|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Dec 22, 2020 17:01:08 GMT
FF tends not to have books with multiple endings in them. I'm not talking about death paragraphs, but other more ambiguous endings like you become a monk in a monastery (Crimson Tide) , or you turn into a centaur mutant thing and happily gallop about the place forgetting who you used to be (Black Vein Prophecy).
Is FF the poorer for not having them, or the richer?
When I was younger I preferred the idea of the one true victory, but now I'm not so sure and think if done well alternative endings could make the book better.
I'm thinking of Heart of Ice as a good example.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,462
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Dec 22, 2020 17:46:26 GMT
I quite like having a few ok-good endings. Though having one ending that is clearly the best is probably better than loads of good endings.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Dec 22, 2020 18:14:22 GMT
There can be intriguingly ambiguous endings, which could count either as a success or a failure. It's more satisfying to have and achieve a clear goal. However, there might be different ways that can be achieved or new information gained during the story from which alternative goals can be inferred. Gamebooks can be enriched with these narratives. But, I never felt very satisfied with destroying that asteroid in Rings of Kether. An alternative ending isn't always a satisfactory one.
Alternative endings such as killing the evil wizard and closing down his operation, or killing the evil wizard and taking over his dungeon to reign supreme would always suggest that there is still one path you should choose, since few gamebook writers would encourage immoral behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by dragonwarrior8 on Dec 22, 2020 21:50:17 GMT
Personally I prefer having a clear cut win ending (thats what section 400 is supposed to be for after all) as I feel multiple successful endings tend to make the book too easy. Although if done well it can provide some replayability so I can see that side of it.
There is an ending in Creature of Havoc where you become Marr's war commander. I remember staring at the entry and thinking that many readers would probably consider that a "win".
|
|
|
Post by The Count on Dec 23, 2020 6:00:58 GMT
For the most part, I think they add to the replayability of the book as it gives you a reason to try again. Similar to the multiple path type book
|
|
|
Post by vastariner on Dec 23, 2020 7:59:03 GMT
One of the intriguing ones was in Way Of The Tiger: Inferno. Until the "lost" volume came out, there was one way in which you could survive the book still in charge of Irsmuncast. Namely, do nothing when the idiots went into the Rift themselves.
It made for a very short gamebook experience, but I was thinking that it was a better ending than the alternative, not least because, as a city-state ruler, you can't really go gallivanting on a crusade to rescue a couple of foolhardy fundamenalists.
|
|
|
Post by petch on Dec 23, 2020 16:01:17 GMT
Scorpion Swamp is the title that springs immediately to my mind when I think of multiple endings (although I know US SJ had them in some way in all 3 of his books). The main reason being that despite the Selator ending being the obvious 'good' ending, I always preferred - presumably like a lot of players - the Grimslade route as it allowed for the most interesting and varied exploration of the swamp, access to the most useful spell selection with the evil spells (Withering if I remember correctly could get you out of all kinds of scrapes), and the most satisfying denouement where you could destroy your evil patron with his own curse magic upon completion of his quest, leaving your character chastened but wiser for the experience.
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Dec 23, 2020 16:36:50 GMT
Scorpion Swamp is the title that springs immediately to my mind when I think of multiple endings (although I know US SJ had them in some way in all 3 of his books). The main reason being that despite the Selator ending being the obvious 'good' ending, I always preferred - presumably like a lot of players - the Grimslade route as it allowed for the most interesting and varied exploration of the swamp, access to the most useful spell selection with the evil spells (Withering if I remember correctly could get you out of all kinds of scrapes), and the most satisfying denouement where you could destroy your evil patron with his own curse magic upon completion of his quest, leaving your character chastened but wiser for the experience. Completely agree. There was more than one path to victory in all US SJ's books but at the same time the multiple endings did not pull your journey through the book in different directions.. in contrast to Choose Your Own Adventure which I didn't like nearly as much. I thought they were too short with too many endings which just came up seemingly at random.
|
|
sylas
Baron
"Don't just adventure for treasure; treasure the adventure!"
