ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

On the impossibility of reconciliation

It has largely been forgotten that NK Jemisin's attack on me in Australia was part of a nominal call for reconciliation in SF/F, and my response to her was a rejection of that call on the grounds of its impossibility. So, you can imagine the amusement that was provided by this exchange between RD Miksa and one of the Torlings responsible for Making Light after Ms Sutherland expressed her opinion concerning my fans inability to talk about what it is they enjoy about my books.
(You know what I would love? adore? enjoy the heck out of? A genuine Larry Correia fan coming here and enthusing about the work. Taking about what it is, not what it is not; talking about why they love it rather than why they hate Librul SF and the Libruls who read it. And that is the difference between Correia and Day, in my view. I can't picture a Day fan doing that and making it work.)
To which Mr. Miksa's response was only the most detailed of several, including those from Mendoscot, Daniel, Whitebirch, Eric Ashley, Trev006, Scottishmentat, and A VD Fan, to attempt the very thing Ms Sutherland could not picture. Note that he goes into some detail, so if you still have not read Opera Vita Aeterna at this point, you may wish to avoid what follows the jump:
Earlier in this discussion, one of the Site Administrators contended that she could not imagine a fan of Vox Day entering this forum and genuinely “enthusing” about his work. Indeed, she essentially claimed that she simply could not picture a Vox Day fan explaining why they like his writing while also making that explanation “work.”

Now, while it is out of my control as to whether or not the reader decides that my explanation “works”—for what “works” as an explanation, especially when dealing with literary matters, is essentially a subjective matter—it is obviously within my power to explain why I like Day’s writing. And so, I am more than willing to provide my reasons for why I enjoy Day’s literary products. At the same time, I would also like to articulate a few points which I believe are not only highly relevant to this whole discussion surrounding Day’s work and his Hugo nomination, but which should also make certain individuals pause and perhaps reflect upon whether their negative assessment of Day’s character is wholly accurate. In essence, what I will point out is that the very content and ideas embedded in Day’s fiction actually serve as some evidence against the negative epithets (bigot, racist, etc.) that so many people are trying to label him with. Indeed, I contend that many people are so blinded by what they think Day is saying, that they do not realize that his very own fictional works provide us with some evidence that Day’s ideas are very often more nuanced and subtle than what his opponents would wish people to believe.

Finally, let me just note that since the current debate over Vox Day and his writings has stemmed from his novelette “Opera Vita Aeterna” being nominated for a Hugo Award, I will thus use this novelette as the basis for all my points. I do so for two reasons. First, since this particular novelette is currently being considered for a Hugo Award, it is, at the present time, arguably Day’s most important and prominent work of fiction, thus making it fully appropriate to focus my comments on that particular story. And second, since Day is offering that particular work of fiction for free off his website, anyone and everyone can thus access it, read it for themselves, and determine if the points that I articulate actually match the story.

So, with this introduction articulated, on to the meat of the matter.

Why I Greatly Enjoyed “Opera Vita Aeterna”

    Now, while it is the case that previous commentators have summarized Day’s novelette, let me also do so briefly in order to ensure that we are all on the same page. In essence, “Opera Vita Aeterna” is—in my own words—the story of the land’s most powerful elven mage encountering a religious man of such power and might, that the elven mage, after killing the man, leaves everything he has ever known behind and engages on a quest to find the source of the man’s power, which is God Himself. This quest leads the elven mage to a small religious abbey where he meets with the monks and the local Abbot. Over time, and as they spar over theological and philosophical issues, a tentative friendship grows between the elven mage and the Abbot. However, in the background, a demonic entity, who despises humans in general, and the monks in particular, is constantly striving to have the elven mage return to his homeland. Then, at a certain point, and in an effort to make the elven mage return home, the demonic entity has a group of goblins wipe out the whole abbey while the elven mage is gone. Upon his return, the elven mage finds all the monks killed. In particular, he finds the Abbot murdered right beneath a cross. Seeming this, and screaming at the apparent impotence and apathy of the God of Men, the elven mage demands that God grant the Abbot a place in the afterlife. The story then fast-forwards to a point where it becomes clear that the friendship between the elven mage and the Abbot, and the theological work that this friendship produced, have become critical to the development of the Church as a whole.

    Now, with this summary complete, let me articulate just some of the reasons why I greatly enjoyed this particular novelette.

    First, in many ways, the novelette seamlessly blends non-fiction with fiction. What do I mean? I mean that as part of the novelette, we are treated to brief theological and philosophical debates which stimulate the mind and the intellect in a way that most other works do not. Indeed, just as many philosophers in the past would use a dialogue format to bring out their philosophical points, Day does the same thing, but he does so in a manner that does not detract from the story itself. And while I have no doubt that not everyone wants to have a philosophical debate serve as part of a fictional story, I can say that for those of us that do enjoy that type of a narrative, Day does it very well.

    Second, Day has, in my view, an uncanny ability to combine his fantasy setting with historical accuracy. Now again, what do I mean? I mean that even though Day’s story deals with elves, and goblins, and so on, his depictions of monks and life in the abbey are grounded in the historical reality of how things actually were hundreds of years ago. This, in turn, almost makes it feel like you are receiving a historical education while enjoying a fantastical setting. And once again, while some individuals may not like this strategy of melding historical fiction with fantasy, for those of us that do, Day does did extremely well.

    Third, Day’s novelette makes you think about life’s deepest questions. In fact, even more so than just this, for people of religious faith, Day’s novelette literally makes you question your religious convictions. Why? Because this novelette does not have a happy ending. It does not give you any easy answers. In fact, if anything, at the end of the novelette, you can sympathize with the atheistic elven mage when he looks up at the cross and curses the apparently weak, impotent, and distant God depicted there. So it is the case that this novelette, short as it may be, makes you think long and hard about the big questions: God, the afterlife, the existence of evil, morality, mortality, the problem of evil, the apparent problem of divine hiddenness, and so on. And since I like to think about these questions, and since I enjoy fiction that makes these questions central, I enjoyed seeing them in Day’s novelette. In addition, I might point out that it is surprising that Day, being a Christian, ends this novelette in the way that he does. You might have expected him to have provided some type of divine intervention to close the story, thus making it more palpable to those of faith. But instead, once you are done reading, you cannot help that think that the atheist elven mage is quite justified in cursing any God who would allow such evil to happen to his own followers. So Day is not afraid to be bold and to go against the grain of his own beliefs, at least partially, when the story requires it.

    Finally, Day is quite capable in establishing an imaginative setting and in describing it clearly, thus making it easy and enjoyable to picture where and when the story unfolds. I also found the characters to be well-described and that the dialogue matched the traits of the characters very well. So, from a stylistic perspective, I found the story to be more than competent.

    These, therefore, are but some of the reasons that I enjoyed Day’s novelette. And let me add that, in my view, his novelette is not even his best work. For that, you would need to read A Throne of Bones, which was a work that I devoured in less than two days.


    Why “Opera Vita Aeterna” Should Make You Think Twice about Vox Day.

    I mentioned earlier that I believe that Day’s fictional work provides his opponents with some evidence that should make them pause and re-think their negative assessment of Day. And while Vox Day needs absolutely no help in defending himself, I nevertheless wish to point out in what way I believe that Day’s novelette does indeed provide evidence against the harsh assessment of his character that is being made by so many individuals. And given that Day has been labeled—by some individuals who disagree with him on certain issues—with just about every single negative and undesirable character trait imaginable in our current cultural climate, it may seem that my claim that Day’s writing should make his opponents re-assess their negative opinion of him somewhat difficult to accept. Nevertheless, I will still offer my reasoning in this matter.

    Initially, let us start with the reasonable assumption that an author’s personal beliefs, ideas, and philosophy will permeate his writing to some greater or lesser extent. In fact, many people refuse to read Day’s work precisely because they not only object to his views in general, but also because they believe that his fiction will be permeated with those views. And yet, when I read “Opera Vita Aeterna”, some very interesting aspects of the story became particularly prominent given the negative claims being made about Day. And these aspects of the story were all the more interesting in light of fact that they do, at least in part, reflect Day’s views. So let me list just a few of these interesting story elements.

