399 replies to this topic

[thistlepong]

sciborg2, on 15 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

We're coming to the final pages of this particular thread (these get locked after 20-21 pages) so I'll bite. What exactly do people want the non-ACM-haters to say about ACM?

Good question.  The only thing I've supported is her appropriate characterization of rabid animal as a loaded term.  With so many folks claiming aggressive jerk may often also have a point, I'd figure we were all siblings in arms for doing so.  Truth is I wouldn't know about ACM if not for Bakker.

Well, technically if Rothfuss hadn't been so abominably ignorant wrt that post linked earlier.  Which lead to some googling, which lead here, which hey that's the guy who wrote that book that I didn't care for and what's he on about...

[Datepalm]

Ah, Rothfuss muses about the joy of adolescent sex fantasies. At least he's consistent.

Interesting post from Jesse Bullington. Has anyone else read Enterprise of Death? You should.

Ok, "Requires only Haidt" is kind of funny.

[Cleofis Patriarch]

sciborg2, on 15 April 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

I think the argument is whether or not rabid animal is a loaded term. I don't think anyone even believes that Watt's using it indicates he was sexist/racist.

I guess for me I look at Jeminsin who was also criticized by Moon, not only on the RoH site but also at Ars Marginal which specifically caters to people who are persons of color, LGBT, etc. Jeminsin did argue with Moon, but then felt it was a distraction and then even later said Moon had some good points.

So we have an author whose entire trilogy is slammed, in a place where it really could affect sales since Jeminsin as an African-American author would at least hypothetically supported by a site like Ars Marginal.

But she walks away, reflects, and holds onto her opinion that some of Moon's points are valid but others are not.

Seems like if an author who was far more likely to have lost readers because of ACM can do that Bakker should have given up the ghost eight months ago.

Well, I sort of agree with you there, even though I know nothing about how popular blogs can affect fantasy sales. (I would really like to know, actually. Not for the sake of this discussion but because I've always assumed their effects weren't that significant). Well I want to agree with you and say that Bakker's overreacting about his drop in sales, but I have no knowledge of how that stuff works.

I read ACM's review of the trilogy and agreed with everything. But there's still a MAJOR differences between getting bad publicity for being labeled a misogynist (which I don't believe Bakker is; it's so much more complicated than that) on a blog known for emotional theatrics and overreacting and simply, just being a bad or mediocre fantasy writer, like NK. Jemisin.

[thistlepong]

Datepalm, on 15 April 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Ah, Rothfuss muses about the joy of adolescent sex fantasies. At least he's consistent.

Interesting post from Jesse Bullington. Has anyone else read Enterprise of Death? You should.

Ok, "Requires only Haidt" is kind of funny.

It was just the last remnants of my youthful ability to suspend disbelief being taken out behind the shed, I guess.  I shouldn't have been surprised since he has his protagonist spout the textbook definition of objectification and claim there's nothing wrong with it.  But, you know, I figured maybe he was writing appropriately for the age, gender, and context of the character.  Oh, he wasn't?  Fuck me.  And that will have been the last time anyone ever caught a break.

I picked up Enterprise of Death 'cause of that statement.

Edited by thistlepong, 15 April 2012 - 03:37 PM.

[Happy Ent]

Datepalm, on 15 April 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

(Yes, I know this distinction is nuanced and difficult. But we're all bright people capable of pulling complex meaning from a text, aren't we?)

Kellhus sighed. Why is she deluding herself so?

[Datepalm]

Well, Rothfuss wasn't exactly high on my to-read list (somewhere between Goethe and the end of the world) but he may have dropped further now. I suppose it could be said he's lost a sale, but that was his own words, even. Dead authors have it easier.

Enterprise of Death is an interesting case, I think. I see the criticism Bullington quotes in the link, but I think ultimately he pulled off what he was trying to do. Awa is by a long shot the main character (not the straight white guy) just by the amount of care and thought put into her as opposed to him. She has the central narrative and emotional arc, he just shows up sometimes to move the plot along.

[Sci-2]

Quote

Ok, "Requires only Haidt" is kind of funny.

I think this was the post that damned him, though in a sorta unfair way. Linking to a study to prove your point...that's like Internet 101. Claiming your original post was an "experiment" or "test"...Internet 102.

But Bakker seemed to genuinely stake his ground on Internet 101 & 102 as an actual application of Science...This just seemed insane to me. A total Wile E. Coyote moment, but I think as someone who didn't actually study science/math in school it's understandable as I've seen similar applications of statistics and research.

If he'd just had a single post where he took questions about his works and offered to consider why people found him to be a sexist online, he'd have sailed through with much more ease.

[Maia]

Nukelavee, on 15 April 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Paris Hilton is an actual woman.  Would a realistic depiction of her result in a good or strong character...the way "you" want?

I doubt it.

What is a good character? Ultimately, it is a character that is interesting to read about. Silly fops can be quite entertaining - i.e. Bertie Wooster, so yes, I could see her as a "good" character in the same vein.

