On Sun, Oct 11, 2026 at 9:55 AM David Johnson <xxxxxx@zarthani.net> wrote:
>
> Terry Fugate shares:
>
> https://galacticjourney.org/january-23-1962-a-methodical-approach-to-writing-h-beam-pipers-little-fuzzy/
>
> They have been doing some neat stuff at Galactic Journey.

Indeed, it's an interesting approach to exploring history.  Why did
they choose 55 years in the past, exactly, as their "time travel" time
frame?  Well, it's refreshing to see somebody eschew the typical
"round numbers" that humans are so fond of.

I do take issue with the writer saying LITTLE FUZZY is a bit flawed in
being "somewhat dry".  Dry?  If it has a flaw, it's that it's overly
sentimental.  One might even say it's a bit treacly in spots.  "Dry"
writing is characterized by, among other things, a *lack* of emotion
or sentiment.

This isn't the first time I've seen LITTLE FUZZY described as a
juvenile or "young adult" novel.  And here I give the writer a minor
down-check.  Whereas elsewhere she has stuck to the unstated (at least
on that web page) but pretty obvious rule of "write as it would have
been written 55 years ago", here she uses the anachronistic term
"young adult" story.  In 1962, the correct term was "juvenile" story.

Juvenile stories are generally characterized by having a juvenile (or
at most a very young adult) as the protagonist.  This certainly isn't
the case here!  Is LITTLE FUZZY a juvenile despite having the
grandfatherly "Pappy Jack" as its main character?  Well of course this
is a matter of opinion, but I don't see it that way.  Yes, it is a
story that can be read and appreciated by older juveniles, or at least
precocious ones.  But I don't see that Piper wrote the story in a way
that appeals more to juveniles than to adults.

—David Sooby