A Book 4, A Bundle, and An Official Release Date!
Up and Coming: Stories by the 2016 Campbell-Eligible Authors
Announcing: UP AND COMING — a 2016 anthology of Campbell-eligible authors!
S.L. Huang Awards Eligibility Post 2016
On This Day In History X Years Ago
Using Statistics to Choose What People Think Is Best: Not As Straightforward As You Might Think
Demonstrative Pronouns in Japanese: Or, How My Spanish is Helping
ROOT OF UNITY is out today!
Mmmm … Delightful Nova Scotian Foreskins



Plastic Smile is OUT! Get it now at your retailer of choice:


Amazon UK



Barnes & Noble

My first readers are generally of the opinion that this is the Best. Book. Yet.


Oh, and remember the bundle? The box set of books 1, 2, AND 3?




Seriously, for this upcoming week only, you can get ALL THREE of the first three books for just 99 cents.

Nintey-nine. Cents. For THREE BOOKS.

If you haven’t picked up book 3 yet, this is also a great opportunity to get that mega cheap!

Choose your retailer:


Amazon UK

Barnes & Noble



Note: The Kobo link has changed. The above link will be the correct link going forward.


A Book 4, A Bundle, and An Official Release Date!

News news news news news!

We have a Russell’s Attic book 4! It is available for preorder on Amazon! And more retailers will be coming soon — here is the the official Book Page that will be updated with links.

The Book 4 has a cover!  It is gorgeous, as all Najla Qamber’s covers are:


The Book 4 has a release date! That release date is June 30.

What to know what it’s about? Here is the blurb:

Cas Russell, antisocial mercenary, has decided to Fight Crime. With capital letters, like in one of her friend’s comic books.After all, she has a real-life superpower: with her instantaneous mathematical ability, she can neuter bombs or out-shoot an army. And it’s Cas’s own fault violence has been spiking in the world’s cities lately — she’s the one who crushed the organization of telepaths that had been keeping the world’s worst offenders under control. Now every drive-by or gang shooting reminds Cas how she’s failed, and taking out these scumbags one at a time is never going to be enough.

She needs to find a way to stop all the violence. At once.

But Cas’s own power has a history, one she can’t remember — or control. A history that’s creeping into the cracks in her mind and fracturing her sanity . . . just when she’s gotten herself on the hit list of every crime lord on the West Coast.

Cas isn’t going to be able to save the world. She might not even be able to save herself.

Oh, you might be wondering about the title. All the titles are number titles, you might say. What’s with Book 4? Well, there actually is such a thing as the plastic number. It’s equal to about 1.32471…, and its applications have to do with the ratios of numbers humans are able to perceive. As usual, it’s a bit of both a mathematical and thematic pun on the events of the book.

There is also a bundle! The bundle is the first three books in the series, plus the short stories. It gives me something else to run sales and such on, too. It exists now! On retailers! (Amazon, Kobo, and Apple, at least; B&N is still lagging.)

It also has a cover!  It is gorgeous and 3D:



What about BOOK 5?!  Book 5 is written and in editing, and just came back from its first round of beta. What about BOOKS 6 THROUGH 8?!! They are in the beginning stages of being written!  WHAT ABOUT BOOK 9?!!! It… has a title. Don’t ask me about book 10.

I will also hopefully have some fun announcements soon about some non-Cas Russell projects. Because I don’t always write mathematical fiction with kickass women and lots of guns. Sometimes I write fantasy with kickass women and lots of guns. Or swords, or staves, or slingshots…

I may have a type.

Up and Coming: Stories by the 2016 Campbell-Eligible Authors

It’s HERE! Get over a million words of fiction from this year’s Campbell-eligible authors!

Up and Coming: Stories by the 2016 Campbell-Eligible Authors

This anthology includes 120 authors—who contributed 230 works totaling approximately 1.1 MILLION words of fiction. These pieces all originally appeared in 2014, 2015, or 2016 from writers who are new professionals to the SFF field, and they represent a breathtaking range of work from the next generation of speculative storytelling.

All of these authors are eligible for the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer in 2016. We hope you’ll use this anthology as a guide in nominating for that award as well as a way of exploring many vibrant new voices in the genre.

This anthology will be offered as a free download through March 31, 2016 only.

The availability window has ended!  Over 15,000 people downloaded UP AND COMING.

