Benjanun Sriduangkaew and RotyH

[Darth Richard II]

I don't actually know who did what at this point, since a lot of it has been deleted and there's no good summary anywhere.

I must think on things. You all are keeping me up past my bed time.

[Larry.]

I was one who linked to a few of her reviews in 2011-2012 because I found some value underneath the scorched-earth blistering flame-reviews she would do (sometimes, we critics can be too civil). But I did become troubled by seeing the rhetoric ramped up on Twitter and after a while, I just stopped paying attention, because it was a combo of too much vitriol and nothing of continued interest being said. Seems that I missed out on the worst of the name calling, although I do recall in the earlier days having some arguments with online acquaintances about that (and those I regret having happened, for the most part at least).

But there really are some things missing here:

1) It's been a sort of open secret about her identity. I heard rumor of the RH/BS connection well over a month ago, for example, and when Trish Sullivan made a post near the beginning of this month on her blog alluding to "toxicity," I knew immediately the persona(s) she was talking about. All Mamatas did was spell out in open what Sullivan, Liz Williams, and Caitlín Kiernan had been saying to various SF/F online and print magazines about RH/BS over the past few months. Whether that was a dick move or not I leave up to others to decide, but that is something I didn't see mention here while glancing through the posts. There are some politics in play here, some believe.

2) There is an issue of doxxing/RH/BS's own stalkers that complicates matters. There does seem to be some evidence for the latter.

3) However forced/sincere the apologies are, I fully expect a lifetime of good behavior before I could trust her. Like I said, I liked some of ideas behind the acerbic reviews, but the social media stuff went into the realm of verbal abuse and I think that the focus should be on her making good to those genuinely hurt. Doesn't help to moralize on this; after all, I can't spare to have my glass house shattered by stones.

That's about it. Just tired of seeing authors I know in the field damaging their friendships over this.

[Shryke]

Stanek also uses those same sock puppets to criticize other fantasy authors, and therein lies the problem. Not telling your readers that you have skin in the game is intellectually dishonest.

Depends on the scope and content of what they are saying. Your comment that they have "skin in the game" implies some sort of zero-sum issue at work here. Which just isn't how the people reading reviews/criticism/analysis/etc work.

They've only got skin in the game if they are reviewing or promoting their own work, either directly or via trashing another work and pointing to their own as an alternative.

[Galactus]

However forced/sincere the apologies are, I fully expect a lifetime of good behavior before I could trust her. Like I said, I liked some of ideas behind the acerbic reviews

To be fair, a lot of Winterfox's really bad behaviour is actually from before she started RoTYH. (I didn't connect the names until much later, ironcally) she's been something of an infamous troll, and not always over actually serious issues.

Depends on the scope and content of what they are saying. Your comment that they have "skin in the game" implies some sort of zero-sum issue at work here. Which just isn't how the people reading reviews/criticism/analysis/etc work.

They've only got skin in the game if they are reviewing or promoting their own work, either directly or via trashing another work and pointing to their own as an alternative.

This. That's not a problem. She had complaints about the state of the inustry and tried to do something about it, which is fairly admirable. She never reviewed herown work, or even (AFAIK) really comment on it.

It's intetesting to note to just how completely duffernt the Bee persona is from the Hate persona. If bee hadn't presented herself the way she did this might be less of an issue, but the Bee persona was so "teehee I love SFF lets all hang out and watch star trek" to the point were the hate persona would have ripped her a new one.

Well, Winterfox (if they're the same person, there's also the possibility of there being more than one winterfox) was around before the ROTH blog. She was even active on Candlekeep (the FR creator's forum) the old version of scans_daily, etc.

It's possible we're dealing with multiple winterfoxes of course. (a lot of what I remember from Winterfox stuff is very similar from the ROTYH blog, not in terms of content, but in terms of style, though)

[Galactus]

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

Her other apolgy... Feels a lot more manipulative.

[deleted01]

As an aspiring author who doesn't know much about the publishing scene, this and the Kathleen Hale story make me want to reconsider the wisdom of my aspirations.

Don't worry, there are plenty of decent bloggers and reviewers out there. When I review books, I go by the positive-negatives theme. I didn't like this because, but these are the strengths. I guess my articles will never go viral, because they're not angry enough. Must have more hate.

[Richard]

The thing about Bakker (Prince of Misogyny) was pretty hilarious. As were the reviews of the Kovacs novels.

Didn't know that she'd reviewed the Kovacs novels - what did she say?

All I recall was that she wrote approvingly about the "uncompromising gayness" in The Steel Remains - and then vomited on the uncompromising rest of the text. Which was a bit of a clue to her (lack of) reviewing chops. Tick the pc boxes and get a cookie, do anything the reviewer doesn't personally enjoy in fiction, get flamed. The word "holistic" and the concept behind it seemed to have passed her by. Or just didn't interest her, maybe.

