There has been a lot of discussions about writers giving to much info on either objects or why they may do something that it detracts the reader. I have found the story that does a 180 on it.
The Twelfth Man https://storiesonline.net/s/19081/the-walk-on
This story is so convoluted with no explanations of why the MC does things that it is just unreadable. At least to me.
There has been a lot of discussions about writers giving to much info on either objects or why they may do something that it detracts the reader. I have found the story that does a 180 on it.
Well, this is just my thoughts in looking.
First, an author that only has one other story, unfinished and untouched in over 2 years. This is their second one.
And, largely I am not sure to think of it. Largely a "Mary Sue" I think, even as a person ambivalent at best to Professional Football I found it questionable and hard to follow.
They may improve, or this simply may just be their style. Of course, I readily admit I read fairly few stories in here anymore. And the majority I seem to read for only a few chapters, then wander away.
And the majority I seem to read for only a few chapters, then wander away.
That's why I prefer shorter stories. The longer ones suffer from the Energizer Bunny syndrome. They just keep going and going.
I read a story recently that was a 10, or at least a 9. That is, it would have been if it had ended where it should have. But it didn't. He ruined the story by not knowing when it should have ended.
That's why I prefer shorter stories. The longer ones suffer from the Energizer Bunny syndrome. They just keep going and going.
Well, that can also sometimes be the intent of the author.
Myself, I tend to write the majority of my stories in a rather clipped, short and concise manner. Most of my stories actually come in at between 30-60k. My more typical "Long Stories" still generally measure in at only 225K, 760k, and 754k.
But for several reasons, I decided I wanted to write a huge, rambling monstrosity that took me over 3 years, and is over 7 megs in length. But I did it that way for reasons, one of them simply being that I wanted to try writing a long story, that just kinda roams where I wanted it to go at the time. A firm destination in mind for the end, but I just wanted to see where my imagination would take me if I was not writing only for the goal but just from the enjoyment of writing.
Yea, I could easily cut CBCG down to half it's final length, easily. A hell of a lot ultimately was fluff, and seeing how far I could push some things just because. That can really be seen in "Valley Girl", which actually tells largely the same story, from a different point of view. But largely the exact same period of time, in 344k.
I am actually rather glad that I finally finished "The Monster", as it lets me get back to the style of writing that I really prefer. And I readily admit that a lot of that was simply my "playing" with the story. And incorporating things I almost never put in my stories.
I have gotten complaints that my story 'Spring Break' was too wordy. That is true since many of those words were setting things up for sequels.
I will admit I contemplated doing a second version of that story that reduces a story of nearly 69,000 words into 5.
Robin travels, fucks, returns home.
If you are going to reduce the story to five words, don't you think the title is a little wordy..??
:)
Seeing as the original title is a little longer than the condensed story you might have a point :)
There's always the headline regarding the patient at the insane asylum that assaulted a nurse, then escaped.
Nut Screws and Bolts
There has been a lot of discussions about writers giving to much info on either objects or why they may do something that it detracts the reader. I have found the story that does a 180 on it.
And interestingly enough, I am currently dealing with a flood of comments right now demanding I put in a lot more detail.
How to adapt things like toilets, showers, and vehicles for somebody who is suddenly over 8 feet tall. Some of them quite detailed, giving all kinds of specifics into how and why I should talk about how it should be done. Or describing vehicles that would take months to engineer, when only a quick and dirty solution is needed at the time.
But the thing is, I am not trying to write a story like "Monster Garage" or "This Old House". Yes, I do plan out how such things would be done in my head, so that I am writing workable solutions. I simply see no need to go into the details, if ultimately it is not important.
That is the problem many authors have. Where they will branch off and talk for pages about something that ultimately has nothing to do with the story. Specifically, one who went into details about barrels. Who made them, why they were made, where they were used and all sorts of things into what they were used for, why, and how they were then put into a storage room.
I seem to remember it was like 3 pages of details, that did not matter because they were only needed so a dozen dwarves and a hobbit could get away from some elves. And none of those details ever came up again.
Yes, I am familiar with many things, and could go on about their having to use wallboard with a moisture barrier, and how to put in things like venting, beadboards, and the kind of walls put around a shower and how they are affixed to the wall. Then how I would tie in the drain of a shower into the existing plumbing (which would be close to the wall, not where the drain of a shower would be).
