FurRag forums
June 25, 2017, 01:47:47 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: The Furry Image  (Read 6575 times)
AurumLutra
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 151


The Gold Otter


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2012, 11:53:44 PM »

That's nice to hear. I didn't know Kyell had another alias he writes under. Link?
Logged
Altivo
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1126


Wandering about distractedly...


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2012, 12:30:15 AM »

I don't think it's any big secret any more that Kyell Gold and Tim Susman are one and the same. A few years ago he was trying to keep that under wraps but now that he's made so many convention appearances many have caught on.
Logged

-
“Don't be seduced into thinking that that which does not make a profit is without value.” ― Arthur Miller
Erkhyan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 752



View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2012, 06:34:09 AM »

I do think Kyell is more than willing to lead the way. He just wrote today that the next book of his to hit the shelves contains no explicit sex at all.
Logged

Altivo
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1126


Wandering about distractedly...


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2012, 09:54:30 AM »

Well, all I can say to that is "Grrrr!" Just a year ago Alex was teasing me about having a character (Argos) who is essentially a vegetarian wolf. And now Kyell of all people is going to print with one.

It will be good for the fandom, though. It's high time that one of the acknowledged heroes demonstrated that there is more to life than just "yiff." From the summary, it sounds as if he has all the hooks necessary to get most of his big fans to read the book, even though it has no actual sex in it.

I may even forgive him for having said in response to an e-mail from me back when he and K.M. started that infernal podcast, that the only way to get noticed as a furry author is to write porn. Maybe he's right about that, and certainly it worked for him, but I'm not willing to go that way.
Logged

-
“Don't be seduced into thinking that that which does not make a profit is without value.” ― Arthur Miller
AurumLutra
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 151


The Gold Otter


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2012, 10:21:09 AM »

I may even forgive him for having said in response to an e-mail from me back when he and K.M. started that infernal podcast, that the only way to get noticed as a furry author is to write porn. Maybe he's right about that, and certainly it worked for him, but I'm not willing to go that way.

Haha, even Kyell Gold said that? Damn. Well, I shalln't go that direction either.
Logged
Reiter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 640


is a writer, dammit!


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2012, 01:01:51 PM »

I don't think it's any big secret any more that Kyell Gold and Tim Susman are one and the same. A few years ago he was trying to keep that under wraps but now that he's made so many convention appearances many have caught on.
This is the first time it's ever been said publicly on the net. While I'm sure Kyell has nothing against people knowing 'His True Identity(TM)', I'm also sure there's a reason he keeps his furry and non-furry identities compartmentalized. I appreciate that you've decided to be open with all of us about who Kyell really is, but that decision was never yours to make.


I'm going to against the grain here and say that I'm perfectly fine with publishers releasing literary horrors like Twilight. Reasoning is twofold: one, despite all the protestations I'm reading here, I think publishers would be loath to actually throw away their reputation on a series of duds. Compared to indie or 'non-traditional' publishing (to put it politely), publishing houses still offer the highest assurance of quality lit. That's what all the slushpiles and stringency are there for - we the readers shift to the slushers/agents/editors the responsibility and effort of picking out the gems from the shitpile so that we don't have to trawl through the whole mess ourselves. Yes they can make mistakes or sell out to the idea of a whopping large paycheck - I'm not saying they're infallible - but I think on the whole publishers react to and engage in conversation with their readers: figure out what they like, figure out what works. Like all large institutions, they may be slow to pick up a trend. But if they went and published Twilightesque works for the sake of publishing those works (for money), reader communities would be up in arms immediately. It happened last year with a certain sci-fi author who rewrote a certain play to suit his certain agenda, it happened with Twilight itself, and I'm sure if publishers release another morally, literarily, or aesthetically reprehensible work, it will happen again.

two, we the literati love to read and, like anyone and everyone who is not afflicted with Cultural Reading Disability, can't understand why others may not do so. If only people would take the time to read, they'd see what's so great about it, right? Wrong! Due to nefarious and multifarious factors including but not limited to miseducation, overexposure to TV-rays, crappy economy, &c., People These Days just do not see the need or the pleasure in doing something as innately 'boring' as reading. So publishers, in what I view as but may not have been intended as a stroke of genius, invented the literary gateway drug for young adults:

Twilight.

