Benjanun Sriduangkaew and RotyH

[Sci-2]

I just find the people who were on her bandwagon of denouncing authors over perceived and imagined written wrongdoings, who are now prevaricating when it comes to denouncing her when she's actually willfully harmed people through her hatefull & sadistic actions highly hypocritical.

Sorry, but nobody's shown proof she's "willfully harmed people" beyond the fact she was a jerk.

And I'd say a large share of her criticisms are still accurate, though I also wouldn't buy anything she's written given I think she did play her supporters for fools. But that's a different thing than the claim she deliberately tried to get someone to commit suicide.

[Callan S.]

Looking at the Twilight for Boys style fiction that gets praised in the SFF sphere, or just the misogyny of grimdark -> ROTYH was the reviewer we needed not the one we wanted. The one we deserved...something something Dark Knight....something....

The one that actually wanted to kill Havey Dent?

[farseer2]

Sorry, but nobody's shown proof she's "willfully harmed people" beyond the fact she was a jerk.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but being a big jerk to people is deliberately trying to hurt them. That would be why being a big jerk is considered a bad thing.

And I'd say a large share of her criticisms are still accurate, though I also wouldn't buy anything she's written given I think she did play her supporters for fools. But that's a different thing than the claim she deliberately tried to get someone to commit suicide.

So any behavior is OK, just as long as the jerk in question agrees with your political opinions?

I do no think that ROTYH deliberately tried to get someone to commit suicide, at least as far as I know, but I have no doubt that she deliberately tried to hurt people.

However, regarding whether to boycott her writing:

If people really think its OK to support someone who has done things as terrible as this peron, then, I don;t think our concepts of right and wrong are compatible. Please continue to give support and sales to someone who thinks things like rape threats and faking an entire personality in order to sell stories. Yes, I will judge you, and no, I would say the problem is with YOU. If this type of behavior is rewarded in this fashion, then this world is fucked. If people can't be held accountable for their actions any more because they are "an artist", then shit, I might as well go running naked through the childcare, and say I did it for art. God forbid there by consequences for my actions! This will be my last post here, God willing, as I am a giant hypocrite with OCD, so who the hell knows anymore, I'm sure you'll all suck me back in somehow.

Hmmm, let's see... Of course there should be consequences for your actions. If you ran naked through childcare and said you did it for art, you might be committing a crime (depending on where you do it), and if so I would certainly expect you to suffer the legal consequences. Also, people would probably regard you as a bad person, with no consideration for the feelings of children, and they would probably decide that they do not want to be your friend or associate with you, and I also would agree with that.

However, if in addition to your streaking activities you also happened to invent a useful vaccine, I would not refuse to use it if necessary. By purchasing your vaccine I do not consider that I'm enabling your illegal or immoral activities. I'm just enabling your medical activities which are doing good for humanity.

I think you might have a point if you were talking about people who only purchase Sriduangkaew's stories because of her ROTYH activities. That's not my case. I had never heard of Sriduangkaew before this thread and now that I have I do not feel tempted to buy her stories out of morbid curiosity. I mean, even if she is a fine writer there are many fine writers with a consistent body of work that I have yet to read, and I have seen nothing that convinces me that her writing may be more deserving. However, if in the future she happens to write the next Game of Thrones, I will not refuse to read it.

So, as I see it: she has acted like an awful person and she has unfairly hurt people with her words. She will suffer the consequences of that. Many people who might have become her friends will not want to. However, I do not feel the need to lynch her or destroy her. If she also happens to do good things (like writing excellent stories) then I'm happy for her. People are complex beings, and they may change. Let her pay the consequences of her actions, but do not destroy her. And when she, or any other person, is being a jerk, then please do not support them in that activity.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Myshkin, Sci,

It is not in my mind enough for me to boycott her work, because I don't as a rule boycott an artist's work based solely on what I think of them as a person. This is my philosophy, and I understand and appreciate where you are coming from, but it is not a mindset I adhere to. I decided long ago that I would not deprive myself of art simply because I did not like the artist. That does not in any way mean that I condone or excuse RH's actions; it means only that I think she is a talented writer. Being a shitty person and being a good writer are not mutually exclusive; RH can be, and is, both. Does being honest enough with myself and the people of this board to acknowledge that RH is a talented writer despite how awful a person she is make me disgusting? No, it does not. And if you believe otherwise then I submit that the problem here is you, not me.

I do see where y'all are coming from, but here is where I disagree. I'll read a Communist, Fascist, Lesbian Seperatist, or a Transgender activist. I'll read a Russian Apologist, a Chinese chauvanist, or an aggressive Atheist. However, I will not read someone who thinks it's okay email/PM/text or otherwise interact with someone personally and tell that person they should "kill themselves".

