Jump to content

Frozen Feet

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Frozen Feet

  1. Ah yes, I was in the Chamber of Swords but I only grabbed one sword. If there were two, that'd explain one disperancy.


    The Gremlin amumet is something of a mystery to me. It just popped into my pack early in Chapter 4. I think I got it from an outdoors special encounter in the Eastern Gallery area, but I'm not sure. It's a magic necklace with value of 500 and ability "cursed".


    Also found another puzzling item - dead bug, from the Vahnatai lands, the diseased caves.

  2. Hey. After a very long break of playing this game, I find myself puzzled by some of the rarer items I occasionally find. I tried to search through some walkthroughs but did not find an explanation or purpose for these. I suspect they are quest items, but I have not found the relevant quests:


    • Gremlin amulet (may just be a fancy cursed item - does it do anything?)
    • Bars of Mithral and Chunk of Mithral (found in Vahnatai Lands and Fort Kothar - is there a smith accepting these?)
    • Various mushrooms wines with ability "good wine" (bought from Almaria, stolen from Patsy's home)
    • Geodes (found along a river coast)
    • Rare books (pillaged from Empire safehouse in Almaria)
    • Fine Rum (pillaged from Empire agents in Vahnatai Fortress)
    • Drake Egg (found in the fire lizard cave, amidst fire lizard eggs)
    • Flame egg (pillaged from Tower of Elderan, I think, casts quickfire. Supposedly a barrier somewhere needs quickfire to take down, have not encountered any such barrier yet.)


    Somewhat related, I've been reading a Let's Play as I've passed through game areas to see how another player has reacted to same area. Said Let's Play found a Nethersword below Fort Kothar, along with bars of uranium in the Efreet forge. However, I found mithral bars and a magic greatsword in the same location. Is this a version difference?

  3. My answers, in order, are "other", "other", "no", "other", "prohibited under all circumstances", "Yes, in the event of terminal illness", "other", "upon rape, incest and defects that endanger the health of the moth (physical or mental)", "conception" and other.


    As a general commentary, either people here do not know the particulars of what "human rights" mean, or did not think it through. "Human right" carries with it a connotation of inalienability - an inherent right that cannot be revoked, sold or transferred. It should be obvious how some of the rights discussed cannot be inalienable, but I'll detail them later on. As a note, though, I'm not a big believer of human rights in the first place. I adhere to a secular version of dependent origination: nothing is the way it is by its own virtue, all things are emergent. A corollary would be that nothing and no-one can have rights based on what they are; instead, rights are granted and revoked based on what a creature has done, is doing and can do. Human rights are, to me, an useful heuristic, a default starting point for the discussion of rights of a creature when it emerges.


    Commentary of specific questions:


    Question 1: healthcare is a ridiculously broad term. Some basic level of healthcare could properly be considered a duty rather than a right; the difference being that right is something I should allow (and maybe help) you to do, where as a duty is something I can demand you to do under threat of sanctions. For example, vaccination against common diseases should fall within health duties, to upkeep herd immunity. So should a health check-up at the start and during pregnancy, upon taking an insurance etc.. Some other facets of healthcare could be considered positive rights, meaning they should be provided by the state free or nearly free-of-charge. Emergency health care, like in case of traffic accidents, falls within this category. Positive rights like this primarily derive from RIght to Life.


    But beyond emergency care and means to retain a level of societal balance, right to healthcare is primarily a negative right - meaning no-one should stop you from seeking care, but no-one is obliged to provide it either. And most of these are not inalienable. If you cause yourself injury, I shouldn't be obliged to help you without fair compensation. If you are a threat to me or someone else, I should have the right to withhold treatment from you and sometimes even kill you. The specific examples of euthanasia and abortion, both of which fall under the broad term of "healthcare", will get better treatment below.


    Question 2: Here too, the answer varies depending on the type of education. Primary education, the sort that is administered in Finland between ages 7 and 17 and which includes skills like reading, writing, basic etiquette and knowledge of law, isn't a right - it is, once again, a duty, because without this education, a person can't reasonably be part of the social contracts that make up society. It is also a positive right, because a society that fails to provide primary education to its residents is doing harm to both them and itself. Secondary education, though? Highschool, vocational training and up (universities, polytechnics etc.) exist to allow for specialization and prepare for a joblife. Unless we also make the (frankly, insane) statement that having a job is positive right, these can't be positive rights. They also can't be inalienable. Why should an institution of learning accept a student that is dangerous to other students and perhaps the institution as a whole, for example? There's also the fact that with certain jobs and certain sorts of information, a person will become increasingly dangerous if they go haywire; hence, those jobs come with extra duties and obligations, and failure to adhere to those extras should lead to banning from those topics of education.


