Mountainman: In your rush to debate you completely missed the forest because for the trees. In other words, because you believe you are right, you are NOT seeing the obvious. It's clear you didn't read the articles you think support what you believe. ;) Let me guess, because the word "semi-arid" appeared in close proximity to the word "Austin" you assumed that was proof of your belief? Oh oh!!!! LOL Sorry, but the articles you site actually support what I said, and refute your beliefs. Even if you were right, it would take a lot more to prove your case than doing a search for articles that contained the terms "semi-arid" and "Austin." Do you always hold other people's information in such low regard? LOL Let's start with your own words.....YOU WROTE......................Austin is on the border between the more humid east Texas and the drier hill country, it is not difficult to find references to the Austin and central Texas area, particularly the surrounding hill country, as semi-arid.......... Ummm, first off so? Those are actually two independent statements. One does not verify the other. You are the one doing the connecting. Austin is close to a significantly drier region. That does NOT prove Austin shares that climate. Yeah some parts of Central Texas are kind of dry. Umm, but did you stop to think "just how large" the Central Texas "AREA" is? It's larger than any single state East of the Mississippi. In such a large region there is more than enough room for a dry climate and a wet one and the transition zone if needed. Even the Edwards Aquifer map, while much smaller than Central Texas is 4350 sq. miles. It's as big as Connecticut, and stretched out. Do you really find it impossible to believe such a large area has two different climates? Austin is also NOT surrounded by "dry" hill country. The Hill country is to its West. The other side starts the Gulf Coastal Plain. The "Austin region/area" as it's used in your references, is primarily about a "geologic" zone. Why are you referencing a geological map to prove your beliefs in regards to climate? The map correctly shows Austin located on the extreme edge of the aquifer feeding zone. Austin is ONLY included in that map, because it is a map of the Edwards aquifer. It does NOT appear because it shares a climate. What's interesting is the USGS Austin gets an average of 34" (as I said a variance of 30-40" is right on) Hmmmm, Try to find a description of "semi-arid" that ALSO says such areas get 34" of rain. You won't. A key characteristic of semi-arid regions is rainfall between 10-20" annually. Your belief lies in your connecting unrelated phrases as well as taking "general" comments as "specific. You're assuming that Austin must be dry because areas relatively close to it are considered dry. No dice. Significant climate can occur in 10s of miles, even less than 10. The "Austin Area" you refer to is much much larger than necessary for a dramatic climate change. If you look at a "CLIMATE" map you'll understand what I mean. Even a basic one will show Austin in the temperate, sub-tropical zone. The fact that it is on the edge does makes a difference ONLY relative to the rest of the zone which gets more rain and is a bit more humid. In regards to the article in the Austin Chronicle that you thought supported you, how did you missed the RED FLAG in the first sentence? It reads: Westcave Preserve in western Travis County protects a TROPICAL SWATCH of land in the SEMIARID landscape of the Texas Hill Country. That's a new one, a tropical region near Austin, in a semi-arid zone to boot. Weren't you curious about a "tropical swatch" of land near Austin? This should clue you in that this article probably is not accurate in terms of climate. The writer is careless with his terms, and not factual. There is NO "micro-climate" tropical zone near Austin, just as there is no semi-arid zone. Second, the writer does NOT say the Austin area is semi-arid only the part of the Texas Hill country. in which this "mythical" tropical swatch is located. Also as odd is going to the "San Francisco Chronicle" ;) In any case, this article also bears out what I said. The key line is: "Austin is where the humid, sultry American South begins to transition into the scruffy, semi-arid West." At most it says Austin is a bit dryer than the typical "humid, sultry South" of which IT IS A PART. It certainly does NOT say or infer Austin is semi-arid. I love discussing, but please read the stuff before you assume you're right. ;)

