• Member Since 2nd Nov, 2012
  • offline last seen 1 hour ago

Admiral Biscuit


Virtually invisible to PaulAsaran

More Blog Posts899

Feb
9th
2015

Rant, Advice, Challenge (I should get more sleep) · 2:38am Feb 9th, 2015

Gonna start this thing off with a bit of grumbling, and then close her out with a bit of advice, and then a challenge. So hold on tightly to your adult beverages, kiddies.

First the grumbling.

I'd hoped to make some significant progress on some writing this weekend. I had a few hours on Saturday, after a friend's birthday dinner, and then if it was slow at the group home where I was working on Sunday, I could make an editing pass, and maybe have something ready to go on Monday.

Of course, on the way home from the aforementioned birthday dinner, the on-call person asked if I could work an overnight shift at a different group home. It's a sleeper shift, she told me, which means that I get paid to sleep.

Sure. Why not.

So I got home, had an hour to play on the internet and pack the necessities, and then it was back to Lansing.

Get to the house, and ask for a quick run-down from the departing staff: I've never worked an overnight at that house before, so I need to know what the schedule is like.

“Well,” she tells me, “Luigi [not his real name] will get up at 5 for his shower. He might want to check in, to see who's working.”

Lovely.

“And you might have to help John [also not his real name] in the shower.”

Even better.

So, I drag myself upstairs, resigning myself to—at best—five hours of sleep, and when I open the door to the sleeper room I discover what we have as a bed: a cot. With a sleeping bag.

So this was my night.

And Luigi did, in fact, get up at 5am.

Which meant that I pretty much got nothing done during the eight hour shift at the next group home, either, since I was struggling to stay awake.


Okay, enough of that. Now I'm going to dispense two pearls of wisdom, both involving writing. The first is show vs. tell.

Generally, in a story we want to show. Generally. For example

Twilight was sad.

isn't as good as

Twilight hung her head and blinked a tear out of the corner of her eye.

But, as with all things, it needs to be properly applied, or else you can fall into the purple prose trap.

It was noon.

is, in most cases, going to be better than

Celestia's sun hung directly over Ponyville, causing everypony's shadow to be directly underneath them. The town clock chimed once, twice, thrice . . . twelve times, the final peal of its bells echoing through the busy streets of town.

A pretty good rule of thumb to follow is that when describing character's emotions you should always show; when describing background stuff that really isn't important you should usually tell—but there is no hard and fast rule here. Just recently, I read one of SS&E's one-shots that could be used as an example of purple prose . . . but of course, skirts made it work.

And I should also say that different authors have different styles: Parker liked his novels sparse; MacLean loved using the environment as another character. So this is one of those things where there isn't a hard and fast rule. It's more of a guideline, really, and what you ought to do varies by what you're trying to accomplish in the story.

Looking back at what I just wrote, I'm not sure if I actually gave any useful advice. One of the problems with knowledge is that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

Oh well. Moving on.

My second little bit of writing advice—and here I do have a strong opinion.

It's often said to write what you know.

That's both good and bad advice, and I'm gonna tell you why. You still got your adult beverage handy, kids?

Writing what you know is probably one of the reasons we've got a metric crapton of Gary-Stued HiE fics on the site. A large number of writers are teenagers, and as all of us who are older and wiser know, teenagers don't know a damn thing. They think they do—and trust me, I was a teenager once, and I knew everything back then. But kids these days. . . .

Ahem. Sorry. My point is twofold. First, you should write what you know. If you don't, sooner or later, you're going to find out that your readers know more than you do, and they're going to be willing to tell you all about it in the comments. For example, I knew from watching Law and Order that guns have clips, which hold the ammo . . . except that readers of mine who actually have experience with guns know damn well that only n00bs call them 'clips'; everyone who knows anything about guns calls them magazines.

Ditto for fur. Ponies don't have fur, they have coats.

Now, it's okay for a character to be wrong. Rainbow Dash can say “I have mud in my fur,” and our Gary-Stu can loudly announce “I have another clip for my gun, you know.” But the author had better get it right in the descriptive text.