Holding political or cultural views I may not have in common is fine. Personally taking nasty slapshots at individuals, is not. That's my maginot line.

[AverageGuy]

RH was always playing for an audience. Certain authors she went after only really made sense as click-bait for communities she'd targeted. Reference the MLN Hanover post, the Tiger Beatdown link where she pretty much admitted it, or the multiple posts where she'd actually write "trololol." That legitimate SJ arguments were mixed in along with criticism about policing tone made it hard to criticize the trolling.

Up to now, I'd barely heard of Sriduangkaew, so I guess this changes that. But looking at this:

http://creativedoubledipper.blogspot.ca/2013/05/cerulean-sins-chapter-47-triggers.html

I won't be buying her books. This isn't even really that hard. With Card and Simmons, I'd already read and enjoyed their work, and I had to actually do some soul-searching before deciding they weren't worth it. With Sriduangkaew, I've never read anything she's written, so even if she's written the best book ever, I can happily go on with my own life in ignorance.

However, if in addition to your streaking activities you also happened to invent a useful vaccine, I would not refuse to use it if necessary. By purchasing your vaccine I do not consider that I'm enabling your illegal or immoral activities. I'm just enabling your medical activities which are doing good for humanity.

Comparing a book to potentially life-saving medical seems like a faulty comparison to me. I guess I'm coming from a different place here, but I can't think of any piece of fiction I'd rank on the same level as a vaccine. If it was a choice between the greatest piece of fiction in the world or smallpox making a return, burn the book. It would be sad, but there's no singular piece of fiction I'd call essential to human lives. But even in the case of medicine, there are points (not streaking obviously) where I'd be hesitant to take the vaccine. I might take it anyway, but I'd consider that a failure of my own courage rather than a triumph of my own logic.

[Sci-2]

I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but being a big jerk to people is deliberately trying to hurt them. That would be why being a big jerk is considered a bad thing.

So any behavior is OK, just as long as the jerk in question agrees with your political opinions?

Right, but being a big jerk is not attempted murder.

On the second sentence ->That's a fascinating strawman, especially as I've said over and over I think there's ample reason not to buy her works.

I do see where y'all are coming from, but here is where I disagree. I'll read a Communist, Fascist, Lesbian Seperatist, or a Transgender activist. I'll read a Russian Apologist, a Chinese chauvanist, or an aggressive Atheist. However, I will not read someone who thinks it's okay email/PM/text or otherwise interact with someone personally and tell that person they should "kill themselves".

Holding political or cultural views I may not have in common is fine. Personally taking nasty slapshots at individuals, is not. That's my maginot line.

Yeah, and no one has proven the bold. As I said, there's plenty of respectable reasons not to read Benjanun. But trying to accuse her of attempted murder without proof is, IMO, unfair.

(I also think there's more than a bit of convenient ad hominem dismissal among the authors trying to stop Benjanun from publishing at all, as if her being a jerk magically obviated her criticisms which - IMO - stand regarding a vast majority of books reviewed at ROTYH.)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sci,

She is aggressively deleting her past vitriol. That fact is undeniable. Doing so is, in my opinion, an attempt to wipe her record clean and deny readers the ability to read all of her work and decide for themselves if they will choose to support her. I take that as circumstantial evidence of her bad practices. She is, based on her own actions, on my will not support by reading list.

[Myshkin]

Myshkin, Sci,

I do see where y'all are coming from, but here is where I disagree. I'll read a Communist, Fascist, Lesbian Seperatist, or a Transgender activist. I'll read a Russian Apologist, a Chinese chauvanist, or an aggressive Atheist. However, I will not read someone who thinks it's okay email/PM/text or otherwise interact with someone personally and tell that person they should "kill themselves".

Holding political or cultural views I may not have in common is fine. Personally taking nasty slapshots at individuals, is not. That's my maginot line.

I have no problem with your take on this; you have decided that you do not want to associate yourself with this person in any way, including by reading her fiction. I understand and appreciate that line of thinking. I don't think any less of anybody for feeling the way you feel, or for making the same decision as you. It's just not the decision I've made. I've decided to judge her fiction on its own merits, separate from her actions in other aspects of her life. This does not make me disgusting, weak, or a bad person. And it certainly does not mean that I support, condone, or excuse her behavior. I will again use V.S. Naipaul as an example; he is an unapologetic misogynist who emotionally abused his wife, and physically abused his mistress. He's also written some of the most profoundly affecting and heartbreakingly beautiful novels in existence. Do I think that makes up for his behavior? Emphatically no. But I'm glad I've read his works, I plan to keep reading his works, and I even plan to keep praising them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Myshkin,

Oh, not claiming it makes you a bad person just explaining why I disagree with your decision.

