FA+
Shop
Forced Species Meme
Posted 15 years agoAnother version of this meme.
1. If your fursona had to be a primate, it'd be...
Gibbon, baby.
2. If your fursona had to be a feline, it'd be...
Leopard. Easy.
3. If your fursona had to be a canine, it'd be...
Ethiopian wolf? (This is a peacock answer.)
4. If your fursona had to be a hoofed animal, it'd be...
Does a woolly mammoth count? I vote yes.
5. If your fursona had to be a rodent, it'd be...
6. If your fursona had to be reptile, it'd be...
Sea Turtle
7. If your fursona had to be a marsupial, it'd be...
Golden Mole
8. If your fursona had to be a fully aquatic animal, it'd be...
Chambered Nautilus
9. If your fursona had to be an amphibian animal it'd be...
Garden variety toad.
10. If your fursona had to be an avian/bird, it'd be...
Corvid.
11. If your fursona had to be a creepy crawly, it'd be...
Praying Mantis (Another peacock answer.)
12. If your fursona had to be a real or unreal hybrid, it'd be...
Cougar & Luna Moth
13. If your fursona had to be a mythical creature, it'd be...
The shapeshifting snake/demon familiar of African witches.
14. If your fursona had to be a Pokemon/Digimon , it'd be...
Whut?
15. If your fursona had to be a vehicle, it'd be...
Brass Ornithopter.
1. If your fursona had to be a primate, it'd be...
Gibbon, baby.
2. If your fursona had to be a feline, it'd be...
Leopard. Easy.
3. If your fursona had to be a canine, it'd be...
Ethiopian wolf? (This is a peacock answer.)
4. If your fursona had to be a hoofed animal, it'd be...
Does a woolly mammoth count? I vote yes.
5. If your fursona had to be a rodent, it'd be...
6. If your fursona had to be reptile, it'd be...
Sea Turtle
7. If your fursona had to be a marsupial, it'd be...
Golden Mole
8. If your fursona had to be a fully aquatic animal, it'd be...
Chambered Nautilus
9. If your fursona had to be an amphibian animal it'd be...
Garden variety toad.
10. If your fursona had to be an avian/bird, it'd be...
Corvid.
11. If your fursona had to be a creepy crawly, it'd be...
Praying Mantis (Another peacock answer.)
12. If your fursona had to be a real or unreal hybrid, it'd be...
Cougar & Luna Moth
13. If your fursona had to be a mythical creature, it'd be...
The shapeshifting snake/demon familiar of African witches.
14. If your fursona had to be a Pokemon/Digimon , it'd be...
Whut?
15. If your fursona had to be a vehicle, it'd be...
Brass Ornithopter.
Avatar Reviewer Review.
Posted 16 years agoIf foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, foolish devotion to novelty is the hobgoblin of small imaginations.
I find it telling that an effort at realizing a fantasy in ways that break new ground in terms of sensory concreteness and verisimilitude, is being criticised with such excessive ferocity by partisans of the school of selfconscious novelty that has proven itself creatively impotent, time and time again.
Do us all a favor, guys: go read free verse, listen to atonal music, and watch that long-ass colored landscape sequence from Kubrick's 2001, until you get over this. And if that fails, feel free to watch 162 minutes of static on your old TV. Every pixel a novelty!
I find it telling that an effort at realizing a fantasy in ways that break new ground in terms of sensory concreteness and verisimilitude, is being criticised with such excessive ferocity by partisans of the school of selfconscious novelty that has proven itself creatively impotent, time and time again.
Do us all a favor, guys: go read free verse, listen to atonal music, and watch that long-ass colored landscape sequence from Kubrick's 2001, until you get over this. And if that fails, feel free to watch 162 minutes of static on your old TV. Every pixel a novelty!
RPG Setting Concepts
Posted 16 years agoAlright. Here are some random ideas for settings of a potential RPG.
Once, long ago, a game company called White Wolf had published a game about Magic in the Modern World, called "Mage: The Ascension," and previously, games about vampres and werewolves in the modern world. Then, in the same setting, with all the cosmology they'd already established, they annouced they were producing something called "Changeling" about you know, the stuff of fairytales.
The way I developed it was very different from thier published version. In my scheme, there were several related germlines of alien races lurking in the backgroud of various human families. Alien races ala Lovecraft, really. Differing concentrations of alien blood, and the degree to which it was "pure," were the essential variables that made my Changelings tick. The results included degrees of 1) inherent social alienation, non-neurotypical types, for example various autism spectrum features, tourette's, etc, 2) tremendous beauty or disturbing ugliness 3) Various physical abilities and abnormalities, up to and including in extreme cases, enormous or tiny size and wings, 4) affinity with "trods," or pocket dimensions where laws of physics were different, often connected one-to-the-next, 5) delusions and neurosis, and 6) a feature (not unlike Mages' Arcane and Werewolves' Delerium) that made some of the blood difficult to remember accurately.
A second setting concept... or really a pair of concepts, are more specifically furry. One element is: the Ael. Somewhere between Angels and Greys (aliens, I mean), the Ael are the analogue to humans in a strong-anthropomorphic (all large warm-blooeded vertebrates are anthropomorphic) setting. For me, this has often settled certain uneasinesses I've felt when contemplating the far corners of the transformation necessary for a strong anthropomorphic setting.
Then, there's also this: what if instead of going with a strong/fantasy anthropomorphism in a setting, you paired two completely un-alike origins for anthropomorphic beings deeply in the setting? On the one had, vestiges of an advanced and now reclusive civilization (humans-- or now, Ael-- living perhaps in terrestrial invisible cities, aka "Glass Mountains"), who are understood to be responsible for having created, and even for currently maintaining, siginficiant populations of many animal species in anthropomorphic form (but which have special difficulties breeding), AND at the same time, in the deeper wilderness, sort of ala-Princess Mononoke and Fritz Leiber, mystical beings that are likewise anthropomorphic, spirits or godlings in their own rights, based on many animal species. What I like about this is it offers a broad range of possible ways for an individual to view his anthropomorphism vis a vis nature and some sort of "humanity," without being either a complete cop-out ("it's just a fantasy, who cares?") or really being a whole lot harder to swallow than one unusual premise.
Once, long ago, a game company called White Wolf had published a game about Magic in the Modern World, called "Mage: The Ascension," and previously, games about vampres and werewolves in the modern world. Then, in the same setting, with all the cosmology they'd already established, they annouced they were producing something called "Changeling" about you know, the stuff of fairytales.
The way I developed it was very different from thier published version. In my scheme, there were several related germlines of alien races lurking in the backgroud of various human families. Alien races ala Lovecraft, really. Differing concentrations of alien blood, and the degree to which it was "pure," were the essential variables that made my Changelings tick. The results included degrees of 1) inherent social alienation, non-neurotypical types, for example various autism spectrum features, tourette's, etc, 2) tremendous beauty or disturbing ugliness 3) Various physical abilities and abnormalities, up to and including in extreme cases, enormous or tiny size and wings, 4) affinity with "trods," or pocket dimensions where laws of physics were different, often connected one-to-the-next, 5) delusions and neurosis, and 6) a feature (not unlike Mages' Arcane and Werewolves' Delerium) that made some of the blood difficult to remember accurately.
A second setting concept... or really a pair of concepts, are more specifically furry. One element is: the Ael. Somewhere between Angels and Greys (aliens, I mean), the Ael are the analogue to humans in a strong-anthropomorphic (all large warm-blooeded vertebrates are anthropomorphic) setting. For me, this has often settled certain uneasinesses I've felt when contemplating the far corners of the transformation necessary for a strong anthropomorphic setting.
Then, there's also this: what if instead of going with a strong/fantasy anthropomorphism in a setting, you paired two completely un-alike origins for anthropomorphic beings deeply in the setting? On the one had, vestiges of an advanced and now reclusive civilization (humans-- or now, Ael-- living perhaps in terrestrial invisible cities, aka "Glass Mountains"), who are understood to be responsible for having created, and even for currently maintaining, siginficiant populations of many animal species in anthropomorphic form (but which have special difficulties breeding), AND at the same time, in the deeper wilderness, sort of ala-Princess Mononoke and Fritz Leiber, mystical beings that are likewise anthropomorphic, spirits or godlings in their own rights, based on many animal species. What I like about this is it offers a broad range of possible ways for an individual to view his anthropomorphism vis a vis nature and some sort of "humanity," without being either a complete cop-out ("it's just a fantasy, who cares?") or really being a whole lot harder to swallow than one unusual premise.
Trans-species-ism?
Posted 16 years agoIn light of the ... what should I say? Revealing, but often tragic? I'm not sure... anyway, in light of the significant case that transsexual folks constitute, I've contemplated the possibilities for expression in the furry/anthropomorphic paradigm.
For example-- predator species that which they were prey species, or vice versa-- which may be fairly common in genre treatment of mixed furry society, but still is rarely focused on as a specific trait that would set an individual apart. In some usages, or maybe just in my own mind, this may even be cliché-- I've at least one abjectly submissive lion in the menagerie of RP characters I've developed over the years. (I'm not only getting at aspects of sexuality-- really.)
I think perhaps the short-tailed beastie longing for the long, fluffy tail is amusing and probably the most commonplace.
What about very large animals wishing they were small or vice-versa? There's an epic children's book I have here somewhere describing the romance of a mouse and a giraffe-- not really the same thing, still.
The deep-seated belief one belongs to a flying species? Yes I know all this on some satirical level has been "done." (And honestly, I think the question of what's been done is the most imagination-crippling and utterly irrelevant question one can ever ask when it comes to being creative. Idiotic originality is SO much worse than annoying the people obsessed with it.)
