I'm participating in National Novel Writing Month. Are you?



I want to start a community of people who are going to try this year.

Labels: nanowrimo, writing

( 4comments )

at October 31, 2007 2:13 PM  Natalia said...

Hmmmm... so what's the deal on this? Give me some info. :) I'd love to participate. But why oh why does it have to be in November? Couldn't they have picked September or October... then again, I don't know if there really is an ideal month. There's always SOMETHING going on.

 

at October 31, 2007 2:22 PM  Jilly said...

NaNoWriMo is National Novel Writing Month. You're given 30 days to try to write 50,000 words. I've never succeeded myself. The most I've ever done is about 15,000 words--and that was 10,000 on one story and 5,000 on another. Other than an icon indicating that you've successfully written 50,000 words, and the self-satisfaction that comes along with having completed a novel, there are no prizes. There are a surprising number of people who actually DO complete this every year. I'm always surprised. And some people who complete NaNOWriMo go on to publish those novels. (I have no idea how they do that, though.)

 

at October 31, 2007 9:48 PM  Natalia said...

I have a strange question that you might actually be able to answer, but how does one prevent people from just stealing the novel that you post? I am always paranoid about these sorts of things!

 

at November 2, 2007 1:15 AM  ish said...

You don't have to post any of it, Natalia. So there's no preventing required. You just write on your own.

I am also a persistent "non-winner" at Nano, and I've decided against it this year because this year is just a bit too insane, and because past efforts have inflated my list of unfinished novel efforts to 7, and I'd really like to just finish one rather than continue coming up with new ideas.

I would recommend anyone who hasn't done it yet to do so though, just to experience the fun, torture and insanity of it all.

 

After years of wanting a tattoo, and months after booking my initial appointment back in August, I finally got mine tonight, and I couldn't be happier. I had seen a couple people whose tattoos I thought were really beautiful, and when I asked them who did their work, they told me, "Captain Dave at Studio City Tattoo." So I decided that that's where I needed to go. But when I first went in, Captain Dave wasn't there and so I looked at the books and chose a guy named Mark, who was also very good, but, to be honest, his personality was, I don't know, I just didn't feel that connection to him that I usually feel with people who are going to be important to me. I was excited about my tattoo, I was excited about Mark's talent, but I wasn't exactly thrilled that Mark was going to be doing it, because I had always pictured in my mind that I'd like the person doing the tattoo, and while Mark's work was superb (and actually kinda famous), I wasn't necessarily excited about having my first tattoo experience be with him. It was August, and I booked the next available appointment which was October 11th (which meant leaving a $100 deposit).

When I showed up, I was told that Mark had parted ways from the shop, and although it was an amicable parting, he still took his deposits with him. When I showed up, Captain Dave was actually there and so it turned out the way it was meant to be anyway: I got to reschedule my appointment with him instead. I was ecstatic because he was the person I had originally gone to see anyway.

Dave is amazing. The tattoo is beautiful, and I really like him as an artist but also as a person. We had a great conversation--and it turns out that we have essentially all the same interests: horror movies (particularly zombie and slasher flicks), comic books, video games. Even our pasts and families are very similar. It just felt like it all worked out cosmically.

I've been wanting a large back piece for six years, ever since in 2001 I learned about Japanese horimono, but I never really knew what it'd be of, or, what story it would tell. But now that I know Dave, I'm going to collaborate with him on it.



What's my tattoo of? It's of an iris. it's inspired by the Van Gogh painting, Irises, 1889. It used to be the loneliest painting I had ever seen. The white iris is alone in the midst of a crowd of purple. There are a couple irises that have hints of white, only to turn out purple. Every time I go to the Getty and look at this painting, I see something different, and the last time I went, I finally saw strength in the white iris. It's strong because it's individual and unapologetically white in a sea of purple.

I've been struggling with my writing ever since I got into grad school. I think the workshops have fucked me up--not because the workshops were fucked up, but because I was seriously fucked up. I wasn't writing for me. I was writing to fulfill that need, that thirst, that craving for approval. I think I was addicted to it the way my brother is addicted to pot: it's not about getting high or getting mellow, it's about maintaining. It's about getting high to function because it's become a bodily process. I think that's the way I was with approval. And when I started to get approval from my writing in the college classes I took (both in high school and at the various universities I attended), or when I got accepted to exclusive writing programs, or won scholarships because of my writing, my creativity got entangled with my craving for approval. And I wasn't writing for myself anymore. I was writing for an audience. I was trying to be purple.

