Benjanun Sriduangkaew and RotyH

[Darth Richard II]

I'm still not convinced she was "hunted down and exposed".

Yeah, I'm unsure how that whole thing unfolded, all the links just jump right to who finally outed her, so all you get is the end.

[Darth Richard II]

Well, card is/was part of a group that funded groups on Nigeria that KILLED homosexuals, so I'd say that is as bad yes.

[Myshkin]

I was thinking more generally, not about ACM in particular with that line. The exposed part still fits though.

Speaking generally any author who uses anonymous online accounts to criticize the works of their peers is being intellectually dishonest, and should be exposed. Think Stanek.

[Maester Llama]

I'll definitely admit to some hypocrisy when it comes to Goodkind and Simmons. They were bad examples. I don't agree with them about a lot of things and I think they've said shitty stuff, but you are absolutely right that neither has to the best of my knowledge told anybody to go and die because etc [whatever it was on any given occasion; there appear to have been a lot of times.] I was unfairly drawn toward using them as examples because I don't like their fiction. The same would apply to Naipaul: He has never so far as I know issued a death threat to anybody -- though the sexism he spouts should be illegal -- but I have plebeian taste and don't like his stuff anyway, so he's an easy example for me here.

I maintain that Card remains a good example, though. In addition to what DR mentions -- which is enough in itself -- Card actively promotes and financially supports organizations that work against marriage equality, both in the US and elsewhere. He lends his support to agendas that do very direct, material damage and I will never give him money.

[Darth Richard II]

I'm still not convinced she was "hunted down and exposed".

Yeah, I'm unsure how that whole thing unfolded, all the links just jump right to who finally outed her, so all you get is the end. Not sure how she thought this wouldn't happen.

[Anatúrinbor]

It's not really that hard to find that 'Prince of Misogyny' post, which I just did. Couldn't find anything funny in there to be honest. Or anything worth reading in any capacity. Just a bunch of quotes from Bakker followed by insults. Even the insults are not clever - not remotely. I should have known better than to waste my time though since she opens with "I admit that I've never read beyond five pages of Bakker's debut novel The Darkness that Comes Before."

That post wouldn't last long in a youtube comment section. No wonder she was too embarrassed to keep it.

[Sci-2]

I'll definitely admit to some hypocrisy when it comes to Goodkind and Simmons. They were bad examples. I don't agree with them about a lot of things and I think they've said shitty stuff, but you are absolutely right that neither has to the best of my knowledge told anybody to go and die because etc [whatever it was on any given occasion; there appear to have been a lot of times.] I was unfairly drawn toward using them as examples because I don't like their fiction. The same would apply to Naipaul: He has never so far as I know issued a death threat to anybody -- though the sexism he spouts should be illegal -- but I have plebeian taste and don't like his stuff anyway, so he's an easy example for me here.

I maintain that Card remains a good example, though. In addition to what DR mentions -- which is enough in itself -- Card actively promotes and financially supports organizations that work against marriage equality, both in the US and elsewhere. He lends his support to agendas that do very direct, material damage and I will never give him money.

True. Card's support of the...whatever that backwards Jesus-freak homophobia group's name was...is pretty glaring given their role in all sorts of creepiness. And I forgot that in addition to Naipul's sexism/misogyny he actual beat women.

You could always just pirate Benjuan's works given she did say piracy was an acceptable form of dissent.

[Myshkin]

Yeah, I'm unsure how that whole thing unfolded, all the links just jump right to who finally outed her, so all you get is the end.

From the Awesomedome blog post linked earlier:

People have been making the connection between her new screen name and her old ones, so Nick [Mamatas] decided to “out” her last week as a preemptive move before the word got out in some worse-for-her manner.

The question I still have is whether or not Sriduangkaew was consulted first.

[Sci-2]

Speaking generally any author who uses anonymous online accounts to criticize the works of their peers is being intellectually dishonest, and should be exposed. Think Stanek.

Gonna have to disagree with you there. Keeping in mind lit-fic authors seem happy to criticize each other openly, this just isn't done as much (or barely at all last I followed genre ongoings) in SFF unless you're someone long established like Christopher Priest.

But this state of affairs would largely balance writers who go along with the status quo, rather than those seeking to work outside it or directly criticize the state of things. An author could also be a good anonymous critic IMO.

