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

[jeza_red]

I wouldn't worry about that. 'The Fire's Stone' treads amongst many different issues with grace - from subtle steps to quite unapologetic stomps, it treats each of them with approperiate degree of attention;)
Different strokes for different folk, of course, but as an asexual/aromantic person myself, I found Chandra very refreshing in her single-minded quest for power and being left alone;) Some things don't have to be stated outright and I've never doubted how her priorities stack, which I think is much more important in a novel.

The problem I see with the recent need of some audiences to have things crealrly labelled is that it runs the risk of limiting the characters to those labels.

[innerslytherin]

I was just at a bookstore today looking to see if they had a copy of The Fire's Stone because it was the first book of yours I read, and one of the first books that put me on the path from being a typical evangelical Christian homophobe to actually wanting to understand gay people, and I wanted to go back and revisit it a third time.

I'm too far removed from my second reading of the novel to really comment on Chandra's asexuality, but I remember loving the choice that she made. Now I really want to go back and read it a third time. :)

[hairmonger]

I re-read it every few years. It has not dated much (of course *I* may be dated, and not a good judge of dated-ness) and it hits me with the same delight every time. (I am bi, poly, and a hermit.)