i'm a little depressed on the keep-reading front. the reading is ok; i've found some pretty good books, and have a few more piled up; i even have a WWII habit developing as that is an era that has kind of swallowed me up. yet the reading is tiring, slogging even; the weather is good, and i want to garden and do some other things, and it seems like the reading is tying me down.

it has helped me with my ratings. some of my friends out there in the author world actually buy my books, which is something i rarely do for them, and the actual sales count a lot more than just the reads, which are down to like a third of a penny per page. nobody even counts pennies these days, you find them on the street, even up to quarters, and people aren't concerned about them, they keep asking at the store if they can just keep them and give them to some charity since they're so inconsequential. but i'm a writer, i count third-of-a-pennies, because i badly want someone, anyone, to be reading my work at all times. and i've become so obsessed with that that i no longer produce any work.

the latest thing i produced, almost finished, is a play about a quaker bible that was written in the early 1700's. it came along at just the right time for several reasons. one, i'm bogged down on the story of john leverett, who also lived in the early 1700s, and this gives a different view of that era, an era when people cared a lot about language and began to produce interesting literature. second, it's perfect for a book of quaker plays that now has fox and naylor, but nothing between them and the later eras. and finally, it's up my alley as i'm interested in the art of translation and proper expression of ideas, and it shows a little of the problems in accepting one version of the bible as the absolute truth.

the guy who wrote it, anthony purver, was undoubtedly a quaker, grew up in a quaker community, was taught of the scriptures as one would be taught in the early 1700s. i liked his diligence in trying to get to the bottom of the translations, trying to express everything correctly. apparently his version is scorned by biblical scholars for being indirect and inelegant, but they point out its value in offering a different perspective and explaining why certain language was even then obsolete. he explained everything he did in copious notes about the process of translating. the problem was, people who buy bibles want assurance that it's the absolute truth, not notes on why what you put there is better than another way of putting it. scholars might be wanting to look at it from different angles, but the average bible consumer wants only one very clear angle.

i have two novels that are not quite being finished. of those, the one on texas would be the most fun to market and get out there. i'm getting hungry to market something new as i've been pushing the same-old same old around for a little too long, and i've gotten so into marketing that i've been unable to actually finish anything new. my problem with novels - there's actually a third one too - is that though they are the sexiest, most recognizable, they also need to be well planned. and i've become a little careless with the planning. careless, and just plain impatient with pulling fiction out of the air.

another saturday. i mowed, and now i'm drinking blonde coffee. oh well.