[Shryke]

It's not really that hard to find that 'Prince of Misogyny' post, which I just did. Couldn't find anything funny in there to be honest. Or anything worth reading in any capacity. Just a bunch of quotes from Bakker followed by insults. Even the insults are not clever - not remotely. I should have known better than to waste my time though since she opens with "I admit that I've never read beyond five pages of Bakker's debut novel The Darkness that Comes Before."

That post wouldn't last long in a youtube comment section. No wonder she was too embarrassed to keep it.

Was that the one that complained about the boy getting molested at the start of the prologue? Or am I thinking of something else?

[Shryke]

Speaking generally any author who uses anonymous online accounts to criticize the works of their peers is being intellectually dishonest, and should be exposed. Think Stanek.

Why?

Stanek's problem is creating tons of sock-puppets to talk up his books and post fake reviews of his own works.

His opinions on the works of others should stand or fail on their own merits.

[Darth Richard II]

Sure, but if you think she was a good critic...well I don't know whete to begin.

[polishgenius]

The question I still have is whether or not Sriduangkaew was consulted first.

Quotes from the original post he outed her in:

I suppose I am most interested in the reactions of the people who were yelling that to even suggest that Bees and RH were the same person was racist, which should be hilarious.

but it should be pretty amusing all around.

He makes no mention either way but it doesn't seem like he was really thinking of her or her opinions at all. And given what she says in one of the apologies about how she feels about 'outing' the real identity of others, it doesn't seem like she'd approve.

[Maester Llama]

Re Card: Yeah, the homophobic fundamentalist group was definitely what I was referring to -- weren't they called the National Council on Marriage or something insane like that? It wasn't that exactly but it was along those lines. Well over the edge for me. Getting all hypothetical, would I buy Card's books again if he woke up to the wrongness of what he's done and apologized [and started writing books that don't suck again]?* Dunno. I suppose, given my position on Sriduangkaew, I'd have to at least give him a chance if I felt the apology was for real. The harm he had done would still have been done, but I think we need to at least give people a chance to rethink. I'd certainly be pretty skittish as a reader, though; he'd have much trust to earn back, just as Sriduangkaew will. Can she be professional and not spew hate? Cool. I will read her. If she ever vomits abuse all over the webs again ... well, ... that would be unfortunate, and I would have to reevaluate pretty completely.

*I consider this a safely academic question. Card seems to be all the way gone.

Naipaul beat women? I did not know that. That would certainly be another thing that I would consider beyond the pale.

On the general topic of authorial criticism in the sff sphere: I thought the rant Christopher Priest went on about the Clarke Award shortlist a year or so ago was dickish, for the record -- though not, as should be obvious, equivalent to or in the same galaxy as death threats. Do litfic authors do that sort of thing a lot? Wow. He may have had some good points, but I thought a lot of it was really mean-spirited, and used his respected position in sff as an established author to piss on other, [mostly] junior writers in a very unpleasant way. I'm kind of glad this doesn't seem to happen much in open author discussions in sff.

[sorry I haven't been quoting. The setup I use the forum in doesn't allow me to quote.]

[Myshkin]

Gonna have to disagree with you there. Keeping in mind lit-fic authors seem happy to criticize each other openly, this just isn't done as much (or barely at all last I followed genre ongoings) in SFF unless you're someone long established like Christopher Priest.

But this state of affairs would largely balance writers who go along with the status quo, rather than those seeking to work outside it or directly criticize the state of things. An author could also be a good anonymous critic IMO.

Why?

Stanek's problem is creating tons of sock-puppets to talk up his books and post fake reviews of his own works.

His opinions on the works of others should stand or fail on their own merits.

Stanek also uses those same sock puppets to criticize other fantasy authors, and therein lies the problem. Not telling your readers that you have skin in the game is intellectually dishonest.

[peterbound]

Re Card: Yeah, the homophobic fundamentalist group was definitely what I was referring to -- weren't they called the National Council on Marriage or something insane like that? It wasn't that exactly but it was along those lines. Well over the edge for me. Getting all hypothetical, would I buy Card's books again if he woke up to the wrongness of what he's done and apologized [and started writing books that don't suck again]?* Dunno. I suppose, given my position on Sriduangkaew, I'd have to at least give him a chance if I felt the apology was for real. The harm he had done would still have been done, but I think we need to at least give people a chance to rethink. I'd certainly be pretty skittish as a reader, though; he'd have much trust to earn back, just as Sriduangkaew will. Can she be professional and not spew hate? Cool. I will read her. If she ever vomits abuse all over the webs again ... well, ... that would be unfortunate, and I would have to reevaluate pretty completely.