What other dimensions of species am I missing? Nocturnal/Diurnal? Pack/solitary?
For example-- predator species that which they were prey species, or vice versa-- which may be fairly common in genre treatment of mixed furry society, but still is rarely focused on as a specific trait that would set an individual apart. In some usages, or maybe just in my own mind, this may even be cliché-- I've at least one abjectly submissive lion in the menagerie of RP characters I've developed over the years. (I'm not only getting at aspects of sexuality-- really.)
I think perhaps the short-tailed beastie longing for the long, fluffy tail is amusing and probably the most commonplace.
What about very large animals wishing they were small or vice-versa? There's an epic children's book I have here somewhere describing the romance of a mouse and a giraffe-- not really the same thing, still.
The deep-seated belief one belongs to a flying species? Yes I know all this on some satirical level has been "done." (And honestly, I think the question of what's been done is the most imagination-crippling and utterly irrelevant question one can ever ask when it comes to being creative. Idiotic originality is SO much worse than annoying the people obsessed with it.)
What other dimensions of species am I missing? Nocturnal/Diurnal? Pack/solitary?
Furry Meme. (Oh noes)
Posted 16 years ago*Are you a furry?
Yes.
*If you have a Spouse/SO - Is he/she a furry too?
N/A (That's right ladieeezz! I'm single! :) )
*How long have you been in the community?
To date, ~8 years.
*How did you find furry?
Chatting with people online.
*What interested you to get into the community?
Artwork & storytelling.
*What's Furry to you?
Something I could talk theory of ENDLESSLY!!!
Furry is based on two instincts humans are born hardwired with: a fascination with animal forms/types, and a fascination with intelligence.
Beyond this inherent appeal that animal-types-that-think have for any human mind, the Furry genre becomes a handy means of exploring what it means, as a thinking being, to be an animal, and what it means, as an animal, to be a social animal that thinks, speaks, creates, and dogmatizes (no pun intended!).
*If someone found out you're a furry and asked you about it how would you respond?
"Yeah. Whatta you wanna know?"
*What are your favorite aspects of our community?
Artistically and creatively, it is original, egalitarian, and not beholden to the crushing influence of corporatism.
*Do you use any furry terms? (i.e. yiff, paws, murr?)
In fandom contexts.
*What do you wish furry was NOT associated with?
Bestiality and pedophilia. "Zoophilia" and "Cub" my butt!
*How strongly do you feel about someone bashing the community as a whole?
Indifferent. I think it's pretty normal for there to be a certain amount of ignorance and skepticism about secretive in-cultures, and frankly there's plenty in the fandom (see above) that's widely accepted and ought not be.
*How strongly do you feel about anyone bashing you yourself for your interest based on the media's aspect of what furry is?
Um, the phrase "You speak from ignorance," is six short syllables. I'm an adult.
*We all know furries have alot of sexual aspects in this fandom, What's your opinion on it?
It's a little more influential than I'd like, but the folks who insist on an ethics of disgust are a lot sillier.
*What is/are your fursona(s)?
One is a polar bear who is for most purposes identical to myself. The other I more loosely identify with, since he's a fictional life of his own-- a Woolly Mammoth Shaman.
*Do you have any fetishes that pertain to the fandom?
I'm not a suiter, and I can't think of any other fetishes that pertain to the fandom.
*If you could magically morph into your fursona would you?
Too many ambiguities in this question.
*Do you believe you have a spirit animal?
Sure-- since I was 14. Crows.
*What other fanbases/groups are you a part of?
Nothing comparable in the intensiveness of its identity politics, except perhaps Atheism.
*Anthro/Feral, Therian or Kemonomimi (Not a furry, just a human with animal ears and a tail)?
Physiology isn't the sine qua non of anthropomorphism. Civil british working-class rabbits and not-quite-human catgirls all belong in the mix. Perfectly ordinary ordinary humans and animals with minor cosmetic adjustments don't.
*Are you a fursuiter? If yes, how many do you own? If No, do you ever plan on being a suiter?
No, and probably not, but I respect it.
*How many of your friends are furry?
Mmm, one and several fractions, probably summing up to 3 or so.
*How many pets do you own, if any?
None.
*Aside from furry what other interests do you have?
Philosophy, literature, fiction, ethics, music in the classical, techno, ambient, experimental, pop, rock, psychadelic, swing, and folk music genres, practicing Taekwondo, the cello, and the guitar, teaching, kids, my nieces and my ex-GF's boys,
*Are you confident enough in yourself to say that you're a fur, no matter what the media says?
Lemme try: I'm a fur.
Guess so!
Meetups
*Do you attend any cons? If no, would you attend any cons? If yes, which cons have you been to?
A couple local ones.
*Do you go to local meetups(bowling, public outings...etc)?
Not yet.
*Have you ever attended a furry party? If no, would you attend one?
If you count furry gaming groups. Or otherwise, yes.
Online
*Have you ever met up with a fur you talked to online?
Yes
*What furry websites do you attend?
FA, and if you count it, DA. Former contributor to Wikifur, Furtopia & Yiffstar.
*What non furry websites do you frequent?
Livejournal, Yahoo News, Facebook.
*Has the fandom done anything for you that you're thankful for? Has it taught you anything or brought you anything you treasure greatly?
Continued community with a wide variety of creative people = win! All the great artists on FA alone, sharing their work for free, that alone is highly worthwhile.
Yes.
*If you have a Spouse/SO - Is he/she a furry too?
N/A (That's right ladieeezz! I'm single! :) )
*How long have you been in the community?
To date, ~8 years.
*How did you find furry?
Chatting with people online.
*What interested you to get into the community?
Artwork & storytelling.
*What's Furry to you?
Something I could talk theory of ENDLESSLY!!!
Furry is based on two instincts humans are born hardwired with: a fascination with animal forms/types, and a fascination with intelligence.
Beyond this inherent appeal that animal-types-that-think have for any human mind, the Furry genre becomes a handy means of exploring what it means, as a thinking being, to be an animal, and what it means, as an animal, to be a social animal that thinks, speaks, creates, and dogmatizes (no pun intended!).
*If someone found out you're a furry and asked you about it how would you respond?
"Yeah. Whatta you wanna know?"
*What are your favorite aspects of our community?
Artistically and creatively, it is original, egalitarian, and not beholden to the crushing influence of corporatism.
*Do you use any furry terms? (i.e. yiff, paws, murr?)
In fandom contexts.
*What do you wish furry was NOT associated with?
Bestiality and pedophilia. "Zoophilia" and "Cub" my butt!
*How strongly do you feel about someone bashing the community as a whole?
Indifferent. I think it's pretty normal for there to be a certain amount of ignorance and skepticism about secretive in-cultures, and frankly there's plenty in the fandom (see above) that's widely accepted and ought not be.
*How strongly do you feel about anyone bashing you yourself for your interest based on the media's aspect of what furry is?
Um, the phrase "You speak from ignorance," is six short syllables. I'm an adult.
*We all know furries have alot of sexual aspects in this fandom, What's your opinion on it?
It's a little more influential than I'd like, but the folks who insist on an ethics of disgust are a lot sillier.
*What is/are your fursona(s)?
One is a polar bear who is for most purposes identical to myself. The other I more loosely identify with, since he's a fictional life of his own-- a Woolly Mammoth Shaman.
*Do you have any fetishes that pertain to the fandom?
I'm not a suiter, and I can't think of any other fetishes that pertain to the fandom.
*If you could magically morph into your fursona would you?
Too many ambiguities in this question.
*Do you believe you have a spirit animal?
Sure-- since I was 14. Crows.
*What other fanbases/groups are you a part of?
Nothing comparable in the intensiveness of its identity politics, except perhaps Atheism.
*Anthro/Feral, Therian or Kemonomimi (Not a furry, just a human with animal ears and a tail)?
Physiology isn't the sine qua non of anthropomorphism. Civil british working-class rabbits and not-quite-human catgirls all belong in the mix. Perfectly ordinary ordinary humans and animals with minor cosmetic adjustments don't.
*Are you a fursuiter? If yes, how many do you own? If No, do you ever plan on being a suiter?
No, and probably not, but I respect it.
*How many of your friends are furry?
Mmm, one and several fractions, probably summing up to 3 or so.
*How many pets do you own, if any?
None.
*Aside from furry what other interests do you have?
Philosophy, literature, fiction, ethics, music in the classical, techno, ambient, experimental, pop, rock, psychadelic, swing, and folk music genres, practicing Taekwondo, the cello, and the guitar, teaching, kids, my nieces and my ex-GF's boys,
*Are you confident enough in yourself to say that you're a fur, no matter what the media says?
Lemme try: I'm a fur.
Guess so!
Meetups
*Do you attend any cons? If no, would you attend any cons? If yes, which cons have you been to?
A couple local ones.
*Do you go to local meetups(bowling, public outings...etc)?
Not yet.
*Have you ever attended a furry party? If no, would you attend one?
If you count furry gaming groups. Or otherwise, yes.
Online
*Have you ever met up with a fur you talked to online?
Yes
*What furry websites do you attend?
FA, and if you count it, DA. Former contributor to Wikifur, Furtopia & Yiffstar.
*What non furry websites do you frequent?
Livejournal, Yahoo News, Facebook.
*Has the fandom done anything for you that you're thankful for? Has it taught you anything or brought you anything you treasure greatly?
Continued community with a wide variety of creative people = win! All the great artists on FA alone, sharing their work for free, that alone is highly worthwhile.
Oct 5: Harvest Moon
Posted 16 years agoYes, yes. Harvest moon. Go out and behold it. Or harvest grain, or you know. Whatever it is you do.
