“The Plausibility of Dragons,” by Kenneth Schneyer

“The Plausibility of Dragons,” by Kenneth Schneyer .

Recommended by Levana Taylor, and caught my eye because she described it as ” cleverfun, and a good story of friendship,” which I could use after the last few heavy pieces πŸ™‚

Read the story:


6 thoughts on ““The Plausibility of Dragons,” by Kenneth Schneyer”

  1. I enjoyed this one; the conceit was clever, the friendship pleasing. I felt it was lacking something, some level of complexity – since it posited a firm binary problem but didn’t explain *why* those specific things were the dragon’s bane.

    I wanted ti to be possible to have a conversation with the dragon about why, whether it chooses or it’s an intuitive reflex.

  2. Lenora, I agree that it’s a rather simple story; I just mentioned it in the context of someone looking for a lighter, more relaxing sort of reading! Have you read Kameron Hurley’s famous essay "We Have Always Fought"? I thought this story was a not-too-serious reaction to it and to other recent attempts to recover the memory of women and people of color in history, who had been erased from pop culture representations.

    1. Yes, I’ve read the essay, and I am familiar with the phenomenon. But the story’s biggest weakness is telling us we either have dragons or minorities and female warriors, but not explaining why.

      At first one could construct a plausible theory; we know the dragon was last confronted by and erased Fara’s sister, and if one posits the last one it fought/erased before then was a moor, one could argue that the erasure is based on who threatens it (Which would make Malik and Fara’s quest somewhat self-fulfilling, as it increases the chance that the sort of person erased would be blacks in Europe and women who fight).

      But then at the end we learn ALL dragons do this particular erasure continually, including when they have not been threatened — and yet they never erase white male knights who would also be likely to attempt to fight them.

      This pretty much collapses any actual reason for the erasure besides "the author decided on it."

  3. Well, this one was about as subtle as a brick to the head.

    Wow, this one *really* didn’t work for me. It started out light-hearted and with a bunch of interesting points, and then it turns out the heart of the story is a Dragon of Whitewashing and Gender Roles. I don’t have words for how very extremely I am unable to take such a story seriously. This might’ve worked really well for me as a humor piece, but I don’t feel that’s what it is at all – except maybe as a strange form of in-joke.

    The previous story, "Who Will Greet You At Home," was also an extremely blunt metaphor, but I loved that one. I’m wondering why I loved that one and couldn’t stand this one.
    I think because "Greet You At Home" constantly works on both levels; one aspect reinforcing the other. Whereas this one is basically "Real-world social problem, but here it’s MAGIC." That… I dunno, doesn’t give me anything. It’s arbitrary; the main value is in *recognizing* that what’s going on is something we’re already familiar with. In a way, it kind of trivializes the issue; simplifies a major, complex issue into "evil draconian magic."

    Soo, ummm. Not for me, this one πŸ˜›

Leave a Reply