But why? Most people would not give a damn, so I simply plan these out in my head to make sure I could make a solution work, then only put down what basics might be of interest to most readers and move on. Yea, I could easily write up an entire chapter on just the bathroom remodel, but why would I do that? No reason to go over raising the floor of the shower 12 inches, then putting in heavy bracing to take the weight of a 500 pound man, and using 6 inch PVC pipe and how I angled it to tie into an existing toilet fixture. Then had a collar to have the 6 inch pipe go into the 3 inch floor part. Just have the thing built, and move on.
one who went into details
That's why I like old SciFi movies better than new ones. In the old ones, Captain Kirk simply says, "Beam me up, Scotty." In the new ones, they describe the technology in detail how the transporter works.
That's why I like old SciFi movies better than new ones. In the old ones, Captain Kirk simply says, "Beam me up, Scotty." In the new ones, they describe the technology in detail how the transporter works.
Which may be of interest, once. But describing it every single time it is used would get old, fast.
Another interesting chain I have had is somebody upset I have not gone into more details to one of the side characters in the story. Even though they are literally jumping into book 3 of a series, and that character was the center focus of the second book. Yea, said was marking down the score for not going into enough detail, and I just shook my head.
Once again, that would be like watching or reading the third Harry Potter installment. And starting it with chapters about who everybody is, how Hogwarts came to be, what a Patronus was, and all of the other things covered in the previous 2 stories.
As well as removing hooks I have purposefully left for future events. Might as well start a mystery story with who did the murder and why at the start, then follow the detective as they tried to figure it out.
Even though they are literally jumping into book 3 of a series
Depends on the series.
In my Lincoln Steele series, each novel is standalone, like each James Bond novel. So in the third novel, I don't describe Steele as having a photographic memory again even though it's used in the story. So I have a character say something like, "Oh yeah, I forgot about your photographic memory." And a guy from a secret government agency in the first novel pops up in the 3rd. I have to somehow explain him to someone who hadn't read the first novel.
But if the series requires you to read them in order, that's different.
In my Lincoln Steele series, each novel is standalone, like each James Bond novel.
And that is the case with most series. And sometimes a change is made, explained once and never brought up again.
For example, Bond starts the series with the Baretta 418, and uses that gun for the first 5 books. But in the fifth book, it gets caught in a holster, and is therefore replaced in the sixth book with the now iconic Walther PPK. Which is the gun he used in the rest of the book series (but in the movies he later transitioned to the newer Walther P99).
If you only read the first 4 or 5 books, and skipped 6, going to book 7 a reader would wonder why the change in pistols. And the reason was never brought up again, no real reason to.
In my Lincoln Steele series, each novel is standalone
My $0.02: If the books are effectively standalone enough that they can be read and understood in any order, I don't really consider that a series.
My $0.02: If the books are effectively standalone enough that they can be read and understood in any order, I don't really consider that a series.
That would make them a series, but not a serial. To be a series they need only be about the same main character/s or place. To be a serial they need to be read in a specific order.
That would make them a series, but not a serial. To be a series they need only be about the same main character/s or place. To be a serial they need to be read in a specific order.
About the only time I can think of where that is a case is say novels based on movies and TV shows. Not the novelizations of them, but those based upon them.
Of course Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi really need to be read in that order. But the rest of the "Expanded Universe"? Most can be read entirely on their own, and have nothing that is needed to be known that is not part of say a sub-series of such novels (like the Thrawn saga).
Star Trek follows the same formula. Each book stands alone, and does not need to have other books read prior to reading them. Then you have the "pulp fiction", like say Hardy Boys, Longarm, and the like. Once again, any order as they are ghostwritten and really do not follow each other chronologically.
But most series, they really need to be read in order. Reading the Anne Rice Vampire stories out of order, and you are quickly lost. This is even true with the Modesitt Recluse series. They are not even written in chronological order, but really do need to be read in the order they are written. Steven Brust with his Taltos series, Barry Sadler with his Casca series, all the same. Not written chronologically, but if you read them out of order, it is easy to get lost.
Most writers do not entirely write stories that are completely self-contained with no references to previous books. I think you really only find that in the pulp types, which employ dozens of ghostwriters.
