quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: "Here is the meaning of life: for a man to find a woman, for a woman to find a man, the creature most unlike you, and then to make babies...so that when you die you know you are permanently a part of the great web of life. That you are not a loose thread, snipped off."
"It's hardwired into all of us. Not just sexual desire--that can be twisted any which way, and it often is. And not just a desire to have children...No, it's a deep hunger to find a person from that strange, terrifyingly other sex and make a life together.
I can find no reason to suggest that this is a universal desire. My married friends view the sentiment curiously, as if to say 'well, that sure as hell ain't why we got married.' It resonates not an inch within me. It also is patently disproven by gays unless one is so brash as to suggest, in the place of the psychological sciences, that it is naught but a correctable error that should merely only temporarily cloud their obvious and universal desire to pair up het style.
It doesn't exist. And I would find asserting this as a 'universal desire' that, in and of itself, makes us civilized to be in bafflingly poor taste. Because it kind of suggests rather openly that civilization relies on het pairings in a way which makes equal rights crusades by and for homosexuals an unacceptable imperilment of civilization, and that you're essentially uncivilized if you just wanna live the single life.
Anton is also a very straightforward example of a "sympathetic" gay character, with "sympathetic" in gigantic caveat quotes. The 'no, don't get me wrong, I'm gay, but the meaning of life is heterosexual relationships, that's civilized' type.
This is rambling. Too many words. The point can be concise: what anton is suggesting is convenient fiction in an invented universe. It is not really true. Like the counterpart to syn, I do not view women as a strange terrifyingly other sex and if someone had that much of a huge apprehension of the 'alien' other sex, I'd honestly assume that they must have grown up in an environment that specifically cultured it. Anton's advice is something that I don't consider universal, or even real. Just the wayward aphoristic notions of an upbringing of yesteryear.
It's not my world. I am SO glad I grew up in an environment which completely avoids this and I can see and interact with girls without finding them "the creature most unlike me."
quote:A reasonable person could construe some of what has gone on in this very thread as hate, Samprimary.
Not that I said there was no hate anyway, but let's look at the 'hate' here. How much of it goes beyond well-explained distaste? And can one expect to write some of the things that Card has and just hope to avoid it altogether?
If I were being as aggressive in my pursuit of any similarly incendiary topic, I would not use the tone that has been used in the World Watch article without the resignation that it is the kind of thing that would spark literal protests at my book signings. I would not do so without that anticipation.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What anton is suggesting is convenient fiction in an invented universe. It is not really true.
To you it may not be true, but other people find truth in fiction and sometimes even agree with an author's views. I know, crazy!
I'm beginning to understand why OSC cherry-picks his involvement with this forum. The "lack of hate" for his work must be really heartening.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:To you it may not be true, but other people find truth in fiction and sometimes even agree with an author's views.
It's worth noting that someone might be perfectly capable of agreeing with some of an author's views or finding truth in some fiction. OSC isn't universally wrong. But I am pretty sure he's wrong about this one; I've met very, very few people who share his stated opinion of marriage -- so while I'm not confident saying that his opinion is representative of a vanishingly small minority, I'm very confident saying that it by no means describes a universal impulse.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What anton is suggesting is convenient fiction in an invented universe. It is not really true.
To you it may not be true, but other people find truth in fiction and sometimes even agree with an author's views. I know, crazy!
... And, dude, that's precisely what's wrong with his claim for universality of the principle.
He's calling it a universal impulse. If 'to me' it is not true, that already breaks it! This is why I explicitly said that the problem was that I can find no reason to suggest that this is a universal desire.
posted
Please tell me that some of you noticed the correlation between Anton's statement and Ender's relationships to the Hive Queen, Jane, and Novinha.
If you didn't, I've got all these pies, here...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Here is the meaning of life: for a man to find a woman, for a woman to find a man, the creature most unlike you, and then to make babies...so that when you die you know you are permanently a part of the great web of life. That you are not a loose thread, snipped off."
Where did Ender's Children come from? Not Novinha, his wife; but Jane. Quite possibly the strangest creature in the universe (we haven't seen the creators of the descolada yet). And Jane is literally a great web of life.
