Recent Reading: Little Fuzzy and kin

So, here I am in Springfield IL. I was rather hoping that all the other girls entered at the show this weekend would be of, shall we say, lesser quality, thus allowing my Kenya to cruise to another major win. Alas, all of the girls entered in the Open class with her are in fact very nice. Someone else got the major today. There’s still tomorrow, but it’s impossible to guess how it will go when the animals are all about equally good. Crossing my fingers!

And reading LITTLE FUZZY. The original, I mean, by H Beam Piper. Anybody else ever read that? I see it was copyrighted way back in 1962. Wow. Honestly, I hadn’t realized it was written quite that long ago.

LITTLE FUZZY and FUZZY SAPIENS form a duology that today would just have been published as one (medium-long) book. They’re both quite short. I think they hold up to the passage of time quite well. You know how the plot goes, right? A miner with a heart of gold (Jack Halloway) discovers, or is discovered by, an extraordinarily cute alien species, like hokas only envisioned by Michael Whelan and thus superior. The mining company wants to declare the Fuzzies nonsapient so it can retain rights to the world, Jack and his friends want to protect the Fuzzies and make sure they retain rights to their own world, and stuff ensues, in the course of which we find out — surely you don’t mind a spoiler for a book that’s been out for fifty years? — that the Fuzzies aren’t actually native to that world, either. Their ancestors crashed ages ago and, since they’re not actually well-suited to the world, they’ve had a pretty tough time since and are now actually dying out.

Naturally everything works out very nicely.

Now, it’s hard for me to judge these books. I’ve read them before, multiple times, so I’m pretty familiar with them, obviously. I’ve just been re-reading LITTLE FUZZY and I’m finding it a little boring but still charming. The characters are fairly flat — I don’t think I thought so when I was a kid — really the only character with more than one dimension is the head of the Company, Grego, who starts off as a bad guy and then changes into a good guy. The Fuzzies are cuteness personified and treating them as pets is okay because they don’t mind. I’m exaggerating, but not massively. There’s a bit at the end that serves as an epilogue and you can see that the Fuzzies attain Real Person status eventually.

Now, the reason I got these books back off the shelf is that I just read FUZZY NATION, which is, as you may know, John Scalzi’s re-telling of the Fuzzy story. I don’t have any idea what led to the notion that, hey, wouldn’t it be great to get Scalzi to re-tell this classic Piper story, but I avoided Scalzi’s book for a while because I liked the original just fine. But then there the Scalzi book was at Archon, so I picked it up after all.


I have to admit that Scalzi did a good job. Jack Halloway gained immensely in depth. His heart of gold? Not nearly as evident. At first I really disliked him, but okay, all right, yes, he worked out just fine as the protagonist. The secondary characters were okay. The bad guys were pretty bad, which was fine, I don’t mind if the villains are definite villains. And I enjoyed the dog! Which was a real dog, too. I think Scalzi must own dogs, because he sure didn’t treat Halloway’s dog like a special-wonderful-magic-robot dog, but like a well-trained ordinary dog.

Scalzi’s dialogue has more zip. It really does. His plot is tighter. It really is. The nongendered Fuzzies don’t make any sense, but hey, Scalzi’s a writer, not an evolutionary biologist, and I guess he can’t be blamed for not realizing that sexual reproduction is not just a random chance in a wide universe, but essentially inevitable for all kinds of reasons. Fine, fine, I can stand that even if I hate refering to the Fuzzies as “it.” Fine! It’s a good job and a good story.

But . . . one of the plot elements I sort of liked, the idea that the Fuzzies were wrecked on this world and weren’t native, Scalzi took that out entirely. Maybe just to simplify the story? But I don’t know, I sort of regret the loss. I *liked* the idea of a spacefaring society of Fuzzies potentially turning up in the future, looking for their lost colony. And the way Piper had his Fuzzies on the verge of extinction set up this real imperative driving the integration of Fuzzies into human society, and I regret losing that. The way Scalzi has it set up, it’s almost inevitable that you’re going to get essentially turn the whole world into a great big reserve for primative Fuzzies, and I don’t think that’s doing them any favors when humans are already in space. I don’t like where Scalzi’s story is headed as well as I liked the direction Piper gave his story.

Plus . . . did anybody but me read Ardhath Mayhars GOLDEN DREAM? Not sure what it is about this particular world of Piper’s that sucks in other authors, but Mayhar wrote her book from the point-of-view of the Fuzzies. Mayhar’s book was always actually my favorite. Like reading a great dog book such as 101 Dalmations, combined with SF. (I was all about animal books as a kid and didn’t read SFF till later.)

And Mayhar really pulled me in. I enjoyed seeing how the Fuzzies functioned on their own, before they met the humans. I loved watching all the events in Piper’s books, only from the Fuzzy pov. And of course, all those events? They are not compatible with Scalzi’s book at all. So if you take Scalzi’s version as definive, well, poof! There goes Mayhar’s version, down in flames.

Ah, well. I guess I will just treat Scalzi’s version as one more version and keep all the books. But for me, Piper is canon, Mayhar writes in the canon, and Scalzi definitely does not.

UPDATE: Okay, okay, before everybody, or anybody, jumps on me — I just finished reading LITTLE FUZZY and FUZZY SAPIENS and I now realize that in fact H Beam Piper did not write the book in which it’s revealed that the Fuzzies are actually from another world. That book is FUZZY BONES, by William Tuning.

I actually think FUZZY BONES is probably better written than the two by Piper, but Turing really captured the flavor and style of Piper’s original duology and I had simply forgotten that there was a whole ‘nother book, much less that it was written by another author.

FUZZY BONES is totally consistent with the canonical Piper duology, but it actually turns out that Piper himself wrote a third book, FUZZIES AND OTHER PEOPLE, which I’ve never read. It was published decades after the first two and is evidently not consistent with FUZZY BONES or GOLDEN DREAM. Now I guess I should pick this one up, too?

So: open-ended question — what is it that leads so many people to want to write books set in the Fuzzy world? I guess this is an early example of the 1632 phenomenon. Or is it a kind of professional fan fiction?

If I were going to write in this world, I’d want to take the FUZZY BONES and GOLDEN DREAM books as true and then move forward in time, to the period where humans finally encounter the society of space-faring Fuzzies. Wouldn’t that be fun?

Please Feel Free to Share:


Beauty in language

Nice post here.

But I disagree with Chris’s main point, which he makes here:

I agree with [Jonathon] Carroll that beautiful prose and solid story-telling should not be mutually exclusive. However, I object to the use of the term “beauty” as a way of describing prose in any critical sense because it tells us more about the speaker’s literary tastes than about the text itself. It is an over-broad term, useful in colloquial, casual discussion (or in interviews), but useless in exploring how fiction actually works.

