AQATSA Update, No April Fools' Joke!

[inverarity]

I feel like staying off the Internet tomorrow. I know this makes me sound like a humorless grumpy-pants, but I hate April Fools' Day. Yes, it's just so cute when every web site covers their home page with monkeys, tells us they've been bought out by the Russian mafia, changes their color scheme to pink and chartreuse, announces that they've sold your personal information to a finance start-up company in Nigeria, or whatever other clever idea they come up with. Hah hah. So I have to spend all day going "WTF?" and then remembering "Oh yeah, it's April 1."

So anyway, I guarantee this post is 100% April Fools Free.


Current word count: 186,392.

Below is preliminary line art for the cover of Alexandra Quick and the Stars Above. I made a few change requests (like holding her wand in her right hand, and pointing out that Alexandra should be a little bit skinnier), but I like it and am looking forward to the full color painted version.

Comments

Re: Rhemus de excidio

[(Anonymous)]

I have READ THE BOOKS and the Books say the same thing over and over again, that Nothing was written about Arthur in 600 AD. Arthur got a few mentions by 800 AD and by 1200 AD, the whole world consisted of squeeing Arthur fan-boys.

The BOOKS state that we know the square root of bugger all about the Dark Ages, who do what it says on the can.

It is a proven fact that Gildas does NOT say that Arthur was Dux at Badon. I thought Gildas stood up on his hind legs and deliberately said that Ambrosius was Dux at Badon.

Gildas was Vague about the Dux.
I wanna believe the Vita even though it was written centuries later. I wanna believe in Arthur. I wanna believe that Saint Gildas was an unreliable narrator. That's logical, Captein.

Re: Rhemus de excidio

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Well, it all depends on what you want. You might find that Arthur existed and was a major figure, but then you might find that he was not much like the man in the romances....