Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017



Powered by LiveJournal.com
bear by san

Progress notes for 13 July 2006:

Yep. The novel finished, the short stories plunge like lemmings to clear themselves from my brain.

two scenes written; seven to be going on with.

"The Rest of your Life in a Day."

New Words:  1340
Total Words: 1935
Pages: 9
Deadline: none. because of course I still couldn't be mugged by either of the shorts I owe. I'm thinking about "War Stories," though.

My goal is to finish all of the outstanding short fiction before I have to start another new novel draft.

Reason for stopping: end of scene

Stimulants:  milk, beer.
Exercise: none
Mail: proofreader queries for Carnival and "Sonny Liston Takes The Fall"

burger_eater hated Blood & Iron with a profound deep hate, for exactly the same reasons that james_nicoll didn't like it. (Spoilers. Spoilers. OMG teh spoilers. Fair warning.) And it's probably wrong to react with glee to a review of my work that involves this much vitriol. But I will quote one sentence of his rant here:

"What kind of dumbass tries to paint themselves as victim and monster in the same argument?"

I leave that as an exercise to the class. And dance off, crowing to myself, "the book works, it works, it works."

Today's words Word don't know: tattooist, Tsarevich, psych, chested

Mean Things: still with the scrotal tattoos. That's worth two days of mean. And Kelly's being a jerk.
Darling du jour:  "Perfectly normal reaction," she said, and bent his penis to the left to get a better angle.
Jerry-rigging: I'm patching bits of "The Firebird" and "Beautiful Vassilisa" into the narrative. Challenging!
There's always one more quirk in the character: Kelly smokes camels. Who knew?

Other writing-related work: All the Windwracked Stars proposal
Books in progress: Martin Cruz Smith, Stallion Gate; Jane Austen, Pride & Prejudice;
The glamour!: did the dishes. blew off archery because I really, really need to spend some time in my coccoon.


Wait, scrotal? I thought ... holy-- people do that??!!

Wait. Why am I even surprised? I read warrenellis.com, don't I?
You want pictures?

I don't even have one, and I've had my legs crossed ALL DAY.

And because I like you, I won't tell you how they stretch the skin out.
I was a much happier person before I had reason to think about scrotal tattoos.
"What kind of dumbass tries to paint themselves as victim and monster in the same argument?"

John Gardner's Grendel, for one.
How about Shakespeare's Richard III?
And it's probably wrong to react with glee to a review of my work that involves this much vitriol.

I know what you mean. Some of my favorite writing group comments came from people hating something for the right reasons.

((wonders what it says about her that she loves Elaine with a deep and fangirly love))

Well, one of the things that the book is kind of designed to do (*if* it works, and if you read it with any depth) is to pound repeatedly on one's entitlement buttons. And also one's attachment to the sort of romantic narratives where there are right and wrong people to identify with.

Because one might be inclined to identify with the humans--but the humans are genocidal, and are willing to sacrifice a good deal that's beautiful because it's dangerous and doesn't follow their genda.

Or one might be tempted to identify with the Fae. But the Fae are Not Nice.

I'm asking sheep to admit that the wolves deserve to eat, to find a way to separate their *own* moral good (protection of the us) from the objective moral good (the them actually have as much moral right to existence as the us do).

Some of the sheep are, quite reasonably, not going to find this palatable. This just means that they are sane, well-adjusted, properly evolved sheep.

...okay, and if I cop to it, I might as well cop to it: on one level, there's a thread of allegory about terrorism in there (what people will resort to when you disagree with them ideologically enough that they feel their existence is threatened is ugly) and there's also a thread of environmentalist critique (if we do not make willing, **painful** sacrifices so that the other guy can have a share too, then he's going to kill us to get at the pie) and there's also, yanno, this thing about Faerie--and also, is it really a mountain lion's fault if it eats your dog or your kid after you build a house on its mountain?

Sure, forestry service is gonna shoot that lion. But I don't think it was the lion performing the inciting incident. (I am not particularly humanocentric in my ethical thinking--it smacks to me of the Great Chain of Being and so forth, and I am uncomfortable with the idea that humanity is worth more, objectively, than Other Things. Now, practically, my allegiance lies with my species. But like Carel, I'm not sure I'm willing to see us win. *g*)

In addition, Faerie has *always* been about what you're willing to do for beauty. For art. What you'll pay.

Because art isn't safe, and it takes your whole heart to do it well. But it's worth it.

Or is it?
the characters (admittedly through no fault of their own) are on the wrong side, except for the Prometheans.

I didn't really see it as a black/white wrong-side/right-side thing. For me, Bear argued both sides so well from the middle of the room, that I didn't know which side I wanted to "win." I mean, the Fae are Not Nice ... but is humanity Nice? Hell no; we're a bunch of dicks.
56 years of lemming lore, and it's still wrong.

Lemmings don't plunge off cliffs...unless Disney employees throw them off.
mine explode into tiny mushroom clouds after a five-second countdown.
My question for the person who you had to quote is this: "What kind of dumbass can't grasp the obvious theam of the book?" The theam from what I have read (having read the book twice and practically shoved other copies into peoples hands for them to buy it) was that no one is innocent but we all are innocent. Someone needs to explain yin and yang to this person.
Book Reviewer at Large
Well, thank you for the sales pitch! (and your own blog comments!) I expected the book to bounce off a few walls; nobody likes the idea that their moral structures are based on convenience.