Benjanun Sriduangkaew and RotyH

[Myshkin]

I have not. Well, not beyond what is presented here. Is it in one of the "year's best compelations"?

I'm not sure, but it can be found free online through one of the links earlier in this thread.

ETA: It's called Courtship in the Country of Machine-Gods. Awful title, I know.

ETA2: Here's a link to the story.

[Darth Richard II]

She even deleted the Prince of Thorns 'review' where she said that she stole the book, then didn't read it, then shat on it, and finally managed to bring my children into the post.

Now she suddenly has something to lose so she's apologising.

That's nice.

Jesus, she brought your kids into it? That's foul. We love you Mark.

[Callan S.]

If the protagonist engages in genocide and the world is "better" for it how is genocide not being portrayed as a positive thing in this story?

(Not to mention describing the artificial creation of an Ebola type virus to do the killing as a good thing)

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?

[Myshkin]

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?

So what you're saying is that we should all act as she acted (behavior which has been roundly condemned) because she acted that way?

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah I'm with myshkin on that one. That's looking into the abyss.

[Shryke]

She even deleted the Prince of Thorns 'review' where she said that she stole the book, then didn't read it, then shat on it, and finally managed to bring my children into the post.

Now she suddenly has something to lose so she's apologising.

That's nice.

I'm sure it brought something important to debate for the brief time between when she wrote it and when she realised she might have to actually deal with the effects of writing it.

[Darth Richard II]

Oh it wasn't that brief,that one was up for years.

[sologdin]

she was not persuasive at all in the criticism of unread texts, such as with RSB and lawrence.

[Galactus]

So what you're saying is that we should all act as she acted (behavior which has been roundly condemned) because she acted that way?

Yah, this. ROTYH is an arse, no question about it. (the question is whether or not she's a useful arse) but there's no reason to treat her like she treats other people.

[buff daddy]

Yeah, I legit find her aggressively repulsive, shamefully hypocritical and abhorent, so I'll just ignore her and her work(well outside of a discussion thread like this anyway). Too bad she never did the same for people she had fake outrage towards. Other than that, if I found out she was gonna be on a panel at a con I was going to, or something like that, I'd ask for a refund or whatever

[Ixodes]

I don't think anyone in this thread is advocating that people treat BS like she treated others. Although there has been some emotional discussion of whether an individual should read her works or not, that is relatively unimportant in regards to her career. No, the interesting debate is whether or not she should be accepted at a professional level. If a publisher chooses to not work with her, if reviewers choose not to review her writing, if the speculative fiction community chooses not to be inclusive to her, these decisions impact her career.

Is it fair for a publisher to ignore her work based on her personality? I think it is absolutely fair.

[EruditeFool]

Is it fair for a publisher to ignore her work based on her personality? I think it is absolutely fair.

I'd agree. I'm not saying that no one should ever read her stuff, but I have serious misgivings about giving her any money.

There's many other self-published authors who haven't acted this way and are relatively ignored. For instance, here's a couple I've been meaning to eventually check out (I know the first one personally, but haven't sat down and fully read any of her books yet):

http://www.amazon.com/J.-Leigh-Bralick/e/B0051RWBAO/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

http://www.amazon.com/S.-K.-Valenzuela/e/B008HF11M6/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

[Hello World]

In a way, I have always been waiting to write this post.

Hmm. Starting your apology with a lie is not a very good idea.

She does say "I made another apology elsewhere". Does that qualifiy as an admission?

I think she’s just hoping that some people who don’t know much about the situation will read that apology and not bother to look up what it’s all about. If she really was genuine she would mention what she did, and name the blog ROTYH for all to understand what she’s talking about. But this half-assed apology together with the timing does not do it. I honestly can’t believe those who are saying that they don’t doubt the sincerity of her apology.

[Callan S.]

So what you're saying is that we should all act as she acted (behavior which has been roundly condemned) because she acted that way?

That's a false dichotomy.

Not defending her <> doing what she did.

At the very least I hope you were there defending the people she aimed at previously, to the same degree you defend her now. Otherwise it's not about defending all individuals in the artistic community, your defence is just about her getting a defence and nobody else does.

