Benjanun Sriduangkaew and RotyH

[Larry.]

Reading the past few days' worth of comments, I feel like I walked into a very poor re-enactment of those damnable "first order" questions that Bakker posed as a deflection back in 2012. It's just strange that someone like Callan, who seems to be intent on demonstrating his overall lack of knowledge of the specific situation by his odd badgering of people who don't give rat's asses about his concerns, has to keep belaboring whatever confused point is being made.

A reader is either free or not to choose to read whoever he or she wants to read. Publishers are (mostly) free to publish whoever they feel inclined to pay money toward for the rights of their works. Critics are free to lambast any and all of this. That being said, Bee is considered to be a talented writer; she is also now considered to be a reprobate for some reprehensible behavior. But even that pales in comparison to what other, more acclaimed writers have done; I've read (and enjoyed, often before the fact, but on occasion after learning) stories by murderers, rapists, thieves, and all sorts of unsavory folk. This doesn't diminish what she did, but it does place it in a contextual perspective, I suppose.

But enough of the blathering. This thread has had enough of it.

[sologdin]

malory was imprisoned for rape and robbery. I doubt that could have any affect of my adoration for the morte d'arthur.

[Little Valkyrie]

That being said, Bee is considered to be a talented writer; she is also now considered to be a reprobate for some reprehensible behavior. But even that pales in comparison to what other, more acclaimed writers have done; I've read (and enjoyed, often before the fact, but on occasion after learning) stories by murderers, rapists, thieves, and all sorts of unsavory folk. This doesn't diminish what she did, but it does place it in a contextual perspective, I suppose.

But enough of the blathering. This thread has had enough of it.

I agree with you here, Larry, but there's still something that's being overlooked in the invocations of Naipaul and even Uncle Orson, to some degree: us old LJ hands watched as RH/Winterfox was nasty not only to various authors, some of whom we've heard from here, but also to other fans and posters in various online communities, and had a detrimental effect on the quality of those communities and the experiences of people posting in them. That's a lot of why some of this is being taken so personally. It's not just acerbic reviewer vs. author, but it's a space where readers and authors alike tend to mingle and the line between fan and pro is often a thin one indeed.

[polishgenius]

One key difference between Knut Hamsun and some of the others being discussed is that Knut Mansun is dead and thus no longer benefits from his work being read and discussed. Since generally when I boycott an author I find objectionable it's on the basis that I don't want to be putting money in their pocket.

[Rorschach - 2]

One key difference between Knut Hamsun and some of the others being discussed is that Knut Mansun is dead and thus no longer benefits from his work being read and discussed. Since generally when I boycott an author I find objectionable it's on the basis that I don't want to be putting money in their pocket.

There's always the secondhand book stores, if that's the objection..

[Crom Dubh]

Winterfox/Only Hate also has a quite deleterious effect on the community: the way in which she couches her argument removes the common ground upon which discussion can occur. If her idea was to provoke discussion, she could certainly make her point without the vitriol: but by including the vitriol, and making efforts to silence those who disagree with her through verbal abuse (and other forms of general douchebaggery), she does in fact silence those around her who might disagree with her. Which is fine, I suppose, if you agree with her points, but I see no real difference between her and other demagogues: she uses polarizing language and shaming to silence dissent, and though there may be useful points raised, they do not redeem her tactics. It creates a rather reprehensible echo chamber effect, and ironically propagates the "us vs. them," "We v. Other" dynamic she so often assaults in her diatribes.

I don't think anyone is a bad person for reading her work, however. Reading something does not mean endorsing it. Buying art does not mean endorsing it. I suppose I agree with Myshkin here.

[sologdin]

dunno. I disagreed with her a couple times on her blog space and she didn't try anything with me--except for one comment she failed to approve through the moderation system that she had in place at the time. (comment was part of a discussion of ekaterina sedia and whether the russian empire is imperialist, or something. the numbnut position was that russian imperialism doesn't count because it is not as bad as US imperialism, and that russians might be considered as subaltern or minority or something. my comment was that this position wants merit and that ROH was essentially trolling her own board by drumming up controversies on this issue that did not exist, as no one was advancing the position against which her posts argued at the time. or something.)

