# Frank Reviews: Out of Position, by Kyell Gold



## M. LeRenard (Aug 28, 2011)

This one may be more interesting to you guys, since Kyell Gold is one of those names you see thrown around the fandom like confetti.  Seems like everybody has an opinion about him and his work, including those people who've never read anything he's written.
Basically, I didn't want to be one of those people, so I decided to go ahead and inform myself.  Why _Out of Position_, though?  Gay romance and football aren't exactly my thing.  In fact, I find football to be obscenely boring, and romance usually just ends up annoying me because of how contrived it often is and how stupid characters act in order to create tension (and this always seems to be the case, gay or not).
Pretty simple explanation: I figured, if this guy is as good as everybody says he is, he'll keep my attention through this whole book, and I won't ever feel like just deleting it forever from my hard-drive and lamenting the $10 I spent buying the Kindle edition, which is now resulting in me being recommended muscle-men gay erotica novels on Amazon.com.
So is he that good?  Did I get all the way through this book?

Yep.

Now, I've got complaints, sure.  I always have complaints.  The sex scenes near the beginning are too frequent, rather over-the-top, overly explicit, and add generally very little in and of themselves to the overall plot (besides getting it going).  Most of the characters are two-dimensional stereotypes, and the only characters with real depth to them are the two protagonists.  The football jargon is completely mysterious (despite a half-hearted attempt to explain it all near the beginning) to someone not already familiar with it, resulting in many incredibly boring passages during the games when I had practically no idea what was going on.  The ending is predictable and sappy.
But hell, Kyell's a fantastic writer, so you don't notice all that shit until after you put the book down for a while.  Let me just explain this all in one quick sentence: Kyell has that awesome, millionaire, best-selling, Stephen King-esque ability to make you feel less like you're reading a book, and more like you're watching a really well-put together, seamless movie.  Yeah.  You know the type.  He's one of those guys that's inherited the spirit of those old campfire storytellers who knew exactly what their audiences wanted and knew exactly how to give it to them.  I honestly think the only reason Kyell's not MORE popular than he currently is is because of the subject matter he's chosen to write (because, let's face it, there's not a very big audience for gay furry fiction).  

And it's funny to see myself write all this, because it did take me a rather long time to get through this book.  The book is still just a romance novel, after all, and I have all the same complaints about it as I usually do with the genre (see above).  Plus it wasn't exactly super deep literature.  Luckily, one of the main focuses of the book (besides love, duh) was the whole homosexual discrimination issue, the personal struggles gay folks have to go through being part of American culture, so that helped quite a bit.  The characters Dev and Lee were pretty entertaining, too (when they weren't acting like your typical romance-novel morons: again, see above).  But even so, the tension often felt contrived, and was often resolved pretty quickly.  In that way, it was exhausting, because it wasn't just one coherent plot: it was more like three or four that all sort of followed each other and had their own resolutions sprinkled throughout the whole thing.  There was an issue with the character Lee getting stuck with $100,000 in college debt that just sort of petered out and was never spoken of again.  There was a fight in the locker room that resulted in a tiny worry-period for the character Dev before it finally somehow resulted in a stronger friendship with the guy he punched.  Et cetera, et cetera.  When I was nearing the end of the book, I knew exactly how it was all going to finish up, but I was never able to pinpoint at which event it would happen, because it could have happened several times during the narrative and not made one bit of difference.  It felt like I got faked out a lot.
So clearly this isn't my kind of book at all!  Which speaks very strongly about Kyell's skill as a writer, that I was able to sit through it.  While I was reading it, as I mentioned above, these things weren't pissing me off (except the sex, which I swear he was only writing to get himself and his audience off).  I'm only thinking about them now that I'm detached from the story.  
And THAT, quite frankly, is the mark of a good writer, in my opinion.  The rest is just nitpicking.

Even if I probably won't read any more of his books myself (not my cup of tea!), if you like romance and if you're a furry, yeah, you'll love this guy Gold.


So far as what I'll review next... I've got Phil Geusz's next book to read, and an anthology I've been working on getting through.  Any other recommendations?  Something famous, something infamous?


----------



## Deo (Aug 28, 2011)

*Re: Frank's Review Corner Part 2: Kyell Gold's Out of Position*

Your name is Frank?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 28, 2011)

*Re: Frank's Review Corner Part 2: Kyell Gold's Out of Position*

Interesting. The fact I did not read much probably came from exactly what you mentioned. I was in the first chapter (that which is available in his website, I think) and the sex felt incredibly rushed and unnecesary. It's surprising to know that's not the case with the rest. I'll probably never read it for the same reasons you posted, though.

Deo: He told me that he "goes by Frank nowadays". Then again, it's possible it's just his fursona's name.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 28, 2011)

*Re: Frank's Review Corner Part 2: Kyell Gold's Out of Position*



			
				Deo said:
			
		

> Your name is Frank?


My furry pen name is.  Frank LeRenard.

