Sometimes you just can’t win.

Well, Panoptica has brain-chips that didn’t read your thoughts but did transmit your location and could burn out inconvenient neural pathways. I thought I was well ahead of the game on that part but it seems not.

It also has aorta implants, a chip with a mechanised spike that will puncture the aorta if you were to become a really big problem. At least the real world won’t have those for a couple of weeks.

As for other writing, Inside Outside is getting a big revamp but it’s not that hard to fix. Norman’s House is also getting a big revamp – the start is fixed but the ending needs to be less abrupt. Victor’s Will went back to ‘how the hell didn’t he lose his mind like all the other zombies?’ but I think I have an at least semi-plausible reason now. On the Romulus Crowe circuit, Demdike’s Revival and The Apocalypse Show are still piecemeal and I really need to think up a short Christmas tale. I have one where the elves come back thirty years later with a bill for services rendered (contract law is intact, you asked for it, they made it and Santa delivered it) but that’s too far on the funny side. I need something darker. Something along the lines of Aldiss’ ‘The New Father Christmas’ which was a great tale.

Something along the lines of ‘Send not to ask for whom the bells jingle. They jingle for thee’.

I think I’d set it in the world of Panoptica.



9 thoughts on “Sometimes you just can’t win.

  1. LI,
    It’s not only your panoptica that can’t keep up.

    “At this point, I’m clutching my head. Halting State wasn’t intended to be predictive when I started writing it in 2006. Trouble is, about the only parts that haven’t happened yet are Scottish Independence and the use of actual quantum computers for cracking public key encryption (and there’s a big fat question mark over the latter– what else are the NSA up to?).'”


  2. Leggy, apologies for a wildly off-topic posting, but I really do think you ought to read this:

    To summarise, a cohort study of 76000 women found NO significant link between passive smoking and lung cancer. Not just “only a weak effect”, but ABSOLUTELY NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT.

    The author does point out that as lung cancer does occur in never-smokers, there must be some other causes other than smoking (current smokers being 13 times more likely to get lung cancer than never-smokers), and these really ought to be investigated instead of pillocking about trying to ban smoking.


    • About time someone in the cancer field pointed out what was under their noses – cancer has more than one cause. Blaming it all on smoking has killed many, many people with cancers that might have been treatable or preventable by now.


  3. In other news…. Christmas shopping in pound shop. Got myself (ha!) a nice ash ‘tin’ that sez “NOTICE Smoking is pemitted” on the side. BTW have you seen the paintings of Brian Viveros?


First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.