Think about it! It's lightweight, it's fluff, it attempts to pander to the mindless sheepulace, BUT HERE'S THE TWIST: it is so goddamn hideous from a moral and intellectual and everythingal perspective that the reader has NO CHOICE but to think, "Wait, something's wrong here, that's not how it goes!" Reader is thus forced into critical discussion with other readers before leaving in a huff to find something that's more worth their money - i.e. the better-written oeuvre of all fantasy/sci-fi authors to date. That's, uh, not how it _always_ goes, but it happens with some people*. So they get newfound love for books, the sheeple get their kicks, the publishing industry gets their cuts - everybody's happy, and you actually got people to read.

* - not me, I got turned on to fiction by gay furry porn (written by Kyell Gold). Mmmm, gay furry porn (written by Kyell Gold). #truestory
Logged

Only presidents, editors and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we".
- attr. Mark Twain
Reiter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 640


is a writer, dammit!


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2012, 01:08:44 PM »

The next day I'd chat with my American Lit. teacher before class and say "Yeah, I finished Dracula last night. It was pretty cool (which it was, I enjoyed reading it a lot)." Then he'd reply with "Cool! Did you annotate it?"

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU... NO I don't annotate my friggin' books, I read them!
But don't you see, your teacher actually *wants* you to read them better! How will you understand what makes a good book tick if you don't deconstruct it into its individual components? How will you WRIIiiiiiIIIIiiiiIIIITE?

I personally don't annotate or like annotating (books are my sacred cows - you want me to annotate something, get me a xerox of it first), but if I come across a book or style or technique I find interesting, I read it over and over again, as much as ten times, to try to understand how the author did it and what made it work. Ideally I would then mimic said book/style/technique, but I am too lazy to carry out said process, so I just have the satisfaction of knowing that I know (but not that I really know).
Logged

Only presidents, editors and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we".
- attr. Mark Twain
Altivo
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1126


Wandering about distractedly...


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2012, 02:19:57 PM »


This is the first time it's ever been said publicly on the net. While I'm sure Kyell has nothing against people knowing 'His True Identity(TM)', I'm also sure there's a reason he keeps his furry and non-furry identities compartmentalized. I appreciate that you've decided to be open with all of us about who Kyell really is, but that decision was never yours to make.


No, it isn't the first time. In fact, I've seen photos posted side by side to help confirm the truth.

And yes, some publishers are cranking piles of schlock far worse than Twilight on the apparently successful theory that all you need to sell a cheap book today is a few vampires. The publishing industry in the US no longer lives up to the standards you seem to grant to it here. They are afraid to take chances even on the most excellent material as long as they can put out yet another James Patterson just like all the other James Patterson books he has already "written." I don't call that any kind of screening or pre-evaluation that I want my reading to undergo. Profit motives may be legit, but they do not equate with literary merit by any means.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 02:22:49 PM by Altivo » Logged

-
“Don't be seduced into thinking that that which does not make a profit is without value.” ― Arthur Miller
iain
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 27


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2012, 02:48:04 PM »

Quote
I'm going to against the grain here and say that I'm perfectly fine with publishers releasing literary horrors like Twilight. Reasoning is twofold: one, despite all the protestations I'm reading here, I think publishers would be loath to actually throw away their reputation on a series of duds. Compared to indie or 'non-traditional' publishing (to put it politely), publishing houses still offer the highest assurance of quality lit. That's what all the slushpiles and stringency are there for - we the readers shift to the slushers/agents/editors the responsibility and effort of picking out the gems from the shitpile so that we don't have to trawl through the whole mess ourselves. Yes they can make mistakes or sell out to the idea of a whopping large paycheck - I'm not saying they're infallible - but I think on the whole publishers react to and engage in conversation with their readers: figure out what they like, figure out what works. Like all large institutions, they may be slow to pick up a trend. But if they went and published Twilightesque works for the sake of publishing those works (for money), reader communities would be up in arms immediately. It happened last year with a certain sci-fi author who rewrote a certain play to suit his certain agenda, it happened with Twilight itself, and I'm sure if publishers release another morally, literarily, or aesthetically reprehensible work, it will happen again.

two, we the literati love to read and, like anyone and everyone who is not afflicted with Cultural Reading Disability, can't understand why others may not do so. If only people would take the time to read, they'd see what's so great about it, right? Wrong! Due to nefarious and multifarious factors including but not limited to miseducation, overexposure to TV-rays, crappy economy, &c., People These Days just do not see the need or the pleasure in doing something as innately 'boring' as reading. So publishers, in what I view as but may not have been intended as a stroke of genius, invented the literary gateway drug for young adults:

Twilight.