I'm tired of not being true to myself. So the tattoo is symbolic of this shift in my life, not just in the symbol of the iris itself, but also the act of getting tattooed. I mean, sure, I'm glad I didn't get a Marvin the Martian tattoo when I was 18. I wasn't serious about it anyway, I said it more or less to tease my mom. But my entire life as an adult so far, I've been too afraid to get a tattoo because I've been so wrapped up in worrying about disappointing my mom or B or whatever.

I need to embrace the fact that I'm alone in a sea purple. And maybe that's not such a lonely place to be, because I can't be true to anyone else until I'm true to myself first.

Labels: captain dave, iris, los angeles, real life, studio city tattoo, tattoo

( 2comments )

at October 29, 2007 11:54 AM  Natalia said...

You truly do have a beautiful way with words, Jilly. Your posts are always so insightful and gorgeous. I know what you mean about writing for an audience.

Where did you get the tatoo? I bet it's pretty! I love the symbolism behind your choice.

 

at October 30, 2007 11:41 PM  Jilly said...

It's on my chest. I'll take a picture when it heals.

 

Read about how J. K. Rowling announced it in Carnegie Hall.

 “‘DUMBLEDORE IS GAY’ is quite a headline to stumble upon on a Friday evening, and it’s certainly not what I expected,” added Potter fan Patrick Ross, of Rutherford, N.J. “(But) a gay character in the most popular series in the world is a big step for Jo Rowling and for gay rights.”

 I'm not sure how to feel about this. On the one hand, I love that Dumbledore is gay and that it had the potential to be everything the article claims ("a big step," "wonderful strides")... but what disturbs me is this: that nothing in the Harry Potter Universe indicated Dumbledore was gay other than J. K. Rowling announcing it.

Potter readers had speculated about Dumbledore, noting that he has no close relationship with women and a mysterious, troubled past.

I feel like J. K. Rowling (if this was, indeed, an intentional move conceived long ago in Book One) was too afraid to write anything that would indicate that Dumbledore was gay for fear of alienating readers and creating what would ultimately be perceived as an "unhealthy" bond between Harry and Dumbledore. But now that the series is completed, it's okay to come out of the closet. I feel like it's a cop out, to be honest. And I don't feel like this sends that positive of a message about homosexuality--yes, Dumbledore is a gentle, patient, wise, respected and beloved character, but what message is this text now sending about homosexuality? That you cannot truly be yourself until the end of life, until the end of a series? That your lifestyle has to be guarded like Dumbledore's many well-kept secrets?

This summer, in my Victorian literature class, we were talking about Sarah Water's Fingersmith and queer theory. Professor Tongson brought up the concept of shame being a component of queer theory. Now, I can't think of any text that better highlights this idea than the Harry Potter books. This makes me sad--but an idea just occurred to me: what if this means, finally, we have a character who is a fully realized, three-dimensional character and not a caricature, in a mainstream text that just happens to be gay? Is this a good or bad thing? I can see it being a positive because it takes the emphasis away from sexuality and we get to experience Dumbledore without labels. But I can see it being a negative because it sends the message that you cannot fully be free to express yourself.

I feel very conflicted about this.

Labels: harry potter, literary analysis, news, queerness

( 3comments )

at October 22, 2007 4:30 PM  Lorie said...

I thought Coell from my LJ friends list had some good thoughts on the issue.

I'm not sure where I fall in thinking about it either. It's kind of cool that she could think of Dumbledore being gay, and say it so casually and matter-of-factly. Like it was such a given and no big deal - not even worth mentioning. But then she also seems to be taking the coward's way out, saying it now. She can get her applause for it, but that "troublesome" issue of homosexuality will stay far away from her actual books.

 

at October 22, 2007 5:18 PM  Jillydreadful said...

Thanks for the link... A brief aside: I envy that blog's readers because people disagree but don't sling namecalling around, unless directed at cunty J. K. Rowling. I wish people who disagreed with what I said were more like that.

Anyway...

The heteronormativity always irked me. Like, I wondered if Draco was gay, because he let Pansy Parkinson pet his hair but he never out-an-out dated a chick. But then in the epilouge, everyone is straight, even Draco, and the species has properly propagated itself. Another brief aside: I honestly don't think the epilouge was necessary. It read as if J. K. Rowling was writing her own fan fiction, to be honest.

