Writing vs Drawing - musings
Tim Gadd
>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:50:58 -0500, Andtwolf <andt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:08:30 -0500, Tim Gadd wrote:
>>
>>> Well, if we can take the rather radical step of saying that a story which I
>>> spent hours writing is a piece of art,
>>
>>It's no radical step! ;) A piece of creative writing *is* art because it's just as
>>possible to paint a picture with words as it is with a brush and paints.
>
>
>Actually I was being sarcastic.
I think the reason for my sarcasm is because there is a perception in the
furry community that 'art' (which from now on I will use to mean any form
of visual representation) is both more worthy than writing (fiction, in
this context) and that is harder to do.
As I said, I understand how art might be valued more highly than literature
in a subculture where the iconic image is the mainstay, but this hardly
makes it true that drawing is more important or more difficult. I don't
think, for instance, that is generally believed that Raphael, Picasso and
Pollock were more skillful or more talented than Shakespeare, Wordsworth
and James Joyce.
I suppose the notion - particularly on Usenet - that art is harder than
creative writing probably proceeds from the fact that all of us use words
to communicate in this medium, and therefore, obviously, writing must be
something which is more fundamentally easy than drawing.
A little cross-examination shows this assumption to be shaky. There are
many illiterates in the Western world - people who cannot write at all,
even at the most basic level, but I don't think that there are people who
are completely incapable of drawing, if drawing at its most basic level
could be said to involve making lines on paper in order to try to express
some form or other. I suppose there are some people who, because of some
organic disorder, might be incapable of it, but this is not the same thing
as illiteracy, which is largely due to lack of education rather than lack
if inate ability.
Nevertheless, I think the fact that most of can write - at least this type
of writing - to a level whereby we can make ourselves understood, whereas
many of us either cannot draw to an equivalent level, or have never tried -
tends to bias our thinking, and causes us to regard drawing as more
difficult.
Yet, if this is so, why is it that there are numerous furry artists whose
work is obviously quite accomplished, whereas the standard of furry
creative writing is very low, and furry poetry is nearly always so
groin-trembling terrible as to defy description?
Is it perhaps just a matter of perception? Is it because I have
considerable ability as a writer, but very limited abilities as an artist,
and therefore I can see all the flaws in furry literature and poetry,
whereas I am easily impressed when it comes to visual art? Do people who
possess drawing skills equivalent to my writing skills cringe when they
look at most furry art? I mean, I can see, even without being able to draw
very well, that the vast majority of furry art is much more technically
accomplished than it is artistically interesting. There are very, very few
furry artists whose work does anything for me on an intellectual level.
Similarly, there are quite a few furry writers out there who seem to have a
good command of technique, but nothing very interesting to say. Perhaps it
is, indeed, just a matter of perspective.
Or perhaps poetry really is harder than drawing. Considering the
infinitesimal fraction of poetry which is worth reading, this seems more
than slightly possible.
I was communicating recently with Kelly Freas, who is probably as much of a
legend in the realm of SF illustration as anybody alive, or perhaps anybody
dead or alive - yet in SF fandom, is he a giant in the same sense as
Heinlein or Asimov? I think it would be safe to say, 'not quite'.
Of course, furry fandom has yet to produce a Robert Heinlein. Is that
because, when it comes to furry, there isn't that much to say - only a lot
to show?
Then again, has furry fandom produced a Kelly Freas?
--
Tim Gadd | fluke .com.au
Hobart, Tasmania | @southcom
Homepage: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/university/222/
"The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes."
Stanley Kubrick
Kathmandu
"Tim Gadd" <add...@in.sig> wrote in message
news:gL9aPrwvH63z0T...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:08:51 +1100, Tim Gadd <add...@in.sig> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:50:58 -0500, Andtwolf <andt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:08:30 -0500, Tim Gadd wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, if we can take the rather radical step of saying that a story
which I
> >>> spent hours writing is a piece of art,
My $.02
I am (or I claim anyway) to be both a writer and an artist. I can tell you
my perspective between the two for what it is worth. I have been sculpting
and drawing for as long as I can remember yet I never wrote until I was 36.
I had tried a few times but I never got very far. Art is easy, I can knock
out a reasonably well done sculpture in 30 - 80 hours of work. A drawing I
can knock out in an afternoon or a couple of days. Writing is unbelievably
hard for me. "Salt and Foam" took years to write, literally. I cannot
believe someone can write a 700+ page novel in a year, it is mind-boggling
to me.
