Requires only that you continue to read this thread: Benjanungate II

[Kalbear]

I've not read Wind Up Girl. Did BS actually illustrate gaping errors on the author's part insofar as portrayal or was she just lambasting because some non-POC had the temerity to write that PoV?

There were some pretty hilariously bad stereotyping of a culture there that I would have had no idea about without the article.

Rage and vitriol convince no one to change sides. Maybe not no one, but, to paraphrase Happy Ent, rounded to the nearest percent, the proportion is 0%.

I disagree. There are many examples that this is not the case, including a very large chunk of the civil rights movement in the US. I would also say that rage and vitriol don't tend to convince anyone - but they can have the effect of making someone actually revisit the situation and get outside their cocoon of safety.

Calmness, reason, charity (as in not automatically believing in the worst of other), politeness and kindness are the principles that societies are built on. Especially cosmopolitan societies built from people of varying beliefs and cultural backgrounds. When you allow people to disregard those principles if you feel like they are "on the right side" or "making a good point," then you not only become vulnerable to manipulative psychopaths like RH, but also to vicious fractures and schisms among otherwise well-meaning former allies.

Yes, the whole scoring points thing can fragment people. That, however, isn't what rage and belligerence is necessarily about, and progressives making calm, reasoned arguments are doing as much point scoring as people telling others to die in a fire sometimes.

I guess I also disagree about what societies are built on. I think that's what a lot of people want it to be - but politeness has a habit of maintaining the status quo. The South was excessively polite about their racism. The British were very polite about controlling India. Politeness has its place. So does anger.

[Kalbear]

Another way to frame the rage vs polite discourse is this: Robert McNamara was absolutely great at polite discourse and reasoned, data-driven discussion. He didn't change his mind about anything until a buddhist set themselves aflame outside of the White House. That was a completely irrational, belligerent act. It was also one of the most iconic forms of protest anyone has ever done.

[polishgenius]

I've not read Wind Up Girl. Did BS actually illustrate gaping errors on the author's part insofar as portrayal or was she just lambasting because some non-POC had the temerity to write that PoV?

I remember having big problems with Windup Girl and agreeing with some of what RH said, but I'm not sure how clearly those points were illustrated to someone who didn't already agree with at least the broad slant of the review.

As for beligerence/brusqueness as a discussion tactic, I think it's perfectly acceptable to use it on occasion to, as a couple of people said, shock people out of a rut or simply to more dramatically illustrate a point. Hell, I do it myself, to a degree, and I've definitely found it useful to my own development to have a view or two challenged in a not-necessarily-polite manner. I don't think one should bury that just because RH was using that as cover for a bullying campaign. I think it'd be fair to say that several of us posting on this subject have been accused of rudeness and unnecessary aggression in the past, and this forum has been host to some very robust discussions that nonetheless stay productive and imo useful. You have to have the substance to back it up, of course, and one shouldn't do it all the time, but I don't have anything against it in general.

It's where she got personal that RH crossed the line, imo. And then the stalking and bullying, of course.

[buff daddy]

lol at comparing the internet fascination with the politics in elf & space books to the actual rl civil rights movement

[David Selig]

Thing is after seeing how she proclaimed loudly that 95% of the books she reviewed were terribly racist and misogynistic, often based on really minor stuff (everyone who included a rape scene for whatever reason was a terrible misogynist in her book, a character thinking that East Asian people are a bit exotic makes the book a total racefail, etc), it was very hard for me to take even her better supported arguments seriously.

Was there ever a book by a Westerner reviewed by ROH that mentions East Asia and wasn't deemed racist by her?

[MacPeach]

That's what I was wondering.

And someone, please, give buff daddy a Context 101 manual.:p

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

There were some pretty hilariously bad stereotyping of a culture there that I would have had no idea about without the article.

I disagree. There are many examples that this is not the case, including a very large chunk of the civil rights movement in the US. I would also say that rage and vitriol don't tend to convince anyone - but they can have the effect of making someone actually revisit the situation and get outside their cocoon of safety.

Yes, the whole scoring points thing can fragment people. That, however, isn't what rage and belligerence is necessarily about, and progressives making calm, reasoned arguments are doing as much point scoring as people telling others to die in a fire sometimes.

I guess I also disagree about what societies are built on. I think that's what a lot of people want it to be - but politeness has a habit of maintaining the status quo. The South was excessively polite about their racism. The British were very polite about controlling India. Politeness has its place. So does anger.

I think that's a fair point on slavery. I'd like to quibble that keeping people in bondage with guns and whips is hardly polite and that Ghandi was very polite in getting the British to stop controlling India, as far as those things go.

As another example that I alluded to earlier: it's possible the Ancien Regime would have never been toppled if the Revolutionaries had been polite. It didn't take too long, however, before the revolutionaries turned their lack of politeness on each other.

