needed me to create a better story for them.

And, yes, I loved this note at the end: "Because [Dalya's] a feminist, her characters may make a few mistakes along the way, but they don't end up dating their obsessive, controlling, serial-killer stalkers, ifyaknowwhatimean." Stevie One will have a romantic life at some point (when she's ready), and she will make mistakes, but she will not do that. She wouldn't anyway, but she also thinks of herself as a role model, and that wouldn't set a very good example.

What I would add to this list is the Bechdel Test, as I talked about here. Have a variety of female characters, have them talk to each other, and have them talk about things other than boys or men.

__________________________
* Stevie One is not actually a YA story (it's a mystery), but since it does have a teenage protagonist I thought it was interesting to consider it through the lens of "young adult" literature.

On one hand, there’s his cultural influence, which is significant. He played Barnabas Collins on Dark Shadows, and Barnabas was the first “reluctant vampire” (or at least the first to have broad impact – I don’t know if he was the first or not). Ordinarily I’d try to give some of the credit to the writers of the show, but in this case it really wasn’t their idea. They thought Barnabas would appear for one storyline, imperil and attack the Collins family, and then be destroyed so that the show could move on to something else.

But Barnabas caught on, because of the way Frid played the character, and he took over the show (similar to Popeye, who was supposed to be a one-storyline character in the comic strip Thimble Theater – and eventually the strip became known as “Popeye”).

I found out about Dark Shadows after Barnabas was introduced, and, like Johnny Depp, I was one of those kids who rushed home every day to watch the show. I had a friend who was also a fanatic (I forget if he introduced it to me or vice versa or if we discovered it separately), and we always discussed the previous day’s episode in gym class the next morning, while running laps.

Full disclosure: Barnabas was not actually my favorite character. I preferred Quentin Collins, Professor Stokes, and Angelique (the witch who cursed Barnabas in the first place). Quentin and Stokes were later characters, and they had a certain mordant wit about all the goings-on, a quality which was mostly absent in the characters who were introduced earlier in the run.

I think one factor in Frid’s performance was that he was (at best) ambivalent about being so successful at playing a vampire on a television soap opera. He was a serious actor in his forties, and becoming a teen idol was not his idea of professional success (and I’m sure he realized fairly early on that he was going to be typecast forever). I wonder if that was a factor in his performance (I remember reading one critic who thought that one reason Sean Connery was so great as James Bond was that he didn’t bother to conceal his contempt for the whole thing – instead he used that in his performance).

A few different actors have played Barnabas since Frid, on television and in audio plays, but two yeas ago, Big Finish (which produces an excellent series of Dark Shadows audio plays featuring the original cast) persuaded Frid to come back and play Barnabas one more time. They asked him what he wanted to do, and he said he would like to do a two-hander with John Karlen, who played Barnabas’s servant Willie on the show (“long-suffering” is an understatement as far as Willie goes).

The story was called “Night Whispers” and I have to report that, forty years after he’d last played Barnabas Collins, Frid nailed the character as nobody else ever has. Barnabas treats Willie far better than he did on the show (the master and servant have obviously grown old together), but when another element enters their world, he’s every bit as much of a bastard as he ever was. Capable of great concern and even self-sacrifice for others, he’s nevertheless never a nice guy. He may feel bad about things he’s done, but he will never apologize.

I’ve also been thinking about what I got out of the show, why I watched it so obsessively, and what I learned from all those afternoons watching the world’s first “Gothic soap opera”?

1. Serial stories are great. I already knew that (I’d been reading comic books for several years when I discovered Dark Shadows), but this was another lesson. I write serial stories, and I always gravitate towards them when I can find them to read.

2. Don’t worry about perfection. Dark Shadows was famous for its flubs – the show was shot “as live” on videotape, meaning that once the camera started shooting each half-hour segment, it didn’t stop for anything. Actors flubbed their lines, props fell over, “eternal” flames blew out, stagehands wandered by in the background, boom mikes descended into frame, it didn’t matter. The show must go on indeed. Trust me, when you write and publish serially, there will be a few little glitches.

