what's the difference?

Here I am again. I bet you never even missed me.

 Yesterday was a long day and today I have to do my Icelandic homework so I can't stay long.   (I started classes again last week, just before I left.)

It was wonderful to have a long, non-stop conversation about life and literature as I drove with a brilliant friend (he's a good driver, too),  although he swears at other drivers on the road, quite colourfully. There's always more to learn and more to check on. - not the swear words, I know most of them - but the subjects of our wide-ranging conversation. And I  give as good as I get - not the swear words, but ideas. Today I have to look up things and check on information given and received.  What did we do before Google and Wikipedia?  Perpetuated errors, I suppose.  We're still pretty good at it - spawning mistakes, I mean. We should be very vigilant.

Once a "fact" is in print, people find it hard to refute, as if  paper knows more than they do. (Is this why it's called hard copy?)  I think there's a certain danger to an excessive reliance on the information online.  I try to check the source or find corroborating evidence, especially when a "facf" seems too good to be true. It usually is. 

I've been putting quotation marks around the word "fact" to suggest that I question its validity. Better to call it a factoid. "A factoid is a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricatedstatement presented as a fact , but without supporting evidencealthough the term can have conflicting meanings."  (Wikipedia)  The frightening thing is, if it's repeated often enough, a factoid can become a fact. You have to be careful.

As if you didn't have enough to do.  

The fact is, I'm back.

yesterday and today

Today I'm driving back to Toronto, taking about 12 hours. Long day. So this will do for today and yesterday, which was wonderful.  Did my Christmas shopping at LL Bean, pigged out on oysters at Legal Seafood and went to a play. 

"Dear Elizabeth" is playing at the Lyric Theatre in downtown Boston. (It's the oldest professional theatre in Boston.) The play is by Sarah Ruhl, a brilliant young American playwright.  (She was awarded a MacArthur "genius" grant  just a  few years ago when she was 28.)  "Dear Elizabeth" is based on the book , "Up in the Air" - the letters between the poets Elizabeth Bishop and Robert Lowell,  two of the finest American poets of the 20th century.  It's a two-hander, obviously, and could have been just two people on chairs reading their thoughts to each other. (It's been done.)  But the design and direction create tension and action in what might have been a static production.  I want to read both the book and the play, the book for more words and insights into the poets; the play to determine the contributions of the playwright and the director.  (Of course, the actors add their own spin to the end result.) (The end result was a Revelation.)

I can't go on because my battery is low. I'll be back tomorrow.