That being said, realize there are folks who can knock out a 10 page essay
on swallows, African and European and their average forward velocities in
relation to load carrying capacities using coconut payloads in less than an
hour with foot notes and references. Then again I can knock out a
reasonable sculpture without painting in an hour and I'm sure there are
artists who can knock out a nice picture in an hour as well. It really
depends on your talent. I don't mean innate talent but what skills you
acquire and use the most. I wasn't born with a talent for sculpting but
I've been messing with clay since I was seven or eight years old so I got
sort of good at it. I'm sure if my parents set me down with a pen and paper
and had me write every day, writing would far easier for me now.
While I'm sculpting I am usually thinking of something else, daydreaming or
just vegging while my hands are working where writing takes everything I
have and all my concentration so to me writers gain a lot of respect. I am
in awe of those writers who could produce whole manuscripts on old
typewriters and not have many mistakes.
I suspect furry is such a visual experience that writing will always be
second fiddle because furry only really works as a visual medium. Writing
furry doesn't have the same impact as a picture, in many cases you can
change a character's description and remove the furry element and not
effect the story at all. Visually, furry is representational and
interpretive at once. The scantily clad vixen can become the viewer's ideal
woman where as in writing a vixen is a five foot four inch fox with very
few clothes on.
Furry art is odd in it's nature in that it isn't so much what the fur is
doing so much as the idea of the furry itself. That is why so much of
furry art has no background and is in a static pose. We are enchanted by
the fur concept itself and we are less interested in the life portrayed.
Science Fiction is almost completely opposite in that we are more
interested in what the alien is doing rather that what it looks like and
most of us tend to look at art based on a story and go, "That's not the way
I imagined them". That may be why writers are gods in sci-fi where fur
writers are marginalized compared to artists.
Where is the furry Heinlein? Well, in my opinion there are qualifications
for that. Are there any early Heinlein's? Yes, I think so. Greg Howell and
Watts Marten come to mind. "Human Memoirs" is every bit as good as "Door
into Summer" and "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel". Same goes for Watts Marten
and his stories. If you compare later works by Heinlein then you have to
look no farther than Lisanne Norman. Her Sholan series is a direct
reflection of Heinlein's later works with it's interpersonal relationships
and libertine sexuality. They have his skill but not his notoriety.
Many folks will tell you when they are asked who are some of the best
sci-fi writers and invariably Heinlein and Asimov are brought out as
examples yet how many of them have actually read and liked their writing? I
haven't found anything of Asimov has written to be all that great, some of
it reads like an instruction manual with a plot. Except for "Job"
everything Heinlein wrote from "Stranger in a Strange Land" on up stinks on
ice, in my opinion anyway. They earned a de facto reputation because people
heard from others they were great so they too say they were great. Terry
Smith is sort of like that in a way, there are others who have much more
talent but are not nearly as well known in the fandom like Dark Natasha and
Heather Bruton.
Anyway, enough rambling. Ignore, I'm an idiot anyway...
Kathmandu
Tim Gadd
wrote:
Very well thought out and interesting post, however I have to disagree
here:
>Where is the furry Heinlein? Well, in my opinion there are qualifications
>for that. Are there any early Heinlein's? Yes, I think so. Greg Howell and
>Watts Marten come to mind. "Human Memoirs" is every bit as good as "Door
>into Summer" and "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel".
I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Please understand, I think Greg Ho well is an
_immensely_ talented storyteller. In fact he probably has about as much raw
writing talent as everybody else in furry put together (with apologies to
those who I haven't read, which is probably a lot of you)- but Human
Memoirs is a really rather lame, re-hashed plot, with an absurdly perfect
super-macho hero, which I would have tossed in the trash after the first
few dozen pages, if not for the fact that the damn thing is so beautifully,
magnificently _written._ Howell's descriptive powers actually made me
jealous, and due to my colossal ego, that doesn't happen very often. But
the story idea: guy gets inexplicably spirited away to an alternate,
medieval type universe populated by humanoid aliens, where he gradually
rises to become a figure of importance - to say that this has been done a
few times before would be putting it mildly. No, what makes The Human
Memoirs terrific is that Greg Howell could probably write an instruction
manual for a toaster and make it poignant.
I don't know what he's doing these days, but if he ever gets a really
decent story concept behind him, he could do _great_ things. He's a born
storyteller; completely instinctual. I was stunned by a descriptive passage
in THM, and wrote to him explaining why it worked so well, from the POV of
technique, and he responded with something like "Gee, I dunno. If you say
so."
>Same goes for Watts Marten
>and his stories.
Watts Martin I have read a lot less of, but I wouldn't put him in the same
class as Howell from what I have read. I would still put him in a class
well above most furry writers I've read, but I wouldn't let a compliment
like that go to my head.
>Many folks will tell you when they are asked who are some of the best
>sci-fi writers and invariably Heinlein and Asimov are brought out as
>examples yet how many of them have actually read and liked their writing? I
>haven't found anything of Asimov has written to be all that great, some of
>it reads like an instruction manual with a plot. Except for "Job"
>everything Heinlein wrote from "Stranger in a Strange Land" on up stinks on
>ice, in my opinion anyway.
