posted
This is a response from another thread. I was going to respond to it there, but I don't want that thread to be unnecessarily bumped, so I'm transplanting it.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think it's absolutely awesome that yours is the ONLY author's website where people come to frequently trash the author.
I've got to disagree with you on this one. But only slightly.
I think it's absolutely awesome that this is the only author's website where people can come and express rational disagreement with what the author has said. Trashing the author is a different thing, that I don't think is nearly so awesome.
There's a big difference between: A) "OSC said something in such-and-such an essay, and I don't agree with the conclusions he drew. Here is a list of reasons why." and B) "Did you see what that idiot said in his last column? He really is some kind of racist, puppy-torturing ignoramus that was obviously abused by his uncle. I'm so glad I'm not as stupid as he is... by the way, I loved Wyrms."
I think it's absolutely fantastic that he allows conversation type A to happen so frequently here. Most authors would shut that talk down immediately. As for type B, that happens too, and I'm awe-stricken that it's met with so much tolerance.
Yes, he occasionally sticks up for himself, but rarely with more venom than was thrown at him in the first place. And I've never seen him ban a single member of this forum, even when they spend hundreds of posts begging for it. I've never seen him delete a thread, and I can count the number of times I've seen a thread locked on one hand. The vast majority of times someone comes into his living room and wizzes on the rug, OSC just lets it go, and keeps forking over the bandwidth to let other people read about it. I can't even imagine having that much patience.
I myself have occasionally disagreed with our host. But I always try to respectfully debate his conclusions, not attack his character or intelligence. Most people here do the same. But some people deliberately use the opportunity for debate as a license to be a jackass. And I don't think that's awesome.
posted
That is horrifically accurate with forgetting the oh so common praise or "what's next" threads as well. However yes I agree many do take a lot of pent up critisism for OSC and spew it out here. Sometimes it's not critisism so much but as spouting like a jack ass hoping to either be heard or just to make a point that out there somewhere someone disagrees. That is writing though, someone will ALWAYS not enjoy it while others find it to be impossible to have never experianced it.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, Speed. OSC really doesn't get as much credit as he deserves. From his books I learned what an intelligent person he is, but as soon as I came to this website I found out he's a great person, too. I can't imagine if I had my own website with a huge forum on it where I get frequently attacked for my personal views, and then a week later get a big bill for all of it. I'd get fed up pretty quickly. He pays for all of us to get the chance to talk to each other, being respectful to OSC is the least we owe him.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have seen bans and deletions, but agree they're very rare. And I'm in perfect agreement with the rest of your post; while I think type A disagreement is both healthy and admirable, I think type B pops up -- regrettably -- at a rate of about once a month of so. (It's gotten a bit more common since he's become more of a public figure with his political columns, but I remember there being at least one "OSC hates gay people" post every two or three months on the old forums, too.)
That said, I think it's rare that the community does not rush to Card's defense when type B occurs. In the most recent case, when Pelegius -- a regular over at Ornery -- dropped by to make his observations, a number of us posted to make it obvious that we did not take his remarks seriously, and certainly not worth serious rebuttal. (A few years ago, it was more common for the regulars to actually engage in serious rebuttal, but I think we learned that such posters rarely stick around to read such comments and almost never change their posting styles, so there's kind of a mental calculus I think everyone performs that determines whether someone's angry post gets in-depth replies or not.)
I think Card's complaint that people "come on to his website and attack me...and never get called on it" is not entirely valid. His most irrational critics are almost always subtly but obviously dismissed; his more rational ones are generally immediately engaged in conversation on the topic. (In Pelegius' case, it was a little from Column A, a little from Column B.) I also find the "people come to my website" bit a weak defense; where else, after all, should such critics go? Should there really exist a forum for disillusioned Card fans -- for it's worth noting that generally anyone who cares enough about Card's political opinions to post their rambling diatribes on his site started out as a fan of his novels? And if such a forum did exist, what disillusioned fan -- knowing Card would not read their comments, and wanting nothing so much as to change his mind -- would bother to post there?
