PalePower

Michael, Good thoughts. A further investigation into his mentality can be found here: http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/. These are two plays that he wrote, and turned in, while in school. Please don't read if you are easily affected by disturbing content. Personally, I am astonished that nothing was done before in regard to this man. This is obviously a sick and disturbed mind. I recently wrote in a post on "The New Cult of Darkness" that I can't fathom true evil, because for me it must carry intention of committing evil consciously. It is undeniable that the murderer fully intended this havoc. Did he consider it evil, though? Right now I'm almost too sickened to carry on some philosophical conversation about his possible state of mind. As can be seen in his plays, his characters have some sort of motivation for good, however twisted - feelings of injustice. But that would contradict itself - if he's aware of injustice, he would fall under that category. I said before I couldn't believe in the true existence of evil. Now I'm not so sure. He knew what he was doing. That's what I don't understand. ~Elizabeth

In light of the recent Virginia Tech shootings, I have been wondering about the morality behind Americans' right to bear arms. This event had a much more drastic effect on me than other violent disasters that you hear about every day - killings in Iraq, bombings in Europe, people you don't know and really can't imagine all that well, despite how much your sympathy extends to them. Virginia Tech, however, is more or less right around the corner from me. I have friends who attend or are planning to attend there; I know people who know people who were killed in the rampage. It was much too personal and has entirely frightened and sickened me. It leads me to question why, why in the world something like this could have happened. Blocked from understanding the incomprehensible mentality behind it, my next thought goes to the object that made it possible - his gun. Should Americans have the right to purchase and hold firearms as long as they're simply old enough? Many would respond that any restrictions would impede upon our property rights. Or that if we are to place restrictions, what would they be? How would they "prove" that their need of a gun is essential, and who gives us the right to determine that need? What about people who enjoy hunting, or those who want a gun for protection in a dangerous neighborhood? Furthermore, they might argue that it's not the gun that kills, but the person that wields it; and they could just as easily kill people with kitchen knives or a hammer - so should we start restricting those purchases, too? But I highly doubt that yesterday's assassin could have taken out the number of innocent lives he did were he simply wielding a kitchen knife or his grandfather's old sword. Americans have the right to property, but we also have the right to life - and yesterday, as was proved, that man's right to buy a gun was upheld, but the rights of thirty-two people to Live was grossly denied. I do not believe that someone should have the right to just waltz into a store and enable themselves to become a killing machine. There is a difference between having the right to buy a stick of gum when you want it, and being able to purchase a gun, whose explicit purpose is to kill other people. They should not be treated the same, and personally, I am all for gun restrictions. Thoughts? ~Elizabeth

Welcome, Mitchell. From what I've experienced of it so far, I think you'll enjoy the atmosphere on OL. I'm also 17. Sucks, doesn't it? Glad to be aware of one more person on there with a firm grasp on the value of their mind; however, a short word of advice based on first impressions. Just remember that Rand's heroes derive their self-esteem from their self based on their own standards, not their self in comparison to the supposed inferiority of others. Having read Rand myself for the first time just a couple years ago, I can certainly understand the intoxicating effect of her world and resulting superiority complexes, but as you get older and more used to Objectivist ideas as a norm - instead of a surprise - I hope those feelings of spite and vindictiveness simmer down a little. You said you read Atlas Shrugged - have you read any of Rand's other fiction, namely, The Fountainhead? Cheers, ~Elizabeth

I don't think that's just high-school ideology. ~Elizabeth

I don't think the idea could everbe described as "rational." It doesn't take advanced technology to deduce that a consciousness can just, pop, appear, with no cause, and create an entire universe. That's just common logic. It may seem like a logical idea at first - that the order of this world could only come into existence through intelligent design - but upon further inspection, using just your mind, it really does amount to nothing. Probably one of the reasons atheism is gaining popularity nowadays is because we're in a cultural environment that encourages independent thinking and reason, not conformity and obedience. To historically support that, weren't many of the ancient Greek philosophers accused of atheism or something? And I know several of the founding fathers, Jefferson specifically, were atheists. Both lived in thought-happy environments - pro-philosophy and the Enlightenment. ~Elizabeth

First of all I've got to agree with Ellen in her appraisal of AS as a "mythic" ethos-centered work of fiction. That's a very good summation, I like it. Also, Would you mind elaborating on that? ~Elizabeth