Why am I telling you this? Because, as should be obvious by now, I didn't know either of those things. If I wrote what I know, I could tell you about being an auto mechanic. I could tell you about working with developmentally disabled adults. I could give you some insight into driving a wrecker . . . but when I first started writing ponyfiction, I couldn't have told you where the withers are on a horse. I didn't know that the first movie predated the first electric power plant in the US, I was certain that the proper plural of pegasus is pegasi (it isn't [but you can use it and not feel bad because they do in the show, so even though it's technically wrong, it's canon]), and a thousand other things I didn't know. If you read through story notes on my blog, it's pretty much a long list of stuff I didn't know.

So maybe the advice ought to be: Write what you know. If you don't know, find out.

Seriously. Wikipedia'll give you general knowledge (but it will not make you an expert!). Your library has books. Read them. If you want to know what watching the moon landing was like, ask someone who watched it back in '69. I did, and now I know. Pester a veterinarian. Trust me, you'll be glad you did.


And now for the neat segue into the challenge. Some of y'all have noticed that recently, a bunch of people have been posting blog posts about “I write like...” Some online tool that takes your work, chews it up into and feeds it through a neat little algorithm, and can tell you that you write like Tolkein, or Joyce, or Gaimen, or Farles Wickens (with four m's and a silent q). One of these days, I'll toss in a few of my fics, and see what they come out as. Probably that guy that vandalizes public toilets, but hey. Somebody's got to be that guy.

Also recently, I was reading Tony Koester's latest Train of Thought column (probably only two of my readers know who he is, but that's okay).

You wouldn't think that having a lot of experience doing something would be a liability. As it turns out, it can be.

In an article in Aviation Week & Space Technology, a leading expert in the field of solar-cell powered aircraft observed his company pulled in experts from other fields such as Formula One racing and photovoltaic manufacturing. “In some ways, it was a big asset not to be too experienced,” the expert stated. “When you are are experienced, you go back to the solutions you know.”

This applies to writing, too, I think. Most of us aren't famous authors outside the fandom, so we don't have publishers breathing down out necks, insisting that the next installment of Twilight ought to be the same as the previous one, to keep the sales up and the paychecks flowing. But so many of us fall into a rut; so many of us keep writing in the same style, because it's what we know, it's where we're comfortable, and it's what we think our readers expect.

And that's not wrong—many of our readers are expecting that the new story will be much like the last story. And some of them might get peeved if the new story isn't like the last one, and maybe some of them won't read it. But that's okay, because other people will.

I've made a point of letting the story dictate the narrative voice. I've got first-, second-, and third-person stories. I've got omniscient narrators, and very limited viewpoints. I've done a few non-traditional present tense stories, I've done stories where I deliberately withhold information, fake-outs, double fake-outs, and the list goes on. I challenged myself in One-Shot-Ober to push my boundaries, and wrote my first-ever gore/dark fic, as well as a few EqG fics. I meant to write an anthro fic, too, but couldn't come up with anything. Heck, I never would have written a fic with graphic sex in it if there hadn't first been a Collab Cage challege (and y'all know I'll write nearly anything on a dare).

So to all of you writers out there: experiment. Try writing a story in a different narrative voice. Move out of your comfort zone. You might find that you like writing in first person, or have a talent for composing couplets—and even if you decide that it's not for you, at least you'll know something you didn't know before.

And for the rest of you—don't bitch when a writer tries an experiment. You can say you didn't like it. That's fine. That's honest. But don't insist that the writer gets back in his or her rut to make you happy. All that leads to is mediocrity, and eventually movies like Furious 7: Why Is This Still A Thing?

Report Admiral Biscuit · 605 views ·
Comments ( 50 )

I accept your challenge.

I'm going to write a story in 1st-person, which is something I've never done before. Then I'll send it to you for grading.

~Corporal Waffle

2781020 SIR YES SIR! (Don't tell me what to do bitch)

~Corporal Waffle

2781020

Time to invent a 4th person perspective for a story, send it to the Admiral, and then watch the explosion.

I have done both first and third person, and I am NOT going to do second person. Actually the biggest challenge for me writing-wise would be to WRITE MORE.

Two things to watch out when writing Gary stus.