Quote

Personally, I think fantasy works better when, yes, the "world" has internal plausibility, when it enables the suspension of disbelief, but the characters are realistic.

What is realistic? To bring up Bakker again, none of his major male characters are realistic. They are all overpowered supermen, some more interesting and/or deep  than others.
In fact, if you look at most beloved fantasy characters, very few of them are realistic in their limitations. Realistic psychologically? Sure.

[Datepalm]

How do I put this...I really don't care about Bakker. I don't like his books, but I haven't read so much of them that i'm invested either. (Like, if an argument about WOT happens, i'll dive in eventually, just because I read 8000 pages of that thing. And re-read. Not so much here.) I think the inability of the debate on gender in genre to move the fuck onto anything but this super rarefied, literal, but he said/but she said, is not a good sign for us. Theres lots and lots of books. Theres lots and lots of authors. Theres lots and lots of readers and readings.

I can sum this one up really, really easily:

- Calling for women (or anyone, but lets face it, mostly women) to be raped is misogynistic. We are not for it. It is in fact off limits in this forum. Do it and be noticed by a mod and you're gone. Does anyone lament the lack of this aspect of the discource here? (come on folks, stand up and be counted.) Does anyone think it's ok elsewhere? I haven't noticed anyone saying that. Does anyone think it should be socially permitted? As in, it's perpetrators not thrown from all the staircases and pushed out of the community into whatever corners of the internet they want to sit around revelling in saying the word cunt to themselves and giggling, or whatever it is these people do for entertainment?

- Bakker is kind of a douche, even at his best. Pulling the 'don't criticize me becuase it will mean people won't read my book' is an idiotic position. In fact, going back to some definitions bandied in this threads last iteration, it's censorship.

[kalbear]

Quote

I really don't undertsand this argument. To me it sounds as ludicrous as saying "well you've never made a film or published a novel so you can't make a criticism" and most of us would also agree that statement is ludicrous. Why as opposed to any other insult or any other criticism are racism and sexism deemed to be too sensitive ? Its not like these things (overtly) effect us in this day and age.

You're equating criticizing a movie with criticizing how a person lives their daily life and then not understanding why someone might have a problem with that? Really? Can you possibly, maybe, understand that you telling that woman in a burqa in Afghanistan that she should just run away from home or shoot her husband might, just maybe, be slightly insensitive or ignorant or fucking assholish as all hell?

Maybe?

Quote

I think it's interesting in a discussion about how men and women are treated differently on the Internet, people have started ragging on(rightfulyl so) Bakker for posting on other sites and being an ass, while defending Moon for doing the exact same thing.

Couple differences there. One is that Bakker's being an ass is a bit more misogynistic and loaded than other people's. Two is that Bakker is an author going on the sites of reviewers and other authors and being an ass; especially the part of going to other reviewers is problematic and somewhat abusive of power. Three is simply that Bakker is selling something; ROH is not. I'll not be buying ROH's books either, if that makes you feel any better.

[Sci-2]

Datepalm, you are awesome.

ETA: I'll be dropping the topic of Bakker and ACM now. That and your previous posts pretty much summed up everything.

Edited by sciborg2, 15 April 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[polishgenius]

It strikes me that in terms of their perception in this particular internet debate, Rothfuss and Bakker have the opposite problem. Bakker obviously takes (or appears to take) the internet far, far too seriously whereas I'm not sure Rothfuss has ever knowingly been completely serious about anything on his blog ever, and regularly cartoonises aspects of his personality (like, for example, a sexually frustrated geek-boy) for the giggles, which to readers not familiar with that fact can easily make certain posts look at best insensitive and potentially more morally problematic.

It's something that, tbh, permeates into his books, especially Wise Man's Fear- by his own admission there's some wish-fulfillment writing going on in the sex scenes and I'm pretty sure it was written at least partly with a hint of self-mockery but it does rather clash with the tone of the rest of the piece sometimes.

[Sci-2]

Regarding Rothfuss, the plot centered more around Fela's breasts than it ever did her abilities with magic and mathematics.

[thistlepong]

polishgenius, on 15 April 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

...whereas I'm not sure Rothfuss has ever knowingly been completely serious about anything on his blog ever, and regularly cartoonises aspects of his personality (like, for example, a sexually frustrated geek-boy) for the giggles, which to readers not familiar with that fact can easily make certain posts look at best insensitive and potentially more morally problematic.

It's something that, tbh, permeates into his books, especially Wise Man's Fear- by his own admission there's some wish-fulfillment writing going on in the sex scenes and I'm pretty sure it was written at least partly with a hint of self-mockery but it does rather clash with the tone of the rest of the piece sometimes.

He gives a lot of interviews, responds with fair frequency to folks, and tends to be consistent in his answers.  In aggregate it's looking less and less like active cartoonising than actual passive cartoonish misunderstanding of the topic.  Just as your average ass can make a point, your clown can also miss one.

If he's insensitive in every format...

[Sheep the Evicted]

Kalbear, on 15 April 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

You're equating criticizing a movie with criticizing how a person lives their daily life and then not understanding why someone might have a problem with that?