Oh, no, it isn’t.

It’s perfectly true that sometimes beautiful lyrical prose is just right for the story (Patricia McKillip, anyone?) and sometimes plain, stark prose is just right for the story (Stieg Larsson, for example, in THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO).

Sometimes you want invisible prose, which I think Robin McKinley often achieves, thus allowing her readers to fall directly into her stories. Sometimes you want weird prose, like in Cormac McCarthy’s THE ROAD.

But none of that is bad prose. Obviously. Unfortunately there’s lots of bad prose out there, and nothing will make me put a book down faster. Clunky, awkward phrases are never okay. Boring, predictable sentences that are built of cliches are not okay. Even if some readers don’t consciously notice cliched phrases or clumsy sentences, they’re still bad. So I think Chris is completely talking across Carroll. What they mean by “beautiful” or “bad” prose is completely different

The point is: we may not necessarily need to focus quite so strongly on the genre/literary divide (as Carroll does) but Carroll is right in that many books are written with prose that is clumsy, boring, clunky, or cliched. And I’m totally with Carroll in this: along with a great story, I want great writing — the kind of writing that complements the story being told. And this is true even though Chris is perfectly correct in pointing out that, in prose, lyrical is not a synonym for beautiful.

Please Feel Free to Share:


Reading (or not) super-popular bestsellers

Anybody read TWILIGHT? I didn’t. I heard too much about it.

FIFTY SHADES? No. Ran the other way after hearing WAY to much about that.

DA VINCI CODE? Nope. I heard from people I trust that it not only suffered from a stupid plot, but was boring. I know, I know! Lots of people seem to disagree, but still. Didn’t read it.

I read the Harry Potter series, though! Which I think are very well written. Sure there are huge, huge, massive holes in the worldbuilding, but building a tightly crafted world was not the point, right? And yes, I personally agree that the last book could easily have lost at least a hundred pages. But still. The writing is excellent, the details charming, the characterization good, the plotting good. It’s nice that one super-popular series deserved to be super-popular.

And now? Well, now I’ve just finished reading THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. A friend forced it upon me. And it’s really good! I was delighted. I enjoyed Mikael Blomkvist, the main character; I enjoyed the secondary characters, and yes, I really particularly loved Lisbeth Salander, the girl with the dragon tattoo. I guess I have a soft spot for protagonists who are borderline sociopaths. Or whatever Lisbeth is.

I hadn’t really known anything at all about the book previously. Except I’d read this blog entry by Nathan Bransford, so I knew the book has a “notoriously slow start.” Well, I’m not especially put off by a slow start.

Also, here’s what Nathan said about the characters:

“What makes these characters interesting is that they are seeming contradictions. Lisbeth has all the outward appearances of a surly, irresponsible youth, and yet she’s wildly competent at her job. Armansky is simultaneously attracted to, vaguely repulsed by, and paternal toward Lisbeth. Blomkvist is buttoned up and seemingly honest, and yet he lives a cavalier private life and he seems to have been improbably set up in a conspiracy.”

I didn’t remember this paragraph clearly, but I had a vague memory that Nathan had said something about the characters being interesting. Now that I read this paragraph again, I find I sure can’t put it better than he did.

Nathan describes the prose as “clinical” and “authoritative” and I think that’s right, though I didn’t really think of it that way while I was reading the book. Actually, I think that kind of prose might not only contribute to the characters feeling real, but to the (rather wild) situations that come up feeling real, too.

As far as the situations? This is a mystery and in some ways a thriller and the plot gets pretty intense at times. As a mystery . . . well, I was not surprised to find out who the bad guy was. Or to find out what really happened to Harriet all those years ago. I would say the details of how everything works out are very satisfying, even though the big picture wound up being a bit predictable for me.

I also have concluded that in some ways I’m a lot more like Lisbeth Salander than Harriet Vagner. That is, if I’d been in Harriet’s, um, situation, I think I’d have taken Lisbeth Salander’s way of dealing with, um, things. And then people could have spent forty years wondering what happened to *him* rather than *me.*

Not sure I’m going to rush out and get the second book, though. I liked where the first one ended up.

Please Feel Free to Share:


Archon . . . plus a Cavalier party

It was quite a weekend! Ending up with my catching a virus or something, so sorry for the delay, but I was a bit out of it for a couple days.

Okay, so, First the Archon report.

I really enjoyed it! Well, that’s a given, of course. I do wonder if attendance was down this year, though. The halls and dealer’s room and art show seemed as crowded as ever, but the panels and readings were rather sparsely attended – all the panels and readings, as far as I could tell. Virtually no attendees came to the readings. I mean, *I* went to one set of readings, because Gilman (of “The Ice Owl” fame) was going to be there, and Brian Katcher (Almost Perfect, which I loved), and Mark Tiedemann, whom I know. And I was glad I went. Attendees who didn’t go missed out. All the readings were good and Brian Katcher’s, from a book that won’t be out till 2015, was really good and very funny. I hope he remembers to remind me when it’s out. I definitely want a copy.

At my own reading, I actually just read a brief selection from ISLANDS because nobody there had read it, so why not? But I was slightly disappointed, after preparing and timing a selection from BLACK DOG.

Now, on Friday, I was on a panel that discussed the importance of editing your work. I wasn’t supposed to be on that panel, but I walked in and Mark Tiedemann immediately invited me to join the panel, which was really nice since I’d almost always rather be on the panel than in the audience. So we talked about “big” editing and the importance of your agent / editor / beta reader when you get to the stage where you can’t tell whether your finished book is any good or not. I think we all agreed that you do indeed get to that stage! Writing groups came up and of course I said vehemently that I hate ‘em and would never join one, and Mark said how they can turn into round-robin ego support groups and how useless that is. But he did suggest that maybe beginning writers might benefit from joining a writer’s group for six months and then quitting while it was still helpful. He went to Clarion, and he found that helpful. And some of the other panelists did like writer’s groups – they must be more social than I am (not hard).

But we *all* agreed that line editing is important and can’t be too strict and that “all right” is TWO WORDS. TWO. WORDS.

So, anyway! I totally hadn’t realized that on Saturday I was scheduled for three back-to-back panels, from 11:00 AM straight through to 2:30 PM. Whoa. That was crazy. Next year I will be careful not to let that happen.

The first was the one on Alien Manners. One of the other panelists really stressed the biological underpinnings of behavior, and that was a great point, and I suggested looking at Octavia Butler’s Oankali series, which starts with DAWN, to see an alien species whose instincts are nonhuman. I’ve always wondered whether Butler actually realized that she’d set up a species whose primary difference from humans is that they, unlike humans, can’t override their instincts?