As mentioned, Longarm. 436 books, and another 30 "Giant Books", written between 1978 and 2015. There was almost never even an attempt at continuity in books like that, or those based on properties like Star Trek and Star Wars. Entirely stand-alone each time simply because of the volume of books written by many different authors.
But most series, they really need to be read in order.
I disagree. While some are better when read in order, they do not have to be read in order. Most of the Agatha Christie novels are in various series and each stands alone, the great majority Barry Sadler's Mack Bolan series stand alone (although some read better if read in order), while the spin off series of Phoenix Force and Able Team can all be read alone. Many of Anne McCaffrey's Pern series make more sense if read in order, but each makes total sense when read alone. The same is true of J.E.MacDonnell's WW2 naval series, and the several books by Elizabeth Moon that starts with Once a Hero.
The Miriam-Webster has several definitions for Series, but the one applicable to this thread is: a succession of volumes or issues published with related subjects or authors, similar format and price, or continuous numbering
the great majority Barry Sadler's Mack Bolan series stand alone (although some read better if read in order), while the spin off series of Phoenix Force and Able Team can all be read alone.
Mack Bolan was Don Pendleton, not Barry Sadler. And it is yet another pulp style series, of over 800 books by dozens of ghostwriters. Never intended to ever be read in any kind of order. A series written over a period of over 50 years, with over 70 recognized ghostwriters.
And a real continuity in that series is actually impossible. In the oldest stories (1969), he was born in 1939, and joined the Army at 18 to serve in Vietnam. Of course this has been retconned many times over the decades, with the 2014 screenplay for an unmade movie having him be an Afghanistan War vet.
Not unlike say The Punisher, who also started as a Vietnam Vet, but the newest series portrays him as a vet from Afghanistan.
And while most series books by a single author can be read in any order, that does not mean that readers can really understand them that way. Dune: Messiah is by many readers considered to be one of the weakest books in the original series, and much of the plot is retold in the telling of Children of Dune. But that is not the same as saying that Children of Dune makes complete sense if it is skipped.
But even mentioning the Mack Bolan books actually backs my point, as that is a classic "pulp fiction" style of book.
With absolutely no real continuity at all. With over 70 people writing them, that is simply impossible.
Mack Bolan was Don Pendleton, not Barry Sadler.
Sorry, you're correct I have the Mack Bolan and Casca books packed in the same sets of boxes which I've not been able to unpack for over a decade.
But even mentioning the Mack Bolan books actually backs my point, as that is a classic "pulp fiction" style of book.
With absolutely no real continuity at all.
pulp fiction style or not, it is a series and there is a continuity through the series although each story does stand by itself. However, there are some which read better when read in order, but the great majority can be thoroughly enjoyed and read out of order.
pulp fiction style or not, it is a series and there is a continuity through the series although each story does stand by itself. However, there are some which read better when read in order, but the great majority can be thoroughly enjoyed and read out of order.
For me, as series doesn't have to have an over-arching story line, however, I find it annoying when a series doesn't have a definite chronology to it. And that includes growth of the characters over time.
To me, when you say a series can be read out of order and be just as enjoyable, that inherently implies no or weak chronology.
It's the difference between a truly episodic series versus a series that builds on itself.
In television, most dramas will have long story arcs that last a season or more even while each episode is mostly standalone, while shitcoms tend to be more purely episodic in nature (and only the occasional introduction of new characters and departure of others, or the aging of characters, gives any real indication when the episode occurs relative to any other).
while shitcoms tend to be more purely episodic in nature (and only the occasional introduction of new characters and departure of others, or the aging of characters, gives any real indication when the episode occurs relative to any other).
Just one of many reasons I find most sitcoms unwatchable, no matter how funny they are. I can't really watch the original Star Trek anymore for the same reason, I find the deliberately weak to non-existent chronology too annoying.
ETA: They do that deliberately (the weak/no chronology) so the episodes can be run in any order in syndication.
Being episodic is fine as long as a strong and clear chronology is maintained.
I find the deliberately weak to non-existent chronology too annoying.
ETA: They do that deliberately (the weak/no chronology) so the episodes can be run in any order in syndication.
No, that is simply the way it was done back then. Remember, Television followed the pattern already established by Radio even back in the 1920's. Most of the early writers were pulp fiction writers, who turned their hand to the new medium.