Another way to frame the rage vs polite discourse is this: Robert McNamara was absolutely great at polite discourse and reasoned, data-driven discussion. He didn't change his mind about anything until a buddhist set themselves aflame outside of the White House. That was a completely irrational, belligerent act. It was also one of the most iconic forms of protest anyone has ever done.

I'm not familiar with this example, but a quick google search indicates that this incident was in 1965 and I don't believe McNamara had changed his mind by then.

This long blog post articulate my thoughts better. The stuff on whale cancer, while a good thought exercise and fun analogy, is not scientifically accurate, as admitted by the author in an edit.

[Arthmail]

Crixus, sorry, but you keep saying privileged author. Do you know that to be the case, or is it only that he is American that he has privilege? This is the same Windup Girl that was penned by Paolo Bacigalupi? A solid Irish name if I ever heard one. Being born in the west does not mean privilege, and while I know nothing of the author's life story, I'm betting you don't either. How can you actually engage in a discussion if you start by making assumptions?

Politeness and anger both have their place, but tearing people apart with the sort of idiot vitriol as presented by ROH was worthless. Her followers already were amused, stamping their feet in unison like some dark army of internet assholes, and those that were repulsed by her anger simply didn't listen to her. She had points to raise, but generally literature is a place were reasoned discussion finds a wider audience than rage theatre. Comparing civil disobedience, Gandhi, or revolution with book reviews is a stretch at the best of times. Perhaps Wind Up Girl was grossly inappropriate, but nothing was gained from the response as presented by ROH. And to be honest, authors should have every ability to move to whatever culture they wish. No one lays claim to any culture, I find the entire idea of nationalism to be somewhat fucking useless in any case, and in terms of writing there is something to be said for intellectual exercises.

There seems to be this weird double standard, and I could very well be wrong here, but if a white author writes about what they strictly know (say a white man writing of white men), then there is not enough representation. Of women or others. But if there is an attempt to engage another culture in the story, there is a chance of appropriation and gross stereotype. It seems a very difficult line to walk, to be honest. But anyone not of a culture, any culture, that is trying to write a story set in that culture is going to make mistakes. If I write a book about Ireland during the 80's, no matter the research I do it's likely that I'm going to fuck it up, because I wasn't there. I didn't see the IRA and the bombings and the killings for myself, I didn't hear the sound of bullets punching down empty streets. But that shouldn't stop me from trying to capture that moment. Now I understand that there is a very real problem with stereotypes and the clinging and dirty remnants of western colonization, but I just read a review of Wind UP Girl that said the book is problematic because the author is not Thai, and if he was then the book would have been far better. Well, I'm sorry, but he's writing a story, and short of intentionally shitting all over another culture I have a hard time giving a shit.

But of course there those that practice professional outrage, so they'll be offended.

[MacPeach]

Good points, Arthmail.

There's something to be said for being well researched though [as long as you can be] I mean, for instance, there's a group of Clannish known as Grass Widows in the story I've been working on forever and a day. Loosely based on Amazons/Kurgan warrior women. Any written history on such stems almost entirely from archeological and mythological sources. Translation, I'm winging a lot of it, ergo, pretty much entirely fantasy.

Keeping in mind that I have a penis, and that I wasn't present in the Antique Crimea or Mediterranean... I suppose I'm opening myself up for ridicule. Unless of course, when it comes to depiction in SciFi and Fantasy, the import is actually-- does this make sense, is it internally consistent with the history and culture (and character) as laid out in the narrative?

I'd argue the latter, specific to the more fantastical genres, anyway.

[Richard]

Crixus, sorry, but you keep saying privileged author.

In all fairness, man, she said it just the once!

And I think you're missing her point - PB isn't privileged in the sense of coming from money or an upper class or even a dominant ethnic group, he's privileged (like me, actually!) in that he has far, far easier access to the levers of the western (and thus global) entertainment industry than, say, an aspiring Thai or Chinese SF writer.

[Kalbear]

There's a fairly large difference in trying to realistically depict either historical eras or fantastical ones and realistically depicting cultures set a few years after what we actually have right now. The latter requires a lot more research into cultural viewpoints and values than the former does, IMO.

[Schlimazl]

Giraffe might not be in the right

But he is innocent all right

Blame the one who shouts above the rest

Giraffe is tall - he knows the best.

Also reminds me of this:

The ingenuous Matvey Matveyich already nods, willing to agree with this statement as well, but then the slightly disheveled after shower Agasfer Lukich appears in the kitchen. In his right hand a cup of coffee, in his left a little bisquit and on his lips the immortal: "If there's no water in the faucet, the kikes have drunk it..."

Double explosion occurs. Parasyukhin explodes because he sees in Agasfer Lukich's stupid limerick, a malicious jab against time tested, theoretically well founded and relevant positions and conclusions on certain, well known question. On the other hand Matvey Matveyevich explodes because he completely lack, even the most basic, sense of humour and in the stupid limerick he sees unequivocal and obvious insult to his national dignity.

