![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
moonlightmead.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
ci5hqTitle: Hombathlay
Author: Jane Mailander
Pairing: sort of B/D. Only, well...
Available: First published in Second Variations On The Theme of B and D. On the CD and on the online Circuit Archive
Bunnies. Bunny rabbits and Pros. If you're asked for the connection between the two, I imagine that most people would say "That bit in No Stone with the cute rabbit", and quite a lot may add "And, of course, they're at it like rabbits, too."
But never, I bet you, thinking that somewhere in the rabbit world of Watership Down, there might be a Bodie rabbit and a Doyle rabbit.
I found the previous reading room stories difficult because I had no idea about the other worlds they were crossed over with. I initially found this one difficult because I knew the other world. In fact, the first time I saw it, I gave up early on. Since then, though, I have come to enjoy it rather more.
We dive straight into the rabbits' world, and the events in a new warren founded from the remnants of two others. The rabbits from Sandleford had escaped the destruction of their warren and founded a new one; this was then threatened by Efrafa. The rabbits of Efrafa lived under a harsh regime until their despotic leader was killed. Some Efrafan rabbits joined the new warren. It's worth pointing out for people who never read Watership Down that these rabbits fight and can kill each other, and that the author himself never saw it as a children's book. This is not at all Peter Rabbit or The Bunny-Fluffs' Moving Day.
Burdock is the main protagonist, and he's drawn as a big strong solitary rabbit, a veteran of the Efrafan warren's Owslafa (a group of large and bruising rabbits who enforce the rules) who likes stories about fighting and females. He's a bit too dangerous for the new peaceful warren and has few friends. Hombathlay is a new arrival at the warren, with many injuries and scars. He's small, with reddish fur. He's short-tempered and prone to lashing out, and snubs other rabbits' attempts to talk to him.
A lot of the first part of the story is really explaining the background world and back story. And then, about a third of the way in, Holly, an ex-Sandleford rabbit, insults Burdock for past sins in Efrafa, calling him a lendri (a badger, a predator on rabbits rather than a rabbit). And Hombathlay, who is present at the time, goes for Holly at this point, attacking him. And then shows interest in something for the first time.
"Did you tear that rabbit's ears?" Hombathlay asked. He looked straight at Burdock. His half-bitten face was ugly and lopsided, but both eyes were clear and dark.
"Yes. I was ordered to rip Blackavar's ears, and I did. The way the ferret ripped your ears."
There was a long silence. "Then I am not alone," Hombathlay said. "These rabbits are too stupid and peaceful. They will never understand what the taste of blood does to you. You do."
And the two outsider rabbits begin to bond. Sent on a task together, they learn more about each other and their past history. They engage in some mutual grooming, but when Burdock tries to mount Hombathlay in the fashion of Efrafan rabbits, it turns into a fight for dominance before Hombathlay undergoes a sort of fit in which he re-lives the encounter with a ferret that caused his injuries and goes into a lifeless trance. Burdock thinks he's caused it, and realises from his horror at the idea that he has lost Hombathlay that there is now another rabbit he cares about.
There's a mystical element in the plot: rabbits accept the existence of visions and seers, and consider the legend of the Black Rabbit, the representative of death, more than just a tale. Hombathlay turns out to have visions. One had led him to Burdock's warren, but another had told him he was too late. Burdock refuses to accept this latter vision:
Hombathlay looked up from the ground.
Burdock cuffed the smaller buck in a rough friendly manner. "Who else but another Enemy would put up with you?" He lay down to chew his grass-pellets.
And peace filled Burdock as the smaller body lay down beside him, warm and hard and friendly.
And the tale draws to an end.
The first time I read this story, it was on my initial plunge through the Circuit Archive online. I can't remember whether I found it via the random button or whether I knew from the Hatstand story lists what it was, but I do remember that I thought "What the bloody hell?" when I saw the note at the top about Watership Down, and skipped. I wasn't here for rabbits. Nor for fantasy, or scifi, or historical AUs, or anything that wasn't immediately Bodie and Doyle in London.
It took me a long time to give it another go. And by the time I did, I was more familiar with Jane Mailander's Pros stories. Of which there are heaps. And she really likes crossing Pros with other worlds or styles. There's a Beau and the Beast. There's The Little Merman. There's the Quanta Leap stories. There's a brilliant crossover with The Crying Game. There's Permanent Change (inspired by Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock). And so on. And it's not just Pros. I bought some multi-media zines for their Pros content (and idle curiosity) and found she was in those, too, crossing such varied worlds as Wiseguy with Beauty and the Beast, creating a story that engaged me totally despite never having watched either. So by the time I had another look at Hombathlay, I was a bit more prepared.