    First, Day is often labeled as something of a cultural supremacist who is bigoted against non-Western, non-Christian cultures. And yet, in his novelette, what we see is that the Abbot is more than willing to learn and grow from his interactions with the elven mage. In fact, the story literally shows that the Abbot himself, through his long-time interaction with the elven mage, comes to the essentially heretical view that elves have souls, even though this view is not accepted by the Church. At the same time, in the story, the theological interactions between the Abbot and the pagan elven mage, which are written down by the Abbot, eventually become a document that is of great theological significance to the Church, just as the interactions of Saint Thomas Aquinas with the pagan works of Aristotle were of great importance to the actual Church. And what I think that this shows is that Day’s ideas of how cultures interact, and the benefits of such cultural interactions, are subtle, nuanced, and are not so easily categorized as just being an expression of “western cultural supremacism.” His novelette shows the two main characters have a deep respect and tolerance for each other’s cultural tradition, even though there is a clear understanding that certain cultural elements are better than others. Thus, even though the Abbot can understand why the elven mage committed a mercy killing, the Abbot nevertheless still knows that his culture, in seeing such behaviour as a sin, is objectively better than the elven mage’s is. Thus, while Day’s characters have tolerance for each other, they do not let this tolerance dissolve into something as incoherent and indefensible as cultural relativism. So, tolerance and respect for differing cultures and customs is affirmed, but a relativistic out-look about truth, morality, and good is rejected.

    Second, Day is often caricatured as someone unwilling to consider new ideas and as someone living in an echo-chamber. And while I have never seen Day back down from a debate, I would also point out that his story is precisely meant to show how two completely opposite individuals, with totally opposing views, can, through rational and controlled discussion, be able to think through issues and come to a closer understanding of the truth even though they start their debate at complete opposite sides of an issue. For indeed, at the start of the story, the Abbot literally believes that the elven mage, being soulless, is nothing more than an animal. And yet, through calm, rational discourse, and through their interactions, the Abbot changes his views about the soullessness of elves. At the same time, the elven mage gains a new-found respect for humanity and the intelligence and reasoning skills of human beings. And perhaps this aspect of the story is a cultural and social critique concerning how rational debate, even if harsh, offensive, and unpleasant, is needed in modern society instead of simply mud-slinging and labelling people as “bigots” and “racists” without truly understanding their arguments. After all, it would not be hard to imagine that had another author written Day’s story, then the moment that the elven mage realized that the Abbot considered elves little more than animals, the Abbot would have been labeled a racist bigot who was unworthy of further discussion, consideration, or debate. By contrast, in Day’s version, the elven mage, though offended at being considered little more than an animal, does not shy away from discussing and rationally debating the issue with the Abbot. This is thus a lesson: a view may be offensive and distasteful, but it may also be true, and we will never learn about whether or not that view is true unless we not only engage with the proponents of that view, but also engage with them in a manner that is as impartial as possible, that does not straw-man their arguments, and that seeks to properly understand their point-of-view before condemning it.

    Third, even though Day is known as a vociferous opponent of theistic unbelief, his story is nevertheless quite sympathetic to the frustration and anger that many individuals feel towards God. He articulates well the emotions and circumstances that would make a person scream at God and curse Him. So again, this fact shows that Day’s views on the subject of God are subtle, and that while he is an opponent of unbelief, he understands it well enough that he can sympathize with the reasoning and emotion behind such unbelief.

    Now, what these few points are meant to show is that Day’s work is more subtle and nuanced than is normally given credit for. There are themes in his work which show precisely the opposite of bigotry and racism, but rather illustrate how friendship and cultural understanding can develop even in hard circumstances. And as his work is, no doubt, at least a partial reflection of his ideas and thoughts, then this fact should make the individuals that decry him as a bigoted racist truly wonder whether their assessment of him is as accurate as they think. Have they truly considered his arguments or are they just “straw-manning” what he says? Have they looked into the subtleties of his views or have they just scratched the surface of his views and then prematurely labeled him as a “bigot”, etc.? Have they taken his points in the fullness of their context or rather, have they taken quotes out-of-context to make Day’s views appear much worse than they are? Do they understand that Day often employs rhetorical and “for-the-sake-of-argument” argumentative techniques to make his point, or do they rather disregard that fact and simply try to use whatever they can to make Day appear as bad as possible? These are, I contend, valid questions, and those individuals that deride Vox Day should honestly ask and answer these questions for themselves.


    The Hugo Kerfuffle and the Prescience of “Opera Vita Aeterna”

    Finally, I wish to end on a somewhat humorous note. And this particular bit of humor arises from the fact that Day’s novelette “Opera Vita Aeterna” did, in a way, “predict” what would happen to Day and his novelette if it was nominated for a Hugo Award. Now, what do I mean by this? I mean that in the novelette, the demon entity that wants the elven mage to return to his homeland is embarrassed and dismayed that the elven mage would ever want to consort amongst the filthy, disgusting, and bigoted humans. Indeed, this evil entity does his utmost to ensure that the elven mage returns to his rightful place, even if doing so means harming the humans in the process. And, in a way, we are actually seeing the same sort of thing in the kerfuffle that has arisen since Day’s nomination for the Hugo Award. Many people are embarrassed and dismayed that something like the Hugo Awards would sully itself by consorting with the literary works of an alleged “bigot” and “racist” like Day. Furthermore, many individuals are striving to do their utmost to ensure that Day’s work does not win the award or at least that it is never considered for an award again. Indeed, instead of sitting, reading, and debating Day’s work, and instead of overcoming their sense of “offendedness” in order to consider Day’s ideas rationally and fully, they simply wish to marginalize Day and vote him down, much like the evil entity in Day’s novelette does not even wish to consider the ideas that the humans have to offer, but rather it simply wishes to marginalize the humans and destroy their standing. So I have to admit, I thought that this parallel between Day’s story and what is happening to Day in real-life was humorous enough, in a sad sort of way, that it merited being pointed out.
Despite reality repeatedly trumping her previous failure of imagination, Ms Sutherland made it clear that no matter what was said, she would remain utterly unmoved. In fact, she is still not persuaded to read my work, not so much as even a single novelette. She concludes with an announcement that her mind is firmly closed, along with a shot aimed at the readers of this blog.
First of all, I gather my statement at 349 has been posted as some kind of a challenge somewhere out in the Daysienet. Whilst I appreciate the courtesy that most of the respondents have shown coming here, frankly, the responses do not work for me.

Indeed, they've proven that it's not worth reading any more of them; Day's world-building, plotting, and characterization, as described, are really not going to be my cup of tea. This is even aside from the other issues I have with his behavior in our community (and the rather weird personal dynamics of the community he's gathered around him).

So thank you, but no thanks. And when I say no thanks, I mean, and further attempts will be put to the moderation queue, because it's getting repetitive and rather tiresome.

Secondly, anyone who posts one of these will have all of their comments sent to the moderation queue.

Thirdly, that means that I'd prefer that the community not respond to them, because it's not fair to respond to people who can't answer back. I acknowledge that there are many juicy hooks and useful things to be said, but I'm running out of joy to moderate this discussion.
So, it may be helpful to keep this response in mind when you are tempted to argue for moderation or the use of sweet reason in attempting to appeal to the unreasonable. Not only will they not listen, they will intentionally fail to understand every argument presented. They are not intellectuals, they are ideologues and they are incapable of dialectic. The fact that they often frame their rhetoric in the form of pseudo-dialectic should not mislead you into thinking they are capable of rising above the rhetorical level.

I observe that Ms Sutherland does not appear to have loved, adored, or enjoyed the heck out of the very thing she implicitly requested. This is because she is a wormtongue, her words mean nothing to her, and she will never stand by them or accept accountability for them. Aristotle warned you of these people in his Rhetoric. I have repeatedly warned you of them myself. There can be no reconciliation with them because they only reconciliation they will accept is your unconditional and continual surrender to their dynamic petty totalitarianism.

This does not mean such efforts by Mr. Miska and the others were wasted or misguided. Never forget that for every unreasonable commenter who is unmovable, there are at least a score of silent readers whose opinions are not necessarily carved in stone.

Labels:

122 Comments:

Anonymous Susan April 27, 2014 1:14 PM  

As far as I am concerned, it is never a wasted effort by anyone to get something on the record. Given the short attention span of liberals, a year or two down the road should be most entertaining when this "for the record" posting is brought back out into the light.