If people uphold a 'depiction doesn't mean endorsement' ideal, it's not for the sake of Benjanun, it is for the sake of all artists. If you weren't upholding it for the artists she attacked before, then you don't deserve to use it as an argument here. The ideal isn't just for the defence of one person, clearly.

[Hello World]

If you weren't upholding it for the artists she attacked before, then you don't deserve to use it as an argument here.

So I don’t ‘deserve’ to make an argument in defense of anyone unless I’ve made it in defense of everyone who was in a similar situation in the past?

[Callan S.]

Yah, this. ROTYH is an arse, no question about it. (the question is whether or not she's a useful arse) but there's no reason to treat her like she treats other people.

In terms of defending artists, there's plenty of reason not to defend her as much as she didn't defend any other artist.

[Callan S.]

So I don’t ‘deserve’ to make an argument in defense of anyone unless I’ve made it in defense of everyone who was in a similar situation in the past?

If you wouldn't even think it (you don't necessarily have to type it anywhere), then no.

What do you think a community defence is for? Just for one individuals defence but not any others? How would that be a community defence?

Or do you think you get rights for you and your prefered, even when you don't support anyone else getting those rights?

[Hello World]

Or do you think you get rights for you and your prefered, even when you don't support anyone else getting those rights?

Not actively defending everyone's rights is not the same as not supporting those rights in theory. I'm for equals rights but it's not my job to defend your rights for you. Actually, what rights are you talking about?

If you wouldn't even think it (you don't necessarily have to type it anywhere), then no.

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.

[Myshkin]

That's a false dichotomy.

Not defending her <> doing what she did.

At the very least I hope you were there defending the people she aimed at previously, to the same degree you defend her now. Otherwise it's not about defending all individuals in the artistic community, your defence is just about her getting a defence and nobody else does.

If people uphold a 'depiction doesn't mean endorsement' ideal, it's not for the sake of Benjanun, it is for the sake of all artists. If you weren't upholding it for the artists she attacked before, then you don't deserve to use it as an argument here. The ideal isn't just for the defence of one person, clearly.

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. 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.

[MacPeach]

mmn... it's been a long time.

i don't/didn't know who this RH or any-of-her-alts person is/was. and while I tried to read the story linked to in this thread, i just couldn't get passed that opening line. truly laughable. no really.

i laughed.

i've read worse, mind you, including the opening line/paragraph of Smylie's The Barrow, but that was so positively Peakesean that i gave it a pass and am glad I did. In this case however, after reading what I have inthread here, the inclination was gladly lacking.

---

one thing I'm wondering, is if she ever had an account on this board? i mean, i've had several, with years long absences in between-- out of practice, and honestly, not even that hungry anymore and still i would have eaten her alive.

---

the whole work/personalife separation doesn't really exist anymore. we'd all like it to. of course we would, i mean, it's such a disarming fiction after all. so to the larger question of whether everyone should do likewise, i'm not sure if that's in the small hands of individuals at all. association. it will be the publishers that will have to decide to take the risk of potentially tarnishing their brand by taking her on. and some might. if they do, i imagine she'll sell somewhere between mediocre to ok. likewise in the blogosphere, it will be similar. she'll likely be panned by most for certain-- like a veto on zoetrope. those that don't will begin with caveats, become apologists. they'll probably implore the fiction over her fraction. it might work or backfire. what they can't do is ignore her history, or play dumb. they'd be taking the same risk as the publishers, just with more to lose.

the only real potential for win i see for her here, out of all of this, is self-publishing. if she can outpace her infamy, even if it's only indefinitely, steal a decent enough fan-base from the shadow of anonymity [though the argument could be made she's already tried this] she could make of herself her own brand. god knows there's enough mirror-fapping iconoclasts out there that would like the cut of her jib.

---

or, she could write something truly amazing. but that would require her being able to truly challenge herself. which is exceedingly unlikely.

---

based on what i've read here, and what interest i found to do some reading elsewhere, i personally won't be supporting her nascent and quite possibly stillborn career. i do wish her luck as a human being, though. i can't imagine how alone in the world she must feel. and over a decade like that?

[shivers]

she doesn't have my regard. but she sure has my pity.