The words 'loose thread, snipped off' conjure images of rogue male Buggers, which the Hive Queen mentions in Xenocide. These are males who have independent minds and spirits, who do not serve the hive queen. When the Buggers first found Ender's mind via Jane and the Fantasy Game, they tried to drive him insane-- the way they would treat a rogue male.
quote:"It's hardwired into all of us. Not just sexual desire--that can be twisted any which way, and it often is. And not just a desire to have children...No, it's a deep hunger to find a person from that strange, terrifyingly other sex and make a life together.
This is a good summation of some of the plots of Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide. Ender roams the universe for 3000 years, and can't relate to anyone except someone else who has suffered on an equal level as he has-- Novinha. (Yeah, there's Valentine, but she is part of Ender-- as seen by the creation of young Val.)
Only, when he finally gets to Novinha, they're beyond childbearing. In order to join the 'web of life' it takes the sacrifice of his marital (and sexual) relationship with Novinha, and his own death to provide souls for Young Val and New Peter.
posted
So he's not in the web having re-raised some of Novinha's damaged and traumatized children?
Plus I never did buy him and Novinha marrying. It bothered me. They only had about one conversation together, but it's been maybe a few months since I last read that book.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So he's not in the web having re-raised some of Novinha's damaged and traumatized children?
Novinha and Ender made a life together for 30 years before Young Val and New Peter came along. But they didn't make children together; Ender healed her kids, but not really with her help as far as I can see.
(Take the way that Ela and Quara view Novinha in Xenocide as evidence for that statement.)
Novinha wasn't much of a mother-- she was too busy sheltering secrets. Ender was father and mother both, but his parenting, as far as I can tell, was a solitary endeavor. None of the kids had as strong a relationship with Novinha as they did with Ender (maybe Esteban is the exception; he's the only child in Xenocide who Novinha frets over).
Ender isn't in the web until Novinha lets him die to create his children-- though I guess it can be argued that the Buggers are just as much his children as Young Val and New Peter. Hmm...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ender was a failure as a husband to Novinha. What he accomplished, he accomplished without her. So it's not really a successful marriage that produced children, but rather an individual who wasn't brave enough to stand up to his wife who then ran away from the marriage to do more interesting things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I'm marrying my fiancee because of how well we fit together - in both our differences and our sameness. If I was terrified of her otherness, I wouldn't be doing it.
But then I relate to her as a human being first. Our big differences to me come from the fact that we're different human beings who come from different experiences. In a way I can't really articulate, it seems to rob people of this human beingness to treat them as if gender is the biggest difference between people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only, when he finally gets to Novinha, they're beyond childbearing. In order to join the 'web of life' it takes the sacrifice of his marital (and sexual) relationship with Novinha, and his own death to provide souls for Young Val and New Peter.
That's an interesting way to look at it, but I hope it's not actually what the author's trying to do, there. Mainly because it seems to me to be a profoundly and tragically broken worldview.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: In a way I can't really articulate, it seems to rob people of this human beingness to treat them as if gender is the biggest difference between people.
Gender is a huge contributor to the differences between individuals.
I don't see how acknowledging that makes the other gender any less human.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Orincoro, for someone complaining about kacard being passive aggressive, your complaint was itself remarkably passive-aggressive:)
And, of course, I can't imagine why she might be driven to passive-aggressiveness in this thread. The mind boggles.
Seriously. I wonder if OSC's counterparts on the opposite end of the political spectrum have much appreciation for what his opinions have cost him. From what I can tell, most of them manage to have websites devoted to their fans, which are NOT filled with people railing angrily against them every single day for their political views, but rather, are filled almost exclusively with celebration and support.
I understand that OSC is more outspoken than most. But still ... the fact that he keeps this forum going in the face of all the hate he gets day in and day out is a testament, I think, to his belief in free speech and civilized discourse, and his respect for your opinions, even when, at times, some of you show very little respect for his.
In answer to the OP question, yes, what I said was in kind with what kacard was trying to do- I find the implication that OSC is more civilized than his opponents because he has gay acquaintances whom he manages not to scream at silly. Passive aggression is designed to invite the opponent or the recipient of that aggression to feel foolish, by characterizing the writer of the passive aggressive statement as more reasonable and inviting of dissent than is actually the case. To call this to the floor as what it actually is is meant to appear overly aggressive and bull-headed, and to respond with contrition is to give the writer a pass on the statement as well as to tacitly agree with their points. There are no strong points made, but rather the nonchalance and superiority of the speaker is asserted by a passive reference to how strong the argument they have really is- so strong that it goes without saying, and if it must be said, it should be given by the opposition, as a sign of how preeminent and basically reasonable and universal it really is.