    Question 3: This really should be a no-brainer. Internet is a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for weal and woe. If you cannot think of a single case where a person's access to internet should be restricted or revoked alltogether, you haven't thought about it long enough. Or go read Elizier Yudkowsky's papers about the "Friendship problem" in strong AIs.


    Questions 4 & 8: These go together like a horse and carriage. Let me preface my commentary with something that will upset and potentially enrage a lot of you: if you unironically answered "yes" to question 4 and "upon request" to question 8, you are a moron at best and a hypocrite at worst. I will neither amend nor revoke this statement until someone invents an artificial womb that can be made available to all.


    To understand this, we have to look at the actual declaration of human rights and what it says about reproductive rights. It says: "no person should be forced to parenthood."


    So under the current imagining of human rights, a person has the negative right to not reproduce. There is no positive right to reproduce, nor has there ever been.


    You could go and say there's a negative right to reproduce, meaning people should abstain from stopping you from trying, but this falls apart when we look at reality and notice that only (somewhat below) half of the human population are capable of bearing children. If you go ahead and say the demographic in question, healthy women of fertile age, have inalienable bodily autonomy that trumps the right to reproduce, then it logically follows that they can stop you from trying. Consequently, the demographics that cannot bear children on their own can have neither positive nor negative rights to reproduce. To all people that are not healthy women of fertile age, reproduction is not a right, it is a privilege that they have to earn by adhering to and satisfying the standards set by the child-bearing demographic.


    Consequently, reproduction can no longer be considered a human right. It is neither universal, inalienable nor inherent to humanity.


    On the flipside, a right to reproduce would by necessity have to be a positive right for everyone who cannot bear children - meaning that for every such person, there should be a member of the child-bearing demographic who is obligated to produce at least one child for them upon request. Consequently, abortion could no longer be inalienable - it would be conditional on the consent of the non-childbearing parent. Consequently, abortion could no longer be considered a human right.


    This should be enough to prove that right to reproduce and right to abortion "upon request" (read: "without further justification") are mutually exclusive as human rights in practice. If one is a human right, the other cannot be. You cannot have two rights occupying the same priority order when their implementations directly contradict each other.


    The sanest answer, as far as I'm concerned, would be to consider neither reproduction nor abortion as human rights. The choice to have or not have children should be a contract law issue, not a human rights one. The laws concerning it should be subservient to right to life and right to avert cruelty. I consider the "bodily autonomy" argument for giving the sole right on these issues to the childbearing demographic to be void of any merit. Bodily autonomy is already restricted along multiple axises, because without restricting it we couldn't actually enforce the very same rights restricting it is supposed to harm. Non-violence can't help you when harming you is a goal.


    Question 5: This one was easy to answer, because "torture" means causing excess pain is the means towards a goal or even the goal itself, rather than just a side-effect. Sometimes, we can't avoid causing someone undue suffering (such as when we employ incarceration to isolate known antisocials, or when we hunt for food), but in those cases measures are typically taken to minimize it (or rather, the ethicality of such endeavors is contingent on such efforts). Torture, as a method, doesn't have many merits to it. The only things it serves well are to satisfy primal urges of sadism and vengeance. As a means of interrogation and coercion, it has been proven to be inefficient. Classifying forms of torture as "enhanced interrogation methods" is on the same level as labeling homeopathy and hypnosis as "enhanced medical treatment". It doesn't achieve the things it's claimed to achieve, so it shouldn't be done.


    Question 6: it kinda undermines the idea of "inalienable right to life" if you can, you know, alienate (as in: surrender) your life to any person for any petty reason you wish. Euthanisia implies someone else has to do the killing. Tell me, why the Hell should a person with two working hands have the positive right to ask me to kill them? Why should others be obligated to kill those who wish to die? Juan Carlo, Nalyd and others who amended "euthanasia" to "suicide" are in the right here. The right to kill yourself is a much saner thing to grant as a negative human right, and "right to die" is perhaps the only natural "right" that fulfills all the criteria for one even in my books. Death is, all things granted, pretty inalienable aspect of life in the long run. A conditional right to being mercy killed is a valid topic of discussion when a person is in pain but unable to commit suicide, but a human right it cannot be.