I think I misled you. I'm not a great fan of either of those writers
either. I was merely citing them because they are immensely famous (and to
be fair, when they emerged around 1940 in Astounding, they were
responsible, along with Van Vogt and a few others, for turning SF into a
respectable literary form). Actually my favourite SF writers are probably
J.G. Ballard, Philip K. Dick, and Stanislaw Lem.
PlanetFur
wrote before focusing on writing though high
school and to this day, that writing is often seen
as something anyone can do.
It's pathetic, too, how often this is assumed. It's
harder to draw simply because it's easy to see
how someone can have trouble conveying the
idea behind the entire image: the emotion, the
story, the spirit, etc. With fiction, you can put
all this in words, and make a visualization.
However, fiction isn't about the visualization
as much as show versus tell, flow, plot,
story, development, dynamicism, foils,
suspense and connecting with the reader.
Most of these never show in artwork,
unless you include sequential art.
In the transformation fandom, I've seen authors
try to put out works that were blatantly awful,
not because I didn't like the story, but because
the writing style, flow, plot, story, etc., were all
missing, broken, cliched or just junk. You'd
finish the story and have nothing for yourself
to show for it. Yet many of these authors would
be considered great just because they'd put out
a story a day, or include gratuitous sex (some
even including beastiality or rape). It's just
dreadful that often that's all people want from
fiction in niche fandoms.
The solution to fix this is tough, as reading a
well written story takes much more time than
viewing an image trying to convey a similar
tale. Putting the story down to the same timeframe
as viewing an image gives you the, sorry to say,
cruddy fiction that permeates all these fandoms,
and allows anyone to call themselves authors
just because they can carry on mild conversations
on IRC. You can have more authors, more
stories and greater quantity of releases with
this sort of writing, but you lose greatness and
that feeling that you really got something out of
your time. The solution, again, is just to try
to improve the quality of the authors who truly
have a talent for showing an audience a good
tale, so the everyday typers can have something
to which they may evolve, and so the audience
can have more worthwhile images to view
that are words on their screen or on paper.
I wholeheartedly agree, not everyone who puts
a story on the web is a writer, nor should they
be encouraged if they really cannot tell a story.
If they're simply there to do a one-sided orgy
with an audience with no plot or development,
have them just go on a MUCK and give handjobs
to everyone there. Those who want to make a
decent story, and aren't there yet, should be
fully encouraged.
And as you may have seen in this long post,
writing is NOT easy, and it DOES take
practice, commitment and talent, much like
art, to make something people will remember.
Tim Gadd
wrote:
Another interesting post. Thank you.
>It's pathetic, too, how often this is assumed. It's
>harder to draw simply because it's easy to see
>how someone can have trouble conveying the
>idea behind the entire image: the emotion, the
>story, the spirit, etc. With fiction, you can put
>all this in words, and make a visualization.
That's interesting, because I've always thought it was rather the other way
'round. I felt that - particularly with cartooning - it's possible to
convey an emotion instantaneously and reliably through the use of very
simple and reliable techniques, whereas with words, you actually have to
work at it. BTW I'm not saying that all emotions, or subtle emotions are
easy to convey in cartoons... errr, perhaps I should give an example.
If you draw an eye, and then draw the eyelid rising at about a 30 degree
angle from the inner corner of the eye, it denotes and conveys anger or
aggression. If you flip it over and draw it falling away at a 30 degree
angle downwards it conveys sadness or submission. I can just draw a pair of
eyes on a piece of paper, mechanically, with no effort or thought, and if I
look at the drawing it will produce that emotional effect in me.
I'm actually very interested in this - it's slightly off topic - but I'm
curious as to whether this is an inate, hard-wired reaction to seeing a
normal facial expression exaggerated on paper, or whether we've become
culturally conditioned to react that way to cartoon symbols.
In any case my point is that if you do the equivalent using words - if you
were to write, for instance "He was angry" or "He was sad", you really
wouldn't achieve this same instinctive effect. You would have to employ
more craft, more inventiveness, to make the reader feel that the character
was genuinely angry. You certainly would have trouble doing it with the
verbal equivalent of a single line on a piece of paper. You would probably
need to set up the scene; provide background, etc.
That isn't to say that writing is harder than cartooning. That just seems
to me to be one particular instance in which cartooning has an easier job
of it.
>I wholeheartedly agree, not everyone who puts
>a story on the web is a writer, nor should they
>be encouraged if they really cannot tell a story.
I'm not sure if you're wholeheartedly agreeing with me, but I don't think
anyone should be discouraged from writing, even if they're no good at it.