OSC does his screaming where he doesn't have to see the direct reactions, and he can comfortably distance himself from the actual people he is talking about, and invite only the most extreme reactions from the people he disagrees with, so that he can look at them and say, "ahah! This is the opposition."
I do appreciate what his opinions have cost him, and I think frankly that they should cost him exactly what he is willing to invest in them. If that is everything, then he gets what he deserves. But puppy, I do not hate him. I don't believe that he hates gays or liberals or most of the other people he rails against day in and day out on his forum. But when he uses this place, as he most assuredly has, to pile scorn and derision on so many people, I'm surprised that *you're* surprised it fosters a negative attitude.
I think the fact that people continue to post here despite the hate that OSC projects through this site, day in and day out, as you say, is a testament to how much people here respect him, despite how little respect he may show for them and their kind, and to many other people they may respect or agree with.
You see, we both get to characterize the relationship in essentially the opposite way, because there is really no denying that "vitriolic" and "truculent," are words that could be used to describe OSC as readily as his detractors. I don't see any innocent victims here, and I'd be troubled if I thought you really saw one- I just don't think you do.
quote: In a way I can't really articulate, it seems to rob people of this human beingness to treat them as if gender is the biggest difference between people.
Gender is a huge contributor to the differences between individuals.
I don't see how acknowledging that makes the other gender any less human.
We're not THAT different. Some men can even breast feed and stuff. It's not as if individual men have nothing in common with individual women. We eat the same food, watch the same clothes and a lot of later studies don't find significant differences in how our brains work. Obviously our bodies are different, but men have nipples and women have clitorises. And fetuses sort of start off female. I don't feel like we are on opposite plains and I hate those men are from mars books anyway as they are rather silly and don't fit chicks like ME.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we're on opposite plains, I just don't know why it's often women precisely like you who think their different from other women in some fundamental way. How can you know- is what wonder? I mean, I think I'm fundamentally different from most other men, but do I have any frame of reference for what it's like to be a woman? From all the stories I've heard of people who have suddenly had testosterone replaced with estrogen, or the other way around, the change in the mode of thought is striking.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I do want babies, but I don't feel totally girlie. It's sort of like having both gender traits and some not at all. Like i do not care about clothes, fashion, shoes, any of that stuff and I like bugs and non-stinging insects, but I do love Love Spell scented victoria Secret spray because it smells good and I get all weepy and the end of some movies, but I just don't feel like I fit the stereotype 100% and I do not want to. Like if I am reading that dumb Mars and Venus book I do not feel particularly marsy or Venusy. I just feel like myself. I feel I am very weird and that there's nothing really wrong with that. I think ultimately everyone is an individual before just male or female and that individual differences are overlooked in favour of lumping people up.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...I find the implication that OSC is more civilized than his opponents because he has gay acquaintances whom he manages not to scream at silly.
You're welcome at your leisure to show where exactly kacard was trying to do this, of course. Which is much of what made your own response pretty passive-aggressive too.
quote: OSC does his screaming where he doesn't have to see the direct reactions, and he can comfortably distance himself from the actual people he is talking about, and invite only the most extreme reactions from the people he disagrees with, so that he can look at them and say, "ahah! This is the opposition."
I don't know that I ever recall him doing any 'screaming'-but he has said some very objectionable things, IMO, things that are wrong, hurtful, and at odds with other aspects of his stated beliefs.
It's curious, though, that you seem to think that by putting his 'screaming' up online he's somehow distancing himself from it. Do you imagine he doesn't see any direct reactions from it? Delayed reactions can still be a direct reaction. And in an Internet forum context, he certainly sees plenty of direct reaction, that is if he reads.
quote: I think the fact that people continue to post here despite the hate that OSC projects through this site, day in and day out, as you say, is a testament to how much people here respect him, despite how little respect he may show for them and their kind, and to many other people they may respect or agree with.
I can't help but wonder in what way fostering and paying for a community that quite often lashes out at him, and less often but not uncommonly in very personal terms, equates to 'showing little respect' for 'them'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary; He's calling it a universal impulse. If 'to me' it is not true, that already breaks it! This is why I explicitly said that the problem was that I can find no reason to suggest that this is a universal desire.