I did once try to engage with RH in polite and rational political discourse - basically on the subject of phalanxing, tribalism and how that kind of shield-wall identity politics always ends up harming women. The post was stopped at the border, never appeared and I was summarily banned from the blog. When I wrote her a sneering response to this, she promptly lifted the barriers and posted it. Despite all her political posturing, actual political engagement appeared to be the one thing she didn't want to go anywhere near.

I think what saddens/angers me most (to the extent I really give a shit) is that she is clearly educated and very smart. Now there are plenty of useful idiots in the pc-blindness camp, and their problem is that they're just not very bright; they really haven't thought beyond the handy little grab-bag of dogma and knee-jerk self-righteousness. But she wasn't one of those. She had the candlepower for nuance and genuinely incisive critique, but she pissed it away in self-righteousness and rage. Rather than stand by and giggle at her antics, I thought that was rather a waste. Dunno, maybe she just got addicted to the neurochemistry of it all.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

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

Her other apolgy... Feels a lot more manipulative.

She does say "I made another apology elsewhere". Does that qualifiy as an admission?

[Galactus]

Galactus,

She does say "I made another apology elsewhere". Does that qualifiy as an admission?

She's referring to http://requireshate.wordpress.com/ the apology on her ROTYH blog.

EDIT: To clarify, the one on ROTYH feels more sincere, while the Benjamin one feels much more manipulative and ass-covery.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

I'm asking if the reference, unlinked, qualifies as Bee admitting she was RotyH?

[Galactus]

That's interesting. She never outright says in these words "I'm ROTYH and that's my blog." on the Benjanun blog. (note: She's also apparently been busy trying to delete her old sins, which might be part of why she's not doing so) neither does the ROTYH blog apology say she's Benjanun. But both pretty clearly makes references that imply they are the same person.

[SkynJay]

I take back giving credit for her first apology. Just realized it is buried, not even showing on the sites front page.

My own views kinda mirror Llama's. Looking only at the main site she did bring up a hell of a lot to think about. I read it off and on, often stopping mid post if here 'kill em all' got too over the top. And she is the reason I first read Warhamner and Cat Valente, so credit for that.

But will I defend her? No, not at all. Not even a little. I may read her work, Card is the only one I have on my not a chance list. If that is hypocritical so be it, but his money has spoken louder than RH's words.

[thistlepong]

I'm kinda surprised it took this long for this to come up here. I only discovered RH 'cause of the forum. Whatever.

Thanks, mormont, for trying to moderate toward civility. Thanks, Larry., for weighing in. You didn't have to and you could have just watched and ate popcorn.

I don't doubt the sincerity of the RH apology. It's coming from a young place and it's impossible to atone in an instant for even an instant's wrong. The apology on A Bee Writes isn't directed at authors, or anyone commenting here, with the possible exception of Sci-2. It's for the folks who followed, championed, and assisted RH.

I actually ran afoul with one of those folks, who tried to focus RH's attention on me, and got scared out of my fictionsuit for a little while. I don't have any sympathy there. But I do have empathy. Those folks latched onto an identity that was insubstantial and unsustainable and carried water for a fabrication.

I'd caution temperance when interpreting events withoutfull knowledge or context. Removed posts might be by request. She's been in contact with several of the authors she panned. Others may have contacted her and requested removal. A bunch of folks even seem surprised that acrackedmoon wasn't always Sriduangkaew, that she had impersonators and trolls who wrote as her to discredit her.

Again, whatever. The secret's out. Some folks will buy the books because. Some folks will not. Some, like Larry,, will require a lifetime of contrition. If she provides it, and acts to create rather than destroy, will that prove change?

I doubt Master Llama and SkynJay are the only folks who learned to check some of their privilege from RH. I never would have read Bakker without her. It's a lot to think about.

Kameron Hurley wrote a pretty good piece about it the morning before it became common knowledge on Twitter.

[Darth Richard II]

Didn't know that she'd reviewed the Kovacs novels - what did she say?

All I recall was that she wrote approvingly about the "uncompromising gayness" in The Steel Remains - and then vomited on the uncompromising rest of the text. Which was a bit of a clue to her (lack of) reviewing chops. Tick the pc boxes and get a cookie, do anything the reviewer doesn't personally enjoy in fiction, get flamed. The word "holistic" and the concept behind it seemed to have passed her by. Or just didn't interest her, maybe.

I did once try to engage with RH in polite and rational political discourse - basically on the subject of phalanxing, tribalism and how that kind of shield-wall identity politics always ends up harming women. The post was stopped at the border, never appeared and I was summarily banned from the blog. When I wrote her a sneering response to this, she promptly lifted the barriers and posted it. Despite all her political posturing, actual political engagement appeared to be the one thing she didn't want to go anywhere near.