[Crom Dubh]

I have never tried to interact with her, so I won't argue anything experiential. I have seen the testimony of others and read several of her blog posts though, and I'll stand by my previous assessment based upon that. Good to know she wasn't always completely obnoxious though.

[Sci-2]

dunno. I disagreed with her a couple times on her blog space and she didn't try anything with me--except for one comment she failed to approve through the moderation system that she had in place at the time. (comment was part of a discussion of ekaterina sedia and whether the russian empire is imperialist, or something. the numbnut position was that russian imperialism doesn't count because it is not as bad as US imperialism, and that russians might be considered as subaltern or minority or something. my comment was that this position wants merit and that ROH was essentially trolling her own board by drumming up controversies on this issue that did not exist, as no one was advancing the position against which her posts argued at the time. or something.)

Heh, I remember this. And may have in fact dragged you into it? I recall I was among the few saying the beneficiaries of imperialism/globalization could not be readily assessed by checking who's Western/Non-Western or white/non-white.

[Myshkin]

I agree with you here, Larry, but there's still something that's being overlooked in the invocations of Naipaul and even Uncle Orson, to some degree: us old LJ hands watched as RH/Winterfox was nasty not only to various authors, some of whom we've heard from here, but also to other fans and posters in various online communities, and had a detrimental effect on the quality of those communities and the experiences of people posting in them. That's a lot of why some of this is being taken so personally. It's not just acerbic reviewer vs. author, but it's a space where readers and authors alike tend to mingle and the line between fan and pro is often a thin one indeed.

I personally was not present for any of RH's trolling, and only peripherally aware of her prior to this thread, so for me her case is exactly the same as those of Naipaul or Card: I am aware of, but not involved with, their assholery.

One key difference between Knut Hamsun and some of the others being discussed is that Knut Mansun is dead and thus no longer benefits from his work being read and discussed. Since generally when I boycott an author I find objectionable it's on the basis that I don't want to be putting money in their pocket.

This is the only argument against reading her work that I find valid, even if it's not a philosophy I subscribe to.

[Darth Richard II]

Well another key difference between her and others like Card and Hamsun is they didn't create a completely fake persona that was the very thing they rail against in order to sell stories and make friends in the SFF community.

[Pirtti]

Well another key difference between her and others like Card and Hamsun is they didn't create a completely fake persona that was the very thing they rail against in order to sell stories and make friends in the SFF community.

I agree, being a hypocrite is worse than being a Nazi sympathizer.

[Galactus]

dunno. I disagreed with her a couple times on her blog space and she didn't try anything with me--except for one comment she failed to approve through the moderation system that she had in place at the time. (comment was part of a discussion of ekaterina sedia and whether the russian empire is imperialist, or something. the numbnut position was that russian imperialism doesn't count because it is not as bad as US imperialism, and that russians might be considered as subaltern or minority or something. my comment was that this position wants merit and that ROH was essentially trolling her own board by drumming up controversies on this issue that did not exist, as no one was advancing the position against which her posts argued at the time. or something.)

I started that, IIRC.

[Darth Richard II]

I agree, being a hypocrite is worse than being a Nazi sympathizer.

...

yes that's exactly what i was implying.

[kuenjato]

I agree, being a hypocrite is worse than being a Nazi sympathizer.

Goodwin's Law evoked! And without indirect prompting, *slow clap*

[Darth Richard II]

You must have missed the last 2 pages or so where people mentioned Hitler.

[Myshkin]

Goodwin's Law evoked! And without indirect prompting, *slow clap*

Silly. Godwin's law does not apply to instances when we are specifically talking about Nazis. Here, for instance, we are talking about Knut Hamsun, who was literally a Nazi sympathizer.

[kuenjato]

You must have missed the last 2 pages or so where people mentioned Hitler.

Doh! guess that's what happens when you check out.

[sologdin]

sci, ari--

yeah, i recall it was us three and maybe a couple others against the whole company of ROHbots.

[Richard]

Tangential, maybe, but here's an interesting rebuff to the whole racism/sexism/imperialism critical schtick which lay at the heart of RH's MO

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/5775/full