Scif/Fantasy Authors who hate scifi/fantasy and/or their fans.

[Sci-2]

I think it is hard to be a popular author, I cannot imagine having to deal with some of the crowds. A writer is often walking a thin line in what they say and do. One writer I know as a friend does not shake hands, people can be unpredictable.

I can sort of see that, but what happens if someone puts their hand out to be shook?

I mean, personally I'd pull the Indian card and do a Namastae bow, so its cultural. ;-)

[peterbound]

Wherever did you get that idea?

OSC was my favorite author for years. (No, he isn't any more.) Trust me, I've read much more than one of his books.

Alas, much of his reputation as an author, is based on ONE book. Not his whole works. If we, as a community, are going to accept that he is 'essential' reading based on that one book or judge his quality as an author by that one work of fiction, we should also be able to judge his anti homosexual stance on one work.

[Contrarius]

Alas, much of his reputation as an author, is based on ONE book. Not his whole works.

Fortunately, I care little about "his reputation" and much more about my own opinion. And my own opinions, in addition to my objective knowledge, are the bases for my arguments.

And aside from that -- Card has won quite a few awards over the years, not just the one. So even if "his reputation" *were* important in this discussion, you'd still be dealing with much more thn one book.

If we, as a community, are going to accept that he is 'essential' reading based on that one book or judge his quality as an author by that one work of fiction, we should also be able to judge his anti homosexual stance on one work.

Whoever said that anybody was arguing to have Card accepted as "essential" anything?? I certainly was not. Straw man, big time.

eta -- oh, by the way. I decided I should take my own advice, so I'm now in the middle of reading "Hamlet's Father" for myself. Dumb story so far. I'll report back after I'm finished.

edited again to add -- You got me curious with your claim about "one book", so I looked up OSC's awards. He has actually won 5 Locus Awards, 2 Hugos, 2 Nebulas, and several additional nominations. Some of those overlap, of course, but that's still quite a bit more than 1 book. Also, Speaker for the Dead (Hugo, Nebula, AND Locus) actually won more awards than Ender's Game did ("only" Hugo and Nebula) ....

[Reposado]

can we stop talking about card, and return to discussing how much joe abercrombie hates us

[Contrarius]

can we stop talking about card, and return to discussing how much joe abercrombie hates us

We already know that Abercrombie's an ass. What's to discuss?

eta -- and he writes terrible books, too. Much like McDonald's, in fact.

[jagilki]

We already know that Abercrombie's an ass. What's to discuss?

eta -- and he writes terrible books, too. Much like McDonald's, in fact.

One time I saw him punch a handicapped kid in the back of the head.

[peterbound]

Fortunately, I care little about "his reputation" and much more about my own opinion. And my own opinions, in addition to my objective knowledge, are the bases for my arguments.

And that sir is the crux of our disagreement. I fucking hate the man, and what he represents. That influences my decision to read he books, negatively. Your ability to differentiate the man and his works is your own prerogative, and not one that I agree with.

As for the awards? Who gives a fuck? I'll give you TWO books then. How about that? Not going to change my mind about the cocksucker.

[peterbound]

We already know that Abercrombie's an ass. What's to discuss?

eta -- and he writes terrible books, too. Much like McDonald's, in fact.

Good fucking god man! What world are you from. You love OSC and hate Joe. You need to realign your literary tastes.

[jagilki]

I >think< the Abercrombie bit was a joke due to Joes earlier post in the thread.

At least I KNOW my post was a joke.

[peterbound]

I >think< the Abercrombie bit was a joke due to Joes earlier post in the thread.

At least I KNOW my post was a joke.

Ha, i guess i need to actually read the whole fucking thread. I'm going to stick with the idea that Con just has shitty fucking taste. Well, i KNOW Con has shitty fucking taste.

[Contrarius]

And that sir is the crux of our disagreement.

Just how many times am I gonna have to tell you that I'm not a "fella" or a "sir", or even a "dude" or a "guy" or any of those other apellations? I don't mind people making the mistake once, but repeating that mistake after being corrected gets really old.

I fucking hate the man, and what he represents. That influences my decision to read he books, negatively. Your ability to differentiate the man and his works is your own prerogative, and not one that I agree with.

Again -- you don't seem to be paying attention to what I write. As I've already stated, I don't care whether you make a personal decision to read his books or not. That's up to you and your own sense of comfort. The disagreement arises when folks start trying to apply their own personal standards of comfort to the people "around" them on the message board.

As for the awards? Who gives a fuck? I'll give you TWO books then. How about that? Not going to change my mind about the cocksucker.

