?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
08 August 2003 @ 07:42 pm
yes, I really am just exercising my icons.  
I thought a bit about whether I should reread Golden Bands to Bind Them and discover if my liking for it was wildly off, my discernment impaired by the novelty of a first-time read, but I don't think it was. I leave a story pretty quickly if I don't find it worthwhile--I have a low threshold for boredom these days. I mean, it may not be obvious because I don't usually (a) take the time to read a bad story and then (b) rip it to shreds, but I really am a pretty finicky reader. So, it wasn't a perfect story, but it was fun. It's disconcerting though to discover that the authorial moves that make me sit up and go ooh (like watching a little foot snap from a gymnast) can actually throw someone else out of a story. I sometimes wonder if writers read differently than non-writers--not that I'm leaping to any conclusions, but I wonder if, like a painter having a painter's eye, a writer has a writer's eye. Probably the answer is: yes and no. There is probably as much difference within any group of writers as there is between readers and writers.

Anyway. I've been reading recs over at Sandy's Fannish Butterfly page. And I've realized I'm behind enough in my reading that many of the stories are new to me even though the page was, I think, last updated in November. And there was a story by koimistress! Smallville, A Nice, Friendly Game. And I had a nice, sexy read. And then some. I love writers who show off Lex's fantastically shiny brain--and Clark's too--and get at the game-playing that you know is inevitable between them. Fated.

Also, kassrachel wrote a Snape/Harry story, Clay, that I had somehow missed! It's like finding Christmas presents in the closet six months later! Either that or I've forgotten that I read it, and so it is as if new--which wouldn't be an insult to the story, by the way, but merely indication of how dim my brain is most days. I've just started reading the story, but I know that it will be good. Because, duh, Kass.

I also read a, um, Snape/Hagrid story that kind of got me worked up. Except...disturbed, too. I mean. Um. I'll just let you go to Sandy's page and find that for yourself if you're so inclined. I feel dubious about the characterization but it didn't bother me so much as the strangely manly and straightforward depiction of sex. I thought I liked that. Well, I *did* like that. But I still feel vaguely unsettled by it. I can't say why. I think it's the effect of voyeurism the story has. Reading the sex scenes, I felt a bit like I was actually witnessing something private and unvarnished--matter of fact and unpretty--that disrupted my usual expectations about erotic fan-fiction. Not so much a puncturing of any romantic fuzziness, because I read unromantic stuff, but almost a thwarting of a more subtle effect--the prism of of the female gaze.

Either that or it was just a stylistic thing somewhat off, out of synch with my own preferences.

I make no sense. But really, did I mention the story got me worked up? I do have a weakness for that whole size thing. I *am* a size queen. One of my bulletproof kinks, I guess.

Oh, and Betty Plotnick's story? Was bitchin'!

::ducks and runs::
 
 
 
Brassy Hagmiggy on August 8th, 2003 08:13 pm (UTC)
The particular style of your icons gives the impression that you somehow managed to lure all these pretty men in for private photo sessions, and that you have countless other images of them tucked away that you aren't about to share. Until I get this image out of my head, I must continue to think one thing:

Bitch.
gwynnega on August 8th, 2003 08:59 pm (UTC)
It's disconcerting though to discover that the authorial moves that make me sit up and go ooh (like watching a little foot snap from a gymnast) can actually throw someone else out of a story. I sometimes wonder if writers read differently than non-writers--not that I'm leaping to any conclusions, but I wonder if, like a painter having a painter's eye, a writer has a writer's eye.

Different people read for different things - some people read primarily for the story/plot, while others are more interested (or it's probably more accurate to say, also interested) in stylistic issues, etc. I would think a lot of writers would fall into that second category, but certainly a lot of non-writers do too...

Anyway I thought your original post about Golden Bands to Bind Them and what you liked about it was quite interesting and got me to thinking about allowing oneself to use such divergent techniques in the same piece - which seems to add a lot of dynamics and energy to a story.

Anna S.eliade on August 8th, 2003 09:06 pm (UTC)
Ohhh, uh, I know I should respond intelligently to this but all I can do is point and say: "Icon! Shiny icon! Pretty!"

And then run away.
gwynnega on August 8th, 2003 09:14 pm (UTC)
Hee! But I was responding to the intelligent stuff you already said!

And the icon is pretty...
caille on August 8th, 2003 11:20 pm (UTC)
Umm, the bitchin' Betty Plotnick story - is it up on another site somewhere, or did someone supply you with a copy?

'Cause I wanna read it, too.
Anna S.eliade on August 8th, 2003 11:25 pm (UTC)
Someone sent it to me. ;) Write me e-mail. I will mail it to you.
Malkin Greymalkingrey on August 9th, 2003 05:49 am (UTC)
I sometimes wonder if writers read differently than non-writers--not that I'm leaping to any conclusions, but I wonder if, like a painter having a painter's eye, a writer has a writer's eye. Probably the answer is: yes and no.

Once you start writing, I think you lose your innocence as a reader. I'm always reminded of the chapter in Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi where, as an apprentice riverboat pilot, he's learning how to "read" the river -- how to spot the changes in color and texture on the water's surface that tell of hidden shoals and snags, how to recognize the constantly-shifting landmarks along the shore, and so on -- and how he says that the price he paid for the knowledge was that afterward he couldn't simply appreciate the natural beauty of the river any more.