I love the topic of behavior and instinct, but the topic of manners isn’t exactly the same thing, right? I absolutely recommended Cherryh’s Foreigner series and warned the attendees that they should expect the entire first book to be an intro, because I know the slow start can turn off readers. And I suggested that when you’re creating an alien species, or a nonhuman fantasy species, that it needs to be exotic enough to seem nonhuman, yet familiar enough to modern American sensibilities to appeal to readers. Which is actually something my brother pointed out about Gillian Bradshaw’s historical novels, that Bradshaw captures the exotic feel of classical Greece and Rome, but tones down the brutality of those societies so that modern readers can be comfortable reading her books. And of course a historical novel can be just like a fantasy in that the society you’re working in has to be, or at least should be, different from modern American society.

And an attendee asked about creating a star-spanning civilization containing lots of species and how would you handle that? And one of my co-panelists started talking about how, realistically, fear and the necessity of self-preservation in the face of the alien would be such a constraint on that kind of society. And I said, Well, yes, but if you want to write book with that kind of setting, who cares whether it’s realistic? It just needs to be well-written. You just wave your hands and declare that you DO have that kind of civilization, and then you write the story you want to write. I said story telling is the goal and used Tanya Huff’s military SF Valor series as an example, because it’s just like that. It’s such a good series that nobody’s going to fret about how much sense it makes, or doesn’t make.

Then I ran to the other end of the convention center, not quite knocking anybody flying, and arrived, panting, for the panel on writing for YA readers. There was only one other panelist, and he turned out not to write SFF, and I’m afraid he wasn’t a very assertive panelist, and I did try not to totally take over the panel, but I’m afraid with rather limited success. Of course this is a common panel topic. We talked about pacing and the need for tight plotting and how the YA protagonists have to drive the story and how they need to be operating “under the radar” and evading adult control. And I said that agent Kristen Nelson’s (of Pub Rants) opinion is that in YA, the protagonist has to take the first irrevocable steps out of childhood and into adulthood, because I think that might be true and I know it’s one helpful thing to think about when writing YA. It was a good panel, I think, even if I did wind up dominating the panel maybe too much. Sorry, co-panelist! The audience was good. People asked a lot of good questions.

Then I rushed *back* to the other end of the convention center and did the writing workshop. I really wished I could tell the participants that I loved their novel fragments and thought that they were just this close to publication, but of course I couldn’t. We talked about beginning your novel and I explained, for example, how saying “the young man” or “the petite woman” as description had the effect of pushing the reader away from the protagonist, because the pov protagonist would never think of himself (or herself) in those terms, see? So you fall out of their point of view the minute you do that. So even a seemingly tiny phrase like that counts as “telling rather than showing” and is in fact a worse problem than all kinds of “telling” that might at first glance seem much more extreme. And I handed out all those novel beginnings I typed up earlier. I was really glad I’d taken plenty of time to think about the strengths and weaknesses of the fragments way in advance.

Then I staggered off on a quest to find lunch. At three. I never miss meals. I’m surprised I didn’t faint on the way.

Then, fortified, I went to the dealer’s room and bought – let’s see here – I have a list – right, here we go: Traitor’s Gate by Kate Elliot, Mad Ship and Ship of Destiny by Robin Hobb (now I need the first book in that trilogy), Forest Mage by Robin Hobb (I see now it is the second book of a series), Labyrinth by Kate Moss, Heart of Light by Sarah A Hoyt, Fuzzy Nation by John Scalzi, and Enchanted Glass by Diana Wynn Jones. I got most of those used because it turns out that Glen Cook may be closing up shop as a book dealer, so he had a lot of books available for half price or a dollar apiece or whatever. I think my TBR pile is back up in the region of seventy books or so again.

The last thing for me on Saturday was the dog panel, and it had been moved so that it was opposite the masquerade, unfortunately. So I and the other panelists chatted with the tiny number of attendees who came to the panel and told stories about our dogs and every now and then we gave a nod to the official topic, which was of course the role of dogs in SFF. We didn’t do more than make vague gestures toward that topic, though. I’ll just say here, though, that to me some of the best “real dogs” in SFF are Ash in Robin McKinley’s Deerskin; the Cardigan Welsh Corgi in Duranna Durgin’s A Feral Darkness; and the pekes in Barbara Hambly’s Bride of the Rat God, which is a great book, btw, and has that campy title for a very good reason, and you should all go find a copy. Pekingese are far from my favorite breed, but Hambly makes me love hers. Though, admittedly, they are actually just “mostly real dogs”, as in the course of the book, we find out that pekes were really bred to hunt demons.

And in the “humanized dog” category? My favorites are Sirius in Diana Wynne Jones’ Dogsbody, and the dogs in Dodie Smith’s novel 101 Dalmations (yes, really).

Then, on Sunday? Well, on Sunday, there was the very important Cavalier Halloween party, so you see why I couldn’t be at Archon on Sunday! Naturally, I had to go home Saturday night, get up early Sunday, bathe dogs, make my special entry for the Halloween-themed potluck, load all my dogs up (five at the moment), and drive back to St Louis in time to set up the obstacle course and help organize the entry forms for all the contests. Very important!

I set up a half-rally / half obstacle course. Tunnels and jumps and a figure eight around distractions and stuff. Lots of people entered in the novice category. I swear I hadn’t shown the obstacles to my girls ahead of time, but in fact my Giedre won the novice category. And Pippa won the pro category, which was just for dogs who already have performance titles. Somebody else won “best trick” – deservedly, I should add, she’d taught her dog all kinds of tricks. My friend Deb won “cutest puppy” – that’s mostly dependent on age, since the younger the puppy, the more likely it is to win. The costume contest was great, and there was a tie – both entries in owner-dog duo costumes were great. One woman dressed as Princess Leia and dressed her dog up as Yoda!

So, to wind all this up: Here’s my entry for best Halloween-themed potluck item – not sure whether to call it a cookie or a pie or a cake! It is a giant cake-type chocolate-chip cookie, spread with nutella and sprinkled with chopped twix candy bars, gummy worms, and candy corns. Then I arranged chocolate cookie mice around the rim. I expected to win this category, and I did, by a satisfying landslide.

In case you happen to want to try this, here is the recipe:

Giant Chocolate-Chip Cookie:

This makes a nice, cakey, soft chocolate-chip cookie, which is perfect for this recipe.