PlanetFur
the ability to convey thousands of words with
simple strokes, are among those who can tell
stories with art. This is why I also stated that
my point was valid if you didn't include
sequential art (though some cartoonists only
draw one image for a piece).
However, the pattern of how the transformation
community has been, has promoted the idea that
anyone who can type is a writer. There is far
too many people (not even writers) putting out
pieces that people feel are great fiction, when
they're atrociously horrible.
To further my point, one story I noticed that
someone posted was about 900 words, all
one paragraph, using perhaps only five or six
sentences. The criticism I saw posted for this
was mainly that it was good but too short.
Why did it get this reaction? Because it involved
a female changing and getting horny doing it.
This is what is happening way too often, and
far too many people are getting encouragement
to write what is obviously par with bad
cybersex. No plot, no story, no way to care
about the character or what happens. Just
promoting the person to turn out more to trick
a dick or two.
I'm all for encouraging those who seem to want
to do creative works, and seem to have a grasp
of what needs done. I can't condone promotion
of those who who are only piecing together
words for those who also type with one hand.
It would be level with saying someone should
continue drawing who simply posts one
hundred drawings of stick figures with large
penises ramming into other stick figures,
without anything humourous depicted.
Ken Pick
> In the transformation fandom, I've seen authors
> try to put out works that were blatantly awful,
> not because I didn't like the story, but because
> the writing style, flow, plot, story, etc., were all
> missing, broken, cliched or just junk. You'd
> finish the story and have nothing for yourself
> to show for it. Yet many of these authors would
> be considered great just because they'd put out
> a story a day, or include gratuitous sex (some
> even including beastiality or rape). It's just
> dreadful that often that's all people want from
> fiction in niche fandoms.
That's because in-fandom, furry fans will buy and read any sort of
crap as long as the characters "have fur and tails -- can't forget
that."
Under such circumstances, the easiest thing to write *is* porn -- it
writes quick (helped by your own horny fantasies), you've got a
guaranteed market, horny fanboys are not exactly noted for sales
resistance, and you can get really crappy as long as it has the
meat-and-motion "money scenes". Add fur and tails, and "IT'S
FURRRRREEEEEEE!"
Trekkies have their own version, ranging from Kirk-slash-Spock to
Klingon Sex. (One of my informants tells me of running into Trek
fanboys denouncing furries as perverts then immediately gushing all
about "Doing a Kliiingon!")
I also belong to a Christian writer's group, and they have the same
problem there with "Jesus Fanboys" who'll swallow any sort of crap, as
long as it (1) has Bible quotes, (2) "Altar Call" conversion scenes,
and (3) bashes evolution or has an end-of-the-world background. (Even
Salem Kirban's "666" -- the Eye of Argon of Christian end-of-the-world
fiction -- is still in print after 30+ years!) Just as Tolkien's epic
sired 40+ years of knockoffs, so Left Behind is going to sire 40+
years of Here Comes The Antichrist Conspiracy/Paranoia
multi-trilogies.
Elf M. Sternberg
> I suppose the notion - particularly on Usenet - that art is harder than
> creative writing probably proceeds from the fact that all of us use words
> to communicate in this medium, and therefore, obviously, writing must be
> something which is more fundamentally easy than drawing.
I think it's even more fundamental than this, Tim. Writing is
taught in the schools, whereas art is not. Betty Edwards (author of
Drawing On The Right Side of the Brain) makes the analogy this way:
Imagine that schools taught reading by putting young students into a
room full of books and telling them, "You figure out how to read."
A few of them-- very few-- eventually, might puzzle out the
relationships of letters to sounds, words to letters, sentences to
words. They will learn to read.
Not only will the rest not learn to read, they will NEVER learn to
read. They will be told, "You're just not a reader."
I don't think it's just that Usenet is a literary medium: I
suspect it's that "art is hard" for the same reason that any new subject
is hard: we have not been taught how to do it. Schools go through the
process of teaching students to read and write because no student can
"express himself" in words without knowing how to write, but somehow we
assume that being able to "express yourself" with marks on paper other
than words requires no instruction whatsoever. I've been criticized for
"interfering in my child's creativity" by daring to teach her things
like line, angle, shape, shade, and depth-- yet these same people only
heap true praise on those children who, by some miracle, figure those
things out for themselves and manage to make realistic images.
> Nevertheless, I think the fact that most of can write - at least this
> type of writing - to a level whereby we can make ourselves understood,
> whereas many of us either cannot draw to an equivalent level, or have
> never tried - tends to bias our thinking, and causes us to regard
> drawing as more difficult.
It's taken me a decade to learn that this assumption simply
isn't true. I had to go about it two different ways: one, by writing a
lot of fiction, and two, by learning how to draw. I uned to think that
my writing was nothing special: that anyone can write, it's taught to
everyone, and that all I was doing was writing down silly things going
on in my head anyway.
