Kevin's Watch

Don't forget about music.

I find this whole thread hilarious.

Aliantha,

Howso?

This blogger chick rants about the depiction of women in fantasy novels, (some of) you guys say she's a feminazi bitch, she finds out and responds that (some of) you are "neckbeards", and you guys go, "Hey, she saw us? Uh, well, um, I guess I don't really know her all that well, and...dude, do I look okay?"

You guys are just funny, that's all.

Anyway:

It's her blog, not a discussion board. She can say any damn thing she wants, and she doesn't *have* to entertain dissenting views.

I think she's gone over the top here, but even Abercrombie himself admitted she had a good point.

Don't we have a thread about her GRRM rant around here somewhere, too? Pretty sure it's the same woman.

*shrug* I think we've been acting like we've always had. The main 'change' came about when Murrin requested a more civil discourse, but you can see that at least Z and I haven't really changed our positions.

I'm just trying to resist making 'Thaied up with doing things' jokes. because apparently, that'd be in bad taste

aliantha,

Oh, I don't question here right to say anything she pleases. I simply wonder whether she might catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Make any sense?

Of course it makes sense, SerScot. But I don't think "catching flies" is her intention. I think her intention is simply to say her piece. Kind of the Internet-as-Speaker's-Spot-in-Hyde-Park-in-London model.

It reminds me a little bit of when Batty was in high school. She had a LiveJournal account that she was basically using as a diary. She would rant about her father, and then get ticked off when he read it. It makes me wonder how old and/or how Internet-savvy this woman is. Altho she knows enough to delete posts she doesn't like.

Aliantha,

It is her blog and I understand that. She's certainly bringing attention to the issues she raises.

An apology from "Requires Only that you Hate".

requireshate.wordpress.com/

I never thought I'd see the day.

Since you're bringing it up, here's the other part of the apology:

beekian.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/the-things-that-we-do-on-mistakes-on-apologies/

The background (acknowledging that I'm just speaking as a random nobody who's seen this going around on Twitter and elsewhere the last few weeks):
Her identity was circulating for a while in back channels among writers and editors. A few authors who particularly dislike her found out, and began emailing editors asking them not to publish her fiction any longer. Then Nick Mamatas publicly outed her, which meant that she could no longer deny it, nor could her opponents continue to use it to work against her secretly. And now the public apology.

Personally, I think she made a lot of important points in her Requires Hate reviews (there is definately a place for anger when it comes to these issues), but she sometimes took things too far, as she's admitted.

For what it's worth, Benjanun Sriduangkaew is a very talented writer, and I for one will continue to seek out her work.

Good for her for both owning up to being a doink and apologizing for it.

Yep, and all it took was being outed and threatening her "promising" nascent career as a writer.

Color me utterly shocked.

Well, there's that, too.

Hmm ... sounds like she might actually have something worthwhile to say, now. Guilt is power and all that. I'm glad she's finding some peace.

She's a troll. This is what trolls do. I wish her the same future anonymity as Violentacrez.

I liked VA.

--A

Zarathustra,

I hope so. What Murrin posted is interesting as there is a movement among some of the people she targeted at RotyH to try to keep publishers from publishing her work.

SerScot wrote:Zarathustra,

I hope so. What Murrin posted is interesting as there is a movement among some of the people she targeted at RotyH to try to keep publishers from publishing her work.

www.kameronhurley.com/on-becoming-what-you-hate-redux/

This is a long but fairly informative post by one of the authors that was targeted by RotyH blog for one of her books. One interesting point is the following:

Many of the writers we uphold as being absolute paragons of the field are screaming racist misogynists who’ve done far worse than write an angry review on the internet or tell people in an email what they really think of their book. They are people who’ve physically abused and assaulted women in the field for years, pinched asses, raped women, told women writers in person that they weren’t worth the shit on their shoe, and we buy their work. We praise their work. We put it on reading lists and say, “Yes, Lovecraft is indeed a racist but he’s a product of his time!” and make awards in their likenesses.

Ultimately, we do not necesarily read books/stories because we like the author as a human being, but because we like the book/story. That should ultimately be the only thing we should consider: is this the sort of fiction that interests me?

Orlion wrote:

SerScot wrote:Zarathustra,

I hope so. What Murrin posted is interesting as there is a movement among some of the people she targeted at RotyH to try to keep publishers from publishing her work.

www.kameronhurley.com/on-becoming-what-you-hate-redux/

This is a long but fairly informative post by one of the authors that was targeted by RotyH blog for one of her books. One interesting point is the following:

Many of the writers we uphold as being absolute paragons of the field are screaming racist misogynists who’ve done far worse than write an angry review on the internet or tell people in an email what they really think of their book. They are people who’ve physically abused and assaulted women in the field for years, pinched asses, raped women, told women writers in person that they weren’t worth the shit on their shoe, and we buy their work. We praise their work. We put it on reading lists and say, “Yes, Lovecraft is indeed a racist but he’s a product of his time!” and make awards in their likenesses.

Ultimately, we do not necesarily read books/stories because we like the author as a human being, but because we like the book/story. That should ultimately be the only thing we should consider: is this the sort of fiction that interests me?

Along the same lines, reading 1930's literature with a 2014 mentality is never going to work. It IS of it's time, whether the reader likes it or not.

Orlion wrote:Ultimately, we do not necesarily read books/stories because we like the author as a human being, but because we like the book/story. That should ultimately be the only thing we should consider: is this the sort of fiction that interests me?

Story first. Everything else second.

--A