    Question 7: I don't believe in death penalty as a punishment for certain types of crimes. I consider it a means to remove proven resource sinks from the human population. If I were to implement a death penalty, it would not be attached to any specific crime (or even group of crimes), but rather, to a life of habitiual crime. It shouldn't be considered part of the justice system, but rather filed under human resources. Crime roughly follows the Pareto Principle: majority of events are caused by minority of actors. 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of people, and 50% of crimes are committed by 1% of people. This "hard core" of crime, as cops put it, consists of people who have been proven (or can be proven) to resists all known means of rehabilitation. They can never be reintegrated into the mainstream population without them resuming their criminal actions, and so they have to be kept incarcerated practically always, which is a resource drain to everyone else. It could be said that their continued existence is a burden and a rights violation towards both non-criminals, and particularly those criminals who can be rehabilitated, but have to put up with being put in an enclosed spaced with them in order to do that.


    Even if death penalty's general prevention rate is 0% (meaning the concept of being killed does nothing to prevent emergence of new criminals), its special prevention rate is 100% unless proven otherwise (meaning an executed criminal will not commit the same crimes again due to an acute case of death). Now, there are problems with implementation, especially in ensuring that these people would be killed swiftly enough once the pattern of crime has been verified. If it takes 20-something years from being sentenced to being executed, the executioner isn't doing it right. The habitual criminal is costing resources for all that time and often there won't be a meaningful difference to just keeping them locked up until they die of old age or decide to commit suicide. Seriously. If there's to be a death penalty, it has to be implementable fast. Otherwise, the point is lost.


    Question 9: Any imagining of human rights that purports to be inherent, inalienable and universal kinda fails its intended purpose if it doesn't cover the first 9 months of a human's natural lifecycle. Seriously here. We're talking a subset of natural rights here. Humans are a mammalian species genetically encoded for sexual, in utero reproduction. That's the default, natural way for humans to come into being. If you argue the fetus has no rights at conception, that's practically equivalent to saying no human has the right to exist, because that step is necessary for natural human life. If that's your starting point and you still argue there are such things as human rights, I want to know what you're smoking.


    Question 10: I consider this a strange non sequitur in contrast to all the other questions. To understand this, you have to understand my opinion of war: war is what happens when the rights of two organizations conflict, and that conflict cannot be solved without violating rights of both. Because of this, "just war" is a paradox, and no moral truths can be derived from observing people at war; war is amoral. An ethical choice in war, if there even is such a thing, is whatever makes it end quickly. To that end, nuclear weapons could be useful... in some hypothetical scenario that hasn't provenly occurred in known history. I do not believe in MAD - rather, I believe anyone smart enough to acquire nuclear weapons acknowledges that their interests are better served by annexing the land and resources of their enemy, rather than blowing them all to Hell. Even without MAD, victory by nuclear weapons would be a Pyrrhic one at best.

  4. Me and Spiderweb Software go back a long way. I was around eight when I first tried Exile III, and was hooked. Jeff's games greatly and positively influenced my imagination and were largely responsible for sparking my interest in roleplaying games both on computers and on pen and paper.


    They were also pivotal in my journey to the internet. I got my first (and still active) e-mail address just so I could join these boards. Through these boards, I was introduced to great many things, from play-by-post roleplays to debates and logic, complex math and how to use AIM.


    However, I recently realized it's been ages since I played one of Spidweb's games, and when I did, the magic was no longer there. Unfortunately, it seem I've outgrown them, and as a result, these boards as well.


    I acknowledge I've never been a very active member of the community. I've long since lost track of who is who, and I guess many newer members have no idea who I am or was. But instead of fading from memory without notice, I though I'd announce my departure. For old times' sake, you know.


    If someone still remembers me and wants to stay in contact, feel free to try and catch me on AIM with moniker Tuulentekija, or on Facebook. But besides that, this is it for me.


    Thank you and good bye,

    Samuli Suominen

  5. While humans are sexually dimorphic species and that must have some effect on our basic psychology, it's been noted that learned behaviours ("culture", though use of such specific term is not even necessary) can and do override instinct.