Blogger Nate April 27, 2014 1:22 PM  

They really have no idea how badly they've gotten their asses kicked... in their own house... do they?

Anonymous Josh April 27, 2014 1:27 PM  

I think they do, hence the threat of sending comments into moderation.

Anonymous Pseudo-Nate April 27, 2014 1:29 PM  

You mean THAT'S what they meant by "Relieving me of the pressure of responding"? I thought they were doing me a favor.

Blogger Nate April 27, 2014 1:35 PM  

another amusing thing... these people don't realize that they would never read a book with a villian as two dimensional and unrealistically "bad" as the character version of Vox they have invented. They would never write a character this unrealistic. But they can't see that. They are literally blind.

Anonymous Salt April 27, 2014 1:36 PM  

Yeah, it's game on and to paraphrase Nate, they've been owned.

Anonymous Foolish Pride April 27, 2014 1:37 PM  

Whenever I see this type of behavior I try to keep in mind that these are unhappy people. They lash at because for a brief moment at least, it makes them feel better about themselves.

Unfortunately, you can judge a man by his enemies, but your enemies are pretty lame.

Anonymous Rolf April 27, 2014 1:38 PM  

Nate - DoublePlusFeelBadSpeak must be ignored, and called irrelevant, and the writers of it must be shunned. Dance around the issue. Move goal posts. Shout people down (move to moderation). Demand ever more "evidence" while dismissing anything that disagrees with your position contemptuously, without logical reasons, because it is "obviously" wrong.

josh - I don't know. Logic is not their long suit, nor is "rational discourse." (BTW, over at The View From North Central Idaho, http://blog.joehuffman.org/ , "rational discourse" in the gun control debate means the gun-controllers deleting comments or not allowing them by people that don't agree with them, related to "Peterson syndrome," the inability to tell truth from falsity).

What is it that lawyers say? If you have the fact, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have character, pound the character. If you have nothing, pound the table.

Anonymous Androsynth April 27, 2014 1:38 PM  

So, when her challenge was met and proven wrong, she just stuck her fingers in her ears and went "LALALALALALALA"

Noted.

Blogger buzzardist April 27, 2014 1:45 PM  

A good treatment of Vox's story, and a predicable response from Sutherland. She put out a challenge for a champion to come forth, and when many did, she backed down, protesting that she didn't actually mean to invite people to defend his work and declaring that she would consign to the moderation dustbin any further comments on the matter. Her bluff got called; she got spanked, and her only recourse was to use her raw power as a moderator to shut down the discussion.

Have a discussion about actual literature on a literary site? Unthinkable! Retreat to ideology! Ban everything else!

Anonymous Heaviside April 27, 2014 1:49 PM  

>Retreat to ideology!

No such thing -- you can only advance to it.

Anonymous Foolish Pride April 27, 2014 1:54 PM  

It would be nice if the regular commenters would call out the moderation threat, but they're regular commenters because they are "true believers."

Anonymous VD April 27, 2014 1:56 PM  

It would be nice if the regular commenters would call out the moderation threat, but they're regular commenters because they are "true believers."

They won't. But some of the regular readers will notice. There are those who are now regulars here who were once regulars elsewhere and first came here as a result of these sorts of interactions. Not everyone who reads there is blind.

Anonymous Anonymous April 27, 2014 1:59 PM  

Good Day to All,

If I might just one more fact so that you are all aware of it. Within fifteen minutes of making my post, Site Administrator Abi Sutherland responded to me. I immediately saw her reply, and I responded in turn just a few minutes after she had posted. My reply to her was not only polite and cordial, but it addressed the points that she had made in her own comment. Nevertheless, instead of a cordial exchange, I--a person she had never previously interacted with and who had been respectful of her at all times--was banned. Indeed, in less than thirty minutes after my post, I could not post any longer. And my reply to her, which was sent in just under ten hours ago, is still in "moderation." Furthermore, after a few hours, my original post was suddenly minimized to such a small font that it was essentially unreadable unless you took the time to copy and paste the post into a text editor.

Now, of course, I am not foolish enough to think that this would not happen. In fact, to me, it was a near certainty that it would. Nevertheless, in my view, my exchange on that site--and the interactions of everyone else who supported Mr. Day--serves a three-fold purpose. First, and as Vox himself said, it shows that the desire from that group for "tolerance" and "openness" and "an exchange of ideas" is a façade, and it is always beneficial to expose that façade to the group of quiet readers who read the comments but do not post. Second, it shows that these people are, on some level, scared. You don't ban comments and posts that you disagree with when you feel like you are in a position of intellectual strength; rather, you crush such comments with wit, wisdom, and facts. Thus, their decision to resort to banning the commentators that they disagree with is a sign of cowardice and weakness, and it is always good to know when your enemy is weak. And finally third, even though my comments and the comments of other Vox supporters were banned, at least our initial comments are on the record, and those initial comments will hopefully cause more than a few people to find their way here, where they can--whether they agree or disagree with Day and the rest of us--at least make up their own minds after having full access to the relevant information.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Take care,

RD Miksa
www.idontgiveadamnapologetics.com

Anonymous Lesbian Dorito Night April 27, 2014 2:05 PM  

@androsynth
I'd like to start by thanking you for your courage

I'd call her response one of delusional psychosis coupled with extreme cognitive dissonance. Additionally I'm wary of the prevalence of Folie à deux there.

Anonymous Bz April 27, 2014 2:07 PM  

Shrinking the font of that comment is a rather feeble passive-aggressive response by the pink team, I'd say. Don't they expect more of their own side?

Also, looking at the end of that blog post page, do they really need four moderators to groom and oil and torment the comments of a blog like that? Alexa currently assigns this one global rank 27,575, while the entire Nielsen Hayden site gets rank 390,771.

Anonymous Rolf April 27, 2014 2:11 PM  

And if someone that isn't banned might just happen to go there and post or link to RD Miska's post here, pointing out the hypocrisy and heavy-handed shut-down and banning, it might make it a bit more obvious to the oblivious in their warren... They might need help connecting the dots, and if a dotted line were to show up, it might clarify it for them....

Just a random though from some guy at a keyboard.

Anonymous miZ April 27, 2014 2:23 PM  

Vox Day.... from banned by the SFWA to banned by the UK?

https://twitter.com/elbaratista/status/460424714348154880

Anonymous hygate April 27, 2014 2:24 PM  

She's never read anything by Vox and, as mentioned by another commentator, has a two-dimensional cartoon like view of Vox. She assumed that euridite defenses of the merits of Vox's writing would be impossible. That in an intellectual dual between her readers and herself vs Vox days defenders, she would be on the side of the intellectual heavy weights and that Vox's readers would be bantam weight, at best.

Then, once the battle began, she almost instantly called a halt to it. Vox is right, the non-true believers that frequent her site are going to notice that and draw conclusions.

Anonymous Mr.A is Mr.A April 27, 2014 2:25 PM  

Between Vox's "Am I a racist?" posting and the discussion at Hayden's blog, it's clear to see why the left liberal argument quickly devolves into "Shut Up!" They are locked and loaded and firing logical blanks.

Anonymous Foolish Pride April 27, 2014 2:27 PM  

miZ, Vox already retweeted that.

Anonymous hee haw April 27, 2014 2:28 PM  

Lol I love this guy's argument. Vox is not the ugly troll he presents himself to be, he's really a reasonable guy with deep, nuanced thoughts! He's a mystery of his making, waiting for you to find the sweet center.

Of course that in itself is proof of a narcissistic psychopath. Say what you think, bro. No one wants to divine your real meaning, you're not that special. It reminds you of a coy bitch more interested in the foreplay than the action. Not exactly the image of a Christian superhero.

Anonymous Anonymous April 27, 2014 2:28 PM  

And if you think you're not annoying them so far, keep this in mind:

"Ahem, I got off track. Anyway: if Kratman really gets nominated, then I would lament, in a way that I have not been made to this year. Correia passes - again, for *me, ymmv - the plausibility threshold; VD does not but is at least trying to write and showing some minimal-pulse level of ability. Kratman's stuff is both utterly reprehensible *and* completely void of any storytelling or language-manipulation ability. Yeach."

Right, every last word the good Colonel writes this year front and centre next year's noms, gotcha. Which given my tastes was pretty much a gimme anyways, but now it's a DETERMINED gimme.