Apparently not. I remain someone bewildered at the inability of
some people to assemble a concise statement and support it with
evidentiary writing. I admire the courage (or perhaps the naivete') of
some who post long, rambling, incoherent tales to fur.stories without
benefit of spelling, grammar, or paragraphs.
> Or perhaps poetry really is harder than drawing. Considering the
> infinitesimal fraction of poetry which is worth reading, this seems
> more than slightly possible.
Poetry is harder than drawing because, while students have been
taught nothing about art, they've been taught all the wrong things about
poetry. Before one can write poetry, one must first unlearn all of the
terrible habits that a generation of "beat" poetry, with its blank
verse, thematic nullification, and structural incoherence, has inflicted
upon modern poets.
I was (politely) asked to leave a writer's group because I was
"too mean" to the poets. If asking a poet to try (please!) to write on
a theme other than "O how depressed I am" or "O how crappy is the
world," if asking about their creative process (Did you choose a
structure, and why? What's your meter? Did you consider a rhyme
pattern and if not, why not? Did you plan these internal associations
or are they accidental? If the latter, do you plan on re-writing to
make them explicit?) is mean, then I'm happy to be a cruel bastard to
poets.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
"The apocalypse may be closer at hand than even John Derbyshire thinks:
what the hell is Elf Sternberg doing reading Derb's columns?"
-- Charles Murtaugh
Kathmandu
"Tim Gadd" <add...@in.sig> wrote in message
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:00:41 -0600, "Kathmandu" <kath...@cableone.com>
> wrote:
>
> Very well thought out and interesting post, however I have to disagree
> here:
>
>
>
> >Where is the furry Heinlein? Well, in my opinion there are
qualifications
> >for that. Are there any early Heinlein's? Yes, I think so. Greg Howell
and
> >Watts Marten come to mind. "Human Memoirs" is every bit as good as "Door
> >into Summer" and "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel".
>
> I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Please understand, I think Greg Ho well is
an
> _immensely_ talented storyteller. In fact he probably has about as much
raw
> writing talent as everybody else in furry put together (with apologies to
> those who I haven't read, which is probably a lot of you)- but Human
> Memoirs is a really rather lame, re-hashed plot, with an absurdly perfect
> super-macho hero, which I would have tossed in the trash after the first
> few dozen pages, if not for the fact that the damn thing is so
beautifully,
> magnificently _written._ Howell's descriptive powers actually made me
> jealous, and due to my colossal ego, that doesn't happen very often. But
> the story idea: guy gets inexplicably spirited away to an alternate,
> medieval type universe populated by humanoid aliens, where he gradually
> rises to become a figure of importance - to say that this has been done a
> few times before would be putting it mildly. No, what makes The Human
> Memoirs terrific is that Greg Howell could probably write an instruction
> manual for a toaster and make it poignant.
Remember, this is my opinion and according to some I am an idiot so you
have to take it for what it is worth. That being said I don't really see
where I am wrong about Heinlein compared to Howell although I have to agree
it isn't new or terrably original but then what is? Early Heinlein is solid
story telling and so is "Human Memoirs" and his other master work "Storm
Over Open Feilds" is even better and could be put against just about
anything written in the sci-fi / fantasy genres in the last 20 years and
not fall short. Being biased toward furry themes may have something to do
with it too, keep that in mind.
I am of the opinion that an unoriginal story told really well is far better
than a completely original concept told badly. I have been told on several
occasions that my story, "Waves of Passion" is one of the most touching
stories people have read in years yet it is purely unoriginal. It is the
very definition of the classic mermaid story and about as original as a
"Dukes of Hazard" episode but some people like it. I think it has to do
with the way the story is told and not the story itself. Let's face it,
everything written today can be traced to an ancient greek play or
Shakespear and there really isn't anything really new under the sun.
>
> I don't know what he's doing these days, but if he ever gets a really
> decent story concept behind him, he could do _great_ things. He's a born
> storyteller; completely instinctual. I was stunned by a descriptive
passage
> in THM, and wrote to him explaining why it worked so well, from the POV
of
> technique, and he responded with something like "Gee, I dunno. If you say
> so."
Heh, that is not too unheard of as a response to technique assesments as
the best writers seldom sweat every sentance, it just happens. I heard an
interview years ago with a famous writer talking about his newest best
seller when he was asked about a well written steamy sex scene in the book
and he responded by saying he had never written anything like that before
so he bought a Penthouse Forum magazine and used that as it's basis and
really didn't spend much effort at all.
You proved my point exactly and that is why they are famous. You dislike
them and yet you held them out as examples of greatness. Ray Bradbury is
another of the sci-fi "greats" that I can't stomach. His stories tend to be
clever little concept tricks that may be entertaining at first but soon
grow tiresome, sort of like a mime...
