Dumb horse

[altivo]

Excuse: I felt so cold and uncomfortable by the time I got out of work.

Consequence: I forgot to stop on the way home and get a valentine card as I'd intended.

Probably not a disaster, but it's irritating nonetheless. Guess I have to get into the kitchen early tomorrow and make pink heart-shaped pancakes. ;p Fortunately I've promised him artwork but it won't be done by tomorrow.

It snowed more today, but with little accumulation. Things were nonetheless very slick and slippery for driving home this evening. Felt all afternoon as if I might be getting some bug or other, but now most of that seems to have passed.

Reading William Horwood's Duncton Wood, a long dystopic novel about moles, a bit similar to Watership Down but darker so far. This after having finished Mercedes Lackey's Changes yesterday, the latest in her long Valdemar series. It was OK, but the number of typographical errors and missing or disarranged words was distracting. I've noticed this tendency in her books before. I wonder if she refuses to let an outsider do any copy editing or proofing.

I see the FWA is going ahead with the plan to set up a series of awards in furry literature. While I agree that a juried system will be a good contrast with the Ursa Majors, which are entirely based on popular votes, having watched much of the early discussion I fear that in an attempt to be all inclusive they will make the Coyotl Awards just as ineffectual as the Ursas have become. Porn, porn and more porn does not provide a template for literary growth, any more than a diet of nothing but bacon provides the requirements of healthy nutrition.

Ah well, what I think doesn't matter.

Comments

[chibiabos.livejournal.com]

Horwood does have dark, harsh scenes in his works. He's probably my favorite author I've discovered this past decade ... not that I particularly enjoy harsh scenes, but I think they help make surmounting the climax feel more earned by the protagonist.

[altivo]

I do like Horwood's writing. Unlike so many modern authors, he isn't afraid to take his time and describe things, or fill in the ancient history of a situation or place. And his use of language is excellent, almost up to that of Tolkien or some of the great 19th century authors.

[chibiabos.livejournal.com]

I keep forgetting if I've asked you before whether you've read The Wolves of Time, which is my favorite. Yeah, he does tend to describe things well.

[altivo]

I have both volumes of Wolves of Time here but haven't finished them yet. Started twice and both times got pulled away from it by more urgent things. Horwood requires time and attention or I get lost.

[soanos]

Hi again.

I wouldn't worry about forgetting the card. He'll get pancakes afterall, which should more than make up for it. Everyone loves pancakes. :)

I haven't read much literature lately, but I have to agree with the literature awards. It sounds like there will be a lot of porn among the candidates, and while some may be well written, it doesn't really contribute anything useful to literature.

[schnee]

while some may be well written, it doesn't really contribute anything useful to literature.

But if it provides entertainment for the reader, how is it ultimately different from any other piece that does the same, regardless of topic matter?

[soanos]

Well, I guess it depends, I personally would get immensely bored from reading someone describe the same action, just worded differently over and over again. I think it can exist as a part of a story, as long as it is tastefully written. However, if the story is completely centered around it the story usually ends up being neglected. Ever seen the plot for a porn movie? :) A woman calls a plumber, plumber arrives, innuendo, 2 minutes and it is on. :D

Anyway, that was just a crude example, so please, don't take it too seriously or get offended. *hides in corner*

[altivo]

Well, I consider "literature" or "literary writing" to have more purpose than just amusement. And when I say "porn" I'm referring to materials that have tittilation as their primary mission rather than presenting an erotic scene as an important development device.

Kyell Gold is a very good writer, but I feel he often inserts such scenes where they serve no useful purpose other than to increase sales and popularity, for instance.

[schnee]

Porn, porn and more porn does not provide a template for literary growth, any more than a diet of nothing but bacon provides the requirements of healthy nutrition.

That's not a very good analogy, though, insofar as that our dietary needs really are balanced; we need a variety of nutrients, and not only is too little of anything bad, too much of it is bad, too. A pure-bacon diet would be objectively bad for you in both regards: you'd miss things you need, and get too much of other things, things that YOU do need in moderate amounts but that nevertheless hurt when you consume altogether too much of them.