Edit: 


			
				AristÃ³crates Carranza said:
			
		

> I was in the first chapter (that which is available in his website, I think) and the sex felt incredibly rushed and unnecesary.


It did to me too, but that was the one that got the plot moving.  After a while, though, he gets less porn-y with the descriptions, which is to say, he stops overdoing it, and it becomes much more enjoyable.  I felt like he should have used that level of description throughout the whole book, but... hey, he's got fans to please.


----------



## Takun (Aug 28, 2011)

I actually managed to sit through this whole book as well.  He actually hit a lot of it spot on.  I played college football for a year and am gay so I was forced to read this book.  It's been a good while since I've read it, so I don't remember all the details, but I know a lot of it felt relatable.  If I remember correctly, the end was the only part that felt completely impossible to me.  However, I know it's a feel good story so there is that.  Going to agree with you on his writing style.  It's got that hook with every chapter that makes you really want to know what happens next.



M. Le Renard said:


> My furry pen name is.  Frank LeRenard.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> It did to me too, but that was the one that got the plot moving.  After a  while, though, he gets less porn-y with the descriptions, which is to  say, he stops overdoing it, and it becomes much more enjoyable.  I felt  like he should have used that level of description throughout the whole  book, but... hey, he's got fans to please.





Let's be honest though, this is both College and Football.  A good deal of the guys on our team had a different chick in bed every Saturday after the game.  I know it's likely there to sell books, but it's also very true.  The details are there for fap material though.


----------



## Aden (Aug 28, 2011)

Sounds like he's certainly a good writer; however, the subject matter (and tendency to attempt to be fap fodder) doesn't interest me and I'll probably never read this.


----------



## Takun (Aug 28, 2011)

Aden said:


> Sounds like he's certainly a good writer; however, the subject matter (and tendency to attempt to be fap fodder) doesn't interest me and I'll probably never read this.



Pssh, you are a romantic sap.  You'd totally d'awww.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 28, 2011)

Takun said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, the end was the only part that felt completely impossible to me.


Now this is interesting, that you were a football player yourself.  I've got to ask: is the kind of jeering and heckling that Dev went through near the end actually allowed?  I honestly can't imagine coaches and the like would just look the other way about stuff like that.  When audience members start spitting on the players, I should think the officials at the game wouldn't stand for that.
But maybe I'm wrong and it really is that insanely, cartoonishly bigoted a sport.  I guess it wouldn't surprise me too much.


> The details are there for fap material though.


That's what I was referring to.  The sex itself was a plot element and was very necessary: the detailed description of it was not, exactly.

Edit: 





> Pssh, you are a romantic sap. You'd totally d'awww.


It is a pretty adorable story.  If you're in the right mood, it's a good read.  Unfortunately for me, I'm never in that mood.  My writing is always dark and gritty and loveless.  Hence, no one wants to publish my stuff.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 28, 2011)

Also, a little off-topic: 

Frank, let me say that I find it abslutely hilarious that you get those recommendations on Amazon now.
How do you feel about the matter?

Also, what is that "cheerleading" you're talking about?

Edit: Don't worry Frank, everybody is gritty. It's inevitable.
Most genres start as comedies and then serious people take over them, that's it.


----------



## Takun (Aug 28, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> Now this is interesting, that you were a football player yourself.  I've got to ask: is the kind of jeering and heckling that Dev went through near the end actually allowed?  I honestly can't imagine coaches and the like would just look the other way about stuff like that.  When audience members start spitting on the players, I should think the officials at the game wouldn't stand for that.
> But maybe I'm wrong and it really is that insanely, cartoonishly bigoted a sport.  I guess it wouldn't surprise me too much.
> 
> That's what I was referring to.  The sex itself was a plot element and was very necessary: the detailed description of it was not, exactly.



It's not allowed in the rules, but people get away with it.  A lot of jeering and personal stabs are taken at the line before the snap and after plays.  Unless you are way over the top with it however, you'll just get warned for it.  Refs understand that people have a lot of adrenaline going and with the emotions going around and all the contact, more leeway is allowed than say in basketball.  Also, in basketball officials are closer to players at all times than the refs on a football field.  

To more plainly answer the question though, it would happen but it wouldn't be as explicitly in the open as in the book.  Players would (and did at my college) attack each other for stuff in the locker room, in the shower, and on the field away from coaches.  If it was causing a huge problem, the coach would intervene.  However, if the coach was against it and the player wasn't a star athlete, he'd probably just be asked to leave.

tl;dr: the book overdramatizes a real problem by putting it more in the public.


----------



## Aden (Aug 28, 2011)

Takun said:


> Pssh, you are a romantic sap.  You'd totally d'awww.



Honest to goodness I cannot stand to read romance stories. I even despise romance subplots in TV shows and movies. :c


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Aug 28, 2011)

He's a pretty mediocre author.  I read Bridges a while back and it was... eh.  Nothing special really, but good enough to get the attention of people who are used to a lower standard.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 28, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Also, a little off-topic:
> 
> Frank, let me say that I find it abslutely hilarious that you get those recommendations on Amazon now.
> How do you feel about the matter?