Judith, Right - I agree. And I'm not criticizing her for her portrayal or saying that naturalistic portraits are the only type of characterization acceptable. It's up to the author to decide what effect they want to achieve by their literature. (I don't agree that there's one, perscribed way to go about story-writing. What a clamper on creativity and diversity.) Rand wanted a prototype of malevolence, and she went about creating it perfectly. And the effect of this is something that a naturalistic character couldn't achieve (at least to the same extent): you are so well acquainted with their philosophy, that you have no problem picking it out in real life. It becomes easier to assess people's premises since you know what exactly it is you should watch out for: your mind, upon recognition, doesn't make excuses or psychological allowances, it just knows what it sees. However, the downfall is that the characters do lack a certain vitality which will evoke a powerful reader response. At least that was the case for me. Hum hum. I wonder if you could create a character that would achieve both those effects. ** Jeff, I can relate to that - projecting my values onto other people. Right after I read Rand for the first time, I went on a mini crusade to "convert" people to reason. I mainly focused on my ardently religious friends, confident that I could show them the error of their ways and lead them to the light; and then we, dressed in pastel colors and bedecked with garlands, would go frolicking arm-and-arm through the fields belting out a perfectly-harmonized improvised choral piece and practicing our newfound powers of mind-reading and heat vision. Sadly, this did not come to pass. I focused in on religious people because I made the assumption that everyone was into God and religion for the same reasons I had been - passion, the love of adoration, focus, meaning, structure. And I assumed that, within the course of one or two intelligent conversations, they would abandon Christianity simply because what I had described to them served their interests so much better than their religion. But the above weren't their interests. I had - still have - a hard time coming to grips with that: that a person can live devotedly and passionately for something, not out of a clean, conscious reverence, but out of cowardliness, uncertainty, indolence, and fear of inadequacy. That people can literally be impervious to reason, just because it's a little scary. It's totally disgusting, but true. At least, I think it's true. I'm still a little incredulous. I'm still somewhat inclined to believe that the only reason these people block themselves off from reason is because they just don't understand what it is and what it implies. Ignorance is a little bit more permissible. And I still cling to this idea because I have witnessed the clean "conversion" of people, and that gives me hope that it can happen again, and again. And don't worry, I don't intend to lose my "naive" benevolent outlook, at least not for a very long time. And even then, I believe I will still be fighting strenuously to retain it. ~Elizabeth

I feel somewhat hesitant to continue my own comments, because I sort of feel like I don’t know what I’m talking about. In other words, I really haven’t come to grips either with the word or the concept of “evil.” I don’t feel like it belongs in my vocabulary just yet. To me it implies intention to destroy the good – while KNOWING that it’s the good. And I just can’t see that happening. Maybe it’ll just take some more living, but I don’t understand it now. I just can’t brand anything as “evil” because I can’t ignore the motivation behind it. There always seems to be some sort of excuse, no matter how pathetic – it works for the perpetrator. Usually it arises from some sort of insecurity – which means it IS motivated by self-interest to live comfortably with the self. The tyranny and superiority-complexes of dictators, the fear and confusion of mobs. I’m sickened by what they do, I hate it with all my heart and soul, and I can blame the ACT as evil, objectively, but I couldn’t look the person in the eye and say, “You are evil.” Because I don’t think the person themselves would believe that. And to me that is key in such a categorization. I’ve heard – I believe – much of the arguments for the existence of evil, and it’s still extremely difficult for me to accept it. If I ever do I believe it will just arise from my own experiences and observations – something like this isn’t “explained.” Just a quick comment – Phil said: Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. Just because I find it difficult to label people as evil doesn’t mean I don’t incriminate them or automatically find them innocent. They ARE guilty – but only of sloppy thinking. However, that’s a pretty grave mistake to be guilty of. ~Elizabeth

