TruTouch Grooming Glove vs Cats Update

You've seen it. You've wondered. Would that rubber glove thingy work on my furry friend?

I found mine in Walgreen's as-seen-on-TV aisle, which is great, because I would never call an 800 number to buy something.

There's a learning curve. It's a larger than normal, rubber-smelling grabby thing where Mom's hand normally is, so patience is a good plan. Leave it out where the cats can smell on it for a while, although, if you have a cat who tends to ferret things, don't leave it out unattended.

Application of the glove requires a bit more pressure than normal petting and that ups the "strange" factor. I've found using both hands can help at the beginning.

The goal, of course, is not to frighten the cat. Cats remember stuff, and they will absolutely remember that the sound of velcro means I'm about to get grabbed and mashed and pulled on. Don't give them reason to fear that memory.

Start small, with a few strokes, to give you both a feel for how this might progress. Toffee was fine with the glove from the first touch. Miss Kitty sees it and preps for attack-mode within minutes (she's not afraid, but she doesn't seem to find it relaxing). Skuttle expects me to pet her for five to seven minutes every morning and even rolls over so I can get both sides.

Skamper doesn't attack, but he did start avoiding me if he thought the glove could be brought into play. For him, the glove will be a specific time and place only, and I might follow it with food for that extra nudge in the right direction. His long hair is the main reason I bought the thing, and I'm determined he will benefit from it.

I have found that the amount of hair removed increases with use. It took several days with Skuttle before I had to clean the glove. Now, I pull hair off the glove every time.

I didn't have a chance to try it with Sweetie, but I suspect it would have gone the same as with Skamper. She didn't fight being brushed, but it wasn't her favorite thing, either.

Pluses: 1) It's rubber, so the static charge issues of a dry house, dry cat, and metal comb don't come into play. I hear the static, but no one is feeling it. 2) It's thick, so even when Miss Kitty or Skamper have had enough and bring the five-point maul strike into play because I missed the signs, I'm not shredded and bleeding. I can calmly remove my intact limb and put the undamaged glove away. 3) I found it at Walgreens, so I didn't have to speak with or give payment information to a telesales representative.

Minuses: It's bulk means its harder to groom "tight spaces" on smaller cats. I can gently grab their tails (which is great because combs just don't go there), but under the chin must proceed with care. Frankly, I can't think of any other complaints, but I went into this with knowledge of my cats and the goal of giving us all time to get used to something new.

In short, I like it. I think it would work best for people who can schedule it into their pet's day rather than grab the glove and go to town because the mood calls, but that probably depends on the pet, too.

Applaud the jellyfish.

Person of Interest

I finally watched the last two seasons of the show, and I do mean the last two seasons, since it was cancelled halfway through season 5. Typical. Shows I like always get cancelled. Perhaps because I don't watch them while they're being created. NBC taught me never to trust a show in production.

I liked this show. A lot. All the way to the end.

Yes, it had many issues, like promoting the idea that bad guys can be completely incapacitated by being shot in the knee, and people regularly survive getting t-boned by large trucks, and there is no limit to how many bullets to the chest you can take without dying. Not to mention being told where to fire by an ASI (artificial super-intelligence) makes you immediately proficient with weapons and a crack shot to boot.

But... It was ultimately a show about redemption. How people who made bad choices can learn to make better choices. How self-sacrifice is contagious. How violence is never the answer. Actually, the show wanted to teach that, but even Finch picked up arms at the end, so sometimes violence is the only answer.

Produced by JJ Abrams, PoI didn't have many of his trademark themes, other than true love is eternal. Perhaps because it was mostly written by Jonathan Nolan, of Batman Begins fame. The show was more about lost love, lost chances, and the triumph of good over evil through ultimate sacrifices.

Harold Finch is absolutely my favorite character, but, by the end, Lionel was second. He came the farthest, I think, of all of them.

Unlike Lost, this show had an ending ready to go for when the studios pulled the plug, and I will be forever grateful. The ending was bittersweet, like the show, but I was satisfied. I'm sorry they went out, but I'm glad they went out on top.