Anyway, yeah, the heteronormativity... that's the thing about the Harry Potter series in the end, though, right? That all THOSE opposite-sex-couples are mentioned but the non-normative ones either aren't mentioned (Dumbledore) or don't work out (Hagrid/Maxine=unrequited, Remus/Tonks=dead).

Blah. I wonder if it's just a ploy on her end to get more book sales by saying Dumbledore is gay--because now there will be people who weren't interested in the series who will read it now for either: 1) decoding the would-be spectacle or 2) solidifying Harry Potter as a worthy text for academic scholarship.

Any way you shape it, J. K. comes out cunty.

 

at October 25, 2007 4:40 PM  Natalia said...

I like your commentary, but I wonder if you're right about people reading it who were not into it before in order to "solidify" HP as a "worthy text for academic scholarship." I feel like HP will definitely be analyzed as a text in English Departments in the future (kind of like how we read 19th and 20th century popular fiction), but I don't know if that really has anything to do with Dumbledore's orientation.

But then again, what do I know? :)

 

I've been out of breath all day. It's literally hard to breathe. I can't get a deep lungful of air. I almost passed out today just sitting on the couch.

Labels: health

( 1comments )

at October 18, 2007 6:00 PM  Natalia said...

J! I hope you get a chance to catch your breath! I worry about you! The schedule you have right now really sucks. Is there anything you can drop, so you can catch your breath both literally and figuratively?

My only advice to you is to make sure that you do spend enough time with B. and that you do spend enough time on yourself. At least you're watching tv for fun. Consider adding manga into your fun time. Manga and graphic novels were the only things that kept me sane last semester. And if you want to get rid of some of the costs, just check them out from the public library. Seriously, you will find it fun and then, who knows, you might even come across a title or two you might one day want to write about...although that doesn't really matter because you should be doing this for fun, not school.

I hope that helps!!! Feel free to let me know if there's anything I can do to help you out!

 

I haven't come up for air lately. I'm taking three writing classes, teaching freshmen how to think for themselves and then write that shit down, and coordinating the section I teach. Combined, it's a lot of pressure to be brilliant and creative nearly every day. This week I had/have a submission due in every class--except for my fiction workshop where I had a submission and a completely worthless essay on Lydia Davis, Ellen Gilchrist and Isabel Huggan, too. I have no time for a real life. I think my hobbies used to be: playing video games; reading novels, comic books and manga; sewing; painting; web designing; biking. I don't have time to read anything that isn't mandatory, like student papers or peer submissions or the novels/short stories for my various classes. We haven't had a board game party in ages (I cannot anticipate when the next one will be). Tonight I am only posting because I am: 1) Still awake and 2) Still have the energy to post. This is due to the fact that I canceled the class I teach this morning and thus only had a half day at 6 hours instead of the usual 12-Hour-Tuesday. I feel positively refreshed.

The only thing I do anymore besides schoolwork (and I use the term loosely to encompass my writerly training as well as my pedagogy) is watch TV. In a strange way, watching TV is the only hobby that's pretty much guilt-free.

I allow myself to watch TV to relax my mind (I wish), and I can take TV in chunks or doses. If I need a breather, I watch a DVRed episode of Futurama. If I need a longer break, I watch America's Next Top Model or Charmed--sometimes I nap, sometimes I'm not paying attention at all. I save the important shows like Damages, Pushing Daisies, Heroes (and the Netflix arrivals of the TV series: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and My Name Is Earl) to watch with Brad at night while we're eating dinner. But the episodes always work like timers for me. When the episode is done, I know it's time to get back to writing, grading, creating the next assignment for my students, planning the teaching schedule for the next three weeks or whatever. Even hanging out with my husband makes me feel guilty because there's always something else I should be doing.

On a not-completely-unrelated-note (it will seem unrelated, but I pretty sure I'll find a way to tie it back in to the above), I was reading A Day of Reckoning for Gen-Yers: Narcissists in Neverland. I have since learned that people as old as 30 down to my age are apparently part of Generation Y (I thought we were part of Generation X, but whatever), however, this is not the first time I have heard about people my age still livin' at home, moochin' off their parents, "30 is the new 20" rhetoric. What makes me optimistic about my generation is that more people (73% actually, apparently according to Newsweek) say they would rather do what they love than work for money. I love that. I love that the people I've grown up with and who will one day lead the free world with me are the kind of people who value a life rather money. That's fantastic. We're all livin' the Sesame Street dream.

