![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
truepennyI'm closing the polls on this round of Q&A. Fear not! I shall do another, probably sometime after Corambis comes out.
A reminder: if you do not have a LiveJournal account, please sign your comments. I like to know who I'm talking to.
Not a Q, but I'm saying it anyway because, well, because dammit.
If your religious beliefs lead you to conclude that marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex/gender is wrong, then that is a reason to refuse to preside as a minister at their wedding. Or to refuse to attend their wedding should you be invited. It is not a reason to write/campaign for/vote for/pass legislation on the subject. Getting married is not a democratic process. We should not be able to vote on whether somebody else's marriage is real or not. Proposition 8 and all its kind make a travesty of marriage, and as a woman who has been married for ten years to a man whom I love deeply, I object with all the strength I have.
I'll say it again: people who love each other choosing to get married is not a threat. It is not an insult. It is not a desecration. It is an act of love. Trying, through and because of hatred and fear, to prevent people who love each other from having that choice? Threat. Insult. Desecration.
And now on with the show.
Q: This question actually came up in a blog I was reading about the books and after having finished the first 2, I think it is a good one. In the story that Mildmay tells in the prologue about the Obligation D'ame, he describes it as a mutual binding. That in exchange for giving up personal rights, the annemer gains the protection of the wizard from all things other then the wizard. Now in the relationship between Felix and Mildmay, the bond seems to be one sided. It did not seem that Felix had any problems bond-wise exposing Mildmay to danger from both Vey and Malkar. Nor did he seem to have a problem or sense anything bond-wise, after Mildmay had been captured. He honestly did not seem to be that distressed until after Malkar sent him that dream. So is the obligation on the wizards side more a matter of social obligation then compulsion as it is on the side of the annemer? It doesn't seem like a bargain Mildmay would have made if so. I don't think he would expect Felix to protect him out of love or anything. I mean, if he had, there would be no reason for him even to consider the binding of forms. Are just missing how it works? Thanks!
A: No, I'm sorry. Wizards are nastier than you think. The binding-by-forms operates primarily on the esclavin, the annemer; it has some effect on the obligataire, the wizard, but not very much. If you read the story of Porphyria Levant and Silas Altamont again, you'll notice that Levant is utterly unaffected by Altamont's distress. That's how the thing works.
Q: Have completed Melusine and am half way through Virtu. I have a question about the brothers and their mother. Why didn't Felix say anything to Mildmay regarding Methony and her family? Wouldn't Mildmay have been as interested as Felix? Also, why did the Troians only acknowledge Felix as her son and not Mildmay? I know they didn't like him at first but after Felix cleared up the misunderstandings.
A: 1. How do you know Felix didn't tell Mildmay? It's not particularly important or meaningful to him, so there's no reason he wouldn't. (And, yes, I am well aware of what that sentence says about the psychology of my protagonist.)
2. Because the Troians are class-conscious snobs with an ingrained cultural horror of murder as a commercial transaction.
Q: This is a silly question but why did you give Midmay a scar? I am curious. Wasit just a random thought...oh lets create this character with a a scar down his face? :)
A: I needed to distinguish him as sharply as possible from Felix, who trades shamelessly on his beauty, while preserving the strong likeness between them so that they would be recognizable instantly as brothers when they finally met.
And finally, a bunch of questions about A Companion to Wolves, which I have also prevailed upon the lovely, talented, and recently tattooed![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
matociquala to answer.
1. How did you come up with the idea of the story?
Bear: We started writing it on a lark, more or less, as a critique of wish-fulfillment companion animal fantasies we have known, and it kind of took on a life of its own.
Monette: We were talking about some of the unexamined assumptions of companion animal fantasy, and said, "Wouldn't it be fun to write a story that stared those assumptions in the face?"
2. Was the sexual aspect of it always intended to be a important theme in the story?
Bear: The sexual aspect is more a tool than a theme, I think: we're using it both to point out some of the ways that standard fantasy often makes things a little too pretty, and also to play with perceptions of gender roles a little.
Monette: Yes. It's our lever for prying companion animal fantasy apart.