I find hilarious too.  None of them look any good, either. ;-)



> Also, what is that "cheerleading" you're talking about?


Cheerleading?  I don't recall I said anything about cheerleading.



Takun said:


> tl;dr: the book overdramatizes a real problem by putting it more in the public.


I figured it was a problem, but I didn't think mere allegations would cause people in the stands to wave offensive signs and spit on the players or anything like that.  And if it did, I would sort of assume security would take issue with it.
But I guess, yeah, I was wondering just how dramatized it was.  That part felt pretty phony to me.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 28, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> Cheerleading?  I don't recall I said anything about cheerleading..



Ah, sorry, my mistake. I accidentaly read "cheerleading" instead of "jeering".

Haha! I'd like to have those just to mock their back-covers.


----------



## Banner (Aug 29, 2011)

The only reason I haven't read this book is the price, 10 dollars for an ebook? That's absurd for someone who is an unknown outside of the fandom. It also seems a bit greedy, as on amazon the author gets 70 percent of the price. If it was under 5 bucks I'd buy it,  I also suspect his sales would be a lot better. I've seen this with a lot of other furry authors, they seem to think they can charge top dollar for something that is a very small niche market.


----------



## Banner (Aug 29, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> I find hilarious too.  None of them look any good, either. ;-)
> 
> You can go into your account and tell amazon not to use the book for recommendations.


----------



## Kamatz (Aug 29, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> Now, I've got complaints, sure.  I always have complaints...



I dunno, I tend to think of those complaints you listed as deal breakers, which is why I'll probably never read it. Explicit descriptions for the sake of fap material/fanservice, predictable ending, plot points that never resolve etc... Sounds like a soap opera. It's a shame because you say he's a fantastic story teller, but I get the feeling that he willingly eases up on good style practices to write the story his audience wants to hear.

Also I have a vendetta against my former high school's football team. That doesn't make me biased against pig skin chasers though, I assure you.

I've heard good things about this, but I've never read it myself. Could you do that one?


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Aug 29, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> I dunno, I tend to think of those complaints you listed as deal breakers, which is why I'll probably never read it. Explicit descriptions for the sake of fap material/fanservice, predictable ending, plot points that never resolve etc... Sounds like a soap opera. It's a shame because you say he's a fantastic story teller, but I get the feeling that he willingly eases up on good style practices to write the story his audience wants to hear.



I agree. I read this review as "This book has no redeeming factors, save the writers ability to trap me within the narrative"

I especially agree with the notion that he limits himself by pandering to a specific audience. Waterways was a cliche "gay" story (Boy meets boy, boy gets lusty, boy has religious parents that don't approve because strawman, Priest is more accepting, boy comes to terms with sexuality and loves boy, boy fucks boy in gratuitous detail, happy ending yay), except with anthropomorphic animals. I guess I'm a little biased in criticizing him, because pointless anthropomorphics is a pet peeve for me, but whatever

It just feels like he writes his stories to appeal to the masses, rather than the intelligent, a point euphemized by Frank

Bluh bluh salty post, I'll check out another book of his if he actually writes something good, removed from the limits of pandering to an audience


----------



## foozzzball (Aug 29, 2011)

I always find it amusing how desperately people feel the need to cut into Kyell. A feeling that his reputation is unnecessarily bloated, perhaps? I particularly like how Frank's all, 'Well, you know, he is actually quite good, he just wrote some fap material in this book,' and everone else is all, 'HE WRITES FAP MATERIAL! HE IS OVERRATED AND TERRIBLE AT WRITING! HE PANDERS TO AN AUDIENCE!'

Of course my opinion is invalid, since I know the guy personally and swap drafts with him for opinions, but I think Frank's views are entirely reasonable, and are expressed quite well on the matter.


----------



## kitreshawn (Aug 29, 2011)

foozzzball said:


> (...) everone else is all, 'HE WRITES FAP MATERIAL! HE IS OVERRATED AND TERRIBLE AT WRITING! HE PANDERS TO AN AUDIENCE!' (...)



Welcome to the crab bucket.  Not at all unique to writing either, it isn't uncommon to see similar things go on with art or web comics or what have you.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 29, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> Romance usually just ends up annoying me because of how contrived it  often is and how stupid characters act in order to create tension (and  this always seems to be the case, gay or not).


Are you a human? :V



> But maybe I'm wrong and it really is that insanely, cartoonishly bigoted a sport.  I guess it wouldn't surprise me too much.


It's a well known secret that sports is gay.



> While I was reading it, as I mentioned above, these things weren't pissing me off (except the sex, which I swear he was only writing to get himself and his audience off)..


Why so much hate for a book of many purposes? :C



> Even if I probably won't read any more of his books myself (not my cup of tea!)


Isolation Play is out there. I have a feeling you'll relent.




> Any other recommendations?  Something famous, something infamous?