We predators, we're already curled up with books and dropping off to sleep in the moonlight.
We predators, we're already curled up with books and dropping off to sleep in the moonlight.
Underexposed/Underappreciated
Posted 16 years agoSo, by very precise and mathematical formulae, I have looked at the people I've faved most, and compared them against their total views and total favorites, in order to present a list of the 12 artists on FA I know of, who are underexposed and/or underappreciated (respectively):
1.
Kwan -- both
Irrepressible joie de vivre.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1683206/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1700323/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1684548/
2.
D-Tail -- both
A real sense of prosody and description.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2593692/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1961479/
3.
Paso -- both
Nuance and imagination galore.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2564293/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2747167/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1310831/
4.
Mizziness -- both
Classy naughtiness.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1331973/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1041714/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/703976/
5.
Goldenfox -- particularly underappreciated
OMG. Everything. If I have a crush on a gallery, it's Goldenfox's.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1645914/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1530795/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1481854/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1332274/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/932976/
6.
WhiteFenrril -- particularly underexposed
Numerous sexy fur ladies.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1607944/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1397310/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1571049/
7.
SilentRavyn -- both
Among the best of adoreable x hot on FA. Another major gallery crush.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1724384/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1514690/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1399110/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1351842/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/962125/
8.
Kaiven -- particularly underappreciated
Fascinating character work, strong women. Yay! Another huge crush on this gallery.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1903244/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1265648/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1692235/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/596194/
9.
FrogsBreath -- both
Brilliant, original, funny-- and talented.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1418073/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1969164/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1921694/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1817971/
10.
ChrisGoodwin -- both
One of my absolute all time favorites. My other, other abject gallery crush. Yes, I'm a gallery whore. Also the first artist working in the fandom I looked at, and probably among the very best. Comparatively underexposed. Can't figure it out.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2546574/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2359032/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2041551/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2021768/
11.
SushiCougar -- both
Adoreableness galore.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1940965/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1077104/
12.
Kenket -- both
Stunningly awesome stuff, with comparatively little recognition. Can't figure this one out either.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1155849/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/852755/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/212976/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1456734/
1.
Kwan -- bothIrrepressible joie de vivre.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1683206/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1700323/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1684548/
2.
D-Tail -- bothA real sense of prosody and description.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2593692/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1961479/
3.
Paso -- bothNuance and imagination galore.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2564293/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2747167/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1310831/
4.
Mizziness -- bothClassy naughtiness.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1331973/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1041714/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/703976/
5.
Goldenfox -- particularly underappreciatedOMG. Everything. If I have a crush on a gallery, it's Goldenfox's.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1645914/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1530795/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1481854/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1332274/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/932976/
6.
WhiteFenrril -- particularly underexposedNumerous sexy fur ladies.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1607944/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1397310/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1571049/
7.
SilentRavyn -- bothAmong the best of adoreable x hot on FA. Another major gallery crush.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1724384/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1514690/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1399110/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1351842/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/962125/
8.
Kaiven -- particularly underappreciatedFascinating character work, strong women. Yay! Another huge crush on this gallery.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1903244/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1265648/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1692235/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/596194/
9.
FrogsBreath -- bothBrilliant, original, funny-- and talented.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1418073/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1969164/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1921694/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1817971/
10.
ChrisGoodwin -- bothOne of my absolute all time favorites. My other, other abject gallery crush. Yes, I'm a gallery whore. Also the first artist working in the fandom I looked at, and probably among the very best. Comparatively underexposed. Can't figure it out.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2546574/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2359032/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2041551/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2021768/
11.
SushiCougar -- bothAdoreableness galore.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1940965/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1077104/
12.
Kenket -- bothStunningly awesome stuff, with comparatively little recognition. Can't figure this one out either.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1155849/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/852755/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/212976/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1456734/
The Glass Bead Game
Posted 16 years agoI have an idea for art tradez!
One of my favorite books is by Herman Hesse, "The Glass Bead Game," which describes, in the process to telling the story of its main character Joseph Knect, a system of higher education-- a series of universities collectively referred to as "Castalia," or "the Pedagogic Province."
All of the Arts and Sciences, philosophy and music, are taught in Castalia. But above them all, the crowning discipline, is a "game." The Glass Bead Game.
And the idea of the Glass Bead Game is this: that its players, all consummate scholars and artists, compose "games" that set artistic, philosophical, musical, and scientific expressions together in a way that reveals common points between different modes, and composes them into a coherent point/counterpoint.
In the words of Hesse: "...the quintessence of intellectuality and art, the sublime cult, the unio mystica of all the separate members of the Universitas Litterarum."
"...under the shifting hegemony of now this, now that science or art, the Game of games had developed into a kind of universal language through which the players could express values and set these in relation to one another. Throughout its history the Game was closely allied with music, and usually proceeded according to musical or mathematical rules. One theme, two themes, or three themes were stated, elaborated, varied, and underwent a development quite similar to that of the theme of a Bach fugue or a concerto movement. A Game ... might start [with a given theme,] ... and from this theme, it could either further explore and elaborate the initial motif, or else enrich its expressiveness by allusions to kindred concepts. Beginners learned how to establish the parallels, by means of the Game's symbols, between a piece of classical music and the formula for some law of nature."
Today, I was reading about somebody's plans to do art trades. And I got to thinking and wondering about, you know, what are the unspoken rules about what you draw for somebody. What if, instead of saying "Could you draw my fursona playing baseball," the choice itself was an intensely creative exercise.
What if two artists agreed to do an art trade this way:
MELODY
1. Each player picks a favorite piece of art, a poem, a philosophical statement, a species, a piece of music, a television program or movie, favorite book, or anything else along these lines.
.....1.a. Don't make it something the other player can't readily become familiar with. That is, don't pick "The book War and Peace," unless you know the other player has already read it. A short poem, a popular song, your favorite Goya or your favorite sow drawing by Louvelex is a better idea.
.....1.b. Pick a medium that is NOT one of the strongest suits of the other player, so s/he will still be able to use that medium later. That is, you know. If you're dealing with somebody who really only does (visual) art, don't present them with your favorite art... or at least, not in the same genre.
COUNTERPOINT
2. Interpret the other player's submission in one of your favorite media.
HARMONY
3. Collaborate with the other player in some medium you're both good at, and make your part of the contribution based on the interpretation the other player submitted in step 2 based on your submission in step 1.
The result will be 3 works that can be presented together, along with references to their original inspirations.
One of my favorite books is by Herman Hesse, "The Glass Bead Game," which describes, in the process to telling the story of its main character Joseph Knect, a system of higher education-- a series of universities collectively referred to as "Castalia," or "the Pedagogic Province."
All of the Arts and Sciences, philosophy and music, are taught in Castalia. But above them all, the crowning discipline, is a "game." The Glass Bead Game.
And the idea of the Glass Bead Game is this: that its players, all consummate scholars and artists, compose "games" that set artistic, philosophical, musical, and scientific expressions together in a way that reveals common points between different modes, and composes them into a coherent point/counterpoint.
In the words of Hesse: "...the quintessence of intellectuality and art, the sublime cult, the unio mystica of all the separate members of the Universitas Litterarum."
"...under the shifting hegemony of now this, now that science or art, the Game of games had developed into a kind of universal language through which the players could express values and set these in relation to one another. Throughout its history the Game was closely allied with music, and usually proceeded according to musical or mathematical rules. One theme, two themes, or three themes were stated, elaborated, varied, and underwent a development quite similar to that of the theme of a Bach fugue or a concerto movement. A Game ... might start [with a given theme,] ... and from this theme, it could either further explore and elaborate the initial motif, or else enrich its expressiveness by allusions to kindred concepts. Beginners learned how to establish the parallels, by means of the Game's symbols, between a piece of classical music and the formula for some law of nature."
Today, I was reading about somebody's plans to do art trades. And I got to thinking and wondering about, you know, what are the unspoken rules about what you draw for somebody. What if, instead of saying "Could you draw my fursona playing baseball," the choice itself was an intensely creative exercise.
What if two artists agreed to do an art trade this way:
MELODY
1. Each player picks a favorite piece of art, a poem, a philosophical statement, a species, a piece of music, a television program or movie, favorite book, or anything else along these lines.
.....1.a. Don't make it something the other player can't readily become familiar with. That is, don't pick "The book War and Peace," unless you know the other player has already read it. A short poem, a popular song, your favorite Goya or your favorite sow drawing by Louvelex is a better idea.
.....1.b. Pick a medium that is NOT one of the strongest suits of the other player, so s/he will still be able to use that medium later. That is, you know. If you're dealing with somebody who really only does (visual) art, don't present them with your favorite art... or at least, not in the same genre.
COUNTERPOINT
2. Interpret the other player's submission in one of your favorite media.
HARMONY
3. Collaborate with the other player in some medium you're both good at, and make your part of the contribution based on the interpretation the other player submitted in step 2 based on your submission in step 1.
The result will be 3 works that can be presented together, along with references to their original inspirations.
A meme
Posted 16 years ago1. I will add the first 14 people who comment on this journal to the Promotional List.
2. For each of those 14 people, I will put their avatar and three submissions I like from their gallery on the list.
3. If I feature you, you'll have to do the same in your journal, putting me on the first place, completing this way the list with 14 people. Etc, etc, etc.
1. Kwan
I love Kwan's work because, aside from being awesome, I have had the priviledge of exposure to her thought process and character development skillez, and so most things she draws are, perhaps unbeknownst to her, fully animated post-retinally, for me.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1683206/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1700323/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1684548/
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11..
12.
13.
14.
