Benjanun Sriduangkaew and RotyH

[Darth Richard II]

You know, if we can't even agree on what exactly she has done under what identity, I don't think this thread is going to go anywhere else, plus people are never going to agree on certain things.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

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.

It could be a good argument if we were talking about sensible criticism, but not with ROTYH's scorched earth approach, IMHO. For example she attacked Cindy Pon's books as "the worst thing imaginable" which is actually quite mild for her, but if Pon is that, therefore Ringo must be better.

[Myshkin]

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.

This is an argument I've never understood. Boycott one good writer because, after all, there are other good writers? Each writer is unique. If you want to boycott her go right ahead. As I expressed earlier, I have no problem with that. But please don't try to tell me that my reasons for not boycotting her fiction are invalid because I could simply just read something else. That's ridiculous.

[Errant Bard]

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.

What the hell? All I see in this thread are people saying RH is a nasty piece of work EVEN THOUGH the core of her arguments could have merit. Not generalisation to other "SJW" whatever the fuck that is, or disparaging of people who bring up privilege at all.

The argument that attacking one person is attacking the whole group you pretend he belongs to was old before the internet was invented.

This is an argument I've never understood. Boycott one good writer because, after all, there are other good writers?

Because you have a finite lifetime and will not be able to read everything, so you might as we start with nice guys, more like.

[David Selig]

This is an argument I've never understood. Boycott one good writer because, after all, there are other good writers? Each writer is unique. If you want to boycott her go right ahead. As I expressed earlier, I have no problem with that. But please don't try to tell me that my reasons for not boycotting her fiction are invalid because I could simply just read something else. That's ridiculous.

This.

And it's not like we would be making her rich anyway if we buy her stuff, she is a short story writer only with a handful of stories published and exactly one (novella length) book of her own you can buy which costs 3 whole bucks on most sites.

[Eponine]

Everything Myshkin says goes for me.

ETA I'd never heard of winterfox or followed RH before this, so I have no personal investment. The idea of reading good guy authors strikes me as particularly silly. I'm wondering how many of you won't read works by slave owners, colonialists, racists, sexists... after a few hundred or more years dulls the wrongs of the authors.

[Myshkin]

Because you have a finite lifetime and will not be able to read everything, so you might as we start with nice guys, more like.

If that's the way you feel, fine. It is not however the way I feel.

[Arthmail]

PC police ...for what, spewing hate? Give me a fucking break. She might have had some good points, and she might write very well, but:

Reading her is tacit approval for mental and emotional abuse. I'm sorry, but it is. You don't have to be fucking vocal about it but in essence your admitting that a person who has spent by some accounts over a decade mentally abusing people on the internet is a problem beyond your purview and that you can white wash what she's done for the sake of art. I just watched a really great bit on...Chez Apocalypse, I think, about Gamergate. The vitriol and death threats that have been thrown at female members of the gaming community have been rightly trounced by larger circles of clear thinking individuals who do not find discourse in screed and anger. (And this comes from a guy that gets angry on these forums a great deal).

This is little different, the roles are just reversed. One cannot sit there and say, well her work and her art are separate and there's nothing I need do about it. You can agree silently that bullying is fine, that emotional abuse is fine, that's what you can fucking do. I find myself as stunned as PB by some of the responses to all of this.

I am all for freedom of thought, but lets be honest, it will always have to be to an extent. The law covers the right to, and the right from. Simple concepts that are horribly difficult to practice in reality. She has a right to offer criticism, but others have a right not to be abused. And again, it is abuse. She crossed that line repeatedly, but of course she's white washing that now and some of you here are actively wielding the brush. Little different than a parent shouting down their child all of the time and calling them worthless, save that perhaps its a little easier to escape this sort of hate at the remove of the internet...for some people. Likely not the authors who are trying to build a career, trying to do something they love, and find that hate is being spewed all over them, forcing them to respond if they wish to see their hope of becoming successful come to fruition. If the allegations of her finding and outing people publically are true, if she did find out people's true identities and then work to engage her hate beyond the safe confines of internet anonymity, then her actions are even worse.