It's listed as a crossover, and I wondered about that, because to me a crossover is what happens when Bodie and Doyle encounter characters from another story. And we don't have Bodie and Doyle. We have rabbits. A big soldier-like rabbit with a dubious past, and a reddish rabbit with a dodgy cheekbone nicknamed 'sunshine', sure, but rabbits. But then, all the other characters are rabbits too, and I think that almost the other rabbits named are in fact characters in Watership Down. (There is one exception: a rabbit named not after a plant but after a bird. Nuthatch. Is it just me, or...?) So I suppose it is a crossover. A very very AU crossover.
It's much much more Watership Down than it is Pros. I'm really not sure that it is Pros. But it is full of echoes of the book. Not just the backstory or the names of the other rabbits. There's all the rabbit words, for a start: owsla, hraka, silflay, embleer. And some new ones the author coins by using the root words in the book, coming up with the compounds "Hombathlay" - "fox fur", so russet, presumably a nod to Doyle's hair in some lights and "Frithle" - "sunshine". Very clever. There are other phrases which I think she coins, but they are so apt for Watership Down that I am not sure ("bluebottle-gazing", "only good for the owls").
"Ferrets aren't dangerous!" and "Owls aren't dangerous" are a direct nod to Woundwort and his "Dogs aren't dangerous! Come back and fight!" in the book. The beetle crawling over the motionless Hombathlay's leg reminds me of something and I can't think what - maybe the fly on Bigwig's ear when he's in the snare. The comparison of Hombathlay's lost ear and whiskers with "the way the Black Rabbit took El-ahrairah's" is a reference to a story told in Watership Down. There's plenty more.
So when I look at this as a Pros story, I have trouble. When I look at it as a Watership Down story inspired by Pros, it seems to make a lot more sense, and on that level I like it a lot and think it's well-done. And I have to admit, I don't think I would have said that six months ago. It's really since standing back a little and reading one of her stories which was nothing to do with Pros that I thought "Wow, she can really tell a story, I want to know what happens next" and looked again at this one, and realised how deftly it was done.
A few other bits and pieces struck me, but it's your turn now.
Did you know Watership Down before reading (or trying to read) this? I'm really curious about how it comes across to someone who didn't already know the book. (I'm quite curious about what would happen if you gave it to someone familiar with Watership Down but not Pros, too, but not inclined to try!) Did you have to jump forward and back to and from the glossary, and did this affect your enjoyment?
Did you enjoy it? As a story generally, or as a Pros story?
I think normally I might ask whether the characters convinced you, or whether you could or couldn't see Bodie and Doyle in them, but... well... they're rabbits. Watership Down rabbits do have character and fairly complicated emotions, even if they can't count beyond four, but asking me to see Bodie and Doyle themselves in them is a bit too much. Although I can see that they might be like Bodie and Doyle. But that's just me. And I am pretty mono-fandom. I wonder if the people who read more widely across fandoms enjoy this more than the people who only read Pros. How about you?
Author: Jane Mailander
Pairing: sort of B/D. Only, well...
Available: First published in Second Variations On The Theme of B and D. On the CD and on the online Circuit Archive
Bunnies. Bunny rabbits and Pros. If you're asked for the connection between the two, I imagine that most people would say "That bit in No Stone with the cute rabbit", and quite a lot may add "And, of course, they're at it like rabbits, too."
But never, I bet you, thinking that somewhere in the rabbit world of Watership Down, there might be a Bodie rabbit and a Doyle rabbit.
I found the previous reading room stories difficult because I had no idea about the other worlds they were crossed over with. I initially found this one difficult because I knew the other world. In fact, the first time I saw it, I gave up early on. Since then, though, I have come to enjoy it rather more.
We dive straight into the rabbits' world, and the events in a new warren founded from the remnants of two others. The rabbits from Sandleford had escaped the destruction of their warren and founded a new one; this was then threatened by Efrafa. The rabbits of Efrafa lived under a harsh regime until their despotic leader was killed. Some Efrafan rabbits joined the new warren. It's worth pointing out for people who never read Watership Down that these rabbits fight and can kill each other, and that the author himself never saw it as a children's book. This is not at all Peter Rabbit or The Bunny-Fluffs' Moving Day.
Burdock is the main protagonist, and he's drawn as a big strong solitary rabbit, a veteran of the Efrafan warren's Owslafa (a group of large and bruising rabbits who enforce the rules) who likes stories about fighting and females. He's a bit too dangerous for the new peaceful warren and has few friends. Hombathlay is a new arrival at the warren, with many injuries and scars. He's small, with reddish fur. He's short-tempered and prone to lashing out, and snubs other rabbits' attempts to talk to him.