Decamerone by Boccaccio, the ancestor of modern short story. I really liked the silly piece of the 14th century. Should read it again if I find mine...


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

I don't read furry stories/porn, but may I suggest a book to read? It's a bit.. off-topic and not furry at all, but it's called Puppy Chow is Better Than Prozac.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 29, 2011)

Just to be clear, my criticisms are all with the genre.  I never said the book has no redeeming factors; I said, in fact, that if you like romance, you'll love the hell out of this book.  It's the best _romance_ book I've read, for sure (not that I've read many).  I just happen to not like romance.  But Kyell does romance really well, because his characters may act like dopes some of the time, but most of the time they're well-developed and interesting, so you're actually able to think of them as people (or anthros...whatever) rather than as sex toys.
And I don't think he's purposely pandering to an audience by writing in this genre.  The gratuitous sex, yes, is pandering, but I think probably he's got a lot of personal experience with this kind of stuff, and so this is what he wants to write and what he's good at writing.  What I was saying there was that _if_ he wrote a more mainstream genre that had a wider audience, he'd probably end up on the NYT bestseller list.
You know?  This book isn't going to win any hoity toity literary awards or anything, but it's still a good book.  I could give the same nitpicky treatment to the whole Harry Potter series, but that didn't stop me from loving those books.

Also, let me mention again that the purpose of these reviews is to familiarize FAF (and myself) with writing by furry authors.  So when I ask for recommendations, that's what I mean.  New Tibet is one to check out, though, yeah, so thanks, Kamatz.

(I'm also amused at how many responses this one has gotten so far compared to the last such thread I made.  If you have an irrational hatred for Kyell, maybe go check out Phil Geusz.)


----------



## dietrc70 (Aug 29, 2011)

Thanks for the review, Frank.  I basically concur with your points about Kyell Gold's work.

I read the first chapter of *Out of Position* but didn't continue.  I didn't connect with either of the main characters, and the exploitative and manipulative quality of their initial sexual encounter really turned me off.

I've enjoyed *Bridges*, much to my surprise  (read the Kindle sample and didnt' want to stop).  The characters were exceptionally well done; I could relate to more than one of them, liked them all, and was quickly drawn into their story.  The sex was not gratuitous--it played a very interesting symbolic and structural role whenever it took place.

Interestingly, the furry characters make Kyell's stories accessible to me in a way they never would be if they involved humans.  I would not normally investigate gay erotica, and I would likely be repelled by the graphic sex if it involved my own species.  In Kyell's work, though, it's just what foxes and 'yotes do in the big city.  I can appreciate the sex for what it means to the characters without it being either a turn-on or turn-off.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Aug 29, 2011)

foozzzball said:


> I always find it amusing how desperately people feel the need to cut into Kyell. A feeling that his reputation is unnecessarily bloated, perhaps? I particularly like how Frank's all, 'Well, you know, he is actually quite good, he just wrote some fap material in this book,' and everone else is all, 'HE WRITES FAP MATERIAL! HE IS OVERRATED AND TERRIBLE AT WRITING! HE PANDERS TO AN AUDIENCE!'
> 
> Of course my opinion is invalid, since I know the guy personally and swap drafts with him for opinions, but I think Frank's views are entirely reasonable, and are expressed quite well on the matter.



Yes, I claimed he panders to an audience, and unless you can put up a counter argument which explains the deep literary purpose as to why his characters are anthropomorphs, then I'm going to keep claiming he does this. Because he does

That said, I never claimed he was over rated. Over rated is a term used by people who are salty over popularity

Your use of all caps to blemish what I have said would perhaps have worked better if your argument against me consisted of more than "You are so dumb for saying this. For real"

You are also not my psychiatrist, so I would like to ask you to refrain from trying to understand and then attack my inner conflicts and motivations based off of one post I made amounting to "I didn't like Waterways". Although you could be completely right, and I could be completely head over heals jelly over Kyell's popularity and that is why I disliked that work, instead of my argument that it is poorly paced and overtly cliche


----------



## Aden (Aug 29, 2011)

Well there you go, Renard: for easy topic interest, review something that a lot of people have preconceived notions about. Ta-da!


----------



## kitreshawn (Aug 29, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> (... stuff ... )



It is rather interesting that you seem to believe that his response is to you personally when (a) he never mentions anyone by name (b) there are other people besides you making pretty much the same arguments (his use of porn is pandering, therefore the story is bad) and (c) he is specifically critiquing the response people are having to the review (i.e. Frank talking about how he dislikes the sex scenes but the book has redeeming features while other people jump in and respond to that by effectively saying 'no all porn is bad').

He isn't using the all caps to mock the intelligence of the people making said statement so much as the knee jerk reaction. To explain, Frank took effort to describe what he did and didn't like, why, and then came to the conclusion (it seems to me at least) that the book was worth the read.  By contrast people are jumping in and effectively saying that because the story has a lot of sex that immediately makes it bad, but fail to explain WHY.