Posts: 1,679
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy, Way of the Tiger
|
Post by sylas on Dec 23, 2020 20:55:52 GMT
Having one well thought out ending or simply a satisfying one will usually suffice and is more definitive. Having several endings can be a bonus but not altogether necessary. Are the choices there to satisfy the crowd or does they provide a stronger narrative overall? Even Warlock of Firetop Mountain touches on multiple ending options in the final paragraph. Do you live on as a wealthy hero; become an all-powerful wizard; or be the new master of the mountain? Both have their own strengths and weaknesses so it really depends on the author's approach but, neither is a better option than the other.
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Dec 23, 2020 21:36:10 GMT
Choose Your Own Adventure [...] were too short with too many endings which just came up seemingly at random. For the most part I agree, but the gamebook that (IMO) makes best use of multiple 'win' endings is a CYOA. It's structured in such a way that different successes reveal different aspects of the truth, and while it may initially appear that the explanations provided are mutually incompatible, eventually it becomes clear that they do all fit together quite satisfactorily, and only appeared contradictory because of incorrect assumptions made both by the reader and by some of the characters.
|
|
|
Post by petch on Dec 24, 2020 15:23:31 GMT
Choose Your Own Adventure [...] were too short with too many endings which just came up seemingly at random. For the most part I agree, but the gamebook that (IMO) makes best use of multiple 'win' endings is a CYOA. It's structured in such a way that different successes reveal different aspects of the truth, and while it may initially appear that the explanations provided are mutually incompatible, eventually it becomes clear that they do all fit together quite satisfactorily, and only appeared contradictory because of incorrect assumptions made both by the reader and by some of the characters. Which particular title are you referring to there, Greenspine? I don't think I've read a CYOA since I was a child so my memories of them are hazy at best, but the recollections I do have are very similar to Bloodbeasthandler's. I can remember being annoyed by the arbitrariness of some of the endings even as a child, where the narrative's course of events or character's motivations would be completely different dependent on seemingly unrelated choices that you made.
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Dec 24, 2020 15:45:58 GMT
It's called The Mystery of Ura Senke. Sorry for leaving that detail out - that was my second attempt at a reply, because my computer crashed, and since I remembered having typed the title the first time I tried posting, it didn't occur to me that I'd neglected to include it second time around.
Part of the reason Ura Senke so impressed me was that it did avoid the usual CYOA approach of having major plot elements vary depending on the choices made, even though there was a point where it appeared to be doing that, until I got enough of the big picture to understand how it was possible for both versions of events to be different facets of the same narrative.
|
|
|
Post by petch on Dec 24, 2020 16:53:01 GMT
Ok, that sounds interesting. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Dec 25, 2020 2:07:02 GMT
It's called The Mystery of Ura Senke. Sorry for leaving that detail out - that was my second attempt at a reply, because my computer crashed, and since I remembered having typed the title the first time I tried posting, it didn't occur to me that I'd neglected to include it second time around. Part of the reason Ura Senke so impressed me was that it did avoid the usual CYOA approach of having major plot elements vary depending on the choices made, even though there was a point where it appeared to be doing that, until I got enough of the big picture to understand how it was possible for both versions of events to be different facets of the same narrative. A gamebook about one of the major Japanese tea ceremony traditions? Wow! And with Rashomon-esque multiple stories? Even better! Given that I liked Heart of Ice sufficiently to actually lose a chunk of money publishing it when its first publisher dropped it, it's no secret that I like multiple endings. I think the main reason is it's too simplistic to have everything resolve as either death or glory. Some 'alternative endings' can be seen as worse than a death paragraph (I think some people would regard abandoning an adventure, or forgetting everything as a transformed being, in those terms). Others can be seen to point towards the sort of murky resolution of noir. And some readers will prefer those. One thing I really like about Heart of Ice is that the ending you regard as the 'best' is like a Rorschach Test that reveals a lot about your worldview and aesthetic preferences. Both Dave and I consider the 'lift doors close' Bladerunner homage to be the 'real' ending. But there are people who think that maximum success in that book is where you succeed in your quest and remake the universe in your image (these people scare me a bit!). You really can decide for yourself which ending you prefer. You can clearly see Heart of Ice as a progenitor of Can You Brexit?But this is a different thing to multiple endings in an FF book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the FF books which have multiple endings nevertheless have one that is clearly the maximum success ending (even if some twit of an author doesn't put it on para 400). Here the less-optimal endings are there as aesthetic alternatives to death paragraphs. Abandoning adventure in order to become an enlightened being, whatever some stupid author says about it, is not really a successful outcome to an adventure gamebook. But it does provide a slightly different experience, before (hopefully) you replay the book, than 'As you bend over, the guard you had missed steps out from his hiding place and impales you up the bum with his chauvre-souris. Your adventure ends here. But look on the bright side: it sorts out your piles.'
