Today was nice. Got some rain, a touch of sun and round it all out with Lunch/ dinner at Claim Jumpers in Redmond for my Brother's and Sister's birthday. Good stuff.

It's nice to have the bro back around, as he goes zipping around in his (my parents) car again.

Finished Robert Asprin's "Another Fine Myth" last night. I don't know... I think people attempting to be funny try too hard sometimes. Or either they go with the same kind of character in an attempt to be funny. (Stupid main characters/ anachonistic characters/ highly irrereverant characters to the genre, etc) I'm just tired of it. Douglas Adams, that is brilliant work. (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and Dirk Gently) That is original funny, it's the common stuff (Robert Asprin and Peter David come to mind) is the typical stuff I just read to get it done.

Book pet peeve: Author's that name their characters what the character's primary trait is. EX: Sir Gallant or King Evil. I want to be told a story. I feel like I am being robbed somehow when I am told the character's main trait right off the bat. I feel like I get to know a sterotype as opposed to a character. Build a character, don't just jump from a point that is a word with built in ideas and thoughts. It seems like the author is being lazy. I understand the occational allagoy or something like that, but make me work for the meaning, I'm not stupid that you have to hand it to me on a plate.

~B.