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.


Right, but what I'm saying is that you're misinterpreting my position as pro-Nick.

I do think Liz's review would have been taken more seriously without the I Refute Thee! directed at JJA et al at the end, which I think was more appropriate to a blog than a book review published in a professional venue, so you may take my comments regarding feminism not being a justification for bad prose and my plea for can we drop this? being directed there, among other places. (Liz's is not the only review of the book I've seen that claims its content is justified by its feminism. I think that's a cop out, but that's neither here nor there; I don' think content needs to be justified, it just helps if it's presented in a way that--of a randomly selected sample of congoers--a rough 80% don't find it funny enough to read out loud to each other over breakfast.)

Nick is pursuant to that discussion in as much as he is one of the people who is contributing to the wanking that I am oh so very tired of. Liz and Niall are pursuant to it as the persons who recommenced the wanking.

So, you're reading something into my post that just isn't there, in other words, and in general I think your grievance is better addressed to Nick.