Cool Bike Vs Cool Horse

Horseback Heroism is a definite Badass material, thus we use Cool Horse

for modern story where a horse is out of place, we use Cool Bike instead.

Both are the mark of a Badass and both are fitting for their timeline. But which one is better?

I am thinking of having one of my character possessed the ability to summon vehicles, but still not sure whether he should summons motorcycle or a horse.

The summoned method of transportation obviously wouldn't follow the rules of physics (among other thing, no need for gas on the motorcycle and the horse most likely be Automaton Horses / Hellish Horse / Mechanical Horse ), so the cons on the pros and cons will not include things such as fuel consumption, treatment, care, etc.

So with that in mind, which one is better/more Badass? Motorcycle or Horse? What are their pros and cons?

edited 13th Aug '13 6:24:20 AM by MoodyXander

Its not the Trope that matters in the story, its the execution.

Neither one is inherently "better" than the other.

The one that's better for your work is the one that will fit your setting better.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Well, I have several settings. One of them allows the appearance of both motorcycle and horse (well, "mystical" ones)

Its not the Trope that matters in the story, its the execution.

One of them will still be a slightly better fit, because they don't have the same strong and weak points.

Take terrain. In an urban area, a motorcycle is going to be slightly better, because hard surfaces, like concrete- or asphalt-paved roads are hell on a horse's feet and legs with extended travel. If the terrain is dirt, a motorcycle is going to have poorer performance unless you make it a dirt-bike, designed for just that.

Or maintenance — Which one's going to be easier and more efficient to acquire — gas and oil or straw, hay and grain? Is your character going to have an easier time finding a mechanic and a parts store, or a vet and a farrier? Do most hotels and business have parking lots? How many have stables or hitching racks?

One or the other will be a better fit for the setting.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

the maintenance part is unnecessary because they are summoned. I believe I have wrote about that part

The pros and cons that I'm talking about is the limit of actions, what can one do that the other one can't, etc.

Its not the Trope that matters in the story, its the execution.

Solution.◊

this place needs me here

Make a list of what each one can and can't do in reality. Sieve out the things that your setting makes irrelevant. It's unlikely that they'll be completely evenly matched when you're done. It may not be a huge difference but there will be a difference. One will fit what you want better than the other.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

And don't forget about limits of your pick after you make your choice. Can't do can make as many interesting situations as can do.

^ Very true.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

There's always the option of magical horse in the shape of a motorcycle.

The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable

Years ago I had the idea for a person who met a dragon that could magically take nearly any form it desired (the restrictions were purely plot-driven) to disguise its nature: commonly human, horse and motorcycle.

So basically it can be a bike (of any configuration) or a horse depending on what suits the setting then can shift into human form and go anywhere he/she likes.

The idea was this dragon became a friend of the protagonist and, due to their friendship and mutual respect, offered to assist the (slower and weaker) human by giving him a lift to places - would not do that for just anyone and is certainly no one's beast of burden.

Naturally, the human takes care not to abuse that relationship.

You're welcome to the idea, if you wish, I'm not going to use it.

Magical properties notwithstanding, horses are living creatures - if you're going to keep them around in the long run, then you'll have to put some degree of personality into them. Trained warhorses would gladly kick and bite in a melee, but getting them to run into fire or imposing, obviously dangerous obstacles will prove bit tricky. Motorcycles don't have the same handicap - they'll do more or less anything you tell them to do, and a run-down bike won't affect the reader the way a wounded horse will (which can be good or bad, depending on how you deal with it).

TL;DR: Horse if you want personality, bike if you want practicality. Of course, if you want to write a sentient bike or a Nigh-Invulnerable horse, that'd be neat too. Hope that helps.

Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)

Dunno about that, every bike I've owned has had its own personality - and some of 'em downright cantankerous...

That said, they're more like oxen than horses - they only respond to loud and frequent obscenities...

edited 13th Aug '13 7:01:58 PM by Wolf1066

Eh, I've only handled a couple (neither of which were mine), but I think that giving them personalities in text form might present unfamiliar challenges, that's all :|

edited 13th Aug '13 10:01:17 PM by eagleoftheninth

Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)

IMHO horses are far more impressive and varied (motorbikes are nearly indistinguishable to laymen). They are also easier to work personality into and are sentient, and can act independently.

'All shall love me and despar!'

That depends on individuals - some people couldn't tell the difference between an Arabian and an American Quarter horse or a bloody Clydesdale, some people can tell the difference between lots of different types of motorcycle.

I would argue that most horses fit the basic mold of 4 legs and a head and tail at the ends whereas motorcycles have distinct design variants depending on whether they are for cruising down highways, going really fast, negotiating off-road trails, looking cool.

There's a world of difference in shape between a chopper, a trail bike, a BMW tourer, a Ducati race bike and a large Harley Davidson - differences even a "layman" can quickly see.

The main differences between many horses are "size" and "colour" - unless the person knows their horse breeds and knows what other subtle differences to spot, they don't know the difference. The average "layman" would just see "a horse". If pressed, they might distinguish a "big brown one" from a "small white one" but most wouldn't know the adult of one breed from the foal of another.

edited 14th Aug '13 2:50:44 PM by Wolf1066

But size and colour have a bigger effect on the perception of a horse than a motorbike. Anyone can tell the difference between two distinct types of motorbike when they're together, but a horse can be easily made distinctive without comparing it to another (also, BTW, a 'white' horse is always actually either grey (black skin) or cremello (pink skin)). They have biological features rather than mechanical. Everyone will know what you mean when describing a horse's face, but describing the front part of a motorbike? not so much. You wouldn't need to use technobabble to describe a horse ('it was a piebald shire colt with black fetlocks and white forlocks' becomes 'it was a young yet large white horse with black spots and black fur at the ankles and a white fringe.') A motorbike does not have common features with a human so there are fewer accessible words to describe it.

edited 14th Aug '13 3:02:15 PM by VincentQuill

'All shall love me and despar!'