I look forward to the next Michael Emerson project.

Applaud the jellyfish.

The Power by Frank M. Robinson

I haven't coughed in 3 days. Last night, I start coughing again. Back to hot honey and lemon juice, which are not doing my teeth any favors, let me tell you.

I watched The Power with George Hamilton and Suzanne Pleshette as a child. IMDB says it came out in 1968 (before I was born) so I probably saw it on HBO sometime in the early 80s in my preteen years. I have a vague memory of writing fanfic about it, although that might be mixing it up with Scanners, another telekinetic thriller that left an impression and an obsession with movies starring Michael Ironside. I was young enough not to notice the movie was based on a book.

Amazon now sells The Power as a DVD, so in my very recent rewatch, I learned about the book. Amazon also provided a dealer of the unrevised 1957 version so I didn't have to cope with the "updated" 90s version that has come out since. The reviews were disappointed in that one, and preferred the original.

I hate revised books, btw, even when its the author's idea. You published; it's out there. Cope by writing another book if you're that unhappy.

Normally, I like the version I encounter first. If it's the book, I like the book better. If it's the movie, I like the movie better. I'm torn on this one.

I liked the book a lot. It was tense, dark, logical and tightly written. I didn't mind where the movie varied. Some made a lot of sense - the removal of Marge as a companion, for one, which added to the tension. Even knowing how I expected it to end didn't make it boring, because there were enough differences I wasn't sure it would end the same.

It didn't. It ended as most early scifi ends, on a sour note.

I like the movie ending better. I suspect, in the future, I will treat it as William Goldman treated the end of The Princess Bride as read by his father. Don't know what that means? Read the book. It's good, and the movie makes a lot more sense after.

I have two other gripes. First, the protagonist is "Jim" in the movie and "Bill" in the book. I have no idea why, and it annoys me when names get changed for no obvious reason. Maybe George didn't want to play a "Bill." Second, a tendency to run-on sentences. Should I read it again, I may just add a few semicolons in my copy.

Those are small, very personal gripes about what was otherwise an interesting adventure, so I give the book 5 stars.

Applaud the jellyfish.

Spoiler: A dog is killed in this book. Normally, that would make me close the cover, pitch it in the trash and never think on it again, but, frankly, I could see it coming, it wasn't dwelt on, and it didn't seem to be thrown in just to get me upset. I've moved on with my life, but I'll understand if that's too much for you.

A Lost Detour

I just finished bingewatching Lost for the first time, mostly because I tend to like Bad Robot productions. I have a few observations.

The show is aptly named. Nobody knew what was going on most of the time. Especially the writers.

Sad eyes and wistful smile aside, Kate is the most selfish and fickle person on the show. Whoever she ended up with would lose.

I've never seen a show improve so much with the deaths of three characters: Boone, Shannon and Michael. It became positively likable once they were out of the picture.

The most consistently poor decision-maker and Expert Victim status is a coin toss between Michael and John Locke.

Almost all of the drama of seasons one and two were people failing to ask Sawyer nicely for something. It was a physical relief when an actual villain showed up in season three.

TWD's The Governor remains my most hated TV villain, but he walks arm-around-shoulder with Ben Linus.

This is the only show I can think of where the show itself is a character.

I'm guessing Claire disappeared because Emilie de Ravin got pregnant and took time off from her fictional baby. Ironic.

If this were a video game, the only character with a chance of winning is Sayid.

Hurley is proof that humorous sincerity is the hippie-ride of life, taking you where you need to go and occasionally smashing through human roadblocks.

In the dead of Kansas winter, I would rather watch Hawaii-based Lost than New York-based Person of Interest, even though I like POI more overall.

Push button. Receive bacon.

Why I Love the Writers of Sherlock

Last Monday, I crowed about the return of my Boy of the BBC, Sherlock Holmes. Yes, I was also pleased to see John Watson. In fact, I ended up in John's corner by the end of that post.