3. How does a collaboration for a book work? I just imagine it to be tremendously difficult, especially if you are not living near each other. I can imagine working on the idea and the storyline together, but I don't know how the actual writing part works.
Bear: It's actually obscenely easy. Every time I get to a bit I don't feel like writing, I email the file to Sarah and she does the dirty work. *g*
Monette: We bounce it back and forth. And go over each other's writing, and rewrite and shape and polish, until there are long stretches of it where I, at least, have no idea who originally wrote it.
4. Who is your favourite character in the book (man and wolf separately)?
Bear: I like Vigdis and Hrolleif best, with Skjaldwulf as runner up.
Monette: Frithulf and Vigdis.
(N.b., we answered these separately, and I didn't look at Bear's answers until after I'd written my own. So, in fact, we independently both like Vigdis best. Which I think is both funny and neat.)
5. What were your favourite scenes (if they exist)?
Bear: Anything with Tin.
Monette: Honestly, this book is made of scenes I love.
6. What scene/character was the most fun/difficult to write?
Bear: Anything with Tin.
Monette: I loved both sequences of Isolfr in the svartalfar's realm. On the other hand, the sex scenes were uniformly tricky bastards to write.
7. Are there plans for a continuation of the book?
Bear: No immediate ones. But maybe someday.
Monette: If and only if we both feel like we would enjoy it.
Thanks to everyone who asked questions. You all made this a lot of fun.
A reminder: if you do not have a LiveJournal account, please sign your comments. I like to know who I'm talking to.
Not a Q, but I'm saying it anyway because, well, because dammit.
If your religious beliefs lead you to conclude that marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex/gender is wrong, then that is a reason to refuse to preside as a minister at their wedding. Or to refuse to attend their wedding should you be invited. It is not a reason to write/campaign for/vote for/pass legislation on the subject. Getting married is not a democratic process. We should not be able to vote on whether somebody else's marriage is real or not. Proposition 8 and all its kind make a travesty of marriage, and as a woman who has been married for ten years to a man whom I love deeply, I object with all the strength I have.
I'll say it again: people who love each other choosing to get married is not a threat. It is not an insult. It is not a desecration. It is an act of love. Trying, through and because of hatred and fear, to prevent people who love each other from having that choice? Threat. Insult. Desecration.
And now on with the show.
Q: This question actually came up in a blog I was reading about the books and after having finished the first 2, I think it is a good one. In the story that Mildmay tells in the prologue about the Obligation D'ame, he describes it as a mutual binding. That in exchange for giving up personal rights, the annemer gains the protection of the wizard from all things other then the wizard. Now in the relationship between Felix and Mildmay, the bond seems to be one sided. It did not seem that Felix had any problems bond-wise exposing Mildmay to danger from both Vey and Malkar. Nor did he seem to have a problem or sense anything bond-wise, after Mildmay had been captured. He honestly did not seem to be that distressed until after Malkar sent him that dream. So is the obligation on the wizards side more a matter of social obligation then compulsion as it is on the side of the annemer? It doesn't seem like a bargain Mildmay would have made if so. I don't think he would expect Felix to protect him out of love or anything. I mean, if he had, there would be no reason for him even to consider the binding of forms. Are just missing how it works? Thanks!
A: No, I'm sorry. Wizards are nastier than you think. The binding-by-forms operates primarily on the esclavin, the annemer; it has some effect on the obligataire, the wizard, but not very much. If you read the story of Porphyria Levant and Silas Altamont again, you'll notice that Levant is utterly unaffected by Altamont's distress. That's how the thing works.
Q: Have completed Melusine and am half way through Virtu. I have a question about the brothers and their mother. Why didn't Felix say anything to Mildmay regarding Methony and her family? Wouldn't Mildmay have been as interested as Felix? Also, why did the Troians only acknowledge Felix as her son and not Mildmay? I know they didn't like him at first but after Felix cleared up the misunderstandings.
A: 1. How do you know Felix didn't tell Mildmay? It's not particularly important or meaningful to him, so there's no reason he wouldn't. (And, yes, I am well aware of what that sentence says about the psychology of my protagonist.)
