I get through the meeting in a daze and daydreaming about a circus elephant - probably the one I saw on some show recently documenting mistreated animals in captivity being prone to violence - running amok through the boardroom. Stampeding around the confined space crushing skulls, hands, flesh, strewing bodies and paper flying, sticking to the seeping wounds. Splinters of timber from the cheap imported Italian bench-top mixing with a pinkish-white foam from popped eyeballs and a greyish paste of brain fluid. Crushed white ceramic coffee mugs mixing with fine powdered bits of off-white teeth enamel. I drink two bottles of Evian and screw the lids back on them leaving my thoughts and the stale air of the room within.
And now some others and myself are going to this bitch Austen's house. Riding in the back of a limo I'm listening to her talking and I'm gazing at the others still trying to figure out what this is all about and this bitch won't shut up and I'm wondering why that Shakespeare guy is wearing a starched ruff. She's saying something about people who use rhyme aren't really talking enough and if they did talk they wouldn't look good because they'd be using rhyme and I'm not really listening or understanding what she means but my head is aching and I need a valium or a JB on ice or a claw hammer to rip her tongue out. But it doesn't stop and while she's lilting I'm thinking about how much her voice sounds similar to the mouse I found in the kitchen this morning when I crushed its head slowly beneath my perforated cap-toe leather lace-ups by Allen-Edmonds.
FoS
@ Jane Austen
And then some poet interrupts and makes little rhyme but at least some reason to my screaming head. And this bitch Austen is staring at this guy with a fiery eye while some other guy called Joyce has his head buried in the leather upholstery of the limo, tongue hanging from his mouth and drool slowly sliding down the seat. Shakespeare almost pokes this poets eye out with his starched ruff while leaning towards him.
"You're a good guy, Cummings." He says to him.
I'm looking at Cummings and thinking that with a couple of Halcion I'd probably agree but at least he's sounding better than Austen flapping her jowls. And she is still staring at him with crazy daggers and I'm looking across at some guy who's got a sticker pasted across his forehead reading "Pynchon" ignoring most of us and instead talking into the limo phone.
Joyce looks up from making a meal of the seating, his eyes are glazed over and wild.
"Mmmgghhhhgrrrhmph" He mutters through clenched teeth with spit still glistening on his lips.
I feel a deep anger arise from within. This idiot contorting his face into dimwitted expressions. I control myself - just. I numb myself to the strangeness of it all. I let the motion sink till I'm left with just the sensation of slick tires skidding over city streets. The limo rolls on.
↑Jane Austen wrote:I was referring to the quiet people when I said "those who have not posted at all"; The Joyce threesome has contributed no less than the lurkers, and have done so in a more obvious way - when lurking is so commonplace, active lurking is pointless. Is the difference between Poe and you, that Poe thinks non-posters must not be suspected, while you think that scum that lurk may only only be suspected by those that can't acknowledge lurking? Seuss wasn't even mentioned in my reply to Joyce! If you have eyes, then you could see that non-posting was an epidemic, and not restricted to just one scummy poster.
I believe I understand what you are saying. Yes, it is as clear as a pool of water that has not yet been muddled with waste, sludge, and toxens. I shall
UNVOTE:
And I will
VOTE: Edgar Allan Poe
Do not think I didn't notice you ignore my accusations in post #90. I still believe those accusations today.
On another note, Ellis looks like he is hiding a lack of content in his style.
Pour tous ceux qui se demande pourquoi Mme Austen doit être suspendu
Je dis que vous êtes tous idiots, assez terne dans votre play'ng.
Ce poste plus que toutes les autres douleurs de ma tête pour voir
Comme il est manifestement pas tenu compte OMGUSery:
To every one that asks why Ms. Austen must hang
I say you all are twits, quite dull in your play'ng.
This post more than all others pains my head to see
Since it is obviously overlooked OMGUSery:
↑Jane Austen wrote:If not for the scummy nature of Mr. Mamet, I would find myself voting Dr. Seuss; sadly I have only one vote and it is promised to another. With Dr Seuss, I am afraid we have a scum hiding waiting for an opportunity; where he will rush up only to hide again, and wait for the next opportunity. I know this this, yet I am made unhappy, and I have good reason to be: I can not exercise my suspicion of Seuss without leaving Mamet with just the tendrils of suspicion, and none of my fellows are willing to make the first leap onto Seuss; though that would be the gallant thing to do.
The alacrity in which that paragraph had been been written lead to the missing of two major reasons to calm my soul; the two great heroes who have voted Seuss. While others focus on distractions that shall lead to nothing; that
can't
lead to anything. Although I still
FOS: Mamet
I can with comfort
Vote: Seuss
Ses messages dans gen'ral me faire mal à l'aise sans cause réelle
Et je ne vois pas le Daily Bugle retour de sa pause.
Her posts in gen'ral make me squirm for no real cause
And I don't see the Daily Bugle returning from its pause.
C'est pourquoi je dis, avant la fin de la journée, que c'est là que je vais rester.
Therefore I say, ere end of Day, that this is where I'll stay.
VOTE: Mademoiselle Austen
(Au moins jusqu'à ce que quelqu'un d'autre de pire, ce qui serait tout à fait "cray-cray".)
(At least till someone else looks worse, which would be quite "cray-cray".)
Mais non mais non, mais non, mais non, mais non, mais non, mais non, mais non, mais non, mais non, mais non, mais non, Monsieur Poquelin vous faite une grave erreur pur beurre.
OMGUS does not a scum from a citizen make monkeys and cupcakes.
Kid listened to tape 149. Cummings. It was what he was lookin for; or at least, enough of it to make him lose his passion. Well, easy come, easy go...