A lot of the first part of the story is really explaining the background world and back story. And then, about a third of the way in, Holly, an ex-Sandleford rabbit, insults Burdock for past sins in Efrafa, calling him a lendri (a badger, a predator on rabbits rather than a rabbit). And Hombathlay, who is present at the time, goes for Holly at this point, attacking him. And then shows interest in something for the first time.
"Did you tear that rabbit's ears?" Hombathlay asked. He looked straight at Burdock. His half-bitten face was ugly and lopsided, but both eyes were clear and dark.
"Yes. I was ordered to rip Blackavar's ears, and I did. The way the ferret ripped your ears."
There was a long silence. "Then I am not alone," Hombathlay said. "These rabbits are too stupid and peaceful. They will never understand what the taste of blood does to you. You do."
And the two outsider rabbits begin to bond. Sent on a task together, they learn more about each other and their past history. They engage in some mutual grooming, but when Burdock tries to mount Hombathlay in the fashion of Efrafan rabbits, it turns into a fight for dominance before Hombathlay undergoes a sort of fit in which he re-lives the encounter with a ferret that caused his injuries and goes into a lifeless trance. Burdock thinks he's caused it, and realises from his horror at the idea that he has lost Hombathlay that there is now another rabbit he cares about.
There's a mystical element in the plot: rabbits accept the existence of visions and seers, and consider the legend of the Black Rabbit, the representative of death, more than just a tale. Hombathlay turns out to have visions. One had led him to Burdock's warren, but another had told him he was too late. Burdock refuses to accept this latter vision:
Hombathlay looked up from the ground.
Burdock cuffed the smaller buck in a rough friendly manner. "Who else but another Enemy would put up with you?" He lay down to chew his grass-pellets.
And peace filled Burdock as the smaller body lay down beside him, warm and hard and friendly.
And the tale draws to an end.
The first time I read this story, it was on my initial plunge through the Circuit Archive online. I can't remember whether I found it via the random button or whether I knew from the Hatstand story lists what it was, but I do remember that I thought "What the bloody hell?" when I saw the note at the top about Watership Down, and skipped. I wasn't here for rabbits. Nor for fantasy, or scifi, or historical AUs, or anything that wasn't immediately Bodie and Doyle in London.
It took me a long time to give it another go. And by the time I did, I was more familiar with Jane Mailander's Pros stories. Of which there are heaps. And she really likes crossing Pros with other worlds or styles. There's a Beau and the Beast. There's The Little Merman. There's the Quanta Leap stories. There's a brilliant crossover with The Crying Game. There's Permanent Change (inspired by Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock). And so on. And it's not just Pros. I bought some multi-media zines for their Pros content (and idle curiosity) and found she was in those, too, crossing such varied worlds as Wiseguy with Beauty and the Beast, creating a story that engaged me totally despite never having watched either. So by the time I had another look at Hombathlay, I was a bit more prepared.
It's listed as a crossover, and I wondered about that, because to me a crossover is what happens when Bodie and Doyle encounter characters from another story. And we don't have Bodie and Doyle. We have rabbits. A big soldier-like rabbit with a dubious past, and a reddish rabbit with a dodgy cheekbone nicknamed 'sunshine', sure, but rabbits. But then, all the other characters are rabbits too, and I think that almost the other rabbits named are in fact characters in Watership Down. (There is one exception: a rabbit named not after a plant but after a bird. Nuthatch. Is it just me, or...?) So I suppose it is a crossover. A very very AU crossover.
It's much much more Watership Down than it is Pros. I'm really not sure that it is Pros. But it is full of echoes of the book. Not just the backstory or the names of the other rabbits. There's all the rabbit words, for a start: owsla, hraka, silflay, embleer. And some new ones the author coins by using the root words in the book, coming up with the compounds "Hombathlay" - "fox fur", so russet, presumably a nod to Doyle's hair in some lights and "Frithle" - "sunshine". Very clever. There are other phrases which I think she coins, but they are so apt for Watership Down that I am not sure ("bluebottle-gazing", "only good for the owls").
"Ferrets aren't dangerous!" and "Owls aren't dangerous" are a direct nod to Woundwort and his "Dogs aren't dangerous! Come back and fight!" in the book. The beetle crawling over the motionless Hombathlay's leg reminds me of something and I can't think what - maybe the fly on Bigwig's ear when he's in the snare. The comparison of Hombathlay's lost ear and whiskers with "the way the Black Rabbit took El-ahrairah's" is a reference to a story told in Watership Down. There's plenty more.