[Myshkin]

Myshkin,

Oh, not claiming it makes you a bad person just explaining why I disagree with your decision.

Sorry, that line wasn't directed at you personally. It's in there really just to illustrate that I won't apologize for my choice of reading, because I have nothing to apologize for.

[Sci-2]

Sci,

She is aggressively deleting her past vitriol. That fact is undeniable. Doing so is, in my opinion, an attempt to wipe her record clean and deny readers the ability to read all of her work and decide for themselves if they will choose to support her. I take that as circumstantial evidence of her bad practices. She is, based on her own actions, on my will not support by reading list.

I've already said there's no argument from me on this score, as I don't plan on buying anything from her either.

My point is that accusing someone of a rather serious crime based on hearsay or -at best - vague statements about her being "contributing factor" is rather weak.

Beyond that, like Myshkin I don't plan on apologizing for saying some of her reviews have merit. Nor do I think her behavior somehow proves her criticisms are wrong - though her deleting some of these same reviews does potentially speak to her lack of integrity as a critic.

[Serious Callers Only]

You know what i find interesting about recent PR strategies? Pseudonyms are the new normal. Want to write urban fantasy? Better get a woman's name even if you're not. Want to do it without including romance? Do the opposite. Want to write SF? Better get some of that engineer cred by using a single letter abbreviation in the middle of your new name (for whatever strange memetic reason).

Resuming Benjanun just needs to be discarded and a discrete editor found. Although probably the new one won't be shortlisted for the Cambell. Thats them breaks.

[kuenjato]

I've already said there's no argument from me on this score, as I don't plan on buying anything from her either.

My point is that accusing someone of a rather serious crime based on hearsay or -at best - vague statements about her being "contributing factor" is rather weak.

Beyond that, like Myshkin I don't plan on apologizing for saying some of her reviews have merit. Nor do I think her behavior somehow proves her criticisms are wrong - though her deleting some of these same reviews does potentially speak to her lack of integrity as a critic.

It's not hearsay "at best". Anyone that does a modicum of research on this topic will find all the evidence they need. Some of us who remember this crap from years and years ago still recall how winterfox and RotyH used to simultaneously post the same (early) articles on winter fox livejournal and the RH.

Not that I'm trying to convince you or anything, that's really pointless as you are in full-blown adaptation mode. But the irony is delicious. I recall very specifically the blowout on the Bakker article--the same you were fondly reminiscing on a few pages back--and how certain individuals around here piously championed RH despite the fact that she wrote a ridiculous troll-attack after reading 6 whole pages... but but but she was a Thai woman and that automatically validated any opinion she might have over folks o' privilege, particularly Bakker, who was white and privileged and male. It was blatant tokenism, valuing who said the message rather than what the message actually said. (and what was said was cherry-picked, malicious, misinformed, and agenda-driven. but given the general state of bile spewed up from time to time in the Bakker threads, I realize RH's post must have been like a 5 year old getting a Happy Meal).

The hilarious thing is that, in reality, RH comes from a highly, highly privileged background by any definition (but particularly in terms of Thailand's socioeconomic structures) and moreover, after years of the SJW shtick, she constructed a so-bland-it-reeks-of-fake "official" persona of gentle happy-go-lucky Thai lady to hock her Warhammer-inspired sci-fi. The stuff on the Bee site is almost unreadable, actually, unlike her other stuff.

Sci, you actively supported a vile, abusive piece of shit for years and are still equivocating because the central issues RH provoked (and I do admit to learning a few things from her) are so dear to your identity and online persona. But I do respect that you are here communicating your discomfort and working through the issue, compared to the radio silence of certain other vocal SJW members on this board.

...

As for 'supporting' her work ... jeez, people, aren't there like a hundred thousand other, better books you could be spending your time with? She was always a good writer. But she's also a sociopathic vampire and the hypocrisy of all of this is just too galling.

[peterbound]

It's not hearsay "at best". Anyone that does a modicum of research on this topic will find all the evidence they need. Some of us who remember this crap from years and years ago still recall how winterfox and RotyH used to simultaneously post the same (early) articles on winter fox livejournal and the RH.