Ellen, Thank you for the book suggestions!! I haven’t read any of them. Luckily I know that we do have a copy of The Devil’s Advocate around here. I’m excited – sounds like fascinating stuff. I’ll let you know when I start reading them. =) Adding a comment about this: That is extremely interesting. Interesting because that’s a legitimate reaction – and interesting because the same ideas which produced that reaction can produce the exact opposite. After I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, it was like, “Oh my God. What if people really CAN be as Ayn Rand portrays them?” (Referring to the heroes.) It was just mind-boggling. Breath-taking. And a thousand other adjectives that will never come close to communicating the exact thrill I felt after taking a sojourn through Rand’s world. It was like a window had opened up in a room which you hadn’t noticed was dark until after all the light spilled in. Like literally stepping into another dimension – there’s no way you could’ve conceptualized it without actually experiencing it, and no way you can conceptualize life without it after HAVING experienced it. Like the whole world was stumbling around with their eyes locked on the gray pavement, and the only reason they kept living is because there’s a legend that’s been in existence since the beginning of time that speaks of something called “gold,” whatever that is. Then one day someone calls your name and you lift your head – and you never lifted your head before, for whatever reason – and all the sudden, you see it: gold, all around you. You didn’t know what it was before but you recognize it when you see it. Gold, shooting out from the trees, from the sky, but mostly from yourself. And then one of the people with the perpetually weighted eyes bumps into you and sighs, eyes still on the ground, “Oh my, gold. . . do you ever think we’ll find it? Do you even think it exists?” Dumbass! Lift your head! You ARE it! I kept thinking about fairy tales and historical quests for mystical items. About how humanity has always been driven by the need for a “something,” that magic object – that never gets found, that always eludes, whose only evidence of existence is our inexplicable thirst for it. And then you find it. You actually find it. There’s no word for it. Probably because Rand wasn’t around when they invented language. =D We should make a new that’ll just serve to describe that feeling of waking up to Rand’s literature. I propose, “lawlthisist3hshit-ocity.” I ramble so much!! I’m sorry. I honestly never talk to people like this, just in my writing – don’t mean to come across as bombastic, if I do. ANYWAY. My point was, it’s interesting that Rand’s work can legitimately produce both those types of reactions – the magical one, and the dismal one; and I wonder if, and HOW, she lived with both of those concurrently. It would seem to me that one would cancel the other out. I mean to respond to Phil, Victor, and Michael soon, but I have to go run and play the Easter Vigil mass. *sigh* Oh well, I get to accompany the Hallelujah chorus – that’s pretty fun. ~Elizabeth

I hear you, Steve. I love Wynand. Francisco, though... oh my goodness. I find him the most vivacious of Rand's characters. Life just rockets out of him. Nothing can stop him! He's endlessly skilled, endlessly intelligent, endlessly passionate, and best of all, there's this light-hearted JOY frothing about. I love Roark's integrity, but. . . laugh!! ~Elizabeth

Thank you. Yeah, that's one of my beefs with Objectivism. . . the black-and-white view applied to human motive. You can definitely determine the objective EFFECT of their actions, but I find it quite ignorant to slap that same "EVIL!" label on the thought process that led up to it. I'm young, so I have a lot still to learn and experience of life, but so far I haven't heard of one "bad" act that absolutely did NOT have any sort of "good" motive behind it - however twisted it may be. Rape, murder, theft - they're indisputably mucked up, but the reasons for such are some kind of psychological disturbance aimed at self-preservation. Even Hitler, when he wasn't reeling on drugs, wanted to make a "more perfect" society. I'm not justifying immorality, obviously, but I invite you to give me an example of a real-life villain whose sole intention was just To Destroy - the world, people, himself, without any benefit whatsoever, without ANY pleasure taken from it - just to kill, and kill, and kill, like a machine. It doesn't happen! (Unless you're mentally ill.) That's not human nature. There's always got to be something in it for yourself. (I'm on an idea rant, bear with me.) That's also a problem I have with Rand in a literary sense - mainly with her villains in Atlas Shrugged. (I hope to Galt I don't get shot down for the following.) I found them unreal. They were robots, not people. Now I perceive this as Rand's purpose - to make them as such - because certainly the world may seem to act like that at times, like senseless, malevolent automatons. But are people ACTUALLY like that? Not that I've observed. As such, I had a hard time summoning any kind of feeling - be it fear, annoyance, hate - for the oodles of oddly-named diplomats and bureaucrats. And that doesn't make for good story-telling. Jim was a little better, since he was more developed, but the part of the book that bothered me the absolute most was his demise - his "revelation" when Galt gives him The Look and he suddenly "realizes" that he is, objectively and doubtlessly, a depraved, evil, death-mongering human being. That... would never happen. Forget theories of romanticism, forget lambasting naturalism: fiction derives its power from facts of reality; and, as a reader, I just am not ABLE to formulate a response, because there's nothing in my mind and experience to do it with. There's no worth to the literary observations as such; how would I apply them? How do they affect me? They don't - there's no such thing as a James Taggart in the real world. So why should I care? Toohey's an altogether different story. (Pun intended, ah-ah-ah.) He's one thing: FASCINATING. And that makes for good story-telling. He's different because he KNOWS what he's doing (and it doesn't break him, like Jim - key). Plus, he does seem to derive a sick sort of power-pleasure from his depravity, so there's your psychological substance. The villains in The Fountainhead are so much more realistic; and as such so much more frightening; and as such there is so much more tension and intrinsic drama. If you think about it, Ayn Rand's all into the benevolent world view, but how non-benevolent is it to think that there are ACTUALLY people out there who honestly work for Death? Totally depressing. I prefer to view them as lost sheep! Bring them back to the fold, that's where they belong - there's no place for evil in this world. I look forward to applying that concept of "evil" to my own future literature. There's that Buddhist (Hindu? Eastern.) idea that there is no such thing as evil, only an absence of good. What about an "excess" of good? Good gone wild -- with all the sincerity, intent, passion and intransigence of the Right, but terribly wrong. I want to make my villains altogether alive, sympathetic, recognizable. Not characters you love to hate, but hate to hate, yet hate nevertheless. You want them dead, but you feel like a piece of you's been ripped out when they do go. Or maybe they don't go. . . and you feel an odd sort of victory. There's just so much more to do with literature besides proselytize. Fun! ~Elizabeth