Also, I tend to rate a writer less by artistic skill in favor of
entertainment value. "The Scarlet Letter" is great literature but I enjoy
watching paint peel more. SOOF, on the other hand, spoke to me and made me
laugh and cry and the story is a part of me now. I may be rather pedestrian
in my taste in literature but so be it. I've been called worse.
Let me ask you this, who in the furry fandom do you believe comes closest
to the, "Asimov and Heinlein" ideal? There has to be someone who you can
hold up and say, here, like this only better. As far as fame goes fur has
produced one very famous writer that most internet users are familiar with
and that's Elf Sternberg, for better or worse.
Kathmandu
Tim Gadd
wrote:
>Remember, this is my opinion and according to some I am an idiot so you
>have to take it for what it is worth. That being said I don't really see
>where I am wrong about Heinlein compared to Howell although I have to agree
>it isn't new or terrably original but then what is? Early Heinlein is solid
>story telling and so is "Human Memoirs" and his other master work "Storm
>Over Open Feilds" is even better and could be put against just about
>anything written in the sci-fi / fantasy genres in the last 20 years and
>not fall short.
I haven't read that. I've not even heard of it. I've heard of Light on
Shattered Water, which I didn't read, because I'd read Howell say it was
essentially a more satisfactory re-write of THM.
One thing I should clear up. I didn't notice that you'd specifically said
'early Heinlein', so any comparison I was making wasn't supposed to be on
that basis. In truth I haven't read an awful lot of Heinlein, and my
comments weren't really based on my opinion of the quality of his writing.
>You proved my point exactly and that is why they are famous. You dislike
>them and yet you held them out as examples of greatness. Ray Bradbury is
>another of the sci-fi "greats" that I can't stomach.
I don't think most SF fans regard Bradbury as SF (which was kind of
lampooned in the Simpsons episode where... who was it.... one of the kids
anyway, proclaims the 'ABC of Science Fiction: Asimov, Bester, Clarke'
Someone asks "What about Bradbury", and he says something like "I'm aware
of his work". In fact, if I recall correctly, John Campbell, editor of
Astounding, which was the premier SF mag during the 40's, couldn't stand
Bradbury. But then again I seem to recall he couldn't stand Philip K Dick
either.
I actually like Bradbury (perhaps I should say, I used to: I haven't read
much of his in a long time), but I never considered the stories I liked
most to be SF. Actually I don't really know what you'd call them. I'd
probably say they were closer to horror than any other genre.
His straight SF stories never did much for me.
>Let me ask you this, who in the furry fandom do you believe comes closest
>to the, "Asimov and Heinlein" ideal?
Once again, I think I must have failed to explain what I meant by that
comparison. I wasn't asking "where, in furry fandom, is there a writer of
Heinlein or Asimov's quality?" I was asking "where in furry fandom is
there a writer of Heinlein's or Asimov's _stature_?" In other words, who
from furry fandom has penetrated the market,and the public's awareness to
that sort of extent. My answer to that question would be "obviously there
is no such person"
Perhaps that isn't a totally fair question, because if you were to ask
"Who, in the SF community during the past 30 years, has achieved the same
level of recognition as Asimov and Heinlein?" the answer would probably
"nobody", too. So perhaps I should have asked something like "where is
the furry equivalent of Greg Bear, Peter F. Hamilton or Raymond Feist?"'
PlanetFur
recently on a forum for transformation fans, a so-called
writer posted a question for feedback:
Do people prefer conversation lines that go together from
more than one speaker be in one paragraph, or should
they be in different paragraphs?
The reasoning? His stories were getting to be too long and
too messy with all those paragraphs, and hand-typing the
HTML was too encumbering the more new paragraphs
he needed.
He then later complains after pointed out his poor grammar
and reasoning, that if someone earlier had informed him
that when a new dialogue from a different speaker happens
in his story, he needs a new paragraph, he would have
done so. He claims that no one "provided feedback" for
this.
So yes, it seems, that in a fandom, people feel they can
write simply because words can be typed on a keyboard.
The rest of it should just be provided in critiques that are
neither harsh nor positive.
Andtwolf
> I think it's even more fundamental than this, Tim. Writing is
> taught in the schools, whereas art is not.
It has been in every school I've gone to.
--
FCWps3s/A[any corvid]ps3s/CtDps3s/Fps3s A+ C- D H- M P+ R T# W Z# Sp# RLCT a+ cblu++$ d-- e++ f h++ iw+ j* p sf*
Elf M. Sternberg
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:46:36 -0500, Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>
>> I think it's even more fundamental than this, Tim. Writing is
>> taught in the schools, whereas art is not.
>
> It has been in every school I've gone to.
