Benjanun Sriduangkaew and RotyH

[peterbound]

Yeah, it doesn't bother me. I'm of the art isn't synonymous with the artist philosophy. I didn't know that RH was involved with telling people to kill themselves and the like - I was only vaguely familiar with the site and had thought it was satire/obvious hyperbole (I said on Goodreads that The Stand made me want to set myself on fire). I can understand why people would want to boycott her or not give her money. But there are dead authors who have done worse things than this and it doesn't keep me from reading their work without endorsing their life decisions. Or things that I've read partly *because* the author was a terrible yet influential person. I mean, I'm not saying I'd buy Mein Kampf if Hitler was going to get a dollar, so I realize that it's a subjective and arbitrary judgement, but overall things have to be pretty bad before I won't separate the art from the artist. Or another example, a friend wants to read a book of short stories written by prisoners in a creative writing class. The stories aren't necessarily about being prisoners. I don't know the situation, but I hope that they are able to collect some money from their work to help them when they get out of jail. And these are people who many have certainly done terrible things. If I can hope that they benefit from their art separate from their situation of (presumably) deservedly being in jail, then I think it would be hypocritical to feel differently about this. It's not that I don't want her to have no consequences for what she's said - I just don't think that should be part and parcel of her ability to create and sell literature.

You are, and I've said this before, a much much better person than me.

[Sci-2]

Do we know Benjanun actually tried to get anyone to kill themselves? Or is this one of the imitators?

[peterbound]

Do we know Benjanun actually tried to get anyone to kill themselves? Or is this one of the imitators?

You're smarter than that.

Imitators? Come on. Next time I get a warning point or ban, I'll blame

It on one of my 'imitators'.

Even if she did have imitators, she created a persona that allowed for the threats to be believed.

[Darth Richard II]

I repeat myself, but I think a lot of the anger is over how fake her author persona turned out to be. She presented herself as this twee oh look SFF yay personalty, and the truth was...not that.

[Sci-2]

You're smarter than that.

Imitators? Come on. Next time I get a warning point or ban, I'll blame

It on one of my 'imitators'.

Even if she did have imitators, she created a persona that allowed for the threats to be believed.

I'm not saying she definitely had imitators, it could always have been her - she was certainly batshit enough for that to be true.

But, at the same time, it seems unfair (and in some cases convenient) to go in the other direction and assume the worst stuff she's being accused of must be her.

I repeat myself, but I think a lot of the anger is over how fake her author persona turned out to be. She presented herself as this twee oh look SFF yay personalty, and the truth was...not that.

I think a lot of this anger among blogging SFF authors/critics just points to the twee nature of the online SFF community in general. See also the people who felt "unsafe" if that one female author who criticized Islam would be allowed to attend a conference. So it extends in both the "liberal" and "conservative" directions.

[Galactus]

But, at the same time, it seems unfair (and in some cases convenient) to go in the other direction and assume the worst stuff she's being accused of must be her.

She hasn't (last time I checked) denied being Winterfox, she claimed the impersonators were using the acrackedmoon handle.

[beniowa]

Like Seli, I've read a couple of her stories and quite enjoyed them. However, this was before I found out she's supposedly this RH person. I had never even heard of RH until this whole thing blew up. It's quite disappointing and now I'll have to seriously think about if I'll ever read anything of hers again.

[Darth Richard II]

Well, I know the reason the author was invited from the con was less about what she said and more that the organizers felt angry people may attempt something that would put con goers at risk.

And Bee definitely presented herself in a very twee fashion. People are going to react when that sweet new SFF autjor turns out to be a monster.

[Little Valkyrie]

ROTH was very open about also being Winterfox early in her 'career' as such, when she started reposting stuff from LJ communities onto that blog. Of course, since she deleted her winterfox LJ, it's harder to see that now, but it's the case. As Winterfox, I personally saw her banned from at least one community on LJ and others have listed several more. She was also valse de lune on FerretBrain and pyrofennec and acrackedmoon. As a long-time fandom goer somewhat outside of the specific circles of sf/f, I tend to view connecting her personae as warning people about a known troll.

What's more interesting to me is now how she navigates the incestuous world of SF/F--especially short fiction SF/F--with her BS persona proven to be, errr, BS. She was presenting herself as a naif to the world of genre fiction ("The first real book like that I read was Oryx and Crake, oh Mirror Empire is such amazing epic fantasy but it's the first one I've read") with a more deliberately high-brow/literary persona, and being just very sweet and adorable. That second apology is outright manipulative. I've read some of the fiction now too, and it strikes me as sub-Valente in the sense of overloaded with metaphors that don't work. I'm told there's some heavy Warhammer 40k influence in there, which is kind of amusing, and the justification of genocide (with happy ending) in 'Courtship' was a bit do not want.

[Galactus]

That second apology is outright manipulative.

Yah, that was my first thought. When I heard about it I was like "Yay for her I guess? She actually put her money where here mouth is and wrote shit." but her persona? Her attempts to erase her history? Trying to blame it on "impostors"? Those are pretty big warning signs of someone who still has a lot of troll under their bridge.

[Ixodes]

One of the defining moments of my life, where I really feel that I developed some wisdom that would elevate myself to a more mature level, was when I realized I didn't have to deal with dicks. It sounds so simple but it was quite a hard lesson to realize. When I could just tell someone to get out and not have to take their shit. In my professional life this was a revelation and transcended myself to being a true adult. What an improvement this made to my quality of life.