It is not, IMO (and my opinion here is contrary to Card's), rare for authors to hear from angry fans on their own forums. This is somewhat aggravated in Card's case by the fact that he is also a political columnist and has voiced opinions which in many cases are diametrically opposed to those held by a large percentage of the people who appreciate his fiction; I think you can see an example of this same disconnect happening with Anne Rice fans now, only it's muted due to the fact that most of her fanbase had moved on already. I think the healthiest way to react to these fans is to mentally acknowledge that they're disillusioned only because they at first were powerfully moved to your work, and then -- if you're unwilling to consider their arguments, which is normally the best idea given the quality of some of their arguments -- put them out of your mind. This is hard, I'm sure -- although, lacking fans, I'm speculating on this. But I also think it's inevitable. It's possible to be a writer who avoids living in the public eye -- and lots of writers do. It's also possible to be a writer who doesn't share his personal opinions with the world -- and lots of writers are. But if are such a writer, I think human nature pretty much dictates that you're going to hear a lot of uninformed dissent. I've been citing Seneca a lot lately, and I think it applies here, too; if an author doesn't learn to look on the bright side of this sort of interaction, the alternative is to turn into Harlan Ellison.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing I'd like to add to this is that I see one crucial distinction between conversations like this (online forums) and real life conversations. Namely, in real life if someone bashes one of my friends and I'm in earshot, I'm coming to their defense. This is because IRL, silence can be taken as assent. The opposite is true online.
The nature of the forum is that the newest threads go up top, so by saying anything, even when you're disagreeing you're prolonging the life of a tasteless and poorly thought out thread. So most people, seeing that several people had taken the time to correct what were obviously poorly drawn conclusions (thus insuring that no one would believe what the troll was saying) chose to not respond in the hopes the thread would drift off to never never land (aka page 2).
Hence the popular expression, "Don't feed the trolls."
So, OSC, silence shouldn't be taken as assent. We're trying to let the thread die of natural causes.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Pelegius is a regular at ornery?
Well, that explains a lot.
This isn't ornery!
Thank the Lord.
I'm not sure "regular" is a good term. He's as respected there as he is here, and for basically the same reasons. The difference is that at Ornery, well, people are Ornery - so we butt our heads against people like Pelegius, who react by being completely oblivious. Those less Ornery would do the wise thing and let the basketcase speak their mind to the empty sidewalk without interfering.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jav, funny seeing you here. I thought only Tom and I were cross-posters. Are you coming out too?
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't usually post here - I find it quite boring and slow - and rarely interesting. Regardless, I check in from time to time Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I registered when Card started posting so I could ask him a question, not until then for your same reasons. There are a lot of lonely people out there.
The folks here do know how to have a good time though, and usually give me great links to funny and interesting things.
To have a serious, somewhat objective discussion here is almost impossible though; your thread will be hijacked within an hour.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: To have a serious, somewhat objective discussion here is almost impossible though; your thread will be hijacked within an hour.
You're the same Kent who's famous on Ornery for deliberately starting threads you don't mean, right? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
uhh...guys, many (I'd venture to say most) of us here are happy that Hatrack is not Ornery. We certainly have no problem with you being glad that Ornery is not Hatrack. Could I respectfully request that you leave the Ornery stuff over on Ornery?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kent: To have a serious, somewhat objective discussion here is almost impossible though; your thread will be hijacked within an hour.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that this thread was hijacked by two people from Ornery to discuss how smug and happy they are that people from Ornery never hijack threads? Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think this may be part of the problem. The peopole who come in here and trash Card without at least some logic behind their statements probably don't see this as being OSC's living room.
The internet still being new is in the process of defining boundaries and behavior. Yes this web site is owned by Mr. Card, yes I respect that, and yes most of us respect that. However there are many people out there who just don't comprehend that they should be polite on some forum pulled up on THEIR computer in THEIR living room. They don't comprehend the difference between posting here, and posting on Amazon.com.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point Stephan. Haven't read the TOS in a while, but the whole "living room" metaphor only works if people a) know about it, and b) choose to apply it to themselves where this forum is concerned.