And you basically had the daytime soaps (which followed a set chronology), and the evening shows, which could be listened to by themselves.
In fact, most are not even aware that the original attempt to turn Perry Mason into a TV series was intended as a soap opera. Way back in 1956, But literally weeks before it was to be premiered the creator and CBS had a falling out, so "The Edge of Night" was simply given some name changes. With the main character renamed from Perry Mason to Mike Karr, but still played by the most well known Perry Mason star from radio, John Larkin.
If I was to point to the biggest reason for the change in the last 2 decades in how episodic TV was made, I would say it was "on demand". Shows like ER and Hill Street Blues did not require you to watch every single episode, you could miss a few and normally catch up unless it was a sweeps week event (Rocket Romano has his arm cut off, then a year later being killed). And loyal viewers by then had VCRs so they could tape shows they might miss.
But with on demand, you can just sit down and watch every episode you missed before the new one is aired. It has even made it common for some people (like me) to not even bother watching each week. I just wait until the end of the season and watch them all in a week long binge.
These have changed how TV is made and viewed, as it was simply impossible to do in earlier decades.
In television, most dramas will have long story arcs that last a season or more even while each episode is mostly standalone
And in reality, that is largely a recent development.
Other than the "Prime Time Soaps" like Dallas, almost all TV shows were purely episodic. Bonanza, Little House on the Prairie, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Dragnet, other than some main characters leaving and others appearing they could really be watched in any order.
Hill Street Blues is really the first "non-soap" that started to adopt a format where they really needed to be seen in order. This then progressed until later shows like ER really needed to largely be seen in order.
Today, almost all shows seem to follow that formula. Riverdale, Heroes, Arrowverse, the SciFi Battlestar Galacita, Star Trek DS9-Voyager-Enterprise. In any of those, miss more than 1 or 2 episodes and you would be almost completely lost.
But that really is a fairly new development, and was not the norm at all until the 1990's.
To me, when you say a series can be read out of order and be just as enjoyable, that inherently implies no or weak chronology.
They can be read out of order because each story is a full story by itself and stands on its own without you having to read the prior stories. Take my Chaos Calls series, while you get more out of the six stories by reading them in order you don't have to read them in that order to enjoy each story as a story.
They can be read out of order because each story is a full story by itself and stands on its own without you having to read the prior stories.
No, I am going to disagree on that. Being able to read one out of the middle of a series is not at all the same as or remotely comparable reading the whole series
out of order.
Take my Chaos Calls series, while you get more out of the six stories by reading them in order you don't have to read them in that order to enjoy each story as a story.
But by your own admission, you do lose something by reading them out of order.
No you do not lose anything, it's just there's more if you read in order. Each is a complete story by itself and can be fully enjoyed by itself.
Only a serial requires you to read them in order to fully understand each story.
Under your claim that each can't be enjoyed by itself means that you need to watch every game and all games played by a sports team from the start of the year to be able to enjoy any game after the first game of the season.
No you do not lose anything, it's just there's more if you read in order
Sorry, I see that as inherently contradictory.
If you don't lose anything reading them out of order, then there can't be more to reading them in order.
If there is more to reading them in order, than you lose something(that more) by reading them out of order.
Under your claim that each can't be enjoyed by itself
means that you need to watch every game and all games played by a sports team from the start of the year to be able to enjoy any game after the first game of the season.
Sorry, I see that as inherently contradictory.
It's not. A classical example is a running gag. It means little to those not in on it, but if you know it the joke adds to the enjoyment.
If there is more to reading them in order, than you lose something(that more) by reading them out of order.
I recently read a Jack Reacher novel. Throughout the novel there was mention of something that happened (I guess) in the previous novel in the series. They kept referring to it as a traumatic event, but it had nothing to do with the plot of the novel I was reading. I guess it was the author's way of tying the two novels together. In time, at least. Not requiring the reader to read them in order (not that Lee Child wouldn't want the reader to read all of his novels).
It's natural for an author to do that. In my 2nd or 3rd Lincoln Steele novel I mention that Steele can choose his clients without taking into account the need for money because he was set financially after destroying the Russian gang. That happened in the 1st novel. In the later novels all the reader has to know is that Steele is financially independent. If they want to learn how he got his money they would have to read the first novel.