|
|
|
Post by The Count on Dec 25, 2020 3:24:17 GMT
'As you bend over, the guard you had missed steps out from his hiding place and impales you up the bum with his chauvre-souris.' See my comment in another thread about NOT googling the "erotic CYOA"...
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Dec 25, 2020 4:01:47 GMT
See my comment in another thread about NOT googling the "erotic CYOA"... And there was I thinking I was writing a tribute to Min and Jamie's legendary trident episode...
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Dec 25, 2020 7:12:49 GMT
With the Twistaplot books, different pathways not only led to different endings, but they twisted the plot in different ways. Embarrassingly, it actually took me quite a while to figure out that this is what the series title was alluding to. For example, if you talk to the reporter you find out that the TV station manager is plotting to steal money and you try to stop him, but if you sit back stage to watch a show being produced you discover that the reporter is trying to eliminate the main star and take her place.
So the different endings are the result of completely different plot lines. Could this be done in a gamebook without just having several separate adventures inside one cover? Scorpion Swamp did something like this, with most of the paragraphs common to all three objectives.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,462
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Dec 25, 2020 9:19:32 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the FF books which have multiple endings nevertheless have one that is clearly the maximum success ending Not always, the other Steve Jackson's books being the best counter-example.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Dec 25, 2020 9:26:36 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the FF books which have multiple endings nevertheless have one that is clearly the maximum success ending Not always, the other Steve Jackson's books being the best counter-example. It's a very long time since I read Scorpion Swamp, and it is highly possible that I didn't devote enough attention to it to be able to evaluate all the different endings. But this raises the issue of what the unwritten 'house rules' about FF really are. On which, more anon.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Dec 25, 2020 9:37:38 GMT
With the Twistaplot books, different pathways not only led to different endings, but they twisted the plot in different ways. Embarrassingly, it actually took me quite a while to figure out that this is what the series title was alluding to. For example, if you talk to the reporter you find out that the TV station manager is plotting to steal money and you try to stop him, but if you sit back stage to watch a show being produced you discover that the reporter is trying to eliminate the main star and take her place. So the different endings are the result of completely different plot lines. Could this be done in a gamebook without just having several separate adventures inside one cover? Scorpion Swamp did something like this, with most of the paragraphs common to all three objectives. This is quite fascinating, but I have a suspicion that many FF readers would be rather annoyed to learn that reality warps in this sort of way. I mean, I'm the sort of person who thinks it's OK to have stories used inside stories to manipulate reality, and even I balk at the idea that characters' motivations and nature are utterly fluid, not just in the sense that they vary depending on your actions (which, after all, reflects the way we understand reality to function), but that they effectively vary arbitrarily. Fair's fair, this aspect is flagged up in the title of the series. But I do have a feeling that doing this in Fighting Fantasy would be regarded as not quite cricket, at a level somewhat above even the worst of my excesses. I think there are unwritten house rules, a sort of implicit contract, involved in FF. Because it's unwritten, it's not always clear what's in it: for example some people feel it includes a single clear victory paragraph, reachable by a character with any initial level of SKILL and STAMINA; others don't. But I think this consistency of reality in an FF is a part of the 'house rules' for a reason: each play of the book allows you to view things from a slightly different point of view, and this variation itself can give you a better understanding (and maybe even appreciation) for the underlying plot. In the Twistaplot book, on the other hand, your different points of view are not actually points of view on the same thing, which might be rather unsatisfying. My feeling is that it's a tricksy device undertaken for authorial reasons ("Wouldn't it be cool to have all these different plots?") which fails to take account of one of the less obvious pleasures of gamebook reading.
