![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
There's always one story in an anthology that just makes me want to put the book down, at best, and the WTF award for this book goes to "Choosers of the Slain" by John C. Wright, boring old-style sff's great white hope: blah blah blah manly warriors blushing Valkyrie time traveling maiden I don't care. I'm honestly not sure what about this story is supposed to fit under either parts of the 'beauty and strangeness' rubric, since nothing in it is beautiful except the obligatory girl who beseeches the manly warrior out of his destined heroic role, and it's not strange at all, just another boring valorization of patriarchy. It's no surprise that Wright's been chosen to carry on A.E. van Vogt's work (leaving aside the question of why anyone would want more of that work, but I think I know the answer), but let me just say, if there were a Museum at the End of Time, I should hope that instead of Homer they'd save Sappho, or instead of stupid misogynistic slave-happy Aristotle the Museum staff would save Hypatia in the instant before her stoning. I'd rather read one line of her lost philosophy, or of Sappho's vanished poems than the second book of Aristotle's Poetics or more epics by Homer, but of course my point would be lost on Wright, who's very much into Great (White) Men. Blech.
http://starlady38.livejournal.com/263720.hBeing a classically trained scholar myself, I cannot withhold the observation that neither Sappho nor Hypatia (note the correct spelling) were abolitionists nor feminists nor egalitarians. If either of them voiced opposition or objection to their privileged positions in the slave-holding Hellenic or Roman aristocracy, no record of it survives. In other words, they were as misogynistic and slave-happy as Aristotle and Homer. Since Hypatia was a scholar and a teacher, no doubt Aristotle and Homer were her texts.
One small correction: Hypatia was not stoned--she was flayed alive by sharpened clamshells by Christian rioters during a grotesque power struggle between Orestes the Prefect of Alexandria and Cyril the Patriarch.
By all accounts, Hypatia embodied the classical (i.e. Aristotelian) virtues of reason, chastity, modesty and moderation, and she taught Neoplatonism. She is known to have written a commentary on the Conics of Apollonius.
While anyone's speculations as to what motivates the Time Wardens of Metachronopolis are as good as mine, I venture to say that if the Museum of Man at the End of Time wished to preserve neoplatonism, they would perhaps pick Plotinus, author of the Enneads, rather than a mere instructor in Plotinus, or pick Apollonius over someone who commented on Apollonius. Unless, of course, they pick by gender quota.
Need I mention that Sappho, even though she was a woman, wrote poetry from the point of view of a man, that is, love poems with woman as the love-object? Rather than being a sign of nonconformity in sexual orientation, this is a sign of rigid adherence to tradition. Sappho wrote as a poet because there were no poetesses in those days, no such thing as love poems directed at men. That had to wait for Christendom.
In this case, I wrote a humble story with an interesting variation on an old Norse myth about the Valkyrie who gather slain heroes to Valhalla. This is a case where the Valkyrie had a bit of a crush, one might call it hero-worship, on the hero; but, ironically, the hero resisted the temptation to be gathered up into the pleasures of Valhalla. Because of the choice of my theme, the main character had to be a hero, and a warrior-hero at that. This offended a reader I had been hoping to entertain.
Not to spoil the surprise ending, but he dies a particularly pointless death, so I am not sure in what way this supports the Patriarchy (unless this is an obscure reference to the politics of the Kzinti of 61 Ursae Majoris? No? I thought not).
The review makes no mention of the merit of the story, the craft or clumsiness of the telling, the cleverness or dullness of the premise, et cetera. The reviewer is indignant that I wrote a story about a hero and a girl who loves him.
She is right that the story is nothing special. I thought it was creepy in a Twilight-Zone way, but not so very original (retellings of old myths are not meant to be), so her boredom, I sadly admit, is justified.
So what is the source of the indignation? Ah. To answer that, you will have to look at the indignation, and not at the story.
Is the point lost on me? No, I fear it is crystal clear. I never understand why those who uphold bumpersticker dogmas as conformist, sheeplike, and simplistic as "Four legs Good! Two legs ba-aa-ad!" opine their thoughts are somehow too high flown or deeply spiritual for the rest of us working Joes. (In my case, a working Joe with a classical education and a doctorate in law.) I wrote a story where the hero had two legs. But two legs bad! Aristotle male. Male bad!
Got it. Point taken.
An interviewer once asked me if my Christianity or my political philosophy would offend readers, by which he meant readers to the Left of Center. I answered that since such readers get offended at plain, ordinary and decent things like heroism, romance and marriage, I have no need to expend effort to offend them with more abstract or topical questions.