Speaking of next year's noms, fan reviews qualify as "works of literary criticism" and are thus eligible for a 'Best Related Work' Hugo, right? Because then it would certainly be a travesty of justice for RD Miksa to not get theirs, I'm thinking.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 27, 2014 2:33 PM  

Nate, I think we're 2 for 2 on disagreements today:

They really have no idea how badly they've gotten their asses kicked... in their own house... do they?

They're banning comments, so I suspect they have an inkling.

another amusing thing... these people don't realize that they would never read a book with a villian as two dimensional and unrealistically "bad" as the character version of Vox they have invented. They would never write a character this unrealistic.

Oh yes they would. Maybe I'm getting into the weeds using a movie for comparison, but I bet they loved Avatar and the villains in that are barely one dimensional.

Blogger Vox April 27, 2014 2:35 PM  

Of course that in itself is proof of a narcissistic psychopath.

I'm not a psychopath, I've been tested. Moderately narcissistic, highly Machiavellian, but also highly empathetic.

Translation: I feel your pain. So don't irritate me and encourage me to use it against you.

Anonymous Speaker-To-SFWAs April 27, 2014 2:36 PM  

There can be no reconciliation with them because they only reconciliation they will accept is your unconditional and continual surrender to their dynamic petty totalitarianism.

It's what it is. It's what they are.

Anonymous J. J. April 27, 2014 2:54 PM  

It is good to provide positive affirmation for your positions. G. K. Chesterton took this to heart after writing "Heresy" and wrote "Orthodoxy". As a homeschool dad, I could talk all day about the awful public school system, but find I can catch people off guard sometimes by simply accentuating the positives of homeschooling.

Just as it was a ruse for Chesterton's critics to say "Okay, so you can complain about others but what's so good about YOUR religion", and just as it's simply a self-conscious defensive ploy for people to say to me "Is that all you can do is complain about the public schools... what's so good about homeschool?", it appears that was a the case here. This person didn't really want to hear what was good about Vox's writing... it was simply an emotion charged front to convince herself to not have to deal with reality.

Anonymous Anonymous April 27, 2014 2:54 PM  

Dear hee haw:

You said:

Lol I love this guy's argument. Vox is not the ugly troll he presents himself to be, he's really a reasonable guy with deep, nuanced thoughts! He's a mystery of his making, waiting for you to find the sweet center.

Now let me explain my point to you in clear and direct terms so that you can hopefully understand it. I did not think that my point was that hard to grasp, but apparently for you, it was. So, here it is in a summarized format:

1 - An author's fictional work is, to a greater or lesser extent, a representation of his ideas, his morals, his character, his philosophy, etc.

2 - Vox Day's novelette "Opera Vita Aeterna", rather than showing any signs of racism, bigotry, or cultural supremacism, actually shows quite the opposite. It shows a nuanced understanding of how cultures interact, how real tolerance works, how rational discussion can be had in the face of the most offensive disagreement, etc. Furthermore, all these points are reflected in Vox Day's other fictional work as well.

3 - Therefore, Vox Day's very own fiction does provide some evidence against the negative claims being leveled at him by his opponents. And this, in turn, should make reasonable opponents of Day pause and consider that perhaps their negative assessment of Day is, at least in part, based on misunderstandings, a "straw-man" comprehensive of his arguments, a lack of context when reading his work, etc.

Again, this is not a hard point to comprehend, and it is an eminently reasonable one to articulate.

However, as I know that you are not here for any sort of rational discussion, please note that this comment was not for you. Rather, it was for the silent majority to see that, so far, not only is all the reasoned and rational discussion about this issue on this side of the debate, but also that you are actually living proof of my point in action. I point out that people often misrepresent, underplay, or "straw-man" Vox Day's arguments, and in response, you essentially do all that to my argument. It is, quite simply, an outstanding display of the very thing that I am pointing out.

Take care,

RD Miksa

Anonymous hee haw April 27, 2014 2:55 PM  

Well I'm using psychopath colloquially there, meaning mentally unbalanced. In any case what is the difference between Machiavellian and psychopathic?

Anonymous Dr. J April 27, 2014 2:57 PM  

Wow - this business has got to be driving up your site traffic. This level of book-banning and shunning is some of the best free advertising you could ask for.

When HBO comes to you for 5 seasons of AoDL, can I play Corvus?

Anonymous AmyJ April 27, 2014 3:03 PM  

The scary thing here is that Sutherland no doubt thinks she's still on the intelligent, "winning" side; that she's effectively shut down any defense of CD 's work by virtue of her own rightness, even though all she has done is shut down discourse.

The ironic thing is that VD is labeled worse than Hitler by those who employ Nazi propaganda tactics.

Anonymous Salt April 27, 2014 3:04 PM  

They really have no idea how badly they've gotten their asses kicked... in their own house... do they?

They're banning comments, so I suspect they have an inkling


No, they haven't. In their eyes it's reducing the vanquished to zero tolerance. They really do not have a clue.

Anonymous Mr.A is Mr.A April 27, 2014 3:07 PM  

"@hee haw
... In any case what is the difference between Machiavellian and psychopathic?"

Perhaps next time try reading Machiavelli before making such a facile statement. A quick perusal of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM) might aid you as well.

Blogger ScuzzaMan April 27, 2014 3:09 PM  

I particularly enjoyed the crack about the weird personal dynamics in Vox Day's community, followed immediately by the instruction to her own community to never speak of the subject ever again, or out comes the ban hammer.

Yeah, there was nothing creepy about that at all ...

The extreme (and extremely visible) lack of any kind of self-awareness is pitiable. Like talking to a houseplant, only with less hope of intelligent reply.

Anonymous VD April 27, 2014 3:12 PM  

In any case what is the difference between Machiavellian and psychopathic?

Machiavellian is manipulative. A psychopath lacks empathy and doesn't understand higher human emotions. One can have either, both, or neither characteristics. Posession of both, along with narcissism, is known as a "Dark Triad" personality and is both highly dangerous and extremely attractive to women.

Anonymous Philalethes April 27, 2014 3:14 PM  

Well I'm using psychopath colloquially there….

Well, "hee haw", I never thought I'd say this to anyone, but in addition to Mr. Miksa's calm, reasoned words to you above, you are simply being a troll. You clearly have no interest in engaging the subject seriously, so are employing evasive tactics. And in so doing, providing a perfect example of exactly what VD and others here are talking about. So I guess I have to thank you for that.

But is there truly nobody on the "other side" who can engage the subject with at least minimal intelligence and discipline? Come on, somebody, give it a try? Certainly a case can be made that Mr. Day does not mince words in a dispute (though frankly I've never seen him actually misstate the truth, even if the truth be unpleasant); so is that sufficient reason to utterly ban him from human company?

Anonymous Foolish Pride April 27, 2014 3:18 PM  

I thought Leftists were interested in being open-minded?

They don't care what you wrote, they don't care what's in it, but they feel qualified to vote against it.

Blogger Lorenzo April 27, 2014 3:20 PM  

I wonder what Hugo Gernsback would think today of the industry he is credited with founding and the process of giving awards that bear his name.

Anonymous alexander April 27, 2014 3:22 PM  

Any chance of caliphate 2: reconquista in time for next year nominations? I think that woupd maximize feelhurt even over correra

Anonymous Androsynth April 27, 2014 3:23 PM  

@androsynth
I'd like to start by thanking you for your courage


Hahaha, what? That's all news to me, I just picked the handle because I was a big fan of Star Control 2 as a kid and liked the sound of it.

Anonymous FL April 27, 2014 3:34 PM  

Posession of both, along with narcissism, is known as a "Dark Triad" personality and is both highly dangerous and extremely attractive to women.

Like Charles Manson?

Anonymous Harsh April 27, 2014 3:35 PM  

Vox Day.... from banned by the SFWA to banned by the UK?

https://twitter.com/elbaratista/status/460424714348154880


Banning people from their country for their opinions? The English used to be made of tougher stuff than this.

Anonymous Philalethes April 27, 2014 3:40 PM  

Banning people from their country for their opinions? The English used to be made of tougher stuff than this.

Orwell was righter than he knew.

Anonymous WhiteBirch April 27, 2014 3:42 PM  

Well, Mikasa's comment was far, far better than mine, but I'm still glad I left it.