Now, Bret Easton Ellis, Kid had a real problem with. The Ellis fella had to label his suspicion as minor, so minor it shouldn't be recorded. Kid's had to pull a similar song and dance before - too many scumbags and only one hammer. But Bret's holdin' no hammer at all. That's a problem. If you've got only one person who's you most suspect, why not get it recorded? A mild suspicion with nothin bigger, well, any good soul in that situation puts the vote down anyway, because it's the best they got. Making sure to run your mouth and not voting at all? When you still have one person you suspect over others? That's someone who's real scared to be on the record, real scared to be caught out.
This is a dead and lazy time for the seekers, and our votes ain't worth much. But the hiders? Well, presumably they can be caught now as well as ever, which means they're as scared of bein caught as ever. Kid couldn't think of why else he'd see Ellis being so damn delicate with his vote.
Vote: Bret Easton Ellis
And hell, while I've got your eye...
Moderator: a couple of things to bring to your attention:
First off, Bret Easton Ellis ain't listed as not voting, while God and Poe appear twice on the VC. It helps to take those numbers and make sure the sums check out before you share with the class.
Second...well, read the list. 15 days, 20 minutes. 15 days, 5 hours. 13 days, 22 hours. At some point, something's gotta be done, one way or the other.
The Kid's the one hunting the scumbags. I'm just spreading the word.
Kid didn't like Snicket bringing back a Poe vote with nothing new. Tape 90 was a headache to listen to the first time around, but The Kid especially hated it now. After two weeks, that's still the single thing that most suggests someone is a murderer? The fact that someone, currently leading a new charge, once said something about you that you don't agree with?
The Kid's the one hunting the scumbags. I'm just spreading the word.
Kid couldn't quite tell why Marlowe was after the Bugle and not Danielewski, or Wiseau, or one of a dozen others. It's a wisp of a thought. Needs to be completed.
The Kid's the one hunting the scumbags. I'm just spreading the word.
Mr Poquelin, are you suggesting that I OMGUS'd Dr Seuss! I am afraid that I don't understand, and I won't be able to understand unless you explain further; did you quote the right post?
2 Thomas Pynchon has not given a reason for his cummings or Bradley vote. This is displeasing to the LORD.
3 Lemony Snicket, thou hast moved thy vote from Jane Austen unto Jane Austen's death candidate. Speak more on this lack of CONVICTION.
4 Christopher Marlowe, it is KNOWN unto the people of God and the Writers of the game that The Daily Bugle has wandered off into the WILDERNESS, there to praise me and return to the people MY WORDS. He is not amoungst us, and your pressure lies fallow within OUR HEARTS.
5 Shakespeare, thou hast hidden thy MIND, but thoust cannot hide from the LORD. Your list of players and their roles indicates thy heart, but it is unshared thy MOTIVATIONS of they heart. WHY is what thou needs to speak.
6 Furthermore, if cummings is GOOD-NATURED, what roles are those that have ENSLAVED him?
"I must agree with the Lord here. A vote for pressure does little good if the pressure is not received. Marlowe, it does seem that you're just trying to keep up appearances."
↑Lord God wrote:3 Lemony Snicket, thou hast moved thy vote from Jane Austen unto Jane Austen's death candidate. Speak more on this lack of CONVICTION.
There are times when a man can elaborate on a subject, such as a hobby, occupation, or favorite sports team. I myself am not sure what else to say on the issue of my vote.
I've come to the conclusion, through Jane's responses to my accusations, that my grievances, a word which here means complaints, towards her were unjustified. In general, I thought she made a comparison between three authors and her previous suspect, Seuss, yet it turns out I was making out things that weren't there.
If you read post 90 you will find, among other things, accusations that Poe is twisting my words and attempting to "sow the seeds of chaos" which he accused me of doing himself. Read his miserable excerpt about me in post 69 and attribute it to things I've done during our game. You will find that you will not be able to, because the rationale he states for what I did is not what it is at all.
The lack of response was similar to speaking to a suspicious man in a dark alleyway and then the man's only reply being that he is a mute. It was telling and suspicious, for if an innocent man is accused of sowing chaos, my Lord, wouldn't he want to respond?
I may owe Poe an apology; for though I claimed that I would care about his misrepresentations whoever they were directed at, it seems that I had ignored his trickery when directed at Snicket. It is a cunning tactic of Poe's; I hope it fails. It seems that reception to declarations of Poe's scum invests is utterly dependent on the audience with the swimmers not seeing it.
yrstruly I have ben waitin n waitin for mister Poe to say nething about yrstruly or de suspicions yrstruly does hold but Poe is a sneaky slydog and in all his words an words he still has ignored yrstruly an ima start to tweak if ppl more ppl don do somethin bout it an vote for Poe, yrstruly i really am
Note: Before continuing on, I wanted to say that this post took me several days and more hours than I can count to make. Please take the time to (a) read it, and (b) note that I got very mentally exhausted at some stages, and my logic may be very wrongly in some parts. I apologize ahead for any mistakes on my part, as I do not have the energy to re-read it, nor do I have the energy to revalue newer posts (which means this post is not fully up-to-date in some parts, but I did go back and add things from newer posts that I felt were too important to leave out).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poe wasn't feeling especially acute this night. Not the least bit sober, he lay on the couch of his small apartment in one of the less fortunate parts of Paris.
He remembers scant moments of the night. And indeed, for the last few nights, the ones where he had been forced to endure
that
. He shuddered to himself.
No man should endure this kind of torture
.
He had been keeping a log book with him. Fortunately, for if he was to attempt to re-tell the accounts of the previous nights thus far without his keen note-taking, it would have been horrid attempt at best, and an embarrassment at worst.