So when I look at this as a Pros story, I have trouble. When I look at it as a Watership Down story inspired by Pros, it seems to make a lot more sense, and on that level I like it a lot and think it's well-done. And I have to admit, I don't think I would have said that six months ago. It's really since standing back a little and reading one of her stories which was nothing to do with Pros that I thought "Wow, she can really tell a story, I want to know what happens next" and looked again at this one, and realised how deftly it was done.
A few other bits and pieces struck me, but it's your turn now.
Did you know Watership Down before reading (or trying to read) this? I'm really curious about how it comes across to someone who didn't already know the book. (I'm quite curious about what would happen if you gave it to someone familiar with Watership Down but not Pros, too, but not inclined to try!) Did you have to jump forward and back to and from the glossary, and did this affect your enjoyment?
Did you enjoy it? As a story generally, or as a Pros story?
I think normally I might ask whether the characters convinced you, or whether you could or couldn't see Bodie and Doyle in them, but... well... they're rabbits. Watership Down rabbits do have character and fairly complicated emotions, even if they can't count beyond four, but asking me to see Bodie and Doyle themselves in them is a bit too much. Although I can see that they might be like Bodie and Doyle. But that's just me. And I am pretty mono-fandom. I wonder if the people who read more widely across fandoms enjoy this more than the people who only read Pros. How about you?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-05-10 09:30 am (UTC)"I found the previous reading room stories difficult because I had no idea about the other worlds they were crossed over with."
That's interesting. I don't know Judge John Deed either, but I had no problems to follow the crossover. I googled some information, some pictures. And if you know one Judge series - you know them all. ;-)
But I find it impossible to enjoy a crossover that needs so much information in advance.
"We dive straight into the rabbits' world, and the events in a new warren founded from the remnants of two others. The rabbits from Sandleford had escaped the destruction of their warren and founded a new one; this was then threatened by Efrafa. The rabbits of Efrafa lived under a harsh regime until their despotic leader was killed. Some Efrafan rabbits joined the new warren.....
...A lot of the first part of the story is really explaining the background world and back story. "
So you have to be ready to take an interest in the background world!
But what do I care? Really! I don't know WD, and I don't like to dive into a fantasy world, full of wars and fights and betrayal (and I don't like Harry Potter, Narnia or LOTR as well).
"It's much much more Watership Down than it is Pros. I'm really not sure that it is Pros. But it is full of echoes of the book."
I'm very much mono-fandom. But I love crossovers! It's jus that Bodie and Doyle really should be recognisable and they should be in the focus.
"Not just the backstory or the names of the other rabbits. There's all the rabbit words, for a start: owsla, hraka, silflay, embleer. And some new ones the author coins by using the root words in the book, coming up with the compounds "Hombathlay" - "fox fur", so russet, presumably a nod to Doyle's hair in some lights and "Frithle" - "sunshine". Very clever."
Yeah, well... I really don't need something like that!
No! You really did your best! And I tried(a bit... ;-)).
But... No!
Sometimes you enjoy the rec much more than the story!
Thank you!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 09:01 am (UTC)Laugh. Well, if it's not your thing, it's not your thing.
I don't know WD, and I don't like to dive into a fantasy world, full of wars and fights and betrayal
Well, that certainly suggests you might not like Watership Down itself! There's lots of fighting, there's at least one pitched battle, and while I can't think of an instance of betrayal, the rabbit society and way of thinking is portrayed in enough detail that I find myself thinking "What would the rabbit equivalent of betrayal be?"
Bodie and Doyle really should be recognisable
My only qualm about asserting that they were is that initially I did wonder which way round they were. If you're trying to map one world onto another, I imagine there's an argument to be made that Burdock's old 'job' was more Doyle-ish, and Hombathlay's lone fighter image might be more Bodie-like. I think it did need the reddish fur to be a clue.
But ah well, we can't all like everything. I suspect you would really have disliked the other story I nearly reviewed, and I think the other one is even cleverer at weaving things together.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 09:39 am (UTC)You see, if I dislike something, I tend to put all bad things into it I know... ;-)
Look at the icon. Aren't they cute the way they are? Even without long ears and a mop tail?
Though... ;-)
Ok, ok. I know WD is not a story about 'cute' rabbits. I can understand it if the author had used the rabbits to 'illuminate' children. But I can't understand why I - as a grown up - should do without the millions of 'means of expression' of the human face and body?
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 11:13 am (UTC)And also, I forgot to say, thanks for the response!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-10 11:54 am (UTC)However, I'm glad of the rec and the review and will be interested to see how others feel!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 09:16 am (UTC)Thanks for the response.
So whilst it was quite a clever story, it didn't work as fanfic or as a crossover for me. I saw it as a sort of experiment.