Hah, I'm Roark. But, honestly? For favorite character? Francisco. Omgomgomgomg. TOTALLY in love with Francisco. *rolls around* ~Elizabeth

Ever since I took Geometry I can't stop pinpointing instances of inductive as opposed to deductive logic. Inductive logic is a process of arriving at a conclusion based on "what has happened before" - it includes assumptions to be made alongside of the starting premises. As such, it can be flawed. For example, you're standing in line at a movie theater, and all the people that have gone before you pay $6.50 for their ticket; therefore, you conclude that your own ticket will cost $6.50. It's logical to think this, but it's also not definite - say everyone else paid for a matinee movie and you're going to a later one, so your ticket will cost more. Deductive logic is a process of arriving at a conclusion held strictly within the starting premises; deductive logic cannot be flawed. For example, at the movie theatre box office, you conclude that your ticket will cost $6.50 because there's a big honker of a sign up front that says, "ALL TICKETS COST $6.50." ... I think that this "impending extinction" hype would be a salient example of inductive logic. But, just in conclusion, lemme get this straight: scientists are freaked out because humans are "due" for extinction ...JUST because "something" like this has happened before? So we should be scared? Even though. . . since we don't know the cause. . . we really don't know what we should be scared OF. ... *facepalm* Call me when the world ends, I'll be practicing piano. ~Elizabeth

Well, regardless of how many bundling kids they may have, they're still fully capable of blowing up my face, so, yeah, I think I will be a little bit, aaaah...apprehensive, to say the least. ~Elizabeth

This was a beautiful movie. I was enthralled by it. A must-see!! But it was better in theaters, what with the breathtaking cinematography. Only thing I HATED....the credits music. JEEEEEZ what crackhead put that through? ~Elizabeth