3. Don’t be limited by reality. Dark Shadows was a fairly Gothic soap opera from the beginning, but the supernatural was only hinted it, never explicitly stated. But ratings were low and getting lower, so series creator Dan Curtis decided to go for it and introduce a real vampire. The rest is, as they say, history. People knew who “Barnabas Collins” was at that time even if they’d never seen a episode of the show. (For purposes of comparison, I know who Snooki is even though I don’t own a television &nash; yes, he was that famous.) So, I have no problem writing about a very small teenage girl with superhuman strength, or three incestuous siblings who are (perhaps) aliens.

4. Even the most outlandish characters can have a full human inner life. I certainly try to apply this, whether it’s to a lunatic mass murderer, or a famous amateur detective, or the most powerful entity in the universe.

Some of these lessons I was already learning from comic books, but Dark Shadows carried them further (particularly #2 and #4). And I think I’ve specifically drawn on Barnabas in writing starling, who has killed a lot of people, and who would prefer not to kill any more, unless she has to (but is perfectly willing to kill or torture if someone she cares about is threatened), and who may feel bad about some of the things she’s done but who never apologizes.

I do have to mention the upcoming Dark Shadows movie. It has unnerved me by apparently being a wacky comedy, but I will see it. I’ve seen every movie Burton and Depp have made together (plus this one has Michelle Pfeiffer and Chloe Moretz), so I’ll see it, but I’m still ambivalent (though, in fairness, I’m not sure what I would have proposed instead – it would not be possible to do what the show accomplished in over 500 hours of television in a two-hour movie).

Also, four of the key actors from the show will have cameo roles in the film, so that will be nice. If they can be in it. I can certainly see it, and it will go down as Jonathan Frid’s final screen credit, so I guess that’s appropriate.

Here are three posts from Kathryn Leigh Scott’s website:

• Jonathan Frid
• Johnny Depp Pays Tribute to Jonathan Frid
• Noteworthy Tributes to Jonathan Frid

In the last one, she links to this article, which tells the story better than I just did – I’m glad I didn’t read it until I’d already finished the post.

• Jonathan Frid transformed the vampire

To paraphrase a line that’s going around: Mr. Frid is survived by Louis de Pointe du Lac, Lestat de Lioncourt, Angel, Edward Cullen, and even Eli.

In other news, more of the story Stevie One is posted. We’re now starting Part Four, which is called “Jan Sleet.” And, yes, I guess I am still trying to apply all the lessons I learned from watching Dark Shadows every day after school.

But I've been thinking about how we've been seeing her. In A Sane Woman, and in the mystery stories more recently, we've only seen her from the first person point of view of Marshall, her assistant. But now, in Stevie One, we're seeing her from a third person POV (third person limited, technically, showing everything from Stevie's perspective – in the next part we'll be in Jan's own third person limited POV).

This isn't the first time we've seen her from something other than Marshall's point of view. In U-town we mostly saw her from omniscient third person. But this made me think of another question about how we see characters.

Most of A Sane Woman is in third person, but then it switches to Marshall's first person when Jan Sleet shows up. So, not only are we seeing her through Marshall's eyes, but we're seeing her only when Marshall is with her. There are periods of time when they're not together, and all we see then is Marshall wondering what sort of trouble his employer has got herself into now.

In the beginning of U-town, we see her again, but this time not only is it not from Marshall's point of view but it's also without Marshall, and we find that she's very different when he's not with her. She's jumpy and moody and generally unhappy, in fact. Once they are reunited, she immediately gets her eerie self-confidence back. To show that difference, though, we not only have to get out of Marshall's head but we also have to get Marshall out of the picture.

What is Sherlock Holmes like when Watson isn't with him? Watson doesn't know, and therefore he can't show it to us. (Yes, I know there were a couple of Holmes stories in third person or even from Holmes' point of view – just bear with me and pretend those don't exist for a moment.)

