Realized I hadn’t endorsed the check I intended to deposit and saw no pens available to do so wherewith at AB, so borrowed a pen from the nearby CVS cashier. I declined to buy leftover Christmas sweets there because a club card was needed to get the discount. {Borrowed a pen from CVS because I forgot to endorse my check.}
Adam’s and שת’s apartment feeding Cookie. {Feeding the cat.} Pleasantly surprised to find hot food still available at the North Village buffet and so bought an amalgam that included an egg roll, macaroni and cheese, egg foo young, and yam or sweet potato chunks. I intended to eat at least some of it on the ride home but the train was a little too crowded.
One of the two times I can recall noticing that my facial‐tat friend was wearing pajama bottoms and house slippers while outside his building smoking in the wintertime.
Transferring at the Lex. Ave./E. 53rd St. station, I followed an attractive man’s posterior off the train, then walking along the platform, jaunting up the escalator and walking to the 51st St. station.
Stopped into DR, 1550 Third Ave., to get leftover Christmas chocolates for the party and used my club card that I didn’t even need to use in order to get the discount (22:59).
GA New Year’s “bash” at Rich’s apartment, pt. 1 (8468). (See iPhone notes, 1 Jan. 2017.)
The egg roll was surprisingly pungent and the egg foo young surprisingly sweet.
http://plus.google.com/+elyaqim/posts/ifUwrSKPXxU
http://www.twitter.com/elyaqimnyc/status/815111720620457984
It’s not always easy to figure out which versions of a character are distinct enough to be considered worthy of separate articles, and where one person draws the largely arbitrary dividing lines is not likely to be the same as where someone else draws them. Also, I thought the policy was that it’s okay to group various versions of the same character together until someone finds both the need and drive to separate them, as evidenced by, for example, Kitty Claus and the Snow Maiden (whom someone found the time to separate) and by Santa Claus and Ded Moroz (for whom no one has yet found the time).
Another thing to consider is that the basic parameters of many folk characters are so vague that authors can express tremendous individuality in writing background stories for them. Should every author’s or every publishing house’s version of a character get a separate article? Every author’s interpretation of Jack Horner is so distinct that we’d wind up with at least twenty‐five articles for him. And a hundred articles for Santa Claus. And a hundred fifty articles for Jack Frost. And three hundred articles for the Man in the Moon.
When each author usually uses a character for only one work,
The sole parameter of the Mrs. Claus/Mother Christmas character is that she is Santa Claus’/Father Christmas’ wife, so this allows authors to go to town creating whatever varying names and background stories they want. In the 1500s, they were just called “Yule and Yule’s wife,” and James Rees called them “Santa Claus and his wife.” Old Betty/Dame Dorothy from the 1870s mummers plays may or may not have been inspired by Yule’s wife, but it is hardly likely she was at all inspired by American author Rees’ story. That the Ladies’ Home Journal stories from the 1920s named her Bessie may or may not have been a nod to the 19th‐century mummers plays, but how could we know for sure? The situation is so tangled that it makes more sense to me to remove Rees as creator in the info‐box, especially since the concept of Yule’s wife/Mother Christmas already existed, than to remove all the real names given by various authors in multiple works. Agree? (Or what about revising the info‐box rule? Perhaps we can just specify that later names were not given by the character’s original creator.) (05:34)