My complete "note dump" on all the planning and unused lines/directions for this arc posts in the Author's and In-Universe tiers at noon today!
The slippery thing about luck is that it's like Shakespeare's Walnut — you can't know the nature of it (say, good or bad) until you have it in context, and even then, depending on how many further contextual parameters you add, the nature of the luck will need reclassification from good to bad, and vice versa.
What do I mean by Shakespeare's Walnut? It's an irresponsible conflation of his "bounded in a nutshell/king of infinite space" concept, with his "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" chestnut. They don't really funge together well — mostly because I just needed the "nut" thing from the first one — and the entire enterprise withstands only the most charitable of scrutiny. But at the heart of this neologism is the postmodernist's plaything that there are no moral absolutes.
Please try using Shakespeare's Walnut in a sentence, in the comments, and I will see if your effort feels right. Many of you are much brighter than me, so I look forward to your constructions.
Chris Onstad
2024-09-13 16:43:27 +0000 UTCBrian
2024-09-13 16:38:52 +0000 UTCDoc G
2024-08-18 23:48:02 +0000 UTCW
2024-08-18 11:16:26 +0000 UTCBrad Matheson
2024-08-16 22:33:28 +0000 UTCJason Scott
2024-08-16 21:47:21 +0000 UTCTravis O.
2024-08-16 21:33:54 +0000 UTCJosh Egbert
2024-08-16 18:47:39 +0000 UTCZen Window
2024-08-16 18:44:10 +0000 UTCToilet Cobra
2024-08-16 18:29:23 +0000 UTCRob Dalton
2024-08-16 18:26:49 +0000 UTCemitydna
2024-08-16 18:17:40 +0000 UTCBen Sunshine-Hill
2024-08-16 18:04:02 +0000 UTCJulie (HiDeeHoGal)
2024-08-16 17:23:07 +0000 UTCMatthew Harris
2024-08-16 17:15:21 +0000 UTCdenv_eric
2024-08-16 17:12:01 +0000 UTCVincent Verweij
2024-08-16 17:11:55 +0000 UTCb.zap
2024-08-16 17:10:38 +0000 UTCJosh Egbert
2024-08-16 17:08:47 +0000 UTCOmnithea
2024-08-16 17:08:40 +0000 UTC