Stuff & Nonsense...

I should hit 125,000 words today on the draft for A MAGIC OF DAWN. My best guess that the draft would hit about 150,000 before revision is still looking about right; so is my prediction that the polished and revised 'submission draft' will be rather longer than that.

Deadline in June. That's still looking good also... Send good writing vibes my way, please!

*******
The news feeds are tossing computer stuff my way this morning:

Steve Jobs actually said it a couple years back in one of his keynote addresses: sales of notebook computers will soon outpace sales of desktop machines. It's true here in the Parsley Leigh household: since I replaced my desktop iMac with a Macbook, there are no desktop machines in our house. And now the NY Times has realized it too. "More notebook machines will be sold worldwide this year than desktops, the first time in the industry’s history, according to the research firm IDC. In the United States, the milestone has already been reached: last year, notebook sales passed those for desktops."

What about you folks? Do you still use a desktop machine or a notebook/netbook?

********

And in semi-related news: In a report on customer satisfaction, Apple has a significant lead. "The Mac producer received an 80 percent score, or "good," on a combination of ease of use, meeting needs and a pleasurable experience. Its next-closest rival, Gateway, scored just 66 percent, or "okay." Other competitors fared worse, with HP and its sub-label Compaq receiving 64 percent and 63 percent scores that are considered "poor;" Dell has dipped to 58 percent. " The article also notes that Microsoft has just launched an ad campaign suggesting that buyers should look only at the specifications and pricing of a computer, not at the other aspects such as system design, software integration, and customer experience.

Hoe do you buy your computers? What's the most important factor(s) in making that decision?

A hypothesis...

I'm currently reading Paris In The Middle Ages by Simone Roux, which I'm finding to be an interesting book on the social aspects of that city in medieval/early renaissance times. I read non-fiction books like this because they occasionally spark 'other thoughts' which might lead to fictional work or give me little scenes which will fit into the current work-in-process.

But sometimes they just spark thoughts... Roux talks about how being a large city led people to shed their differences and blend into a more cosmopolitan mix -- that this was the characteristic of all large cities: go there, and you become a "Parisian" or a "Londoner" or a "Venetian", shedding your former habits and identifications.

That strikes me as true enough in the past. You come to the big city as a rural dweller, a villager, or a foreigner, and you are assimilated into the greater whole that is the community of the city. In the city, it was nearly impossible to escape that larger identity and retain your previous one. But...

What struck me as a potential theory is that while this was true for cities in the past, it may no longer be the case. When Paris had a population of a few hundred thousand, no, you couldn't easily retain your old identity and customs, because you came into contact with all these other people all the time as you walked about the city. You were thrown into the social cauldron, and the spice of your own life was added to the general blend of what was already there.

But now cities are behemoths with populations of millions that spread over huge areas of land... and thus it is now possible to find an enclave within the city with people like you. It is possible to retain your customs and your self-identity as "other" because there are enough "others" just like you to sustain that. You can continue to speak your own language if you like; you can keep to the old habits because the city has a microcosm of your old place there within it. You don't have to enter the greater cauldron if you don't wish to do so.

Rather than a melting pot, the new Great Cities are instead patchwork quilts, where neighborhoods remain separate and never quite blend. It's a function of size: once the cities reaches a certain critical population (probably in the region between 500,000 and a million) the dynamics begin to shift, and cities no longer subsume the 'foreign' but only contain it.

Any sociologists/anthropologist out there? Does this sound reasonable? Untenable? What do you think?