Benjanun Sriduangkaew and RotyH

[Callan S.]

I was not even really aware of her before this thread. However, anyone who's been on this board for a while will know that I have always and in every case argued 1) that art and artist should be separated, and 2) that depiction does not necessarily mean endorsement. Where you get this notion that I am using this argument solely for her benefit, and counter to any previously stated position of mine is a mystery to me.

Because in practical terms you are defending just for her benefit. Alot of people she picked on needed defending - but the only defending you've ended up doing is in regards to this matter is for her. Might not be your intention to do this, but that's the upshot. Doesn't that seem out of balance, to you? A strange triage?

If you believe that we should judge her by the same standards she judged others, while simultaneously condemning her methods, well that's your business. But it's also the very definition of hypocrisy.

You appear to not doubt your conclusion on this. Is that a real 'if' at the start, or just for show?

Here's something I like to do as a checksum - I claim the sky is blue. Do you agree with me? You can make a basic claim as well for me to reciprocally agree with in turn. It's something I like to do to see if the other person could agree with anything their interlocutor claims. It's not a rhetorical question. The smallness of the claim is an indicator when the other person can't agree with such a small claim.

[Callan S.]

So it actually depends on whether I thought it or not? I'm pretty sure that you can't read minds so this whole argument is pointless.

I'm asking you on an honour system. Did you think, with the artists Benjanun interacted with, at the time she interacted with them, they deserved defending in the same way you are defending her now?

Even if you typed nothing then but type something now in her defence?

[MacPeach]

fun.

Callan, i believe the sky looks blue.

do you agree that unicorns missed the boat?

[Myshkin]

Because in practical terms you are defending just for her benefit. Alot of people she picked on needed defending - but the only defending you've ended up doing is in regards to this matter is for her. Might not be your intention to do this, but that's the upshot. Doesn't that seem out of balance, to you? A strange triage?

In practical terms I am applying the same philosophy to her as I do, and have done, with everyone else. Are you honestly questioning why I have defended the fiction of Benjanun Sriduangkaew but not the fiction of other authors in a thread dedicated to Benjanun Sriduangkaew? The answer to that should be self-explanatory. Oh, by the way, I've defended the fiction of Orson Scott Card, V.S. Naipaul, and Knut Hamsun in this thread too. I am applying the same standards of judgment to her as I do to everyone else. I don't know how to express that any more clearly. At this point you seem to be grasping at straws to try to somehow make me out to be morally wrong.

You appear to not doubt your conclusion on this. Is that a real 'if' at the start, or just for show?

Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you meant when you said this:

Waiting for someone to give a 'depiction does not mean endorsement' arguement here.

Even though Benjanun never gave that benefit of the doubt to any other author. But hell, she deserves the sort of artistic protection she didn't give other artists, right?

[Eponine]

I'm asking you on an honour system. Did you think, with the artists Benjanun interacted with, at the time she interacted with them, they deserved defending in the same way you are defending her now?

How could one think that at the time if one didn't know who Benjanun was at the time? It's a disingenuous question.

[MacPeach]

if that's how you choose to frame the question, then yes, Mol... er, Eponine.

i don't think Callan was making that distinction though. between BS, RH, et al, i mean. i'd venture that to start the mindgame off on the right foot Callan was challenging Myshkin to state his opinion of RH in ignorance of BS. to wit, would this behavior offend you, would you paint your chest and step into the stead of her target, yadda yadda. Myshkin will say he would, then Callan will begin adding ingredients to the soup he'd purposefully reduced. no doubt rather confident he could change someone's mind, or at the very least, challenge their certainty.

a lass, a lack.

i empathize with the unicorns. definitely feel like i missed the boat that is this thread.

[mormont]

[mod] Let's not get into discussing the ban history of users participating in this thread. It's not in the least relevant. [/mod]

[Galactus]

Even though Benjanun never gave that benefit of the doubt to any other author. But hell, she deserves the sort of artistic protection she didn't give other artists, right?

Yes, that's the entire ponit. We're not her. We're supposed to be *better* than er. That means no doing the shity things she did.

So yes that means we should extend to hr the basic courtesies she denied others. Because we're not shitheads.

[EruditeFool]

Yes, that's the entire ponit. We're not her. We're supposed to be *better* than er. That means no doing the shity things she did.

So yes that means we should extend to hr the basic courtesies she denied others. Because we're not shitheads.

:agree:

He who fights dragons....