2. For each of those 14 people, I will put their avatar and three submissions I like from their gallery on the list.
3. If I feature you, you'll have to do the same in your journal, putting me on the first place, completing this way the list with 14 people. Etc, etc, etc.
1.
KwanI love Kwan's work because, aside from being awesome, I have had the priviledge of exposure to her thought process and character development skillez, and so most things she draws are, perhaps unbeknownst to her, fully animated post-retinally, for me.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1683206/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1700323/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1684548/
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11..
12.
13.
14.
Acknowledgement & Disagreement
Posted 16 years agoJust a quick note of acknowledgement, and note on disagreements:
Irbisgreif unwatched and blocked me, ostensibly on accout our conversation last week about the nature of poetry. (The one in which everyone, certainly including myself, was thoroughly civil-- exept in that sense where it's rude to have differing opinions).
I appreciate that admission on Irbisgreif's part that they couldn't defend the flimsy objections they made re: my definition of poetry.
Also, I'm disappointed Irbisgreif took it that personally, when there was obviously no need to. Not disappointed to be unwatched, mind you.
My hope for everybody as they grow up is that they can learn to distinguish between ideas (and even behaviors) on the one paw, and real persons on the other. I've resigned myself to repeating this endlessly, so here goes:
People matter-- they deserve compassion and fairness.
Ideas aren't people. If you take it personally when somebody says something like "free verse is a ridiculous waste of time, in addition to being oxymoronic" then you're just flat out making a mistake. Because: you are not free verse. (For another example, same goes with religion. If I say: "Christianity is an absurd collection of boring, and often particularly vicious, lies," and you think you're insulted, you're mistaken. Because: You aren't Chrstianity. Being insulted by my remark makes about as much sense as being insulted when it starts to rain on a day when you didn't want it to.)
I love forgiving people their mistakes, if they're willing to learn from them. Seeing somebody run from a stupid mistake like insisting "all langauges must have poetry" as though their whole self-worth depended on it, is sad.
Because Irbisgreif's worth a lot more than one nonsense opinion about poetry. I hope he/she figrues that out.
Irbisgreif unwatched and blocked me, ostensibly on accout our conversation last week about the nature of poetry. (The one in which everyone, certainly including myself, was thoroughly civil-- exept in that sense where it's rude to have differing opinions).
I appreciate that admission on Irbisgreif's part that they couldn't defend the flimsy objections they made re: my definition of poetry.
Also, I'm disappointed Irbisgreif took it that personally, when there was obviously no need to. Not disappointed to be unwatched, mind you.
My hope for everybody as they grow up is that they can learn to distinguish between ideas (and even behaviors) on the one paw, and real persons on the other. I've resigned myself to repeating this endlessly, so here goes:
People matter-- they deserve compassion and fairness.
Ideas aren't people. If you take it personally when somebody says something like "free verse is a ridiculous waste of time, in addition to being oxymoronic" then you're just flat out making a mistake. Because: you are not free verse. (For another example, same goes with religion. If I say: "Christianity is an absurd collection of boring, and often particularly vicious, lies," and you think you're insulted, you're mistaken. Because: You aren't Chrstianity. Being insulted by my remark makes about as much sense as being insulted when it starts to rain on a day when you didn't want it to.)
I love forgiving people their mistakes, if they're willing to learn from them. Seeing somebody run from a stupid mistake like insisting "all langauges must have poetry" as though their whole self-worth depended on it, is sad.
Because Irbisgreif's worth a lot more than one nonsense opinion about poetry. I hope he/she figrues that out.
Poetry: Psychoactive Language
Posted 16 years agoYou can't expect to write good poetry if you don't appreciate poetry, for the same reasons a robot with no sense of taste could never be a good chef.
And appreciating poetry is EASY. But if you don't understand what it is, and why it's interesting, you won't be able to distinguish it, experience it, savor it.
Unfortunately lots of folks run around today calling all sorts of things poetry that aren't. I wonder if this didn't get started with idioms, for example, saying that a great athlete's performance is like "poetry in motion."
Poetry is something quite specific. It's not just anything anyone wants to call poetry. The folks who like to run around saying "everything is poetry!" often respond: "Who are you to say that such-and-such isn't worthwhile!"
Lots of things that aren't poetry are great. Poetry doesn't mean "Everything that's awesome." I'm not saying other works aren't *interesting* enough to be poetry. I'm just saying they aren't in fact poetry.
Suppose I said that a delicious Lasagna wasn't Pizza. Some might complain that I'd said a delicious Lasagna "wasn't good enough" to be a pizza. But that's not what I said. Lots of foods just aren't pizza-- even though I love pizza, I can't deny that many things aren't pizza.
So I would have to say: "Look, if you want to learn how to make Lasanga, you need to be able to tell the difference between Lasagna and Pizza."
Likewise, lots of things just aren't poems. And you can't learn to appreciate or compose poetry if you don't know what it is. More, I doubt you'd take the idea of poems seriously if you knew what they are, unless you knew WHY they're interesting.
Poetry is:
1. Speech
2. Meaningful
3. Rhythmic
4. Effectively expressed.
A lot of people seem to get only #2. They think any words they pour out on paper while they're emotionally intense, are automatically poetry. Here's a little composition I call "orgasm."
Orgasm:
Oh god.
Oh god!
Oh GOD!
It's not a poem. The same goes for every other emotional fit you have, if it's incoherently expressed (this includes references only the writer would understand and other sorts of obscuritanism), doesn't really have much meaning (hopefully everyone's had the experience a few times-- calling it meaningful as such is a stretch), or has no rhythm at all. (This one has a rythm of sort, but it's a painfully simple one.)
Anyway. I trust that #4, using language effectively-- good description, coherent languge, etc-- is self-evidently worthwhile. Likewise, I assume people get why saying something meaningful matters. I absolutely can't help you if you don't get that.
But #1 and especially #3, people often miss. Poetry is certainly written down. But so is music, in musical notation. The sheets of musical notation are not the music. And poems written down are not poetry. Poetry has to be heard aloud-- even if only in the ear of your imagination.
And as for rhythm, it's the real reason I'm writing this essay.
Many, MANY people, including successfully published writers, scoff at the idea that rhythm is essential to poetry. They are all, uniformly and absolutely wrong about it. Here's what they don't get: Rhythmic repetition, in almost any medium, has an effect on the human mind. It's a simple psychological fact, rhythm has the property that it "drives trance." Rhythm creates altered states of consciousness. And that is the first virtue of rhythm in poetry:
Poetry is Psychoactive Language. Yes, like a drug.
Second, rhythm serves a related purpose, which is not as exciting as it used to be. Back in the days before most people were literate, there was something called "oral tradition," which is to say, the means of retaining a text was memorizing it as speech.
People run about saying poetry can be anything, and particularly ignoring or scoffing at the role of rhythm in poetry, because they just don't get how powerful a tool rhythm is.
And appreciating poetry is EASY. But if you don't understand what it is, and why it's interesting, you won't be able to distinguish it, experience it, savor it.
Unfortunately lots of folks run around today calling all sorts of things poetry that aren't. I wonder if this didn't get started with idioms, for example, saying that a great athlete's performance is like "poetry in motion."
Poetry is something quite specific. It's not just anything anyone wants to call poetry. The folks who like to run around saying "everything is poetry!" often respond: "Who are you to say that such-and-such isn't worthwhile!"
Lots of things that aren't poetry are great. Poetry doesn't mean "Everything that's awesome." I'm not saying other works aren't *interesting* enough to be poetry. I'm just saying they aren't in fact poetry.
Suppose I said that a delicious Lasagna wasn't Pizza. Some might complain that I'd said a delicious Lasagna "wasn't good enough" to be a pizza. But that's not what I said. Lots of foods just aren't pizza-- even though I love pizza, I can't deny that many things aren't pizza.
So I would have to say: "Look, if you want to learn how to make Lasanga, you need to be able to tell the difference between Lasagna and Pizza."
Likewise, lots of things just aren't poems. And you can't learn to appreciate or compose poetry if you don't know what it is. More, I doubt you'd take the idea of poems seriously if you knew what they are, unless you knew WHY they're interesting.
Poetry is:
1. Speech
2. Meaningful
3. Rhythmic
4. Effectively expressed.
A lot of people seem to get only #2. They think any words they pour out on paper while they're emotionally intense, are automatically poetry. Here's a little composition I call "orgasm."
Orgasm:
Oh god.
Oh god!
Oh GOD!
It's not a poem. The same goes for every other emotional fit you have, if it's incoherently expressed (this includes references only the writer would understand and other sorts of obscuritanism), doesn't really have much meaning (hopefully everyone's had the experience a few times-- calling it meaningful as such is a stretch), or has no rhythm at all. (This one has a rythm of sort, but it's a painfully simple one.)
Anyway. I trust that #4, using language effectively-- good description, coherent languge, etc-- is self-evidently worthwhile. Likewise, I assume people get why saying something meaningful matters. I absolutely can't help you if you don't get that.
But #1 and especially #3, people often miss. Poetry is certainly written down. But so is music, in musical notation. The sheets of musical notation are not the music. And poems written down are not poetry. Poetry has to be heard aloud-- even if only in the ear of your imagination.
And as for rhythm, it's the real reason I'm writing this essay.
Many, MANY people, including successfully published writers, scoff at the idea that rhythm is essential to poetry. They are all, uniformly and absolutely wrong about it. Here's what they don't get: Rhythmic repetition, in almost any medium, has an effect on the human mind. It's a simple psychological fact, rhythm has the property that it "drives trance." Rhythm creates altered states of consciousness. And that is the first virtue of rhythm in poetry:
Poetry is Psychoactive Language. Yes, like a drug.