¼ C shortening
¼ C sugar
½ C brown sugar
1 egg
½ C evaporated milk
½ tsp vanilla
1 ¼ C plus 2 Tbsp Flour
¼ tsp baking soda
¼ tsp salt
3 oz (1/2 C) chocolate chips
½ C nutella
A dozen gummy worms
A small handful candy corns
About eight fun-sized twix candy bars, cut into thirds

Beat the shortening, sugar, and brown sugar. Beat in egg. Beat in evaporated milk and vanilla. Combine dry ingredients and beat in on low. Spray a pizza pan with cooking spray and spread cookie batter onto pan. Bake at 375 degrees for about 30-35 minutes, until golden-brown and a toothpick in the center comes out clean (if you hit a chocolate chip, it won’t come out clean, so poke it again if you think it’s done; it probably is). Let rest on rack until mostly cool. Spread with nutella and sprinkle with other toppings, leaving space around the rim for the mice.

Chocolate mice

2/3 C semi-sweet chocolate chips
2 C coarsely chopped crumbs from crushed chocolate wafer cookies or chocolate animal crackers – I suggest a food processor for this job.
½ C very fine crumbs from those cookies, sifted out when you crush the cookies.
1/3 C sour cream
Candy sequins, for eyes – look in the baking aisle with the decorating supplies.
3 strips chocolate licorice, for tails – I can’t find string licorice, but you can cut normal licorice into very fine lengths for tails.
Sliced almonds, for ears

Melt chocolate. Stir in coarse crumbs. Stir in sour cream. Roll into a dozen or so rough balls. Then take each piece and roll into a smooth ball, then shape into a fat torpedo shape with a pointy end for the nose and a rounded end for the tail. Place the sequins in the right spots for eyes. Roll the mouse in the fine crumbs. Stick a toothpick in the round end to make a hole and insert the tails. Find a couple of matching almond slices and insert them for ears. Set the finished mice in place around the rim of the cookie. Prepare to enjoy your guests’ expressions when you bite a mouse in half – it’s not like they look *that* real, and yet they kind of do.

The mice are best a day or so after making them, so that the crumbs have time to soften and the whole thing melds into a fudgy whole. Because of the sour cream, it’s probably best to refrigerate the mice to store. They’re not only strangely cute, but quite tasty, so you might not have to worry about that for very long!

Please Feel Free to Share:


This weekend — Archon!

I’ve been looking forward to this for some time! A fun weekend without the stress of showing. Instead, there will be the stress of participating on panels and stuff! But that is in fact not very stressful. Usually. Mostly.

Archon is a small convention that’s always well-run and pleasant. At least to me it seems that way; maybe there’s constant behind-the-scenes chaos, but if so, I never see it. It’s a very writer-friendly, smooth convention.

This year I told them I wouldn’t be able to make it on Sunday, but any time would work for me for Friday and Saturday. Alas, I apparently forgot to say: I don’t do readings and I hate autograph sessions. Thus I have one of each. So, well, we’ll see. I never read aloud, but I’ll try not to embarrass myself.

Quick poll question: is it kosher to read from a book that hasn’t been picked up by a publisher? At the moment, I plan to do a reading from BLACK DOG. It *WILL* be out sometime, one way or another, but maybe not for a while. (You should see the rejection letters my agent has been getting for it. They’re pretty flattering. Like this one from Scholastic: “I admired the writing … you work with such wonderful prose stylists!—and this was a fascinating take on the werewolf legend, with equally fascinating and well-delineated characters…”)

But werewolves are a really tough sell right now. REALLY TOUGH. If you’re planning to write a werewolf book? Just wait ten years, that’s my advice. Any number of imprints aren’t even reading werewolf books at all right now. : (

But is it okay to use this book for a reading as long as I plan to bring it out independently if necessary? What’s your opinion? Is it better to use a book that’s out already, like HOUSE OF SHADOWS? Because if people have already read it, that would surely be deeply boring.

Too bad I don’t have a bunch of shorter work sitting around that I could pick from, but I just don’t. Probably the story about my dog that appeared in A DOG’S LIFE: CHICKEN SOUP FOR THE PET LOVER’S SOUL would not be appropriate at a SFF convention. (There’re a lot of great stories in that Chicken Soup book, btw, not least mine.)

Anyway, I like the panels I’m on! One is on dogs. “How is man’s best friend used in SFF today?” Obviously I’m all over this topic. I instantly ran downstairs and noted down all the books I have that feature a dog as an important character. Then I divided them into categories: dogs that are real dogs, dogs that are almost real dogs, dogs that are humanized. It’ll be a fun panel.

Then I’m on a panel on alien manners. “Which tentacle do you use when sipping tea?” That made me laugh. I’m going to hold up the Foreigner series as the VERY BEST look at alien manners ANYWHERE.

Then there’s a panel on writing for YA readers. I always like this kind of panel, though really I feel that I’m still learning what works for YA readers. We’ll see if anybody else is bold enough to declare that he or she has an answer to the question: “What keeps YA readers reading?”

And finally, there’s the workshop, where I will have a chance to talk to people about the mss. fragments they submitted months ago. I’m really looking forward to this; I hope I can be helpful.

Please Feel Free to Share:


For your convenience —

You will notice, if you glance at the sidebar to the right, that there are now specific categories for posts on “cake” — actually any dessert recipe — and for posts on the craft of writing. Turned out that marking the blog posts was easy, so I’m glad I asked the IT person at Orbit how to do it.

Please Feel Free to Share:


I’m feeling like such an unadventurous foody right now . . .

How is it I made it through the Evansville fall festival without trying the alligator jerky? Maybe I just don’t have the nerve to try a brains sandwich, but how did I miss the cheesecake on a stick? I had a really kind of fabulous Italian sausage sandwich, but now I see here on this (extremely long) list of available foods that I missed out on the chocolate covered clown nose. What do you suppose that was?

The chocolate-covered crickets are all too self-explanatory, alas.

We shall ignore them, forcefully, and go on to regret the missed opportunity to try the habanero ice cream. I don’t regret skipping the deep-fried twinkies, because I can’t stand regular twinkies, but I do regret not trying the deep-fried klondike bar.

I wonder what “eagle eggs” are? And look, here’s something called a “milk jug.” That’s another total mystery. Somebody was selling “painted pig on a stick.” I can imagine pork items on a stick, but “painted”?

Actually, a lot of the food listed looks normal, or normal-ish, and good. African peanut chicken — sign me up. Cajun catfish, ditto. Pulled pork, deep-fried portabellas, white chicken chili, and on and on.

I actually did have something deep fried — a funnel cake — and something on a stick — a chocolate-dipped banana. So you could tell I was at a street festival. But I am embarrassed I didn’t try anything really weird.