**** Note: If you are on Firefox, you have to right-click on the Download button and choose “Save Link As.” ****

Up and Coming in EPUB (3.2 MB):

(download link removed)



Up and Coming in MOBI (12.3 MB):

(download link removed)


Thanks to our mirror partners at Writertopia for helping us spread the file!


Announcing: UP AND COMING — a 2016 anthology of Campbell-eligible authors!

UPDATES: Submissions are now closed!  We had OVER A HUNDRED AUTHORS send us their work. Updates on the anthology coming soon!  (If you want live updates on the build, follow @sl_huang on Twitter.)

We have a cover!  By the amazing Holly Heisey. See below.

We also have a title! Thanks to a suggestion by Effie Seiberg, the anthology will be called UP AND COMING: STORIES BY THE 2016 CAMPBELL-ELIGIBLE AUTHORS.

If you would like updates on this project via email, mailing list information is now at the end of this post.

Up and Coming: Stories by the 2016 Campbell-Eligible Authors

Cover by Holly Heisey, http://hollyheiseydesign.com/

I’m happy to announce that fellow SFF author Kurt Hunt and I will be building a Campbell anthology this year!

The original CAMPBELLIAN ANTHOLOGY is the brainchild of author M. David Blake, and he’s put a monumental amount of effort into making it happen in prior years. Since he decided not to make one this year due to slate voting (as he explains here), we asked his blessing to step up and build a similar book for 2016. We expect to be the curators of such an anthology for this year only.

What is a Campbell anthology? It is an anthology open to any writers eligible for the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer. The intent is to familiarize voters and readers with new writers in the SFF field. This anthology will be offered for download, for free, for a very limited time only (only until the nomination period closes on March 31), with an aimed release in early March.  This anthology is not affiliated with any of the people who administer the Campbell Award or the Hugos; it is purely a community effort.

Eligibility criteria for the Campbell Award are here. We will be using this list to determine individual authors’ eligibility, so if you’re eligible but not on Writertopia’s list, get yourself on there before you submit your work to us.

You may submit up to 3 pieces for inclusion. There is no firm word limit, but please keep it reasonable (around 10k-20k words total across all three pieces). Novels and long novellas should be excerpted. Authors who submit significantly more than 20k words of fiction risk having their pieces excluded in order to keep the anthology file size reasonable.

The submissions form is here. The deadline will be February 28, 8:00am Tokyo time (this is FEBRUARY 27 in the Western Hemisphere).

We apologize for the short deadline — we want nominators to have time to read before nominations close on March 31.


1. You MUST be on Writertopia’s “Eligible Authors for 2016 Campbell Award” list. If you’re eligible and not listed, go get yourself listed first before submitting.

2. If you submit a story that is under the exclusive control of a publisher (check your contract), you MUST have that publisher’s written permission to reprint that story in the anthology. If your contract’s exclusivity clause allows republication in an annual “best of” anthology, you still need permission — this is not a best-of anthology. If you don’t provide the original publisher’s exclusivity waiver on request, the affected story may be excluded.

3. Deadline: February 28, 8:00am Tokyo time, which is February 27 in Western Hemisphere time zones. This deadline is firm. No exceptions will be made, even if the reason is that your publisher hasn’t gotten back to you about waiving exclusivity (sorry — we know it’s a fast schedule).

4. The work you send must have been previously published during or after your first eligibility year (if you became eligible in 2014, you may include work from 2014 on; if you became eligible in 2015, you may include work from 2015 on). The work must be in English, and must be speculative fiction. No nonfiction or other genres. No unpublished work. (Self-published counts as published.)

5. Maximum 3 pieces.  Novels and long novellas must be excerpted.  Keep the total wordcount reasonable — please aim for between 10,000 and 20,000 words total in your submission. This cap will not be strictly enforced, but we ask you to please honor our request for a reasonable word count and use good judgment. Authors who submit significantly more than 20,000 words may have their work excluded from the anthology for file size reasons.

6. How to submit — the submission form is forthcoming once our contract info is in place. It will ask for the following information on each piece:

a) The title as you want it to appear. Do not include quotes or all caps unless that is part of the title.
b) Your byline name, as you want it to appear under the story title
c) Where and when the piece was originally published
d) Any “originally published in” text that should appear below the title and byline, exactly as you want it to appear — please consult with your publisher about this if you are still under exclusivity
e) The length according to the Hugo categories — Short Story, Novelette, Novella, Excerpt of Novella, or Excerpt of Novel
f) Necessary formatting information (as described below). Please note that pieces will in general not be formatted manually.