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Dec 25, 2020 11:35:31 GMT
It's called The Mystery of Ura Senke. Sorry for leaving that detail out - that was my second attempt at a reply, because my computer crashed, and since I remembered having typed the title the first time I tried posting, it didn't occur to me that I'd neglected to include it second time around. Part of the reason Ura Senke so impressed me was that it did avoid the usual CYOA approach of having major plot elements vary depending on the choices made, even though there was a point where it appeared to be doing that, until I got enough of the big picture to understand how it was possible for both versions of events to be different facets of the same narrative. A gamebook about one of the major Japanese tea ceremony traditions? Wow! And with Rashomon-esque multiple stories? Even better! There's also one point in the book where the reader can turn a success into a partial failure through lack of cultural sensitivity.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,462
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Dec 25, 2020 11:42:48 GMT
There is an ending in the first Endless Quest book where you follow a tunnel that leads out of the dungeon and you decide to call it a day. Rather than, you know, turning round and heading back in to kill the evil wizard and take his untold treasures. Definitely a very unsatisfying "non-failure" ending.
In the same book after you kill the wizard, you are confronted with the door to his treasure vault and asked if you have the key. If you do, you open the door, get the treasure and a long drawn-out ending where you and your companion discuss your plans for the future. If you don't have the key, your companion picks the lock so you still get the treasure, but the book ends abruptly. So you achieve the exact same thing but the book only makes a big deal out of it if you do it a certain way. It's like Rose Estes didn't want to reward players who missed the key with the optimal ending but didn't have the heart to do a "nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh, no treasure for you!" ending.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Dec 27, 2020 13:04:34 GMT
Scorpion Swamp is the title that springs immediately to my mind when I think of multiple endings I think Scorpion Swamp is a different case than most multiple endings. It seems to have been an experiment in giving a player freedom of movement in the game's environment, over the top of which different quests could be attempted. RPG computer games do the same thing, obviously to an extent which would be difficult in a gamebook that wasn't unwieldy in its bulk. In theory, you could invent other quests for Scorpion Swamp with a handful of extra paragraphs, and a few more paragraphs and alterations could extend the swamp itself for increased replayability. Throw in enough different locations, objects and encounters, and you could enter the swamp with a list of quests to complete while you're there. Or enter just to kill beasts and get treasure (perhaps just for Experience Points), because the swamp's layout isn't dependent on the quest you're attempting. It was a brave experiment that created a unique gamebook, but it's not a structure to which gamebooks are suited. In contrast, multiple endings in most gamebooks are branches from a path driven by the requirements of the player's specific quest.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Dec 29, 2020 3:17:26 GMT
Scorpion Swamp is the title that springs immediately to my mind when I think of multiple endings I think Scorpion Swamp is a different case than most multiple endings. It seems to have been an experiment in giving a player freedom of movement in the game's environment, over the top of which different quests could be attempted. RPG computer games do the same thing, obviously to an extent which would be difficult in a gamebook that wasn't unwieldy in its bulk. In theory, you could invent other quests for Scorpion Swamp with a handful of extra paragraphs, and a few more paragraphs and alterations could extend the swamp itself for increased replayability. Throw in enough different locations, objects and encounters, and you could enter the swamp with a list of quests to complete while you're there. Or enter just to kill beasts and get treasure (perhaps just for Experience Points), because the swamp's layout isn't dependent on the quest you're attempting. It was a brave experiment that created a unique gamebook, but it's not a structure to which gamebooks are suited. In contrast, multiple endings in most gamebooks are branches from a path driven by the requirements of the player's specific quest. Sounds almost like what Dave and Jamie did with Fabled Lands.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Dec 29, 2020 3:47:37 GMT