Not that I'm trying to convince you or anything, that's really pointless as you are in full-blown adaptation mode. But the irony is delicious. I recall very specifically the blowout on the Bakker article--the same you were fondly reminiscing on a few pages back--and how certain individuals around here piously championed RH despite the fact that she wrote a ridiculous troll-attack after reading 6 whole pages... but but but she was a Thai woman and that automatically validated any opinion she might have over folks o' privilege, particularly Bakker, who was white and privileged and male. It was blatant tokenism, valuing who said the message rather than what the message actually said. (and what was said was cherry-picked, malicious, misinformed, and agenda-driven. but given the general state of bile spewed up from time to time in the Bakker threads, I realize RH's post must have been like a 5 year old getting a Happy Meal).

The hilarious thing is that, in reality, RH comes from a highly, highly privileged background by any definition (but particularly in terms of Thailand's socioeconomic structures) and moreover, after years of the SJW shtick, she constructed a so-bland-it-reeks-of-fake "official" persona of gentle happy-go-lucky Thai lady to hock her Warhammer-inspired sci-fi. The stuff on the Bee site is almost unreadable, actually, unlike her other stuff.

Sci, you actively supported a vile, abusive piece of shit for years and are still equivocating because the central issues RH provoked (and I do admit to learning a few things from her) are so dear to your identity and online persona. But I do respect that you are here communicating your discomfort and working through the issue, compared to the radio silence of certain other vocal SJW members on this board.

...

As for 'supporting' her work ... jeez, people, aren't there like a hundred thousand other, better books you could be spending your time with? She was always a good writer. But she's also a sociopathic vampire and the hypocrisy of all of this is just too galling.

Fuckballs!! You said that a shit load better than I could have.

Well done.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Fuckballs!! You said that a shit load better than I could have.

Well done.

Yeah, thirded.

Also, for those who consider ROTYH/BS their political ally, doesn't it seem strange to you she never seemed to go after conservative writers? AFAIK (I don't claim to have read all her stuff, so I may have missed something) she only attacked authors who presented themselves as some kind of progressives - well, with the possible exception of Jim Butcher, but he hardly can be called foam-mouthed reactionary.

For me the fact she decided to attack someone like Caitlin Kiernan (who by reasonable criteria really should be on the top of any oppression olympics imaginable) but never someone like, say, John Ringo stinks of hypocrisy of the highest order.

[SkynJay]

Fuckballs!! You said that a shit load better than I could have.

Well done.

Really? Which part. He countered claims of hearsay with 'everyone knows.'. He made a sweeping value judgement on her writing and claimed it as fact. He brought up economic status in a debate that never focused on it. Toss in a SJW dig, was that the deciding moment of awesome?

Again, I can't and won't defend her actions. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the outrage is actually glee; the PC police and SJW watch a 'hero' go down. We were right all along, ANYONE who mentions privalage or brings up a social issue must be a hypocrite--just look at RH.

[Galactus]

Also, for those who consider ROTYH/BS their political ally, doesn't it seem strange to you she never seemed to go after conservative writers? AFAIK (I don't claim to have read all her stuff, so I may have missed something) she only attacked authors who presented themselves as some kind of progressives - well, with the possible exception of Jim Butcher, but he hardly can be called foam-mouthed reactionary.

For me the fact she decided to attack someone like Caitlin Kiernan (who by reasonable criteria really should be on the top of any oppression olympics imaginable) but never someone like, say, John Ringo stinks of hypocrisy of the highest order.

While I'm no fan of ROTYH (I was in a pretty bad space at the time, and I was literally crying at some of the articles) and I'm heavily cynical of her attempts to create a new persona, but this in particular isn't really an issue: There's a pretty decent case for just dismissing the outright horrible and focusing on the problems with stuff that's actually good or interesting.

I do remember going "Oh, she makes SO much more sense now." when I found out she was Winterfox though... (I wonder if we can still find her critique of FR fanfiction?)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SkynJay,

She is deliberately erasing her more vitriolic statements. Do you deny that? I read some of her posts that are now gone can we not speak of those posts that she has erased now that they are gone? Is erasing them not an admission, by implication, that there was much wrong with them?

[Darth Richard II]

SkynJay,

She is deliberately erasing her more vitriolic statements. Do you deny that? I read some of her posts that are now gone can we not speak of those posts that she has erased now that they are gone? Is erasing them not an admission, by implication, that there was much wrong with them?

Yeah, I don't know what more proof you are going to get. We have several people who say all this go down. It's equivalent to someone burning a recording of the crime yet having a bunch of eye witnesses. You can either choice to believe them or not. *shrug*

[SkynJay]

Scot, of course it isn't. If your asking if I think there was something wrong with some(many) of them then of course I say yes. But deleting them isn't an admission of guilt; it is an admission that she doesn't want it tied to her public persona.

What I was responding to specifically was Sci saying the accusations that near criminal ie harassing through private messages are hearsay, and the poster below him basically countering with 'we all know she did it.'