[Pirtti]

Personally, it's not so much about how wrong the author is but more how the author being a spectacular asshole should not make anyone consider reading his book, when he would not have read them if there had been no drama. It promotes the same behaviour for future artists, and more generally for our whole culture, and, I feel, it drags it down to a level where if you are not the jackass of the month you have no visibility and no sales (not like we have not seen that happening in politics or media, right?)

The difference with slave-owners authors is two fold: One, I don't read the slave owner books because he just got outed as a slave owner, I would likely learn the author is a slave-owner after the fact, it is not my motivation for reading; Two when I read a book written by a slave owner, I am not promoting slave-owning as a form of effective PR strategy. Racism and sexism, you find me some unknown author who spouted stuff like that for a decade and make a scandal about it, it will not make me buy his books because now he has visibility, no.

Slippery slopes and guilt by association!

You can be offended (hah) all you want, and I'll tell you I don't give a fuck if you are.

[buff daddy]

I really don't understand how condemning BS/RTYH's actions and discussing them itt equals the scumminess of those same actions or hurts her like she's previously hurt others like some people seem to be suggesting.

[Callan S.]

fun.

Callan, i believe the sky looks blue.

do you agree that unicorns missed the boat?

That's supposed to be a basic claim?

Feel free to out me as perfectly unreasonable in not agreeing with it. I don't know how many people will think you're reasonable in doing so, though.

fun.

[Callan S.]

In practical terms I am applying the same philosophy to her as I do, and have done, with everyone else. Are you honestly questioning why I have defended the fiction of Benjanun Sriduangkaew but not the fiction of other authors in a thread dedicated to Benjanun Sriduangkaew? The answer to that should be self-explanatory. Oh, by the way, I've defended the fiction of Orson Scott Card, V.S. Naipaul, and Knut Hamsun in this thread too.

Did Orson Scott Card, V.S. Naipaul, and Knut Hamsun all treat other artists depictions as endorsements as well? If not, do they count as an example for this?

To me it's like you're saying someone who doesn't help bake a cake still deserves a slice of it. She didn't help with the defence that depiction doesn't mean endorsement (she undermined that defence, actually), but you think she should get a slice of that defence?

More to the point, since a lot of people are supporting that artistic defence/putting effort into it, you are arguing she should get a slice of other peoples efforts, not just your own efforts.

Maybe I'm overly moved by the account of a woman who was raped and then describes being persecuted by Benjanun. Did Orson Scott Card, V.S. Naipaul, and Knut Hamsun do the same thing as that? I'm kind of thinking no - so you are not supporting any similar artists, here.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you meant when you said this:

Waiting for someone to give a 'depiction does not mean endorsement' arguement here.

Even though Benjanun never gave that benefit of the doubt to any other author. But hell, she deserves the sort of artistic protection she didn't give other artists, right?

Perhaps you could look to see where I advocate attacking in this text? Quote me the line?

Or whether I just advocate not defending. Or does advocating for no defence HAVE to mean advocating for an attack?

She made her bed. Now she can lie in it. And hey, maybe no one else took up the 'depiction is endorsement' idea, so no one will attack her on that matter. I mean, why would anyone attack based on that - it's not like anyones been endorsing that behaviour, right?

Unless people try and go and tidy her bed for her.

[Callan S.]

Yes, that's the entire ponit. We're not her. We're supposed to be *better* than er. That means no doing the shity things she did.

So yes that means we should extend to hr the basic courtesies she denied others. Because we're not shitheads.

Why? So we can feel superior? Just to feel good about ourselves?

I'd get if you were putting effort into helping people she'd attacked.

But when you help her instead of them, I can't see why you feel you're better than her?

Or heck, help them then once you're done (if that can ever be completed), help her.

If someone goes and punches a lot of people in the eye then gets punched, why give medical attention to them first? So we can feel superior?

[Galactus]

Why? So we can feel superior? Just to feel good about ourselves?

I'd get if you were putting effort into helping people she'd attacked.

But when you help her instead of them, I can't see why you feel you're better than her?

Or heck, help them then once you're done (if that can ever be completed), help her.

If someone goes and punches a lot of people in the eye then gets punched, why give medical attention to them first? So we can feel superior?

Who's talking about medical attention? I'm referring to the critiques against her writing. People were arguing that her texts should not be analyzed the same way other texts are because she didn't analyze texts that way. Which is silly. If her method of analysis is wrong that means we can't use her method to analyze her texts, no?

Knut Hamsun do the same thing as that?