I thought of this for two reasons. One is that now in Stevie One we're seeing Jan Sleet without Marshall and she's calm and confident, very different from the first few chapters of U-town. So, we see that she's changed over time. Her self-confidence no longer depends on him. And we see that as other people see it.

When she's walking with Stevie One she takes out her cigarette case, opens it, takes out a cigarette, puts it in her mouth, puts the case away, and takes out a lighter and lights the cigarette. Stevie is very impressed by this dexterity (all of this had to be done one-handed, since Jan's other hand was using her cane). Marshall would have been less impressed, because he would have known that the great detective practices that sort of thing at home in front of a mirror.

So, to see our characters more fully, we have to show them from different points of view (almost impossible if you're in first person, of course) and also in different settings with different people. None of us are the same with everybody, so our characters shouldn't be either.

And there is more of Stevie One to read. This is the end of Part Three. The next part will (I'm fairly sure) be from Jan Sleet's point of view, but after that I think the "one part = one character's POV" scheme may have to change. I think we may be moving around too much for that.

But I could be wrong.

There was another post here a couple of days ago, by the way. If you didn't see it, you can scroll down.

The most interesting comments I've seen this week were for a post called "Links on the portrayal of race and gender in the media" over at T.S. Bazelli's blog.

A bunch of Indie YA writers ("Indie"=independent, "YA"=young adult) have formed a blog together to share their thinking about writing and publishing and promoting young adult fiction. It's called "YA Indie" and Indie writers should check it out.

A couple of specific posts caught my attention:

• Why your Female Protagonist Doesn't Have to Kick-Butt to be Liked
• Pantsing like a Pro...
• Just added: Race in YA and The Hunger Games (which ties back to the first post above – I'll read any post which contains the phrase "I've seen a lot of racist crap in my seventeen years")

Oh, and I'll throw in a plug. My friend Alexis is a content editor for Grit City Publications, and they've just published three new titles, two of which she edited (one of them is the first episode of a serial – you know that's the one I bought first!). She blogged about it here.

A sensible thought (though there are other reasons that a sensible person would want to live there), but it made me think of the requirements of the mystery story. Different genres always have requirements, or at least tropes. Fantasy stories often have quests, for example (though detective stories have them also). Romance stories often have "good" girls and "bad" girls (or "good" boys and "bad" boys).

And mystery stories must have mysteries. And the detective must find the mysteries. On a fairly regular basis. Even to the point of statistical unlikelihood.

With amateur detectives, you just have to suspend disbelief. How did nice Miss Marple come upon so many murder victims? If that bothers you, mysteries probably aren't for you. The writers on the TV show Murder She Wrote used to refer to Jessica Fletcher as the "Angel of Death" because, wherever she went, people died. And at no point in all those episodes, over all those seasons, did she say, "Wow, this is really statistically unlikely." (Even apart from the fact that most people would have found it rather depressing.)

There was a wonderful comment on this in one episode of the audio series Sapphire and Steel. There, the "famous amateur detectives" turned out to be serial murderers. They went around the world killing people and then framing others for the murders, because (as they explained) how else could you get to be "famous amateur detectives"? How else would you find enough murders to solve (and then be able to solve them)?

With Jan Sleet, she's somewhere between an amateur and a professional. She was a reporter (she doesn't work at it very much these days, though she'd probably still identify herself as a "gal reporter" if somebody asked her profession), and it appears that one of the things she reported on was murders, but we haven't really seen that part of her life.

Now, she's somewhat official and somewhat amateur. Some mysteries are brought to her, but she still comes upon them accidentally more often than the rest of us. Which is fine with her.

Speaking of which (in case you thought this post wasn't going anywhere), our detective has just wandered into another mystery, this one by accident and coincidence. Sometimes she seeks them out, but not always.

More of Stevie One is posted. The new parts start here.