Second, rhythm serves a related purpose, which is not as exciting as it used to be. Back in the days before most people were literate, there was something called "oral tradition," which is to say, the means of retaining a text was memorizing it as speech.
People run about saying poetry can be anything, and particularly ignoring or scoffing at the role of rhythm in poetry, because they just don't get how powerful a tool rhythm is.
The Wilds
Posted 16 years agoSo apparently American Electric Power gave a huge area in eastern Ohio that was strip mined for coal, over to somebody that I think is connected with the Columbus Zoo, and they established a wildlife conservation refuge type area.
Took an open-bus tour today. Saw rhinos up close hanging out in the bushes (what I can only describe as lurking), some equids that are native to Iraq and look like donkeys (impressive looking beasts, really. There's some sort of conceit I have about the evolution of intelligence that makes me admire a mobile, adaptable, aggressive animal over others-- there were three foals in a group of like, six, and one of the foals was getting chased about a lot, and nipped in the ass. It was totally frustrated parent hilarity.), a small herd of Priezwalski's horses, the pair of Dholes they have and are trying to breed (the male was hand-raised in a zoo, the female captured in the wild), the three cheetahs they have and are trying to breed, glimpses of shy (and lounging) african wild dogs. Giraffes (there's something comforting about the mild-mannered spectator demeanor they bear), several kinds of deer, a trio of female camels that came up close (commentary from the tour guide about how one of them was older, and her two humps were kind of floppy, which lead to thinly veiled analogy, haha), and this weird high-altitude caprine from China, that is frankly bizarro looking (only saw those at a distance sadly).
It was heavily geared toward eco-tourism-ish-ness. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The tour guide was this gal who was probably 20, had a paw print tatoo on the inside of her right forearm-- which made me vaguely wonder, because frankly she'd set off my furry-dar immediately.
She also asked the bus "Does anyone know what sexual dimorphism is?"
After the pause, I answered: "When males and females look substantially different."
And she said: "Well, sort of. You're close."
No, actually. She doesn't really know what sexual dimorphism is. But anyway.
I was reminded again, watching my fellow hominids watch other animals, of this:
Pet-keeping, zoos, wildlife parks, birdwatching, animals bred for competition, safaris, hunting, and yes, THE FURRY FANDOM, all have a key thing in common.
Human beings are born with a hard-wired fascination for all mobile living things. Animals are inherently fascinating to each and every one of us, because we were born with specialized cognitive apparatus that encourages us to look closely at everything that looks like an animal, and pay attention to its intrinsic character.
The impulse that drives keeping pets, visiting zoos, and participating in the fandom, is not that of a random hobby picked out of a universe of co-equal idiosyncracies. Humans have a strong primary tendency toward fascination with animals. We're born with it.
Which goes back to what I've been saying all along. Everyone is born a furry. Just some people get distracted by other stuff (which to be fair, is often more interesting).
Took an open-bus tour today. Saw rhinos up close hanging out in the bushes (what I can only describe as lurking), some equids that are native to Iraq and look like donkeys (impressive looking beasts, really. There's some sort of conceit I have about the evolution of intelligence that makes me admire a mobile, adaptable, aggressive animal over others-- there were three foals in a group of like, six, and one of the foals was getting chased about a lot, and nipped in the ass. It was totally frustrated parent hilarity.), a small herd of Priezwalski's horses, the pair of Dholes they have and are trying to breed (the male was hand-raised in a zoo, the female captured in the wild), the three cheetahs they have and are trying to breed, glimpses of shy (and lounging) african wild dogs. Giraffes (there's something comforting about the mild-mannered spectator demeanor they bear), several kinds of deer, a trio of female camels that came up close (commentary from the tour guide about how one of them was older, and her two humps were kind of floppy, which lead to thinly veiled analogy, haha), and this weird high-altitude caprine from China, that is frankly bizarro looking (only saw those at a distance sadly).
It was heavily geared toward eco-tourism-ish-ness. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The tour guide was this gal who was probably 20, had a paw print tatoo on the inside of her right forearm-- which made me vaguely wonder, because frankly she'd set off my furry-dar immediately.
She also asked the bus "Does anyone know what sexual dimorphism is?"
After the pause, I answered: "When males and females look substantially different."
And she said: "Well, sort of. You're close."
No, actually. She doesn't really know what sexual dimorphism is. But anyway.
I was reminded again, watching my fellow hominids watch other animals, of this:
Pet-keeping, zoos, wildlife parks, birdwatching, animals bred for competition, safaris, hunting, and yes, THE FURRY FANDOM, all have a key thing in common.
Human beings are born with a hard-wired fascination for all mobile living things. Animals are inherently fascinating to each and every one of us, because we were born with specialized cognitive apparatus that encourages us to look closely at everything that looks like an animal, and pay attention to its intrinsic character.
The impulse that drives keeping pets, visiting zoos, and participating in the fandom, is not that of a random hobby picked out of a universe of co-equal idiosyncracies. Humans have a strong primary tendency toward fascination with animals. We're born with it.
Which goes back to what I've been saying all along. Everyone is born a furry. Just some people get distracted by other stuff (which to be fair, is often more interesting).
World Ends with the Meaning of Life
Posted 16 years agoI will turn [the meaning of life] years old on the day the world is supposed to end, according to the popular hoopla about the end of the long count Mayan calendar.
In other news, it's been nearly 166 years since 10/23/1843, and a couple MILLENIA since the gospel date for the reappearance of Jesus came and went.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but your fairytale sucks, guys. They've been having to overwrite it with swords-from-stones, DaVinci and Tom Hanks for at least 600 years now.
In other news, it's been nearly 166 years since 10/23/1843, and a couple MILLENIA since the gospel date for the reappearance of Jesus came and went.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but your fairytale sucks, guys. They've been having to overwrite it with swords-from-stones, DaVinci and Tom Hanks for at least 600 years now.
21 Questions: A Meme for Writers
Posted 16 years ago(Nabbed from Poetigress and TakeWalker)
1. When did you start writing?
2. First drafts: Handwritten, typed, or some combination?
3. Do you keep any kind of notebook or writer's journal, and if so, what kinds of things go into it?
4. Do you set any quotas for your work (number of words per day, number of hours per day, etc.)? Why or why not?
5. Are you most comfortable writing short stories, novels, or something else?
6. What's your favorite kind of story to write?
7. Talk about a story of yours that was easy to write and one that was difficult to write, and why.
8. Which of your characters is closest to your sense of self? In other words, who do you most identify with in your own work to date?
9. What work are you most proud of right now?
10. What do you feel your strengths and weaknesses are as a writer?
11. Name a few writers who have influenced you or your work in some way.
12. Talk about something you've written that you later found embarrassing for some reason.
13. Talk about the earliest stories you remember writing. What were they about?
14. If you knew you would be successful, what would you most like to write?
15. What inspires you?
16. How many projects do you tend to work on at once?
17. Who reads your work before it's released to the public? Do you have beta readers, a critique group, etc.?
18. When you're not writing, what do you do for fun?
19. Advice to other writers?
20. What are you currently working on?
21. Share the first three sentences of a work in progress.
1. When did you start writing?
2. First drafts: Handwritten, typed, or some combination?
3. Do you keep any kind of notebook or writer's journal, and if so, what kinds of things go into it?
4. Do you set any quotas for your work (number of words per day, number of hours per day, etc.)? Why or why not?
5. Are you most comfortable writing short stories, novels, or something else?
6. What's your favorite kind of story to write?
7. Talk about a story of yours that was easy to write and one that was difficult to write, and why.
8. Which of your characters is closest to your sense of self? In other words, who do you most identify with in your own work to date?
9. What work are you most proud of right now?
10. What do you feel your strengths and weaknesses are as a writer?
11. Name a few writers who have influenced you or your work in some way.
12. Talk about something you've written that you later found embarrassing for some reason.
13. Talk about the earliest stories you remember writing. What were they about?
14. If you knew you would be successful, what would you most like to write?
15. What inspires you?
16. How many projects do you tend to work on at once?
17. Who reads your work before it's released to the public? Do you have beta readers, a critique group, etc.?
18. When you're not writing, what do you do for fun?
19. Advice to other writers?
20. What are you currently working on?
21. Share the first three sentences of a work in progress.
World's Ugliest Dog Contests
Posted 16 years agoI'd just like to say, that the for the only speices of bald primate to deliberately carve up the Canis genus into bizarre-ass breeds, just for its own amusement, is bad enough. Turning right around and holding idiotic "World's Ugliest Dog" contests is... well. Idiotic.
Another Chat Re: Ethics, Nihilism, Bestiality, Pedo.
Posted 16 years agoContinuing a discussion with 
Onni. The original discussion was under 
Anaktis's journal, here:
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/770916/
>>Please... answer my posts ... by answering the whole post without carving out little bits to engage.<<
I disucssed what you'd said that was worth discussing. Nothing was misrepresented. Don't bother trying to invent and insist on your own terms for discussion.
You can chant "disparate" all day long. Meanwhile, I've said what pedophilic and bestial folks have in common-- they prey on those who are powerless and incapable of consenting.
>> legally one group can give consent but by rule of law is not valid<<
No. Legally speaking, minors can't consent by definition. They can't give "invalid consent." Age of consent is a legal line in the sand for dealing with the ethical issue of sexual predators who take advantage of people who are inexperienced, powerless, and therefore vulnerable.