Yes, I'm quite aware that a "white" horse is "grey" or "cremello", thank you - we were talking about "laymen", were we not? I deliberately chose "white" for that reason.

And comparably, a chopped motorcycle becomes "an elongated bike with a small skinny wheel at the front and a larger, fatter wheel at the back and silver flames painted on the sides" to a layman. And odds are that it looks distinctly different from all the shorter motorcycles (s)he's seen.

A "motorbike with the rider hunched down over the front" is different from a "motorbike with the rider slouched back as if in an armchair" to even the daftest laymen, even if they've never heard "sports bike" or "cruiser".

Size, style, custom colour schemes and modifications can also make a motorcycle extremely distinctive. Start waxing lyrical about the polished frame, colourful anodized bolts, neons and bits of carbon-fibre on a "streetfighter" and you can guarantee it's unique.

edited 14th Aug '13 3:29:55 PM by Wolf1066

But mechanical features just don't engage to the same extent. I tend to start skimming when wheel size etc. are mentioned, but you can describe a horse like a human. The size and styles mean nearly nothing to someone who's not used to them, though admittedly colour and modifications can add to it, but equines can range from a Shetland pony to a fucking shire horse, and anyone can tell them apart. All motorbikes are standardised for pretty obvious reasons, but a horse's specifications are nearly completely random and change over the course of its life, so greater variety is acceptable. Make a fantasy eight legged horse? no one blinks an eye. Make a sci-fi eight-wheeled motorbike? now that's just silly.

'All shall love me and despar!'

Readers vary. Mechanical features don't engage you. Some other people would equally glaze over if a horse were described in great detail and there are probably a lot of people whose only clue to the difference between a Shetland and a Shire would be if the writer immediately used the words "pony" and "horse".

Basically some people enjoy reading about horses, others about motorcycles, others don't give a damn about either and some, like me, enjoy/ride both.

There is no real answer to the OP - neither is inherently/quantifiably better or more badass than the other. Nor is either inherently "more interesting".

People enjoy different things. I've met a number of people who think that motorcycles are for fucking lunatics (why else would we risk our lives to get rained on?) and horses are too old-school and would much rather read about a Cool Car or Cool Spaceship or whatever.

I know a number of people who can tell the difference between a Ducati 996 and any given Japanese sports bike at a distance when others would lump them into "motorbike" even if they sat side by side.

I know a number of people who would know exactly what you meant by piebald shire colt with black fetlocks and white forlocks while others wouldn't know a Jennet if it kicked them and are likely to ask "who built it?" if you said you rode one.

I'd agree with you to some extent, but you can use human descriptors for a horse but not a motorbike. Human descriptors are generally more engaging than mechanical ones, but as you said, it depends on the reader.

'All shall love me and despar!'

A lot's going to depend on the level of description given by the writer and the level of knowledge (or glazing over and skimming) of the reader.

While I would happily read descriptions of proud piebald shire colts and gleaming custom-painted Suzuki streetfighters with equal enthusiasm, for some it's boring or too jargon-filled or both.

For some, "he was riding a big black horse/motorcycle/whatever" is sufficient and gives the requisite badassitude to the character.

Perhaps the writer doesn't know much about bikes/horses and therefore is deliberately vague to hide that, perhaps the writer expects that a lot of people won't know their Shires from their Shetlands or their Harleys from their Suzukis (and, believe me, I've encountered a number of people who assume I ride a "Harley" because that's the only brand name they've ever heard) and deliberately avoids too much detail in favour of the "important" points (it's big, it's black and it's this sort of transport - gee, aint he a badass?), perhaps the reader sees "blah blah blah black blah blah blah horse blah blah rode into the countryside" or "blah blah blah black blah blah blah motorbike blah blah rode into the countryside" or the reader, having no idea what a Percheron or a KTM looks like, goes with "four legs, a head and a tail" or "two wheels, a seat and handlebars" in his/her head.

Yes, you can use human descriptors for a horse, if you wish to go into that detail, such as black fur around the ankles and a white fringe or talk of flecks of spittle around the mouth, but you can equally use descriptors that can convey what you want about a motorcycle without it getting bogged down in minutiae about braided metal sleeves over the brake lines and carbon-fibre bash pans under the sump - "a study in polished chrome and black paint with a picture of the Grim Reaper on the top of the fuel tank". You can also wax lyrical about the throaty growl from the pipes if you so desire (few people want to hear about the noises that come out of the back of a horse )

Either way, they work - or fail to work - depending on the skill of the writer and the interest of the individual reader.

edited 14th Aug '13 5:15:16 PM by Wolf1066

The big difference between horse and motorcycle is that a horse takes care of its equilibrium itself and actively tries not to fall and not to run into anything, and a motorbike is a stupid machine, leaving all the desperately trying not to crash to the rider.

If that were 100% true, it would mean that motorcyclists are far more skilled than horse riders and mean that a character on a Cool Bike is therefore superior to a person on a Cool Horse.

In reality, however, proper horse riding (i.e. more than slowly riding around in circles on flat terrain while a groom holds the halter) requires quite a degree of skill

There's also the fact that horses are at least semi-sentient and can have personalities: I've met more than a couple of horses that were badly trained and/or resented being ridden (admittedly, all but one of them at the same "Riding Ranch", so I know who to blame for most of them) and "staying on the back" required more than a little skill given the horse was actively trying to remove the rider.