So, anyway — Kenya got one point, which she can use; and Adora got one point, which is useless — all she needs is majors — and so the show itself was okay, even though it was very small. But the fall festival was very impressive, even if we left the rides and games to the kiddies. Next year, if the show falls on the same weekend as the festival, you can bet I’ll make plans for strategic nibbling on more than one evening!

Please Feel Free to Share:


And now for something a little different —

Okay, I haven’t in general said much about the nonfiction books I read, and I certainly haven’t done a long post about any of ’em, but this one deserves it. So —

The book: WHY WE GET FAT by Gary Taubes

Taube’s argument: Obesity is not a moral penalty for the twin sins of gluttony and sloth. Instead, obesity is caused by a problem with insulin regulation driven by an overabundance of carbohydrates in the diet. People will lose weight and improve their health regardless of their caloric intake and/or exercise regime if they remove carbohydrates from their diet and allow their insulin metabolism to correct itself.

I read this book because I kept seeing people mention Taubes and I finally decided to see what he was saying. My bias before I read the book was solidly against the low-carb idea, partly because I thought it sounded like one of the innumerable stupid modern diet fads that’s supposed to work by magic and partly because I personally love carbohydrates in all their forms and would rather remove meat from my diet than bread, pasta, rice, and desserts. I mean, I have nine kinds of rice in my pantry! (In case you’re interested, these are: ordinary Carolina long grain rice, brown rice, dhura dun basmati rice, jasmine rice, Thai red cargo rice, Arborio rice, Calrose rice (a short grain rice I use for Chinese cooking and sushi), glutinous rice, and wild rice.) I also have many kinds of lentils for Indian cooking, and many kinds of Chinese, Japanese, and Thai noodles. I am definitely not someone a low-carb diet would appeal to.

But I have to admit, Taubes provided a lot of evidence that a carb-heavy diet causes obesity. You may well want to read the book and get all the details, but allow me to present this evidence, briefly. (Well, not all that briefly! This is a very long post! If you want to skip it, but are interested in my personal low-carb experiment, skip to the end. But I hope you will stay with me and let the experiment be the punchline, okay?)

The fact: When insulin levels rise, we accumulate fat in our fat tissue; when insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue. Insulin is secreted in response to carbohydrates and particularly in response to sweet, easily digested carbohydrates. This is evidently not at all medically controversial. Taubes goes into a lot of detail about insulin metabolism.

The evidence:

* The modern obesity problem can’t possibly be due to fast food or the sudden popularity of high-fructose corn syrup or the modern sedentary lifestyle, because the problem is not actually all that modern. It was already very noticeable in the 1930s. Not only was that way before fast food etc, it was also the era of soup kitchens and bread lines – not the conditions under which one would reasonably expect an explosion in the rate of obesity.

* Physicians in the 1930s were already trying to help obese children slim down, but found the children just couldn’t.

* The Pima Indians have about the highest obesity and diabetes rates in America. They didn’t always, but their problems started way, way back – before 1900. In fact, their problems started when they went from being one of the wealthiest Indian groups to one of the poorest. In the 1850s, the Pima were hunters and farmers, enjoyed an abundance of food, and were not fat. By the 1900s, they had gone through years of starvation and were living on government rations that were calorically and nutritionally inadequate but that included a lot of white flour and sugar. Malnutrition and obesity coexisted in this and other very poor Indian tribes living on government rations. A lot more women than men were fat despite the fact that women did nearly all the hard labor, while men were much more sedentary. Nearby tribes, such as the Pueblos, who did not live on government rations, were not fat.

* Other very poor populations have shown simultaneous malnutrition and obesity, including the Italians of Naples in the 1950s, who ate a diet of pasta, bread, salads, olive oil, and wine. Taube cites 14 other populations which simultaneously experienced poverty and very high rates of obesity. In all cases, the rates of obesity were much higher in women than men and especially high in women past middle age.

* Taubes cites a British specialist on Jamaican diabetes, who in the 1970s declared inadequate nutrition accounted for almost 25% of all pediatric admissions, that inadequate nutrition continued through adolescence, that obesity began to manifest itself in the female population as the women reached their mid-twenties, and that two-thirds of the women then became very obese (and 10% of the men). From birth through their early teens, Jamaican children were very thin, lacking enough food and also nutritious food (Taubes does not report on the actual diet in this population). They then became obese as they reached maturity, especially the women.

* In the 1990s, the National Institute of Health enrolled 50,000 women, the great majority of them overweight, in a study. They randomly selected 20,000 of these women to eat a low-fat diet emphasizing vegetables and high-fiber foods. These women also consumed 360 calories less per day than they had prior to enrolling in the study, a total of 1/5 fewer calories than what public-health agencies advise today. After eight years, these women had lost an average of only two pounds, while their average waist circumference increased, implying that they had lost lean muscle mass, not fat.

* Jeffrey Flier, Dean of Harvard’s medical school and a specialist on obesity, wrote the chapter on obesity for the 2005 edition of Joslin’s Diabetes Mellitus. In this chapter, he states that “reduction of caloric intake” is “the cornerstone of any therapy for obesity.” But after examining all kinds of reduced calorie diets, including very extreme starvation diets, he also concluded that “none of these approaches has any proven merit.”

* Taubes cites one study (among many others) that enrolled 13,000 runners and compared their weekly mileage with their weight from year to year. Those that ran the most tended to weigh the least, but all the runners gained weight over the years, even those who averaged 40 miles running per week. Taubes spends a whole chapter knocking to pieces the idea that an active vs a sedentary lifestyle matters significantly when considering weight gain. Rather than going into exhaustive detail, let me just say that he’s pretty convincing.

* Okay, just one more detail, because wow: one study in Denmark got 18 men and 9 women who had been leading sedentary lives to train for marathons. (Seriously, wow. They would never have got me to enroll in this study, let me tell you!) After eighteen months of training, the men had lost an average of 5 lbs of body fat. The women hadn’t lost any weight.

* You can sum up this part of the book by noting that people have been trying for decades to prove that exercise can reduce weight or maintain weight loss, but have not been able to produce compelling evidence that this is so. After this many studies, it seems pretty safe to conclude that the hypothesis that exercise is important in weight loss sounds reasonable but is not true.

* We can see very plainly that genetics play a large role in fat accumulation, but let’s think for a moment about just how big a role that is. Take beef cattle vs dairy cattle. Beef cattle are fat. Dairy cows are bony. Their hip bones stick out. Their ribs show. These are animals in excellent condition. They certainly are not eating different low-fat grass or running marathons through their pastures. They are genetically selected to put the calories they consume toward milk production rather than fat and muscle accumulation.