July 23 2009, 22:29:46 UTC 2 years ago
It's hard pleasing people, and impossible to please them all.
Me, I rather liked your story, as you know.
Don't let the bad reviews get you down. :>
July 24 2009, 04:38:58 UTC 2 years ago
Get me down? I am DELIGHTED that this reviewer read the story. It is not as if some cosmic law ensures that my story will be read. I am grateful for the recognition. If the story were truly bad, she would not have commented on it.
My tale did not please her, so in that sense it is a failure. It, not me.
No comment about the story says anything about the story-writer: the reviewer here breaks the fourth wall and makes a personal comment about my ability to "get it" because that is the automatic reflex of her particular philosophy, which suffers from one weakness that crops up in every follower of it I have ever met, bar none, no matter their background or education.
Leftists all argue by Ad Hominem. Philosophy, for them, is not a search for truth, but a martial aid to augment a limp and failing self-esteem.
Leftist have to make comments uplifting themselves and putting down the opposition, because their philosophy does not allow for anything else. It is not as if they can say that there is an objective standard that they fulfill better than other men, and base their pride on that. It is not as if they can say the objective rules of logic support their conclusions.
Nope. Moderns are the children of Marx, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, and other frauds and charlatans posing as thinkers. What the bigs frauds do is pretend everything evolves, or everything is historical necessity, or everything is willpower, or everything is subconscious impulses. All these theories are vague enough to fit any situation -- what Karl Popper called 'un-disprovable' -- but more importantly, all allowed for ad Hominem dismissal of criticism by calling character of the critic into question: as Marx did by dismissing economists as merely spokesmen for economic interests, as Hegel did by dismissing ancient writers as being undeveloped (as if truth depended on when you spoke it), as Freud did with Jung, and so on and on.
The little frauds follow the big frauds. They assume all disagreement is based on ignorance or malice, and not on differences of axioms, exposure to different experience, or the judicious people placing different weight on the testimony of contradictory witnesses.
What makes it ironic is that these modern intellectuals more often than not do not know who invented the ideas they are reciting, or have not read the original works.
But I see I veer far from the topic. No, I do not get emotionally involved in my work, and I do not take criticism of the work personally. Sly comments directed at the author rather than the work, I will sometime answer, more to amuse onlookers than to seek vindication.
I also like showing off my pathetic geekiness -- such as that I know which star is the home of Nivans' Kzinti.
And, of course, anyone who does not like A.E. van Vogt suffers from what I call the 'Damon Knight' syndrome: which means they are beyond redemption in mine eyes. I can express my disapproval only by typing in all caps followed my many repeating exclamation points.
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
July 23 2009, 22:34:12 UTC 2 years ago
July 23 2009, 22:38:23 UTC 2 years ago
July 24 2009, 00:01:59 UTC 2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
July 23 2009, 23:56:34 UTC 2 years ago
Just so I'm clear on this...
Her dislike of your story had nothing to do with it being a well-written or entertaining piece. She didn't like it because she doesn't like patriarchy?Or men?
Or something?
Well that's all I need to hear. It sounds like a good read to me. :D
July 24 2009, 00:54:44 UTC 2 years ago
Re: Just so I'm clear on this...
A classic case of feminist sexism? "Two X chromosomes good, one X chromosome bad!" perhaps?2 years ago
July 24 2009, 00:21:00 UTC 2 years ago
I believe it's about representation rather than the viewpoints of the women in question. Aristotle and Homer have been fairly well-preserved and are part of the Canon of Western Culture, whereas Sappho's work has been suppressed and much of it has been lost (I'm not sure about the other woman, but I've never heard of her before, which leads me to believe that it may be the same situation with her). Rather than believing that their viewpoints are directly in lockstep with hers, the reviewer most likely wishes to correct the imbalance in the treatment of their works throughout time.
July 24 2009, 00:34:51 UTC 2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
July 24 2009, 06:27:19 UTC 2 years ago
This person is too stupid for his/her reviews to be worth anything except as sociological evidence.
July 24 2009, 12:36:44 UTC 2 years ago
2 years ago
July 24 2009, 06:30:12 UTC 2 years ago
July 24 2009, 15:24:10 UTC 2 years ago
Here is a link: http://www.amazon.com/Discarded-Image-I
I suppose I exaggerate when I assume Hypatia taught from Aristotle. But even if the Aristotle was held in low esteem, I would think some of his basic ideas were nonetheless being accepted and taught, such as the four elements of the sublunar world, matter being continuous, motion tending to rest, and so on, not to mention some of his work in logic and metaphysics.