He took up the quill, and dipping it in the ink, he began:
The Murders during the Strange Assembly, Part I
Spoiler: Prologue
THE mental features discoursed of as the analytical, are, in themselves, but little susceptible of analysis. We appreciate them only in their effects. We know of them, among other things, that they are always to their possessor, when inordinately possessed, a source of the liveliest enjoyment. As the strong man exults in his physical ability, delighting in such exercises as call his muscles into action, so glories the analyst in that moral activity which disentangles. He derives pleasure from even the most trivial occupations bringing his talents into play. He is fond of enigmas, of conundrums, of hieroglyphics; exhibiting in his solutions of each a degree of acumen which appears to the ordinary apprehension preternatural. His results, brought about by the very soul and essence of method, have, in truth, the whole air of intuition. The faculty of re-solution is possibly much invigorated by mathematical study, and especially by that highest branch of it which, unjustly, and merely on account of its retrograde operations, has been called, as if par excellence, analysis. Yet to calculate is not in itself to analyze. A chess-player, for example, does the one without effort at the other. It follows that the game of chess, in its effects upon mental character, is greatly misunderstood. I am not now writing a treatise, but simply prefacing a somewhat peculiar narrative by observations very much at random; I will, therefore, take occasion to assert that the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of draughts than by all the elaborate frivolity of chess. In this latter, where the pieces have different and bizarre motions, with various and variable values, what is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound. The attention is here called powerfully into play. If it flag for an instant, an oversight is committed, resulting in injury or defeat. The possible moves being not only manifold but involute, the chances of such oversights are multiplied; and in nine cases out of ten it is the more concentrative rather than the more acute player who conquers. In draughts, on the contrary, where the moves are unique and have but little variation, the probabilities of inadvertence are diminished, and the mere attention being left comparatively what advantages are obtained by either party are obtained by superior acumen. To be less abstract --Let us suppose a game of draughts where the pieces are reduced to four kings, and where, of course, no oversight is to be expected. It is obvious that here the victory can be decided (the players being at all equal) only by some recherche movement, the result of some strong exertion of the intellect. Deprived of ordinary resources, the analyst throws himself into the spirit of his opponent, identifies himself therewith, and not unfrequently sees thus, at a glance, the sole methods (sometimes indeed absurdly simple ones) by which he may seduce into error or hurry into miscalculation.
Whist has long been noted for its influence upon what is termed the calculating power; and men of the highest order of intellect have been known to take an apparently unaccountable delight in it, while eschewing chess as frivolous. Beyond doubt there is nothing of a similar nature so greatly tasking the faculty of analysis. The best chess-player in Christendom may be little more than the best player of chess; but proficiency in whist implies capacity for success in all these more important undertakings where mind struggles with mind. When I say proficiency, I mean that perfection in the game which includes a comprehension of all the sources whence legitimate advantage may be derived. These are not only manifold but multiform, and lie frequently among recesses of thought altogether inaccessible to the ordinary understanding. To observe attentively is to remember distinctly; and, so far, the concentrative chess-player will do very well at whist; while the rules of Hoyle (themselves based upon the mere mechanism of the game) are sufficiently and generally comprehensible. Thus to have a retentive memory, and to proceed by "the book," are points commonly regarded as the sum total of good playing. But it is in matters beyond the limits of mere rule that the skill of the analyst is evinced. He makes, in silence, a host of observations and inferences. So, perhaps, do his companions; and the difference in the extent of the information obtained, lies not so much in the validity of the inference as in the quality of the observation. The necessary knowledge is that of what to observe. Our player confines himself not at all; nor, because the game is the object, does he reject deductions from things external to the game. He examines the countenance of his partner, comparing it carefully with that of each of his opponents. He considers the mode of assorting the cards in each hand; often counting trump by trump, and honor by honor, through the glances bestowed by their holders upon each. He notes every variation of face as the play progresses, gathering a fund of thought from the differences in the expression of certainty, of surprise, of triumph, or chagrin. From the manner of gathering up a trick he judges whether the person taking it can make another in the suit. He recognizes what is played through feint, by the air with which it is thrown upon the table. A casual or inadvertent word; the accidental dropping or turning of a card, with the accompanying anxiety or carelessness in regard to its concealment; the counting of the tricks, with the order of their arrangement; embarrassment, hesitation, eagerness or trepidation --all afford, to his apparently intuitive perception, indications of the true state of affairs. The first two or three rounds having been played, he is in full possession of the contents of each hand, and thenceforward puts down his cards with as absolute a precision of purpose as if the rest of the party had turned outward the faces of their own.
The analytical power should not be confounded with simple ingenuity; for while the analyst is necessarily ingenious, the ingenious man often remarkably incapable of analysis. The constructive or combining power, by which ingenuity is usually manifested, and which the phrenologists (I believe erroneously) have assigned a separate organ, supposing it a primitive faculty, has been so frequently seen in those whose intellect bordered otherwise upon idiocy, as to have attracted general observation among writers on morals. Between ingenuity and the analytic ability there exists a difference far greater, indeed, than that between the fancy and the imagination, but of a character very strictly analogous. It will found, in fact, that the ingenious are always fanciful, and the truly imaginative never otherwise than analytic.
The narrative which follows will appear to the reader somewhat in the light of a commentary upon the propositions just advanced.
Residing in Paris during the spring and part of the summer of ----, I there became acquainted with a Monsieur ------. This young gentleman was of an excellent - indeed of an illustrious family, but, by a variety of untoward events, had been reduced to such jaded life that the energy of his character succumbed beneath it, and he ceased to bestir himself in the world, or to care for his grand fortunes. Shunning much of the world around him, he was thought of, in the beginning, by his neighbors and the public of Paris as a madman, sitting alone atop his grand estate in the richer parts of Paris. Opposed to what others thought, that perhaps the man had gone mad and now was attempting to channel the spirits of demons from the world below, this man spent his days and nights, simply, reading. Books, indeed, were his sole luxuries, and in Paris these are easily obtained.