The notion that there is a general sense of glee at her...outing...is because of PC police or a need to avoid difficult conversations is disingenuous. It was not what she said, but how she presented it. And not even then. The simple truth is that amount of abuse and hate doesn't serve a purpose. I remember some here defending her earlier and it was as repulsive then as it is now. There is simply no place for hate in any discourse worth a damn.

So take the claims that its all water under the bridge and separating art and the artist and just admit that you have no problem with this sort of thing. Being a bully is being a bully. I don't feel any hate on this issue, I simply feel mild disgust for those that espouse the really conveniently slanted notion that one should not be associated on some level with the other. She's spent a decade spewing destructive hate across a broad spectrum of the internet, and hate of this sort is only suffered by fools.

[Myshkin]

Reading her is tacit approval for mental and emotional abuse

<snip>

So take the claims that its all water under the bridge and separating art and the artist and just admit that you have no problem with this sort of thing. Being a bully is being a bully. I don't feel any hate on this issue, I simply feel mild disgust for those that espouse the really conveniently slanted notion that one should not be associated on some level with the other. She's spent a decade spewing destructive hate across a broad spectrum of the internet, and hate of this sort is only suffered by fools.

Just because you can forcefully spew your opinion out onto the internet doesn't make you right. Reading her fiction is nothing more than an acknowledgment that you enjoy her fiction. It carries no value judgment either way on her as a human being. If you want to consider me an asshole, you go right ahead.

[David Selig]

So take the claims that its all water under the bridge and separating art and the artist and just admit that you have no problem with this sort of thing. Being a bully is being a bully. I don't feel any hate on this issue, I simply feel mild disgust for those that espouse the really conveniently slanted notion that one should not be associated on some level with the other. She's spent a decade spewing destructive hate across a broad spectrum of the internet, and hate of this sort is only suffered by fools.

You got me. I admit, I am a huge fan of bullying. Great job.

No, wait, that doesn't make any sense at all.

If all of the claims about her harassment actions are proven, I personally think she should go to jail. Based on what is being confirmed for sure, she is a terrible person. But I still not feel the least bit guilty for enjoying her work or buying some of it.

[Myshkin]

Art until the last page there were two sides to this argument. Both agreed RH did some shitty things. But one side argued that doing lots of shitty things isn't proof of doing ALL the shitty things she is accused of. Some of these then said they would separate art/artist.

I'm not questioning whether she did some or all of the stuff she's accused of. If one tenth of it is true, then she's a shitty person. So I am operating under the assumption that she's a shitty person, but am still separating art from artist.

[SkynJay]

I'm not questioning whether she did some or all of the stuff she's accused of. If one tenth of it is true, then she's a shitty person. So I am operating under the assumption that she's a shitty person, but am still separating art from artist.

Point being I have not seen a single defense of her or her actions on this thread.

[Arthmail]

Sorry, you buy her work, to me, its tantamount to defending her actions. Until such time as the larger gaming community actually stands up to the death threats some of the more prominent female members of the community receive, then nothing changes, and those that are inactive benefit from those that are. This is little different, its just different optics.

Should she be in the dog house forever? No, if her apologies are genuine. Two apologies for a decade of being a bully and an online asshole do not equate for me.

And DS, my response was a little more nuanced than that, but continue on as you will.

Whatever, this is going to turn into toxic soup. I'm out.

[Little Valkyrie]

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.

I'm hoping, mainly, that it leads to some re-evaluation of positions within the larger community of fandom about when it's okay to fling harsh language and abuse at other posters. I view WF/RH as someone who basically figured out that hey, in some areas and on some topics, I can say whatever I want to people because of who I am; someone said she was uncomfortable with how WF/RH talked about Cindy Pon, and got mocked for "policing the language of a WoC". [And I think that is the source of the complaint about class/money somewhere upthread; she was very quick to pull out any axis on which she was not-privileged, but very quiet on ones that she probably was. And someone who I am not mentioning by name because he's worse than Kibo has helped poison the discussion of class in sf/f fandom for all time.] I don't think that sort of thing encourages good-faith discussion, and in some parts of fandom (mostly not here, to be fair, but I've seen it happen), what would have been bog-standard shipwars between groups of fans have been "enlivened" by accusing rivals of supporting something -ism ridden. That burns people out on even wanting to talk about these things.