Funny. Isn't this this exactly what your crowd is doing with Bakker. Infact it is to the letter what your doing with Bakker, first you critique his book, then you criticise his character and finally your scorn the fact that he has a problem with it and is throwing a strop.

Which yes i can see is totally legitamate. Why wouldn't it be ?

Kalbear, on 15 April 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Really? Can you possibly, maybe, understand that you telling that woman in a burqa in Afghanistan that she should just run away from home or shoot her husband might, just maybe, be slightly insensitive or ignorant or fucking assholish as all hell?

Maybe?

The fact that you would even imply that somone throwing a hissy fit over being called a rabid animal and even reverting to classic primary school tactic of saying "datssss raaaaaaaaacis!" after name calling first mind you with telling somone who grew up in a certain culture that their entire way of life is completely utterly wrong and they need to change it drastically (and violently) now is just......par for course. It really does make about as much sense as you've been making all thread. Really, well done.

[kalbear]

Quote

Funny. Isn't this this exactly what your crowd is doing with Bakker. Infact it is to the letter what your doing with Bakker, first you critique his book, then you criticise his character and finally your scorn the fact that he has a problem with it and is throwing a strop.

I have a crowd? Sweet? Can I also have a posse?

I think that if you're interpreting my scorn as scorn over Bakker having a problem, well, you have some major reading comprehension issues. Just...maybe, possibly, think of another reason that people might scorn  an author talking about a person's bad words towards them for 8 months.

Quote

The fact that you would even imply that somone throwing a hissy fit over being called a rabid animal and even reverting to classic primary school tactic of saying "datssss raaaaaaaaacis!" after name calling first mind you with telling somone who grew up in a certain culture that their entire way of life is completely utterly wrong and they need to change it drastically (and violently) now is just......par for course. It really does make about as much sense as you've been making all thread. Really, well done.

The fact that you'd equate a critic of a movie with a critic about a woman's life is par for yours. So I guess we go to a playoff  hole now?

Actually, scratch that. I'm still not sure what you're objecting to. Are you upset that Watts is being pilloried for using the term rabid animal? Are you upset that bakker's being treated as a joke because of his reaction to...well, to a lot of things? Are you upset that white guys can't use the word 'nigga'? I'm quite confused what piece of privilege you're really hurt about.

[oldnumericals]

Having been completely uninterested in authorpolitik, it was a massive disappointment to see writers whose works I liked (Bakker, etc) act like such fools online.  I registered on this forum for random ASOIAF speculations, but all the behind the scenes online shenenigans . . . his responses to the ACM review were all particularly embarrassing--wish someone had taken him aside and told him what Capote said to the Paris Review all those years ago:

"

And in this connection there is one piece of advice I strongly urge: never demean yourself by talking back to a critic, never. Write those letters to the editor in your head, but don't put them on paper."

Edited by oldnumericals, 15 April 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[Nukelavee]

Maia - Why do you refer to Bakker?  I've never read his stuff.  Ever.  What you describe is pretty much a summary of what bores me in fantasy, and avoid.  And, no, most beloved fantasy characters just aren't that deep psychologically.

I'm going to go with "far too many fantasy writers that get discussed here, are too concerned with being "the One" who crafts an epic story that also shifts our paradigms of what fantasy is", and we pay too much attention to the people out shouting about what great things they do, to notice the people that have been quietly doing it all along.

Seriously - Go read some Alexis Giliand.  All the morality you could ask for, interesting worlds and ideas, clever plots, and some great characters.  Including believable people achieving great things, regardless of gender.

AND - in 3-400 page novels.

[Sci-2]

oldnumericals, on 15 April 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

Having been completely uninterested in authorpolitik, it was a massive disappointment to see writers whose works I liked (Bakker, etc) act like such fools online.  I registered on this forum for random ASOIAF speculations, but all the behind the scenes online shenenigans . . . his responses to the ACM review were all particularly embarrassing--wish someone had taken him aside and told him what Capote said to the Paris Review all those years ago:

"

And in this connection there is one piece of advice I strongly urge: never demean yourself by talking back to a critic, never. Write those letters to the editor in your head, but don't put them on paper."

I think there can be open dialogue between critics and authors, in the online age, but this wasn't one of those cases.

Speaking very generally -- walking the razors edge of my oath to Datepalm haha -- I would like to see more authors examine each others' works and critique them. It doesn't have to be done with snark.

[Seli]

Datepalm, on 15 April 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Ah, Rothfuss muses about the joy of adolescent sex fantasies. At least he's consistent.

Interesting post from Jesse Bullington. Has anyone else read Enterprise of Death? You should.

Ok, "Requires only Haidt" is kind of funny.

Rothfuss probably could have used the image that he met that crush working as a wall-street banker and still talk about the same message. I think the problem lies more in the first connections his mind makes, and the fact I personally think it is perfectly fine for him to have done so.

Bullington is high on my to-read list, altough I might have to start with his upcoming book for reasons related to nationalism.

Edited by Seli, 15 April 2012 - 05:55 PM.