In Short

[poliphilo]

 I had lived to be 73 without watching any of the many little movies Universal made starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and Watson. Last night I repaired the omission. The one I watched was called The House of Fear or something like that and was extremely silly and very good fun- and no, I didn't guess the solution ahead of the big reveal. I may watch more.

We were out to lunch again yesterday. When I was looking forward to what I suppose I could call retirement (though I havent worked a "regular job" for something like 30 years) I said I intended to eat out every day and never cook again. Well, we couldn't actually afford to do that but we must be eating restaurant meals at least once a week.

Quakers have fewer rules than most religious bodies but we have some because you can't play any game without rules. We were discussing the rules yesterday- and I find I'm pretty far out in my libertarianism. My Friends are saying that we need to rein in a bit or we'll no longer we identifiably Quaker- and they have a point.

I dreamed I was writing a book or reading a book by someone else which was about a group of people on a journey and then changed to be about animals who were variously rabbits, foxes and mice. Also, though the novel started off being words on a page it swiftly morphed into pictures. How unsettled things are in dreams and how readily one accepts it!

Comments

[sovay]

I had lived to be 73 without watching any of the many little movies Universal made starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and Watson. Last night I repaired the omission.

The only one I think I've seen is Terror by Night (1946), but I remember it also as fun. It has a train.

[poliphilo]

There's little attempt to do more than tip the hat to Conan Doyle, but who cares!

[cmcmck]

Ah, but what is indentifiably Quaker?

[poliphilo]

Good question.

The Testimonies?