I'll admit I was surprised, I thought there would be some sort of response on her part beyond "Don't tell me to change my mind." I hadn't counted on simply being ignored, except for a ban threat.
What an astonishingly closed-minded woman. How very strange that she views thoughtful, articulate, and courteous comments as evidence of "weird personal dynamics." No one insulted her, or disparaged her own writing. Perhaps it's simple jealousy? If anyone was asked to muster a similar defense of her writing, could they do it? Would they even bother?

This is really proving every single thing you say about these people, isn't it?

Blogger Tom Kratman April 27, 2014 3:48 PM  

thetroll:

Except in a "taking one for the team" sense (which doesn't cover screwing unattractive women; there _are_ limits), I wasn't interested. But, ya know, if it might make some of them go to ground zero and shoot themselves...

Anonymous Don April 27, 2014 4:01 PM  

So she invited comments but when she found they were reasoned, calm, persuasive, and polite she dis-invited comments. What was she hoping for, someone to come raving and spewing hate like the twitter feeds that are attacking Larry and Vox?

Why marginalize rational and polite discourse? Something not very pleasant is pleased when they shut down polite avenues of communication and continue to attack. It leaves us with fewer options. Options with results they uniformly hate. Badthink is badthink. Nothing Vox says, nothing his readers say, nothing anyone does will be enough to satisfy them. Vox's suicide with a mea culpa letter saying he's a vile person who is too dirty to repent wouldn't satisfy them.

They really shouldn't have decided to start witchhunts again.

Anonymous 141 April 27, 2014 4:08 PM  

"(You know what I would love? adore? enjoy the heck out of? A genuine Larry Correia fan coming here and enthusing about the work. Taking about what it is, not what it is not; talking about why they love it rather than why they hate Librul SF and the Libruls who read it. And that is the difference between Correia and Day, in my view. I can't picture a Day fan doing that and making it work.)"

-pure rhetoric

These rabbity fucks have no interest in examining anything beyond a superficial level. They've made up their minds and it's just straight ruebbit warfare (inserting earplugs and yelling through megaphones, and when that doesn't work, scuttling the megaphones and running away)

Anonymous Idle Spectator April 27, 2014 4:10 PM  

If Mario can take one for the team, so can she.

Like Charles Manson?

Yes.

Anonymous Salt April 27, 2014 4:16 PM  

So she invited comments

She really didn't expect to be taken up on it, believing the offer was enough to cause her adversaries to run in abject fear.

Blogger NMA April 27, 2014 4:17 PM  

@Don It's interesting that they (Avram and Abi) claim to have had offensive comments that they couldn't publish. Sort of a "the lurkers hate us in e-mail" situation.

Anonymous bob k. mando April 27, 2014 4:25 PM  

RD Miksa April 27, 2014 1:59 PM
And my reply to her, which was sent in just under ten hours ago, is still in "moderation."



i'm absolutely shocked that this has happened.

which is why i predicted it and suggested that all posts be made to the last thread on this subject BEFORE they were cross posted to Electrolite.


well done on your part, RD. i don't usually have the patience for these lying sacks of shit.




hee haw April 27, 2014 2:55 PM
In any case what is the difference between Machiavellian and psychopathic?



Machiavellian is to expertly and deftly manipulate others both through strategically deployed truths and facts as well as deception by overt falsehood.

read 'The Prince' for the origin of the term in political usage.

iow, Machiavellians are superlatively intelligent and rational. they have to be, otherwise they couldn't construct webs of deception that would be effective.

psycho- / sociopaths often are Machiavellian.

however, that's not how YOU are using the term psychopath. instead, you are conflating psychopathy with "mentally unbalanced", deranged, irrational.

so, to sum up, you are incompetent at the English language AND you are incompetent in psychology.

but you keep on pretending that we're the ones who don't have any idea what we're talking about and we're the ones who are irrational and we're the ones who are blindly cheerleading for 'our' guy ....

i will agree with you on this:
we are NOT members of the Hive. nor do we ever wish to be. as such, we will always be confounding and bewildering to all such drones as encounter us.

Government schooling is about "the perfect organization of the hive."
H.H. Goddard, Human Efficiency (1920)

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben April 27, 2014 4:27 PM  

Vox, are you specifically appealing to Christians through your works, because as a jew I find books like the Opera amazing, refreshing in the sea of garbage personified by Scalzi's derivative works.

There is a sickness in my community where the fans love reading George Martin's amoral books, while anything smacking of Christianity is derided. For instance, I enjoyed Summa Elvetica but when I gave it to a neighbor to read, she derided it as too Christian and therefore bad to read.

I have a lot more in common with you than with Martin's amorality.

Anonymous pseudotsuga April 27, 2014 4:29 PM  

It is becoming clear to me that these people over in SJW-land have abandoned education (in the classical, even "liberal" sense of the word) for credentialism. They have the pieces of paper on their walls which tell them how smart they are, and hold up their group-think as a proud ward-stone against evil-think. However, they haven't actually developed skills beyond recitation of ideology. Miksa's analysis was quite well done, and met the challenge--yet they back away from the challenge because, as Vox points out, they never really means it. When they demand toleration, they don't really mean it. Their world is rhetorical rather than analytical, and I am sad for the waste.
(and now I MUST read the novelette to see if it holds up to Miska's explanation or not.)

Anonymous Speaker-To-SFWAs April 27, 2014 4:30 PM  

Why marginalize rational and polite discourse?

The obvious answer is, in this instance, the correct one: because she knows, consciously or otherwise, that she is constitutionally incapable of responding in kind.

Anonymous emdfl April 27, 2014 4:31 PM  

Most all of the lefties out/over there are still so very much like the new york libs back in the '70's who couldn't figure out how Nixon got elected because none of them knew anybody who voted for him.

And a simpler way to differentiate between a Machiavelli and a phychopath might be to point out that the Machiavelli generally controls his impulses; a phychopath not so much.

Anonymous Idle Spectator April 27, 2014 4:32 PM  

I found the DTs (not delirium tremens from alcoholism) interesting. I got an extremely odd profile on the dark triad. I've never seen anyone else with it.

It is Idlized.

Anonymous Anonymous April 27, 2014 4:38 PM  

Vox,

You're playing their game by doing this. This is exactly what they want you to do; dance to their tune. They say you can't jump, you start jumping like a crazy person while yelling, "I told you I could!"

Even if it's your fans doing the jumping, it amounts to the same thing. No self-respecting novelist of the past that I admire would have risen to this bait. It would have been beneath them. It should be beneath you too.

Anonymous The other skeptic April 27, 2014 4:39 PM  

For instance, I enjoyed Summa Elvetica but when I gave it to a neighbor to read, she derided it as too Christian and therefore bad to read.

Is it perhaps the case that women cannot relate to Vox's writings.

Anonymous kawaika April 27, 2014 4:42 PM  

"They really shouldn't have decided to start witchhunts again."

When I'm called off I got a sawed off
Squeeze the trigger and bodies are hauled off
You too cis-boy if ya fuck with me
The pink shirts are gonna hafta come and get me
Off yo ass that's how I'm goin out

Blogger RobertT April 27, 2014 4:47 PM  

Miksa's post was excellent.

On another point that I find troubling ... if God created a perfect world with no sin, no evil, no conflict between good and evil, and a divinity that was obvious to everyone ... what possible purpose would that accomplish? Absolutely none, a far as I can see. Yet this is apparently one of the primary arguments of atheists, one I've heard out of the mouth of my own daughter during her flirtation with agnosticism. Or the old lament, "I could never believe in a god like that" ... and unsaid, "I prefer to invent my own god with my own mind that's satisfactory to me."

Anonymous El Duderino April 27, 2014 4:49 PM  

You're playing their game by doing this. This is exactly what they want you to do; dance to their tune. They say you can't jump, you start jumping like a crazy person while yelling, "I told you I could!"

OMG! Concern troll is very concerned...

Blogger RobertT April 27, 2014 4:57 PM  

" You're playing their game by doing this. "

I know where you're coming from, the classic Alpha disinterestedness ... rising above the fray... while that may make sense in many cases and is personally my preferred approach to life itself ... there are some circumstances where that approach is just biting off your own nose. I think this is a genuine literary debate. Let's drag it out in the open and see where it goes. You need to remember, VD did not initiate this, but as the man said, "I've never seen VD shy away from a debate."