* Ground squirrels double their weight in the fall, all of the extra weight being fat. They do this even in captivity and even if they are placed on a restricted-calorie diet. Unless they are actually starved nearly to death, they gain a ton of weight in the fall regardless of diet.

* Also, as anybody can see, boys and girls put on weight differently. It obviously isn’t girls eating more than boys that causes girls to put on a lot more body fat during puberty.

* Also, there’s a rare genetic disorder called progressive lipodystrophy, in which the affected person, almost always a woman, accumulates a ton of fat and becomes obese – but only below the waist. Above the waist, she loses essentially all her subcutaneous fat. (Yes, this looks strange.) It is obviously stupid to suggest that these women undereat above the waist but overeat below the waist.

* Rats that are spayed – ovaries removed – eat a lot, quickly gain a lot of weight and become seriously obese. They gain just as much weight if placed on a restricted-calorie diet – to compensate for the lack of calories, they become extremely sedentary. In other words, the rats become sedentary because they are becoming fat and thus have less energy available for activity; they are not becoming fat because they are sedentary. Both gluttony and sloth are caused by the fat tissue sequestering calories rather than allowing those calories to be used for activity.

* Spaying the rats removes estrogen from their systems, estrogen regulates lipoprotein lipase (LPL), in the absence of estrogen, LPL causes a lot more fat to enter fat cells for storage than muscle cells for use. Thus the fat tissue sequesters the available calories, so the rats have to eat a lot more if they want to stay active. If they can’t eat more, they must become sedentary.

* Isn’t that interesting? Getting fat is driving increased appetite and sedentary behavior; the customary view that gluttony and sloth drive fat accumulation gets the causal relationship backwards.

* Zucker rats, bred to be obese, become obese even if they are put on severe calorie-restricted diets from the time they are weaned. On restricted diets, they actually wind up fatter than unrestricted siblings. But the rats on the calorie-restricted diets also have muscles, organs, and brains that are significantly reduced in size compared to their unrestricted siblings. The nutrients they needed for normal organ and muscle development got sequestered in the fat tissue.

* If those rats are actually starved to death, they die with a lot of their fat tissue intact. They compromise their crucial muscles and organs and die rather than burn fat tissue.

* Re-read that last point.

* This implies that thin people have fat cells programmed not to take up calories, or muscle cells programed to burn calories. If they are more active than fat people, it is because they are driven to use the calories they take in for physical activity. They are not thin because they are active, they are active because their fat tissue is not hogging the calories needed by their muscles.

* I can certainly confirm that my mother has great trouble gaining weight. She is right at the low end of the normal weight range for women, and in fact she is probably significantly underweight for her age. I can’t get her to eat enough things like cheesecake, but Taubes’ book implies it wouldn’t help anyway.

* Also, I can certainly confirm that some, but by no means all, Cavalier puppies are VERY thin as teenagers and feeding them more just doesn’t help them gain weight. (They refuse to eat as much as I offer). They will gain weight when they are about 18 months old and there’s just no point fussing about it before that. I don’t plan to show Folly till next year! Right now she is all legs and ribs and hip bones! If she is like her mother, she will suddenly fill out when she is about 16 months old. I certainly believe teenage puppy weights are governed by genetics!

The counter-evidence Taubes should have addressed, but didn’t, adequately:

“Uncooked, rice is called mai; cooked it is fan. Once cooked rice was traditionally taken as food at least three times each day, first for jo chan, or early meal, either as congee or, if the weather was cool, cooked and served with a spoonful of liquid lard, soy sauce, and an egg. To eat rice is to sik fan, and there is, in addition to those morning preparations, n’fan, or “afternoon rice,” and mon fan, or “evening rice.” There is even a custom called siu yeh, which translates literally as “cooked midnight” and means rice eaten as a late evening snack. No time of any day in China is without its rice.” Eileen Yin-Fei Lo, The Chinese Kitchen (I just happened across this quote at the same time I was writing this post; Taubes didn’t quote it.)

Taubes doesn’t completely ignore China. On p. 138, he very briefly mentions that the Chinese and Japanese didn’t get fat even though they ate so much rice, an easily digested carb. He ascribes the non-fatness of the East Asian peoples to the lack of sugar in their traditional diets. This is perfectly plausible, especially as Taubes spends quite a lot of time describing the ins and outs of insulin and why sugar might reasonably be a more potent fattening agent than other carbohydrates. On the other hand, Taubes constantly blames white flour for disarranging insulin metabolism, too, and it’s not clear to me why white flour would be worse than white rice.

Also, in India, where the diet of a lot of people is VERY carb heavy, there is a solid tradition of extremely sweet milk-based desserts. I have no idea how frequently those desserts were consumed by most people. And the reason I don’t have any idea is that Taubes didn’t address the populations of India at all.

The evidence Taubes should have included but didn’t:

A rundown of the typical diets of the fifteen poverty-stricken-and-obese populations he mentions specifically, compared to historical and modern American diets, the historical diets of some Asian populations, and the historical diets of some East Indian populations – in each case with notes on rates of obesity.

Tracking all that information down would of course be tedious, but honestly, that’s kind of what you let yourself in for when you write this kind of book, isn’t it? I get why Taubes barely mentioned China and all but ignored India: he wanted to deliver a clean, straightforward, consistent message. But it does weaken his argument to leave out the kind of data that would let us really estimate the kind of dietary and weight variance that has existed between populations that have historically emphasized carbohydrates in their diets.

Taubes does, however, trace out the history of the idea that carbohydrates are uniquely fattening – hardly a new idea, and well-tested experimentally in the early part of the 1900s, but thoroughly driven out of fashion in the sixties and seventies by historical contingency and the sheer refusal of medical and public health organizations to believe the evidence. The take-home message of this entire section is that obesity somehow always seems to be incurable when the diets prescribed to treat it are the exact diets that cause it.

And Taubes also has a pretty extensive section refuting the idea that high-fat diets are bad for heart health or for your health in general.

* Experimental evidence does not support the idea that saturated fat is bad for health. (Taubes acknowledges that this will seem hard to believe given how vehemently health authorities insist on this point, but declares that “what we’ve been told and what the evidence actually supports parted ways in 1984, when the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute launched its massive health campaign.”).

* The NHLBI spent $115 million on a huge clinical trial and found that a reduction in saturated fat did not have any effect on heart attack rates. Despite this, they continued to claim that reducing saturated fat in the diet would reduce heart attacks.

* An international organization was formed in the 1990s to do an unbiased literature survey on the issue. This was the Cochrane Collaboration. Its judgment is highly regarded when it comes to deciding whether a diet, a surgical procedure, or a diagnostic technique actually does what it is supposed to do. The CC assessed the benefits of reducing dietary saturated fat in 2001 and concluded that the evidence that such a reduction is beneficial is at best limited and inconclusive.