Really? The fundamentals of perspective were taught in 1st
grade? As a requirement?
Elf
Felyne32k
stylistics, either; good, clear writing is hard to find even among high-
school seniors. The equivalent level of art-preparation to compare with
the English-preparation that most students get (based on my experiences)
is roughly "This is a line. Put four of them together like so, and you
have a rectangle. Put a bunch of rectangles together, and you can have
something vaguely resembling a Mondrian."
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
Andtwolf
In your original post you just said art isn't taught in schools. It was taught
in every single school I've ever attended from grade school through college.
Whether it was required by the state is another matter and something I don't
know, but I do doubt it. I don't remember at what point fundamentals of
perspective were introduced, but I did learn about that fairly early, yes. I do
realize that some (many?) schools don't bother with art at all, and perhaps I
was just lucky to go to the schools that I did. We had other things along with
the art that I know you'd probably rarely find in *public* grade schools (in the
U.S.) these days. Things such as foreign language and music.
artist
<wlf...@ix.netcom.com> say...
<snip>
There is a difference between: Here is some clay, here are
> some
> modelling tools, here is some wire to make an armature (if they even
> used the word), create a sculpture and: here is the anatomy of a
> horse, here are proportions for young, adult, pony, draft, racing
> horses, create a sculpture of a horse jumping a hedge.
>
> Being taught how to manipulate the raw materials of art does
> not teach
> one what is esthetically artistic, or how to describe why one thinks
> one's work is artistic.
That seems more a function of non-judgemental attitudes. In todays world,
with the correct presentation anything can be sold as art. It simply
depends on having a synopsis wordy enough and a buyer gullible enough.
It's one thing to passionatly and clearly argue for the inclusion of your
work as art. As a rule of thumb I disdain most impressionist art myself.
Depending on the creater though, I may or may not exclude it; depends on
whether he can convince me he believes it is art.
To me, art is a visual (or audial) expression of emotion and/or
abstraction.
<snip>
--
ICQ UIN# 106922763
AIM: GCCFurryBoy
Yahoo!Messenger: Okime_Kun
mell...@yahoo.com
http://www.practialdesigns.com/
"Neither hope nor fear" -- Isabella d'Este
"For to do either is to fall to the beast" -- Joseph Richmond
Andtwolf
> Practically all art classes I've had in school focus on the mechanics
> of using the tools,
I don't know since it's been too long for me to remember what we did when. I do
remember learning about perspective and color theory very early. Granted, it was
*very* basic stuff - like this is a horizon line, this is a vanishing point,
this is a primary color, this is a complementary color, this is how you put this
stuff together to make a picture...In 8th grade we had a skeleton to draw from.
The art class and science class were sort of extensions of each other that year
(we were learning human anatomy and physiology). In high school I remember being
kind of ticked that I had to actually read a couple of books on drawing for the
art class :P. In college we studied the same stuff *again*, but got to practice
drawing from live models (and other various junk lying around the studio). I
wish we had done that (live models) much earlier, but heaven forbid an 8th
grader see an outline of a breast (not like they don't see scantily-clad men and
women at the beach anyway, heh). Some people in the college class dropped out
because the models were completely nude. Sheesh. Ok, I'm just rambling now...
> but not on the creation of what is art. OTOH, none of the "english" classes
> I've taken ever spent the whole term on how to use paper, pencil, eraser --
> they've focused on how to communicate /using/ those tools.
Heh. I remember in the early grades being taught how to hold a pencil, which way
to draw the lines to form letters, etc. I remember that well because it was
traumatic to me. I went to school back in the day when the thought was that
every left-handed person ought to be forced to switch. Thankfully my mother put
a stop to that whole business fairly early, but the teachers still insisted I
hold the pencil a certain way and draw the lines in a certain direction. These
days kids probably don't even learn to write by hand. They probably just learn
to type - if that :P.
Andtwolf
> I went from a 2nd grade school that was still printing, to a 3rd grade
> one that used script. I blame my atrocious handwriting on that change -- I was
> given TWO WEEKS to learn how to write assignments in script, and basically as
> "self-study" yet! (And signing checks and charge card receipts has turned my
> signature into three sloppy initials with three limp snakes following)
Well, you could learn now! ;) I know that's easier said than done, though.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> I think the reason for my sarcasm is because there is a perception in the
> furry community that 'art' (which from now on I will use to mean any form
> of visual representation) is both more worthy than writing (fiction, in
> this context) and that is harder to do.
I think part of the problem is that we don't have encough bad authors.
I know that sounds strange, but the only way to get good authors is to
start off with bad ones. As we don't have a massive crop of bad
authros we don't have a developmental path.
Personally I think that writing furs is harder then drawing furs.
Because when you draw a fur its self explanitry, but when you write a
fur you have to tell the reader alot so that they can understand what
the char is.
