2003-05-20 - 7:05 p.m.

I did a scientific-looking personality test on the BBC website (sadly I appear to have a personality type that can�t be arsed to find the link) on �empathy� and came out two percent away from autism, which I guess means I�m just really annoying without any redeeming features like being able to win massive great wodges of dosh by counting cards in casinos, or telling flustered waitresses how many tooth picks they just spilled. Actually, that second one can�t possibly win you many friends. A lot of the questions related to how you feel about animals, though. How can that be relevant as to how you relate to humans? You�ll possibly know my pathological hatred of anything from the animal kingdom (my two fish, FreemanHardyWillis and Ken (the) Loach excepted) but I actually do like some humans and have been known to talk to / befriend / lick / reluctantly lend books which I really, really love but really, really know they�ll never give back to them. Now I�m apparently on a par with Asperger�s Syndrome sufferers, whomsoever the chuff they might be.

Again, looking around our favourite government-run news source to kill time at work, I notice the nation has voted on its 100 favourite books (http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100.shtml). On remedial perusal, I seem to have read seven off the list. This heartens me no end. Like the guy in that play, I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion. If everyone thinks one thing, then I say, bet the other way. Added to which, all four of the Harry Potter books (HP & The Flying Marshmallow Duvet, & The Brutal Chocolate Enema, & The Patronisingly Reworded Title for American Children, & The Embarrassed Commuter Buying The Book In It�s �Adult Cover� Version) made the top 100, so I�m pleased not to be keeping that kind of company. That said, the books I have read are based on financial affordability, so go figure.