Thanks Jeri. Malcolm told me once that his roses have always been pretty much in full sun from the get go, so he really doesn't have any experience with the whole partial sun thing. I know from my experimentations that most roses get fungal diseases when we get humid, if the sun isn't there first thing to dry the leaves. That's not to say that there aren't some that wouldn't have a problem, but I'm sure they're in the minority. The original Knockouts seem to take to it O.K. as long as they get all afternoon hot sun. Sandy

Redsox, we grow horses here in Ocala about as good as Kentucky, apparently due to the limestone under the soil. I didn't know that related to gardening until I tried to grow azaleas and other acid-lovers in the native ground around my new house. I was always digging up white rocks. Never saw a rock before in Florida. The first season my azaleas were ugly and all the plants were at a standstill, not dying but not living much either. Then it dawned on me that those white rocks must be the limestone that the horses like and also alkaline. Since then (a year) I've been using cottonseed meal which acidifies the soil and pine straw and ground pine bark. My PH was at 7.0 pretty much everywhere I stuck in the meter. I haven't tested lately, but the azaleas are green and fat. I have mostly Chinas in the ground now and teas. They seem to be OK. BTW, Louis Philippe, Spice, Natchitoches Noisette, Belinda's Dream all could not care less about BS. Not a problem. If your soil really is 7.7, would raised beds be an option. I couldn't find much that liked a PH that high. I was VERY discouraged when I found out about the limestone & high PH. If you're using organic methods, do some checking about which amendments to use. There are mineral sources that do the same thing but one will raise the PH and another won't. I can't remember what they were, not being a soil major. Reading all that stuff last January was a major brain stretch. Soft rock phosphate is better than hard rock phosphate, I think. My memory's not what it used to be so I better end this before I really say something dumb. Look it up. Hope it turns out good for you. Sherry

Hi Frieda. Without being at all presumptuous it seems to me that you want from an historical novel exactly what I want - a tale well told. A tale that holds together both internally with a consistent voice and externally with some regard to that slipperiest of ideas - historical accuracy. It would be a trifle disingenuous of me to say that I care not a jot for the integrity of the historical framework that underpins a novel. I think I just allow the novelist a little more leeway than you in terms of the elasticity of the "facts" he might cobble his little tale together with. Of course egregious errors in the retelling of indisputable history will bring a novel tumbling down for me as much for you - perhaps we just differ in the definition of "egregious". Further to your dislike of "presentism" I suggest you never pick up Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire . Just finished reading this examination of Spartan society and the Battle of Thermopylae where three hundred plus Spartans plus a few thousand allies held off a Persian army of some hundreds of thousands, inflicting grievous losses and giving Greece time and inspiration to save itself and perhaps western civilization as we know it. Perhaps your mention of your own concept of "presentism" made me hyper aware of any examples in the text but it was riddled with it. Battle plans develop "new wrinkles", soldiers imbibe "snootfulls of wine", are exhorted to "dump 'em but be ready to hump'em" when they rest their shields. Despite speaking in a declamatory and formal style worthy of Homer most of the time and engaging in lengthy, philosophical conversations about the Gods and true meaning of courage, fear, love and warfare the Greeks at various times decide that a priest is "full of s--t", the enemy are a bunch of "d--k strokers" and "a-- f-----s"". In fact the "f" word is dropped so many times at times it reads like a novel of modern army barracks life. Worth reading for the battle scenes alone - I'm a sucker for blood and guts - but nearly ruined as a novel for me by that newly defined mortal sin of historical tomes - "presentism". Thank you Frieda. Larry

I belong to a book club and enjoy it very much. I was invited by a friend who was already a member. They keep it to 10 people although there is one woman who has never participated in 4 years of membership and with life commitments we rarely have all 9 of us together. We meet monthly from September through May and take a summer hiatus. At the September meeting we all offer 3 book recommendations and the group votes on which we will read, and at our May meeting we choose a summer book as our September choice-that's usually something that is longer or conversely might be a popular beach read. The Goldfinch for example was last summer's pick. The group is diverse and accomplished; several doctors, lawyers and everyone has a graduate if not professional degree. I mention that because they come up with some very interesting book suggestions that have taken me well beyond what I would read on my own. Unfortunately though a couple of members are firmly in the 'I only want to read 4 star novels from Amazon' camp and there have been a few books I really didn't think were worth the effort. Oh well, that's life. All the Light We Cannot See is my pick this year and will be our May discussion topic. I just finished a non-club selection that is one of the best books I think I've ever read, Being Mortal. It's already been mentioned but for anyone who is dealing with aging parents, or pondering how to deal with one's own aging process or terminal illness (and let's face it that is all of us-there's only one way the human story ends), this is an amazing, compassionate and deeply nuanced view and discussion of these issues. Would recommend it to any and everyone!