I know exactly what you mean by this, but (obviously), it did work on some level for me.
Yes, there is a lot of Watership Down general explanation, but I was glad to see some of the Watership Down rabbits in it.
The violence and danger associated with the two protagonists made them at times seem more like the terrorists in Pros than like our lads.
Oh, this was something I liked a lot, because that certainly fits in with my ideas of the lads in the CI5 world. And it reminded me of Watership Down, again, with its array of scary rabbits as well as the gentle ones!
The whole story was too short and the plot too minimal
I think byslantedlight says something about it feeling rushed below, and I can see that myself. So do you think it would have worked better if it was longer?
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 10:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 11:31 am (UTC)I know what you mean here. I love fantasy, I read a lot of scifi, and I don't tend to like either as crossovers with Pros, because they don't start close enough to each other for my tastes. Something real-world in the same timeframe is what I expect. There's a Pros crossover with the Modesty Blaise books on the CD somewhere, and I really liked that idea (although I got a bit lost with who was undercover as who), because those books are set in the same world and time frame.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-10 12:07 pm (UTC)The first time I read it (completely blind, didn't look at any side info), I did not like it. I was almost completely wrapped up in looking for the Pros bits, and wondering what was going on, and sorting through the action ("was this supernatural?" "was that something the author added?").
After I hit the glossary, and knew who corresponded to what, I started to get drawn in on the second reading.
And the third time I read it, I really began to like it. I actually do think this is more brilliant than I could catch at first.
I definitely do see it as a crossover, but more WD/Pros than Pros/WD; not all crossovers are 50-50 balanced, after all, and there's nothing dictating that Pros has to be the driving force. (Given that I've read a different Pros crossover that seems flat because the story revolves around characters that I have no knowledge of and are never fully explained, I actually think this one is doing very well.) But that's one of the hazards of crossovers - or, really, fics in general: how well do they actually work for someone who doesn't have knowledge of the original?
Maybe another way of looking at it: the "problem" may not be about Pros content in particular; w/no knowledge of either story, would this be completely confusing, or would it be a very quirky AU requiring a lot of patience?
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 09:25 am (UTC)The first time I read it... And the third time I read it, I really began to like it.
Oh, what a relief :) I was starting to think it was just me. But wow, did you read it three times in a row, or is this over a period of time?
I am fascinated - and delighted - that it worked for you without knowing Watership Down itself. Which does have a lot of its own vocabulary and yes, there is a supernatural or spiritual element to it.
But that's one of the hazards of crossovers - or, really, fics in general: how well do they actually work for someone who doesn't have knowledge of the original?
I agree. It's not just crossovers. I have a few multimedia zines which I bought for the Pros content, and there are some stories in them I really enjoyed despite not knowing the worlds at all, and others which I simply haven't finished. Some writers' style or ability to create a story can carry me along regardless.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-10 12:14 pm (UTC)Your reviewing this story means that I finally persevered to read it all through. I've tried a few times before, but just couldn't get into it - and to be honest I would have been perfectly happy to put it down this time too, but... I didn't... *g*
It's much much more Watership Down than it is Pros. I'm really not sure that it is Pros.
This is exactly what I thought when I'd finally reached the end - that it's really a WD/Pros crossover, rather than a Pros/WD crossover. I think the focus was very much on fitting our lads into the WD universe, and because the weight of my interest will always be in favour of B/D it just didn't hold enough of my attention. Our lads were sort of superficially our lads - you did a good job of summarising that, by the way! - but not enough to keep me interested. And it was so long ago that I read and re-read Watership Down that I didn't have enough sympathy for those characters to keep me going either...
Actually I am glad I kept reading this time, because Burdock/Hombothlay at the end are much more B/D than they seem at the start. The majority of the story is sort of setting up this ending - we almost miss out having a middle of the story, in fact - and it's almost as if Mailander is just settling into their characters as B/D when she finishes it. I suspect they might have become even more themselves if we'd followed them through their Wide Patrol - and I like to think that they might have met an old, red-furred rabbit around whom they were able to centre their new burrow, Hombothlay's vision having a bit more meaning after all!
I think Mailander's a good writer, though I'm rarely interested in what she writes about. I loved Permanent Change, and The Little Merman, but most of her other stories leave me rather colder, somehow - I think she's focussed more on her writing than she's in love with Bodie and Doyle, and that shows. Which is fine if you just want a story, but if you're looking for B/D... *g*
Did you know Watership Down before reading (or trying to read) this? I'm really curious about how it comes across to someone who didn't already know the book.