The same can't be said for literature. De gustibus non est disputandum, and while it certainly can't hurt to experiment with a wide variety of genres, forms etc., you don't have to; you can still be a good author, even a great one, if you're sticking to one genre.

It's also unclear to me whether these awards are supposed to "provide a template for literary growth" in the first place. The tagline seems to be "Recognizing Excellence in Anthropomorphic Literature"; that's a different beast (no pun intended).

I'm not saying that awards that do "provide a template for literary growth" would be bad, or that it'd not be nice to see something other than adult pieces recognized (although I'm also not saying that I think that there currently is a trend to only recognize adult material); but I think you should give these new awards a chance before dismissing them out of hand.

[altivo]

I watched the long and tortuous discussion about the purpose of the new set of awards and how they should be settled. Let's just say I'm disappointed. There was a faction that took a position congruent with my own, but they were shouted down by the "whatever is popular" crowd, which in turn just leads back to the Ursas. So why bother?

[hrrunka]

I read Changes over Xmas (or just before). The poor editing does distract somewhat. Recently I've been reading the latest collection of short stories.

[altivo]

Now that I've read all three of that subseries, I'm thinking I should move them from the science fiction section of the library to the young adult novels. Not that they are inferior but that really seems to be the audience.

Certainly they lack some of the complexity and intensity of the last few Valdemar books that preceded them. I thought Exile's Honor and Burning Brightly were among the best works the author had ever produced. These three, not so much.

[hrrunka]

Yeah, the Exile's series and Burning Brightly were definitely several notches better.

The Collegium series' teen main character (for younger teens to identify with) and rather shallow plots (not quite "Famous Five" but...) do have a "young adult" market feel. I guess they're not too bad, and I enjoyed them enough to keep reading to the end, but I've definitely read better books from the YA shelves.

[altivo]

Well, we can grant that she at least filled in some interesting historical bits about the Collegium and Valdemar in a period not well described before. The heavy focus on teen relationships (Bear and Lena, Mags and Amily) also suggests the "young adult" category. It seems there must be a fourth book to come, though I've seen no announcement of it.

I did like the first one, Foundation, but these sequels seem rather weak and watery to me.

[hrrunka]

I've noticed that very often the first book in one of her series is the best by a fair bit. I wonder whether she's being presured by her publisher to produce more of the same. YA publishers in particular seem keen on the multi-book series.

[altivo]

Confession:

Why do I keep reading Lackey? Because deep down inside I want to be "chosen." Not to be a Herald, per se, just chosen. Gary has had two dogs who almost qualified as having chosen him. I always wanted a horse to do it, but haven't ever found that proper match.

McCaffrey had the same idea with her dragons, but I think a dragon would be a bit much for me. :D

[hrrunka]

Aye, that heart-and-mind one-for-one life-bond is an attractive idea, and stories involving it, be they set on Pern, Valdemar or elsewhere, can draw me in. I quite fancy a firecat, myself. ;)

[avon_deer]

I found "Duncton Wood" even more depressing that "Watership Down." I could not finish it. :/

[altivo]

It's certainly a dystopia so far. But so is life, no? I will press onward, because I really like the author's ideas and style.

[treppenwolf]

I was gonna write a long counter, but Schnee beat me to it.

Basically, I agree with his interpretation (you *are* a guy, Schnee, I hope). The FWG have always made a big to-do about quality, and this hardly seems any different. Genre is hardly a good predictor of quality - if literary profs were to be believed, then sci-fi, fantasy, horror - even furry - would be full of nothing but trash. A bookworm like you should know that's obviously not true.