It's actually five books of his that have won awards, plus others that were nominated. And since you were the one who was concerned with the number of books that have established Card's "reputation", it's quite relevant. So sorry that it's not convenient for ya. ;)

[Contrarius]

One time I saw him punch a handicapped kid in the back of the head.

I saw that! Kid was in a wheelchair. Holding a stray puppy.

[peterbound]

Just how many times am I gonna have to tell you that I'm not a "fella" or a "sir", or even a "dude" or a "guy" or any of those other apellations? I don't mind people making the mistake once, but repeating that mistake after being corrected gets really old.

Again -- you don't seem to be paying attention to what I write. As I've already stated, I don't care whether you make a personal decision to read his books or not. That's up to you and your own sense of comfort. The disagreement arises when folks start trying to apply their own personal standards of comfort to the people "around" them on the message board.

It's actually five books of his that have won awards, plus others that were nominated. And since you were the one who was concerned with the number of books that have established Card's "reputation", it's quite relevant. So sorry that it's not convenient for ya. ;)

Gender: don't give a fuck, buddy.

Why /wouldn't/ I apply my personal standards on those around me on the message board. People ask for recommendations, and I give them based on my personal standards, and fuck ya i judge you and your tastes based on those standards. If you choose to ignore the man is a dickhole, that's fine with me, just don't expect me to be singing his praises, and if you recommend him, I /will/ call his writing shit, and his views on life ignorant as fuck.

And awards? The locus is a fucking joke. Quit fooling yourself. OSC is known for EG, and he's been riding that horse for years.

[Contrarius]

Gender: don't give a fuck, buddy.

Otay, girlfriend. I'll keep that in mind, hon. ;)

Why /wouldn't/ I apply my personal standards on those around me on the message board. People ask for recommendations, and I give them based on my personal standards, and fuck ya i judge you and your tastes based on those standards.

Wow, you really *haven't* been paying any attention to this discussion.

That's not the kind of "standards" we've been talking about. The discussion has been about whether "people" in general should:

1. read and/or buy books written by authors we don't like; or,

2. read and/or buy books which contain offensive material.

That's the kind of standards we're talking about here.

As for "Hamlet's Father" -- finished it.

Pretty dumb story, all in all. Some humorous lines, but over all kind of pretentious and kind of tiresome. With some fairly unbelievable secrecy thrown in just to make things more interesting. For me, about the most interesting thing in it was that the ghost lied. Somehow, it never occurred to me before that a ghost could have the intellectual capacity to lie.

Most of the story doesn't say anything overt about either pedophilia or homosexuality. A few things can be inferred if you already know the end.

At the Big Reveal, it turns out that Horatio has killed the king. The king had repeatedly raped Horatio, Laertes, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern while they were all children. He never raped Hamlet, and Hamlet never knew what was going on. And it's clearly stated that the king was NOT interested in adult men, only children.

Of the five boys:

1. Hamlet -- who was never raped -- seems to be homosexual or bisexual. He is never depicted as acting on either impulse.

2. Horatio -- appears to be generally heterosexual, but also has an impulse (which he resists) to molest a young male page -- and that drives him to kill the king.

3. Laertes -- is never depicted as either homo or het, but is depicted as impotent in general.

4. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are both gay -- but since they were always depicted together in Shakespeare anyway, there's no big shock about that one.

Over all, this appears to be more a condemnation of pedophilia than anything else.

Even after Hamlet learns the truth, he still calls Horatio "the one good man still living". Hamlet dislikes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern after he returns from Heidelberg, but only because he knows they have agreed to spy on him. They aren't depicted as being evil in any way, they're just loyal to King Claudius.

Interestingly, the last lines of this novella appear to contradict one of the main themes of Ender's Game. In EG, Ender is not morally held to blame for his actions because he doesn't have full knowledge of the effects of those actions -- basically, he has good intentions. In stark contrast, in "Hamlet's Father" Hamlet also has good intentions and doesn't mean to do evil -- he kills Claudius because he believes that Claudius killed Hamlet's father, he kills Polonius because he thought Polonius was Claudius hiding behind a curtain, and he kills Laertes by sheer accident. Nonetheless, the closing lines of the story make it clear that Hamlet is going down to hell along with his father. So Ender gets off the hook, but Hamlet doesn't.

[RedEyedGhost]

One time I saw him punch a handicapped kid in the back of the head.

Joe Abercrombie hates fantasy fans so much that if you come up to him on the street looking for an autograph, there's a good chance he'll shove you into a car or beat you on the back with a banister.

It is known.

[Grack21]

Yeah, if you don't think Hamlet's Father is homophobic, I don't even know.

