peterbound Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I've been going back and reading some of her archived stuff (oh internet time machine how I love you), and it's wild to she her reverence this forum, and how much some of the folks here are on her band wagon. Wild. @Sky: But.. she did have her blog. Your logic is a little off there. Of course this about that. You're saying that we wouldn't be concerned about this issue if she didn't have her blog? Ya, I mean, that's the point. She did have it, and said terrible things on it. All the other shit added up as well, that she did on her blog, and elsewhere. She doesn't get a pass on this. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuenjato Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I could be completely off base here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be a shrug of the shoulders by some here that because a white dude has been offended, or a westerner, its not as important as if the person was non-western and or foreign. As if being privileged in some way makes people immune to internet assholes. It's been this way for years. When Bakker got into his foolish pissing match with her, there was some outcry about how dare a privileged white Canadian argue with a Thai woman. Despite the fact that her review was, to put it mildly, trollbait and grossly ill-informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Well yes, and that she admitted in the review she didn't read the book, which still just, baffles me as to how anyone could have defended such a thing. Of course Bakker never, ever, ever helps his cause when he gets involved, although honestly most of the time I have no idea what he's talking about. I honestly thought the whole thing at the time bizarre, like watching two crazy people yell at each other in their own made up language only they understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Lawrence Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Yeah unless I missed something beyond ROH's commentary about Prince of Thorns Lawrence is definitely coming across as a faux-victim to me. You missed pretty much everything - from the fact that calling the experience a "minor friction burn" is hardly a claim to victimhood, to the fact that my post was about the apologists not the perpetrator, to the lesson inherent in all of this - that her blog activities were the visible part of a huge shit-berg (yes, there was plenty of RH and cronies baiting of me on twitter and other forums). Thanks for your compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted November 12, 2014 Author Share Posted November 12, 2014 Well yes, and that she admitted in the review she didn't read the book, which still just, baffles me as to how anyone could have defended such a thing. Of course Bakker never, ever, ever helps his cause when he gets involved, although honestly most of the time I have no idea what he's talking about. I honestly thought the whole thing at the time bizarre, like watching two crazy people yell at each other in their own made up language only they understand. This. She was clearly trolling and Bakker swallowed the bait. Then regurgitated it and swallowed it again, just to see if it would taste better this time. It's really something to see those two people interact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crixus Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 You ever read Ian McDonald's River of Gods? I have no idea how culturally accurate it was, but I do know that it was good in just about every other way I would judge a book. No, but I shall try it. Historians are different; the research, the analysis etc. makes history a different cup of tea. Have read Darlymple (and enjoyed him). Kipling! I grew up on him, and always loved his writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Lawrence Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 This. She was clearly trolling and Bakker swallowed the bait. Then regurgitated it and swallowed it again, just to see if it would taste better this time. It's really something to see those two people interact. In her tweets at the time she and her cronies described this as "milking the lol-cow". I don't think they even read his replies, just slapped down the next comment hoping for another reaction. It was interesting though - if you read Bakker's replies he very clinically analysed the psychology behind the support RH had, and it's really that same thing that interests me. The way that no form of words, no matter how clear, no matter what facts backed them, could sway a single member of her clique from their path. Membership of the group and the fix of being a 'goodie' combined with a license to be as vicious as they liked was too strong an attractor for mere words to have an impact. Bakker of course said it a lot more convincingly than me, with references to the various phenomena from the psychology literature. It is of course true in the wider internet too - it's an incredibly rare thing to see anyone convinced away from their initially stated position by anything as petty as facts or arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crixus Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I've been going back and reading some of her archived stuff (oh internet time machine how I love you), and it's wild to she her reverence this forum, and how much some of the folks here are on her band wagon. Wild. I recall a review she did of Abercrombie's work, concerning the portrayal/treatment of a lesbian character (I've read the damned thing but I can't recall the character's name at present). That review was linked on here and sparked a furious debate. Interestingly, Abercrombie himself appeared and conceded that, despite the vitriol in her review, she had some good points. In fact, if memory serves he said something along the lines of doing better with regard to female/lesbian characters now/in future. The fact that her critique was accepted to a degree by a highly successful author is rather interesting; and the fact that this forum was the venue even more so. Please don't take this as an endorsement of her style. I just think that underneath all that crazy, sometimes she made valuable points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Re: Abercrombie, I think he said something along the lines of "Terez doesn't need to change, but her girlfriend being a replica - now, that's bad" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crixus Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Wasn't it more related to her treatment at the hands of Glotka? (Or is it Glokta)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Not sure I've seen that here. I would have to check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted November 12, 2014 Author Share Posted November 12, 2014 It was interesting though - if you read Bakker's replies he very clinically analysed the psychology behind the support RH had, and it's really that same thing that interests me. The way that no form of words, no matter how clear, no matter what facts backed them, could sway a single member of her clique from their path. Membership of the group and the fix of being a 'goodie' combined with a license to be as vicious as they liked was too strong an attractor for mere words to have an impact. IE: Bakker copy-pasted the reply he has towards every criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Lawrence Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 IE: Bakker copy-pasted the reply he has towards every criticism. As far as I could see, every criticism on the blog appeared to be a variant on the same theme ... so fair enough. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crixus Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Not sure I've seen that here. I would have to check Here: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/60165-violence-rape-agency-the-rapiness-that-comes-before/ See post#6, the paragraph starting 'where I think I failed'. I have to admire Abercrombie for his input there, really. He gives his POV on many of the criticisms, but also candidly mentions where he may have done better. Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Interestingly, Abercrombie himself appeared and conceded that, despite the vitriol in her review, she had some good points. In fact, if memory serves he said something along the lines of doing better with regard to female/lesbian characters now/in future. Yeah, but this has been widely misread/misrepresented as some kind of concession/climbdown (RH's cohorts were always notoriously bad at reading for content). It wasn't. RH's contention was that a horrific multiple sexual assault is perpetrated on a lesbian in the book, what a disgusting thing to write, how dare he pen such a thing etc...... Joe's response was to say that he felt he had written his lesbian in a fashion that was "a bit one-note" and he would have liked to create a more three dimensional character. That wasn't RH's issue - in fact, presumably the more 3d the character had been, the more painful and unacceptable she would have found the rape - and Joe didn't at any point say he regretted the plot dynamics themselves. Also, IIRC, Joe's response wasn't to RH's review, but to the varied wake of commentary it generated here on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crixus Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Understood. And yes, his response focused on Terez (thanks for reminding me, her name escaped me!) and her characterization. Again, I think it's fantastic that he is willing to listen and consider. Cool of him. Personally, I am completely against the notion of policing the sort of thing you say RH was doing: an author can inflict whatever he likes on his characters. It's ludicrous to say a lesbian character should be treated fragilely, or any other character. Also, did RH even read the whole book? Because that's sort of necessary for context and clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 An article of multiple tweets from "Storify" regarding what the author sees as a failure to understand and appreiciate skepticism of some of the stories of abuse from "people of color":https://storify.com/alexandraerin/fighting-abuse-isn-t-about-picking-sides Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Looking back a few pages, there's been a variety of commentary along the lines of oh, the blog, that wasn't so bad - not like all this other stuff. That comparison is accurate as far as it goes, but I don't think it lets RH off the hook for her behaviour there. The blog contained, on numerous occasions, a level of personal invective against specific authors which was frankly unacceptable (NB - I wasn't among those so attacked, so this isn't some sour payback on my part). I don't think that should be forgotten/passed over. And think Mark's comment about the visible portion of a shit-berg is apt. No-one surely who had seen RH in action on her blog could honestly claim to be very surprised by later revelations about the bad behaviour elsewhere. I find it bizarre, for example, that Valente could draw any kind of parallel between RH's commentary and Priest's - Priest's piece was grumpy, ungracious and tbh a bit pathetic, but his attacks were scrupulously directed at the work of the authors concerned and his concerns were purely literary. Anyone who can't see the difference between that and the personal invective that clotted up RH's pieces is suffering from some severe category error issues. I also thought it was fascinating how, when Peter Watts crafted a very carefully insult back at RH, designed to mimic her output exactly, she suddenly came off all hurt and offended. That, of course, is classic playground bully behaviour - you can hand it out but you can't take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I have a silly question. As we still don't know who RH/BS is how long do we think RH/BS will wait before creating a new handle and, once the hubbub dies down, doing all this again? I do not endorse doxxing RH/BS with that statement.It is just given RH/BS's history do we really think RH/BS can resist jumping back into the fray? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crixus Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I believe there was some talk concerning the phrase 'rabid animal' that RH and her clique conflated as racism. Getting personal kills any sympathy she may have solicited otherwise from me. You can say 'the writing is shit/fucked up', you can't say 'that author is fucked up.' Richard: apologies for my obvious ignorance. Are you an author yourself? Scot: I can't see her doing this again, at least not in the same community. But who knows? She might find virgin earth to scorch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.