If you've watched episode two of season three, you might think the writers listened to me. That's impossible, of course. These movies were written, shot and produced months ago. The writers would have to be precognizant to know my gripes.

That's why they're good writers. They understood Sherlock was heading down the impossible-to-love path of the true jerk, and yanked him back to the high road. Not so high that we forget who he is, but high enough to see John means something to him. High enough to believe he may have a notion of how wrong his behavior was and wants to make amends for it. This momentary outpouring of sentiment won't last, but his gesture of goodwill refills our well of loyalty to the high-functioning sociopath (did you see that smile during the usher interview? I shuddered even as I laughed hard enough to disturb the cat).

I'm also pleased the writers have chosen not to put Sherlock and Mary in opposition. It would have been an easy route to take with plenty of drama, but ultimately it would have torn the original friendship apart, and what is Holmes without Watson? A dickhead, as John so succinctly put it.

Anyway, I'm thrilled. The Circle of Three is officially my new favorite episode, replacing Scandal in Belgravia, which has held the title for seven movies.

Happy Monday, dear readers. May a beautiful friendship warm your heart on this ridiculously cold mid-Winter day.

Sherlock Returns

I'm hoping to avoid spoilers for those who haven't seen Season Three, Episode 1 of the BBC's reboot of the Sherlock Holmes franchise, but smart people will figure it out anyway, so read at your own risk.

According to the show mythology, it's been two years since Sherlock plunged from the top of St. Bart's. Has it really been that long?

I've lost track of time. The span between my sociopathic detective's jump and the airing of The Empty Hearse, was, for me, an eternity of slow-burning anxiety that one or both stars (or God-forbid, the writers) would die pursuing other projects, and I'd never know for sure if or how Sherlock survived.

TT: It might be argued that Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman exposing themselves on other projects was good sense for their acting careers, but it should not be argued in front of me as it could result in a serious throat injury. I boycotted Firefly because it pulled Joss Whedon away from Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel and all three died as a result. My loyalty is fierce, but it must be reciprocated. It could also be argued that neither the presence of BC nor the direction of J.J. Abrams could save Star Trek: Into Darkness from a fatal case of the utterly predictable, so BC should have stayed at Baker Street where his snark makes me happy. As I am boycotting The Hobbit for numerous reasons, including the delay in new Sherlock episodes, I won't comment on the wisdom of MF's decision.

Back to Sherlock.

I haven't decided if the writers cheated. This is a huge issue for me. My suspension of disbelief is well-exercised, and I can give a lot of slack to those who have appeased me in the past, but they walked that line pretty close last night. Was the truth revealed? It was plausible, but hardly satisfying. I don't mind the writers not telling me the truth (yet), as long as a truth exists (and I hear it eventually). I find the current solution rather machina ex deus, and not at all as big a role for Molly Hooper as I was led to expect (an expectation that remains possible considering Sherlock's treatment of her on his return). In short, I'm not convinced I've been given all the facts, and I'm really hoping I'm right.

TT: I am thrilled the first explanation was not all it seemed, 'cause I was ready to turn the TV off.

I must also say, as much as I love the self-absorbed Sherlock, the last three episodes have turned John from a friend and confidant to a whipping boy and lab rat. I am an extremely loyal friend, but even I have a limit of how much crap I will take before severing ties (with a complete and utter finality that earned me the name "Queen of Cut Off" in therapy class). Secretly dosing me with a fear-inducing drug to test your hypothesis, treating me like a second-rate citizen when I'm the only person who believes you, and, finally, hiding your actual "not-deadness" for two years because my grief is what makes the whole illusion real is crossing the line of acceptable friend behavior, even for a self-diagnosed sociopath.

Writers, restore some of John's dignity and worth in Sherlock's esteem, or you will lose me. You have two episodes.

Maybe three. I'm pretty loyal.

The Hero's Lot by Patrick Carr

Liking A Cast of Stones as much as I did, I bought A Hero's Lot (on sale for $6.99 at the time - woohoo) and jumped right in when I finished book one.