I think Scorpion Swamp is a different case than most multiple endings. It seems to have been an experiment in giving a player freedom of movement in the game's environment, over the top of which different quests could be attempted. RPG computer games do the same thing, obviously to an extent which would be difficult in a gamebook that wasn't unwieldy in its bulk. In theory, you could invent other quests for Scorpion Swamp with a handful of extra paragraphs, and a few more paragraphs and alterations could extend the swamp itself for increased replayability. Throw in enough different locations, objects and encounters, and you could enter the swamp with a list of quests to complete while you're there. Or enter just to kill beasts and get treasure (perhaps just for Experience Points), because the swamp's layout isn't dependent on the quest you're attempting. It was a brave experiment that created a unique gamebook, but it's not a structure to which gamebooks are suited. In contrast, multiple endings in most gamebooks are branches from a path driven by the requirements of the player's specific quest. Sounds almost like what Dave and Jamie did with Fabled Lands. I've heard of Fabled Lands, and it intrigues me, especially given the skill of its authors. But my time these days is extremely limited; I doubt I'll ever have the chance to play it. And let's face it; if literary interactive fiction is going to compete with the electronic entertainment industry these days, it needs to focus on its strengths. Creating an immersive, open ended fictional world is not really one of its strengths. If Scorpion Swamp was an early attempt to do in book form what modern computer games now do routinely, good for Steve Jackson. He was a visionary. But such a structure is heavy on the the number of references needed, and damages the overall narrative and diversity of options, which is where literary interactive fiction still has an edge. Although, perhaps more is possible in ebook format, where the physical size of the book is less of an issue. On that subject; would members here favour a more expansive, similarly open ended adventure like Scorpion Swamp as an ebook, or would you prefer a more linear, traditional gamebook?
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Dec 30, 2020 16:06:34 GMT
This is quite fascinating, but I have a suspicion that many FF readers would be rather annoyed to learn that reality warps in this sort of way. I mean, I'm the sort of person who thinks it's OK to have stories used inside stories to manipulate reality, and even I balk at the idea that characters' motivations and nature are utterly fluid, not just in the sense that they vary depending on your actions (which, after all, reflects the way we understand reality to function), but that they effectively vary arbitrarily. Fair's fair, this aspect is flagged up in the title of the series. But I do have a feeling that doing this in Fighting Fantasy would be regarded as not quite cricket, at a level somewhat above even the worst of my excesses. I think there are unwritten house rules, a sort of implicit contract, involved in FF. Because it's unwritten, it's not always clear what's in it: for example some people feel it includes a single clear victory paragraph, reachable by a character with any initial level of SKILL and STAMINA; others don't. I agree. I don't want such a warped reality or utterly fluid character motivations either. I want the author to have thought it all out from the get-go like a well-planned (but not necessarily 'railroaded') roleplaying campaign. It doesn't mean I demand to be spoon-fed every plot point in full. Mystery, obscurity and ambiguity can be good things, intriguing. Nor does it mean the plot has to be kept simple. Not at all. There can be all sorts of things going on in the background which may or may not be relevant to the quest or the mission. Mark S's and Jamie T's 'Warbringer!' is an example of how to do things right. As a city ruler you are seeking allies in a war against an enemy with a formidable army. By allying with 'City State X' you get some much needed troops, but then their enemies in 'City State Y' could go over to the enemy. The enemy army will potentially be one of two possible compositions but the authors have worked it all out and it works really well. But I think this consistency of reality in an FF is a part of the 'house rules' for a reason: each play of the book allows you to view things from a slightly different point of view, and this variation itself can give you a better understanding (and maybe even appreciation) for the underlying plot. In the Twistaplot book, on the other hand, your different points of view are not actually points of view on the same thing, which might be rather unsatisfying. Yes. Though I was not a big fan of Choose Your Own Adventure in general, at the time I really did like 'Who Killed Harlowe Thrombey?', a murder-mystery set in a house where the host is poisoned. The killers are always the same characters, and different paths in the book enable you to do exactly what you've just said there in that quote above. I played it when young and there I was with my 'detective's notebook' writing down clues and possible motives. It would have been very dissatisfying for me if the killer changed randomly from read to read based solely on arbitrary choices in the text. I would have felt cheated and less likely to play through it. More recently, James Schannep's 'Murdered' is a good example of a murder-mystery done well with a complex, interesting and consistent plot. My feeling is that it's a tricksy device undertaken for authorial reasons ("Wouldn't it be cool to have all these different plots?") which fails to take account of one of the less obvious pleasures of gamebook reading. If so, (and if I have understood correctly what's going on in these books) then I'd rather the author either incorporate these various plot threads into a single coherent and planned narrative ... or write an additional book.
