Yesterday, I came across the word
It means 'gloomy'.
It reminded me of the word
And, since I like the word
(which means to obscure meaning by clouding it, muddling it, sending it into the gloom, I suppose)
so I thought I'd call it a Wednesday Word, even though it's a Sunday.
I found it ('subfusc') in a book called
by Hilary Boyd
I've not yet come to its end (Thursdays in the Park) but I'm enjoying it. This set me off on an uncomfortable train of thought. 'Thursdays in the Park' (I think) would count as 'Women's Fiction'. The idea of anything being 'Women's Fiction' irritates me. As if we women are bound to like one kind of book! As if there are books men are not likely to read! And as if I'm the kind of woman (all of a sudden) who reads (and enjoys) 'women's fiction'!
Oh the ignominy!
There's a can of worms!
P.S. - after finishing the book.
It's a good read - though the last third (ish) could have been condensed a little (to my taste). I suspect - just suspect - authors are expected to make a book of a particular length - and I confess I like to get words for my money!
It reminded me of Alexander McCall-Smith's Isabel Dalhousie novels. (I won't say why for fear of spoiling both but as I like the Dalhousie novels that's as much a recommendation as a surprise.) So - does Alexander McCall-Smith write 'women's novels'? Or am I putting both novelists in the wrong bracket? For a reason I can't explain, I often think of the author of the The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency books as a woman - even though I know he isn't (a woman).