The usual one is where people write how they wish they could be, if they had super powers and resources without the training or farming or grinding.

The lesser ne is where people write about their real life, and even understate it, and yet, even though what occured was stranger than that written, people still call them on being unrealistic.

The universe is weirder than we can possibly imagine.

2781066
If you scroll down to the last paragraph in this Wikipedia article they give you some ideas about what a fourth person perspective might be like. Good luck.

Absolutely love the Twilight pic.
...

...
Oh, I mean the one with Sparkle in it.
..
...
:pinkiecrazy: What? Is there something on our nose? :facehoof:

2781066

Time to invent a 4th person perspective for a story

Two days ago, I read What If Socks Don't Work Orally?
I also had Majin Syeekoh (of Big Mac's D:yay: Is Made Of Pandas fame) mention me in a blog.

[9:02:54 PM] Derpator: Until you write Scootaloo and Princess Celestia getting married and having an adventure in Twilight's gall bladder, you can't define weird at all
[9:03:00 PM] Kamikakushi: I've seen more weird shit than that.
[9:03:13 PM] Majin Syeekoh: okay, that was weird

I look forward to a fourth-person perspective. And I suppose if it turns the site into a singularity, it's a small price to pay.

2781069

I have done both first and third person, and I am NOT going to do second person.

I used to say that, too, but then I realized how useful it was in parodying some of the worst aspects of the fandom. Spending the Night at Fluttershy's only worked because it was in second person, for example.

2781126

The lesser one is where people write about their real life, and even understate it, and yet, even though what occured was stranger than that written, people still call them on being unrealistic.

Very true. Just a couple of days ago, I came across this:
Frozen Chicken Truck Bursts Into Flames After Collision With Bee Truck
And when I was a kid, a sugar beet truck and a cement truck, both swerving to avoid a moron, both went into the ditch and turned on their sides, and covered the road with cement-covered sugar beets.

The universe is weirder than we can possibly imagine.

Yes. Yes it is.

2781172
If he sends me a whole story in Finnish . . . at least it's not Danish. Nobody speaks Danish.

Also I meant to put this image somewhere in the blog post but forgot
4.bp.blogspot.com/-l8beGBzW3MQ/TxjWdFEve0I/AAAAAAAADQI/nttQtpjMpDw/s1600/By+Redesine.png
It's not related, but it's awesome.

If for some odd reason someone really -- like really -- liked the Fast and Furious series, and went to see F&F 8 looking for more of the same thing, then I would expect them to be thoroughly disappointed if the filmmakers had decided to replace all the fast cars with marathon runners and replaced the muscle-music with showtunes... from the runners.

There is a thing as selling a brand. While I have absolutely no problem with an author stretching his or her boundaries, I do get a bit annoyed when I start to read a coveted sequel and find that it's undergone a 180-degree genre shift. Don't get me wrong. a side story set "in the world of" or a "what if scenario" is fine for a genre change and might even spawn a following of its own, but I've read far too many stories in on-line fiction of all sorts that will have a slice-of-life/romance followed immediately a grim-dark tale of everybody dies. If these were two unrelated stories, then cool-beans, but if the story is listed as the immediate and direct sequel of the first story, then author failed to take his or her audience into account. That, to me, is just as bad as writing yourself into a rut.

--Spade

2781205
2781172

Hmmmm...

Finnish and Estonian apparently actually have a fourth person. If I were to base things off of that I'd have create all new conjugations it seems. Would be horribly confusing. It seems like it reads like "'A person' did an action" where 'a person' is meant to be read like "Anonymous" the character here on fimfic often is.

Oh, shit! Stories featuring Anon are already in fourth person! *head asplode* :pinkiecrazy:

2781267

There is a thing as selling a brand. While I have absolutely no problem with an author stretching his or her boundaries, I do get a bit annoyed when I start to read a coveted sequel and find that it's undergone a 180-degree genre shift.

I agree with you there. If you've got a planned sequel (or even one you didn't plan, but it just sort of happened), you owe it to your readers to not just go take that crazy turn, jump off the shark, and shout out FUCK YOU I DO WHAT I WANT. Heck, that's the reason I didn't tag Silk Pajamas as the sequel to Feels Like The First Time, even though it technically is. The writing style was so different, I didn't want to force (for some values of force) readers of one to feel obligated to read the other.