Well I did, but I've forgotten so much of it that Hombothlay seemed rather convoluted to me. I tend to read strange words in a story through context, rather than interupt the story, and look them up afterwards if I still need to, but there was an awful lot packed into this and I thought it made for rather uncomfortable reading, whereas what I prefer to do is curl up somewhere cosily and vanish from the world for a while... *g*
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 09:47 am (UTC)Thanks for this, there's lots, so I shall just pick out a few bits.
it's really a WD/Pros crossover, rather than a Pros/WD crossover. I think the focus was very much on fitting our lads into the WD universe
Nod, it definitely seemed like that to me.
Burdock/Hombathlay at the end are much more B/D than they seem at the start.
Oh, right, interesting - especially your point about the middle (or lack of it). So would you have liked to see this as a longer story, then?
The red-furred rabbit bothers me a bit. I don't think I really got what was going on there.
I think Mailander's a good writer, though I'm rarely interested in what she writes about.
Agreed, but the ones we particularly like are totally different. I will make a guess that you really don't care for Landbridge, because that isn't B/D, for example. The one I really liked was One Who Has Made A Long Journey. That is so tightly woven up with The Crying Game that I really didn't think I could untangle it all in time to write a review! And I'm still amazed about that non-Pros one in Concupiscence, which I would never have thought would be my thing at all.
what I prefer to do is curl up somewhere cosily and vanish from the world for a while
Actually, I think it would be easier to do that with this one in zine form, because I presume then that you can just flip a page back and forth to check words, and curl up with it, whereas on a computer, you have to scroll around, and that makes it much more disjointed.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 10:27 am (UTC)I wonder if this might all go to the heart of our differences - I think, from various things you've said over the past months, that you read Pros and fanfic just as reading, whether fiction or in a kind of academic out of interest kind of way. So you love Pros (I assume! *g*) especially, but you're equally as interested in everything else that's out there.
I realise that I tend to read all of fandom from a Pros-centric view though, and somewhere in my head there's (unfairly, I think) a wee dividing line that says This is fandom so it's a different thing to "normal" writing and This is a book/story/whatever that's part of the wider world and therefore interesting for what it shows me about that. So when I want to read in the wider world, I don't go for fanfic or its close relations - and when I want to read fanfic I want to read about B/D, because that's why I read fanfic... Which is really unfair to those writers who are at least as good as "professional" "wider world" authors, because there's been many a time I've taken something fabulous about the world away from B/D stories - but when a fandom story isn't B/D it's as if there's something missing for me - and I know it's going to be missing, so I rarely venture out to read them...
So... I think that's the problem with Hombothlay - I can appreciate that it's a good story in itself, and I do like the plot actually, but... it's fanfic, and there's not enough B/D in it for me and so... it's lacking. Which, as I said, is very unfair of me... I wonder if it's vaguely similar for other people though - that if you go into something thinking This is a B/D story then if it turns out not to tell you very much about them after all, it's disappointing...
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 11:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 11:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 06:07 pm (UTC)I think, from various things you've said over the past months, that you read Pros and fanfic just as reading, whether fiction or in a kind of academic out of interest kind of way. So you love Pros (I assume! *g*) especially, but you're equally as interested in everything else that's out there.
I wouldn't lump "Pros and fanfic" together there. I would separate Pros slash out from "other fanfic", and then say I read "other fanfic" just as reading generally. I like reading, I want stuff to read, and there are times when I want poetry, times when I want action or adventure, and times when I want hot and smutty. And as well as wanting to read, I quite often can't help thinking about it, and taking it apart, and considering context and style and authorial intention and theories of why people write what they do and everything else that a literature degree burns into your brain. (*looks slightly brain-burned*) Whether it's fanfic or something I bought in the bookshop.
And the reason I separate Pros out - by which I mean the slash - is that to me it is different. I have absolutely no idea why. A couple of people have commented understandingly on the idea of "that deep plunge", so I'm obviously not alone there. There is still this element of wondering about context and intention and theories of why, but that's not the point. I'd want to read it - and write it - regardless. Because there's something different, and I don't know what. The only thing I can think of is that the first programme I saw where I thought "there is no question that this is what is going on".
I have never read the original version of Facets, the Wiseguy story by Maggie Hall, only Facets II (http://www.thecircuitarchive.com/tca/archive/19/facetsii.html), the gorgeous Pros version. But I expect my reaction would be the same. (I am, obviously, willing to undertake the doubtless arduous research of reading the first version, if anyone can tell me where to find it.)
So perhaps I enjoy Hombathlay because it falls into my "everything else" category, and I am willing to read about rabbits (occasionally); where for you, it falls into a category which is neither your wider world writing nor really Pros-y enough.
