Nothing new under the sun, Gus.

Bit by bit

Putting it together

Piece by piece

Only way to make a work of art

Every moment makes a contribution

Every little detail plays a part

Having just the vision's no solution

Everything depends on execution

Putting it together - that's what counts"

Yeah, a Sondheim quote, not his best but I think the point is a good one.

So if "The language has a pleasant rhythm that drags the eye along, and the world-building has an inner consistency that mostly works, but it is not about anything new". Hey as long as the first two are true, and it is in fact about something then the fact that this something is not new is irrelevent and probably unavoidable.

Thanks for the encourage-boo, Typo.

It is about this boy who meets this girl. The girl decides to back his play, mostly because he looks good in pants.

mostly because he looks good in pants.

That wouldn't be my logic, but, hey, to each her own.

That wouldn't be my logic, but, hey, to each her own.

See? I know nothing about why women do anything about anything.

Well, I guess you need to talk to more of us...and I think I don't mean porn.

Title, please, Gus? Need to know how to look it up in the bookstore.

Yep - what Bev asked, Gus. And what's the release date?

What everyone else said, Gus.

asked me to check my sources, as one cannot get blue dye from wood.

Hmm. Want I should beat him around the head with a piece of Brazilian logwood? (it's a very purplish blue, but still...)

Heh. No, I just want the "FOAD" stamp. Good for what ails me.

Oh, and nearly forgot:

mostly because he looks good in pants.

That wouldn't be my logic, but, hey, to each her own.

I'd have thought most women would fork the cash to back his play because he looked good out of his pants....

Title: Homewind.

Release: Fall.

I had a different title in my head when scribing. However, because the thing seems to have something to do with the impulse toward building a union in the great vasty dark, I am happy with this choice by the Baen marketroids.

These unimportant issues having been resolved, let us now move to the more cogent issue of whether a man's play is best supported by his appearance in or out of pants.

I contend that the appearance within pants is the more suasive. It is my guess that a woman more often imagines the man of her fancy in his clothes, with her secret knowledge of the underlying architecture somehow informing her appreciation of the draperies of the cloth.

Just a guess. What the hell can a man know of such thing?