"Thanks for the link but I won't be ordering from Mr Smith. My money goes to the Stamiles. They are generous and nice to work with and their plants look more like their photos, sometimes even better. Dot" I'll have to '2nd' this posting. Every Smith I got was very sparsely rooted.. and then the Wedding Gown fiasco. The Wedding Gown pic shown on the Smith site isn't anything like what I saw here.. which had a gold edge and isn't an appealing flower at all...wasn't even white. I believe most anyone whose reviewed many daylily pics online would question that pic representing Wedding Gown.. at least the colors don't seem correct to me. But that net pic clearly shows a lack of a heavy gold edge.. what one can see of it is WHITE as the petal color. And this is NOT the case per photos posted here and what I saw here. I buy very few southern intros.. then usually for some specific feature or hybridizing goal. But in the future I'll avoid buying any Smith daylily intros.. relying on garden pics of said plants to judge their merits. No more Smith's here. No more photoshop roulette for me.

Oh, absolutely! Maggie Smith was/is and forever will be Jean Brodie in my mind. I also think young Pamela Franklin as Sandy Stranger was outstanding. I saw the film first back in 1969 and was so blown away that I wanted to read the novel immediately. But, for some reason that I can't recall now, I was unable to locate the book so there was a several-year gap between my seeing the film (two or three times) and my actually reading the book. I found Muriel Spark's style of telling the story rather annoying: She would jump into the narrative and start relating what Sandy Stranger was doing a quarter of a century into the future, in other words foreshadowing without any of the subtlety in which that technique is usually used. I later learned that this was something that Muriel Spark did in some of her other novels -- it was almost a 'signature' of hers. Well, I didn't like it...at first, perhaps because the film adaptation left that 'device' or 'technique' (or whatever is the proper literary term) completely out and instead told a straightforward, though somewhat telescoped, story. I also noticed that some of Miss Brodie's set, the crème de la crème, were missing from the film. There were six girls in the book, but they were conflated to four for the film's purposes and three of the girls (besides Sandy) were composites. For example, it wasn't Jenny in the book whom Miss Brodie said would be "known for sex." But I don't think the conflation of the girls in the film really matters. Neither does the restoring to wholeness of the one-armed Teddy Lloyd (the art teacher) in the book. A two-armed actor playing a one-armed part is sometimes not very believable -- and can be distracting -- so I think that was a good call of the filmmakers. I have a bit of a harder time with what happened to Mary McGregor in the film that was completely different in Spark's novel. I've puzzled over that change for years. The only way I can reconcile it is to say: Well, it happened one way in the book. It happened another way in the film. They both work. I guess I'll have to compartmentalize one from the other. And that's what I've done, basically, for forty years. Has something similar happened to any of you, either with The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie or some other book/film combo? Well, I was almost certain that the books and films I listed above were ones that I remembered RPers discussing in other conversations and reviewing in monthly threads. I still think they probably were, but the discussers and reviewers must not have been presently posting members, because the only bites I've got so far are about Out of Africa. Are you sure none of you have read or seen The Age of Innocence? :\-)