And then you went on an ad hominem attack (implying he is trying to be your psychologist when he [a] never claims to be * again NEVER mentions you by name and [c] never even mentions your posts).

Kindly calm down.

tl;dr:
-Nobody was attacking you
-You then attacked them for the imagined attack
-Chill please*


----------



## Aden (Aug 29, 2011)

Arguments on the internet are so much better when the participants are literate c:


----------



## Bliss (Aug 29, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> I could give the same nitpicky treatment to  the whole Harry Potter series, but that didn't stop me from loving those  books.


Everybody loves magic.



> Also, let me mention again that the purpose of these reviews is  to familiarize FAF (and myself) with writing by furry authors.  So when I  ask for recommendations, that's what I mean.


I am deeply hurt.  :[

Read it still if you have not already. Make me happy again. D:



Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Yes, I claimed he panders to an audience, and unless you can put up a counter argument which explains the *deep literary purpose* as to why his characters are anthropomorphs, then I'm going to keep claiming he does this. Because he does


What on Earth is that? I made a laughing.


----------



## Kamatz (Aug 29, 2011)

Visors down, here comes the shitstorm.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Aug 30, 2011)

kitreshawn said:


> ~stuff~



Yes, you're completely right. I should not have acted as if the post that came right after mine, saying that everything I thought was wrong was directed at me, just because it never mentioned my name

You really are a paragon of astuteness, kitreshawn. I would have gone on thinking forever that his post was directed at a viewpoint, instead of the nobody that you claim it to be just because it doesn't mention names

Tl;dr: put two and two together. He quoted me word for word at one point


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 30, 2011)

Settle down, folks.  Ain't no personal attacks here.  Foozzz just happens to be very blunt in his language, as always.  Let's get back to discussing the book in question, instead of getting hurt feelings about differing opinions.



			
				dietrc70 said:
			
		

> In Kyell's work, though, it's just what foxes and 'yotes do in the big city. I can appreciate the sex for what it means to the characters without it being either a turn-on or turn-off.


I can sort of see that.  Although I still don't quite see the point of going into quite that much detail.  But if Out of Position turned you off and this one didn't, maybe he treats it a little better in that one.
Either way... again, not a fan of romance, so I probably won't be reading any more of his stuff.  I noticed he's written some fantasy novels, but they look like they've got huge romantic subplots too, so.... eh.  I'll keep exploring other authors for now.



			
				Lizzie said:
			
		

> Read it still if you have not already. Make me happy again. D:


There is a massive research library on campus here.  Maybe I'll see if I can find copies of them there.


----------



## kitreshawn (Aug 30, 2011)

**deleted as I just saw M. Le's post asking people to cut things out and keep things to topic, instead enjoy the following message**

lol internets.


----------



## foozzzball (Aug 30, 2011)

Tybalt: Thank you for singling yourself out for attention. I can tell that in the same fashion you read whatever you want to into Frank's review, you've similarly read whatever you want into my generalized response. That's okay - you're holding a very generalized opinion, the same kind of shit that comes up year after year at the Ursas and in any discussion of Kyell's merits, one which I habitually feel the need to look down on, but if you want to put the effort in to victimise yourself, I'm cool with that. <3

Kyell has far more serious failings than 'Why the hell did he make it furry?' but that's one that gets hit on a lot. Okay, he is either truly a fox, and is writing the stories of his peoples, or:



dietrc70 said:


> Interestingly, the furry characters make Kyell's stories accessible to  me in a way they never would be if they involved humans.  I would not  normally investigate gay erotica, and I would likely be repelled by the  graphic sex if it involved my own species.  In Kyell's work, though,  it's just what foxes and 'yotes do in the big city.  I can appreciate  the sex for what it means to the characters without it being either a  turn-on or turn-off.



Or that's just how he wanted to write it, or it's a dark plot to pander to an audience of intelligent gay furries who like sexy romance. To pander to... himself.

Is it still pandering if you're pandering to yourself, by writing precisely what you want to read?

Finally, keep an eye on Kyell's output in the next couple years. There is a tasty manuscript that is furry-fantasy high and sticky-cocks low on the way.

(PS. If you want to come across as a smart critic of Kyell, actually read his work carefully. Frank's criticisms are extremely valid, the generic 'OH SHIT! SEX AND GAYNESS!' criticisms are not.)


----------



## Kamatz (Aug 30, 2011)

foozzzball said:


> ... the generic 'OH SHIT! SEX AND GAYNESS!' criticisms are not.)



I'll tread very carefully here. I have a genuine criticism of this that I want to express, not a personal vendetta. I don't mean to step on any toes.

I  have nothing against sex in a story if it's actually a relevant plot  point. If events unfolded within the story such that the sex seems like  it should happen, but it doesn't, then imo it feels like the author  censored their own book which I think is a bad style choice. What I  don't like is the "unnecessary" explicit descriptions. Again, imo, as a matter of style, you should omit things that aren't relevant to the plot. This is how I've always been taught.