We tend to think of porn as being lightweight, purely about the titillation. But there's a distinction between porn gratia pornis and porn as a story element. Nudity, for example, is frowned upon in today's culture, yet we enshrine sculptures of nudes in our museums. The nakedness isn't there to titillate - it's there to display the beauty of the human body. And I think that's the same with sex. What is so objectionable about it that its mere inclusion invalidates the story it's contained in? It's a very human, very personal behavior, and while I certainly don't believe every story should have it, I think it's equally wrong to dismiss them because they portray characters having sex.

In the end, it's not discrimination by genre that separates good stories from the bad, but discrimination by merit. It levels the playing field and gives everyone a fair chance, regardless of genre. I don't know if it's the most objective method of judging - I think *that* would require stripping all entries of their authors' names - but it's unprejudiced and doesn't jump to conclusions.

That said:

I think FWG is making a huge mistake by making the entire guild their voting body. For all their fuss about quality, the requirements for entry are horrifyingly low - mere publication in at most two venues, non-paying included. If all you need to get in is politick/sweet-talk your way twice into a conbook, how does that make you worthy of judging art? *That's* where I think the real danger lies, not in allowing [THOSE PORNMONGERS] the right to join.

[altivo]

Well, when I say "porn" I do mean "porn gratia pornis" if you will. But mayhap we don't draw the line in the same place.

And I agree that the configuration at which they seem to have arrived for the awards reduces any significance they might have by a considerable amount.

As for how to decide who should be qualified to join or vote, the membership list is still pretty small when you look at it. The definition of "furry literature" is really the key to this question, and that's a nebulous issue as well.

[treppenwolf]

Well, I take it as a given that your kind of porn would never win any contest by merit. Another reason I'm not worried by the inclusion of mature material - the vast majority would disqualify themselves on plot alone.

Can "furry literature" really be defined, though? It's the same story (so to speak) with sci-fi - there's hard sci-fi, soft sci-fi, sci-fi metaphorically exploring the human condition, sci-fi that is not sci-fi per se but is so hard to categorize, we may as well just call it sci-fi. My (not very sophisticated) deciding factor is how much air-time anthro animals get in comparison to, say, humans. Or sentient MacBooks. If it's more than half, the book's furry.

Unless it's just humans reskinned in a furry texture pack, of course. You can tell from how the tails wag.

[altivo]

The trouble is, "my" kind of porn does win popularity contests. And in furry fandom, it sells better than stuff I consider to be more meritorious by virtue of actual content, theme, and plot.

Now, on that definition of furry literature, would you consider Watership Down to be furry? Or is it just rabbits in waistcoats? I come down on the side of furry, myself, but I know many disagree. What about books that came long before the concept of "furry" itself, like Black Beauty, Bambi, or The Wind in the Willows?

[treppenwolf]

I know it does, which is why I think assigning voting rights to the entire FWGuild defeats the very purpose of the award. With the entry bar set so low, FWG is hardly the exclusive writers' club it pretends to be, and in a fandom that's already so enamored with adult material, pretty soon you get people who were published purely by dint of their ability to complete a typo-free sex scene. Hyperbole, of course, but I used to read the people who were admitted into the guild, and while some did have the skill, I never could fathom how the others would get in on their own merit.

Hmm. Yes, I would. Watership Down is, imo, the furry analogue of the "metaphorical sci-fi" I mentioned earlier. It's not completely different, but different enough that the reader is forced to view the situation in a new, un-jaded light. Kind of like Bradbury's "Martian Chronicles". (Funnily, that whole book fell flat on me. I think it took the metaphor too far.)

[schnee]

*noses* I'm not offended. Why would I be? :) We're all just having a constructive and enlightening discussion here.

You're very right about porn movies, and that's one reason why they're so utterly boring. The same goes for porn stories, too, actually, but have porn stories in the strict sense, ones that essentially just repeat the same thing over and over again with no variation, no plot, no anything actually ever won any awards, like the Ursa Major Award? It's true that e.g. Kyell Gold's works have been recognized that way, but while he writes adult fiction, his novels and stories can hardly be characterized as "porn" in the above sense.

Which, just BTW, is also why I talked about "adult pieces and "adult material" rather than "porn" in my top-level comment below.