Are you saying you have no desire to find a mate? You have no desire to leave a part of yourself in this world after you die? That seems like a sad existence. You mention that you like interacting with girls. Could this be an outward indication of unconscious impulses or is it just a way to kill time?
I think the national uproar over marriage is evidence that there is a universal impulse, a civilizing influence that people willingly choose for themselves. I think OSC is on to something. Everyone I know wants to be part of the web of life. Maybe not at certain points in their life, but certainly before they die. They desire community and legacy. If not, they feel unfulfilled and unhappy. That's what Anton is saying. Bean sees the truth in his words and chooses to marry Petra.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are making the assumption that the only way to connect with other people is to pick one and mate. There are many ways to be part of people's lives and have them be part of yours.
You are also assuming that the only thing of value we leave behind is our genes.
And how dare you judge someone else's existence as "sad".
A doctor who never has her own children but saves many of them through her work does not have a "sad existence". She has a rich life.
A philanthropist who endows a center of learning does not have a "sad existence".
A priest who devotes himself to God and to help his fellow human beings does not have a "sad existence".
What naive arrogance you have.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gay people have children, their biological ones and adopted ones, just as straight people do. Gay people influence other young people in their lives, just as straight people do. Gay people contribute to their society as much (or as little) as straight people.
They ARE in the web of life, as much as anyone else. What's changing is how welcome they're made to feel.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are lots of ways to connect with people and lots of ways to leave a legacy behind. I completely agree with you. I was just discussing the marriage impulse, specifically Samprimary's response to Anton's quotes.
Sorry if I seem naive to you, but I have known sadness in my life and the lives of my friends. I know what it's like to feel unconnected and I also know the joy of marriage and children. I was just trying to make a point. If you think I'm judging unfairly, maybe you should refrain from doing the same.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree Chris, my gay acquaintances have children and raise them with great love and devotion. They have definitely joined the web of life.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: There are lots of ways to connect with people and lots of ways to leave a legacy behind. I completely agree with you. I was just discussing the marriage impulse, specifically Samprimary's response to Anton's quotes.
Sorry if I seem naive to you, but I have known sadness in my life and the lives of my friends. I know what it's like to feel unconnected and I also know the joy of marriage and children. I was just trying to make a point. If you think I'm judging unfairly, maybe you should refrain from doing the same.
I am judging your words.
How do you reconcile what you posted here with, "Are you saying you have no desire to find a mate? You have no desire to leave a part of yourself in this world after you die? That seems like a sad existence"?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is worse, kmboots? He called someone sad, and you called someone naive?
How about we leave off the personal insults entirely? We all feel strongly about this, yaddah, yaddah...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clearly, I think that calling someone's whole existence sad is worse than calling someone's arrogance naive. I commented on one particular trait that was demonstrated my Grinwell's words.
Grinwell's posts have been insulting from the beginning of his or her participation in this thread.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you reconcile what you posted here with, "Are you saying you have no desire to find a mate? You have no desire to leave a part of yourself in this world after you die? That seems like a sad existence"?
I was legitimately wondering what Samprimary meant by stating that a universal impulse to marry and have children does not exist.
I have no idea if anyone on this thread is happy or sad. I sincerely apologize if I offended anyone.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
I imagine that she meant that the impulse to marry and have children is not universal. Lots of people don't have one or the other or both of those impulses and they are just as likely as anyone else to live happy, fulfilled lives and to be well connected to the "web of life" and, more importantly, to each other and to, if they choose, God. Passing on one's DNA is not the only way to make a meaningful contribution in this world or to leave an honourable, beloved legacy.
I would appreciate it if you kept that in mind and I accept your apology.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for the clarification. I like how you said that people do not have to have those impulses to live happy lives, connect with others, and make a meaningful contribution to the world. That's totally valid.
What I'm trying to communicate is that Anton/OSC believe that the desire to do these things is precisely what is hardwired into all of us. Whether it comes from the soul, God, a biological impulse, environment, or whatever, there is something that drives us to connect with the Other and create something meaningful. For many couples this results in children. Maybe this is just random human behavior, but I like OSC's view that there is something deeper. That's all I was trying to discuss with Samprimary, but I like your response.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grinwell, I very much agree that sexual and procreative urges* have their roots in a profound desire to connect with each other and with the Divine. I don't believe, as Anton/OSC seen to suggest in what you quoted, that that sexual and procreative urges are the only or even best impulses that share those roots or the only valid, joyful way to fulfill that desire. That is the attitude I find offensive.