And yes, I HAVE read it.

No, I'm not going to pull up evidence, since something I feel is very homophobic, you don't. It's like I see an apple and you see an orange. I'm not trying to be insulting there, I just don't think we are ever going to find common ground on anything by OSC ever.

So, um, lets see. How bout dat Goodkind fella?

I'm afraid to ask, but what books did he win awards for?

[frodostark]

As for "Hamlet's Father" -- finished it.

Pretty dumb story, all in all. Some humorous lines, but over all kind of pretentious and kind of tiresome. With some fairly unbelievable secrecy thrown in just to make things more interesting. For me, about the most interesting thing in it was that the ghost lied. Somehow, it never occurred to me before that a ghost could have the intellectual capacity to lie.

Most of the story doesn't say anything overt about either pedophilia or homosexuality. A few things can be inferred if you already know the end.

At the Big Reveal, it turns out that Horatio has killed the king. The king had repeatedly raped Horatio, Laertes, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern while they were all children. He never raped Hamlet, and Hamlet never knew what was going on. And it's clearly stated that the king was NOT interested in adult men, only children.

Of the five boys:

1. Hamlet -- who was never raped -- seems to be homosexual or bisexual. He is never depicted as acting on either impulse.

2. Horatio -- appears to be generally heterosexual, but also has an impulse (which he resists) to molest a young male page -- and that drives him to kill the king.

3. Laertes -- is never depicted as either homo or het, but is depicted as impotent in general.

4. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are both gay -- but since they were always depicted together in Shakespeare anyway, there's no big shock about that one.

Over all, this appears to be more a condemnation of pedophilia than anything else.

Even after Hamlet learns the truth, he still calls Horatio "the one good man still living". Hamlet dislikes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern after he returns from Heidelberg, but only because he knows they have agreed to spy on him. They aren't depicted as being evil in any way, they're just loyal to King Claudius.

Interestingly, the last lines of this novella appear to contradict one of the main themes of Ender's Game. In EG, Ender is not morally held to blame for his actions because he doesn't have full knowledge of the effects of those actions -- basically, he has good intentions. In stark contrast, in "Hamlet's Father" Hamlet also has good intentions and doesn't mean to do evil -- he kills Claudius because he believes that Claudius killed Hamlet's father, he kills Polonius because he thought Polonius was Claudius hiding behind a curtain, and he kills Laertes by sheer accident. Nonetheless, the closing lines of the story make it clear that Hamlet is going down to hell along with his father. So Ender gets off the hook, but Hamlet doesn't.

Wait, wait, wait...you actually READ the story everyone's been bashing Card for over the last several months (or more)? But, but, weren't we already told that he's a bigot, my Precious, and not worth our time. Don't we hates him, Precious, hates the nassty bigotses?

Disclaimer: it's fine if you hate Card, don't want to read his books, etc. But it does amuse me that the only one one of the few to have actually read the story that really kicked off the recent Card bashing doesn't find it all that offensive.

Edited to clear Grack's name. :)

[peterbound]

Otay, girlfriend. I'll keep that in mind, hon. ;)

Wow, you really *haven't* been paying any attention to this discussion.

That's not the kind of "standards" we've been talking about. The discussion has been about whether "people" in general should:

1. read and/or buy books written by authors we don't like; or,

2. read and/or buy books which contain offensive material.

Dude, or dumbfuck, what ever you prefer.

That's the same shit I'm saying here. People should not read books by authors they dispose. Fuck no they shouldn't.

Offensive material is different. Challenge yourself with different ideas, ya, but you shouldn't support authors financially or intellectually that you despise, or that represent everything you hate about the world. How the fuck you see that any other way is beyond me. We just have too different of world views.

Also, doesn't the book end with Hamlet going to hell (because he is gay) to be raped by his pedophile dad for eternity? Like all gay guys deserve?

[peterbound]

Wait, wait, wait...you actually READ the story everyone's been bashing Card for over the last several months (or more)? But, but, weren't we already told that he's a bigot, my Precious, and not worth our time. Don't we hates him, Precious, hates the nassty bigotses?

Disclaimer: it's fine if you hate Card, don't want to read his books, etc. But it does amuse me that the only one one of the few to have actually read the story that really kicked off the recent Card bashing doesn't find it all that offensive.

Edited to clear Grack's name. :)

I actually gave it a read when it came out to see what the hubbub is all about. Same reason i'm putting myself through this Black Library bull shit. Got to know your enemy.

ETA: Re released... not came out.

[peterbound]

Dammit, caught a call. I'll continue this later.