But I think we can both agree that there's sequels, and there's milking the brand until it's dead. As a writer--or any artist, for that matter--you don't want to fall into the latter category, because you might find out when it's too late that you've whored yourself out.

2781280

Oh, shit! Stories featuring Anon are already in fourth person! *head asplode*

You know, I've never done an anon fic. Now I just might have to.

2781324

It would have to be pretty specific - almost passive voice - to be fourth person.

"Anonymous opened the door but revealed nothing but an empty room. At least at anonymous' first glance. What anonymous didn't see until taking a step forward was the pony lounging on the couch in the corner."

Of course, with only like an hour of experience and in a language that doesn't normally support fourth-person, I could be doing it wrong.

2781332
Well, now, I wasn't thinking of going whole-hog and writing actual fourth-person. Just an anon fic.

when describing background stuff that really isn't important you should usually tell—but there is no hard and fast rule here.

They trick here is merely to know what is or isn't important to the telling of the story. While I generally try to keep my details of background scenery sparse, or missing entirely - because I generally feel they serve no purpose - there are exceptions. In Last Brony for example, I described the scene of a Ponyville street in great poetic detail. Effectively painting a picture for the reader. But that's because I thought it was important for the reader to feel as invested in the background as the main character was.

Move out of your comfort zone.

I moved out of my comfort zone once. It was awful.

I also had some trouble trying to find a word for "more than one pegasus," especially when I discovered that Pegasus was the name of one single mythical flying horse. It was like trying to find the plural form of "Augustus" or "Ulysses!"
The "most correct" stretch of the English language for it would be, as you implied, "pegasuses," and even then my spell-check wants to capitalize it as a proper name. Silly spell-check! What does it know about cartoon ponies!? :rainbowhuh:

2781584 In case of that plural form, you simply have to adept to the series.
In the series, they call each other Pegasi, even if right now this moment my spell check underlines that word, but so does it underline somepony and anypony.

It's their ponism, their kind of idiomatic, so since it is part of their steadfast legitimate language, you just take it, despite there never have been any 'pegasi' in greek mythology.

They could call themselves 'wingponies' for all we care, if they don't use pegasi, in that case we would go with that, despite it sounding ridicules.:rainbowlaugh:

I had made a thread with a similar disposition, on the use of 'hands' and 'everypony'.

"Pegasi" looks less stupid written down than "pegasuses," so lacking any actual grammatical rules for it, it's the preferable option.

Also, I'd genuinely love to see you write about working with the developmentally disabled. I did a year of civil service in a special-care home, so I'd enjoy reading about your own experiences.

Two very tangential remarks:

1) If Slaughterhouse-Five had included "you" as a character, large sections of the book could be said to be in any of the three major "persons". (Do we even have a term for a story where both "I" and "you" are characters, or where "you" are a character but the narration relates stuff that you can't know in-story?)

2) I just read earlier today (can't remember where, sorry) that "pegasus" takes a Latin pluralization because, even though it originates in Greek mythology, it moved from proper noun to noun under Roman mythology. No idea if that's true, but personally I feel that the history of Latin influence on English is such that any word ending in "-us" can't be definitively said to be pluralized incorrectly if it ends "-uses", "-i", or the correct Greek or Latin plural. (A case study, and the next section provides another not-terribly-wrong-seeming example: "platypus" as both singular and plural.) With that in mind, the right choice is whichever sounds best. (See also software robustness as applied to communication, the difficulty being that there are multiple valid axes of conservativeness in this case.)

If you don't, sooner or later, you're going to find out that your readers know more than you do, and they're going to be willing to tell you all about it in the comments.

everyone who knows anything about guns calls them magazines

You know, funny enough, they aren't "guns", they are firearms. Also, magazines and clips are different. This article here explains the difference well.

Sorry Admiral, sir. I couldn't resist.