Initially I read RotyH blog posts because it was a point of view that was both very passionate and quite different than what I was used to reading. This ended once the personal attacks eclipsed the critical discourse (this happened quite quickly). I've got no time for that, I deal with too many drama llamas in my day to day job to want to pursue this in my recreational reading. It was quite clear that this individual wanted nothing more than to hear their point of view echoed directly back to their ears with no real attempt to engage anyone else. Good for them, the internet certainly allows someone to scream to their heart's content. I can read whatever the hell I want to read.

But this nonsense of trying to play both sides of the fence? All of sudden you want to change the content of your character when you want to sell stories? Fuck off. I've got no time for hypocrisy. If you want to be a dick, fine. Own it. But don't expect people to respect your talent, no matter how good, when you've labored to create a persona that exists entirely to shit on other people (deserved or not).

TL;DR -- don't be a dick if you don't want to be treated like a dick.

[Darth Richard II]

Heh, play both sides of the fence, that's very apt. Describes the whole thing in one phrase.

[Darth Richard II]

ack, double post.

my internet lately...

So um, lets see,

Yeah, the Winterfox stuff is way, way, way beyond the pale.

What I really don't understand is how she expected to NOT be caught, or if she was, how she expected it to go down, although she strikes me as the type who thought once her identity was revealed she would be hailed as a hero, or something, I dunno. Not much to do now but watch as it unfolds.

[peterbound]

One of the defining moments of my life, where I really feel that I developed some wisdom that would elevate myself to a more mature level, was when I realized I didn't have to deal with dicks. It sounds so simple but it was quite a hard lesson to realize. When I could just tell someone to get out and not have to take their shit. In my professional life this was a revelation and transcended myself to being a true adult. What an improvement this made to my quality of life.

Initially I read RotyH blog posts because it was a point of view that was both very passionate and quite different than what I was used to reading. This ended once the personal attacks eclipsed the critical discourse (this happened quite quickly). I've got no time for that, I deal with too many drama llamas in my day to day job to want to pursue this in my recreational reading. It was quite clear that this individual wanted nothing more than to hear their point of view echoed directly back to their ears with no real attempt to engage anyone else. Good for them, the internet certainly allows someone to scream to their heart's content. I can read whatever the hell I want to read.

But this nonsense of trying to play both sides of the fence? All of sudden you want to change the content of your character when you want to sell stories? Fuck off. I've got no time for hypocrisy. If you want to be a dick, fine. Own it. But don't expect people to respect your talent, no matter how good, when you've labored to create a persona that exists entirely to shit on other people (deserved or not).

TL;DR -- don't be a dick if you don't want to be treated like a dick.

Although i'm probably one of the dicks you are referring to, and am most likely on your ignore list, but I really dig this. Well said. I too am a firm believer in the not surrounding myself with dicks philosophy.

[Ixodes]

Although i'm probably one of the dicks you are referring to, and am most likely on your ignore, I really dig this. Well said. I too am a firm believer in the not surrounding myself with dicks philosophy.

I may not agree with everything you say but I do like reading your posts. It comes back to passion. You are very passionate and that comes through with your posting. I have tremendous respect for this. It expands my horizons when I follow someone who has a different viewpoint than myself. If you are honest and consistent, that puts you out of the dick category. I'll even go one step further and say that if we we met up some time, we would probably hit it off very well. Too much in common.

In my time on the board, I've been drawn to people who are logically and emotionally consistent. You, my friend, are both. This just magnifies my dislike of people who are not.

[SkynJay]

I have sniped back and forth with PB and met him in person. I will gladly have a beer with him anytime...and no doubt argue more than agree with him on these boards.

[Darth Richard II]

Peterbound isn't trying to sell us, say, moron based tie in fiction under the alias of a happy guy named petey who omg just discovered Dwagonlance last week!

[farseer2]

The mystery to me is why people actually paid attention to the frothing diatribes of this person. We all have (or should have) freedom of speech, but people like this only get the power to hurt other people when they get taken seriously.

Having said that, if Benjanun Sriduangkaew writes something that I consider worth-reading I won't have a problem doing so. When I read fiction I'm interested in reading stories I like, not on examining whether the author should win the best person of the year award. If I only read authors who agree with me on most essential issues, my reading would be much poorer (and I really don't care nor have the time to investigate them).

[sologdin]

heh. i liked her performance as ROH. it was always manifestly hyperbolical, and there's plenty of places to disagree with her--but that was hardly the point. i thought, for instance, that the identification of author and text is unsupportable as a matter of literary theory ('this text has racist implications and therefore author is racist,' and so on); that's the same error made by fanboys who say that a text can't be racist because 'in his letters he said that he hates racism," &c. text and author are not identical, and one can have characteristics of rhetoric that the other does not have as conscious or unconscious belief.

and of course this principle applies a fortiori to the ROH persona. people getting their knickers in a noose over this are falling into the same conceptual error as ROH and the fanboys aforesaid. were i to fall into the same error, and i will not, my thesis would be that all'y'all are conceptually identical to ROH, and how could you be such a losar like that?

[peterbound]

The mystery to me is why people actually paid attention to the frothing diatribes of this person. We all have (or should have) freedom of speech, but people like this only get the power to hurt other people when they get taken seriously.

Having said that, if Benjanun Sriduangkaew writes something that I consider worth-reading I won't have a problem doing so. When I read fiction I'm interested in reading stories I like, not on examining whether the author should win the best person of the year award. If I only read authors who agree with me on most essential issues, my reading would be much poorer (and I really don't care nor have the time to investigate them).

Again, this is why these fucktards are still around, because you enable them.