It has what I call "second book problems." Usually, an author's first book has the snot polished out of it for years and years before publication. Book two may be started but it's rarely finished until book one comes out and then it's rushed into the market to take advantage of the excitement book one caused. This means book two hasn't had the snot polished out of it and the rough edges show.

The author tried some new stuff and good on him for doing so. He split the storyline into two viewpoints and made it a zipper book (where they all start out together, split apart and then zip back together to conclude). He increased the number of companions around both and juggled giving everyone reasonable face time and depth. He raised the stakes on main protagonist and gave him a seemingly impossible task. All good. All perfectly acceptable things to do in a second book.

Then, I'm guessing with outline in hand and word count goal in front of him, he started writing, checked for spelling errors and handed in his manuscript.

OK, that's harsh, but this reads like a really good second draft to me. If he'd let it sit for six months, he would have opened it up and seen all the little issues that add up to big problems I saw when I read it, fixed those and had another four or possibly five star book on his hands. 

It all boiled down to uneven pacing. Things that needed more description didn't get it; things that didn't need it got it. The action dragged in the wrong places and skimmed in the wrong places. "The big reveal" was harped on for several chapters instead of planted throughout, which made it fall flat for me. Too many extremely unlikely coincidences cropped up, more than the ones the author noticed and tried to explain away to me the reader (big no-no, btw. I'm a smart girl. Don't tell me how to think). One example: the two swords of amazing craftsmanship and value just happen to end up in the arena for Errol "the slave" to use instead of being stashed in the prince's vault. Please. The climax was over almost before it started. I didn't cry once, which I should have, 'cause there were a couple of things that should have been touching but weren't.

Had the author let it sit for a while, I have no doubt he would fixed these issues mostly by sprinkling better plants (clues) into the manuscript instead of punching me in the face with them all at once. He did fine in A Cast of Stones.

I could be completely wrong. A Hero's Lot might have sat on a shelf for two years before he pulled it out to give to the publisher. In that case, I have no explanation for the pacing issues in this book other than some major life event distracting him.

Anyway, I give it 3 buttercups because I liked it, it's still a good book, and I will buy the last. Every new author has to find his stride between one book-two-books-multiple books written. He's published twice, hopefully learned both times and has the chance to apply that knowledge in book three.

Happy Friday, dear readers. I'm ready for the weekend.

A Cast of Stones by Patrick Carr

It started as a friendly dare on Mike Duran's blog by Rebecca Luella Miller. It morphed into an itty bitty sensation as the chosen book turned out to be free on Kindle that week (I'm curious if there's been any impact on sales of book two, Hero's Lot).

I was reading Anna and the Dragon at the time, so I didn't start A Cast of Stones until two weeks ago. Here's the short version: I really liked it. Anymore, I like any book that holds my attention and makes me want to keep reading to find out what happens next.

I wasn't sure I would. I read Katherine Coble's review and she had a few issues with it - number one in my brain being lack of description. I hate that. However, I read on and by the time Errol is slipping and falling his hungover way through a series of waterfalls called The Cripples, I was hooked.

This story reminds me of Dragondrums by Anne McCaffrey crossed with Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. A coming of age survival story with plenty of action without a lot of romantic entanglements (not yet, anyway). I did not notice any particular lack of description, so I guess he instinctively told me what I wanted to know.

Mike Duran says A Cast of Stones doesn't come close to Name of the Wind, but that's like saying a painting hanging in an Italian gallery doesn't come close to a Rembrandt. Doesn't make them bad paintings. Just means they aren't Rembrandt. The writing style was clear, easy to read and well-paced. The story didn't leave me as emotionally exhausted as Name of the Wind, either, which I appreciated.

I loved that Errol's weapon of choice is the staff, and I love the description that surrounds his use of it. Don't see many staff-wielding main characters, but I want to see more of them now. Nicely done.