hellerlake wrote ... "The arborist's chips I have gotten always came full of shredded leaves and/or needles which begin to break down immediately. There's plenty of nitrogen/organics. As for mulched beds that have not loosened up, what were they mulched with? Bark? Bark is naturally imbued with a waxy substance to protect the tree from moisture. It's suberized. It never really breaks down, and incorporates into the soil because of the suberization. Eventually, it breaks down into waxy, little fibers that form a crust on top of the soil. " An arborist friend once had a 25' tall birch tree-spade moved to his front yard. To start, the hole was half where the lawn was, and half in shrub bed that was never rototilled - same soil to start - but had a barkdust layer maintained for at least 10 years. The half circle in the lawn when dug, was pretty much unchanged. But old bark had decomposed enough to improve the bed soil. Down to 12" depth it was darkened some, and crumbled. It was handy to have seen the side-by-side comparison where the soil history was known, to see the change on the bark side, versus the lawn compacted by mower tires and bag weight side. Sometimes I've applied both. The last home in south Oregon, I put down about 8 truck loads of the chipped tree branches first, then laid barkdust on top for a more groomed look. 20 years ago, when we got about 30 big truckloads at my mother's 2nd acre in Beaverton, the wood chips with plenty of branch wood broke down pretty quick, which was nice. Thought it may be worth adding ... One golf course superintendent I worked under at Columbia Edgewater Country club in Portland, some year back, used to add fine barkdust to the sand for some of the new greens. It was because they decomposed - but decomposed slowly. The new greens were about 3% to 5% bark and the rest sand. His education was in agronomy. From what I've seen since then, the method makes sense.

Is this thread being "wrapped up"? I agree that it has been very enlightening, but I have only just finished my third CD book, "Nicholas Nickleby", and I am about one third of the way into "The Old Curiosity Shop". What started with the proposal of this thread and the subsequent discussion looks to stretch indefinitely into my reading future. I want to thank everyone for sparking my interest - and I especially what to thank whoever it was who had the idea of general, individual readings of Dickens rather than concentrating on just one Dickens book. To supplement Ackroyd's Dickens bio, I also read Tomalin's. friedag, you are right that different biographers have different perspectives. Like carolyn_ky mentioned, it is obvious that Tomalin's big interest is "the affair" between CD and Ellen Ternan and thus Tomalin's biography is about half the length of Ackroyd's. Maybe that shows some of the differences between male and female biographers, because Ackroyd recounts the affair rather perfunctorily but includes much more detail of other aspects of CD's life. It could be, too, that Tomalin is more attuned to what interests female readers of biographies: relationships, factual and rumored. friedag, Charles Palliser's "The Quincunx" is said to be a Dickens pastiche. New Zealander Lloyd Jones wrote "Mister Pip" - the setting is Papua New Guinea and could be right up your alley! I have not read either of those, but I did read Gaynor Arnold's "Girl in a Blue Dress" and Richard Flanagan's "Wanting", both of which were inspired by CD's unhappy marriage to Catherine. All I can say about them is they are intriguing takes, but I found them quite maddening (angry-making, that is, not crazy-making).

Wood - the Sarton book was "The House by the Sea" which was written when she was older and had moved away from the small town where she had lived. As I mentioned before, I found it to be an interesting meditation on life... I have put Maeve Binchy to the side for right now (temporarily) and in its place picked up "The Understudy" by David Nicholls (he who wrote "Starter for Ten" and "One Day" which I know other RPers have read)... "The Understudy" is another winner. A good plot involving an English superstar actor, his understudy (the hero of the book), and his friendship with both the star and his wife. Great fun to read -- one of those rare books which suck you in and he has his characters doing things that you (i.e. me) would do. For example, the protagonist is in his agent's run-down office and is sitting on a chair with the yellow foam sticking out and he has to remind himself not to pick at the foam... Maybe not the best example, but I honestly felt that I had known his characters by the end of the book. Anyway, if you like his other work, you'll like this one. (Also found out that David Nicholls was one of the creators of the tv series Rescue Me which has a great sly sense of humour in it...) Then picked up a NF book about extreme weather events, but the author has such a drive to talk about his agenda and take on global warming, that "everything" is put into "quotation marks" and it gets a bit "irritating" after a while. Additionally, he sucks the "interesting" out of any of the weather situations he talks about. How can you make a tornado boring? I don't know, but he does. Not too sure what to read next... but isn't that half the fun of reading?