7. Format: Each work must be submitted in a separate file in .doc, .docx, or .rtf format. Please generally use standard manuscript format while following the notes below. Don’t worry about header info; only the body text will be copied out.

Stories are not being formatted individually.  If your story is in SMF, most stories will work out fine with little to no modification — but if you wish to make sure your piece reads excellently, or if it has irregular needs, please adhere to the following:

  • Section breaks: # on a line by itself. (Section breaks must be marked ONLY with # on a line by itself. Other markers will not be searched for.)
  • End signal: Do NOT write “The end” or “###” or anything else at the end of the story unless you want it to be in the story, uncentered, like another paragraph.
  • Tab stops: There will be a question on the sub form asking how you indented your paragraphs when you were typing. (Possible answers: tab key, it happens automatically, hit the space bar 5 times, hit the space bar 7 times…). Don’t fret about it, just tell us which you do.
  • Special formatting other than italics (eg., bold, small caps, underlines that are supposed to be underlines instead of italics, etc): You must say so on the submissions form; otherwise it will show up wrong. Extremely extensive special formatting may not be able to be accommodated — sorry! — but if you give us details on the form we will make every effort.
  • If you have section or chapter headings: Put them in BOLD and mark on the submission form that you have chapter headings (unless you also have bold in your text — then format them in a way that doesn’t appear in the rest of your content and say in the sub form that this is what you’ve done). These headings will be put in bold and centered, with a page break before them.
  • Paragraph spacing: Do not put an extra return between your paragraphs unless you want one in the ebook.
  • Font: unimportant
  • Page headers/footers with non-story content: unimportant
  • Italics: can be italics or underlined
  • Em dashes: can be an em dash or double hyphen
  • Ellipses: can be the ellipsis character, 3-4 periods, or 3-4 periods with spaces between
  • Quotes: can be straight or smart
  • Any other special characters: Many common special characters will be checked for, but if you know you have any, please mark as such on the form and say what and where they are. Otherwise you risk them not showing up or showing up as a question mark. In particular, mention if you have a “#” sign in the text, as otherwise that may turn into a section break. (Special characters are anything other than English alphanumerics and the following punctuation marks: apostrophe / single quote, parentheses, colon, comma, full stop (period), em dash, ellipsis, exclamation mark, hyphen, question mark, quotation marks (English), semicolon).
  • Images: Not for this anthology, sorry.
  • Different fonts: Not for this anthology, sorry.  (Exceptions will be made if a particular font is needed for non-English lines in the story text and/or the byline.)
  • Complicated text flow: Efforts will be made for accommodation, but it depends how complicated. Where possible, “list stories” should be submitted in a way that can be rendered as regular paragraphs. If you have a story you want to send that includes footnoting, lists that can’t be rendered as regular paragraphs, or some other semi-complicated flow, please inquire in the comments below or send a query as early as possible.
  • Links: No, sorry. Each author will have 1 link to their author website (or preferred social media site) included with their name. No links in text. (Plaintext URLs that are part of the story are fine. URLs can be included at the end of novel/novella excerpts but they must also be plaintext, not links.)
  • I have something REALLY COOL that has loads of absolutely-necessary special formatting PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: Drop a comment below or query us as soon as possible. One possible option for more complicated formatting is if the author or a friend can make a text file of clean, ereader-ready HTML with inline CSS (nothing that has to be added to the stylesheet in the head) and send it to us instead of SMF. Please talk to us first if you are interested in doing that. (Pieces submitted in HTML would have to be relatively short so they can be manually checked.)

The submission form has specific questions where you can describe any of the above formatting needs.

If you do need special formatting, please send your pieces as soon as humanly possible after submissions open and/or query us about them beforehand. We will make every effort to accommodate people’s pieces. If you have not communicated with us about your special characters or formatting and they end up breaking the anthology’s rendering, the story may have to be removed from inclusion.

8. Questions? Comment below, or send us an email.

We look forward to including as many new authors as possible in the anthology!



Are you a Campbell-eligible AUTHOR who wants notifications of submitter-relevant information, such as when the sub form is posted?

Are you a READER? Are you a NOMINATOR who’s thinking about casting votes for the Campbell? Sign up for release-related announcements here:

The release announcement will go to both lists. Your email will not be used for anything except announcements expressly related to this book.