So does the reader lose something by not reading the 1st Lincoln Steele novel? Only the details on how he got the money. Did I lose something reading the Jack Reacher novel without reading the previous one. I guess I was curious what had happened to him, but that was basically the other novel's story.
So does the reader lose something by not reading the 1st Lincoln Steele novel?
See now this is not at all what I am talking about. Not remotely comparable.
Suppose a series of 10 books.
For me, it spoils something if there isn't clear chronology to the series.
Skipping books isn't a big problem if there is a clear chronology without a cross series story line. So reading 3, 4 and 7 would be fine.
However again, as with the no clear chronology, if I read 3, 4 and 5, then suddenly find myself reading what should have been #2, that spoils my enjoyment of #2.
For me, it spoils something if there isn't clear chronology to the series.
Maybe you're talking about a serial or something like a trilogy (Lord of the Rings) where you need to read them in order. I never read Harry Potter, but I guess if you don't read the first novel the others don't make sense. And maybe those do have to be read in order.
But that doesn't mean all series are like that. Maybe you need to read the first James Bond novel to learn who Bond is, who M and Q are, and who Moneypenny is. And even the American CIA guy. And even that the double-oh means the agent has a license to kill. They come up in probably all the novels. But they don't have to be read chronologically. Each story is separate.
Maybe you're talking about a serial or something like a trilogy (Lord of the Rings) where you need to read them in order. I never read Harry Potter, but I guess if you don't read the first novel the others don't make sense. And maybe those do have to be read in order.
What part of "Skipping books isn't a big problem if there is a clear chronology without a cross series story line. So reading 3, 4 and 7 would be fine." did you not understand?
But that doesn't mean all series are like that. Maybe you need to read the first James Bond novel to learn who Bond is, who M and Q are, and who Moneypenny is.
This isn't at all what I'm talking about.
The spoiler for me is if I suddenly find my self reading something from a series that is clearly earlier in the chronology than something I else from that series that I had recently read.
But that doesn't mean all series are like that. Maybe you need to read the first James Bond novel to learn who Bond is, who M and Q are, and who Moneypenny is. And even the American CIA guy.
But as I already said, you would not understand why he suddenly gave up his Barretta for a Walther. Or who the Vesper Martini was named after, or a lot of other references he put into later books.
Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon peel.
By the way, named after Vesper Lynd. Who was killed in the book, and 2 of the 3 movie versions of Casino Royale. The books may seem to have no real order, but like almost all authors, Mr. Flemming did ad things as the series progressed, which would be referred to again in later books and stories.
However, there are some which read better when read in order, but the great majority can be thoroughly enjoyed and read out of order.
And I bet those were ones written by the same ghostwriter. Who actually bothered to keep track of some of the continuity they created, where as other authors would not.
But with over 70 writers, those are the exceptions.
In fact, before the "Star Trek Writer's Bible" was created and Bantam had the contract, the books based on the series were kind of a mess. All but two were stand-alone and sometimes only barely seemed connected to the series at all. Then you had "The Price of the Phoenix" and "The Fate of the Phoenix" which were directly connected, and have to be read in that order. But none of the other ones do.
But today, that series has over 865 books. Under 4 different publishers. I stopped reading them decades ago because they became largely bland.
If someone sat down with the Recluce novels and ordered them chronologically (so, starting when the first colonization was failed/failing?)I don't think anyone would get lost. However, some of the reader's expected allegiances might be different. And there'd be a bunch of spoilers.
Lost, maybe not, but they wouldn't get far. The earliest-by-timeline books were the weakest of the lot, and some pretty dull.
Lost, maybe not, but they wouldn't get far. The earliest-by-timeline books were the weakest of the lot, and some pretty dull.
Especially as the oldest are when the followers of Chaos are founded, then later the followers of Order. Then you would see the foundation of the Gray Druids, and be wondering why they do not appear again for over 1,000 years.
Or why the expulsion of those that question Order is simply accepted as fact, 600 years before Lerris is given the reasoning why.
Plus other spoilers would have been given away. Like in reading The Magic of Recluse, a reader would have immediately realized that Justen was Lerris' uncle, and along with his father and mother was over 200 years old.
You can indeed read them out of order, but those and a lot of other questions will then rise. Such as the concepts of "Order Focus" and "Chaos Focus", which were in the oldest stories chronologically. But did not need to be explained as once again, it was assumed the readers had read the older books and already knew that.