    It's visible in every other animal as well. Vast groups of animals are capable of adapting to their surroundings, and depending on their surroundings, two groups consisting of same species can act very differently.


    Historically, the role of women and men has been influenced more by economics than biology. This thing about women "staying in the kitchen"? It's pretty much comes from the industrial revolution. You see, when agriculture was the main form of living, both men and women stayed home, and did the same things. But when industrialization came about and work moved away from home, men had to leave the farm or "home" - and as someone had to stay behind to take care of it, it became the job of women. You can easily spot that there's a fair bit of arbitrariness going on here - if women had gone to work in factories instead, men would've assumed the role as primary "homemakers".


    Besides, the whole idea of women being "homemakers" falls apart when you try to apply it to hunter-gatherers or other nomafic societies. Bluntly, there were no homes. Men moved in search of prey, and women moved with them. There might have been some predilection for ment to hunt and for women to gather, but when you think of the circumstances, it's clear the roles can't have been that set in stone. If a human tribe was short of men, why wouldn't women have taken up their roles, hmmm?

  6. Yeah, it's kind of absurd how female characters in video games look like they're straight from Playboy when the males can look whatever. Ask yourself, when you've last seen an honest-to-god ugly female character who was a protagonist or at least held important role in the story or game play?


    Because I can't think of any.


    The closest I can think of from the top of my head is Meg in Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, who is stoutly build and round-faced, making her stand out amidst a score of other female characters who are supermodel thin (still far from ugly, though). She also wears full-body armor on the field, being near-indistinquishable from male characters of the same class.


    On the other hand, she's just a side character and playing her is mostly voluntary.


    I said "very much resembles", not "is identical". tongue


    Yeah, I misremembered. Had to actually look up a video to see how it really went. You first have to dodge the genie's fireballs, then hit the jar, pick it up and throw it. Repeat until it breaks, then hit the genie.


    A better analogy could be Flaaghra from Metroid Prime. In that fight, you have to knock off solar panels to stun the enemy, then turn to a ball and bomb its roots. If you're too slow, the boss will recover and knock the panels back on.


    "The fact that you have to hit Aquamentus in the head while dodging his fire breath, rather than just standing next to him and hitting his immobile body 10 times, is how battles work in action games."


    Hold that thought. When I claimed CRPGs inherited "gimmick fights" from action games, I meant in part that CRPGs have come to emulate action games.


    Let's take a fight from Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. In it, there a genie boss that hides in a jar. To defeat it, you have to pick the jar up and throw it, so the genie will come out. You have a chance to get few blows in, then it gets back in the bottle. Rinse and repeat.


    Now translate that into a turn-based combat, and you have something that very much resembles the Redbeard fight.


    Like the OP said, the reason why fights like this are "gimmicks" in CRPGs is because for that one fight, the game "breaks" its ordinary rules for combat. And it specifically "breaks" them by shifting closer to the manner action games work.


    Those "can only be damaged at a certain part at a certain time" and "need to use item/weapon X at proper time" are precisely what I'm talking about. And then there was that one midboss Moblin you had to feed in order to get past.


    Looks pretty straightforward, but it's the clear precursor both mechanically and spiritually. You, as the player, have to X things in Y sequence to get past the boss, and bossess often are unique in some respect.


    Once you get to Zelda II and later, it becomes even clearer, with bosses being even larger deviations from ordinary enemies and requiring increasingly more imaginative and specific sequences to beat.


    My experience with early Metroids is limited, but didn't they too have "shoot this part first, then that second, rinse repeat"?


    ... MMORPGs?


    Yeah, you admitted yourself it's untrue, but the whole idea is just so absurd I have to adress it. There was a time when bosses in MMORPGs were just slugfest too. The real culprit for dance routine boss fights is action games, and those go back to early Zeldas, Metroids and the like. (Potentially even further into the past.) Though the idea of puzzle boss fights was present in p&p roleplaying games from which the whole CRPG genre inherits many of its mechanics.


    The whole idea is to make a fight more involving to the player, so it isn't just "click button X times" and/or "roll dice X times until you win or lose". I support the movement whole-heartedly, though I admit it's possible to create basic combat mechanics that will themselves be enough to provide enough tactical challenge to make further "gimmicks" needless. (See: Chess, Space Hulk)

  7. Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit
    Originally Posted By: Frozen Feet
    ... Or well, it would be down to three, if one of my long-distance acquitances hadn't expressed the desire to see me in romantic circumstances. Life is being weird to me right now.