At long last. I'll try not to write too much as most of you have probably sent your books back to the library or have become hazy about the plot. My copy started with 'Camera' which was just as well as I think 'Eye' would have been difficult to start with and put me off continuing. BTW my 'picture' at 'Eye' . . the odd pair of eyes . . . is taken from a del Cossa picture of St Lucy who's eyes were gouged out when she was put to death. I checked out the various friezes mentioned in the book and available to down-load. Not easy to get clear images but at least I felt I had a better idea of the various characters del Cossa had painted. Did anyone notice there is quite a bit about the detail of St Francis Ferrer in the 'Camera' section, as George studies the painting in the National Gallery but little mention of it by del Cossa in 'Eye'? I had no trouble in accepting the 1960's pre-theme and didn't read anything too special in it. It provided a period in which Smith based Carol (the mother) who is quite hippy-ish in her way of life/outlook. Nor did the lack of speech marks and odd words scattered about . . . once I had got used to them. In fact it forced me to be more alert to the various 'conversations' in case I missed something. The 'Camera' setting of Cambridge is where Smith lives and presumably mixes among the intelligentsia so I suppose it isn't surprising that George is much brighter than the average teenager. The hospital, Addenbrookes, where G's Mother dies and where G cycles round part of the lay-out of the gene and photos the double helix, are all there in real life. I wonder if this part of 'Camera' is telling us about the 'twist' in history (as the DNA spiral is depicted) when G says "What if the received notions of history were deceptive." As to the characters. I felt very sorry for both Georgia and Henry (who at first I though much younger than he actually was . . more of a toddler). Their Father seemed a distant rather ineffectual figure and G is left to look after the boy/cook the meals etc. although Smith doesn't make a big thing of it. And what was it about the damp patch on the wall in her bedroom? Did it have some significance that I've missed? The Mother, for me, seems quite a believable 'her-own-woman' sort of character. How many people would just up and take the children away to Italy for a few days? She shows guts and obviously is happy to put two fingers up at authority, in true hippy style. She tries to make George think at an adult level, which perhaps leaves G more vulnerable after her death. Helena, another very bright girl, comes in and out of G's life too briefly. I feel, if Camera had been a story on its own H could have played a greater part/been developed more. Mrs Rock? Did anyone mention her? Is her name meant to imply some sort of security for G; she seems to have no one else rooting for her? I liked the way she answers a question with a question or repeats back the same sentence. I have a friend, something of a Social Worker who does that same thing; it can drive you mad. Lisa Goliard? Obviously someone who Carol was attached to in the past, but so little information is given about her and why does G thinks she was/is a spy? Is she maybe the link between the now and then? George sees her in the National Gallery and apparently follows her to her house . . or so del Cossa 'says'. Very confusing. I cannot think that the second part (for me) of 'Eye' is meant to be written by George and Helena, they wouldn't have had either the skill or knowledge of mid-fifteenth century Italy. Why has del Cossa been taken forward in time? No idea, unless it is just because of the length of time G spends staring at the St Francis picture, as though he has been temporarily resurrected. I couldn't see the point of making del Cossa a female, nor the mention by some here about pornography; I hardly noticed it, (although the male review writers in the papers did!) I was more annoyed by del Cossa' using the word cause instead of 'because' on almost every page. Finally I think 'tomatoes' was just an error. I also noticed 'breeches' which I don't think were worn back then; still to be invented! So, I've still written too much but must say it made me think outside my comfort zone, but I don't think I would read this type of book again too soon. Rather too clever for everyday comfort. Final thought; all the way through reading this in my mind's background I kept 'hearing' I am a Camera

**Indoor cats generally live significantly longer** than cats allowed to roam outdoors (or those that are indoor/outdoor). The difference stems primarily from reduced exposure to dangers like traffic, predators, fights, diseases, toxins, and other hazards. ### Average Lifespans (Based on Veterinary and Research Sources) - **Strictly indoor cats** (full-time indoors, with good care, nutrition, vet visits, spay/neuter, etc.): Typically **12–20 years** or more. - Common ranges cited: 13–17 years (Chewy, PetMD), 15–17 years or longer (UC Davis research), up to 15–20+ years in many vet estimates. - Some well-cared-for indoor cats routinely reach their late teens or early 20s. - **Outdoor or free-roaming cats** (allowed to roam unsupervised, including feral or stray populations): Often **2–5 years** on average. - Many sources (PetMD, UC Davis, Humane Society affiliates) cite 2–5 years, sometimes as low as 2–3 years for truly outdoor-only cats. - This includes high risks from cars, predators (coyotes common in Oklahoma City area), infections (FIV/FeLV), parasites, and injuries. - **Indoor/outdoor cats** (pets that go in and out): Often fall in between or closer to indoor lifespans. - Some studies show little significant difference from strictly indoor (e.g., median ~9–10 years in one large UC Davis necropsy study of over 3,100 cats), while others place them at 5–14 years depending on how much time they spend out. - Supervised or limited outdoor access (e.g., leash walks, catio) reduces risks compared to full roaming. ### Key Factors Influencing These Numbers - **Spay/neuter status** → Dramatically extends life (intact cats often die younger from roaming-related issues). - **Breed, genetics, and care** → Indoor cats with routine vet care, balanced diet, and enrichment live longest. - **Study variations** → Averages can differ by population (pet vs. feral) and location. Popular claims of "10–12+ year difference" are common in advocacy sources, while precise studies show outdoor cats shorter-lived but indoor/outdoor sometimes comparable to indoor-only. - **Exceptions** → Some lucky outdoor cats live 10+ years, but they're outliers. The consensus from vets (PetMD, ASPCA, Humane Society groups) is clear: **Keeping cats indoors full-time is the safest way to maximize their lifespan**—often doubling or tripling it compared to roaming. If your cat is indoor/outdoor and you're concerned about longevity (or from our earlier chat about night prowling), transitioning to indoor with lots of play/enrichment is a great step for a longer, healthier life. If your cat has specific health factors or you're in Oklahoma City (where traffic/wildlife risks are real), a local vet can give personalized advice!