Knut Hamsun literally supported the nazis. Not just in a "Oh, I'm just trying to make the best of things under occupation" way either, but enthusiastically. From his obituary of Hitler: "a preacher of the gospel of justice for all nations."

[MacPeach]

That's supposed to be a basic claim?

Feel free to out me as perfectly unreasonable in not agreeing with it. I don't know how many people will think you're reasonable in doing so, though.

fun.

you've misjudged my intent, but no fault there.

i personally believe it's a basic claim, and was merely curious what your checksum might make of me.

[Myshkin]

Did Orson Scott Card, V.S. Naipaul, and Knut Hamsun all treat other artists depictions as endorsements as well? If not, do they count as an example for this?

To me it's like you're saying someone who doesn't help bake a cake still deserves a slice of it. She didn't help with the defence that depiction doesn't mean endorsement (she undermined that defence, actually), but you think she should get a slice of that defence?

More to the point, since a lot of people are supporting that artistic defence/putting effort into it, you are arguing she should get a slice of other peoples efforts, not just your own efforts.

Maybe I'm overly moved by the account of a woman who was raped and then describes being persecuted by Benjanun. Did Orson Scott Card, V.S. Naipaul, and Knut Hamsun do the same thing as that? I'm kind of thinking no - so you are not supporting any similar artists, here.

Perhaps you could look to see where I advocate attacking in this text? Quote me the line?

Or whether I just advocate not defending. Or does advocating for no defence HAVE to mean advocating for an attack?

She made her bed. Now she can lie in it. And hey, maybe no one else took up the 'depiction is endorsement' idea, so no one will attack her on that matter. I mean, why would anyone attack based on that - it's not like anyones been endorsing that behaviour, right?

Unless people try and go and tidy her bed for her.

I honestly don't know where to begin with this. Your reasoning from start to finish is flawed. First of all the defense of separating art from artist is a philosophy, not some physical structure that other people have put "effort" into. She's not eating a cake that others have baked; she's being given the same consideration that some of us would give everyone, regardless of whether or not she would give that consideration to others. If you think other authors deserve that consideration, but that she does not precisely because she did not extend that consideration, then that's hypocrisy, no matter how you try to spin it. You cannot on one hand say that she's a shit for not giving her targets the benefit of the doubt, while on the other hand advocate that she not be given the benefit of the doubt. Well, you can, as that is what you are doing, but you can't do it and still claim the moral high ground. The fact that some of us are willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as regards her fiction is what separates us from her.

Oh, and as Galactus has already pointed out, Knut Hamsun was a fucking Nazi collaborator, a member of the fascist Nasjonal Samling party, which basically became the Norwegian branch of the Nazi party, who sent his Nobel Prize to Joseph Goebbels, had an audience with Hitler, and was convicted of treason after the war. And he wrote some of the most powerful and important literature of his, or any, era. Seriously, everyone on the planet should read Hunger.

I really don't understand how condemning BS/RTYH's actions and discussing them itt equals the scumminess of those same actions or hurts her like she's previously hurt others like some people seem to be suggesting.

I don't think anyone is saying this. Nobody is defending her actions, some of us are defending her fiction. Specifically some of us are saying that to judge her fiction by the same standards that she judged the fiction of others would make us no better than her.

[Rorshach]

I think it's fair to say that Knut Hamsun was a nazi. And still the best writer we've produced.

ETA: @ Myshkin - we couldn't bring ourselves to convict him of treason. Instead, we judged him to be senile. And then the f'cker had the nerve to write On overgrown paths, showing he really wasn't. By then, I guess everyone just hoped he'd die and save them the embarrasment.

[Pirtti]

Why? So we can feel superior? Just to feel good about ourselves?

I'd get if you were putting effort into helping people she'd attacked.

But when you help her instead of them, I can't see why you feel you're better than her?

Or heck, help them then once you're done (if that can ever be completed), help her.

If someone goes and punches a lot of people in the eye then gets punched, why give medical attention to them first? So we can feel superior?

As this is primarily about hurt feelings, I am under no obligation to help those hurt by someone else. They'll have to deal with it themselves.

Tending to the injured is obviously a completely different matter, and you still wouldn't go to jail if you helped the assailant first.

[Hello World]

Did you think, with the artists Benjanun interacted with, at the time she interacted with them, they deserved defending in the same way you are defending her now?

Yes. If I had been aware of her attacks at the time and the issue came up in conversation I’m sure I’d have said that depiction doesn’t equal endorsement.