Had the routine of his life at this place been known to the world, he might have, perhaps, been regarded as more of a madmen - although, perhaps, as madmen of a harmless nature. His seclusion, to himself, however, was perfect. He admitted no visitors. No persons entered his residence except for maids that came thrice a fortnight to tidy the place up. Indeed the locality of his retirement had been carefully kept a secret from his former associates; and it had been many years since this man had ceased to know or be known in Paris. He existed within himself alone.
It was a freak of fancy in him to be enamored of the Night for her own sake. The sable divinity would not herself dwell with him; but he could counterfeit her presence. At the first dawn of the morning he closed all the massy shutters of his old building; lighted a couple of tapers which, strongly perfumed, threw out only the ghastliest and feeblest of rays. By the aid of these he then busied his souls in dreams --reading, writing, or conversing madly with himself, until warned by the clock of the advent of the true Darkness. Then he sallied forth into the streets, roaming far and wide until a late hour, seeking, amid the wild lights and shadows of the populous city, that infinity of mental excitement which quiet observation can afford.
This man, over a length of time, became fascinated with books; became entangled in the enchantment that books held. He devised a plan. A simple plan really. "What of all the greatest authors gathered in one place, one grand assembly?". With in days, he had sent out the invitations, and had hired agents to pick up his guests from their front door.
A maddening idea some thought when they received the invitation, not the least which included myself. However, voluntarily or not, they gathered. I was amidst them, wide-eyed at all the luxury in the estate.
[account of the workshops, and the following murder of the good Terry Goodkind goes here]
Poe noted.
It has been some nights now since the death of Mister Goodkind. Many individuals have been examined in relation to this most extraordinary and frightful affair but nothing whatever has transpired to throw clear light upon it. I give below all the material I have noted thus far, and a stream of consciousness thinking to follow.
Spoiler: Marlow
Christopher Marlowe
, English dramatist, poet and translator, has thus far done little and less. The good Sir began by marking the dear good Doctor, in an attempted humorful manner. He seems not in the least enlightened to who might the criminal(s) in this murder might be, and he takes every opportunity from the onset to alert us of his ignorance. He gives a slight innocent read on The Papers, but does not follow it with a reason of any sorts, and leaves it at that. He then missed a great deal of discussion, and had to be woken up whilst asleep, only to question why the good Madame Austen has been garnering bad marks against her, and to promise that more shall come from him.
Thoughts:
It is yet too early for me to determine whether this man is an innocent or criminal, and indeed he has presented little and less. However, this absence and this little contribution to the current discussion makes me very suspicion of him. In addition, I do not like, in the least bit, how the man has kept his "jest" mark against the good Doctor, and I do not like how the man has been simply nitpicking hither and thither (see: simply stating a slight innocent read on The Papers, and simply questions the bad marks against Madame Austen). Alas, though, this information is very little to work from, and I do desire more.
ADDITION: It comes to my attention that Marlow has spoken again. It is still very weak words, and simply is attempting to “pressure” The Papers, which is clearly having trouble with publication, nothing releated to scumminess.
Spoiler: Pynchon
Thomas Pynchon
, American novelist, has thus far been sharing his mind regularly. Mister Pynchon began by marking Mister Mamet for not marking anyone humorly during the first hours of the day. He then attacks the dear narrator of this account (one Monsieur Poe), for attacking the Snicket and Marlowe, the latter which he states, "Poe's eye is directed to it [Marlowe's empty thought sharing during the beginning] for no discernible reason." He then adds a bad mark against the dear Madame Bradely. He then goes at a length to address different points about Rucks, Madame Bradley, and Mr. Wallace.
Thoughts:
Whilst I am not in the least a bit hesitant to declare this now, and whilst I have been stabbed in the back not only once because of my sloppiness, I do declare that Mister Pynchon is almost very likely an innocent man. While I may not particularly strongly agree with some of the thoughts in his head, I can truly see the man attempting at looking for criminals, and having an air of honestly around him.
Spoiler: Shakespeare
William Shakespeare
, English poet and playwright, has been giving very rare tunnels into his mind hither and tither. The first time he speaks at the assembly, the man simply goes on and on about some incoherent poem which none but himself must've truly understood, nor did any a man - or woman - think it was relevant to the mystery at hand. The man, after some time later, decides to give another speech, this time, actually addressing some points that have been raised in the discussion. He simply condemns, in a slight way, my style of naming one and every ‘mad’, and states, “it is an easy thing”. The man goes on to agree with Mr. Wilde, and then follows it with a vote against Madame Bradley. He has since only gave a revision to his cast, in which he proclaimed Marlowe, ee cummings, and God as innocent. It is worthy to note that he does not give any explanations, nor does he give insight into his read on Mr. Wilde, whom he is supporting on the Bradley wagon.
Thoughts:
I am not really sure what to make out of the man thus far. He does not five me strong vibes of a criminal, yet what he has done thus far is little and less, and all of it can be deemed as pathetic contribution with no supporting evidence or thought. I am very interested in hearing more thoughts by the man, especially concerning his innocent reads (for example, how can he draw the fact that Marlow, ee, and God is innocent - especially when the former two, and especially the former of the two, have very little contribution) and his particular analysis of Mr. Wilde currently. I am also very interested to hear from the man more on current events. Do not let me down Sir Shakespeare. For now, I simply deem it insufficient information to puzzle out the truth behind this man.
Spoiler: Wallace
David Foster Wallace
, American novelist, short story writer, essayist, and professor, has, whilst not speaking much in terms of numbers, demonstrated strong content in his speeches. After starting with a jest vote, he then moved on to attack the good narrator of this exposé. He hath also gave comments on several other events in accordance, much which include the Madame Stein, the Madame Bradely, and hath also replied Mr. Pynchon on why he thinks Madame Bradely is an innocent (in which his analysis stems more from the way her wagon arose rather than a thing the woman that done).
