Words, words, words. A lot of words.

[andpuff]

I read a blog today about  THE FIRE'S STONE in which the blogger was reading Chandra as asexual but wished I'd been more explict about it.

This isn't a reply to that blog.  It's more of an extrapolation.

While Kinsey created a categorey "X" for individuals with "no socio-sexual contacts or reaction" in 1953 it never achieved the kind of public

Comments

[moiraj]

The Fire's Stone was the first book of yours I read and I loved it. I would have been thrilled with a sequel. Maybe one involving a visit to Aaron's father and a well-deserved beating.

[andpuff]

In the sequel, they all live happily ever after. Because after what I put them through, I think they deserve it. *g*

[deborahblakehps]

I think most of us are still learning (and trying to find the right words). Kudos to you for at least taking the first steps, way back when...

[andpuff]

I think I wrote it more a power vs what society expected of her -- marriage and family -- and she unapologetically chose power. Which was the question middle class women were facing back then in the whole superwoman, we can have it all, horrible suit days...

Today, her internal voice would be better defined.

And thank you.

[kikibug13]

But it's also awesome in that you wrote a character who reads that way even though it's not coded clearly as you would have done it now. *shuffles to-read list around a bit to put this a bit higher up*

[andpuff]

Remember... 1990... third book. I still love it but it may have dated a bit.

[kikibug13]

... well, I was going to work my way back to it eventually! But yes, I'll keep that in mind. Also, if people without that warning loved it enough to look at a character and see something important to them in that character... it may be dated, but it sure doesn't strike me as something I wouldn't want to read. :)

[e_moon60]

I think readers vary as much in the level of explicitness they want in defining a character's sexuality (or anything else) as individuals do in their own sexuality.

For me, perhaps because of my background (a lot of biomedical stuff snuck in) I prefer subtlety to explicitness--I don't want a story to read like a paragraph from a psych text, and one of the things I like about your work is that it's not infodumping on the character analysis: they're complex, they're interesting, they're diverse, but you don't lay everything out in detail--you leave room for me to come to conclusions myself.

That's a very personal preference, of course, and I'm not trying to impose it on anyone else. There's nothing wrong with a reader or writer preferring to be more directive/descriptive/explicit about something. The matchup of writer to reader is as individual as any other linkage between humans.

[andpuff]

I think the only real change were I writing her now, would be in her internal voice. Her "But I don't want to" would be coded slightly differently.

And thank you!

[filkferengi]

The characters found their happiness in a) delightfully unexpected ways and b) on their own terms. I've always enjoyed both those things, & you write them better than most.

I'm still waiting for that album with "Pervy Hobbit Fancier" as the title track. Maybe on bandcamp?