Day 1: 2187.10.24 PET*

Someone always says 'woot' at the commencement of a journey. 'Huzzah', 'Woohoo', or 'Giddy up', punctuated with a seasoning of exclamation marks as per the tastes of the particular year.We decided that, for us, this person would be Hieronymous as he is after all in my employ and, as he explained, I should be the one to benefit from hearing an exclamation that no one has ever heard before, a combination of syllables that no human has before uttered; at sometime during the course of our first 12 hour stint. He agreed not to tell me when, nor to give away any clues as to the particular sounds he would deliver. I asked what he should get in return and he said that he would be the one to say it. He didn't disappoint. Hieronymous T Bumbly, humble manservant to a man commonly described as "unruly". Quite, patient, forthright, salt-of-the-earth Bumbly expelled his lungs and verbalized the emotions of the moment in a way that no amount of spelling could do justice to. We were going to the edge of the galaxy. Then we let off fireworks, because fireworks in space need to be seen to be believed.

* Paris Earth Time

The journey of Rahj Hadid and Hieronymous T Bumbly is first mentioned in Bumbly Goes Forth.


Bumbly Goes Forth - Paperback: Amazon | Book Depository (free shipping)

BG4th Sampler: PDF

Trans-temporal interview pt 2

SD: The question was not meant to be literal! What I'm referring to is the misunderstandings that inevitably spring up because of the centuries between us. I can't shake the suspicion that this interview is is an amusing jaunt for you! An opportunity for a sociological investigation, prodding the primitives with a stick! Or am I being too suspicious? Bumbly: No, no, no, good sir. Not too suspicious at all. It is very amusing, but not in a malicious fashion. Should I not be enjoying this interchange? (if so, perhaps this is a primitive attitude I am not sensitive to). Please advise.

SD: Well, I'm not sure. This is a serious business. That doesn't preclude the possibility of pleasure. But it's not to be encouraged for its own sake, certainly! Is your own era a particularly mischievous one? Or are you just a mischievous fellow?! Are any of you capable of taking things seriously? 

Bumbly: Surely it can't be too serious. Don't forget you're four centuries dead from my standpoint. That particular novelty won't wear out soon for me.

But, to be clear, and earnest, you may fairly classify me as mischievous, if you must, but I shall refrain from making generalisations about the society of my time as any willing to make such commentary most likely suffers from limited sampling and severe pareidolic biases.

Furthermore, seriousness and pleasure need not be mutually exclusive do they?

SD: Ah! I spot the rhetorical trick sir! Your little straw man doesn't faze me! I never claimed they were mutually exclusive. But it so happens that some things are more serious than others. This golden rule has persisted for centuries, and I can't see any good reason why it won''t last another four or so and span yours as well! You broach subjects that most sensible men would label important, and worthy of serious, sombre consideration. Surely there's still something approaching a settled consensus on this subject in your era?! Most of the weighty fellows of your century would agree with me, I'm sure. A modicum of earnestness is appropriate! 

Bumbly: I presume by weighty you speak metaphorically? And one can only presume that "men" includes women, mangotans and humunculi; we collectively and generally refer to all sentient creatures as "people"...

You may not have said they were mutually exclusive, per se, but you continue to imply it is so. I shall put mathematical symbols in as I hear they are popular in your time. You say serious = sombre, but this is an assumption on your part. When confronted with the horrors of the world (by world I of course mean the civilized areas of the galaxy and by civilized I mean people reside there, not conveying any sense of development or society), the natural reaction is thoughtful, somber and earnest; but when in reflection, if one is determined to be dour then the results of your meditation are largely predetermined and the consideration is only for show.

On your second query, of consensus, perhaps if we limit the scope to possible areas of consensus, such as near-Earth; ecumene that have enough interaction that a survey could be done—then I'm sure any arbitrary question would find a range of answers, one of which would naturally be the highest scoring, as per the logical outcome of such contests. Is this what you refer to?

SD: Mangotans and humunculi certainly, but probably not women! Hahah! Am I correct? Hahaha! Ahhh, dear.

Bumbly: I am lost for a response.