I spent most of today watching other people clean my house for me (which shouldn’t be tiring, but somehow is) and when that wasn’t happening I was fixated on the music I’ve done for Black Flag. Not working on it, just listening to it over and over, especially Waltz in a Whirl. Wallowing in in my past accomplishments is very typical of me when I want to be progressing on a project and don’t have enough oomph.
(Scent of Spring, however, is moving along at the same pace as usual. That’s the one that I traditionally take along with me to kids’ music lessons and doctor appointments to work on while I wait.) ::rueful grin::
To add to my frustration I seem to have invented yet another Black Flag story, and in the main sequence, too. ::Wah!:: When I haven’t been working on that, I’ve been doing In My Head Theater runs of Black Flag 3, during which I came up with a reason for Turner to be explaining the Brotherhood’s Articles as part of his court case to get Black Flag acknowledged as a nation, which was one of the scenes in my head, but it seemed a bit absurd: why would the ins and outs of Black Flag Law have much of an effect as its status as a country? The question should be quite simply, “Does it have laws?” And the answer is “Yes”, and the Articles are presented as evidence of same…
…and then the question is raised “How can we know that these are the actual laws that these people are actually using, and not just some recently created document that claims to be their laws?” (A question that goes along very nicely with “How can we know that these people control any territory that is not under the jurisdiction any other country, if they won’t tell us where that territory is?” — which I haven’t figured out an answer for yet, by the way.)
Anyway, my current theory is that they decide to let the lawyers go through all the evidence of Black Flag activities that they can find, and whenever they encounter something that looks like it’s contrary to the Articles, they pull Turner into court, and he has to explain the discrepancy. If he can explain away an adequate percentage of whatever is found in the next x amount of time, the Articles are accepted as genuine, and if he can’t his case is tossed out of court. Which not only gives me an excuse for him to explain why Bonnie Anne killing that idiot back in Book 1 was not murder (according to the Articles), but my back brain has actually invented a new, nicely visual scene where the lawyers realize that the Articles do not list theft as a crime, and decide to pretend to rob Turner, so that his own reaction can be used as evidence that the Articles are fake. (I’m not sure how plausible it would be to have a court willing to enact such a demonstration, and I’m not sure I care — having my dashing young pirate mugged by a bunch of stuffy lawyers just tickles me too much.) >:)