Is it relevant to spend a page (maybe more or less since I haven't read the book) describing bodily fluids  and penetration? I tend to think that the only relevant part is that  they had sex in the fist place, since this is the catalyst for the  book's events. It introduces the main conflict which the characters now  have to deal with. It could be argued that, well if the sex is relevant  to the story, the descriptions are relevant to the sex, and so the  descriptions must be relevant to the story by association. I think this  is a bit of a stretch. I think that, with few exceptions, understatement  should be the name of the game.

This is why I get the feeling of  pandering to an audience whenever Gold's work is discussed. If the  descriptions aren't relevant, which I don't think they are, then they're  there to get people off. And that's my biggest gripe. I don't think  that's a good style choice. It's a major turn off for me to be reading  something and then get the feeling that certain events are contrived or  irrelevant. It breaks the immersion.

This is not a criticism of  Gold himself, nor is it a criticism of all gay romance, but of the way  he chooses to write about it. He has his style which works, and he has  every right to write things that he and his audience enjoy. Why else  would you write something unless you were enjoying it? All I'm saying is  that his choice to include the heavy descriptions of sex seems like a  bad style choice to me.

I could be completely wrong. I've never  read his book, and I'm tempted to pick it up so that I can participate  in these discussions more intelligently. I hesitate because if it were  ever found I would probably be disowned by friends and family. Such is life.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 30, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> There is a massive research library on campus here.  Maybe I'll see if I can find copies of them there.


I understand. It's much more of an experience when you hold a _book_ in your hands.



Kamatz said:


> What I  don't like is the "unnecessary" explicit descriptions.
> 
> Is it relevant to spend a page (maybe more or less since I haven't read the book) describing bodily fluids  and penetration? It could be argued that, well if the sex is relevant  to the story, the descriptions are relevant to the sex, and so the  descriptions must be relevant to the story by association.
> 
> ...


Well, why to describe anything? :V



> I could be completely wrong.


No, you just have an opinion.



> I've never  read his book, and I'm tempted to pick it up so that I can participate  in these discussions more intelligently. I hesitate because if it were  ever found I would probably be disowned by friends and family. Such is life.


Hide it under your pillow.


----------



## foozzzball (Aug 30, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> <Things>
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Again, I view this as same old silly and not so thought through argument. I'm straight, I have to squint and skip over many of the passages, I'm slightly innoculated to gay sex scenes by now but starting out I freely admit to nausea. At no point of queasiness did I ever make the assumption that this was somehow a literary issue.

Because it isn't, this is a content issue - and there are reductionists who will argue that any excessive description of any issue in a story whatsoever is 'bad style', from football to sex, but it's never football and sex, it's always _sex_, which immediately tells me you're either reading erotica and expecting all-ages romance (the opening to OOP qualifies as erotica here, if viewed as a seperate entity, the whole of the book less so - the first, and hence most psychologically impacting, sex scene between Dev and Lee is the one with the most pagespace, if I recall correctly) or you're fixating on sex as an issue and trying to pretend that it has something to do with literary quality.

Why, precisely, are you falling into the trap of treating sex  differently from anything else, exactly? Frank points out, rightly, that  there is also HARDCORE EXPLICIT *FOOTBALL* all over that book. Why  is hardcore explicit sex more or less of a problem because  that sort of detail 'gets people off'?

Of course all the sex changes who the book's audience is, who wants to read it, who is comfortable reading it, who finds those details interesting, but blithely making an assumption that lots of sex means literarily bankrupt is to my mind foolish at best, willfull prudery and ignorance at worst. Granted, too much sex can be a problem, the same way too much anything can be a problem - Tom Clancy famously spends chunks of one of his books following a log floating around the ocean, among his many failings of excessive techno-porn - but to know whether or not it is a problem, you can't operate off hearsay. You need to read it yourself, and formulate your own opinion about it.

Now, granted, it's not a book you wish to own because of your personal situation. Okay, that's fine - I'd look long and hard at friends and family liable to disown me for my reading habits - but why do you feel the need to dig into discussion of a book (and presumably author) you're not interested in, exactly?


----------



## Kamatz (Aug 30, 2011)

foozzzball said:


> ...reductionists who will argue that any  excessive description of any issue in a story whatsoever is 'bad style',  from football to sex, but it's never football and sex, it's always _sex_...



Well,  if there's a scene within the story that labors over the details of how  the ball got into the end zone then I'll extend my criticism to that  scene as well.



> Frank points out, rightly, that  there is also HARDCORE EXPLICIT *FOOTBALL*  all over that book. Why  is hardcore explicit sex more or less of a  problem because  that sort of detail 'gets people off'?



I  don't think it's more or less of a problem, I think it's exactly the  same problem if you spend too long describing the details of the game.  As the reader, I want enough description to set a tone for a particular  scene, and as soon as that scene has served its purpose I want it to  move along. I want to see that these two characters had sex, knowing the  repercussions, and then I want to see how they struggle to reconcile  that with societal expectations. That's the real meat of the story.  Don't waste my time telling me exactly where all the bodily fluids went!  Suffice to suggest there were plenty all around, and then keep moving.  Tell me what happens next.