    If I'm reading that correctly, starting a long-distance relationship--from a distance--would be odd. Most people carry the pre-existing short to the long.

    No, what's odd is that someone who knows I'm seeing three other women expresses desire to date me, practically on the instant I get rejected by one of my previous dates and am still picking up pieces of my self-esteem from the floor. tongue

    Long-distance romances, though? Nothing odd there. My first date lived in the next big town, 50 kilometers away, and the girl who doesn't want to see me anymore just finished moving 100 kilometers away from here.

    Though as far as LDRs are concerned, those distances aren't actually very long. At least we were still in the same country and continent; one of my friends in USA got together with a Norwegian girl (Male to female transgender, to boot) he got acquianted with online, and he's now thinking of moving to Norway to live with her and marrying her. That's the unlikeliest match-up I've seen in my life so far.
  8. Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
    Those "whys" are only infinitely regressive because "why" has such a gapingly wide scope. It can mean many different things in different circumstances.

    Exactly. Because of this, it's important to realize when you've already explained everything pertinent to the situation, and any more "why?"s are the questioner either being stupid or a jerk.

    Anyways, knowing enough whys is often crucial to making good decisions, or mending bad ones. If someone punches you after tenth time you ask "why?", well, he probably right to do so, but if he can't be arsed to think an answer even once, he probably hasn't thought at all.
  9. For mechanics that pertain to characters and character actions, I actually like for rules to be fairly simple, but in a way that allows for easy extrapolation of new abilities or fitting of new actions into old ones. A good example would be old-school D&D, where most non-combat things boiled down to ability score checks.


    I do like some extent of character customization and tinkering, but not so much that it takes an Excell spreadsheet to track all details of one, like modern versions of D&D tend to demand. I'd like all important information for a character to be contained in a single book, preferably a short one. For example, if a game has classes, I'd like all important rules minutiae for a "Warrior" class to be contained in a "Warrior" booklet.


    I'd like most of the rules to focus on creation and running of the environment, such as random encounters, weather etc. - things that help me create content, on the spot if I feel like it. But again in a focused manner - if I want to run a jungle adventure, I want all the necessary rules to be under "Jungles" heading.


    To me, the main purpose of the rules is that they outline what the game is actually about. They tell what kind of characters are desired, what kind of content can be expected, and dictate the flow of the game. Ideally, rules exist to solve arguments, as I believe is their original intent; dice are rolled to quickly see who is wrong and who is right, to prevent a game from freezing into a debate about what should happen (as freeforms roleplays without contingency "flip a coin" rule are wont to do). Rulings should be made when necessary, but should be codified into rules ASAP. Also, if you've gone over the trouble of learning a ruleset and using it, I feel ignoring parts of it kinda misses the point of having rules in the first place.


    I like playing all sorts of characters, of all sorts of powerlevels. I might want to play a teenage girl idol popstar one day, and undead demi-god of war the next. But this also means there likely isn't a one system "to rule them all" for me.


    The most important facet of a character is, well, their role in the story (protagonist, antagonist, hero, villain etc.). Or rather, their desired role in the story that will emerge during course of a game. This is rather important: I do not like heavily scripted games, or the idea that certain things "should" happen just because one of the players (GMs included) wants them to happen. The rules, the game part of RPGs exists to create this certain uncertainty of the outcome. If there's a story, it's something that will exist once the game is over.


    Anyways, to use a chess analogy, it's still important to know whether a character is meant to be a King, Queen, or just a Pawn. This also reflects to their capability to overcome obstacles - some characters should be made and played with the expectation that they will fail rather than succeed, but whether they actually do is left for the actual game to decide.


    As far as combat is concerned, I don't consider it fundamental to RPGs. That said, when it is included, it should be interesting and tactically challenging to all parties involved. Not all characters need be equal (see Chess, again), but all of them should have some chance to influence the outcome.


    Overall, I consider "combat" and "non-combat" to be equal in their need for rules. Both benefit from guidelines and argument-solving mechanics (such as die rolling), but get bogged down with too many rules.