If the books are effectively standalone enough that they can be read and understood in any order, I don't really consider that a series.
Sure they are. For example, in wikipedia under: "Jack Reacher (book series)"
"Jack Reacher is a fictional protagonist of a series of novels, novellas and short stories by British author Jim Grant under the pen name Lee Child.[1]"
I can't find it, but doesn't SOL have ordered and unordered series? Ordered meaning they need to be read in order and unordered meaning they can be read in any order.
Might as well start a mystery story with who did the murder and why at the start, then follow the detective as they tried to figure it out.
That's the way the Columbo TV series worked. We, as viewers, got to watch the murder being committed in the opening scenes. The rest of the episode was Columbo figuring out how to catch the rich person who had committed the murder.
A lot of detective stories (and John D. MacDonald almost-detective color series) are all written y the same author but don't have much development between novels.
The author, however, could make a change when he wanted to.
Nero Wolfe solved a murder where the innocent obvious perpetrator was a young Black guy. Then he solved another where the IOP was that guys son, now a college professor. Times had changed, but Nero and Archie were still the same age.
A lot of detective stories (and John D. MacDonald almost-detective color series) are all written y the same author but don't have much development between novels.
I read several series by Lawrence Block (mostly the Bernie the Burglar and Matthew Scudder books tho) and they definitely developed. Sometimes it was minor details (like the houseguest wondering why Bernie had what looked like a genuine Mondrian in his living room - he'd stolen it several books previous) and other times it was major (Scudder went from drunken dirty cop to recovering alcoholic licensed investigator to semi-retired unofficial private investigator married to a former call girl turned real estate tycoon - she'd invested most of the money she made in the trade buying property in NYC - who he'd murdered a pimp for back when he was a cop) but... maybe it's just a different era?
Nero Wolfe solved a murder where the innocent obvious perpetrator was a young Black guy. Then he solved another where the IOP was that guys son, now a college professor. Times had changed, but Nero and Archie were still the same age.
Which is ironic, as he is actually never intended to really be "seen". He sits in his Brownstone like a spider in the web, and Archie does all of his running around for him. He is the one that interviews clients, collects the evidence, and does everything else. Nero just sits in his chair at home and gets fatter.
Which is ironic, as he is actually never intended to really be "seen". He sits in his Brownstone like a spider in the web, and Archie does all of his running around for him. He is the one that interviews clients, collects the evidence, and does everything else. Nero just sits in his chair at home and gets fatter.
There is at least one story, called Too Many Cooks, in which Nero Wolfe takes a train on a trip to a resort where famous chefs from around the world gather. (There was a murder there, of course.) I've read all of the Nero Wolfe stories and that was one of my favorites. IIRC, there was at least one other story in which Wolfe left the Brownstone where he lived and went to his favorite NYC restaurant.
There is at least one story, called Too Many Cooks, in which Nero Wolfe takes a train on a trip to a resort where famous chefs from around the world gather. (There was a murder there, of course.) I've read all of the Nero Wolfe stories and that was one of my favorites. IIRC, there was at least one other story in which Wolfe left the Brownstone where he lived and went to his favorite NYC restaurant.
True. He also went home to Montenegro once.
But he hated leaving home, and I don't think he ever did as part of a mystery. I admit I have never read the stories, but have listened to a great many of the classic radio dramas of the 1940's and 1950's.
Specifically, one who went into details about barrels. Who made them, why they were made, where they were used and all sorts of things into what they were used for, why, and how they were then put into a storage room.
This reminds me strongly of 'The Princess Bride' (the book, not the movie). The story-within-a-story of the book is that the author is cutting out the 'good parts' from a much longer, overwritten book.
Footnotes such as (paraphrased): 'Here I have omitted several pages describing the Princess' hats, dresses, luggage, and other accompaniments' are highly amusing.
The best thing about the movie (which is truly great) is how much of the book is done well and how little they screwed up.
I'm considering when to reread a certain story on SOL, and how much to skim while doing it, because there is very much detail on things I just don't need that much detail on, yet the plot itself remains entertaining to me many, many years after diving into it, and I'm years behind what's out there now (actually, there are a few like that, come to think of it, but some of the others are newer and not quite so long).