Anonymous The other skeptic April 27, 2014 5:01 PM  

I had not read Opera Vita Aeterna until today. I did not read the rest of the this posting until I had. It took me only an hour or so to read, and the ending was emotionally overwhelming.

I felt a bond with the participants in that they seemed capable of both intellectual pursuits as well as more quotidian pursuits. They seemed to be capable of both hard work and mental stimulation.

However, the ending, as I have already said was profound. It seemed to me to convey the notion of eternal life through one's works (ie, the Elf's labors) as well as the eternal wonderment and questing of youth.

I will have to read it again to get the most out of this story, but it was well worth reading.

Blogger NMA April 27, 2014 5:06 PM  

And now Abi's leaving up a mutilated version of a post mocking Christians and somehow trying to link it to fans of Vox's work. Either she's very confused about the predominant religious beliefs of people over here, or she's doing a bit of victim blaming.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 27, 2014 5:08 PM  

This is really proving every single thing you say about these people, isn't it?

You'd think that rabbits dancing to a piper's tune would be an ugly thing.

And you'd be right.

BTW, this is what thenoiseyrougue doesn't get. Or doesn't want to, either way.

Anonymous VD April 27, 2014 5:11 PM  

Vox, are you specifically appealing to Christians through your works, because as a jew I find books like the Opera amazing, refreshing in the sea of garbage personified by Scalzi's derivative works.

No, not at all. In fact, the main reason I wrote Opera was because I felt that The Last Witchking needed something positive and uplifting to balance the darkness of the title story. So, naturally, I ended up writing a story about a mass murder and an angry individual shouting at a God in whom he does not believe.

You're playing their game by doing this. This is exactly what they want you to do; dance to their tune. They say you can't jump, you start jumping like a crazy person while yelling, "I told you I could!"

Yes, this all seems to be going exactly according to their plan. First kick me out of SFWA, then nominate me for a Hugo... what's next, the New York Times bestseller list? The fiends!

You must not follow football. It's a Belichickian strategy.

Blogger James Dixon April 27, 2014 5:36 PM  

> They would never write a character this unrealistic.

Actually, Nate, I'm not at all sure they're capable of writing a character more realistic than that..

> Also, looking at the end of that blog post page, do they really need four moderators to groom and oil and torment the comments of a blog like that?

Given the number of posts they're "forced" to "moderate"? Probably.

Anonymous Anonymous April 27, 2014 5:55 PM  

Sorry, but I just had to point this out.

Back at the “Making Light” site, Lee, in Comment #669, says:

I wonder how either of the problematic authors would respond to not-fans coming over to their blog and taking a dump on the carpet. I suspect that the reaction would be a lot less temperate than the one here has been.

This, posted as it is on a site that has banned any and all reasonable and courteous discussion about Vox Day’s work, is just rich. And it is especially ironic given that Vox Day just recently invited anyone over to his blog to debate whether he was a “racist” or not.


And then, in Comment 672, Abi Sutherland agrees with Lee:

To reinforce your comment: I have no time for anyone who goes to another's blog to sock-puppet or troll, no matter how just the cause. I know that there are blogs that pride themselves on the rough-and-tumble of their culture, and that's great for them. A diverse internet of many subcultures is, in my opinion, the best way to allow all the voices in the choir a chance to be heard. But even in the most unfettered of sites, I'd hope that the arguments I care about most would be carried by passionate but honest people, with integrity and clarity.

Read her last sentence again, and then remember that this was the very person that banned any and all individuals supporting Vox Day, the vast majority of whom may have been passionate, but who were honest and also made their views known with clarity and rational argumentation. In essence, we argued just as she would want us too, and yet we were banned nonetheless.

The double-standard, to me, just boggles the mind.

Take care,

RD Miksa
www.idontgiveadamnapologetics.blogspot.com

Anonymous Stephen J. April 27, 2014 5:55 PM  

"You know what I would love?... A genuine Larry Correia fan coming here and enthusing about the work. ...I can't picture a Day fan doing that and making it work."

Because she has already made up her mind that no enthusiasm for Vox can work; but the extremely critical technical distinction is vital to preserve the façade of her open-mindedness. By the strictest interpretation of her words what she invited was a Larry Correia praise bomb.

I am naturally prone to hairsplitting technicalities myself, so I tend to notice when people leave themselves careful little outs like this.

Anonymous kawaika April 27, 2014 6:00 PM  

"The double-standard, to me, just boggles the mind."

This is what it boils down to:

…There were two guiding rules. One the more harm a leader does, the more good he does for the fatherland. If he abolishes learning, good; if he burns down a city, good; if he terrifies the population, even better…Two: to have as many bastards as possible do your bidding.
Then the leader gathered the bastards and said to them, ‘Bastards! Write denunciations!’ They write denunciations, draw up harmful plans…and all this semi-literate, stinking matter gets to the zealous leaders office.
The leader gathered the bastards and said, ‘Tell me bastards, what do you think real harm consists of?’
And the bastards replied unanimously , ‘That the harm we bastards do should count as good and good if done by anyone else count as harm. THAT NOBODY DARE SAY A WORD ABOUT US BASTARDS WHILE WE BASTARDS CAN YAP WHAT WE LIKE ABOUT WHOMEVER WE WANT TO!’

Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, ‘The tale of the zealous leader’ as quoted in Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him (New York: Random House 2005), 321.

Blogger Michael April 27, 2014 6:16 PM  

The worst thing is we've created a society that produces people like Ms Sutherland by the *millions*.

When the postmortem for our society is finally published, no-one will believe it and most will say that surely such mass insanity isn't even remotely possible.

Anonymous Jeigh Di April 27, 2014 6:41 PM  

RobertT April 27, 2014 4:47 PM

"On another point that I find troubling ... if God created a perfect world with no sin, no evil, no conflict between good and evil, and a divinity that was obvious to everyone ... what possible purpose would that accomplish? Absolutely none, a far as I can see."

Perhaps God, looking upon his creation sans intelligence said, "this is too good to keep for myself. I will create others with the capacity to appreciate and learn about what I have made, and give them the opportunity to do so."

Anonymous Harsh April 27, 2014 7:00 PM  

You're playing their game by doing this. This is exactly what they want you to do; dance to their tune. They say you can't jump, you start jumping like a crazy person while yelling, "I told you I could!"

Uh no, that's entirely wrong. The rabbits want Vox (and his fans) to simply go away. They don't want to hear about him or think about him or even acknowledge his existence. Because his very existence is a testament to the invalidity of their beliefs. So by engaging them, debating them, and reminding them that he is still here and will not go away, he is in fact doing the opposite of their bidding. He is defying them.

Anonymous MendoScot April 27, 2014 7:01 PM  

What is it that lawyers say? If you have the fact, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have character, pound the character. If you have nothing, pound the table.

Hah! That's beauty, it is. Thanks, Rolf.

Blogger Ragin' Dave April 27, 2014 7:17 PM  

Michael - entire societies can and have gone bat-shit crazy. They either heal themselves or pass away.

Rome didn't die because barbarians invaded, Rome died because there were too many people inside who wanted to throw open the gates to them.

Anonymous Inane Rambler April 27, 2014 7:33 PM  

"problematic"

If you see that, you know you're seeing a Leftist. Along with such favorites as "WOW JUST WOW" and "here's why this is a problem..."

Anonymous Foolish Pride April 27, 2014 7:34 PM  

^Sorry, that's my old Twitter feeds name. At least it linked to the current feed.

Anonymous Dr. J April 27, 2014 7:43 PM  

"You know what I would love?... A genuine Larry Correia fan coming here and enthusing about the work. ...I can't picture a Day fan doing that and making it work."

Whoa - Larry's gotta be pretty ticked that Vox continues to dominate him in the "Lord of Hate" sweepstakes. His fans are way more reasonable than the dread ilk.

Anonymous bob k. mando April 27, 2014 7:51 PM  

Dr. J April 27, 2014 7:43 PM
His fans are way more reasonable than the dread ilk.



you say this as though any Ilk would desire to be reasonable.