But there's something that kind of... I don't know... pisses me off about this whole subject, too.

For instance, there's B's sister, age 30 (so a fellow Gen-Yer). She had a baby July 31, 2006. She was pregnant again somewhere in the February range (this goes to show how much I am going out of my way not to care because I think she's ready to pop at any time, I just don't know if that popping is meant to happen this month or next month or December). Do I care that she's pregnant again so soon as after her first child? No. Do I care that they still don't have a house, even though I know they made about $15,000 off their wedding gifts in checks alone and housing prices in Michigan are dirt cheap, and they're still living in an apartment smaller than my current apartment? Kinda. Do I care that she got pregnant again when her husband was laid off from his job, but they refused to take their baby out of the $1000 childcare because there's a waiting list even though the dad was home? Yes. Do I care that B's parents were "helping them out a lot this year"? Oh dear god, yes.

Why is this any of my business? Because B's parents help them out. A lot. They bought them a brand new car this year (that's why they got B and I a Wii for our birthdays--which bothers me a lot and probably not for the reason you are thinking). B's parents even make the payments for that car. When B and I were struggling in Maryland with no friends and no family, his parents helped us with a down payment for the car, but they didn't buy it for us. Dare I say it: they treated us like adults--and we were only 21 and 23 at the time. B's sister is 30 and her husband is 35.

And the reason why getting a Wii bugged me? No, it's not because it wasn't a car. It was because, for some reason, B's parents feel as though they need to make some kind of balanced extension of financial funds towards us. We try as hard as we can not to use our parents. And we're kinda proud of the fact that we've got where we are today pretty much without anyone else's help. So it saddens me that they feel indebted to us somehow simply because B's sister milks them for all they're worth.

Now, it's no secret that I think the infrastructure for supporting families in the United States is sub-standard combined to the quality and quantity of care available in other developed countries. But I found out that B's sister, who has only been at her company for three years (pregnant for nearly two of those years) is now milking her company for all it's worth. She is having a second baby using the company's benefit package, used up all her vacation days for this year right before she's about to go on maternity leave: and doesn't plan on returning to the company.

Grr.

She's the reason why the infrastructure is fucked up. She's the reason why in countries like France (where they have a supportive infrastructure in place to stabilize families in an effort to combat the falling birth rate) women of childbearing age have a hard time getting hired and then being taken seriously: because people just assume that every woman is going to be like B's sister and abuse the system.

B's sister and her husband are moving from Detroit to Grand Blanc (still haven't purchased a home, so they're going to continue to rent). Why? So B's sister can go back to school and get a teaching credential (B's sister didn't have a major, she graduated with a Bachelor's in General Education--she didn't have a major because she wasn't interested in college at the time). She's going to commute to Oakland University. I hear that's a pretty long commute between Grand Blanc and Detroit--and with two small children? I don't want to be snide, but I doubt that idea will last, especially since she'll be breastfeeding the newborn for at least a year. That comment might sound judgmental and derisive, but it's really not. It's simple fact. If a mother breastfeeds her baby, she has to be in close proximity to her child or at least pump her breasts to alleviate the painful swelling of milk. I also read in several books on motherhood (Misconceptions for one, Mask of Motherhood in another) that there's such a thing called "Breastfeeding Brain," where the nursing mother literally cannot think while breastfeeding and that her mind gets really foggy during that time. It is hypothesized that it's to numb the brain to the pain of breastfeeding in order to create that maternal bond instead. I doubt anyone could do quality schoolwork in that kind of mindset.

But why are they moving to Grand Blanc so B's sister can just get up and commute instead of having a shorter drive from their current location? It's so B's parents can provide the free-of-charge childcare.

At first I was angry at the succubus-like aspect of the situation. But then I realized that B's parents brought it on themselves, really. They're the ones that pushed their daughter into going to college, even bribed her with a car after she took a semester off in order to get her to go back. So what happened? She graduated with a non-employable degree, with a major in literally nothing, that's essentially meaningless in the grand scheme of things. But at least she got the car. If they had just let her be an adult and fend for herself, she would have eventually realized she wanted to go back to school on her own to get a teaching credential. But that would have meant going back to school would have been on her own terms--and not her parents' terms.

But there's the rub: B's mom is obsessed with power in a passive-aggressive way. She wants her children to follow a specific path in life, and if they follow that path, it validates her existence. If they deviate, then her identity as a mother is destroyed. B's mom wields this power through a money exchange. After 9/11, when I dropped out of school and was going to be homeless, B let me move in with him. This infuriated his mom and she threatened to cut him off from the $500 a month she supplied him (she also supplied this to his sister). She said she refused to support me. He said go ahead and cut him off if that will make her feel better, but that he wasn't looking for her to support the decision, only to understand the situation. She did cut him off.

But back to the topic, I firmly believe not everyone is meant for college--and certainly not everyone is meant for college right out of high school. What's wrong with going to college at 28 or 36 instead? Nothing. Except for appearances. How does it look to have a daughter who drops out of college (how does it look to have an engaged couple living together before marriage)? Um. Normal (on both accounts), I'd say, but B's mom would disagree which is where the bribe to his sister came in. And now, B's sister and his parents have a mutually parasitic relationship: his sister leeches her parents because she's learned that she can, and her parents provide because it fulfills a desire to continue to be needed. It's a vicious, symbiotic, capitalistic cycle.

It's kind of gross, really.

But not all hope is lost:

Says Tammy Johns, Manpower's head of workforce strategy, "Gen-Yers around the world are absolutely willing to quit any job that doesn't offer everything they want."

That gives me hope that when Gen-Y is running things, family support will be part of the infrastructure of the workplace--and the definition of family will not be so narrow. So things like flex time, working-from-home, and health benefits will not only be offered, but they'll be offered equally for everyone to enjoy, regardless of parental status. What we need to do is support life and individual choices, instead of forcing people to follow narrow paths.

Labels: cultural materialist, family, feminist theory, government, news

( 8comments )

at October 18, 2007 3:57 AM  Lorie said...

My favorite bit in that article was, "They've been raised, says Twenge, on 'bad advice,' like 'believe in yourself and you can do anything.'" So much for self-esteem programs and motivational posters.

Sometimes I feel a bit guilty because I've gotten more from my parents than other people. They were willing to pay for college. They paid for half of the car I have now, and I paid for the other half by cashing in bonds my uncle got me over the years. My dad bought Josh a used truck before our wedding, and sold him his old truck later, only making us pay $100 month until we paid it off. (Apparently, my family is big on making sure you have a car to drive, which probably shouldn't be surprising considering my dad.) Then my uncle likes to send larger-than-necessary gifts of cash on holidays. And I always feel a bit guilty when I visit my dad and use his laundry and then let him pay for dinner if we go out. Like it's something a college student would do, not a grown woman.

Now I realize I'm a step ahead of so many people in the fact that I got a job after college and moved out of the house. Maybe that's why my dad said he was proud of me when I told him we were buying a condo.

 

at October 18, 2007 8:06 AM  Jilly said...

That was my favorite part, too, but I'm hoping that people actually do follow their hearts around instead of money--I really want the writer of the article to eat crow because the whole tone of it was snide.

Yeah, maybe you were/still-kinda-are over-privileged in the sense of the article, but really, all that's different between you and me is that you have loving parents who had the means to help you out, and what's the harm in that? Nothing, unless you become like B's sister or one of my brothers, and sucks your parents dry. Because really, what kind of loving parents wouldn't want to try to pay for their kid's education? Heck, even my mom wants to pay for my brother H's education even though she paid nothing for mine because now she has the means to do so. (The thing that bugs me about that is that she keeps filling his head with ideas about going to a low-rate state school close to home so he can still live there--which bugs me because H is smart enough to go to USC and actually major in the recently created (in conjunction with EA Games) Video Game Design degree. But she can't afford THAT, and so she doesn't endorse that idea. Which is a shame, because it's what he really wants to do.)

Now that we're no longer an agriculturally based society, education is really the only legacy a parent can give a child (since there is no land/farm to parcel out to them when they reach adulthood--I'm pretty sure this is why the shift has been made to mostly everyone out of high school going to some sort of college).

And I just wanted to make clear: I know your parents didn’t pay for your education. They were willing. I know there’s a difference. Because when I was in high school and as an undergrad, it was never even mentioned that my parents were going to help me. It was always just silently left unstated that I was on my own. I don't even know what it feels like to know that if I'm in trouble, I have a home or parents to rely on to catch me (because the one time I needed to go back home, I wasn't allowed--my mom wouldn't even talk to my Nana to get her to lift her ban on my presence after 9/11, but she'd cry "for all those poor people in New York." I only know what it's like to rely on B in that way. My mom also tried to fill my head with going to the closest four year university, Sacramento State, and she said the 100 mile round trip was reasonable so I could still live at home. I said even if I wanted to go to Sac State, I would never do that drive. My car wasn't reliable enough. I'd have to move. And I figured since I was paying for the school myself, I had the freedom to go wherever I chose. I figured I'd given up high school for that woman so I could help raise my brothers. That was it. So it meant getting the hell out of Dodge.

 

at October 20, 2007 1:43 PM  Dolph said...

But in the end, you'll feel better about having done it all yourself.

Trust me.

You earned it. You don't owe anyone anything.

And to be truthful, parents don't owe their kids a college education. Sure it might be nice but there's always a way to get a college education.

Maybe you DO have to go to a lower-rated school. What's wrong with that IF that's all you have to work with? One can certainly supplement their education with additional study.

Maybe you have to work a full time job and go to school part time?

Maybe join the military?

Maybe you just have to educate yourself on your own until you can afford college?

It all works and from having been around a heck of a lot of people in my time, one thing that I've learned is that if someone REALLY wants to go to college -- THEY WILL GO.

If someone would rather have help from Mommy and Daddy, they'll do that too.

Just like some people drive Aztecs they didn't pay for.

Dolph

 

at October 20, 2007 7:51 PM  tatayana said...

You're full of SHIT. If you got any "balls", I mean in the figurative sense, you wouldn't complain. Who needs parents? Show them you can make it on your own, and make something of yourself.

Oh by the way, you don't need a fucking education to be a successful writer, or for that matter successful. Just look at Bill Gates, and JK Rowling

Those who do Do, those who can't, TEACH.

You're are a fucking if you delete this comment.

T

 

at October 21, 2007 12:38 AM  jillydreadful said...

You know what, Tata? I don't have time to rebuttal people who don't even take the time to read the post in its entirety. It's like you read part of the post and decided to post a comment instead of actually slogging through the rest of what was said. Because all of the points you POINT out in your comment: I already made.

You said: "Who needs parents? Show them you can make it on your own, and make something of yourself."

My post says: "[B and I] try as hard as we can not to use our parents. And we’re kinda proud of the fact that we’ve got where we are today pretty much without anyone else’s help. So it saddens me that they feel indebted to us somehow simply because B’s sister milks them for all they’re worth."

That was the point of my post, to be honest: that it's sad that there are people who would rather subsidize their lifestyle through their parents as a means to avoid thinking for themselves. And that I hope there are more people in Generation Y that are living for themselves, but without having to mooch of their parents to follow their dreams (and to prove the arrogant writer of the Newsweek article wrong).

"Oh by the way, you don’t need a fucking education to be a successful writer, or for that matter successful. Just look at Bill Gates, and JK Rowling"

My post says: "But back to the topic, I firmly believe not everyone is meant for college–and certainly not everyone is meant for college right out of high school. What’s wrong with going to college at 28 or 36 instead? Nothing."

Dude... it's like you didn't even read the post. Seriously.

And way to make a point through logical fallacies, Tat (google "ad hominem attacks" to learn what you did was pointless).

I'm all about fostering an open dialog on the blog about the topics I bring up.... but seriously: read the fucking post all the way through before you try to school me in my own thought processes.

Those who can't think for themselves ACCUSE before reading things all the way through. Those who READ teach others how to argue without having to rely on petty name-calling.

 

at October 21, 2007 12:39 AM  jillydreadful said...

Dolph said: "Just like some people drive Aztecs they didn’t pay for."

I'm suddenly intrigued. Got a story about someone who mooched an Aztec?

 

at October 21, 2007 12:55 AM  Natalia said...

Whoa! Who is that person? Is it someone you know or did they find your blog randomly? They need to calm down....

 

at October 21, 2007 3:49 AM  Jillydreadful said...

It's not anyone I know. I get the impression that it's a dude impersonating a chick. Because really: who spells Tatiyana with an 'a' instead of an 'i' -- it changes the focus of the name to highlight the tatas in the middle of the name, ya know, like a woman's boobies?