I think what saddens/angers me most (to the extent I really give a shit) is that she is clearly educated and very smart. Now there are plenty of useful idiots in the pc-blindness camp, and their problem is that they're just not very bright; they really haven't thought beyond the handy little grab-bag of dogma and knee-jerk self-righteousness. But she wasn't one of those. She had the candlepower for nuance and genuinely incisive critique, but she pissed it away in self-righteousness and rage. Rather than stand by and giggle at her antics, I thought that was rather a waste. Dunno, maybe she just got addicted to the neurochemistry of it all.

This. This is the thing that drives me batshit. People who say they want to engage in discussion but do the opposite.

I think one of the things about this that seems to really get people riled up is how different Bee is from rotyh(and I'm just using her blog here, not the alleged other identities). Imagine how you would feel is Valente turned out to really be Orson Scott Card.

[Darth Richard II]

Who the hell is Nick Mamatas? Never heard of him until now.

Edit: Can anyone find a link to the Kiernan piece? I can't seem to be able to find it again.

[David Selig]

Who the hell is Nick Mamatas? Never heard of him until now.

Edit: Can anyone find a link to the Kiernan piece? I can't seem to be able to find it again.

What piece? She mentioned it on her blog that Mamatas outed ROH (http://greygirlbeast.livejournal.com/1074745.html).

I saw this about a week ago on James Nichols' blog, thought about making a threat here, but got lazy.

Has Bakker reacted to this news? ;)

I tried one of her short stories out of curiosity, she is a really good writer, BTW.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

I think one of the things about this that seems to really get people riled up is how different Bee is from rotyh(and I'm just using her blog here, not the alleged other identities).

Sociopaths can be very charming when it suits them. And yes, it is one of the reasons why I don't trust her contrition. Also, Nick Mamatas admits that s far as he knows Benjanus Sriduagkaew may very well be another false name.

[Seli]

According to a post on twitter by Benjanun Sridaunkaew (15 October) Nick Mamatas wasn't the one who outed her. Even if he was the one that exposed it to the larger world. Also on twitter she links to both the apology under her name and the RoH one as her own (20 October).

I really like the works by Sriduankaew, and I would consider it a loss if she stopped publishing. And even the RoH reviews had their points, often obscured by excess and overzealeousness, but then I was never more than a spectator there.

Who the hell is Nick Mamatas? Never heard of him until now.

Edit: Can anyone find a link to the Kiernan piece? I can't seem to be able to find it again.

Writer, editor of Haikasoru and long time provocateur. He tends to show up in any conflict in the literary SF world, which he ostentatiously left some time ago.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah the Kiernan thing is short, I must have imagined it being longer.

Nick Mamatas sounds like a real winner.

Sociopaths can be very charming when it suits them. And yes, it is one of the reasons why I don't trust her contrition. Also, Nick Mamatas admits that s far as he knows Benjanus Sriduagkaew may very well be another false name.

I was thinking that, but I didn't want to throw around the S word to loosely. Although the evidence is pretty strong.

The Hurley piece is real good. She nails it no Ellison. I hate that guy.

[Zorral]

I'm still not convinced she was "hunted down and exposed".

She wasn't. The pros, including those who nominated her for the Campbell award, had known for a very long time those pseudonym personalities were hers -- or knew at least some of them were hers; she had several.

What interest I have in this -- which isn't all that much -- is what the thought processes were for her, to do these internet stalkings and abuse (which even were on higher level of cruelty than ROTYH, with much worse consequences, including at least one suicide attempt) while planning and executing to become a published, professional writer in the same field and being friends of many of the same sorts of writers she went after. That she was friends with these writers is why the pros knew she had these other identities, which they even discussed with her and each other. With the nominations for awards and receiving so much attention as one of the best of the new generation of writers now, it was inevitable that this would come out.

This is one of the weirdest of all the bizarre things that have taken place in the history of the genre. It certainly wins its Imposter Award; the field has a history of imposters within the circle of the professional, published writers, not only in fandom -- meaning imposters as opposed to pseudonyms, for which there are valid professional reasons to employ.

The most bizarre element of all is that her professional, public persona is that of the western stereotype of the cute winsome, naive Asian girl that is so many non-Asian men's fantasy of what an Asian woman is supposed to be like. The very thing her other personas railed and reviled.

What was she doing? If she was being an imposter, which of the multiple personas is the real one? The Three Faces of Eve! Which one is the core identity? Or are they all authentic? Or are none of them, including this public professional one -- which allows yet another layer of contemptible laughter about stupid white people?