* Since then, a huge trial focused on women, the Women’s Health Initiative, tested the benefits and risks of eating less fat and less saturated fat. The study was the one mentioned above, that enrolled nearly 50,000 middle-aged women. Not only did the 20,000 women assigned to the low-fat diets (diets emphasizing less meat, more vegetables, more fruit, and more whole grains) fail to lose weight, they also showed absolutely no reduction in heart disease, stroke, or breast or colon cancer compared to the women who ate whatever they wanted.

* Triglycerides levels in the blood definitely do constitute a risk factor for heart attacks. This is not controversial. Triglycerides rise when we eat a diet high in carbohydrates. If you replace bacon and eggs for breakfast with yogurt and bananas, both your HDL and LDL cholesterol will go down, but your triglycerides will go up. And though lowering LDL cholesterol might possibly reduce your risk of heart attacks, lowering your HDL cholesterol definitely and substantially increases your risk.

* No, really, low HDL cholesterol levels is definitely a huge risk factor, especially for women, and a high carb / low fat diet definitely lowers HDL cholesterol levels. Absolutely nobody argues with these two facts.

* Clinical trials of the Atkins diet, trials that specifically examined the effects of eating a diet high in saturated fat diet on weight and heart disease and diabetes, have consistently shown that people who eat a high fat / low carb diet lost more weight than people instructed to limit calories and avoid fat and saturated fat. The high fat / low carb diet also causes levels of HDL cholesterol to rise, triglycerides to fall dramatically, blood pressure to fall, LDL cholesterol levels to rise slightly, and the risk of heart attacks to decrease significantly.

* Yes, really. There’s one particular Stanford study Taubes cites in detail. There’s just no question but that the people on the Atkins diet lost more weight and had much better health indicators in every important category than the people on a low fat / exercise regime. Yes, really.

I must admit that this whole section has made me really doubt that we want government agencies deciding what’s best for us and going on huge national campaigns to persuade us to change our diets to suit their misconceived ideas about nutrition. Because when they’re wrong, whoa, the harm that they cause just boggles the mind. And you evidently had better not trust health organizations to actually pay attention to any kind of experimental evidence, even from huge well-designed studies they organize themselves, when the results conflict with their pet theories. Because once they get an idea in their heads, they just cling to it like grim death. I mean, Taubes sure convinced me to ignore all official health advice for the rest of my life.

The take home message: Just how completely you have to cut carbs in order to lose weight or maintain weight loss, and how long it will be before you see the effects of a low carb diet, depends on your genetics and how screwed up your personal insulin metabolism is. Women, older people, and people who are already seriously obese are more likely to fail to lose weight even on a carb-restricted diet, either because they give up too soon, because they don’t restrict carbs enough, or because they have already reached the point of no return.

The experimental results:

Okay, after all that, I was curious to see what a low-carb diet would do in action. I only had one easily available test subject, of course.

As it happens, at the beginning of September, I was just about exactly at the top of the official normal weight for a woman of my height and age. I had also been trying to lose five or so vanity pounds, in the standard counting-calories way. (I would have been happy to lose more than five pounds, but had just given up on that, on the grounds that life’s too short to renounce food.) I had been more or less seriously trying to lose those five pounds for about two months, with zero success. In the past, I have lost up to 15 pounds at a time on a semi-starvation diet. I do not enjoy this kind of diet any more than the next person, and this time around it didn’t seem to be working anyway.

Did I actually go zero carb?

No. I meant to, but I never quite out all carbs. I didn’t drink anything but water, but in fact I never do drink anything but water, so that wasn’t a difference. For the first two weeks, I had a lot of omelets with bacon and cheddar, cheese and sausage for lunches, and baked dishes made with eggs, cottage cheese, spinach, and ham. I also made deviled eggs with bacon and avocado (very good; I made them twice). I cooked pork in foil with squash and onions, then did the same thing with kielbasa. I made chipotle burgers and ate them without the bun. I made “Rubin dip” with corned beef and sauerkraut and cheese and mayonnaise – I spread the dip on slices of raw yellow squash. I sprinkled cauliflower with oil, cumin and salt and roasted it at high heat. Salads with steak, I did that several times. It was sort of fun going for all this high-calorie meat-heavy stuff I normally avoid. I didn’t really eat that many vegetables as vegetables, but I had eggplant several times in various dishes because I have a lot of eggplant in the freezer – eggplant did well for me this year and it freezes surprisingly well after it’s cooked.

But I also made kasha dishes several times (I have a lot of kasha in the freezer). Right at first I ate the rest of the frozen grapes I had in the freezer (don’t knock frozen grapes till you try them!). I added corn to the steak salads. I ate carrots with my cheese and sausage. I had chocolate a couple of times, because, hey, chocolate. I had a doughnut at work when someone brought in a box, because I only have an average amount of willpower and I didn’t figure one doughnut would make much difference.

In the first two weeks, I lost eight pounds. This was on a much higher calorie diet than I usually eat. I was never hungry, believe me. In fact, it was amazing, how I never got hungry. I usually do get hungry before lunchtime when I have pancakes or biscuits for breakfast. The lack of hunger was a huge difference between normal life and this diet. I was sort of hoping to also find myself with plenty of extra physical energy from all those extra calories, but I have to say, unfortunately, no. Well, you can’t have everything.

In the second two weeks, I had bread several times, half a cup of flour at a time as I made single-serving recipes of various things. I had cereal for breakfast twice, with sugar. I ate 1000 calories at one meal the day I was showing my girls and skipped lunch. That was a fast-food burger and fries and I enjoyed it thoroughly, thank you. I had rice several times, in a rice/coleslaw/chicken salad with Thai peanut sauce (it wasn’t as good as it should have been). I made chili with black beans (a carb), sweet potatoes (ditto), and chorizo. And served that over rice, too, because it turned out too spicy to eat plain. I did not watch portion sizes at all. In fact, I specifically had more cereal at a time than I usually would. (I honestly hadn’t realized how constantly I count calories in my normal life, until this experiment when I specifically ignored portion-size advice.) I didn’t have desserts, though, except for chocolate several times, twice quite a lot of chocolate. (This was Sarah Rees Brennen’s fault, because I do love chocolate when I’m reading a good book.) In this second two-week period, I lost two pounds.