  10. Originally Posted By: Actaeon

    For now. You'd be amazed at how quickly that can go south, without an ounce of deceit or malice on the one's part. Or maybe you wouldn't. There are enough sitcoms on the subject.

    Yeah. Anyways, it's down to three girls now... one of them informed me she no longer wants to keep in touch, for reasons unknown to me. In retrospect, I regret not asking why, but my only thought at the moment was just to wish her well and move along.

    Or well, it would be down to three, if one of my long-distance acquitances hadn't expressed the desire to see me in romantic circumstances. Life is being weird to me right now.
  11. Well, maybe I can shed some light on the phenomenom? At the moment, I'm seeing four girls. Even if I pair up with one of them, it doesn't mean I instantly cut ties with those three others - they'll remain as my friends. If it then turns out things aren't going to work out with girl #1 after all and I feel lonely, it's not a wonder if I pursue any of the remaining three.


    The line for platonic and romantic interest is not such unbridegable gap as people sometimes make it sound. Sometimes, the only thing keeping two people apart is that they're seeing someone else. (Sometimes, even that doesn't keep them apart, which tends to lead to tragedy or best threesome ever.)

  12. Around here, we call Valentine's day Friends' day, and it's not quite as specifically romantic occasion.


    I celebrated by sending Friends' day greetings to everyone I have phone number or IM address of, and everyone on my Facebook friend list. I also sent small presents to four girls I've been seeing, and went on a coffee date with one of them. I was supposed to meet one other friend, but she did not show up and did not reply to my calls. She did apologize later when she caught me on the net, though.

  13. I only really started looking for a relationship last year. I'm seeing four different girls now, though their feelings towards me are vague enough that I don't consider myself to be "in a relationship" with any of them yet. I hope I'll pair up with at least one of them in near future, though, since I really desire company.

  14. So, what are yours? Who did you receive them from and in what context? Mine are the following:

    Compliment: "People like you don't exist!"

    Said by: a random girl I spotted on the street

    Context: January 2010, I bought three tickets to a big concert that was coming at Summer. One for myself, one for my brother, and one for whichever friend would want to accompany us. Mystically, out of toughly two dozen people and relatives we asked, no-one had time or interest. So, two hours before beginning of the concert, I was stuck with 100€ ticket that was seemingly going to go to waste.


    So, I decided to just give it to next willing person. I spotted a somewhat forlorn-looking blond girl strolling down the street, and stopped her. I asked whether she was going to the concert - she answered she'd like to, but hadn't managed to buy a ticket...


    She couldn't believe her eyes when I just handed her one. She started stuttering something about paying back, but I refused any compensation. This lead to the aforementioned phrase being said. She was overjoyed, and so was I - so much so that I forgot to even ask her name. I never saw her again, but her beaming face stuck in my memory.


    Insult: "You know, you obviously have brain for it, so I always wonder why you didn't go to poly(technic) since you like to talk about these things so much."

    Said by: a childhood friend who I've shared a hobby with for ~10 years.

    Context: this will take a bit of explaining. First of all, the words don't look too bad, but the way she said it in a cold, annoyed voice really made my jaw drop. When she said it, we were having a good time, chatting about whatever came to mind around a campfire. Then the topic shifted to science, and I started talking about CERN and their recent neutrino experiment (and other weird physics stuff), which flew over the heads of... everyone else but us, I guess.


    The stinger is, she's a second-year poly student. I, on the other hand, didn't even go to highschool, opting for vocational institute instead (running counter to everyone's expectation). Going by grades and education, she's the more knowledgeable and mathematically gifted of us two (and I hold she's smarter than me in all other ways too). I have complete faith that she understood exactly what I was talking about.


    So she decided to shut me up by succintly informing me that no, not even she is interested in discussing such things on her leisure time, and that I should get off my lazy bum instead of wasting my intellect as a manual laborer, provided I have any left.


    No wonder I've never asked her on a date. Way too many thorns on that rose.

  15. My latest reading is Mig äger ingen (No-one owns me) by Åsa Linderborg, recommended to me by one of female friends. It's a true story of how the author grew under the care of her alcoholic single father. Very moving, especially since it hits so close home - my own dad's an alcoholic too, so there are many direct parallels in her story.


    One note, the book is different than you'd think. Childhood of the author was, for the largest part, happy, and her father loved her to his best extent. It's bit of a spoiler, but the title of the book refers to the father.

  • Create New...