The lots are an interesting idea, especially how they're divorced from faith in God. The church uses (monopolizes?) them but the ability seems a generic talent some people have. It's a complex concept that seems consistent within the world view so far. Nicely done.

The folks in the story are different people, too. When the cast includes many supporting characters, it's important they all have something unique to add to the story. Nicely done.

In short, I found more than enough interest and action to pull me through the whole book without any "oh, come on!" moments and buy book two when I reached the end. The ending wasn't as cliff-hanger-y as some series I've read and had book two not been available, I would have been OK emotionally until it was.

I'd give it 4 buttercups because I really liked it, although not enough to buy the paper book. We'll see if how the series ends changes that decision. 

I finished book two, Hero's Lot, last night, so I'll probably talk about that tomorrow.

Happy Thursday, dear readers. Find a good book and take 'er out for a spin today.

Anna and the Dragon...and Spaghetti

I know, I promised a zucchini recipe, but this is way more important. Although, not as delicious. I'll put the recipe at the bottom.

I finished Anna and the Dragon last night just before 10 PM. This is remarkable only because I started reading it Sunday afternoon. No, it isn't a small book. It's just so darn compelling I had to finish it. I even took two breaks during work yesterday (something we're encouraged to do but I rarely do) so I could read at work.

This is a book about an antisocial woman who wears clunky boots, forgets to eat and shows interest in people only when they're part of her research. How could I not like it? Then she falls for an ill-kempt Welsh rogue? Please. How could I not like this book? Add a kilt, and I've written it. Not really. That's about it for similarities, although there is one part where she's looking up at this black "arch" that reminded me... well, I won't go into that.

It's set in Oregon and Oregon is a character in its own right. I can smell the gloomy, green damp and the salt water and the cold. Excellent! The health food store became the Health Food Mart I frequent (minus the deli and coffee bar - guess those are standard in Oregon). That tiny apartment with its card table could have been the tiny apartment I rented in grad school.

The publisher is CreateSpace, which I think means she did it herself. Well, she's a better editor than most because I didn't notice a single typo. Can't say that about many books these days, my own included. The best compliment I can give her is "it reads like a real book." Which also means there's some adult situations and cussing but not nearly as much as I get standing in the checkout line at Walmart, so don't let that stop you.

Since I don't know the author yet (we've FB Friended but what does that really say about a person?), my anxiety was higher than normal. Would I like the ending? Would all the suffering be worth it? Would the cat survive?! You can't always tell with these spec fic authors. Some of them enjoy tragedy as object lessons. That last page was a sigh of relief, I'm telling ya.

I gave it 5 stars. That's a first for me with a living author,* 'cause my realist self says they could always write a better book and where do you go from "up"? The best part is the price. $2.99! You can buy the book and a multi-grain vegan sandwich to go with it like a real Oregonian.

Most importantly, Ginger survives the book.

If you can't tell, I liked it. A lot.

*Turns out it's not a first for me. The first was Odd Little Miracles by Fred Warren and I've handed out a few since then. Apparently, early dementia afflicts the Turtle. Sorry. 

And now the recipe I made in-between reading sessions and ate while reading:

Spaghetti with Zucchini and Garlic

2 sm to med zucchini, shredded large

¼ cp extra-virgin olive oil (4 turns on the pan)

4 cloves garlic, chopped

Salt and pepper

(Basil pesto if you have access to such)

1 lb spaghetti, al dente

½ cp grated parmasiano or romano

 

Over medium heat, add olive oil and shredded zucchini.

Season with salt and pepper.

Cook zucchini 7 – 10 minutes. Add garlic (and basil pesto, if desired) in the last two minutes to avoid burning the garlic.

Add hot, drained pasta to the pan.

Toss spaghetti with zucchini and add handfuls of grated cheese. Adjust seasoning and serve.

Cowboys and Aliens - a chick flick?