*I consider this a safely academic question. Card seems to be all the way gone.

Naipaul beat women? I did not know that. That would certainly be another thing that I would consider beyond the pale.

On the general topic of authorial criticism in the sff sphere: I thought the rant Christopher Priest went on about the Clarke Award shortlist a year or so ago was dickish, for the record -- though not, as should be obvious, equivalent to or in the same galaxy as death threats. Do litfic authors do that sort of thing a lot? Wow. He may have had some good points, but I thought a lot of it was really mean-spirited, and used his respected position in sff as an established author to piss on other, [mostly] junior writers in a very unpleasant way. I'm kind of glad this doesn't seem to happen much in open author discussions in sff.

[sorry I haven't been quoting. The setup I use the forum in doesn't allow me to quote.]

Again, an apology just isn't enough in this case. This behavior is a consistent thing for Bee, not a one off rant. For the same reasons you condemn OSC, and Vox day, you should condemn (and not forgive) Ber

[Darth Richard II]

She has outed the identy of others herself to the point that some of them have quit the Internet, and yes two wrongs don't make a right and it makes me a hypocrite as well, but fuck it. Can't feel sorry for her one it.

It's intetesting to note to just how completely duffernt the Bee persona is from the Hate persona. If bee hadn't presented herself the way she did this might be less of an issue, but the Bee persona was so "teehee I love SFF lets all hang out and watch star trek" to the point were the hate persona would have ripped her a new one.

Apologies if there's weird spelling errors in there, this stupid phone.

[mormont]

OK, a couple of points:

First, this is not a 'hate thread' and it won't be allowed to become one. On the other hand, Sriduangkaew is a fairly well-known up-and-coming author and RH was a fairly well-known blogger, and the topic is one of wider interest and discussion in the SFF community. It's perfectly legitimate as a topic for this forum. We ask only that people remain civil when discussing it.

Second, I understand that although Sriduangkaew does not deny that she was RH, she may have denied that she was Winterfox, another alias widely believed to be RH and under which much of the alleged worst behaviour took place. I have no idea how credible that denial is, but it's worth noting.

Third: I think it's a bit unfair to criticise Sriduangkaew for reviewing under a pseudonym, seeing as she did this for years before she was published. It's not the same as a published author creating a pseudonym, IMO.

I have to say I'm not a fan of Sriduangkaew's writing, and RH just caused me to roll my eyes. I know people saw her as some sort of provocateur, but I never thought she rose to those levels. She just seemed like an attention-seeker, someone who loved the echo chamber but didn't really want to engage with the issues she talked about.

I'm also somewhat unimpressed by the apologies. Sriduangkaew does acknowledge what she did wrong, which is good, but for someone who says 'It’s past time for me to [..] stop making everything about me', a lot of those apologies are about her. But, at least she has apologised.

[Darth Richard II]

Hmm I was unaware that winter fox had not been definitely tied to rotyh. It doesn't really change my opinion on matters but it does kinda show how quick us internet folk are to jump to conclusions and make assumptions.

Edit: random before bed musings, I wonder which of the two personas is the real one? There so mind boggling conflicting, one of them has to be fake.

Also, and forgive my spelling here, because phone, and dammit why is my internet still down, Caitlin Kiernon had a very interesting reaction to all this that I will try and link in the morning.

More randomness: anyone know what exactly happened between her and Jemisin?

[Sci-2]

Hmm I was unaware that winter fox had not been definitely tied to rotyh. It doesn't really change my opinion on matters but it does kinda show how quick us internet folk are to jump to conclusions and make assumptions.

Edit: random before bed musings, I wonder which of the two personas is the real one? There so mind boggling conflicting, one of them has to be fake.

Also, and forgive my spelling here, because phone, and dammit why is my internet still down, Caitlin Kiernon had a very interesting reaction to all this that I will try and link in the morning.

More randomness: anyone know what exactly happened between her and Jemisin?

Wait, if the person who told others to commit suicide and what not isn't ROTYH, that makes a pretty big difference doesn't it?

Mind you, the stuff that ROTYH said on her twitter account was more than batshit crazy enough to some, but it was never as bad some of things she's been accused of.