There's a reason I have a very specific list of things I'll downvote for, and if the author is honestly experimenting or is new and trying to find their way they'll get constructive comments but never a downvote. I actually after a year on the site (wow time flies) I still haven't downvoted a story. I know ones I would are out there but I have no interest in reading them and I never vote something I haven't read. :moustache:

All of this and the quote you included also reminded me of a story that might go with this:

“In some ways, it was a big asset not to be too experienced,” the expert stated. “When you are are experienced, you go back to the solutions you know.”

This reminded me of a story from GE about experimenting. Apparently the company used to have a little hazing ritual for new engineers. Every new employee was given the job of designing a particular type of light bulb ( I forget which thoug dang it). But here's the kicker everything the experienced guys new was that the task was impossible. Then one day the new guy came back to the bosses and said 'okay it's done what do you want me to work on next?' The new guy didn't 'know it was impossible' so he tried some new things and thought outside of the usual solutions rut. That new 'impossible' bulb then became of of GE's flagship products for decades.

Ditto for fur. Ponies don't have fur, they have coats.

*clears throat*

fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/260/0/c/forever_stuck_fluffle_puff_by_jailboticus-d6mq936.gif

Where is your God now?

2781523

The trick here is merely to know what is or isn't important to the telling of the story.

That's more than a single blog post could cover. :derpytongue2: But you're right; an element of good storytelling is knowing what details to put in and which ones to skip.

I moved out of my comfort zone once. It was awful.

i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/406/325/b31.jpg

2781584

The "most correct" stretch of the English language for it would be, as you implied, "pegasuses,"

It's the only correct plural. Just like multiple Elvis impersonators are Elvises, not Elvii (or whatever else). But...

2781670

"Pegasi" looks less stupid written down than "pegasuses," so lacking any actual grammatical rules for it, it's the preferable option.

There is a grammatical rule.
Most nouns form the plural by adding -s. A noun ending in s, x, z, ch, sh makes the plural by adding-es. A noun ending in a consonant and then y makes the plural by dropping the y and adding-ies.

Of course, there are exceptions. You have mice, not mouses. The plural of focus is foci (but the correct plural of octopus is octopuses or octopodes, not octopi).
That having been said, English is a flexible language. Words and their meanings shift with time, and new words are invented or adapted to serve the needs of the speaker. If I dig out my 1927 copy of The Circle of Knowledge, it's not going to have a definition for selfie in it, even though you certainly could have taken a selfie with the cameras of the time. Which brings us to the final point:

2781634

In case of that plural form, you simply have to adept to the series.
In the series, they call each other Pegasi,

In the series, they call each other pegasi. For our purposes--for writing MLP fanfiction--it's canon. Never mind that it's not technically correct; it's what they say.

2781670

Also, I'd genuinely love to see you write about working with the developmentally disabled. I did a year of civil service in a special-care home, so I'd enjoy reading about your own experiences.

As you can imagine, it's had its ups and downs. Maybe I will blog about it one of these days. There certainly have been some interesting shifts....

2781711

I just read earlier today (can't remember where, sorry) that "pegasus" takes a Latin pluralization because, even though it originates in Greek mythology, it moved from proper noun to noun under Roman mythology.

I've never heard that, and to me it sounds like ex post facto justification. But it could be true, I suppose.

I feel that the history of Latin influence on English is such that any word ending in "-us" can't be definitively said to be pluralized incorrectly if it ends "-uses", "-i", or the correct Greek or Latin plural.

So it wouldn't be wrong to say that my garden has a dozen croci, two dozen hibisci, and several loti, which are partially shaded by the dozen cypri on the south side of my lot.

2781950

You know, funny enough, they aren't "guns", they are firearms. Also, magazines and clips are different. This article here explains the difference well.

Yes, you're right that clips are also something that goes with a gun, but I think you'll agree that generally, in popular culture, when someone refers to a clip, they are usually describing a magazine. As for 'firearms,' I think that's just splitting hairs. I mean, you're right, but I think the two terms can be used unambiguously and interchangeably in most fiction. If I say Kate's got a gun, nobody imagines it's an anti-aircraft gun.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe the general usage of 'gun' does offend gun firearm owners. I will be more careful of how I use the term in the future.