Thoughts:
Ad libitum, he hath backed-up his accusation with strong content and thought. However, I am very cautious to call this man an innocent and be done with it at this hour. I ask, “Is there balm in Gilead?” Why this is rubbing me wrong is not a matter of which I can perfectly put into words. In the denouement, however, I still see this man turning out to be a criminal. This mostly stems, from, how I might say - lackluster - way of his push on me. Perhaps it is the language style that exist between us, but I just do not see the main passionately pushing for my head. However, this may just be a case of cognitive dissonance, and I am inclined to lean the man towards the side of innocence.
Spoiler: Joyce
James Joyce
, Irish novelist and poet, is most peculiar indeed. The man, apparently half-crazed, mumbles incoherent gibberish hither and thither. However, the man may not be as mad as he may seem upon a first glance. Amidst the mumbling, I noted that the man first threw a (?) jest vote on one Ellis. He hath then ever since called for the head of Rucks. Breaking up and slowly digesting his writing, methinks he suspects the man for being opportunistic. He also has a innocent read on Mr. Mamet, whom he says he first had a criminal read on upon first glance, but upon closer inspection has determined the man to be one of innocence. He then goes on to state (what I can make out) that he thinks the criminals must be hiding behind “smokescreens”, which I am assuming to mean such things as greater events that serve no better purpose that to distract the innocents from capturing the criminals that roam around them. After some time calling for the head of Rucks, he then goes on to suspect one Brian Jacques, and then declaring “One bullet kills Rucks and Jacques”. Lastly, he has black-marked one Ellis for using FoS, which he deems as criminal-associated.
Thoughts:
Upon a closer look, I was in awe at the amount of content that hath poured out of Sir Joyce. At a first glance, I had called the good Sir a murderer for suspecting one of my strongest proof that innocence still remains upon this forsaken world. However, it does seem that Sir Joyce is following a rather “genuine”, and whilst not always clear, it is still an understandable thought process. However, I do not much understand the horrid vibes towards Mr. Jacques. I would greatly appreciated it if the good sir would please expand on that, in addition to please enforcing us why Mr. Mamet is an innocent, in thy own thoughts. One thing that does, however, in great part, makes me stumble, and makes me very weary that this man might be of some danger to us all, is for his last black-mark against one Ellis. I do not understand it, and I do not understand the logic of dropping THREE strong criminal reads to go after a man whose only crime was implementing FoS in his speech. But the great concern arise from the fact that the good sir did not even address his other criminal reads, and why he thinks it is best to leave that endeavor and seek out a newer one. Or, simply put, he did not compare his new black-mark with his old one. For that, I am weary of the man for now, even for a tad bit.
Spoiler: Moliere
Jean-Baptiste Poquelin
, also known as Molière, French playwright and actor, has, sadly, only addressed this assembly but once. Speaking in French, the Monsieur attacks The Papers, saying such things as “Lorsque l'on regarde à travers ce texte, je pensais que je pouvais voir, mais Un idiot dont les écrits me remplit d'angoisse” (When looking through this text I thought I could but see An idiot whose writings filled me with agon). However, he does nothing to show why he thinks this. ‘Tis is it, and nothing more.
Thoughts:
This truly leaves a man very little to work with, and very little to formulate an opinion one way or the other of the man. I do not think it is too much to ask if the man would please share more delightful and humorful thoughts with us. However, looking at what we have (as I already addressed this previously in one of my speeches during a previous night - perhaps on a night when I was less drunk?), Molière was the sixth voter, and does not say much concerning The Papers, and simply adds another vote without much mentioning the growing wagon, nor demonstrating genuineness in his talk. For that, I am wary of the man. But please, Monsieur, I will repeat, do not let me distract thy thoughts, nor interrupt thy hard work in searching for criminals. I will, however, be patiently awaiting thy thoughts on the matter of thy vote on The Papers. For thou did say “I sought specific posts to look through while I thought, On whether this [Bugle] player was proven scum or not.”. And then, thou decided to mark the person right away, for us to - if may dare say- “magically” know where thou coming from. Do please entertain our thoughts more on the matter of thy marked The Paper, and on more current matters at hand.
ADDITION: I do not like the latest talk by Monsieur Molière either. He is simply not giving a reason for his blabarg still. I do not see either how the words of Miss Austen can be “OMGUS”.
Spoiler: Ellis
Bret Easton Ellis
, American novelist and short story writer , has, whilst seemingly deeply in thought, provided but little content with which to work from. After some roleplaying that man did in the beginning (wherest he marks Madame Austen), then un-marks the woman, in hopes of “Quit[ting] with the RVS”. He then, after a great length, decides to speak to the assembly again, this time addressing, well... Madame Austen. This time he “FoS”s her. The man must’ve marked her in every possible way already. Alas, though, whilst he does mention some other authors, allst he does briefly glance over them nor seemingly mentioning them is seriousness. After being attacked by Mister Joyce, Mister Ellis seems to get “aggravated” at the “idiot” whom he perceives as “wild”.
Thoughts:
I am not entirely sure how to deal with this man, nor fathom why the good sir chooses to focus almost entirely on Austen. Perhaps it is coincidental that his jest mark just happened to then end up being a serious suspect of his. However, placing that aside, the man still seemed to be tunneled on the Madame, not much addressing nor responding to any other of the current events or past events. And, to be fully honest, I am not sure what to make out of that. Mister Ellis, I would deeply love it if thou can please enlighten us with thy words sharing thy thoughts on some of the authors around.
