Log in

bear by san

March 2017



Powered by LiveJournal.com
bear by san

The venom cock just won't stay down.

The first rule of venom cock is, we don't talk about venom cock. I mean, I pretty much avoided this kerfuffle the first time, but the second time around it's just so stultifying that I have to participate. coalescent rounds them up over here (no flamewars, guys--it's a community for a university class, and I won't have you giving the English students a bad impression of my genre.)

That said, the whileaway post is really excellent. I haven't read The Sparrow, but that's besides the point; I think it narrows down the fuss nicely.

Now, I'm not going to talk about venom cock. I am going to talk about the Venom Cock Phenomenon (VCP.)

I will also say that I witnessed, though did not participate in, some of the WFC readings (which weren't as wide-spread as some say--it was more a 45-minute wonder), and the comments were less on the content, and more on the quality of the writing.

And the eye-dialect.

Neither of which I can comment on, because I haven't read the book (well, okay, I read the first paragraph of the excerpt. But I didn't inhale.)

I mean, Anne Bishop and suzych certainly swing some extreme content in their books (ratstration! horse sex!) and while I have heard people making flinchy noises discussing those books, I've never seen anybody moved to actually embark upon an eye-of-argonning of same. (That's what they were doing at WFC, by the way. There: the dirty secret is out. It was a mass, spontaneous eye-of-argonization. Nothing more elaborate than that.)

(Here's where I pull out my entitlement and stand on my privilege as a grown woman raised by lesbian separatists. I got better; so did they.) (I'd stand on my privilege as a man, but I haven't got any.)

The issue wasn't the feminism. The issue isn't the dragon smut, or the female circumcision. Feminism does not need saving from the patriarchy in this particular instance. The issue was that a quorum, even a super-majority, of WFC attendees found the prose in Touched by Venom laughably bad.

Feminism is never an excuse for laughably bad prose.

You may not agree. You may think the book has other virtues that make up for the prose. You may think the prose is good. You are entitled to your opinion. But by all you hold holy, please, people, can we go back to talking about something else? Feminism does not need saving from the venom-cock mockers.

I promise you.

Thank you. You may return to your homes.


I have the first venom cock book in a stack of books I'm to review for a website. It is...unreadable. The quality of the writing is at par is just appalling. I've been sitting on it for at least two months, trying to read it--my review may end up being "this book is unreadably bad, don't read it".

I have no idea what the people at Roc were thinking. Actually, I think I do know what they were thinking. In April, see, they have a book called "To Serve and Submit" coming out which has a strong D/s theme. It seems to me to be an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Jacqueline Carey and Laurell K. Hamilton's steamier offerings. I expect I'll only see more in this vein over the next year or so in my capacity as a book reviewer. Then there will be a glut of something else, I'm sure.
Well, yanno, there's some power-imbalanced smuttiness in truepenny's Penguin books, and mine too. So, yanno. We like our smut at Ace/Roc.
there is *cough* a tradition of smut at Roc, at least. But I like to think that it was the kind of well-written, interestingly-plotted smut you could take home and not be ashamed, even if you wouldn't introduce it to mom and dad...

I like good smut!

I'm the SF/F reviewer for Romantic Times, so I sorta have to seek out the smut. I am absolutely for good, well-written, relevant to the plot smut.
Oh, you're you! I like you!

(okay, you liked me, so I'm predisposed to like you, how's that? *grin*)
*checks* Yep, I'm me all right.

Curse the Dark was one of my favorite books from last year. I'm glad you liked the review--I always wonder if authors read them. I'm really looking forward to the next one. :)
As long as it's well-written power-imbalanced smuttiness, rawr!
And there ain't nothing wrong with that, when it's well done. It's the poorly done power-imbalanced smut I object to. Or the power-imbalanced smut that doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the book.

I actually have The Virtu and Blood and Iron on my to-be-reviewed list and I'm rather looking forward to both of them. July's going to be a good month for me. A really, really, really good month.
keep me posted!
I will. :) I'm also theoretically reviewing your upcoming short story collection.
Yes, but presumably the smut is functions as an integral part of the story, with you guys. And there's a reason for the story beyond, "Oh, neat, smutty things to write!"

Although, I mean, I /like/ smut. So I'm not really criticizing smut per se.

(Also, I originally had this as "the smut is used in service to the story," and had to ask Calluna for a better phrasing.)
Also, you can write. See.
Exactly! Plot-relevant smut, yay! Random, distracting smut, boo!
Yes. Even venom cocks, if well-written and interestingly-used (so to speak) aren't Bad. It's just when the prose actively hurts the reader that the author should be in line for mocking.

I admit, I haven't read the entire book. I read selected (and one random) excerpts and decided that Life Was Too Short.
I like to write all the sex scenes first and then invent a story to justify them. *g*
Oh, hey, someone just offered me this nice used bridge. Do you think it'll last?