S.L. Huang Awards Eligibility Post 2016

Below is a categorized list of my published work from 2015 that is eligible for awards nomination in 2016.  The best quick entry point into my work for this year is “By Degrees and Dilatory Time” (short story category), as it is both a standalone and has been well-received.

The Campbell

I am in my second year of Campbell eligibility.


Short Stories


Best Related Work

  • Invisible 2 (contributor), edited by Jim C. Hines – My essay is one of 19 in this nonfiction anthology about representation in science fiction and fantasy.

The Carl Brandon Awards

I am a writer of color, and thus my works are all eligible for the Carl Brandon Parallax Award.


The short stories are free at the links. For nominating purposes, I am happy to hook anyone up with review copies of any of the rest (or facilitate such hooking up with, in the case of Invisible 2). Please email me for review copies at sl AT slhuang DOT com.

On This Day In History X Years Ago

Closed sign Hawkins

By Ken Hawkins from SC, USA (Closed sign) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Some number of years ago, while I was still at university, I was very pumped up the day before Thanksgiving.  Not because of the holiday, but because I was in one of those moods in which I was getting a ton of shit done, being super productive . . . I finished my classes and bounced off to do errands, which included some research for a class at one of the libraries, running to a few stores, etc..  (I never went home for Thanksgiving in college, and that year was very excited to use the opportunity for some extra productivity.)

I started off on my errands and was shocked to find that everywhere I needed to go had closed early.


I ended up standing outside one of the MIT libraries, staring at the printed sign taped to the door which announced it had closed at 3pm, and yelling, “WAY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO LIVES!”

And that is what I remember about Thanksgiving that year.

Using Statistics to Choose What People Think Is Best: Not As Straightforward As You Might Think

The Goodreads Choice Awards are in their first round of voting, which prompted some discussion on Twitter concerning the fact that their shortlist for Best Science Fiction has only one woman on it (out of 15 books).

Goodreads states that they “analyze statistics from the millions of books added, rated, and reviewed on Goodreads” to choose the shortlists.

Well, this seems pretty straightforward, right?  Their awards are about what books their users think are best.  So they pick the top 15 books according to their user database, and bang!  Shortlist!  If there aren’t that many women on it, it just means more people have to read and give high ratings to books written by women.  There’s nothing Goodreads can do without sullying the math of their awards process — right?

Except . . .

What does “best” mean?  When they’re doing their statistics, how are they choosing what are the top-rated books?

Believe it or not, this is a nontrivial mathematical problem.

For a good series of articles on the mathematics of ranking algorithms, try these three posts.  But here’s a simple example to show why it’s not always so simple.  Say we were trying to compare two books in a ranking system, and one had 500 reviews with a 4.6 rating, and the other had 1000 reviews with a 4.4 rating.

Which book is “better?”

More importantly — which book do we want to be better?  Because really, we could make a case for ranking either one higher.  What ranking math like in the links above does is find some reasonably consistent way of making the rankings come out in the way we think they should.

But people are going to have different opinions on which bits of data they think should be privileged.  They’re going to have different opinions on what “how it should be” looks like.

I want to make clear: privileging one stripe of data or another is not necessarily wrong math.  But we can judge it against systems that privilege the data in other ways, and argue that one or the other system is giving us the most intuitive, useful, or reflective ranking.  It’s not a matter of math anymore at that point; it’s a matter of what we want the ranking system to do.

For instance, let’s say (this is made up; I have no insider knowledge) that GR is looking at star rating and number of reviews as its two most important criteria.  If it has to privilege one of those, which should it be?  Number of reviews would probably favor more established authors; star rating would probably favor less established authors.  What if GR wants to include other criteria, or at least needs some tiebreaking data?  Should they privilege the author with a higher overall author ranking or engagement?  That might make some sense intuitively, but it will again favor more established pros.  And if we’re looking for the best books, there’s a good argument that given two books with roughly equivalent buzz, the less established author’s book should be privileged, as it had a larger hump to get over to get the buzz it did.  So should GR privilege the book with the lower rated author overall?