Spoiler: Snicket
Lemony Snicket
, American novelist, has been sharing consistent thoughts hither and thither. First, upon joining the discussion the man attack Mr. Mamet, whom he says is suspicious for not black-marking a person from the onset. He then, in an almost
paranoid
manner, he “urge
my
his fellow authors to vote D.M in great haste”. After getting prodded by the narrator of this exposé, the man simply muddles the talk by stating that “oddity” is an early sign of a criminal. After yours truly informs the man that a criminal would most likely attempt to blend in with the general public, the man then states “But I do agree, E.A.P, that those who blend in are as devious as those who stand out.” However, I may be misinterpreting his thought process, as later on, when he accuses me of twisting his words, I saw that the words that he first spoke could’ve been interrupted different ways. He then goes on to attack dear Miss Austen, and follows to black-mark the woman. Lastly, though, he agrees with the woman, and follows to un-mark her, and then mark me.
Thoughts:
This man troubles me a great deal. Truly, it is not by his menace or cadaverous features, but by the fact that I believe he can beguile us all and we would never second guess the man’s innocence. Upon first attacking the man, I was fueled by a fiery passion that has seemed to dissolve now, and upon a closer consideration, I find what the man has said and done makes much sense, even if I did not see it in the same light. However, two things stand out to me that make this man possibly a criminal. Firstly, I do not like his interaction with myself. For one thing, he started off rather soft spoken and sympathetic whilst talking to me. Upon a continue push, he starts almost getting aggravated, and seems to contrive this criminal-read on me simply in an attempt to counter my stance. It just does not seem genuine. Secondly, and somewhat corresponding with the first, is I do not like how he first attacked Miss Austen, and then followed to agree with her and black-mark me. Both Austen and himself have done this, this almost “contrived” stance against me to attempt to persecute me for my beliefs. It can, however, come to mean that Mr. Snicket hath suspected me for some time, and desired to determine Miss Austen’s alignment, and then upon finding out she is innocent, decided to go after my head again. However, I do believe this is giving too much credit, and is assuming way too much. If Mr. Snicket would please expand on the topic, I would by a happy man.
Spoiler: Kaufman
Charlie Kaufman
, American screenwriter, producer, and director, in his adaptation attempt of the assembly we are having, has been giving much insight into his world In his first scene, Kaufman follows Mr. Snicket’s mark on Mamet. In his second scene, Charlie defends The Papers and urges people to mark Mamet, whom he deems as “a villain hiding behind a frenzied mob”. In his third a currently last scene, Kaufman agrees that the Austen woman is looking for reasons to incriminate the good Doctor, and marks the woman, adding “Don't you worry, David, I'll be sure to keep a special bullet for you.”
Thoughts:
Hmmm... I am not sure I understand Kaufman’s stance against Mamet, and whilst he does much in calling for his head, I do not really see supporting evidence for the argument. However, I am not so quickly going to call this suspicious, for a man can sometimes feel passionately about a subject without putting much effort into putting his thoughts into words. The mark against Miss Austen feels natural. However, I would still like an explanation for why the good sir believes Mr. Mamet to be a criminal.
Spoiler: Wilde
Oscar Wilde
, Irish writer and poet, has, to my great surprise, much more talk thank I first expected. He first, after some blabarabing, agrees and adds a mark against Bradley. He then proceeds to mark the good Doctor in hopes of materializing him into our presence. After a bit, he says that he has changed his thoughts on Madamae Bradley, saying “Bradley is demonstrating a certain recklessness that seems more common to the innocent than the guilty”. He the proceeds to mark ee cummings because he demonstrates an opportunistic nature.
Thoughts:
I do not think there is much to incriminate Mr. Wilde, and looking overall at the words he has spoken, he seems genuine in his thoughts. Whilst I do not much like the mark against the good Doctor, which seems to be reasonless, and an attempt to look busy, I can see it coming from an innocent. Overall, I am inclined to lean the man towards the innocent spectrum.
Spoiler: Seuss
Dr. Seuss
, American writer, poet, and cartoonist, has not done much thus far. The good Doctor begins by marking Mr. Williamsen in jest. He then proceeds, after some time later, to show suspicion of The Papers – but, noting, he does not black-mark The Papers. Later, much later, he simply acknowledges that he is still with us all, and promises dear words soon..
Thoughts:
Based on what the good Doctor has done so far, I do not see a case for him going either way. I really do not see why others found it such a grand idea to black-mark this man, for it seems like it is simply stretching the truth- the truth that there is just simply too little information on the doctor to determine almost anything at this hour. From the push alone on the doctor, I am suspicious that it was criminal-driven and that the good doctor is indeed good, and that some criminals hoped to take an advantage from the, rather, hectic, push.
Spoiler: Williamson
Gregory Williamson
, American poet, is, whilst speaking a bit hither and thither, seemingly one with the background. From memory I do not remember a single contribution of the man. Looking at what he had to say - firstly, he adds a mark against Mr. Mamet for not marking a man - or woman - from the onset of the assembly. He then precedes to mark Mr. Wallace for determining a mark in jest randomly using a random number generator. He then precedes to mark one Ellis, for seemingly no apparent reason that I can draw out. It should be noted that ‘tis was all done consecutively. The man, a bit after, marks Madamae Bradley, for reasons I cannot draw out. In his next standing, the man gives three reads, one for Marion Bradely, whom he deems is “scum”, one for Bret Ellis whom he deems as “scum”, and one for this narrator whom he deems as “town”. As of this hour, it can be safely assumed that Mr. Williamson is still seeking the head of Madame Bradely, for his last stance at the assembly illustrated so.
Thoughts:
I do not much like this good sir. One thing that really strikes me is the fact of his triple posting. It seems like a feigned attempt at stream-of-consciousness. Notice, though, if he did attempt to implement that trick, he is an expert at it, because he did leave time to appear “natural” betweenst each post. Though it just strikes me as odd that the good sir did not listen to all what the others had to say, and then speak his piece. It seems contrived. For that, I am leaning the man towards the side of criminalsy.