Also for an artwork you don't need a background, or an explenation of
why the chars are doing what they are doing, but for writing unless
you give it a background(or setting) and a reson why the chars are
doing what there doing.
[...]
> Is it perhaps just a matter of perception? Is it because I have
> considerable ability as a writer, but very limited abilities as an artist,
> and therefore I can see all the flaws in furry literature and poetry,
> whereas I am easily impressed when it comes to visual art?
That could be the case. I've seen one paragaph monstroties written in
the 2nd person being prased.
[...]
> Of course, furry fandom has yet to produce a Robert Heinlein. Is that
> because, when it comes to furry, there isn't that much to say - only a lot
> to show?
Elf Sternburg says stuff in his works. Most other writing is like
yerf art, sometimes good looking but soulless.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
[...]
> Under such circumstances, the easiest thing to write *is* porn -- it
> writes quick (helped by your own horny fantasies),
Porn may be easy but erotica is hard (sorry) to write. To be arousing
you have to create situations and chartitors where the audence
actually cares about them. They need a reson to be sympathic to the
parispents.
> you've got a
> guaranteed market, horny fanboys are not exactly noted for sales
> resistance, and you can get really crappy as long as it has the
> meat-and-motion "money scenes". Add fur and tails, and "IT'S
> FURRRRREEEEEEE!"
But your compeating against the other furs, while horny fanboys have
low resistence they also have other sources. So you have to run
faster then all the other furs if you wish to get a sale.
[...]
> I also belong to a Christian writer's group, and they have the same
> problem there with "Jesus Fanboys" who'll swallow any sort of crap, as
> long as it (1) has Bible quotes, (2) "Altar Call" conversion scenes,
Whats an "Altar Call" conversion scene?
> and (3) bashes evolution or has an end-of-the-world background.
I guess this means I should do more work on my story "Apolocoliptic end
time fantisy with big busted vixens"
Chris Johnson
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
wrote:
Heh. Mine ain't, but I guess you've never read it- and it helps if I
_finish_ it. I daresay you'd also have to connect with the theme. I
wrote this one story on commission, 'Passages', in which the theme was a
guy being transformed into a tigress by a scientist. The scientist
intends to create an anthro furry, but the guy doesn't want to be
anthro. The experiment goes horribly wrong in that the guy loses
'intelligence' and becomes essentially a non-anthro tigress. The
scientist is so torn apart by this that he attempts suicide hoping to be
attacked by the tigress he created- and is forgiven and sent on his way
by her, made to understand.
I never hear much about this story these days- but once I got an
email from a guy who wrote me saying he'd been reduced to tears by it.
Sometimes what you're saying in a piece of writing isn't put very
directly... it's just a matter of whether the artist has that need to
jolt you to the tip of your tail, or leave you dazed and half-stunned,
or possibly just leave you thinking 'Oh, that's clever!'. Right now I'm
reading a bunch of Agatha Christie- and it's tough to get more soulless
than that. But how comfortable it is!
The biggest thing that makes a Heinlein a Heinlein is this: that is
what he did all day. I have always, _always_ put down writing as the
least important, most unappreciated thing I could be doing (in my
ironically Heinleinian existence subsisting on social security
disability), and as a result I've worked tirelessly on audio
electronics, on computer programming (also audio related), on playing
and building instruments, all pursuing the notion that these things were
far more important.
By now, I have terrific tools for working with digital audio, truly
world-class, but I'm not about making money off them and people aren't
asking me to use them. I have a bunch of recordings and every time
there's about three people crazy about them and a bunch of people
actively hostile- it's become very obvious that the music I want to hear
has little relation to popular taste, at least among critical types. The
situation with audio electronics is even worse- I can come up with
designs that will do a fantastic job of getting my notion of the ideal
sound, but normal musicians run screaming! Way too raw and unforgiving a
sound for them...
I give up- I'll give the writing a shot again. People keep coming out
of the blue and asking plainitively, "When will (fill in blank) be
finished?" Anyhow, I'm just as much a gimp as Heinlein so I have the
time ;)
And the idea that there isn't much to say about furry is nonsense.
Ironically, it comes down to the proposition that furries are only
human... they're walking, breathing, mating, shedding metaphors for
different aspects of human-ness, and beyond that, they also illustrate
things on the fringes of human. I'm about 120% cat due to my disability
and can't overcome that on any account. Wolves have far better social
and civilizing instincts than the naked monkeys called Homo Sapiens. It
all combines to form intense meaning, at which point you have the basic
problem of what story you wish to tell, because a story is about
something and goes in a recognisable direction. You can FEEL the motion
of the story as it goes, if it's any good.
This can be done just as easily in furry as anywhere else.
Chris Johnson