ETA: If you don't share that attitude, we don't have a problem.
*though there is great overlap, they are not identical.
quote:I like how you said that people do not have to have those impulses to live happy lives, connect with others, and make a meaningful contribution to the world. That's totally valid.
What I'm trying to communicate is that Anton/OSC believe that the desire to do these things is precisely what is hardwired into all of us. Whether it comes from the soul, God, a biological impulse, environment, or whatever, there is something that drives us to connect with the Other and create something meaningful. For many couples this results in children. Maybe this is just random human behavior, but I like OSC's view that there is something deeper. That's all I was trying to discuss with Samprimary, but I like your response.
What OSC had to say was a lot more specific (and, in my opinion, a lot more negative and off base) than that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you imagine he doesn't see any direct reactions from it? Delayed reactions can still be a direct reaction. And in an Internet forum context, he certainly sees plenty of direct reaction, that is if he reads.
I think a delayed reaction, or a reaction he can avoid by simply not reading, is about as indirect a reaction as one can get.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a delayed reaction, or a reaction he can avoid by simply not reading, is about as indirect a reaction as one can get.
So you imagine the reactions he gets online are the reactions he gets, then?
Strange that he would stop signings in an entire segment of the country if all he had to avoid bad reactions was not read online forums.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I can't help but wonder in what way fostering and paying for a community that quite often lashes out at him, and less often but not uncommonly in very personal terms, equates to 'showing little respect' for 'them'.
Jsut keeping something alive implies nothing about your attitude towards it. OSC wants his views to be heard, and he wants to appear to be open and willing to hear the views of others. Those are his stated beliefs. I'm not at all sure he doesn't regret the existence of this site at times, and especially this board, but having used it continually for his own purposes, he would look rather foolish and mean to take it down now or censor it in any active way.
Besides, I said that to show that I think he *has* respect, I just don't think he *shows* respect. I meant to show that there was a parallel in that- both sides do seem to have respect, I know I have it, even when I fail or refuse to show it. I believe he also respects this community, even when he shows it disrespect. Respect for this community is not implicit in paying for or maintaining it- but OSC is allowed his mixed feelings, as am I.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a delayed reaction, or a reaction he can avoid by simply not reading, is about as indirect a reaction as one can get.
So you imagine the reactions he gets online are the reactions he gets, then?
Strange that he would stop signings in an entire segment of the country if all he had to avoid bad reactions was not read online forums.
That equation doesn't really work for me. I didn't realize he stopped signings, but the fact that he had to stop signings, or that he chose to (I don't have the particulars on that), could suggest that he is more comfortable with being responsible for his opinions only online, not in person- that would add weight to my point, not yours, that he wants to avoid direct reactions in favor of the ones he can more easily distance himself from and control.
I never meant to imply that he ONLY gets reactions online, just that I imagine he prefers them here, where he can steadfastly ignore them, as he has at least appeared to do on Hatrack. Here is family members post in his stead (or for other reasons), and that is itself a simpler proposition because no one is really that interested in arguing with them about his opinions- proxies have a de facto form of diplomatic immunity most of the time. (not, imo, in the case I myself sited, when they present their own opinions to be responded to).
So why did he stop the signings? Because he felt he was in danger? Because he didn't like the reactions he was getting? What's the story there?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Signings aren't supposed to be negative publicity for an author. They're supposed to be positive publicity and help the sales of the book.
If your signings in an area become predominantly negative, then continuing to go there is a terrible idea and an exercise in frustration. You don't need an emotional reason to stop going — the fact that you're doing something difficult and stressful and getting largely negative results out of it should be reason enough.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sir Isaac Newton seems to have accomplished a lot of good. He never married.
For Ornerians only--I'd love to put Richard Dey and OSC in a small house together for a day or three, and video the results. LOL
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm not at all sure he doesn't regret the existence of this site at times, and especially this board, but having used it continually for his own purposes, he would look rather foolish and mean to take it down now or censor it in any active way.
Seriously? Saying "I no longer wish to continue to pay money every month for the privilege of having people badmouth me" would be foolish and mean?
I am very grateful that the Cards keep this place running, at both financial and emotional expense, and despite the fact that some posters seem determined to put the absolute worst spin on everything they say and do -- and DON'T say or do!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm not at all sure he doesn't regret the existence of this site at times, and especially this board, but having used it continually for his own purposes, he would look rather foolish and mean to take it down now or censor it in any active way.