I want to start this off by saying that I am ambivalent on the issue of global warming. I've heard so many contrasting, backed-up views over whether or not it actually is a threat that I honestly don't know what to think, what stance to adopt. To do so would require a lot more research on my part, something for which I neither have the time nor the particular interest at this point. However, aspects of the issue definitely do disturb me, aside from just the possibility of a global crisis. What I hear some politicians and radicals want to do to prevent it disturbs me in terms of curtailing freedoms and stunting societal progress. It's not just disturbing, it's frightening. It seems that some people are melting into hysteria, blindly screaming for environmental protection without any regard of the human cost or whether it's even necessary. All colors are washed out in the black-and-white of "protecting the environment." But what is just as - if not more -frightening is that I see this trend on both sides of the issue - is that I see that blind, indignant hysteria right here on this thread. People, this is not Atlas Shrugged. This is not a fiction novel wherein the characters act as indisputible villains or heroes. This is not a crusade against man's freedom. This is not a movement to quash whatever happiness is rightfully ours to pursue. All it is, is merely a different form of acting in one's own self-interest. Whether or not that action does in fact realize self-interest is beside my point. Imagine that we knew, definitively and doubtlessly, that human emissions due to technology and industry WERE in fact causing global warming. Imagine that we knew, definitely and doubtlessly, that unless we took some action, mass floods and catastrophic storms would take place all over the planet within ten years - this would include the flooding and destruction of such places as New York, California, Sydney. Imagine that the impending death of your friends, your family, your home, YOU, was a very possible, very real future. Now can you honestly tell me that any person who acts to prevent this disaster is, in Kyrel Zantonavitch's words, a "socialist, altruist"? That they are "driven by 'deep malice'", or that they are "anti-human"? That their "philosophy is very opposed to human triumph"? These people in Sydney are trying to save their lives - in the best way they know how. There is nothing altruistic about this! They honestly believe that global catastrophe is a reality - or at least a likely possibility. I am NOT advocating what they're doing - I am NOT advocating blackouts or suspension of human technology. Like I said before, I don't know what to think of global warming or how we can deal with it. I would think that there are other ways of going about saving the world besides an all-out shut-down of technology. I don't find anything inspiring about the coma of a city. And neither do these people in Sydney. That is WHY they're doing it. They don't want to see their lives and their homes and their loved ones lost under the unforgiving waves. What I am asking you to consider is not the action itself. I wouldn't be writing this if all subsequent replies to this post had focused on the irrationality of the Australians' chosen course of ACTION - how they could have gone about supporting their lives BETTER. But in every reply, I have seen an attack on the blackout participants' essential philosophy. What I am asking you to consider, rather, is the MOTIVATION behind these people - for you to realize that it is really no different than your own, our own. Please do not confuse a SYMBOL of life - light - for life itself: Well, I would have hoped she'd say nothing, because that's not what those people were doing. Technically, yes, they physically chose darkness over light; figuratively, they chose light over darkness - they chose what they perceived to be life-supporting over that which they perceived to be death-supporting. Any attack on the Syndney inhabitants' action should be directed at the objective efficacy of the action itself - not at their morality or their motivation or their philosophy. All these people are working for is life. Please don't overlook this fact. ~Elizabeth

I'm sorry for not really taking this seriously, but I couldn't help cracking up when I saw that. ~Elizabeth

Michael, I listened to the Don Ellis track, and then I listened to another, and then another, and then all of them, and then all of them again. If you couldn't guess.....WOW!!! That is some fantastic music! And it's so refreshing because I have...never gotten into jazz. (Probably because I've never heard that much of it.) What a pleasure! I definitely need to buy some of his work. Speaking of which, jeez! There's so much music I need to check out now, thanks to this thread! Sadly I didn't get out to Borders, but I did download the 2nd movement of Rachmaninoff's 2nd symphony. Spring break's here - I've got shopping to do. *** Rodney, I do believe I know pretty much know exactly what you're talking about. (How's that for an oxymoron?) And I have to agree with you about the Lehar on youtube - that jumped out at me as soon as I started listening to it. I really don't know what produces that sort of melodic effect - whether it's the chord progression, or something about rhythm, or the actual individual sounds of the notes themselves. Sometimes when I'm fiddling around with a melody on the piano, I realize that there have been words playing along in my mind subconsciously based on the notes... like, F# has a "where"-ish sound, G is "don't", B is "plank"...or any other like-sounding word. Perhaps the trick is to model a melody both of the rhythm and literal sound of speech. Tchaikovsky's music is a lot like that, and that's one of the reasons he's my favorite composer - the vitality of his melodies. An EXCELLENT example (and one of my all-time favorite piecesof music) is the Valse from Swan Lake. Also, the Swan Lake "Danse Espagnol" (I think it's from Swan Lake..) and the Nutcracker Pax de Deux. I'm not as familiar with Dvorak as I'd like to be, but check out the Slavonic Dance No. 2 in e minor: Allegretto grazioso (not to be confused with No. 2 in e, Allegretto scherzando, though that one's a jewel, too). I heard that on the radio for the first time a couple of months ago and was transfixed - I believe that's another piece that contains that speaking-melody quality. If it weren't for the instruments, I'd swear a person was singing. To me the first semi-phrase sounds something like, "Then hold me in your arms" or "So what was I to think?". I picture a woman in solitude walking through a garden and it's just evening so the sky's this deep, rich velvet blue and there are stars everywhere. *** Judith, I am DEFINITELY heading to Borders soon. So much good music to hear!! Let's just hope my mom doesn't forbid me to go to the mall because it's Holy Week and I need to be self-sacrificing. *blech* ~Elizabeth