I hoped I would enjoy this movie from the first preview. Daniel Craig? Check. Harrison Ford? Check. Yes, it could be B or worse, but those two stars have a pretty good track record for picking winners.
Aliens attacking a small town in the Old West? Check. Olivia Wilde? Who cares? I stopped watching House when she joined. I assumed she was more window-dressing for the men-folk, as if they would need it with all the explosions and bullets.

Learning Jon Favreau directed edged my expectations up a notch. I tend to like his projects. Sitting in the theater and seeing Clancy Brown listed in the credits was buttercream frosting.

And I loved it. Yes, I could pick it apart for all the plot inconsistencies, doctrinal differences and sappy just-desserts-for-everybody-ness of it, but I won't. 'Cause I liked it. Daniel Craig deserves an Oscar just for his accent.

The funny thing is, I'm getting the impression the women viewers may like it more than the men. Does that make sense? It has the iconic male necessities for a popular movie, but most of the guys I talk put on their grimaces and make noises that sound like corny and cheesy and unrealistic.

Really? Aliens attacking a small town in the Old West is unrealistic? And giant robots with a secret base on the moon is a day in the life?

Since this is my blog, here's my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

The big box office draws nowadays are men behaving like emotionally stunted 10 year olds. The Hangover I and II ring any bells? Movies whose names didn't register because I couldn't fathom the sheer immaturity involved in just the previews. And it's migrating over the girls, too, as Bridesmaids showed.

Cowboys and Aliens shows men being responsible men. Men risking their lives to save their families. That's why today's men don't like it. Today's men haven't been taught that sense of responsibility because today's women think men are unnecessary except as sperm donors. Since today's women are currently running the world, they may be right.

It's too bad. I learned I prefer my men tough and stubbly and ready to shoot or stab or punch their way out of situations, especially situations involving ruthless, locust-like aliens. Judging by the female audience response, I'm not alone in my preference.

So, let's stop feminizing our men, shall we, ladies? Let them spit and scratch and stab things in the eye. We'll need that when the aliens come back in the sequel.

Worldbuilders

What do I think of Robert Jordan?

Find out at The New Authors' Fellowship.

Just so you know, I'm not the only author to post there. Feel free to stop by daily and see what's up.

The Drowsy Chaperone

Music and lyrics by Lisa Lambert and Greg Morrison. Book by Bob Martin and Don McKeller.
Presented by Topeka High School.

Two hours of yesterday were spent watching My Lamb light up the stage as "Kitty, the dizzy chorus girl." This is her fourth role as a ditz, and she's concerned about type-casting.

I say she gets the roles because she brings a charm not usually seen to stupid. Her characters are adorably stupid. There is a difference.

TT: The Flash was backstage, and unseen, but that's how it's supposed to work for crew. I am willing to maintain she also did a great job.

I've watched many of these players since 4th grade. I am happy to report their talent has increased with their size.

This play is billed as a "musical within a comedy."

It was funny. It had songs. I did laugh. A lot. I got a little tired of laughing, frankly.

The whole thing was deliberately larger-than-life and goofier than even stage reality. A bit like Ballroom Dancing. Or Hero, Second-Class.

It was an "A" mockery of a non-existent "B," possibly "C," play. The funniest parts are when the modern day narrator points out the deeply insulting treatment of theater starlets, alcoholics, old people, Latin lovers and gangsters. 

TT: At one point, mom leaned over and said of the gangsters, "They dance very well."

Naturally leading to my quoted response from The Beautician and The Beast when the son is asked for his assessment of West Side Story: "I'd heard of the gang problems in New York. I just didn't realize they were so proficient in ballet."

A few times the author (through the narrator) intruded with his own pain and angst about divorce and possibly being gay. Those were not funny parts, although the young man playing "Man in Chair" performed them very well.

What's a Broadway musical without a little angst? Oi.

"Man in Chair" says a prayer in the beginning about "Please God, don't let them leave the stage and show up in the audience. Please let the time go quickly. Please don't let me regret being here." Those kinds of things. I need My Lamb to write the words down for me. I may start taking it to all future plays to recite before the curtain goes up. I'm not the theater-buff in the family.

