11/8/2022> Q thi5 up wile reading thi5 po5t:

There's a moon in the sky. It's called the moon! Rite now iT's e¢Lip5ing. Woke up @ 4 a.m.+ went up th tele5cope ladder on2 th roof + saw th blood m∞n ju5t 5tarting 2 eclipse but iT was getting low on th horrorizon (5peaking of Low, sad about Mimi )-; Rousted R bedder–½ + went in2 th 5treets + cot glimpses of the putty gray orb over rooftops + B-tween trees az iT B-came fully eclipsed, ever in awe that it's there in the 5ky, always has bin + always will (unless earth blows up or a big enough meatier hits it), even after humuns wipe themselves out.

> iPhones suck 4 taking photos of 5u¢h things. + the light pollution dozen't help. The last time R bedder–½ + U/i witnessed a fool lunar eclipse was probly 25 yrs ago, on a rooftop in Tucson, witch is kinder far az lite pollution. We were sitting up there w/ R L&Lord + i/U remember he was wondering what time ppl on the east coast would see iT ... wd they see it 3 hours later? az if it was a televised event! U/i had 2 X-plane 2 him that iT was an event happening in the ℝeal world (not the REEL world), happening HERE + NOW, 4 every 1 @ th same time > same L&Lord that said he was an artist + showed us his studio chock full of 100s of penis sculptures, the only object he sculpted > looking in th 5cense archives we can't find a re¢ord of this eclipse, onely ƎXists in R memary > U/i mention seeing a lunar eclipse in 1993 + more recently in 2018 from R terraza in Rome, but i/U R guessing this 1 we 5peak of was more like 1995 or 1996, back when eclipses used 2 B harbingers 4 U/i > U/i met R bedder–½ b/c of a solar eclipse in 1991 + hear we R 26 yrs L8er

In the last post we swore we'd start blogging in more conventional language... we're trying, it will just take sum getting used 2 ... az Jules/Samuel L says, I'm trying reeaaaal hard. In the last post we also said we finished w/ what we then called And ma, i 4 1 live 2 emit (th 1^{st 1}/₄ of ^U/_X), but now we're back 2 calling it Soft Copy Hard + worked on it sum more this past week or 2... now, officially, thiNK we're done w/ it, 4 real, boom (mic drop). We need to put it B-hind us 2 move on2 other things. Knot sure we'll use the cover DALL·E 2 made 4 us, or save that 4 ^U/_X? Or weather we'll use this 1 we mocked up:

> th0 we also dig th B-low image, dat R brother Chaulky made (it's title was Untitled '91, but he referred 2 it az «oxygen» .... 1 from his Elements series)... th0 we used it already in 'SSES" 'SSES" ^"SSEY':

> what do U, the reader, think? we sent the manuscript out somewhere, but like everything else we've ever written we'll likely just end up publishing it R self, az iT probly won't make much sense 2 N-E else. @ N-E r8, we're no longer drinking out of R periodic table mug dat we showed in the last post. We started to read thi5 book Periodic Tales by Hugh Aldersey-Williams that sum 1 put in2 our bo/ox (thx!), but tho we dig th idea of it («a cultural history of the elements, from arsenic to zinc») we din't reL8 to th 1st dozen or so «tales» we red + they weren't really organized according 2 th elements so we couldn't just skip 2 elements we were interested in (we covered atomic #s 1–16 in Soft Copy Hard, Hydrogen to Sulfur, also woven 2gether w/ oblique strategies + i Ching). Now we're drinking out of R Dark Side of the Moon mug, witch we drink out of when in recording mode, but also is relevant in light of the eclipse this a.m. We also have a Basquiat mug we drink out of when in visual art mode, boom 4 reel.

> we're still deaf in our rite ear tho (+ what we do hear is muffled, sounds like when Charlie Brown's pairunts speak) so hard to record/mix. So sort of in limbo, eXcept last few days we planned out R entire iT-L-E trip come December in2 January. Working on a new manuscript we accepted for Calamari th0 we haven't offically annouced it b/c we don't know for sure what form it will take (dbook only, or paper-based book object). Part of this has to do w/ us being still being in the error about R future, weather we end up living in aNYCity or iT-L-E.

> finally watched The Beatles: Get Back documentary + since we sined up 4 Disney+ figured we'd watch all the Star Wars movies in chronillogical order b4 quitting. So that's what we've been doing the past week or 2, in a sighence fiction/space age geek mode. We've obviously seen th original Star Wars plenty of times + The Empire Strikes Back + Return of the Jedi + even bits of the others, tho we're usually turned off by silly G-r8ed shit they put in 4 kids, but it was cool watching them in order + try to tune out the silliness + light-saber swash-buckling + focus on the overarching story + post-humun elements, such as th &roids > got 2 thinking that C3-PO + R2-D2 are the only characters that appear in all 9 movies (arguably the true protaganists?) + ironic 2 think C3PO comes in2 existence az a pet project/toy that the young Darth Vader is building. And how many times did R2-D2 save the day? the true hero. Always cd relate 2 Chewbaca too (who appears in more movies than N-E other bi-illogical B-ings). It's too bad they had to put humuns in N-E of the Star Wars movies, or that they try to make them the main characters. Would be cool to see them redone from the P.O.V. of R2-D2 or C3-PO or Chewy.

> also inspired by how George Lucas started w/ episode 4 + then worked backwords + 4word nonlinearly. This is sort of how we think of Soft Copy Hard, as just one piece of the puzzle wheel release b4 th others, th0 in the case of the original Star Wars movie it stands alone perfectly (+ az Joseph Campbell wd always point out, prime eggsample of th monomyth cycle, witch lord nose we've gone on plenty about on 5¢ense), whereas Soft Copy Hard is all out of seakwinds ala Hopscotch.