Up until a little while ago, I had only ever encountered the term "rational egoism" within Objectivist writings. I took it to refer to Ayn Rand's particular form of living selfishly, as opposed to the conventional, shallow term of selfishness, i.e., "irrational egoism." Rational egoism, then, would mean: living with the realization of personal values as one's central goal; these values, by their very nature, are based on objectively and permanently improving/maintaining quality of life; these values cannot be pursued (nor can even properly qualify as a true "value") if they violate another person's natural rights (for lack of a better term). This contrasts to Keating-esque "ir"rational egoism, which implies pursuing a goal at whatever cost, even at the price of your own self-esteem. However, recently I discovered, much to my chagrin, that this is not the only definition of rational egoism! Apparently, rational egoism began as a movement in Russia in the 1800's. It emphasized that man not only ought to, but has to live in accordance with what is (or what he perceives to be) in his self-interest. He has to, because living egoistically is the very nature of man; he cannot act in direct contrast to what he thinks is in his self-interest. AS SUCH, (and this is the sticking point). . . man has no free will. He is not completely free, because he does not have the freedom of choosing to destroy himself. (Even suicide can be more beneficial to life than life itself, if, say, the quality of life, should it extend, is so abysmal it can't be tolerated.) (Personally, I found this definition/restriction of free will ridiculous. Will - the action of identifying values and pursuing them - is an intrinsic part of life, not death: it is the process upon which man's survival depends. To say that free will is restricted because one can't will to utterly destroy oneself is to say: "Man cannot survive in ANY way he wants, because man cannot survive by killing himself!" [REALLY?] The key word is "survive" - free will IMPLIES life. It is not "restricted" because man cannot choose to act against will itself because that's not what free will IS; it is merely the instance of choosing between methods of life.) (But the above was beside the point.) The point, basically, is I need a little bit of clarification. Ayn Rand WAS referring to a different type of rational egoism, correct? If so, why did she pick that name, when it already existed?! Are there any other differences between the two concepts? And, in discussion, which is "THE" definition of rational egoism -- Rand's or these crazy Russians'? ~Elizabeth

Judith & Rodney, Thank you, thank you... *bow* I have to say I'm partial to my ending chord, but I understand where Michael's coming from. I think it would sound a lot better and more natural on a real piano. The dynamics and color on the keyboard I have are crazy difficult to control (I don't even have an una corda pedal!), so the more delicate parts pretty much never come out sounding the way I want them to. . . *** Peter & Michael, Of the pieces you listed, I've only heard (and LOVE) Barber's Adagio for Strings. It's the weekend, so I have time to go to Borders and pick up the music you suggested. I'm so excited!!! ~Elizabeth

Jeff is back.....tell a friend.

The one that you pester/persuade enough until he does! ~Elizabeth

Rodney, I would love to hear this music performed by a real orchestra. Any chance of performances/recordings happening? ~Elizabeth

Peter, Thank you so much for your recommendations. I love piano music from that era, and I'll be sure to look into it with more gusto come this summer. I actually performed one of Mendelssohn's Songs. . . (I think? Or was it...?). It was lovely. I look forward to hearing and studying more of them. In terms of popular music's structure, you're absolutely right, a whole crapload of it doesn't fall into the verse-chorus-verse pile -- Yes comes to mind in particular. It's good to know. Sadly they don't play the innovative new music on the radio much. Oh well. *** Michael, About the B2, not to worry! =D I also forgot to ask you something on my first reply - what is a telegraphed climax? *** Victor, Your encouragement and support is just as valuable as Michael's musical advice -- really means a lot to me! And hey, no worries, the only way this fire's going out is if I get mauled in the face by an 18-wheeler. And even then I'm sure I'd find out some way to come back and possess a body until I get my work done. Let's keep the arts thriving! ~Elizabeth

Mine's October 5th. I'm not aware of this being any big date in historical terms, but I read somewhere that it's the most common birthday in the United States. I...it's....*sputter*.....I'm...common??!?!!! :shocked: Other than that, I love autumn, and October's probably my favorite month along with late April/early Mayish. So that's nice. ~Elizabeth