Seriously? Saying "I no longer wish to continue to pay money every month for the privilege of having people badmouth me" would be foolish and mean?
I am very grateful that the Cards keep this place running, at both financial and emotional expense, and despite the fact that some posters seem determined to put the absolute worst spin on everything they say and do -- and DON'T say or do!
Urm. I don't feel like I'm putting a bad spin on things, the articles speak for themselves. They are stomach-liningly upsetting. He's got the right to write them, but I've got the right to disagree. It's called America. It's called the right to disagree with someone even if you respect them and I haven't even resorted to name calling either.
But it's really, really, really harsh doing things like comparing gays to children playing dress up. That is not nice. You write articles with a certain tone and the result is having a lot of angry irritable people being angry and irritable.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm not at all sure he doesn't regret the existence of this site at times, and especially this board, but having used it continually for his own purposes, he would look rather foolish and mean to take it down now or censor it in any active way.
Seriously? Saying "I no longer wish to continue to pay money every month for the privilege of having people badmouth me" would be foolish and mean?
Rivka- stop. Breath. Turn your brain back on. Now read what I said again:
me: "...would look foolish and mean"
"Would look foolish and mean."
Would LOOK foolish and mean.
Now repeat after me: "I will stop misreading the most basic meanings of the statements of others."
Now, do I personally think it would be foolish? Yes- politically. Do I think it would be mean? Maybe, but not really. There. That does not in any way constitute a retraction of the above statement.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: If your signings in an area become predominantly negative, then continuing to go there is a terrible idea and an exercise in frustration. You don't need an emotional reason to stop going — the fact that you're doing something difficult and stressful and getting largely negative results out of it should be reason enough.
So you don't need an emotional reason... you just need a reason which is tied to emotions... is what I'm getting out of that statement.
The business angle answers my question adequately though- if book sales tank because your interactions with the public become negative (I phrase this not to assign blame), then it's a good idea to stop interacting.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Sir Isaac Newton seems to have accomplished a lot of good. He never married.
Ever read anything biographical on Newton? He was by most accounts one of the most miserable, hateful and objectionable people you could imagine. No wonder he never got married.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now repeat after me: "I will stop misreading the most basic meanings of the statements of others."
Another fine example of completely over-the-top uncalled for sneering and scorning. I have a sneaking suspicion that if you didn't approach rivka in the manner of a major jackass, you might have discovered that her question did in fact have some nuance to it.
For example: she might have been saying,
quote:Seriously? Saying "I no longer wish to continue to pay money every month for the privilege of having people badmouth me" would be foolish and mean?
Wouldn't even look foolish or mean to some people.
And of course there's no need to go into the gray area involved when someone says, "Wow, that guy looks like a real fool," is in many cases a way of saying, "That guy's a real fool."
You can cram as much into that one word - look - as you like, but the truth is a reasonable person could read your post and think that you would indeed think Card would be mean and foolish to do such a thing.
quote:The business angle answers my question adequately though- if book sales tank because your interactions with the public become negative (I phrase this not to assign blame), then it's a good idea to stop interacting.
Who said anything about 'tanking'? As for Puppy's post, all he's really saying is, "It's not an 'emotional response' to stop doing something which becomes a negative burden. It's just normal."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Ever read anything biographical on Newton? He was by most accounts one of the most miserable, hateful and objectionable people you could imagine. No wonder he never got married."
I have known (and known of) some real jerks who stayed married for decades. I'm sure we all have. I also guess that the huge difference in intelligence between Newton and the other people around him made it harder for him to be nice and get along with people, maybe.
"What does that have to do with anything?"
Beethoven never married. Mozart had no kids. The list goes on, and on, and on. Their legacies will outlast the bloodlines of many people who had dozens of kids. As an example, J.S. Bach had 20 kids, 10 of which lived (to be adults). However, he has no living descendants today. I sure enjoy his music, though.
The point is that you have to ignore a boatload of fact (anecdotal, but still fact) to believe the bullhockey that you have to marry and/or procreate to accomplish something real and/or lasting. That is, BTW, the line that OSC is preaching, and I am refuting that very line. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
You write articles with a certain tone and the result is having a lot of angry irritable people being angry and irritable.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