I have no idea how much more weight I’d lose if I kept up the low-carb/ low sugar thing. Maybe not much, since I’m now down right in the middle of the normal weight range for my age and height? Anyway, my experiment is over, and I assure you I have every intention of adding desserts back to my diet. For breakfast today I had pumpkin chocolate-chip bread, for example. And I don’t plan to worry about it. Because at this point, I plan to simply plug a two-week zero-carb diet period into my life every three months or so.

Also, in a different but related experiment, I switched one of my girls to a grain-free food. Unlike my other dogs, she’s had trouble losing that extra little bit of weight on a restricted-calorie diet, and she sure hasn’t appreciated my feeding her less, and what with Taubes and his obese rats that compromised their organs rather than lose weight, I thought, well, let’s just try the nearest thing to a low-carb diet there is for dogs. (The food has potatoes and sweet potatoes in it.) Kenya is now eating more calories than before on this high-protein, high-fat food. She hasn’t lost weight, but she hasn’t gained significantly either. I think her activity level is up a bit – she was very sedentary before. I mean, I know she is more active now, but this could be the cooler weather, so that’s hard to know for sure. But I do know for sure that she is happy to have more food in her bowl!

If you want to experiment:

Taubes does not provide detailed dietary suggestions in this book, but he suggests that a seriously overweight person might try a diet including all the meat, poultry, fish, and eggs you want, at least 2 cups of leafy greens per day, and any of the non-sweet vegetables, including the brassicas – broccoli and cauliflower and that stuff – squash, eggplant, green beans, celery, and mushrooms. Also peas, tomatoes, and rhubarb, which surprised me. Of course I can’t imagine eating rhubarb without adding sugar, so not sure why he bothered putting that on there.

He suggested clear broth for sodium replenishment, which strikes me as highly peculiar, since you are not likely to suffer a sodium shortage on a high-meat diet. For heaven’s sake, salt your steak and quit worrying about sodium.

Taubbes suggests four oz of cheese per day, and up to four tbsp. of cream and mayonnaise per day. And up to half an avocado. I made absolutely no effort to limit the cheese I consumed and certainly had a lot more than four oz a day. I have no idea why he would want you to limit cheese. It’s not like it has lactose in it.

What you don’t eat: you don’t get any sugar, flour products, creamed soups, milk or flavored yogurt, rice or other grains, starchy beans, potatoes or sweet potatoes, carrots or parsnips, or fruit. You can use Splenda and Truvia and stuff like that if you really want to. Me, I hold out for real desserts made with real sugar, but your mileage may vary.

It’s very important you not try to maximize protein and minimize fat, because a high-protein low-fat diet is uniquely toxic. (It’s sometimes called fat starvation, I happen to know, and the Louis and Clark expedition nearly died because of it, so don’t do that!)

Then, after you give your metabolism a chance to readjust your insulin metabolism and see what happens on this diet, you add back in various items and see how your body responds. If it were me, I’d add in whole grains first and then try whole wheat flour and then other carbs.

I am not, of course, actually suggesting anybody try this or any other diet. But if you happen to, I’d be interested in knowing what results you get!

Please Feel Free to Share:


One more on cover art —

I’m pulling this link out of the comments:

This is the STORMDANCER cover Mary Beth actually had in mind, only it’s really a “making of” post, that shows stages in the development of the cover art. Which is very cool! I really enjoy this kind of post! I hope you do, too.

Plus, hey, a griffin! Which was not even hinted at on the other cover I posted (which I still like, but a griffin definitely improves the cover!)

I don’t mind steampunk, but I don’t seek it out, either. But I need to check out this title now that I know there’s a griffin!

While on the topic of cover design, if you missed it previously, you MUST go watch this “Cover Design In 2 Minutes” thing on YouTube. It is so much fun!

Please Feel Free to Share:


More Cover Art

Yes! Because we totally need a “Best Michael Whelan Cover” category!

Only there are so many, many great Whelan covers, how can you choose? We have at the moment specific votes for Rawn’s dragon cover on SUNRUNNER’S FIRE:

And the one for Friedman’s BLACK SUN RISING is certainly great:

Though it’s a real shame so much of the art is covered up by that big black square. And for me this one is overly stylized. Or maybe I mean overly formal. That straight-on pose, I don’t know, it’s not my favorite way to pose the figure. Not that I think a pose needs to be active. I don’t mind that. But it looks to me just like this guy is in fact posing for a heroic painting by some famous painter, and I’d rather have a pose that suggests the artist caught him in a moment of his actual life.

Of the three Whelan covers mentioned in the comments, my favorite is this one:

I love the exuberant quality, the flung-wide arms that seem to embrace the whole sky. I haven’t read the book. In fact, I haven’t read any of these three books. Are they good enough to match their covers? (Not that I need more books on my TBR pile.)

But of all Whelan covers ever? Cherryh has some GREAT Whelan covers — on her Chanur books and on her Foreigner books. Any I love Whelan’s covers for The Dragonrider of Pern series. For dragon covers, I would vote for those. But overall? From all possible Whelan covers? I vote for the Little Fuzzy covers, including this one:

I just think the Fuzzies look wonderful. It’s so hard to make teddy bear aliens look real, but I think Whelan pulled it off. Cuter than Cavailer puppies and carrying those keen little spears! Cute, and yet they might actually be competent to survive in those woods. BTW, though I really enjoyed H Beam Piper’s original Little Fuzzy books, and Ardath Mayhar’s contribution from the Fuzzy point of view (Fuzzy Dreams, I think was the name), I haven’t read Scalzi’s recent re-telling of the story. Which is unique in my experience; has anybody else ever retold an older SFF writer’s story? How did that even come about? Anyway, I have no urge to read the Scalzi version, unless some of you have and you think it was great?

Also, while on the subject of covers, I found these two non-Whelan covers interesting — one was mentioned in the comments of the previous cover post and the other I own; I was struck by how similar they are.


I love both of these covers. But is there a thing where you MUST put red flowers in the upper right if doing an Oriental-ish cover? Girl with sword and flowers? Of course red is supposed to draw the eye.

Also, in case you see the covers and fall in love and wonder about the book? I haven’t read STORMDANCER (is it good?), but KATANA isn’t bad. It’s got some very nice snappy dialogue, but I found it a little disappointing. This may have been caused by inaccurate expectations. It’s sold as girl-gets-possessed-by-spirit-of-Samurai, and while this is accurate, I had in my head the idea that we would see this fabulous culture clash between a modern American teenage girl and the possessing spirit of a traditional older male Samurai warrior. No. The possessing spirit is that of a young female Samurai warrior. Not only was I disappointed, I slammed into the idea of a young female Samurai warrior with total disbelief and never recovered. But I can see how YA readers might like it better the way Gibson wrote it.

Please Feel Free to Share:

Scroll to Top