Here’s another way Goodreads might hypothetically analyze their data (and again, all of this is MADE UP; I have no idea how Goodreads chooses their nominees or whether anything like the ranking trends I’m about to pull out of the air actually exist).  Goodreads examines books released in the past year from November to November.  But it’s logical to think that maybe the rankings and reviews curve will look different over time.  For instance, hypothetically, maybe books tend to drop half a star rating from the time they come out (when diehard fans read them) to the time they level out a few months later.  During the same time, the number of reviews will increase as the time the book’s been out increases — a book that’s just come out will, all else being equal, have fewer reviews than one that’s been out for a few months.

So most people would say it would make some sense for GR to adjust their best-of ranking algorithms to take this into account.  Adjust the number of reviews up for books that have been out for less time, adjust it down for books that have been out for more time, adjust the star rating down for books that have just come out and up for books that have been out for a while, and then get their top picks off that data.  That seems fair, right?

But you could make the exact same argument for, say, books by men versus books that aren’t by men.  Now, I’m not saying I advocate GR doing this, and I don’t think they even collect author gender data — and there are good reasons we wouldn’t necessarily want them to start.  But there’s an argument to be made that books by, say, women — as a whole — at least get less exposure, so their number of reviews should maybe be adjusted up, curving the data until the average female author is getting the same number of reviews as the average male author.

In my opinion, adjusting according to gender is logically equivalent to adjusting according to date.  Just like we could say a man might deserve the buzz he got above a woman, in our example we could likewise make the argument that a book that just came out might be awesome enough to maintain its star rating even if other books tend to drop.  But you’d find a lot more people who’d be okay with adjusting by date than people who’d be okay with adjusting by gender.

Incidentally, I’d be one of them!  (If for no other reason than the data-gathering issues I mentioned.)  But I think we have to be very careful when we use numbers and statistics to justify saying something is “best” according to an audience.  Because the math really does have different legitimate sides to it, and two people working from the exact same numerical data set could reasonably come up with two different best-of lists.

I’m still suffering comment-response-guilt over my last two “math in genre” posts, so I’m closing comments for my own sanity.  Please feel free to link this elsewhere and to approach me on Twitter (@sl_huang) to discuss it.

Demonstrative Pronouns in Japanese: Or, How My Spanish is Helping

Yikes, I’m behind on blog entries I’ve been meaning to write!  I WILL GET TO THEM.

I’m going to start a blog series on learning Japanese — selfishly, just to clarify things for myself.  But perhaps it will also be helpful to other Japanese learners!  Disclaimer: I am a raw beginner at Japanese.  What I say may make no linguistic sense at all.  It may even be completely wrong.  I’m just sorting through thoughts.

A few weeks ago we learned demonstrative pronouns and demonstrative adjectives in Japanese class.  Now, my book is entirely in hiragana (one of the Japanese phonetic scripts) and my teachers don’t speak a large amount of English; the class is taught entirely in Japanese.  So it really helps that I knew the difference between demonstrative pronouns and demonstrative adjectives.


  • I’m reading this: “this” is a demonstrative pronoun, replacing “book”
  • I’m reading this book: “this” is a demonstrative adjective, describing “book”

In English, these two things are the same word.  In Japanese, they’re not, and since the whole book is in Japanese, this is something we had to notice by context.  Some of my fellow English-L1-speakers had difficulty with it, and I was pretty chuffed being able to draw the connection and explain it to them.

But even though I have a pretty strong grasp of English parts of speech, it was my Spanish that made the revelation natural, because in Spanish they differ as well!  And this was especially helpful because, like Japanese, Spanish has three levels of demonstrative pronouns/adjectives — not just “this” and “that,” but “this,” “that by you,” and “that over there.”

(Of course, English and Spanish differentiate by singular versus plural — “this” versus “these” and “that” versus “those” — which Japanese does not, but that’s where my Chinese came in handy in my intuition.)

Thus, having studied multiple languages has made Japanese far more intuitive than it otherwise would be for this English L1-er.  Here are some charts!

Demonstrative Adjectives

LanguageThing(s) Near MeThing(s) Near YouThing(s) Over There
Englishthis, thesethat, thosethat, those
Spanisheste / esta, estos / estasese / esa, esos / esasaquel / aquella, aquellos / aquellas

Demonstrative Pronouns

LanguageThing(s) Near MeThing(s) Near YouThing(s) Over There
Englishthis, thesethat, thosethat, those
Spanishéste / ésta / esto, éstos / éstasése / ésa / eso, ésos / ésasaquél / aquélla / aquello, aquéllos / aquéllas

And like Spanish, Japanese has different words for “here,” “there by you,” and “over there” — Spanish is aquí, allí, and allá, and Japanese is ここ、そこ、and あそこ (koko, soko, asoko).