Spoiler: Stein
Gertrude Stein
, American writer, poet, and art collector, has taken the stance in front of the assembly hither and thither. Having all the mien of one who is half-crazed, she is hard to comprehend. However, I take the endeavor with a willful heart. Firstly, the woman marks “God” in, what can only be assumed as, a jest. She then black-marks Mr. Joyce, for no reasonable reason I can fathom. She then cast a mark against The Papers, and then stated, more or less, that The Papers were attempting to fake contribution by “chronicling the events”. She then marks the woman Bradley for being one prone to “anger”. She then, after changes in the wind, black-marks the woman Austen, for “[she] is surely to be bad for her undying suspicion hatred fingerpointing toward the good Rhyming Doctor.”
Thoughts:
One think that confront the good narrator of this exposé right away is the fact that this woman been on every growing wagon. However, she is usually not one of the latter people to jump on, thus it is not very conclusive. Hoever, one thing that does make me somewhat suspicious of the woman is her constant mark changing. She does it so easily, almost effortlessly, without looking back, almost as if she did not really suspect her previous markings. Then again, however, I am truthful when I say that I am somewhat guilty of this myself, thusly it is not very conclusive to alignment, but rather, I suspect, more to do with the nature of the man - or woman. Nothing else from the woman beckons to me.
Spoiler: Wiseau
Tommy Wiseau
, screenwriter, director, producer, and actor, speaks wildly by extended each syllable of each words unnecessarily. Thus far, the man has first marked Mr. Danielewski in jest. He then calls out Mr. Snicket for his mark on The Papers, saying “What I do not like, is the vote of Lemony on the Boogle. The reason he gives, is not very good, and does not draw the line with his thinking” and adding a mark against the man. After being absent for a long time, and having to be brought down to the assembly after Mr. Lovecraft had sobered the man up, he says that he thinks Miss Austen is “scahhm”, because “her voting on Doctor Seuss was pretending to look for the scahhm, while not actually looking for the scahhm.”
Thoughts:
Nothing strikes me as out of the ordinary of this man. Whilst he has not said much, from what the man has said, nothing to note is too out of place. Granted, however, there simply is just too little information from which to work from, and thusly, I cannot begin to deduce his true colors without more.
Spoiler: Austen
Jane Austen
, English novelist, has been confronting this great assembly a good number of time thus far. The woman starts out with a mark against “God” in jest. She then marks Mr. Mamet in hopes of “moving the game along”. She then goes on to confront the growing wagon on The Papers, saying that it must not continue, and that she would go so far as to say that The Papers arst her greatest read of innocence. She urges more marks on Mr. Mamet. More blabablaring. She then says that she has two suspicions at hand, one belonging to Mr. Mamet and one to the good Doctor. She marks the latter. He says, about the latter “His only post after his random vote is prepping to go on the Bugle wagon, yet he didn't enter it; that level of opportunistic forethought is most likely to come from scum.” The good narrator of this exposé attacks the woman for simply attempting to contrive a criminal read on the doctor, and she responds by marking him. She is currently hyperventilating in her chair (which now has thick sweat stains) from all the suspicion that has been thrown her way.
Thoughts:
To be fully honest, I am not AS suspicious of the Madame as I once was. I can see how she attempted to be helpful and proactive by attempting to apply pressure to people who are skating the dirt. Even if it did come out in a rather awkward way. However, this is not to say that I have dropped all suspicions against the Madame. Truly, I still suspect that woman a great deal. I am just more... controlled? The way she reacts to pressure being applied to her is not very indicative of alignment either I fear. She can be a nervous innocent or a nervous criminal.
Spoiler: cummings
ee cummings
, American poet, painter, essayist, author, and playwright, has been speaking in much riddles. Firstly, the man says “a news paper brings contriversy yet promotes oneness” (I have yet to decode what “oneness” means), and marks Madame Bradley because “another woman [Bradley] proud rejects eachness(?) and a charlieman(?) pretends oneness(?).” He then starts suspecting Austen, but later on says that she is not more suspicious.
Thoughts:
I do not believe I am seeing why the good people of this assembly were firstly suspecting Mr. cummings. From this side of the river, I see nothing but overall nullness. Nothing beckons me forward as a possibility of coming from a criminal. Everything, indeed, seems natural, nor do I see the opportunism that was conveyed by some people as they yelped for his head.
Spoiler: Mamet
David Mamet
, American poet, painter, essayist, author, and playwright, has been missing from the assembly’s meetings for a few nights now. Recalling what had done whilst attending the meetings early on, he first marks Mr. Snicket for “being absolutely moronic and thinking that RVS is some sort of ritualistic betterment”. He then “notes that Austen is town” and marks the Papers for thinking they are attempting to gain innocence credit by defending him. He then goes inactive, and then makes a promise to attend the assembly once again soon, however has not shown up yet.
Thoughts:
Mamet reads as a natural innocent. Even from such very few posting, I can see genuine thought process behind the head of the good sir. While I do dearly wish the man would come and attend the assembly from his long absence, the man will be leaning towards the side of innocence for now.
Spoiler: Daily Bugle
The Daily Bugle
, New York City newspaper of the Marvel Universe, has been the topic of much controversy. Well, early on that was. The Papers first published an article condemning the ways of authors such as Stein, Wiseau, Rucks, Jacques, Bradley, and Shakespeare for “avoid[ing] current discussion”. The Papers then has an article, in the same publications, condemning the good narrator of this exposé, and calling for his head. In the second publications of The Paper, an article stating “many authors chose to deliberately ignore the conversation flowing around them ... Dr. Seuss, James Joyce, Christopher Marlowe and Bret Easton Ellis” was published. The article then goes on to say how Mr. Ellis is regarded as most suspicious of the four. In a note in the publication, The Papers seeks for answers as to why Mr. Mamet is being regarded suspicious. The Papers then disappears for a night, and then comes out claiming that there was an issue with the printing, and it should be fixed within the next 38 hours. The Paper has not published a single word since then, and remains on what appears to be a long standing hiatus, one which we can only hope it will come out of soon.