Even so, if Hypatia in that day not teaching from Aristotle, as a neoplatonist, she surely taught from Plato and Plotinus and other (great white male) neoplatonic writers.
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
July 24 2009, 08:40:26 UTC 2 years ago
I'm sick of the White European Male Hate.
July 24 2009, 12:37:38 UTC 2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
July 24 2009, 13:13:01 UTC 2 years ago
Imagine if the a text of Hypatia were found and it specified that only those meeting these exact criteria were to be considered true humans; all others were tools for the exploitation of the true humans.
As barbarians, I fear the reviewer and myself would fall under the 'useful tools' section of the division.
July 24 2009, 16:51:03 UTC 2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
July 24 2009, 15:26:27 UTC 2 years ago
In more modern times, how DARE Beethoven, Bach, and other great composers all be German! How DARE Karl Marx and Ayn Rand be Jewish!
July 24 2009, 16:27:30 UTC 2 years ago
Seriously speaking, I have come to the conclusion that the really creative and progressive element in Western civilization is always and inevitably Catholic. We all know, of course, that the Catholic Church preserved literate culture and civilized ideas in the violence and chaos of the collapse of Rome; however, that is actually the least of its merits. The Catholic Church invented the most important of all Western cultural institutions, the university, which made knowledge a public possession and a public concern, instead of - as in ancient Rome and in Muslim civilization, as well as further away - the private concern of civilized gentlemen or a court affectation or the property of closed guilds of tradesmen. The three areas in which the West compares most favourably with any other civilization - history, science and classical music - are all Catholic inventions. Classical music grew in the cloisters and the cathedrals. History as a discipline was created by the saintly Cardinal Cesare Baronio in the fifteen-eighties. A few decades later, another devout Catholic, Galileo Galilei, mathematicized the physical sciences and, because of that, wrote the manifesto of modern science. Smaller manifestations of this can be found everywhere: modern English versification was rewritten by the Jesuit Gerald Manley Hopkins, at a time when even Walt Whitman had not yet spoken, and the fantasy novel is for all practical purposes the creation of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien. And then, in every one of these creations of ours, the enemies of the Church move in and settle. After we have done the spade-work for them. And their gratitude you know as well as I do.
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
July 24 2009, 16:23:48 UTC 2 years ago
It's a shame you didn't like the story, but you are entitled to your opinion. Why not pick up a piece of paper and a pencil and write a story you would like to read?
Love,
All of us who are sick of the whining without action.
July 24 2009, 16:38:11 UTC 2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
July 26 2009, 01:45:15 UTC 2 years ago
There is nothing worse than sycophantic fans... So, she didn't like the story - she's entitled to her opinion. Get over it!
July 26 2009, 04:15:32 UTC 2 years ago
Certain?
Because I can think of an alternative that's worse -- no fans.Crassly capitalistic notion to apply to a working writer with three kids and a mortgage, but -- as the saying goes [since attribution has slipped my mind] -- "Talk's cheap; print-runs cost."
JJB
2 years ago
July 27 2009, 16:27:07 UTC 2 years ago
July 27 2009, 16:41:38 UTC 2 years ago
I wonder if there is a connection
between Sappho the poet and sappho the drug from Dune?“It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sappho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.”
July 28 2009, 00:11:50 UTC 2 years ago
I enjoyed Twilight of the Gods, by the way.
quick question: would I need to read the Van Vogt's works to understand Null-A Continuum?
July 28 2009, 16:54:11 UTC 2 years ago
Read Van Vogt anyway!
"quick question: would I need to read the Van Vogt's works to understand Null-A Continuum?"Well, I *tried* to write the book so that someone not familiar with van Vogt would enjoy it, even if that reader did not catch all the clever plot-twists and retro-fits I invented.
Some reviewers say I failed, and that my book is incomprehensible to non-Van Vogt fans. Maybe so, maybe not. It is safe to say your enjoyment would be increased if your read the Van Vogt books before reading mine.
I would urge you to read WORLD OF NULL-A and PLAYERS OF NULL-A just for their own sake.
July 28 2009, 00:30:28 UTC 2 years ago
Crimethink is crime, citizen.
July 28 2009, 14:30:43 UTC 2 years ago
Yes, I recognize the language of the Two Minute Hate. That is why the reviewer had to stress, as if they were central, things either peripheral to the story allegedly under review, or things not related at all.
There is another crime of which I am guilty, and this is one of which I can never openly be accused. I am in truth what she pretends to be: an intellectual and a scholar.