9 comments
  1. skyweek said:

    Would be more effective if one could read what the original text actually said …

    • Totally fair concern. This was a judgment call I made as the writer/artist. The underlying text covered a range of subjects from astronomy to astrology to how to parent. I didn’t want readers to get caught up in the underlying text because I thought it would be distracting (hence the heavy redaction). I absolutely get and appreciate your concern. Thanks for dropping by to check out my blog.

  2. skyweek said:

    The book is from 1825, you say, a *very* different era … wouldn*t any publication that encouraged young girls to get involved in science at that time – however sexist the language may sound to our ears – be something to … celebrate? The book has actually been re-published in facsimile in 2011 – because of its “cultural importance” …

  3. I’m not suggesting the text has no value. My concern is that even today sexist messages like those found in this text discourage girls from scientific disciplines.

  4. This is AMAZING! Literally. Do you read through many articles before choosing one or do you stick to one until you make it work?

    • Thanks! Glad you like it. I thought your question about how I pick articles was a great one. I usually pick an entire book (or long article) that is in the public domain and start scanning pages for a word or phrase with a double meaning or some ambiguity. Once I find at least one word or phrase I think will work, I keep working at the page until a poem emerges. Thanks again for your lovely note.

  5. Johna301 said:

    i love your blog and i think its going to my favorite!!i love viagra and cialis too! eadabdccgekg

Leave a comment