Likewise, I don't really need to know  about every fumbled ball on the field (as opposed to the ones in bed!  haha). Keep the details relevant. Keep it pithy, no fluff.



> I'd look long and hard at friends and family liable to disown me for my reading habits



Can't always choose your friends and family.



> why  do you feel the need to dig into discussion of a book (and presumably  author) you're not interested in, exactly?



I like these  kinds of discussions, and yes I am interested. Especially when you're  here, since you make me challenge all of my assumptions. It's great fun.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 30, 2011)

Actually, I didn't think the football was overdone.  I just had a hard time following it because of the jargon employed.  But I can't fault Kyell for that, since both of the first-person narrators were highly knowledgeable about football.  That was barely a criticism, because that was mostly my own problem.
But yeah.  The point does remain that the only reason I got annoyed with the sex was because it was just plain overdone.  Too much focus on it for little plot development.  And considering that the rest of the book didn't have that problem, I just assumed it was done for the sake of the expected audience and not for any literary reason, which is like... okay, fine, I'll just skip over those parts.  And it's the fact that there are parts I feel I can safely skip over that's the issue.  One would like for the whole book to be a single coherent piece.  So those all felt more like a marketing gimmick, or something, and when I notice something like that, I immediately get taken out of the story.


----------



## kitreshawn (Aug 30, 2011)

I'll point out here that my personal feelings on the book closely mirror Renard's, so instead of repeating the same thing I thought I would give a different view on the book that a friend gave me which I believe also makes a lot of sense:

Basically early on in pretty much any relationship sex is a very big deal, and in my experience homosexuals tend to be much more promiscuous (again, in my experience most relationships initially base strongly off of sex and then either fail or more rarely develop into something deeper).  So he argues that it makes a lot of sense that early on in the book a lot of time would be given to their dalliances since one of Kyell's stated goals has been to tell stories that would help give closeted homosexuals hope that they are not alone and that there has to be someone out there for them.

From this perspective the sex early on makes a lot of sense.  No it does not move the story forward but it DOES outline a realistic progression of a gay relationship from the initial 'oh pretty' to the 'lets have sex' to the possibility of it developing into something more.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 30, 2011)

The sex through the whole story makes sense and is relevant.  I just don't see why it's necessary to describe in graphic detail the whole process behind lubing up someone's asshole so your dick will go in smoother.  Does that have anything to do with letting gay folks know they're not alone?
And I don't know... maybe it does.


----------



## kitreshawn (Aug 30, 2011)

Which is why my views closely mirror yours.  Personally I think some of the choices were made with the intention of attracting audience.  All other things equal I don't particularly think it is necessarily a bad thing or necessarily a good thing either.  Mostly I just kind of consider it a rational decision to make in order to sell books, which when you are trying to make a living off your writing is a very real and serious consideration.  This can be handled both well and poorly, which in many cases comes down to a matter of taste.    Personally I find it a bit distracting, but do not feel it ruins the book.  Others may not notice it at all, or may not be able to get past it.


----------



## Kamatz (Aug 31, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> ...lubing up someone's asshole so your dick will go in smoother...



I was drinking Arizona tea and I had a big mouthful when I read that. Totally unexpected. You almost owed me a new keyboard. I need to change my shirt.


----------



## dietrc70 (Aug 31, 2011)

kitreshawn, Frank

There is a simpler reason for all the detail in the sex, and isn't financial calculation, or a desire to pander to an audience.  I've listened to his podcast for years, at least read parts of a good chunk of his work, and while I've never met him personally I feel pretty confident asserting that:

_Kyell genuinely likes to write stories in which the (usually subby red fox) protagonist experiences graphic, tail-raising ecstasy._

Basically, Kyell has two goals:  1.  Write yiff that turns him and and his friends on.  2.  Write stories of genuine literary quality.

I think one of the main reasons I find this author fascinating is that his work seethes with the conflicts between these two goals, and the author's struggles to bring them into a synthesis.

Nothing could be more boring for me than boilerplate gay yiff.  But what of gay yiff that yearns for creative sublimity, spiritual wholeness, and enduring love?  That is something quite unexpected, tragic, and even beautiful.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 31, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> I just don't see why it's necessary to describe in graphic detail the whole process behind lubing up someone's asshole so your dick will go in smoother.  Does that have anything to do with letting gay folks know they're not alone?


As I said: a book of many purposes. It offers sex education too! :3c


----------



## Aden (Aug 31, 2011)

dietrc70 said:


> kitreshawn, Frank
> 
> There is a simpler reason for all the detail in the sex, and isn't financial calculation, or a desire to pander to an audience.  I've listened to his podcast for years, at least read parts of a good chunk of his work, and while I've never met him personally I feel pretty confident asserting that:
> 
> ...



