when i'm not contemplating the mysterious mysteries of life and other deeply ponderous queries, i like to propose hypothetical situations based on events that have ABSOLUTELY no chance of ever coming to fruition. for example: james blunt fights a seven-foot-tall koala bear. who wins? stuff like that. my most recent conundrum features roald dahl vs. vladimir nabokov. after several agonizing moments of speculation, i think that mr. dahl would be victorious over mr. nabokov for the following reasons:

1) have you ever REALLY read one of roald dahl's books (and no, seeing the movie versions don't count)? it is CRAZY. sure, "Pale Fire" is crazy in its presentation and loose association with the dictionary meaning of "novel," but good grief man! chocolate rivers? bald witches? a girl named matilda? insanity!
2) look at his name: Roald Dahl. i LOVE it. is it a misspelling of "Ronald"? could it be "Doll"? nope. Roald Dahl. sure, "Nabokov" is quite catchy, mentioned in a Police song, and is the surname of a squirrelly goalie in san jose, but it's just not Roald.
3) judging purely by jacket photos, mr. dahl just looks bloody wily. nabokov looks smooth and silently intimidating, but i'll take "wily" any day of the week.


















this is what i think about as i teeter perilously atop one of our ladders. that, and how i really don't want to fall on a bookcase. or a customer. or roald dahl.

oh, and on a semi-sort of-quasi-related note, if you're not a member of Blogger and would like to leave a comment, please add your name at the end. we'd love to know who you are! (plus, it helps my self esteem to know that someone other than my mom is leaving comments...)