2. Because the Troians are class-conscious snobs with an ingrained cultural horror of murder as a commercial transaction.
Q: This is a silly question but why did you give Midmay a scar? I am curious. Wasit just a random thought...oh lets create this character with a a scar down his face? :)
A: I needed to distinguish him as sharply as possible from Felix, who trades shamelessly on his beauty, while preserving the strong likeness between them so that they would be recognizable instantly as brothers when they finally met.
And finally, a bunch of questions about A Companion to Wolves, which I have also prevailed upon the lovely, talented, and recently tattooed
matociquala to answer.1. How did you come up with the idea of the story?
Bear: We started writing it on a lark, more or less, as a critique of wish-fulfillment companion animal fantasies we have known, and it kind of took on a life of its own.
Monette: We were talking about some of the unexamined assumptions of companion animal fantasy, and said, "Wouldn't it be fun to write a story that stared those assumptions in the face?"
2. Was the sexual aspect of it always intended to be a important theme in the story?
Bear: The sexual aspect is more a tool than a theme, I think: we're using it both to point out some of the ways that standard fantasy often makes things a little too pretty, and also to play with perceptions of gender roles a little.
Monette: Yes. It's our lever for prying companion animal fantasy apart.
3. How does a collaboration for a book work? I just imagine it to be tremendously difficult, especially if you are not living near each other. I can imagine working on the idea and the storyline together, but I don't know how the actual writing part works.
Bear: It's actually obscenely easy. Every time I get to a bit I don't feel like writing, I email the file to Sarah and she does the dirty work. *g*
Monette: We bounce it back and forth. And go over each other's writing, and rewrite and shape and polish, until there are long stretches of it where I, at least, have no idea who originally wrote it.
4. Who is your favourite character in the book (man and wolf separately)?
Bear: I like Vigdis and Hrolleif best, with Skjaldwulf as runner up.
Monette: Frithulf and Vigdis.
(N.b., we answered these separately, and I didn't look at Bear's answers until after I'd written my own. So, in fact, we independently both like Vigdis best. Which I think is both funny and neat.)
5. What were your favourite scenes (if they exist)?
Bear: Anything with Tin.
Monette: Honestly, this book is made of scenes I love.
6. What scene/character was the most fun/difficult to write?
Bear: Anything with Tin.
Monette: I loved both sequences of Isolfr in the svartalfar's realm. On the other hand, the sex scenes were uniformly tricky bastards to write.
7. Are there plans for a continuation of the book?
Bear: No immediate ones. But maybe someday.
Monette: If and only if we both feel like we would enjoy it.
Thanks to everyone who asked questions. You all made this a lot of fun.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 07:17 pm (UTC)The Prop 8 passage really upset me. There is no reasonable argument against legal gay marriages. It is simply a case of bigotry. It's no different than the laws that used to exist banning interracial marriages.
This is not the end. The LGBT community and its allies have a new Stonewall. We will rally and defeat this intolerance.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 09:48 pm (UTC)Q&As are always nifty. Thanks for sharing.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 10:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 11:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 02:07 am (UTC)I have read all three Doctrine of Labyrinths books, and A Companion to Wolves and loved all of them.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 02:25 am (UTC)(Thank you!)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 01:29 pm (UTC)Actually, that reminds me of something I've been wondering about the end of The Mirador - they can't execute Mildmay because of the binding-by-forms, and yet at Felix's trial they can't execute him for heresey because of the effect it will have on Mildmay. It seems like a perfect "two birds with one stone" situation (they can execute them both at the same time) and I was wondering why they didn't take it. Because it's legally a grey area? Ot because Mildmay's gone some way towards restitution with his actions at the end of the book?
no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 04:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 05:31 pm (UTC)I'll say it again: people who love each other choosing to get married is not a threat. It is not an insult. It is not a desecration. It is an act of love. Trying, through and because of hatred and fear, to prevent people who love each other from having that choice? Threat. Insult. Desecration."
QFT
*applauds*
Never has a proposition angered me more
no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 06:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-09 03:58 am (UTC)