A porn movie with good plot is still a porn movie - and you won't find an abundance of people watching it solely for the plot


----------



## Azure (Aug 31, 2011)

Furry fandom fictional writings. Like Zac and Mirri Make a Porno, utterly unbearable, but you can't look away either. It's like all those romance novels in Wal-Mart, people read them for a very specific reason, and just because you enjoy it doesn't make it of any quality. It's still porno at the end of the day, plain and simple, the story is secondary to the fapping.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 31, 2011)

The point is to include a good plot so that the sex isn't the ONLY draw.
Red Letter Media's been discussing this same sort of thing with regard to movies and special effects.  Once the novelty wears off, you can always resort to story to keep peoples' attention.  Kyell does that just fine.  He just needs to work on meshing the two aspects together better, in my opinion (sex and plot).
Actually... symbolism would be a good route to take for that, I think.  Don't know if he's ever tried that before.  It'd be tough, but if he could pull it off, then I'd start calling his work literature.  Because obviously at this point he has the writing trade down.  He could start expanding into those upper realms any time he wanted to give it a shot.


----------



## Azure (Sep 1, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> Red Letter Media


WHATS WRONG WITH YOUR FACE?!

/pizza rolls


----------



## buni (Sep 13, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> I just don't see why it's necessary to describe in graphic detail the whole process behind lubing up someone's asshole so your dick will go in smoother.



If I had to guess, it's added detail to make the sex seem more realistic. Rather than rely on magical "things just fit; it was wonderful" moments, the characters have to worry about lube, about condoms, about bedsprings, whatever. I don't know, I haven't read it. Too many porn stories assume these things Just Work, and taking the time to focus on the minutiae of "how you have sex" could be argued as a stylistic decision to make the sex more personable, less artistic.

That said, it could just as easily be graphic detail to make the scene hotter in the eyes of some. "I did it that way because it has a deep and powerful meaning which I could only explain in five pages of backstory I chose not to include" and "I did it that way 'cause it pushes my buttons" are both valid reasons, and they both look the same from the outside.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 13, 2011)

Eh... I consider that type of thing more along the lines of 'I inserted this scene simply because I thought it was cool.'  That's what amateurs do who don't know how to make a cohesive story.  You know.  If the work is erotic, fine, but don't just toss a bunch of graphic sex in there simply because it turns you on.  So I wouldn't call that a valid reason.
Making it more realistic, though, would be a valid reason.  I suppose that's as good an excuse as any.


----------



## buni (Sep 14, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> If the work is erotic, fine, but don't just toss a bunch of graphic sex in there simply because it turns you on.  So I wouldn't call that a valid reason.



Well, why not? It's a fair assessment to say of any work that actively depicts sex, the point of the sex is to arouse the audience. This isn't to say that you can't have a place for sex in larger works, but really, very few plots--and this is coming from _me_, mind--absolutely must have the focus on the sex as a key element of the story. "I put it in there because I wanted to get the audience emotionally and physically invested in the story" is absolutely a legitimate reason to include an element in a story. It may not have anything to do with the story itself, but it may have to do with the metacontext of "I want this story to make the reader hot and bothered because then the reader will be more interested in the characters."


----------



## Aden (Sep 14, 2011)

buni said:


> Well, why not? It's a fair assessment to say of any work that actively depicts sex, the point of the sex is to arouse the audience. This isn't to say that you can't have a place for sex in larger works, but really, very few plots--and this is coming from _me_, mind--absolutely must have the focus on the sex as a key element of the story. "I put it in there because I wanted to get the audience emotionally and physically invested in the story" is absolutely a legitimate reason to include an element in a story. It may not have anything to do with the story itself, but it may have to do with the metacontext of "I want this story to make the reader hot and bothered because then the reader will be more interested in the characters."



"I don't want that character to be sad, he gave me a boner :frownyface:"


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 14, 2011)

buni said:
			
		

> "I put it in there because I wanted to get the audience emotionally and physically invested in the story"


Let's put it this way: I skipped a bunch of paragraphs in this thing because they were both pointless to the overall conclusion of the plot, and they bored the hell out of me.  Now, obviously I'm not the target audience, so no one would expect me to get aroused, but that's only 50%.  The other 50%, the emotional aspect, got skipped over for some of those.  And if that happens, it's no longer about the story, which means it doesn't need to be in there.
I don't see why it's okay to do that with sex if it's not okay to, say, throw in a random scene where one of the characters rides a giraffe, and then never mention it again.  A giraffe ride might be exciting to some people (just as these sex scenes might arouse some people), but it's still a dumb scene that serves no purpose.
I'm saying the point was made by about sex scene number 2.  It's like, yes, I get it; these two are passionate for each other.  Please refrain from swinging that particular hammer at me any more.
And it does improve a lot in the later chapters, because the sex is no longer described in such graphic detail.  It gets the point across without all the nitty-gritty.  He could have stood to have done that for several more of the sex scenes in this book, to improve the flow.

If you haven't noticed yet, I'm complaining about style.  Not sex.


----------