The duet:

-There is nothing funny about it, Agasfer Lukich! It's quite strange that a man with all you experience, with all your knowledge, strives to get away with jokes, when the fate of the whole Slavic Civilization is at stake! You are a Russian man after all! What did you find funny about it? Yes, they have drunk it! If there's no water, it is they who have drunk it! Literally or not! And nothing funny about it!..

-What o you mean kikes? What kikes have to do with it again? Why is it kikes who you are always guilty of everything? How are you not ashamed of yourself, Agasfer Lukich? You being an ancient Jew after all! And why didi you decide that there's no water? There's your water, here you go! Drink! Turn on the faucet and drink!..

Pyotr Petrovich Kolpakov smiles vaguely, probably thinking how to classify Marek Parasyukhin. Agasfer Lukich is satisfied.

[MacPeach]

Fair enough, but I haven't read Wind Up Girl. And having no background understanding [Thai history, Culture, of] any misrepresentations might have flown right by. So there's a point there in favor of respectful research. Absolutely.

To bring it back round to topic, and speaking entirely personally mind-- I don't know how well BS' style of rhetoric, bombast, and just straight out anger/envy would've motivated me to cotton a little wisdom. An empassioned attempt to educate? Yup yup.

I still haven't managed to read any of her short stories completely. I find her stylings kind of jarring and a little nonsensical at times [but can see how/why some might appreciate it] how well does BS do with depiction? Is she showing everyone how to do it right?

[Myshkin]

I'll start of by saying that I liked The Windup Girl quite a bit. Maybe I don't understand Thai culture enough to have spotted any harmful stereotypes, but I do understand human nature well enough to know that you can take offense to just about anything if you try hard enough. Arthmail made a good point about professional outrage earlier, and to expand on that I think everybody should look up Salman Rushdie's take on what he calls the Industry of Outrage. Basically, outrage can be used as a powerful tool to keep people in line, and so it pays for certain people, with certain goals, to drum up as much false outrage as they can. Now I'm not saying that RH is working on the same level as the Ayatollah, but I believe the principle is the same here; she derives whatever small amount of power she has from her ability to drum up outrage. If the outrage disappears, so does her relevance. But now she's starting to became relevant for an entirely different reason, as a talented SF author, and so is hoping to distance herself from her past as a manipulative asshole.

I still haven't managed to read any of her short stories completely. I find her stylings kind of jarring and a little nonsensical at times [but can see how/why some might appreciate it] how well does BS do with depiction? Is she showing everyone how to do it right?

As I mentioned in the last thread, I liked her Courtship in the Country of Machine Gods a lot. Since then I've read two other stories by her (connected stories about an archer goddess) which I didn't like quite as much. Her kind of distant, cold style seems to work better with SF than it does with pseudo-mythology.

[Darth Richard II]

The fact that she bullied/harrassed/stalked almost exclusively the type of people she claimed to be defending makes most of her" arguments" moot, in my eyes. Assuming she is a lesbian Thai woman( and I believe she is) that's some intense self hatred right there.

Edit I wonder about her motives in all of this. Did she actually want to break into the SFF field, or was she trying to get in and do as much damage as possible?

[Myshkin]

Edit I wonder about her motives in all of this. Did she actually want to break into the SFF field, or was she trying to get in and do as much damage as possible?

Oh, I doubt her goal was ever to infiltrate the SFF world in order to destroy it from within. It was all good when she was an outsider looking in, but now that she's managed to find her way inside I bet her mind has changed about all that.

[sologdin]

want to break into the SFF field

more like the vitriolic persona is the artform. one wonders if she and stanek compare notes on persona management technique.

[Darth Richard II]

I dunno, looking at the stuff she did under her other names makes me wonder is any of it was really a performance at all.

Edit: I mean we keep calling it performance/theater/hyperbole/whatever, but it wasn't. Looking through things it looks like she actually meant every word she said.

[maarsen]

In all fairness, man, she said it just the once!

And I think you're missing her point - PB isn't privileged in the sense of coming from money or an upper class or even a dominant ethnic group, he's privileged (like me, actually!) in that he has far, far easier access to the levers of the western (and thus global) entertainment industry than, say, an aspiring Thai or Chinese SF writer.

Quality does seem to come out. I remember reading a Japanese SF novel written in the early 70's, and I am desperately trying to remember the name, that I absolutely loved, and I wished then that I could find more of the same. If there was an aspiring Thai or Chinese writer out there, and he or she was talented, I really would like to believe that they would find an audience. Back when I was a lad, British SF was Arthur Clarke and not much else. Now, what a difference a big chunk of a century makes.

[Darth Richard II]

I don't think this has been linked yet but if it has been I apologize, but I really think it hits all the points.

http://www.elizabethbear.com/?p=2506