The other group-- animals-- can't consent at all. They don't have and will never have the faculties to understand the consequences of their actions. And not only is the ability to understand consequences absent, likewise, there is no reliable means of communication. Human beings routinely get reading the emotional states of animals-- even the ones we have the greatest contact with, dogs, completely wrong. For example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience.....doglookisamyth
Let me give you a little advice. When you say stuff like: "Animals give consent, this is a scientifically proven fact," for the sake of your reputation, don't say this around educated people. But I don't want to over-stress how contemptible that idiocy is. Because more importantly, you demonstrates you don't understand consent when you focus on "Animals give consent." Consent is when Y recieves a clear message from X that X understands the consequences of some action and agrees to them. That's impossible on two counts with animals.
>>The first step in war is to take the perceived foe and demonize them, to make them seem less than human
Again, this argument is all rhetorically very gilded and fine... if your point is we must never object to anybody doing anything. The problem is, that conclusion is self-evidently idiotic. Your rhetoric argues against "demonizing" people who serially rape children. Fact is, there's an epidemic in the U.S. of sexual abuse of children.
Tolerance is an empty value. Some things hurt people, some don't. Just because the church has long substituted games of simon-sez with ancient scripture for a reasoned, compassionate ethics, does not mean the only solution left is "Object to nothing! Tolerate anything!" Judging right from wrong does not automatically put us in the same league as homophobes and other bigots, for example. In fact, if you really refuse to judge right from wrong, you leap right into the arms of bigots who say: "But it's just my belieeeeeeef that gays should not have the right to marry. So they shouldn't! Who are you to judge maaaaaiiii belieeeef?"
>>Thus the process of right and wrong is a subjective one based upon the beliefs system in which is prevalent in the culture one is in.<<
Feeblemindedness in distilled form. Who am I to judge whether somebody raping or murdering you is doing wrong, if they're from "a different culture?" Bull.
Muslim culture and Sharia law (which in many parts of the world IS the law) condone spousal rape. Know what? That's the culture. And it's wrong. Patently, absolutely, wrong.
The process of judging right and wrong is perfectly objective. It is grounded in the common reality, and the common and virtually identical capacities for pain and pleasure we as human beings share. It requires knowledge and compassion, which of course is how antiquated church morality fails. And it cannot be absolutey infalliable. But absolutely infalliable judgement doesn't exist. Nobody tries to be absolutely certain of things before they act, nor should they, since it's impossible.
>>More often than not status quo is the only peace achievable because the battle will always be fought back and forth.<<
Spoken like a true moral nihilist. Let's go back to the status quo of 200 years ago-- it treats straight white men like me quite well, actually.
>>Come come now sir, no need to be melodramatic, This is not a question of politics and torture but of art. The appreciation or non appreciation of art is always a matter of personal taste, this is a simple statement of fact.<<
Another bit of advice. The rhetorical "Come come now sir," is ridiculous even when spoken, much less in writing. I'm not much prone to melodrama, but you're shooting yourself in the foot when you say this kind of stuff and turn around and make irrelevant remarks about somebody else's.
But we already touched on this. As much as you'd like to live in a world where "tastes" have no relation to actions, and actions no consequences, you can't, because that's not how the world is. There's an enormous mandate for free speech in any kind of civilized arrangement, because it has enormous bonuses. That doesn't mean all problems are solved so long as we have free speech.
Consider the special case of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. That's an act that readily gets people killed-- which is why it's unethical, regarless of the value of free speech. And the law agrees, which is why it's criminal, rather than protected speech under the law. As it turns out, there's strong evidence that sexualized depictions of X make people more willing to actually do X. Normally not a problem, but in the special case where X is an aggregious crime against the inherently powerless, it's profoundly unethical-- because it quite materially contributes to real harm to real people.
>>Straight forward depictions of Pedophilia and Bestiality are already banned, as they are on practically every website...
Here, you've quite clearly said they're banned on FA. And you're wrong. I gather it's not an honest mistake on your part-- you're just saying something you know isn't true.
Onni. The original discussion was under 
Anaktis's journal, here:http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/770916/
>>Please... answer my posts ... by answering the whole post without carving out little bits to engage.<<
I disucssed what you'd said that was worth discussing. Nothing was misrepresented. Don't bother trying to invent and insist on your own terms for discussion.
You can chant "disparate" all day long. Meanwhile, I've said what pedophilic and bestial folks have in common-- they prey on those who are powerless and incapable of consenting.
>> legally one group can give consent but by rule of law is not valid<<
No. Legally speaking, minors can't consent by definition. They can't give "invalid consent." Age of consent is a legal line in the sand for dealing with the ethical issue of sexual predators who take advantage of people who are inexperienced, powerless, and therefore vulnerable.
The other group-- animals-- can't consent at all. They don't have and will never have the faculties to understand the consequences of their actions. And not only is the ability to understand consequences absent, likewise, there is no reliable means of communication. Human beings routinely get reading the emotional states of animals-- even the ones we have the greatest contact with, dogs, completely wrong. For example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience.....doglookisamyth
Let me give you a little advice. When you say stuff like: "Animals give consent, this is a scientifically proven fact," for the sake of your reputation, don't say this around educated people. But I don't want to over-stress how contemptible that idiocy is. Because more importantly, you demonstrates you don't understand consent when you focus on "Animals give consent." Consent is when Y recieves a clear message from X that X understands the consequences of some action and agrees to them. That's impossible on two counts with animals.
>>The first step in war is to take the perceived foe and demonize them, to make them seem less than human
Again, this argument is all rhetorically very gilded and fine... if your point is we must never object to anybody doing anything. The problem is, that conclusion is self-evidently idiotic. Your rhetoric argues against "demonizing" people who serially rape children. Fact is, there's an epidemic in the U.S. of sexual abuse of children.
Tolerance is an empty value. Some things hurt people, some don't. Just because the church has long substituted games of simon-sez with ancient scripture for a reasoned, compassionate ethics, does not mean the only solution left is "Object to nothing! Tolerate anything!" Judging right from wrong does not automatically put us in the same league as homophobes and other bigots, for example. In fact, if you really refuse to judge right from wrong, you leap right into the arms of bigots who say: "But it's just my belieeeeeeef that gays should not have the right to marry. So they shouldn't! Who are you to judge maaaaaiiii belieeeef?"
>>Thus the process of right and wrong is a subjective one based upon the beliefs system in which is prevalent in the culture one is in.<<
Feeblemindedness in distilled form. Who am I to judge whether somebody raping or murdering you is doing wrong, if they're from "a different culture?" Bull.
Muslim culture and Sharia law (which in many parts of the world IS the law) condone spousal rape. Know what? That's the culture. And it's wrong. Patently, absolutely, wrong.
The process of judging right and wrong is perfectly objective. It is grounded in the common reality, and the common and virtually identical capacities for pain and pleasure we as human beings share. It requires knowledge and compassion, which of course is how antiquated church morality fails. And it cannot be absolutey infalliable. But absolutely infalliable judgement doesn't exist. Nobody tries to be absolutely certain of things before they act, nor should they, since it's impossible.
>>More often than not status quo is the only peace achievable because the battle will always be fought back and forth.<<
Spoken like a true moral nihilist. Let's go back to the status quo of 200 years ago-- it treats straight white men like me quite well, actually.
>>Come come now sir, no need to be melodramatic, This is not a question of politics and torture but of art. The appreciation or non appreciation of art is always a matter of personal taste, this is a simple statement of fact.<<
Another bit of advice. The rhetorical "Come come now sir," is ridiculous even when spoken, much less in writing. I'm not much prone to melodrama, but you're shooting yourself in the foot when you say this kind of stuff and turn around and make irrelevant remarks about somebody else's.
But we already touched on this. As much as you'd like to live in a world where "tastes" have no relation to actions, and actions no consequences, you can't, because that's not how the world is. There's an enormous mandate for free speech in any kind of civilized arrangement, because it has enormous bonuses. That doesn't mean all problems are solved so long as we have free speech.
Consider the special case of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. That's an act that readily gets people killed-- which is why it's unethical, regarless of the value of free speech. And the law agrees, which is why it's criminal, rather than protected speech under the law. As it turns out, there's strong evidence that sexualized depictions of X make people more willing to actually do X. Normally not a problem, but in the special case where X is an aggregious crime against the inherently powerless, it's profoundly unethical-- because it quite materially contributes to real harm to real people.
>>Straight forward depictions of Pedophilia and Bestiality are already banned, as they are on practically every website...
Here, you've quite clearly said they're banned on FA. And you're wrong. I gather it's not an honest mistake on your part-- you're just saying something you know isn't true.
The Last Word of a Bluebird (R. Frost)
Posted 16 years agoI've found things to do out in life.
So I've not been around quite as much.
And for all that my days grind with strife,
They weren't really awful, as such.
So forgive me for being away,
And consider what Frost has to say:
The Last Word of a Bluebird
As I went out a Crow
In a low voice said "Oh,
I was looking for you.
How do you do?
I just came to tell you
To tell Lesley (will you?)
That her little Bluebird
Wanted me to bring word
That the north wind last night
That made the stars bright
And made ice on the trough
Almost made him cough
His tailfeathers off.
He just had to fly!
But he sent her Good-by
And said to be good
And wear her red hood
And look for skunk tracks
In the snow with an ax--
And do everything!
And perhaps in the spring
He would come back and sing.
--by Robert Frost
So I've not been around quite as much.
And for all that my days grind with strife,
They weren't really awful, as such.
So forgive me for being away,
And consider what Frost has to say:
The Last Word of a Bluebird
As I went out a Crow
In a low voice said "Oh,
I was looking for you.
How do you do?
I just came to tell you
To tell Lesley (will you?)
That her little Bluebird
Wanted me to bring word
That the north wind last night
That made the stars bright
And made ice on the trough
Almost made him cough
His tailfeathers off.
He just had to fly!
But he sent her Good-by
And said to be good
And wear her red hood
And look for skunk tracks
In the snow with an ax--
And do everything!
And perhaps in the spring
He would come back and sing.
--by Robert Frost
If anyone was wondering
Posted 16 years agoIf anyone was wondering, I was recently hit with a sudden, unexpected/emergency change of address, not a bus. I'll be back on track with my furry obligations in a few days.
Poetry Critique Circle April
Posted 16 years agoTHIS IS:
A critique circle-- we read and critique each other's poetry.
NEWS
It's April. We have two or three people who've been contributing the last couple months. I feel good about this.
In April, let's expand, maybe? Those of you who read my journal but don't post poems... like, DOOO EET. Feel free to point people in this direction. I feel like we need five or six people minimum, to really be in full swing.
Maybe we should get a name for ourselves as a poetry circle, or group, or something. Develop a philosophy, theme, or something. (e.g., I've always thought it would be interesting to have a group of furry poets who took the idea of excellence in concrete sensory description, especially the non-visual senses, as a core value.) I dunno. Feel free to brainstorm.
Also, to the point that poetry is SPOKEN not written, I'd still like to hear people reading their own poetry, or each other's.
RULES
1) POST AND CRITIQUE Post a link to ONE poem you wrote, here, per month/session/journal, and then read & critique the poems other people post here. Don't critique unless you post. Don't post unless you critique.
2) DON'T BE SENSITIVE Don't post if you don't want people to really criticize your poetry. The point of this is to get feedback and improve. Empty adulation does you no good. It's okay to explain yourself to a critic and/or say why you don't agree with them, but don't get all defensive-- critique is somebody spending their time to help you improve.
3) ON CRITIQUE Try and help other poets see what does and doesn't work clearly. Don't try and balance positive with negative, just say whatever you think will be helpful. If it's all bad, or all good, say so. But please, explain WHY. And don't argue with other critics in people's submissions. We can have bigger discussions of poetry here in the journal.
4) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS Stick to talking about poems, NOT the people who wrote them. If you see a pattern in the mistakes somebody makes, that's fine too. But we're not here to insult each other any more than we're here to pat each other's backs.
5) WHAT POETRY? Try not to bring too much po-mo attitude. Poetry is something specific: it's a spoken art, in which speech is given some sort of rythm (meter, rhyme, repetition), so that it becomes hypnotic and memorable. Usually it's also evocative, emotionally complex, and/or otherwise meaingful, or at least escapes being boring and trite somehow. Also, I'd prefer you submit things that aren't X-rated. I write X-rated poetry myself, but I think I'd rather include folks who aren't looking at adult stuff if possible.
6) ALSO POST: useful links, news, or your own opinions about poetry. Try and keep it to one post per session, maybe.
A critique circle-- we read and critique each other's poetry.
NEWS
It's April. We have two or three people who've been contributing the last couple months. I feel good about this.
In April, let's expand, maybe? Those of you who read my journal but don't post poems... like, DOOO EET. Feel free to point people in this direction. I feel like we need five or six people minimum, to really be in full swing.
Maybe we should get a name for ourselves as a poetry circle, or group, or something. Develop a philosophy, theme, or something. (e.g., I've always thought it would be interesting to have a group of furry poets who took the idea of excellence in concrete sensory description, especially the non-visual senses, as a core value.) I dunno. Feel free to brainstorm.
Also, to the point that poetry is SPOKEN not written, I'd still like to hear people reading their own poetry, or each other's.
RULES
1) POST AND CRITIQUE Post a link to ONE poem you wrote, here, per month/session/journal, and then read & critique the poems other people post here. Don't critique unless you post. Don't post unless you critique.
2) DON'T BE SENSITIVE Don't post if you don't want people to really criticize your poetry. The point of this is to get feedback and improve. Empty adulation does you no good. It's okay to explain yourself to a critic and/or say why you don't agree with them, but don't get all defensive-- critique is somebody spending their time to help you improve.
3) ON CRITIQUE Try and help other poets see what does and doesn't work clearly. Don't try and balance positive with negative, just say whatever you think will be helpful. If it's all bad, or all good, say so. But please, explain WHY. And don't argue with other critics in people's submissions. We can have bigger discussions of poetry here in the journal.
4) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS Stick to talking about poems, NOT the people who wrote them. If you see a pattern in the mistakes somebody makes, that's fine too. But we're not here to insult each other any more than we're here to pat each other's backs.
5) WHAT POETRY? Try not to bring too much po-mo attitude. Poetry is something specific: it's a spoken art, in which speech is given some sort of rythm (meter, rhyme, repetition), so that it becomes hypnotic and memorable. Usually it's also evocative, emotionally complex, and/or otherwise meaingful, or at least escapes being boring and trite somehow. Also, I'd prefer you submit things that aren't X-rated. I write X-rated poetry myself, but I think I'd rather include folks who aren't looking at adult stuff if possible.
6) ALSO POST: useful links, news, or your own opinions about poetry. Try and keep it to one post per session, maybe.
Poetry Critique Circle March
Posted 16 years agoTHIS IS:
A critique circle-- we read and critique each other's poetry.
NEWS
I decided to get started a little early. Maybe we can do this in a three-week format.
Two things to link to off the bat:
I've not looked at it closely, but this:
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/writersblock
... may better suit some or all of us in the long run. Feel free to post thoughts about it here.
Also, DTail has submitted to last month's journal, so if they don't promptly repost here:
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/607886/
I'm seriously thinking about audio recording some of my own poems, or maybe doing reading-exchange with other poets in this group-- this links up with my fascistic ideology that poetry is a spoken art (see below). Plus it might be fun. If you beat me to it, bully for you!
RULES
1) POST AND CRITIQUE Post a link to ONE poem you wrote, here, per month/session/journal, and then read & critique the poems other people post here. Don't critique unless you post. Don't post unless you critique.
2) DON'T BE SENSITIVE Don't post if you don't want people to really criticize your poetry. The point of this is to get feedback and improve. Empty adulation does you no good. It's okay to explain yourself to a critic and/or say why you don't agree with them, but don't get all defensive-- critique is somebody spending their time to help you improve.
3) ON CRITIQUE Try and help other poets see what does and doesn't work clearly. Don't try and balance positive with negative, just say whatever you think will be helpful. If it's all bad, or all good, say so. But please, explain WHY. And don't argue with other critics in people's submissions. We can have bigger discussions of poetry here in the journal.
4) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS Stick to talking about poems, NOT the people who wrote them. If you see a pattern in the mistakes somebody makes, that's fine too. But we're not here to insult each other any more than we're here to pat each other's backs.
5) WHAT POETRY? Try not to bring too much po-mo attitude. Poetry is something specific: it's a spoken art, in which speech is given some sort of rythm (meter, rhyme, repetition), so that it becomes hypnotic and memorable. Usually it's also evocative, emotionally complex, and/or otherwise meaingful, or at least escapes being boring and trite somehow. Also, I'd prefer you submit things that aren't X-rated. I write X-rated poetry myself, but I think I'd rather include folks who aren't looking at adult stuff if possible.
6) ALSO POST: useful links, news, or your own opinions about poetry. Try and keep it to one post per session, maybe.
A critique circle-- we read and critique each other's poetry.
NEWS
I decided to get started a little early. Maybe we can do this in a three-week format.
Two things to link to off the bat:
I've not looked at it closely, but this:
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/writersblock
... may better suit some or all of us in the long run. Feel free to post thoughts about it here.
Also, DTail has submitted to last month's journal, so if they don't promptly repost here:
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/607886/
I'm seriously thinking about audio recording some of my own poems, or maybe doing reading-exchange with other poets in this group-- this links up with my fascistic ideology that poetry is a spoken art (see below). Plus it might be fun. If you beat me to it, bully for you!
RULES
1) POST AND CRITIQUE Post a link to ONE poem you wrote, here, per month/session/journal, and then read & critique the poems other people post here. Don't critique unless you post. Don't post unless you critique.
2) DON'T BE SENSITIVE Don't post if you don't want people to really criticize your poetry. The point of this is to get feedback and improve. Empty adulation does you no good. It's okay to explain yourself to a critic and/or say why you don't agree with them, but don't get all defensive-- critique is somebody spending their time to help you improve.
3) ON CRITIQUE Try and help other poets see what does and doesn't work clearly. Don't try and balance positive with negative, just say whatever you think will be helpful. If it's all bad, or all good, say so. But please, explain WHY. And don't argue with other critics in people's submissions. We can have bigger discussions of poetry here in the journal.
4) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS Stick to talking about poems, NOT the people who wrote them. If you see a pattern in the mistakes somebody makes, that's fine too. But we're not here to insult each other any more than we're here to pat each other's backs.
5) WHAT POETRY? Try not to bring too much po-mo attitude. Poetry is something specific: it's a spoken art, in which speech is given some sort of rythm (meter, rhyme, repetition), so that it becomes hypnotic and memorable. Usually it's also evocative, emotionally complex, and/or otherwise meaingful, or at least escapes being boring and trite somehow. Also, I'd prefer you submit things that aren't X-rated. I write X-rated poetry myself, but I think I'd rather include folks who aren't looking at adult stuff if possible.
6) ALSO POST: useful links, news, or your own opinions about poetry. Try and keep it to one post per session, maybe.
About Unwatching Vera
Posted 16 years agoRecently I was one of one or two people who unwatched Vera here on FA after she posted some child porn she created. She wrote a journal regarding this, and describes herself as somebody who's open-minded and willing to discuss things head-on. She advised specifically that she wanted to hear people's objections. As the journal where she asked that has scrolled, I'll post it to mine, and note her.
I appreciate her openmindedness, which in moderation is the foundation of knowing right from wrong.
Vera made some unreasonable assumptions about the people who unwatched her, at least as far as I go:
>>I respect your decision but at the same time I feel relief that there are fewer people watching me who have the belief that an artist can be judged based on one image, who choose to show they no longer support me based on something that they would never have to view beyond a thumbnail warning.
I didn't unwatch Vera because her child porn hurt my retinas so badly that I suddenly decided she was a lousy artist. (On the contrary, as usual it was nicely executed.) I unwatched her because I see serious ethical issues with creating and spreading child porn. Whether many or just "one image."
>>Fantasy and reality are two separate things. If someone draws gore, vore, rape, pedo, beast or what-have-you, that does not make them a twisted psychopathic murdering raping pedophile. It makes them a person who has the mental capacity to separate reality from fantasy. I can't help but feel sorry for those who don't have this ability; to me they are more at risk of doing something terrible than those of us who can confidently separate the two in their mind enough to comfortably draw images depicting these acts.
I routinely write transgressive lit (as some of you will know), in subject areas generally considered more 'disgusting' than Vera's pedophilic (or any other) work. So it's not that I disagree with her, it's that she misses the mark.
In the first place, porn is not fantasy. It is real: it exists objectively as a page in your sketchbook that you may or may not choose to photocopy or scan, as a centerfold in a skin mag, or as a file on a server.
Porn of any kind has a real effect that has nothing to do with anybody's sanity or intelligence. Sexualized depcitions of X make people more accepting of actually getting involved with X. This is both supported by controlled research and is plainly evident in modern advertising, where X = buying and owning certain products. Proven fact: sexing up something is a great way to get people to do it more.
It's for that reason that I object (not to having to look at, but) to the creation and distribution of sexualized images involving children, animals, rape, snuff, and similar abuses where real differences of power exist. Because those things are fundamentally unethical no matter how you slice it, doing something you know increases the frequency with which they happen is unethical.
I'm sorry if you take it personally Vera, that I've unwatched you, but who am I to you, after all? Aside from an admirer and well-meaning but disappointed critic whom you can certainly block more easily than your own conscience?
It's reasonable to be personally offended if you think somebody is convinced you yourself are some kind of abuser. I've not said or implied any such thing about Vera, and would readily apologise if I thought I'd been misunderstood to that effect.
At the same time, Vera should forget about what I think about her personally, and reassess the impact creating and distributing child porn has.
I appreciate her openmindedness, which in moderation is the foundation of knowing right from wrong.
Vera made some unreasonable assumptions about the people who unwatched her, at least as far as I go:
>>I respect your decision but at the same time I feel relief that there are fewer people watching me who have the belief that an artist can be judged based on one image, who choose to show they no longer support me based on something that they would never have to view beyond a thumbnail warning.
I didn't unwatch Vera because her child porn hurt my retinas so badly that I suddenly decided she was a lousy artist. (On the contrary, as usual it was nicely executed.) I unwatched her because I see serious ethical issues with creating and spreading child porn. Whether many or just "one image."
>>Fantasy and reality are two separate things. If someone draws gore, vore, rape, pedo, beast or what-have-you, that does not make them a twisted psychopathic murdering raping pedophile. It makes them a person who has the mental capacity to separate reality from fantasy. I can't help but feel sorry for those who don't have this ability; to me they are more at risk of doing something terrible than those of us who can confidently separate the two in their mind enough to comfortably draw images depicting these acts.
I routinely write transgressive lit (as some of you will know), in subject areas generally considered more 'disgusting' than Vera's pedophilic (or any other) work. So it's not that I disagree with her, it's that she misses the mark.
In the first place, porn is not fantasy. It is real: it exists objectively as a page in your sketchbook that you may or may not choose to photocopy or scan, as a centerfold in a skin mag, or as a file on a server.
Porn of any kind has a real effect that has nothing to do with anybody's sanity or intelligence. Sexualized depcitions of X make people more accepting of actually getting involved with X. This is both supported by controlled research and is plainly evident in modern advertising, where X = buying and owning certain products. Proven fact: sexing up something is a great way to get people to do it more.
It's for that reason that I object (not to having to look at, but) to the creation and distribution of sexualized images involving children, animals, rape, snuff, and similar abuses where real differences of power exist. Because those things are fundamentally unethical no matter how you slice it, doing something you know increases the frequency with which they happen is unethical.
I'm sorry if you take it personally Vera, that I've unwatched you, but who am I to you, after all? Aside from an admirer and well-meaning but disappointed critic whom you can certainly block more easily than your own conscience?
It's reasonable to be personally offended if you think somebody is convinced you yourself are some kind of abuser. I've not said or implied any such thing about Vera, and would readily apologise if I thought I'd been misunderstood to that effect.
At the same time, Vera should forget about what I think about her personally, and reassess the impact creating and distributing child porn has.
Borges' Vision
Posted 16 years agoMy dude, the rockstar, J. L. Borges, once wrote a story (or was it?) about an encyclopedia article describing one aspect of a seperate world, Orbis Tertius, which (or was it?) was merely a conspiracy among a circle of intellectuals to completely invent (and so create?) a world, Tlon.
All furries: please stop, read Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, and then get back to work. Imagination has consequences, and we are part of a conspiracy.
All furries: please stop, read Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, and then get back to work. Imagination has consequences, and we are part of a conspiracy.
Tagging
Posted 16 years agoHey folks.
So, keyword tagging and search is here. I'm thrilled!
What are your thoughts on the use thereof? Any keywords that you especially are interested in? Is there some intelligent discussion going on of standards somewhere that you can link to?
So, keyword tagging and search is here. I'm thrilled!
What are your thoughts on the use thereof? Any keywords that you especially are interested in? Is there some intelligent discussion going on of standards somewhere that you can link to?
Hey, Poets; Critique Circle February
Posted 16 years agoIf you're a poet or wanna-be poet watching me, let me suggest something:
You should post a link to one poem here, of your own, per month. If you have or plan to post a link to your own work, you should feel obliged to read other poems posted here.
RULES
1) DON'T BE SENSITIVE Don't post if you don't want people to talk about the flaws and weaknesses in your poem. The point of this is to get feedback and improve. Arbitrary pats on the back are not feedback, and do you no good as a developing poet. It's okay to explain yourself to a critic and/or say why you don't agree with them, but don't get all defensive-- critique is somebody spending their time to help you improve.
2) LINK TO YOUR OWN WORK. Don't follow links here and critique other people's work if you don't plan to post anything of your own. If I spot you doing that, I'm likely to point out that you're kinda chickenshit.
3) KIND OF CRITIQUE There's no obligation to either say anything positive, OR say anything negative-- but if you can give somebody your thoughts, you should. You should try to point out all the strengths and things you like, and weaknesses and things you dislike, as your time permits. Also, critiquing other people's work does NOT mean arguing with other critics, although we can certainly argue philosophy of poetry here too.
4) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS Stick to talking about poems, NOT the people who wrote them. Whether somebody's stupid or smelly is irrelevant. Some bright and debonair people write awful poetry, some stupid stinky people write great poetry.
5) KIND OF POEMS Be aware that some kinds of things simply aren't poetry. A basic test is whether it is understandable, interesting, hypnotic, and memorable language when spoken aloud. This usually means Prosody proper. (You can learn everything you need to know on Wikipedia.) Naturally it helps if the subject of the poem isn't boring or trite, but that's a subtler thing. Also, I'd prefer you submit things that aren't X-rated. I write X-rated poetry myself, but I think I'd rather have wider participation.
You should post a link to one poem here, of your own, per month. If you have or plan to post a link to your own work, you should feel obliged to read other poems posted here.
RULES
1) DON'T BE SENSITIVE Don't post if you don't want people to talk about the flaws and weaknesses in your poem. The point of this is to get feedback and improve. Arbitrary pats on the back are not feedback, and do you no good as a developing poet. It's okay to explain yourself to a critic and/or say why you don't agree with them, but don't get all defensive-- critique is somebody spending their time to help you improve.
2) LINK TO YOUR OWN WORK. Don't follow links here and critique other people's work if you don't plan to post anything of your own. If I spot you doing that, I'm likely to point out that you're kinda chickenshit.
3) KIND OF CRITIQUE There's no obligation to either say anything positive, OR say anything negative-- but if you can give somebody your thoughts, you should. You should try to point out all the strengths and things you like, and weaknesses and things you dislike, as your time permits. Also, critiquing other people's work does NOT mean arguing with other critics, although we can certainly argue philosophy of poetry here too.
4) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS Stick to talking about poems, NOT the people who wrote them. Whether somebody's stupid or smelly is irrelevant. Some bright and debonair people write awful poetry, some stupid stinky people write great poetry.
5) KIND OF POEMS Be aware that some kinds of things simply aren't poetry. A basic test is whether it is understandable, interesting, hypnotic, and memorable language when spoken aloud. This usually means Prosody proper. (You can learn everything you need to know on Wikipedia.) Naturally it helps if the subject of the poem isn't boring or trite, but that's a subtler thing. Also, I'd prefer you submit things that aren't X-rated. I write X-rated poetry myself, but I think I'd rather have wider participation.
Welcome back.
Posted 16 years agoWelcome back, U.S. Welcome back, American Dream. We never mistook you for house ownership or greed. You are civil secular society, the rule of law, government of, by, and for the people, and the security of basic human rights.
I loved you before I knew you, and missed you while you were gone even though I didn't suffer more than anyone else from your absence.
I loved you before I knew you, and missed you while you were gone even though I didn't suffer more than anyone else from your absence.