Of course, then Japanese has to get more complicated by declining according to politeness, and thus there’s also こちら、そちら、and あちら… and probably more nuance I don’t know yet.  But that’s a subject for another post!

ROOT OF UNITY is out today!


“It’s a gloriously unapologetic action novel, full of explosions, and I enjoyed it tremendously.” — Liz Bourke, Tor.com

“Huang has really stepped up her game in this book.” — James Davis Nicoll

Read it now: Amazon | Amazon UK | Apple | Kobo | Barnes & Noble

Back for book three . . .

Cas Russell has always used her superpowered mathematical skills to dodge snipers or take down enemies. Oh, yeah, and make as much money as possible on whatever unsavory gigs people will hire her for. But then one of her few friends asks a favor: help him track down a stolen math proof. One that, in the wrong hands, could crumble encryption protocols worldwide and utterly collapse global commerce.

Cas is immediately ducking car bombs and men with AKs — this is the type of math people are willing to kill for, and the U.S. government wants it as much as the bad guys do. But all that pales compared to what Cas learns from delving into the proof. Because the more she works on the case, the more she realizes something is very, very wrong . . . with her.

For the first time, Cas questions her own bizarre mathematical abilities. How far they reach. How they tie into the pieces of herself that are broken — or missing.

How the new proof might knit her brain back together . . . while making her more powerful than she’s ever imagined.

Desperate to fix her fractured self, Cas dives into the tangled layers of higher mathematics, frantic for numerical power that might not even be possible — and willing to do anything, betray anyone, to get it.


Mmmm … Delightful Nova Scotian Foreskins

While we were in Nova Scotia, we visited Jost Vineyards, the province’s biggest and oldest winery. The main building had walls of bottled wine surrounded by a steampunk décor that reminded me of Restoration Hardware. Ugh, more quaintness. How can the locals take so much quaintness? I would just die.

A staff woman approached and greeted me. A few words of mundane pleasantry ensued. My eyes hopped over to a sign that advertised the wine tasting. Her eyes followed mine. “Would you like to try our foreskins?” she asked.

“Huh?” I stilled. My face flushed, although I had forgotten to slap on sunscreen that day so I might’ve been somewhat burnt anyway. I scanned around to make sure I was still in a winery.

“Foreskins.” She smiled. In a completely innocent way.

I stared at her, still wondering if I heard wrong.

“Foreskins,” she said again, louder and her smile wider. 

I tried my best to muffle giggles from the juvenile boy within me. “Uh, I was actually hoping to try—”

“Our foreskins are really good.”

“I’m sure yours are,” I lied. To be honest, there was no way I’d know whether her foreskins were any good, but I had to be polite. After all, I was a foreigner in her country, her province, her store. “However, I already have—”

Her eyes narrowed. “You have some too?”

I nodded.

“Really?” she asked as if I lied.

“I think so.” 

She frowned a little. “I bet ours are better than what you have.”

That was quite presumptuous. I should’ve been offended, but I really wasn’t. Not a big deal. What makes foreskins better or worse, anyway? Some like them one way, others another. Many, regrettably, don’t like them at all. It’s all subjective. Still, I had to defend my honor, or whatever. I wondered if there was a way to prove myself without violating local laws. “Well,” I said, shrugging, “mine is probably not that bad.”

She waved a hand as if to say, whatever. “I insist. You must try ours before you go. You won’t regret it.” This woman sounded like someone who really knew her foreskins.

“I dunno.”

“Our foreskins are even more exquisite when paired with the local artisanal cheese.”

I wasn’t sure if “cheese” was code for something, but I was afraid to ask.

“The result is a long, smooth buildup to a deeply satisfying finish bursting with fruity flavors amidst a woody subtlety,” she moaned. “It’s sooo good.” Her eyes closed as if to savor a celestial moment.

“Wow. Fruity flavors, eh? I’ve never heard that before.”

“See,” she said smugly. “I told you ours are better than yours.”

“Oh, okay,” I said meekly.

In the end, I did sample some local foreskins. Who knew Nova Scotia would have such fine foreskins?

(The above exchange was very loosely based on what actually happened.)

foreskins - IMG_6925


Copyright © 2014. Created by Meks. Powered by WordPress.

%d bloggers like this: