I am not sure I get the distinction. Or rather, I guess I get the distinction, but am not sure if I ... nope. Not getting the distinction.

It's not Mona Lisa saying, "Come check out this painting of me," it's Mona Lisa saying, "Come check me out." Mona can talk about her skin tone, but Mona can talk about how it sucks to be trapped in a frame.

I am not sure I get the distinction. Or rather, I guess I get the distinction, but am not sure if I ... nope. Not getting the distinction.

Hmm. I think I'm under-articulating. All I mean is that it shouldn't be a drabble where, for instance, the Mona Lisa writes a personal ad to get a guy, that it's not JUST her as the subject of the painting writing the personal ad, but the 500-year-old painting, what kind of viewer the painting would ideally like to gaze upon it for hours.

Or, if you don't see the distinction, maybe I was just over-thinking it.

I am not sure I get the distinction. Or rather, I guess I get the distinction, but am not sure if I ... nope. Not getting the distinction.

Maybe I was jumping to conclusions, but I also thought it could be a painting without a subject in it. Like a landscape. Or a Pollack. Right? So the painting itself (the whole thing, not just what the painting might be of) has to speak to the reader of the ad?

I also thought it could be a painting without a subject in it. Like a landscape. Or a Pollack. Right? So the painting itself (the whole thing, not just what the painting might be of) has to speak to the reader of the ad?

Exactly. Or, for instance, a personal ad for a Gauguin painting of Tahiti doesn't necessarily need to say "looking for a viewer who loves tropical locations." At least, *I*, personally, would leave that out, because I don't think the Tahiti paintings are about beachy fun.

One thing, though -- should we pick paintings that are mostly recognizable by name alone so our readers can get the visual? Or are we depending on the writing to convince our readers, as well as the fictional readers of the personal ads, to want to look up this artwork we've described.

I think I'm overthinking it now.

I think I'm overthinking it now.

I figure most paintings we'd use would be easy to image-Google, so that we could put a link to the painting.

FWIW, I have a bias toward the more general drabble topics, because I like drabbling as my characters, but that's just me. Which is to say the painting topic sounds fun, but I'd hate it if the topics were that specific week in and week out, because I couldn't use them the way I've been doing.

Huh. Problem is, most of the paintings I like are Renaissance-era. I just don't see St. Anne in La Vierge de la Roche putting an ad in the paper. Not to be a killjoy, but again, I absorb art in a fairly weird way, so I'd probably pass on this one.

Ooh, does it involve some Hollywood magnate receiving a blow job when suddenly she stops sucking his dick and starts SUCKING HIS BLOOD?

Nope. Backers (big Hollywood money backers) circa 1957 or so, visiting an ego project somewhere in Africa that's gone wildly over budget. They really didn't know about not eating the local delicacies back then, so if you were insisting on a local delicacy of, say, monkey, and said fellow/soror primate was carrying one of the bazillions of level four pathogen in it when this wealthy little collection of people much done, jumping species, triggering a mutation in both sperm and egg...

Hey, has Laurell K. Hamilton done that before? I should write her.

I keep thinking I should read her. Then I realise I don't much like soft porn disguised as storytelling - just call it porn and have done - and I decide not to.

I've not read any Laurel K. Hamilton, and feel no urge to do so.

Deb, the White Sands thing does sound very sf-y. Probably a good call to avoid it and raise expectations you don't intend to write to.

At Christmas, they put Santa hats on them.

Um... where?