Method Acting

I know.
It doesn't really look like it.
And I suppose arguably it isn't. L is in a play in the Edinburgh Festival Fringe - Yasmina Reza's God of Carnage - that includes the consumption on stage of some 'leftover clafoutis'. L's character, Veronique, has supposedly made it the day before and talks about her recipe for the dish to the other characters. So you could say that L needs to get into character by making the dish. In practise she was just taking her turn to make the 'edible prop'. Each member of the cast will be trying to make their own version of the dish for at least one of the rehearsals or the six actual performances.
Having looked into it, it turns out that technically it isn't really a clafoutis, as that should be made with black cherries. This, using apples and pears, is actually a flaugnarde. It's rather like a sweet pancake, with the fruit mixed into a batter that is then baked in the oven.
This is what I consider my 'real 1000th' as it marks 1000 blips without a break after I started more slowly with my first 100. I've been wondering if blip is struggling a little bit these days. I've seen a few comments from other blippers recently. Some seem generally disgruntled while others have specific complaints. Talking for example about what appear to be over-officious administrators not just rejecting an image posted on the wrong day but also blocking the 'offender' for 48 hours. The site does have a few rules and given the creative people that use blip, it's not surprising that some of them like to push those boundaries every so often. Even so, it does seem that the 'post the day you took it' rule seems worth strictly observing. I guess it's just a bit frustrating when you can see other blips that look to have been taken in the past, or even described as such. I think phone blips might not always have the date embedded in them and we all know that EXIF data can be stripped if you really want to. Still, blocking an image for breaking a rule seems okay. If people are really being barred for a period for that sort of simple transgression it seems a bit much. Not happened to me, so I don't really know if it happens, and if it does, how common it is. And the muttering seems to continue about the 'new' regime that requires even browsers of the site to register if they want to see more than a few images. Personally I can't see the issue with that. In another universe I could imagine people objecting to a move in the opposite direction as 'opening up our images to everyone' and being concerned that pictures of young children were visible to people that didn't have to register with the site. If you have friends or family members that want to look at your blips but don't want to blip themselves, I still don't see the big deal in asking them to set up a user name on the site. I think it's more the case that people just don't like change.
My recent blipday didn't seem especially popular, but it did make the spotlight pages, albeit page two. So I thought I'd have a look back at my blipdays to see how popular they are. There may be a bias in favour of the earlier ones as they have just been around longer, giving more people chance to see them.

Blipday : views : comments : stars : faves
100 - 199 : 9 : 0 : 0
200 - 244 : 22: 8 : 0
300 - 173 : 14 : 5 : 0
365 - 844 : 56 : 10 : 0
500 - 374 : 55 : 29 : 1
730 - 268 : 42 : 50 : 0
1000 - 569 : 48 : 55 : 2
1095 - 177 : 37 : 45 : 1

So, this was my least viewed blipday to date, and a lot lower than my 365 blipday. But numbers don't tell the whole story. That image was linked to a feature in the local paper and my recent 1000 blipday was re-tweeted by the National Theatre of Scotland which has to have been worth a few hundred views. Perhaps last year's 730 blipday is a better comparison. It has had 100 more views, but it's had a year more to gather them. The evidence isn't conclusive yet...