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Dec 30, 2020 16:34:45 GMT
Sounds almost like what Dave and Jamie did with Fabled Lands. I've heard of Fabled Lands, and it intrigues me, especially given the skill of its authors. But my time these days is extremely limited; I doubt I'll ever have the chance to play it. And let's face it; if literary interactive fiction is going to compete with the electronic entertainment industry these days, it needs to focus on its strengths. Creating an immersive, open ended fictional world is not really one of its strengths. If Scorpion Swamp was an early attempt to do in book form what modern computer games now do routinely, good for Steve Jackson. He was a visionary. But such a structure is heavy on the the number of references needed, and damages the overall narrative and diversity of options, which is where literary interactive fiction still has an edge. Although, perhaps more is possible in ebook format, where the physical size of the book is less of an issue. On that subject; would members here favour a more expansive, similarly open ended adventure like Scorpion Swamp as an ebook, or would you prefer a more linear, traditional gamebook? I recommend the Fabled Lands books wholeheartedly and would urge you to get hold of the first and second in the series, set a bit of time aside and see if they float your boat. That way you don't spend out on a large set of books you might not find the time to get round to playing. As an open-ended sandbox type of format, you decide how much time to read the books for. You decide if and when to 'retire' your character. That's the whole idea. An hour or two here and there, or hours and hours day after day in a binge... it's up to you. As to your question, I'm probably not very representative of anyone or anything these days but my answer is I don't care for ebooks. I want a printed format, a real book I can keep. Not some pixels rented from a central site or loaded onto a piece of tech that is going to be out of date sooner or later. The only gamebook I've read in e-format is Lone Wolf 22: The Buccaneers of Shadaki. And that was because I can't get it for a reasonable price second hand and really wanted to read the Lone Wolf saga.
|
|
|
Post by petch on Dec 30, 2020 16:51:11 GMT
Amen. One of the things I'm enjoying about being part of a community based around an 80s/90s fad is that presumably most of us are old enough that we can remember when our stuff had some form of physical existence
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Dec 31, 2020 10:16:00 GMT
Choose Your Own Adventure [...] were too short with too many endings which just came up seemingly at random. For the most part I agree, but the gamebook that (IMO) makes best use of multiple 'win' endings is a CYOA. It's structured in such a way that different successes reveal different aspects of the truth, and while it may initially appear that the explanations provided are mutually incompatible, eventually it becomes clear that they do all fit together quite satisfactorily, and only appeared contradictory because of incorrect assumptions made both by the reader and by some of the characters. I think I'm a bit hard on CYOA in general and I take on board what you say. I didn't read anywhere near all of them so am no expert. I had the Horror of High Ridge [you could send away for that book and Mountain Survival as part of some breakfast cereal giveaway in the mid 80's] and though I found the book atmospheric and scary, I do remember death paragraphs coming up frequently and with no apparent justice. If I still had it, I'd reread and be able to give proper examples.
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Dec 31, 2020 13:31:48 GMT
There are plenty of CYOA books which are guilty of the sort of things you were complaining about. I brought up The Mystery of Ura Senke because it's an exception.
I also had The Horror of High Ridge, and wouldn't argue with what you said about it. Mind you, it's not as bad as House of Danger, to which it is a sequel, as House is one of the biggest offenders on the 'reality shifts based on your decisions' front. I still remember my friend Simon's confused outrage when his second attempt at the book ended with him being torn to shreds by the savage apes that had only been holograms the first time he read it.
Of the two CYOAs in the first breakfast cereal giveaway, Mountain Survival was by far the better. Most, if not all, of the bad endings came from making unwise choices. And it explained the term 'pulmonary edema' while adding it to my vocabulary, whereas Horror made no effort to clarify the meaning of the word 'copacetic' while shoehorning it into the text.
|
|