Think about it! It's lightweight, it's fluff, it attempts to pander to the mindless sheepulace, BUT HERE'S THE TWIST: it is so goddamn hideous from a moral and intellectual and everythingal perspective that the reader has NO CHOICE but to think, "Wait, something's wrong here, that's not how it goes!" Reader is thus forced into critical discussion with other readers before leaving in a huff to find something that's more worth their money - i.e. the better-written oeuvre of all fantasy/sci-fi authors to date. That's, uh, not how it _always_ goes, but it happens with some people*. So they get newfound love for books, the sheeple get their kicks, the publishing industry gets their cuts - everybody's happy, and you actually got people to read.
Reading communities (mainstream), like any complex audience, are fickle and subject to collective schizophrenia. It's not so much that I dislike Twilightesque writing, but that I can't imagine what point there is in writing a story with the concrete knowledge that it'll be put on television. Some of the least literary people I know have read that series and, in them, it's not stimulated one iota of deepening literary interest. On the contrary; it has the reverse effect. It lowers the bar and reduces their expectations to a much lower denominator, and creates what I'd call 'movie-goer neurosis.' That is, they'll stand in line for hours to buy story-centered paraphernalia, pre-order the movies from Amazon, and then wait in line, yet again, to see the movies at the theater. I'm skeptical that they've even read the books that stimulated the string of consequences; when I ask my sister, for example, what the book is about, she can't even abstract vague answers.  Huh The same is true for my best friend's wife, who claims to have read, and re-read the entire series.

Really, I have no problem with it, or any other pulp media, aside from personal preferences. I'm irked from lack of quality fantasy/fiction/sci-fi that I can enjoy, as a member of the vanishing culture of people-who-prefer-to-read.  Undecided
Logged

“A writer looking for subjects inquires not after what he loves best, but after what he alone loves at all.” ~Annie Dillard
Reiter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 640


is a writer, dammit!


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2012, 11:00:41 PM »

No, it isn't the first time. In fact, I've seen photos posted side by side to help confirm the truth.
And that's supposed to make it less wrong how? I haven't seen those pictures, but it's bad enough that someone tried to out Kyell's RL identity already. We've got quite a few gay guys here - you included - who know or should know the feeling, so I just find it really ironic that you outed Kyell as well.

And yes, some publishers are cranking piles of schlock far worse than Twilight on the apparently successful theory that all you need to sell a cheap book today is a few vampires. The publishing industry in the US no longer lives up to the standards you seem to grant to it here. They are afraid to take chances even on the most excellent material as long as they can put out yet another James Patterson just like all the other James Patterson books he has already "written." I don't call that any kind of screening or pre-evaluation that I want my reading to undergo. Profit motives may be legit, but they do not equate with literary merit by any means.
I don't know what bookstores you're going to (sure as heck not the ones *I* go to), but if they only stock Twilight copycats and James Patterson, no wonder nobody there wants to read. Wink

Reading communities (mainstream), like any complex audience, are fickle and subject to collective schizophrenia. It's not so much that I dislike Twilightesque writing, but that I can't imagine what point there is in writing a story with the concrete knowledge that it'll be put on television. Some of the least literary people I know have read that series and, in them, it's not stimulated one iota of deepening literary interest. On the contrary; it has the reverse effect. It lowers the bar and reduces their expectations to a much lower denominator, and creates what I'd call 'movie-goer neurosis.' That is, they'll stand in line for hours to buy story-centered paraphernalia, pre-order the movies from Amazon, and then wait in line, yet again, to see the movies at the theater. I'm skeptical that they've even read the books that stimulated the string of consequences; when I ask my sister, for example, what the book is about, she can't even abstract vague answers. Huh The same is true for my best friend's wife, who claims to have read, and re-read the entire series.

Really, I have no problem with it, or any other pulp media, aside from personal preferences. I'm irked from lack of quality fantasy/fiction/sci-fi that I can enjoy, as a member of the vanishing culture of people-who-prefer-to-read. Undecided
If your sister can't tell you what Twilight's plot is about, it's because Twilight doesn't have a plot. Wink

Seriously, though - that *is* one of the abhorrent things about that series. I watched an interview of Stephenie Meyer's where she admitted in as many words that she never planned what was going to happen - that Twilight was conceived and practically transcribed from one of her dreams. With all the bad press the book is getting, I don't know why Meyer's publishers continue to print her books (I can only guess it's contract-related, as, unlike J. K. Rowling, she doesn't seem to give any indication of having improved her writing). But what I am getting at is that there *is* bad press, there *is* this uproar among the critically minded, and ultimately my guess is that whether or not a would-be reader progresses from unReader to Reader status depends on their ability to comprehend, dissect, and discuss what they read. In other words, mental alertness vs. mental laziness.* (I want to stress though that I am not disparaging your sister or your best friend's wife. Twilight is a particularly horrid work in that it gives the impression that many things happen when in fact they do not, so it is possible for anyone ambling through to get waylaid by florid kitsch and not realize it.)