No one came out of the audience. Time did go quickly. I did not regret being there.

Thank you, Lord.

Crimes of the Heart, a Review

My Lamb is something of a drama queen. She has focused her natural inclinations toward the theater. Her father and mother, being sympathetic to thespians in general, have allowed this and thus I have attended two plays a year since sixth grade. I think that's when she started getting roles.

I'm almost certain her first play was The Princess and the Pea, and watching her flopping around on the six foot bed frame (built by her father and possibly anchored in concrete to assure safety) may be the funniest intentional thing I've ever seen her do. I've seen lots of unintentional funny, but I won't embarrass her without good reason. I'm Mean Aunt Robynn, not Cruel Aunt Robynn.

Of her high school plays, this is the second least offensive I've seen, the first being Disney's Beauty and the Beast in her freshman year where she played Chip. A lot of "face" time but not a lot of "exposure." Hehe!

This was a play about attempted manslaughter, adultery and high-risk behavior set in Mississippi in 1974. I don't know how they pick these plays. Level of drama, I suppose.

The good messages of the play were devotion to family, perseverance in the face of insurmountable odds and the benefits of learning the saxophone. My Lamb doesn't play the sax, so I'm doubly thankful we had only to listen to a few notes of that.

This was a play where the audience was seated on stage. Elder Brother scouted the best spots and we were up front and personal as a cousin changed pantyhose right in front of us. I haven't worn hose in 11 years and this reminded me why that is.

I forgot I was on stage as the story unfolded. At one point, I blurted out the next line in shock and dismay (it dealt with the composition of a box of chocolates, and I am excessively attentive to those sorts of things). They ignored me and moved on.

These are some talented actors and actresses, and the story ended well, which took me by surprise. Most such stories do not. The biggest issue was getting Kansas city kids to sound like deep-south Mississippians. Perhaps unknown to most people, Kansans do not generally have a southern drawl. We're more prone to bad grammar than unintelligible accents.

I had a moment of panic when I thought My Lamb was going to kiss someone. She bounces about in pigtails for all she's 16 now, and I was poised to jump up and slap her and the offending youth. Fortunately, it was not necessary.

In short, one of the more enjoyable evenings of theater. It wasn't Cats, but I did tear up during the monologue about why the yellow cat was hanged and not just for the cat's sake.

Well done, My Lamb.

Masters of the Craft: C.S. Lewis

Readers of non-fiction appreciate Lewis for his amazing defense of the Christian faith. How a human was able to boil difficult spiritual concepts into understandable, applicable bites without divine inspiration is a mystery to me.

His fiction is the same way. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is a very tiny book. Hold it next to any of the Harry Potter series and you will see what I mean. In fact, all seven of the Narnia books don't add up page-wise to anything JK Rowling did after her first book.

For such a tiny book, though, Lewis packs a real punch. He explores issues of truth, evil, ambition, selfishness, sacrifice and redemption, and he does it all writing to an audience of children. Those books are intended for children to read.

What's more important to me is that his conclusions are Biblical. Selfishness is destructive. Forgiveness is better than resentment. The right sacrifice can make all the difference to the world. Such difficult concepts, yet written in a simple, interesting way that a child can absorb.

To me, the most amazing part is his treatment of Aslan. I don't know if you've tried to write dialogue for God, but it isn't easy. I don't know why God does what He does most of the time. How presumptuous do I have to be to put words in His mouth in my stories? Yet I do not argue with Aslan. Everything he says and does seems very much like what Jesus would say or do if He were there.

Lewis claims he never intended for Aslan to be the picture of Jesus that he has become to his readers. If that is the case, Lewis is an even more amazing writer.

Such simple stories, simply told, yet read and cherished generations after publication. Honest, respectful stories by a man whose heart and mind were given completely to God that continue to inspire.

It is a goal, perhaps an unattainable goal, but what use is a goal too easy to reach?

Have you read a fiction book by C.S. Lewis? What lesson did you learn? What character did you love best and why?