Anonymous Androsynth April 27, 2014 7:58 PM  

Vox, are you specifically appealing to Christians through your works, because as a jew I find books like the Opera amazing, refreshing in the sea of garbage personified by Scalzi's derivative works.

I'm an agnostic, and not only did I find Opera to be one of his best short stories, I've purchased everything Castalia House has to offer and enjoyed pretty much all of it to date.

These people who claim Vox's work only appeals to people of identical religious belief to his are engaging in major projection, because they only wish to read, and only seem to understand (whether through choice or ignorance), work from people who perfectly share their own sociopolitical beliefs.

Anonymous Daniel April 27, 2014 8:06 PM  

Great scott. Someone please tell me that's not what the lamentations of their women sound like. I was aiming for something slightly less like cats in a fire.

Anonymous Foolish Pride April 27, 2014 8:12 PM  

"Great scott. Someone please tell me that's not what the lamentations of their women sound like. I was aiming for something slightly less like cats in a fire."

Not exactly what Genghis Khan had in mind.

Anonymous Dr. J April 27, 2014 8:21 PM  

you say this as though any Ilk would desire to be reasonable.

You're missing the point. Larry is the king of gun porn. His readers eat that stuff up, and a leftist hates a gun nut with about as frothing rage as he/she/it can muster. To be labeled extreme relative to that group is a badge of high honor.

Blogger Desiderius April 27, 2014 8:27 PM  

" ...I can't picture a Day fan doing that and making it work"

There's more volition than usual in that cant... I mean "can't"

Blogger Desiderius April 27, 2014 8:37 PM  

"They don't want to hear about him or think about him or even acknowledge his existence."

Well, its such a downer when the reality doesn't live up to the fantasy. Say what you will about Westboro Baptist Church, if they showed up to a Gay Pride parade, you didn't have to worry about them walking away with the award for best float.

Anonymous Daniel April 27, 2014 8:46 PM  

She said she would love it. She said she would adore it. She said she would enjoy the heck out of it.

Either that gal doesn't know what love is...or she's been lying to us from the start!

Because, ladies and gentlemen, it most certainly has still got its heck and she didn't come close to enjoying it to point of expulsion.

Perhaps she wasn't holding it properly.

Somebody, quick! Get the little lady an instruction manual!

Anonymous Daniel April 27, 2014 8:53 PM  

From there:

Lizzie L

abi, I think you've been amaaaazingly tolerant. I cannot imagine what is going through the heads of folks who come to ML, use fake names (or OUR names!), accuse the regulars of intolerance, hypocrisy, reading while holding liberal political opinions, who-the-fck-knows what else, and then get pissed off when they are politely informed that they have not persuaded us to their point of view about Vox Day or an anyone else. And being rude won't change that. Not even if they bring brownies.


Can't get much more racist than that. I wonder what Lizzy L's gonna win a Hugo for?

Blogger Desiderius April 27, 2014 8:57 PM  

"Even if it's your fans doing the jumping, it amounts to the same thing. No self-respecting novelist of the past that I admire would have risen to this bait. It would have been beneath them. It should be beneath you too."

We'll see. I'll admit to being taken aback by the profound quality of Miksa's analysis. Perhaps something good will come of it. I can't help being reminded though of the women who say how much they'd love if they could find a man who'd do his share of the housework. Doing one's share of the housework is not the way to such a woman's heart, to put it mildly.

Whether it wins over bystanders, or intensifies the not so mysterious contempt, well, Vox had better hope he's wrong about MPAI.

Blogger James Dixon April 27, 2014 9:00 PM  

> "problematic" ... If you see that, you know you're seeing a Leftist.

Not hardly. I use it, and I'm pretty sure scoobious uses it, just to name two.

Anonymous Daniel April 27, 2014 9:12 PM  

How in hell was I doing her housework? She asked for a civil defense - said she would enjoy it. I gave a civil defense, she did not enjoy it. All that I have done is prove them (once again) to be liars, in real time, in their self-declared safe haven. This is what is known as scourging the tunnel rats, and it is amusing.

They, on the other hand are neither amused nor have had done any work for them. I think you've got a bad read on this one, Desiderius.

Of course, in the words of John Scalzi, that staunch defender of Vox Day's right to be read: I COULD BE WRONG.

Anonymous Gdeck Bob April 27, 2014 9:22 PM  

I am not going to make any comment on all this since I feel unqualified to do so, but I will say one thing:
It's a lot of fun just to be rooting for the winning side.

Anonymous Andy April 27, 2014 9:28 PM  

It's interesting, because if the Cultural Marxists who seethe in contempt of Vox truly did have a live and let live attitude I probably wouldn't have bothered with giving Vox's blog, and in extension his writing and Wright's, a chance because at first I wasn't that interested in what he was posting about, (I think it was some economic debate that made my eyes glaze over) but I kept coming back here simply because his experience with the PC police has been so similar to mine.

In the end I guess I owe the left a thank you. Thank you for driving me away from you and towards people who share my values.

Blogger Desiderius April 27, 2014 9:50 PM  

"I COULD BE WRONG."

As could I. As I said, we'll see.

Blogger Desiderius April 27, 2014 9:51 PM  

Andy, at least, is not AI. Welcome, mate.

Blogger Desiderius April 27, 2014 9:53 PM  

To clarify, I feel no contempt for Vox, mysterious or otherwise. Not a little admiration, in fact.

Anonymous zen0 April 27, 2014 10:06 PM  

VD expounds:

The fiends!

They hate you for your freedoms.

Anonymous mistaben April 27, 2014 10:27 PM  

All this would be unbelievable if it weren't so doggone predictable.

Carry on, Dread Ilk.

"The fiends!" lol

Anonymous zen0 April 27, 2014 10:47 PM  

This is the music from the Valaam Monastery, Putin's spiritual anchor, located on the largest island in lake Ladoga, near the border of Markku's homeland.

Mp3 for thee

Note the last on the first page: "O come all Ye Russian Assemblies.."

Anonymous kh123 April 27, 2014 11:12 PM  

"You're playing their game by doing this."

Is this not turning the other cheek, compelled to walk a mile but going twain, etc? It I think is the proper Christian way of essentially saying (and doing) "You claim this as rightly yours? Well it seems to be with me. Tell me how you think it yours and I will prove to you how it is mine. Here, let's take a walk."

The epitome of dialectic. And charity. Good on everyone who answered and took the stroll.

Blogger tz April 27, 2014 11:24 PM  

The battle for souls occurs in the no-man'n land where the persuadable walk about, looking. They still have chests, and can be guided to the truth.

On one side lies the men without chests. The Divines - or worse the Westons of the world who proclaim nothing really matters, or some small thing (e.g. "diversity") is the only thing. They cannot perceive, or can only perceive a single note, a single color and brightness.

On our side are the men who have developed their passions so they act to align reason with emotion. We know what we should feel and feel that, not unreasoning pleasure or pain.

(I feel your pain, but should warn you I'm a proxy masochist)

Team NICE is not merely shown to be incompetent, but both so insane and retarded that it appears a miracle they can occasionally construct a grammatically correct sentence, or that they can use a few hundred words correctly since it is clear they are incapable of reason to the middle-men. But the middle-men also feel. This is not unimportant, but where rhetoric works over pure dialectic.

Ethics has a purpose, and we are not to kill passion but tame or break them as a wild horse is turned into a race horse. So we need to not only demonstrate we are right, but that the feelings of victory are warranted.

We are confronted with an unfair enemy, but the illusion of their pain is exposed. They basically will cut themselves and scream in pain if we refuse to go along. Their pain is self-inflicted. They are homeless because they have burned down their house. They are orphans because they have disowned if not killed their parents. They are pitiable only because they try to use pity as a weapon. And succeed sometimes.

Anonymous Foolish Pride April 27, 2014 11:26 PM  

One of the things to keep in mind is that these people don't think through the implications of what they advocate, nor do they consider that their might be unexpected side effects. That's why they are leftists.

Blogger tz April 27, 2014 11:52 PM  

As to literary merit, OVA was the Faberge egg. AMB was more entertaining but not as deep, but I would say it was closer to achieving the ideal of epic fantasy. The other novellas mostly fell flat. SE was the best Novel, probably because it had the right size, level of detail, and action throughout.