I dunno, I'm looking at this now and thinking "I bet I change my mind tomorrow". I do that a lot!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-10 03:17 pm (UTC)This just didn't have enough B&D for me. I skimmed over the WD words (and didn't even realised Mailander had created some of her own words) and skimmed and didn't quite give up, but... I love some of her other writing, such as Permanent Change, which has to figure as one of my all-time favourite Pros stories, but I just couldn't get into this. It's too much like an exercise in writing rather than a story that engages me. Sorry to be so shallow!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 09:53 am (UTC)This just didn't have enough B&D for me
Yeah, I can see this. I still don't see them as B&D, but as Watership Down rabbits with B&D-like aspects.
Permanent Change seems really popular - you're about the third person to mention it!
It's too much like an exercise in writing rather than a story that engages me.
This point about an exercise in writing or an experiment keeps coming up, too...
Thanks for giving it a go!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-10 04:52 pm (UTC)Having now read it, my main impression is that there was nothing like enough of B&D in this - their personality, relationships, sense of self, just not really there or only glossed over. It's all about the world of WD, the society, the history ... so I suppose I'm with those who see this as an exercise, an oddity, something that might be of interest to WD fans. Not My Cup of Tea *g*
Thanks for a good and interesting review, m-m!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 10:04 am (UTC)Every time I see this story I think, oh yes it's that rabbit one - nope.
Laugh. I definitely think this is one where it really really helps to have read the book - although
It's all about the world of WD, the society, the history [...]
It is - although there is heaps, heaps, more that happens in Watership Down itself. Now I think about it, she did a good job of not introducing plenty of other things which weren't necessary.
nothing like enough of B&D in this - their personality, relationships, sense of self
Looking at the comments so far, you are far from alone in that, but I suppose it depends whether you're looking for them in rabbit form, or for rabbits that remind you of them, so to speak.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-10 06:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 10:21 am (UTC)Hiya, and no problem - it was interesting to look at it.
I'm not big on bunnies, teddy bears, cats, etc. for the lads. I want the lads when I want the lads.
I am totally with you there, odd as it may sound. I really don't get the Doyle-the-werecat or lads-as-teddy bears stories at all. But you have reminded me of another story on the CD which takes the same approach: it describes two cats, and there are characteristics in them that you can say might be lads-like. But it's not (to me) the lads: it's cats. Similarly with this one. So I have to be in the mood for a story that is not the lads to want to read it. But it does happen!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-10 06:55 pm (UTC)Great rec, though, and thank you for taking the time!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 10:28 am (UTC)I skimmed through the entire story have been totally put off by the suggestion that there could be a crossover with Watership Down
So you were unconvinced even before you started to read it, then?
the final “happy ending”
You didn't like the ending, or you didn't feel it was happy? Or was it just baffling, with all the visions?
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 08:16 pm (UTC)I did enjoy Watership Down despite my country upbringing which puts rabbits firmly in the "vermin" pile (or alternatively the pot!) sorry, hope that didn't offend anyone. The idea of the lads being actual rabbits just doesn't work for me and I fear never will. Geneally I do like AUs and I've enjoyed reading the previous crossovers in this particular set - it's the rabbits! Sorry!
At the moment, there's just too many stories out there that I haven't yet read, many by tried, tested and loved authors, to spend my limited reading time on anything which I am not enjoying.
Objectively, a tough assignment and, from what you and others have said, very well done - just not my cup of tea.
But, again, thank you for your time.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 09:41 pm (UTC)it's the rabbits! Sorry!
No need to apologise. I can't see them-as-rabbits either. But with my head in Watership Down land, I can see rabbits with B&D characteristics.
As for rabbits in the pot, no problem. I live in an urban environment, not rural, and our local market sells them with the same "beware of shot" notes attached that I imagine you get.
*sudden image of Bodie-and-Doyle rabbits shooting back*. Okay. Time to go to bed now.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 12:06 am (UTC)I'm not familiar with WD - maybe that would have helped (although I did read a bit about it at various internet sites.)
You win kudos for taking this on. You had to know that it wasn't going to be a popular choice! Good rec! Thanks.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 10:47 am (UTC)Two things there: the first is no, nono, not elves! The second is that I don't seem them as rabbits here. I see rabbits with some sort of Bodie-ness and Doyle-ness.
Watership Down is well worth a read in itself, actually.
You had to know that it wasn't going to be a popular choice!