2782400

I actually after a year on the site (wow time flies) I still haven't downvoted a story.

I think I've given about four. And one of them doesn't count; it was one of ocalhoun's stories, where he was trying to get more downvotes than upvotes.

I've never heard the impossible light bulb story, but it's certainly plausible. Just advances in materials science alone have made many things possible that didn't used to be.

2784020

As you can imagine, it's had its ups and downs. Maybe I will blog about it one of these days. There certainly have been some interesting shifts....

I was thinking more in the form of a story, but I suppose that also works.

2784220

I was thinking more in the form of a story, but I suppose that also works.

I did consider once writing a story about Screwy, but nothing ever came of it. She's really more of the mental illness side of the spectrum, anyway, but in some cases it's close enough...
img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121006171009/mlp/images/e/ec/Nurse_and_Screwy_2_S2E16.png

Although I can't think of any specific examples, I'm sure there are passages which have been influenced by working with DD adults. Heck, maybe that's helped me write foal dialogue reasonably well.

2784050
Oh man. That was... ow. I deserved it all, too. But I'm still gonna defend "pegasi" and "octopi" both; not being fluent in both Greek and Latin is as good a reason for irregular pluralization as any. On the other hand,
2784126
Neither I, nor any native English speaker I have ever met, would say that you pull "pieces of coat" out of your brush after grooming a horse.

2784020
"pegasuses," is also a tongue breaker of a word, or tongue stopper not sure what it's called in English, I just translated that from the German word "Zungenbrecher", meaning the word makes you stop in your fluent sentence, and forces you to concentrate on pronouncing it right or you might stumble on it.

That is because of the triple S in it.

'Octopus' only has 1 's' at the end, while 'pegasus' has 2 with one vocal in between. If we add, as the rule dictates, 'es' at the end, so another vocal follows up after s, ending with yet another s, then it's 3 times 's' in a row with 2 vocals in between.
'puses' x2, sounds smooth.
'suses' x3, sounds like a lisp.

It just sounds stupid, and makes you stumble on the word more times then necessary. Maybe not the first time, but imagine holding a speech, where pegasuses is one of the most prominent words, being about 2-3 times in every sentence.

Even without MLP, if there was a real life species called pegasus, I'd vote the plural to be an exception to the rule and call them pegasi, simply because it sounds better and doesn't hurt your tongue as much as 'suses' does, especially when spoken repetitively.

2784075
I was just trying to an somewhat amusing example. Not amusing enough, it seems.

To back your argument up, you are correct that everybody should know what you mean when you, or anybody else, say "gun". (Unless you're talking to a drill instructor while in basic training.) The beauty of a living language, like English, is that words mean what the majority of the people who are speaking them intend for them to mean with their current audience. It's how languages evolve.

My apologies for failing to make my intent clear.

2784486
You would, of course, say you pull hair out of the brush instead - at least if you're speaking "correctly". I've yet to encounter a convincing reason it shouldn't be fur instead, but hair is nevertheless the preferred term.

Of course, that does suggest that "pegasi" is preferable to "pegasuses", so it's not all bad. I'd agree that the plural of the name Pegasus should be Pegasuses, since you don't want to change the spelling of a personal name, but that's not a concern for a species name. In fact, using Pegasuses/pegasi would help keep things less ambiguous....

2784486
2784981
A horse's coat is of course made up of individual hairs, just as the mane and tail are. So you might brush a horse's tail, but you wouldn't (hopefully) pull the tail out of the brush when you were done.

I've yet to encounter a convincing reason it shouldn't be fur instead, but hair is nevertheless the preferred term.

I believe that animals which were trapped for fur have fur, and others do not, but I'm not sure. Biologically, there's no distinction. But English is a funny language where we drive on parkways and park on driveways, so who says there has to be a logical reason?

More to the point, I went through the transcripts for the first three seasons, and while the ponies referred to some other creatures as 'furry,' or having fur, they never once referred to their own body hair that way, calling it a coat instead. So in that sense, it's canon that ponies have coats, rather than fur.

2785000
I suppose it could be inspired by trapping, but it's definitely not split along those lines anymore.

English may be weird, but it's not generally illogical, it just looks that way when you don't know the reasons for some of the strange stuff. And of course it's hardly alone in that regard.

That they don't call it fur is, as usual, a nice reminder that they did make sure to touch up on their equine anatomy beforehand. Did you check if they call it hair at all, or just use coat? (I know you posted about that a while ago, but I don't remember where....) And of course, it'd be interesting to know if that extends to s4 as well.

2785060

I suppose it could be inspired by trapping, but it's definitely not split along those lines anymore.

I did a little bit more digging, and found some references to animals with multiple layers of hair having it described as 'fur,' while just a single layer is a 'coat.' But I'm not sure that's a hard and fast rule, either.

English may be weird, but it's not generally illogical, it just looks that way when you don't know the reasons for some of the strange stuff.

Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
And enamour rhyme with hammer.
River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,
Doll and roll and some and home.
Stranger does not rhyme with anger,
Neither does devour with clangour.
Souls but foul, haunt but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant,
Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger,
And then singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.

SOURCE

That they don't call it fur is, as usual, a nice reminder that they did make sure to touch up on their equine anatomy beforehand. Did you check if they call it hair at all, or just use coat?

Rarity especially frequently uses hair when referring to the mane alone, and I would imagine that if there were ever a case where a pony lost some of its hair (like Snips and Snails with the gum, maybe?), they'd describe it as hair loss, or perhaps as losing part of their coat.

They have been good at putting equine touches in the show--that's one thing I really like about it. To me, the walk/trot/run cycles especially look very good.

And of course, it'd be interesting to know if that extends to s4 as well.

It's actually a fair bit of work to copy all the transcripts into a master document, which is why I haven't done S4 yet. And searching the transcripts is sometimes a bit of a challenge, because it's kind of up to the author of the transcript to decide how to spell things, where to put spaces, etc. You can't assume that they're official, just close.

In case you're interested, here are links to the gDocs I made:
SEASON 1
SEASON 2
SEASON 3

2785000
I dunno, man. My face is hairy, because I have a beard; ponies are {hairy/furry}*, because they have a coat. That's how I see it, anyways.

*The distinction I've always heard is that fur is seasonal and hair is perennial, but that's not borne out by a variety of "precise" usages. Hair for manes specifically is surely by analogy with humans (is there a small-e equestrian word for the mane and tail, together but distinct from the coat?), but the hair/fur thing in general reminds me a bit of fruit vs. vegetable, source of an aphorism I like: "knowledge is knowing that tomatoes are technically a fruit, but wisdom is not putting any in your fruit salad".

2787441

The distinction I've always heard is that fur is seasonal and hair is perennial, but that's not borne out by a variety of "precise" usages.

It's entirely possible that the distinction is different in different places, or in different linguistic groups. I mean, hypothetically the French fur-trappers could have called pelts 'fur,' while the Germans might have called them 'coats,' or something like that. I think nowadays you have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

To give a different example, my consulting veterinarian told me that some people refer to the forelegs on a quadruped as 'arms,'--but she hates that (as do I). She also said that she might consider the cutie mark to be on the flank, but that she preferred hip instead.

Hair for manes specifically is surely by analogy with humans (is there a small-e equestrian word for the mane and tail, together but distinct from the coat?),

None that I'm aware of. The ponies typically consider their manes and tails separately.

2790004
Oof, I see the "arms" thing in stories occasionally. People justify it because a portion of the equine forelimb is indeed called a "forearm", but that doesn't convince me -- a human wouldn't call their leg their "shin", and horse forelimbs aren't not legs, so why wouldn't you just use "leg" or "forelimb" unless you're writing anthro and in denial about it?

...Wait, am I getting deja vu or have I ranted about this to you before?

2791339

People justify it because a portion of the equine forelimb is indeed called a "forearm", but that doesn't convince me

For me, it just takes away some of the immersion. Whenever I see it, I think "Is this anthro? Humanized?" And in most cases, if you draw the reader away from the story, you're not doing a good job of storytelling (although my most recent one-shot doesn't follow that rule).

...Wait, am I getting deja vu or have I ranted about this to you before?

I don't think so, but it's possible.

Login or register to comment