AToB was an admixture of eras (90BC to 1200AD) with an excess of unneeded detail. Within was a great, epic story, and I can see it in the same way I can see Tolkien even in the Jacksonized "Hobbit". But I have hopes for future volumes.

Anonymous Androsynth April 28, 2014 12:26 AM  

It's interesting, because if the Cultural Marxists who seethe in contempt of Vox truly did have a live and let live attitude I probably wouldn't have bothered with giving Vox's blog, and in extension his writing and Wright's, a chance because at first I wasn't that interested in what he was posting about, (I think it was some economic debate that made my eyes glaze over) but I kept coming back here simply because his experience with the PC police has been so similar to mine.

I'd never have found Vox or Castalia House if it weren't for stumbling across some Leftists whining about him on the web.

Anonymous Peter April 28, 2014 12:32 AM  

I tried chiding them about their supposed ideals @685, knowing it was a waste of time/pixels. I wasn't disappointed.

And yes, I *was* one of them some 35 years ago. Then I grew up, which included realizing the difference between the Church and the fallible, flawed mortals who run it.

Anonymous Taylor Collingsworth April 28, 2014 12:43 AM  

It should be pointed out that the Carl Brandon awards are accepting nominations. My favorite PoC writer is definately Vox Day, and I would recommend that you each and all nominate him for his work.

https://twitter.com/carlbrandon/status/460540718109315073

Thank you John Scalzi for pointing out that VD can nominated for this award. Raising awareness helps the fan community tremendously in promoting those PoC who are moving SF/F forward.

Anonymous Anonymous April 28, 2014 1:22 AM  

The best part of that thread? Putting the burden on Vox's fans to prove that he's NOT racist.

They throw out quotes and old arguments Vox gave and then act as if the burden of proof is on other people to prove Vox's innocence.

The proper response is to ask if they also oppose the justice system for assuming innocence until proven guilty. If not, they're being highly inconsistent.

Anonymous Anonymous April 28, 2014 1:26 AM  

Taylor C - Voted.

Anonymous kh123 April 28, 2014 1:55 AM  

And Cain brings what to the table again.

Anonymous kh123 April 28, 2014 2:00 AM  

...Suppose that's uncharitable. But, damn it, if the mark fits.

And they're certainly not denying it, but rather hiding in the shadows and comforting eachother that, yes, they can have a sustainable culture east of Eden.

Blogger IM2L844 April 28, 2014 2:22 AM  

If not, they're being highly inconsistent.

That's where they live. The Orwellian bellyfeel umbra where normal is an ungood aberration. They can't accept that there is no shame in being normal.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 28, 2014 2:33 AM  

The proper response is to ask if they also oppose the justice system for assuming innocence until proven guilty. If not, they're being highly inconsistent.

Oh, they're perfectly consistent. The right people (them) are innocent even if proven guilty, and the wrong people (us) are guilty by virtue of merely being accused.

It is useful to force them to expose their nature ever more bluntly though. It is most definitely not "playing their game" to actually respond. "Playing their game" would be slinking away, second-guessing ourselves, and apologizing for our views. That - dear friends - is what folks like this despicable Abe person are trying to do when they "shame" us.

Remember, they are (literally I guess in this case, but figuratively in all cases) females. They take silence as agreement. That's why she was so quick to ban Mr. Miksa. His lack of silence indicated disagreement, so she put her fingers in her ears in order to pretend he was being silent and thus agreeing with her.

Anonymous Anonymous April 28, 2014 2:45 AM  

To put it another way...

"Last year Vox reportedly said that 'My wife makes me so mad that sometimes I just want to strangle her'. So prove to me that Vox doesn't abuse his wife."

"Remember, the burden is on you, and I'm already inclined to disbelieve you since Vox is mean to me sometimes."

Blogger Bernard Brandt April 28, 2014 4:10 AM  

Dear Zen0,

I am of two minds concerning your posting of the Slavonic chants in the following web address, and stating that this is the true source of Putin's authority and strength

http://valaam.ru/en/music_all

The first is that if you cast pearls before swine, you just waste the pearls, annoy the pigs, and have them turn and tear at you. And, as anyone who has watched the end of the movie Hannibal, the beginning of The Wizard of Oz, or just worked as a swineherd knows, falling into the midst of hungry pigs is never a good idea.

On the other hand, just hearing Russians singing their chant (okay, Russian Monastic Vespers, by the monks of Chevetogne) a quarter of a century ago got me to learn something of their faith, which, of all those I have viewed, is the most spiritually mature and beautiful of all of the Christian denominations.

So keep up the good work, Zen0. Someone who seeks the depths might actually listen.

As for the rest of you, 'these aren't the droids you're looking for. move along.'

Blogger Desiderius April 28, 2014 4:18 AM  

"They throw out quotes and old arguments Vox gave and then act as if the burden of proof is on other people to prove Vox's innocence."

The burden of proof doesn't matter in a show trial. When one's object is terror, the more egregious the injustice, the better.

Anonymous ticticboom April 28, 2014 5:02 AM  

Been lurking a while, but saw something skimming through that torling thread. PNH used the fact he edited Weber's Safehold series as a kind of, "I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black!" defense. That reminded me of what I was thinking as I read that series, especially the last book:

"Dear God, this thing needs a decent editor."

I'm gonna be honest, years of painful experience make me very leery of buying anything from Tor, even when the author is one of my favorites. There's the obvious fact that most of the books are written especially to spit in the face of people like me, but the lousy proofreading and editing don't help. Baen's eARCs are usually better than their final product. Some just seem to have been run through an automatic spellcheck. I think I remember one of David Drake's books getting that treatment. Kind of annoying when you have to take your mind out of the story to figure out what word he really meant.

Guess I shouldn't be surprised. I've known a lot of incompetent people who use politics to get ahead when they should've been fired. Incapable of doing their job but always involved in PACs, conferences, and wasting our time spewing platitudes at us when we could be working. They actually made my shop go through diversity training.

That didn't last long. Poor girl practically ran out of the room, and they never tried it again. She was used to cubicle dwellers. We work out in the real world. I don't think anyone who's ever worked in the projects cares about being called a racist.

Anonymous Sensei April 28, 2014 7:33 AM  

I'm not a psychopath, I've been tested. -Vox

Is what prompted that test a good story?

Anonymous Lesbian Dorito Night April 28, 2014 9:51 AM  

@Androsynth

Just trolling a little. I played SC/SC2 a ton in HS, never knew *THAT* about it.

Blogger Brad Andrews April 28, 2014 10:03 AM  

I would note that Miksa's post would make any I attempt sound like "I liked to read it...."

Great exposition Miksa!

Anonymous BoysMom April 28, 2014 4:57 PM  

"Is it perhaps the case that women cannot relate to Vox's writings." The other skeptic

No. Personally, Master of Cats is my favorite: there's just something about a character who thinks accidentally causing a nuclear explosion is, after all, a good thing because he learned something that's very much human, even though the character is not at all human. That and Bessarias reply to Kilios' vision, that he would never give up his magic. How many of us have said we'd never do something only to have to go and do it because it is, after all, what we ought to be doing?

Anonymous Pellegri April 28, 2014 6:05 PM  

"Is it perhaps the case that women cannot relate to Vox's writings."

Another woman here. I loved Summa Elvetica and everything in The Last Witchking (although I admit to rooting for Speer/Daraugh despite his destiny of evil because, well, he was written compellingly! albeit it was more rooting for in the sense of "...and then he'll realize what he's doing wrong and become a hero, right? ...right? ...oh. well then."). Will be picking up AotB and The Wardog's Coin next. (Also I second BoysMom's praise of "Master of Cats".)

What I'm wondering is how we get from Bessarias in OVA to Bessarias in SE. Is that story written yet?

Anonymous Androsynth April 28, 2014 7:03 PM  

@ Lesbian Dorito Night

Just trolling a little. I played SC/SC2 a ton in HS, never knew *THAT* about it.

Likewise, and no worries, I didn't think you were genuinely trying to get under my skin. Just thought it was really funny to find that out 20 or so years later.

What makes it even weirder is that they then decided to exterminate all the Androsynth with the Orz.

Anonymous Anonymous April 28, 2014 10:54 PM  

Add me to the list of women who enjoy Vox's writings - though I'd have to say A Throne of Bones itself is my favorite so far, but probably because I prefer longer stories generally.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts