« Poppy Z. Brite is Dead... Save DANNY Now! | HomePage | Think I'll Go Eat Worms »
Monday, 15 May 2006
Are You Weird, Strange or a Sorry Sad Fuck?
Please click to view Poison Pixie's fantastic new Saul Bass trailer for DANNY VOLUME II (Takes approx 4 minutes to download)
Great stuff on the pop quiz. Thanks to all of you who have contributed. I notice, however, that we're still missing Terminal Beach and that Blake has not fully committed herself. So….. to give them time to weigh in with their half pence worth, if they so desire, I shall hold comment for a day or two longer in case they have anything (further) to say.
But very interesting to note question 2 got the most consistent answer - that none of you thought DANNY was especially weird. Now, I hate to say this, but fucking your brother is fairly weird, and sticking a needle in your penis or burning said brother with a hot coal then having fun pulling off the scab is definitely weird. I could leap to the conclusion that you are a bunch of sick fucks but I suspect that what I'm seeing here is a linguistic problem. I'm guessing this is the same thing that's happened to psychopath and many other words. Weird has taken on a specific connotation, not necessarily true to its original meaning. So… I'd like you all to chip in and tell me what weird means to you. In words of as many or as few syllables as you like. To make this especially easy here's a simple question - Is weird a talking dog marrying a purple goldfish and running for president? Yes or no?
Lastly, we realised afterwards that there were two important recurring comments missing from the original list so I'd appreciate if you could tell me whether you agree or disagree with these two and how strongly you feel about them.
Be back shortly with the all new, all singing DANNY fan profile – are you one?
9. "If all four books are like this it must be the world's biggest mystery story. Most of the time I didn't have a clue what was going on, or who to believe. For a change the plot 'twists' didn't feel like twists – I got the biggest kick out of it."
10. "I read a couple of times on your publicity that it was addictive. Understatement. I'm still not sure exactly why or how but I literally couldn't put the damn thing down. When I caught myself propping it up on the recipe stand while I was cooking I knew it had to stop."
Not yet read DANNY? Find out what all the fuss is about at www.poisonpixie.com or check it out on Amazon here Or rub shoulders with DANNY's rich and famous readers at Chancery Fans
There is also an independent Live Journal DANNY Discussion Board run by fans, C Stone's DANNY. As this is new there isn't much on it yet. However, if you would like to talk about the book Jill & Jodie are experts, so please go along and say hello. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
22:58 Posted in Books | Permalink | Email this
Comments
To answer the questions
10) yes definately, v.v addictive-up to the point of reading snippits between programmes on tele in the commercial breaks and slipping in a couple of pages before going to work. (If my sister, Jodie, is honest when she answers, she got to the point of carrying a copy round with her, obsessiveness obviously runs in the family).
9) Yes agree.
In response to the weird comment-for me it wasn't really a linguistic problem-taking weird at the dictonary meaning, i.e. strange, I can see how some people may see it as wierd but its a matter of opinion and in my opinion its not wierd/wrong-this does make me sound a bit sick-i'll try to explain more-I think the love/obsession/devotion between them over rules their behaviour and makes it acceptable and even necessary-the violence between them is more sexual or to do with love and every act so to speak is a hidden bout of affection.
So in my theory and in answer to the question yes its ok for the dog to marry the goldfish as long as he is completely and utterly obssessed/loves it!!!
I'll leave it there not sure if i'm making much sense.
Posted by: Jill | Tuesday, 16 May 2006
"yes its ok for the dog to marry the goldfish as long as he is completely and utterly obssessed/loves it!!!"
I just laughed till I was sick - thank you for that.
Posted by: chancery stone | Tuesday, 16 May 2006
To me weird means two things, strange and different, as I have said the book and its content is different to most books, its original and more interesting because of it. I suppose the story is weird in the taboo-ness (I know that’s not a word) and the sick things that they do, but each to their own, I think weird is subjective and it’s clearly not weird for them. I agree with my sister above, all their weird behavior (the burning, cutting) came from that fact that they loved each other so intensely and the fact that their upbringing stunted them in showing that in the usual ways so it showed itself in ways that other people don’t have to use. I don’t believe it to be weird in this sense as I get so involved in the obsessive feelings the characters have that I can excuse and explain away every bad thing that they do to each other as the only way they know to be.
9: Agree, I loved the mystery in the book.
10: Can I firstly say thanks to my sister for making me sound like an obsessive freak, I think I’m doing alright showing that for myself. But she speaks the truth, it is never far from me while I am reading, re-reading it, I still find it an obsessive read as the more you read it the more you discover.
Posted by: Jodie | Tuesday, 16 May 2006
Hey, don't knock your sister - if I had my way I'd clone you and have factories churning out a hundred Jodies an hour. Trust me, there can never be too many Jodies annd you could never be too obsessive for my tastes. What we need are more like you, not less... so go out there and evangelise and bring your kindred spirits back here.
Posted by: chancery stone | Tuesday, 16 May 2006
Sigh, I just typed a novel-length response and deleted the entire thing accidentally. I am very disheartened but will try again...
Here are my responses. You won't like some of them but so be it:
1) For me, there were too many sex scenes. Not that they went too far, because I didn't feel that they did, but they became same-y after a bit. Lost their impact. I think the reader can be given the idea that the sexual violence is escalating with a series of increasingly more disturbing passages, after which the explicit (longwinded) scenes can be disbursed among those that offer only the suggestion of what is about to happen without actual showing a lengthy, blow-by-blow account (pun intended). If the book had been shorter, then detailing the sexual abuse EVERY time wouldn't have been a problem but 1,000 pages of it became wearing (this is only my opinion, remember). Books like TOPPING FROM BELOW by Laura Reese or those crappy Anne Rice/AN Roquelaire SLEEPING BEAUTY erotica novels are chock full of nearly constant sex and they take humiliation to disturbing levels, but they're fairly short compared to DANNY (250-300 pages) so the reader doesn't have the luxury of becoming inured to the sex/violence/degradation. As a matter of fact, I found them so horrific that it was nearly impossible for me to finish them (possibly because the degradation was being perpetrated on female characters. If the characters had been men, I most likely would not have been in the least squeamish about it.) But this is a stylistic/aesthetic difference of opinion and doesn't negate my feeling that the depictions of sex were hot and generally enjoyable.
2) Weirdness. I think people's responses were predicated on the fact that this is a work of fiction and not real life. I mean, if I lived next door to the Jackson-Moores, "weird" would probably top my list of adjectives to describe them (even without knowing exactly what was going on behind those closed doors), but as fictional characters they were operating in a world of your making in which readers willingly suspended their disbelief upon entering. If you want weird, check out the surreal horror novels of Erik McCormack or GEEK LOVE by Katherine Dunn. Although I've not read them, I'll wager Hunter S. Thompson's books might qualify as weird as well. To me, for a book to seem weird, it must have an unbalanced surrealistic quality. But that's just me.
3) I enjoyed the dialogue. Very Elmore Leonard to tell a story almost entirely through dialogue. I was, however, among the people who had a bit of trouble following long, uncredited conversations between two people but that is something that can easily be remedied, if you are so inclined.
4) Make the sequels more outrageous. Outrageous is good.
5) Length. I've already weighed in. Although I still feel that you risk alienating certain buyers due to DANNY's massive size and length (pun intended), not to mention the prohibitive cost.
6) I may be alone in this, but I didn't feel that the story was only about John and Danny. I honestly didn't necessarily even feel like it was primarily about those two alone. There was family dynamic at work that would not have been the same without all four boys - Ian, Rab, Danny and John. I didn't feel as if Ian and Rab were secondary. And of course, as you know, Conley was my favourite character. I thought, of all of them, he was the most well-drawn and distinctive - the clothes, the car, the mina bird, the fear of being touched (although I felt you resolved this matter a bit too quickly). As for the others - Stephen and his mother, the Hendersons - you can have 'em. I had no interest. Not that they weren't well-written, they just distracted from the main focus of the book. And the Hendersons were all just plain creepy. I know that was what you intended; perhaps you were just a bit too successful there.
7) I have no idea what this question was.
8) I do not see incest or sexual relations as a natural extension of male bonding. Although, that said, I think it's ironic that men perpetuate the myth that women would be more likely than men to experiment with homosexual relations. I think it's the complete opposite. I never had group masturbation sessions with girls when I was in grade school (and I've never met a woman who did) but circle jerks are quite common for boys. Boys/men are so highly sexed that they will take it wherever they can get it, while girls/women tend to be more discriminating and patient. Still, I don't think that incest or sex is a natural progression of male affection. It's just one thing, not THE thing, if you get my meaning.
There are my answers. Take what you can use and leave the rest behind, as they say in AA. Also, if you have a US distributor this time out, I think THAT will make a world of a difference in your sales stats. Truly.
Posted by: blake | Tuesday, 16 May 2006
PS - People may have construed the question of weirdness as being applicable to the BOOK itself, as opposed to referring the behaviour of its characters.
The book - not particularly weird (for examples of truly weird books, see above). The Jackson Moores - pretty darned weird.
Posted by: blake | Tuesday, 16 May 2006
Is Danny weird?
I agree with Blake on this one - I wasn't coming at it from a real life perspective. If I knew Danny, yeah, sure, he's pretty weird. As are the rest of them. So are the Hendersons. So is Conley. They're all fucking weird.
As fiction, Danny isn't the kind of weird that implies. It's original in its own way, but it's not unusual. Brother incest, twincest even, is easily found in books, movies, porn...so, I don't find it weird to be something to write about or want to read or even get turned on by. Sado-masochism is fairly common also, so again I don't find it weird. But, if I had to step back and think about the Jackson-Moores as a real family then, sure, they're pretty weird.
9) I did not get a kick out of not knowing what the hell was going on. It was frustrating. After I finished the novel I could only fixate on the negative impact that had on me, instead of really looking forward to the next volume. Whilst mystery is great and cliffhangers are awesome, having question upon question can drive the conversation crazy. It looks to me like the author doesn't know either. That's not to say that the author doesn't know, it's just the impression I get when things seem so random.
10) It's completely addictive. I read it ridiculously quickly considering the size. I have to admit, I skipped work to read it. I had a cold, could definitely have managed to get myself to the office, but remember thinking 'nah, I'll stay home and read Danny'. I did that two days and read straight through.
Posted by: claireyfairy1 | Tuesday, 16 May 2006
I have a different perspective of it, I guess.
When a person or a character is weird to me, it is because I don't really know or cannot sympathize with what their motivations could be. I can see a movie and think, damn, that dude is so weird. I don't get him. He lives with a plant, drinks milk like he's on a lactose high and kills people. After a while, though, I see where his peculiarities stem from, I am able to understand and sympathize with him, I am able to see the commonality between us, and because I don't consider myself weird at all I don't see him as weird either.
If I had held out some distance and not been able to understand the characters or what drove them, if I had never lived with or been around people who shared their traits to some extent, perhaps I would have said, yes, those dudes are weird. Now I can only say that, like the rest of humanity, they are nicely fucked up.
Also, your readers might be a little more-- umm-- let's say "open" (?) to miscreant, abnormal and outrageous behavior from their fictional characters. Those who read yaoi won't think it weird at all. They expect weird, and when weird becomes the norm...
Or perhaps, I'm just a sick fuck, but somehow being called a sick fuck by you won't sound like an insult at all, 'cause...ditto?
Posted by: c.r. | Wednesday, 17 May 2006
9. I like poetry, so I'm ok with not knowing everything, as long as I understand that it's in there somewhere for me to dig up later as my experience grows and it's not just a reflection of bad plot.
10. Umm, I would say that is an understatement. Here I am giving you advice on how to sell your book when I know shit about it, in the hopes that it will accelerate the publishing of the other volumes.
If that's not a testament to your book's pernicious and addictive nature, I don't know what is.
Are people here sneezing, left and right?
I know I haven't, but maybe there are those who have.
I doubt sneezing, though, is that effective, but maybe I'm being naive.
Also, are you still on the editing? Not whipping you, or anything, I'm just curious. And kind of whipping.
Posted by: c.r. | Wednesday, 17 May 2006