Well, yeah, I knew not everyone would be keen, but I'm surprised at the near-unanimity! I personally have trouble with lots of AUs that other people love, and I thought perhaps the people who liked the wider variation would like this. Apparently not!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 10:52 am (UTC)Whereas I want to see them as Bodie and Doyle as rabbits... (or Bodie and Doyle as elves) - which is subtlely different, I think, to rabbits as Bodie and Doyle, to do with the focus of the story, again... I wonder if that's what the near-unanimity is about, that this seems more rabbits-as than B/D-as-rabbits?
And of course, some people then don't like B/D as anything except B/D - but interestingly, I can go there, as long as it's B/D to start with for me - and what makes them B/D is something I don't think we got to the bottom of, in
(And of course I hope you've read Arduinna Finn's Bodie-as-an-ef story... *g*)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 03:31 pm (UTC)I wonder too. Maybe so.
And of course, some people then don't like B/D as anything except B/D - but interestingly, I can go there, as long as it's B/D to start with for me
Seriously, normally I'd say that was me! I think perhaps I can cope with this because it's so, so far removed that I don't think it really is a Pros fic in the same sense as most others.
what makes them B/D is something I don't think we got to the bottom of
I missed that discussion entirely. And I'm now going to totally contradict myself and say that I quite like reading the variety of takes that people have on them: from Thomas's various stories that frequently do not end up happy ever after to Helen Raven's seriously damaged Bodie and Doyle in Heat-Trace to Larton - where you clearly see much more of them than I do. So there must be something core that I think of as Bodie and Doyle, but I enjoy the degrees of latitude. So, hmm, I have no idea why I don't like the AUs more (despite the fact that I did like both Sorceror's Web and Season of Change, which are both very AU..).
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 03:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-06 12:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 04:24 am (UTC)I couldn’t see this story as Pros or the lads at all and while a lot of the story is taken up with Watership Down history there still probably wasn’t enough detail to really give a non-reader the opportunity of understanding the original novel. In fact the backstory only really succeeded in making the fic itself overly long with not a lot actually happening. The concept itself was unusual and I admire the writer for attempting it but for me it didn’t work.
Thanks for the great rec, you made me think twice about the fic, even though the second thought didn’t make me like it any better than the first:)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-11 11:01 am (UTC)I couldn’t see this story as Pros or the lads at all
You're far from alone in that, apparently. And I know what you mean. Trying to see them in rabbit-form: my mind just recoils from that. Trying to see rabbits with B and D aspects, though, that worked for me.
probably wasn’t enough detail to really give a non-reader the opportunity of understanding the original novel.
I realised while answering someone else that actually, there's very little that she included that is extraneous, and quite how complicated Watership Down is!
Thanks for the great rec, you made me think twice about the fic
I did? Wow, cool. I must say, writing these reviews makes me think twice about them too!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-12 04:33 am (UTC)Yes, there were similar characteristics - there had to be otherwise it wouldn’t be related to B and D at all! And it works for me on that level but it’s a bit of a reach.
and quite how complicated Watership Down is!
Watership Down is very complex and for people to understand it they have to read it and fall into the world – literally … like falling down a rabbit hole*g*. And maybe that’s part of the reason the fic didn’t work for me, perhaps I’m too invested in the novel to be able to stretch to a Pros crossover. I must say it was an interesting read though;)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-14 10:17 pm (UTC)I read this story because it was recommended to me when I was curious about animal stories. The recommender described it carefully (so I could decide whether to read it or not), and personally liked it a lot.
I read it, and it drew me along, but it didn't feel like Pros to me. However, it made me want to re-read Watership Down (and the sequel with short stories). I did, and found it as always, very satisfying, so I'm grateful to the story for that!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-15 10:58 pm (UTC)I think there is a big difference between bashing a story and saying "This didn't work for me and here's why".
I read it, and it drew me along, but it didn't feel like Pros to me.
I think this is a Jane Mailander characteristic: her crossovers are very distinctive. And her non-crossover Pros tend to be unusual. One series is Doyle/Murphy, for instance. Another is Doyle and Bodie as ghosts, aiding CI5 and Cowley from the spirit world. I've read two of those, and I think you would like that series (if you don't mind ghosts!) - both that I read were gen.
Ah, the sequel - Tales From Watership Down? Grin, I have that, too.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-19 12:03 am (UTC)*nodnod* That's the sequel I meant. :) I also love Plague Dogs (though it always makes me weep). I'd love to see the lads as escaped laboratory dogs or something like that. :D
(I do love AUs and crack!fic even if not all of it works for me.)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-27 07:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-28 06:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-01-04 04:37 pm (UTC)Looks like the author is posting them on AO3:
Bodie and Doyle (Deceased) series (http://archiveofourown.org/series/66921) - enjoy!
As Far As Is Appropriate by Jane Mailander (PG)
Date: 2012-11-06 01:43 am (UTC)