That said, I don't think her fiction is good at all, but if people like it, they have the right to enjoy it. I'll tell people what a tool John C. Wright is, but I don't really have a problem with anyone reading his material either, although he's spectacularly abusive to anyone who ventures onto his blog and disagrees with him (at least he keeps it there). I think that's a personal choice that doesn't reflect on anyone's ethics. I am, however, glad she's been outed, so that people can make an informed choice to associate with her or not, and because I'm really curious about how she's going to craft her persona now.

[Darth Richard II]

Well, posts keep popping up and disappearing so I'm starting to loose track of this conversation, but if possible, and if anyone can still even read this at this point, I'd like to refocus the discussion back on the fake persona she created. This wasn't just an alias she used to not get connected back to her online identity, it was designed specifically to appeal to other authors and promote her stories, and was a complete 180 from her other online personality. If we condemn other authors for using sock puppets, isn't this is some ways the same?

Also, I would like to clarify, the Darth Richard -> Darth Richard II thing happened because of the time the site had to be reset for security reasons, and Richard I(ha) went to a dead email.

Also, I do apologize for some of my vile behavior in here, like I've said before, I am aware I am a giant hypocrite, and for personal reasons some of this ends to make my emotions boil over.

[Sci-2]

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.

This is ridiculous, but I'm glad you got to get your digs against "SJWs" in there.

I still think that Prince of Misogyny piece is hilarious, and even RotYH noted it wasn't a review of TDTCB. But before you get on your high horse, if you check out Larry's blog, Foz Meadow's blog, and Liz Bourke's Sleeps with Monsters Tor blog for their posts mentioning Bakker you'll see me noting that it's important to separate Bakker as a person from textual evaluation of his work.

As for the blowout, Bakker's problems began when he wrote on his blog about how Larry was clearly manipulated into liking some of RotYH's reviews. Even Larry noted a private email to him would've worked better. After that, Bakker's personality carried him into deeper waters.

Regarding her vileness, years ago I discussed this with Ran & Linda in one of the Lit threads. I noted I was focused on the arguments in her reviews and wasn't defending whatever it is she apparently did on other sites.

But if you want me to repeat what I've already said - I don't plan to buy anything from her as I think she actively played a game of ramping up her vileness then seeing who would still support her.

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.

Yeah, that's why I think a lot of authors who got criticized are now raising such a stink. But I think a lot of RotYH's criticisms continue to ring true - for example I recall Kiernan's original defense regarding her depiction of PoCs being rather weak.

[kuenjato]

This is an argument I've never understood. Boycott one good writer because, after all, there are other good writers? Each writer is unique. If you want to boycott her go right ahead. As I expressed earlier, I have no problem with that. But please don't try to tell me that my reasons for not boycotting her fiction are invalid because I could simply just read something else. That's ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting you boycott it, frankly you can buy it and read it for all I care. What surprised me was how the notoriety of her rep from before suddenly made her a "must read" among some people, as if there aren't a steady availability of quality fiction already (not to mention that for someone like winterfox/RH, income = validity). But that's nothing compared to the hemming and hawing and discounting of her rep as 'probably spurious' and "well, she validated my personal opinions/vanity despite the face that she's a bit outré so I give her a pass" and the various whitewashing Mamatas and co. are attempting. Fuck that noise.

[Serious Callers Only]

She's already rich though. True villain material from a privileged ethnic aristocracy ;)

[Darth Richard II]

She's already rich though.

Say what now?

[Serious Callers Only]

I've been informed years ago (under the Lesifore name); that her dadda owned some hotels. Maybe bullshit.