I'm curious, though: where do you look for your fantasy/sci-fi? I don't depend very much on what bookstores display up front (if anyone's motivated by profit, it's them) but I look for reviews and book awards on the net and usually I get wind of excellent - and recent - reads through the grapevine. The short stories in magazines/e-zines like Clarkesworld or Tor.com can also be very good.

* - I'll grant that it is a kind of catch-22 situation I'm suggesting in that one cannot develop critical thinking without first being disturbed by the errors in a book, yet one cannot spot those errors without first having developed critical thought.
Logged

Only presidents, editors and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we".
- attr. Mark Twain
iain
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 27


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: January 10, 2012, 01:46:15 PM »

If your sister can't tell you what Twilight's plot is about, it's because Twilight doesn't have a plot. Wink

Seriously, though - that *is* one of the abhorrent things about that series. I watched an interview of Stephenie Meyer's where she admitted in as many words that she never planned what was going to happen - that Twilight was conceived and practically transcribed from one of her dreams. With all the bad press the book is getting, I don't know why Meyer's publishers continue to print her books (I can only guess it's contract-related, as, unlike J. K. Rowling, she doesn't seem to give any indication of having improved her writing). But what I am getting at is that there *is* bad press, there *is* this uproar among the critically minded, and ultimately my guess is that whether or not a would-be reader progresses from unReader to Reader status depends on their ability to comprehend, dissect, and discuss what they read. In other words, mental alertness vs. mental laziness.* (I want to stress though that I am not disparaging your sister or your best friend's wife. Twilight is a particularly horrid work in that it gives the impression that many things happen when in fact they do not, so it is possible for anyone ambling through to get waylaid by florid kitsch and not realize it.)

I'm curious, though: where do you look for your fantasy/sci-fi? I don't depend very much on what bookstores display up front (if anyone's motivated by profit, it's them) but I look for reviews and book awards on the net and usually I get wind of excellent - and recent - reads through the grapevine. The short stories in magazines/e-zines like Clarkesworld or Tor.com can also be very good.

* - I'll grant that it is a kind of catch-22 situation I'm suggesting in that one cannot develop critical thinking without first being disturbed by the errors in a book, yet one cannot spot those errors without first having developed critical thought.
Once upon a time, I haunted amazon.com just as much as local bookstores. I'll admit I've gotten fairly slack about keeping up with the literary world. I made a move two years ago +/- and I'm having one helluva time finding sustainable work where I've landed. Thus, used bookstores and thrift shops are my venue for getting new books (not new-new, of course), now. Tragedy of my life, right there.

Critical thinking is a catch-22 quality, in a lot of ways. I would say it's more of a self-feeding fire, or self-sharpening blade. The more it gets used, the better one can use it. Even nonsense requires abstraction and brainpower. Just look at Douglas Adams (not in any way do I mean that disparagingly - I love his books).
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 02:48:06 PM by iain » Logged

“A writer looking for subjects inquires not after what he loves best, but after what he alone loves at all.” ~Annie Dillard
Quinn Yellowfox
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 654



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2012, 05:34:45 AM »

I just completed Klisoura's poll and looked at the results from last year. It's interesting. The majority of furries care little for the sexuality of the fandom but percieve that it is very important to others.

http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey2011.php (See graphs 8 & 9)

Do we project a bad image upon ourselves?
 
This rant from a "Burned Fur" named Genesis from 1999 sheds some light to the origins of the stereotype.

http://www.madcoyote.com/gen/rants/ranting/r4/r4.html

And with respect to Kyell and names...I've been to con's where he appears as Kyell and the room is packed. Under his other names, few show up. The alter egos may not be hidden but are not well known.
Logged

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." Roald Dahl
AurumLutra
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 151


The Gold Otter


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2012, 06:10:59 AM »

I think that goes back to what I said earlier about the stereotype feeding itself. But I guess it's also a case of the perception appearing true when it probably isn't. So many people think furries are all about sex that it almost becomes reality.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.14 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!