Thoughts:
We need dire need of more publications from the papers. In case this wasn’t clear, I will repeat for the dim: we need dire need of more publications from the papers. And no, Mr. Marlow, I fear that this case will not be solved with a simple mark against it. From working with what I have, I truly cannot see any indication one way or the other, and I will not beguile myself into thinking that I do.
Spoiler: Jacques
Brian Jacques
, English author, has been very much dull. He first marks Mr. cummings in jest. He then calls this good narrator and Mr. Snicket innocent men “butting heads”. He unmarks Mr. cummings. He then shows a slight suspicion of Williamson.
Thoughts:
I do not much like this man. He prickles my skin. Fr some bizarre reason, I get this feeling, this great feeling, that Mr. Jacques is so, so very lacking in decisiveness, so “wishy-washy”. He makes small petty comments hither and thither, but is very non-committal. Plain sickens the guts out of me. However, I will hold off on too much suspicion of the man, and have patience to wait for more.
Spoiler: God
“God”
, the single deity in monotheism, has been an enlightening read indeed. He first starts off my marking Wallace in jest. He then moves his great mark to Madame Bradley. He then, after some time, agrees with the marks on Miss Austen, and the reasoning. His last speech delivered addressed some authors; saying Pynchon has not given reasons for his marks, Snicket has jumped from one person to that person’s enemy, Marlow is doing nothing to pressure The Papers, and asking Shakespeare for reasons for his thoughts.
Thoughts:
Whilst the first much of a lot of what he has said is none-alignment indicative, I do like the last words uttered. I am see a certain genuineness that comes only from an innocent truly looking to endeavor on searching for criminals.
Spoiler: Danielewski
Mark Z. Danielewski
, American author, has but only appeared once during this assembly, and then only but to mark Rucks in what can only be interpreted as a mark in jest. Whilst the man does say “I've caught your scum”, I see not what he can be referring to.
Thoughts:
Here lies the epitome of nullness.
Spoiler: Bradley
Marion Zimmer Bradley
, American author, has been a source of some mistrust at some points. The woman starts off with a mark against The Papers in jest. She then, later on, goes on to say “I am still a tad suspicious of the Daily Bugle”, which does not make much sense, seeing she never illustrated a suspicion of The Papers beforehand. She then also says she is suspicious of the speed at which The Paper’s wagon has grown, and that she will make it a top priority to keep on those who were quick to jump. However, after saying all this, she remains her mark against The Papers. She is then attacked for this decision, including by “God”, which she replies with an incoherent rambling. She then, after a bit, says she has looked at some people in isolation, and has found that Miss Stein has been constantly on the growing wagons, and that Pynchon and cummings lack content. She then marks the latter of the latter, who she deems is the most criminal-like. At a later date, she marks Miss Stein, saying “I will put my vote on my number 1 suspect of this villainy that has been plaguing us.” after deeming that cummings has said enough thus far to drop his suspicion under the Stein.
Thoughts:
This woman troubles me beyond believe. I distrust this woman, and think she is a very high contender for a criminal. I very much dislike her Papers incident, in which she condemned the wagon, yet decided to stay on it, even though her initial mark was that of in jest. Her rambling against “God” with no usefulness seems like an attempt to look like she is contributing to the current discussion and suspicion presented against her, when in actuality she did nothing. I also do not like how she simply tosses her suspicion of Mr. cummings out of the window after the man starts to speak, almost as if her initial mark was that of wanting the man to simply speak, and not wanting the man speak so then the woman can analyze what he has said. She makes no effort in attempting to show WHY cummings words drops the man under Miss Stein.
Spoiler: Rucks
Rucks
, narrator of the game Bastion, has been illustrating his consistently during the assembly. The good sir first starts by marking Madame Stein, in a half-jest, “Kid didn't have a whole lot to go on. Decided to just vote the person he'd have the most trouble understanding. Not really fair, but better than nothin.” The man then marks The Papers. He then, after Miss Bradley gets attacked, says that he does not see insincerity in her words. At the next assembly, Rucks says he is suspicious of Austen, and he is suspicious of cummings whom did not compare Austen with Bradley. After cummings answered, Rucks decided it was well enough for him, and marked one Ellis for being “delicate” with his mark. He also expressed suspicion of Mr. Snicket for using an old reasoning to mark yours truly.
Thoughts:
This man is an innocent if I ever saw one. Indeed, the man has very much genuineness behind his logic and thought, and presents his thoughts in a clear and coherent manner. One thing I a little do not like is the fact the man seems to be “swingin” too much, as he himself would put it, but I do suspect this is a lot more from personality style as opposed to a nervous criminal. Other than that, I like his push and pressure on others, and his thinking process.
For those blessed with eyes, yet not use them, a very brief summary [it should be on a note that the upperst tier is strongest sign of criminal, whilst the lowest is the strongest sign of an innocent)
Poor Poe is Poonnocent. This mush iz Sir Tain. To you, poonnocent man, I say unto you, verily, that an FOS on a player whom I bee lief to bee poonnocent (Miss Augusta Crinoline Jane Austen), is iz iz iz iz sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
skum
eeeeeee. Especially when that person is under sus pee shun by many other shall wee say, doobioos arguments! The opportunism! The opprobrium! The brand of foot powder! Captain Admiral Sir Yes Sir Bret Easton Ellis mobster extra or diner.