If they don't understand why they should care, they don't care. Sort of a chicken or the egg connundrum that's hard to extricate from. Some inflammatory posters have been made to see they should care or begin to care on their own for whatever reason. Frequently when they begin to feel invested in the living room conversation they seem to tone it down, but a lot of them don't ever get to that stage.
posted
Maybe people need to let go of the notion that it's okay to be rude on the internet just because it's on the internet. (I know I'm guilty of it.)
Living room or not, it should be clear that to bash an author as a person anywhere is bad form, but especially on their own website.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I agree with you, Katarain, I have to ask whether this etiquette also applies to the author. In other words, is it bad form for the author to insult other people anywhere, or is it merely bad form for people to insult authors?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: While I agree with you, Katarain, I have to ask whether this etiquette also applies to the author. In other words, is it bad form for the author to insult other people anywhere, or is it merely bad form for people to insult authors?
If it's the author's web site he has the right to say whatever he wants about whomever he wants. (Short of outright lies). However, it is in bad taste to do so unless that other person said something nasty first.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: While I agree with you, Katarain, I have to ask whether this etiquette also applies to the author. In other words, is it bad form for the author to insult other people anywhere, or is it merely bad form for people to insult authors?
I think the etiquette applies to the author as well. No matter where the author is.
I think I'm talking basically about being polite. Rarely does being rude and snarky back to percieved or real injustices or slights actually accomplish anything productive.
Certain situations such as have occurred on this board could better be dealt with by asking for a clarification of motive and by a well-reasoned response--not insults and assumptions of character and motive.
But everybody gets angry, I suppose. I'm referring to an ideal--I recommend it, but I don't always live it.
posted
I remember when, after the last presidential election, GRR Martin posted on his site that "Winter has come to America."
IMO this was the saddest, most damning thing that he could have said, yet he said it and nowhere on his site did anyone post that he was out-of-line.
Did everyone agree that American civilization was at an end? That evil would pervade our communities and our children would be eaten because GWB had been re-elected? Of course not.
As far as I could see on his site, there is no place for a voice of dissent- respectful or otherwise.
Another possibility is that, and I'm willing to flaunt my ignorance here, his site is simply a one sided conversation and he doesn't allow or invite the type of feedback one sees here.
I love GRR Martin's work. I'm not trying to pick on him, but I just wanted to point out that "being nice" and "playing nice" don't appear to be high priorities to most of the people whose ideas I admire.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: As far as I could see on his site, there is no place for a voice of dissent- respectful or otherwise.
Did you try to dissent? As far as I know, Martin's site is indeed a one-sided blog; there aren't any forums, and I don't think there are even places for comments. (His personal website actually blows enormous chunks, which he'll freely admit. *laugh*) Many fansites discussed what he'd said, but his own official site doesn't support the ability to reply.
You can contrast both OSC and Martin with Neil Gaiman, who gets into quite heated discussions with people on his blog. It depends, I believe, on what the author chooses to make possible on his site.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't misunderstand. I'm just saying it's not good form to attack a person's character based on what they believe. It doesn't mean you can't voice your dissent--just stick to the facts. Personal attacks are unwarranted.
On the other hand, it is most likely alright to attack a person's character based on their actions. If a person kills bunnies for pleasure and makes little kids watch, let the character assasination begin.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with what you said, Speed, but I think that the word "dissent" gives the type B complaints too much credit. The term I'd use for them is "harassment."
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did look for a forum and gave up before turning over ever single one of his swinging shields. (BTW, who ever heard of an author's site that has a join button that leads to some vendors site where one can buy ad space?)
I saw Martin's short diatribe as the monologue of a man in pain. He deserved to mourn and, even if I'd had the opportunity to tell him that he was being alarmist, I wouldn't have.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
