The love of little blue rubber men is pure and sacred.

Pure. And sacred.

Let me know if you figure out the attraction of the cartoon smut. My usual feeling is that cartoons don't have sex. And I'm with you on the verbal as opposed to visual thing. Well, except when I'm ogling teh hawt on my source material :)

I'm with you on the ogling, which I like as well as anyone, but it's not where I draw my slash inspiration from.

To repeat an earlier lecture, there are three primary modes of absorbing information. Most people are a mix of all three, but it's the dominant and the percentage of each that vary from person to person.

Visual (almost everyone has this as #1)
Auditory (second-largest group)
Kinesthetic (Very rare to have this as your primary mode. This is touch.)

For instance, I'm A-K-V. I learn/absorb information best by listening, then by taking notes (the physical/kinesthetic act of writing helps "lock in" the information I'm hearing) and lastly by seeing, although the difference between my K and V components isn't extreme.

The point is that a medium that relies upon static pictures of people's facial expressions isn't natural for me. It doesn't tap into my primary method of absorbing information. Now that I've discovered that this medium is essentially a comic-book form of PWP, I'm not sure I can get what I'm looking for.

The "Fake" books worked because in seven volumes, I got enough words to define the characters' voices.

And yet...the books I've read, even the "Moon" books, had an undeniable charm. I'm not immune, or indifferent, to visuals, so maybe it's just that it's going to take some practice for me to settle into this new genre.

I rather regret that I don't have access to the "Fake" series now that I'm back home. My first impression was positive and I'd be interested in reading them again to take a second look.