posted
I don't know how any definition of "message fiction" isn't eventually going to boil down to "ideas I don't want to read about."
Every single book is written from a perspective; every single book gives you a take on the world. There's no fiction without a perspective. If we say that some stories are just more blatant about their perspective, that's entirely a matter of reader response. It's entirely a matter of how closely you read a book and how seriously you take it.
One person can read Robinson Crusoe and just see an adventure story; someone else reads it and sees a deeply conflicted book about the place of the individual in the modern Christian world. One person just sees a bunch of stuff happening to Crusoe; the other person puts the pieces together into an image of the world Defoe was building.
It's the same with everything from Starship Troopers to Infinite Jest to the Hyperion books. When I read Starship Troopers as a kid, all I saw was awesome mech suits. Reading it as an adult, how can anyone avoid seeing the "message" in that book?
So in reality, here is the definition of message fiction: "A book who's perspective I missed, or a book who's perspective I don't want to think about."
With that definition in mind, anyone who labels a book "message fiction" is saying more about themselves than the book.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: So in reality, here is the definition of message fiction: "A book who's perspective I missed, or a book who's perspective I don't want to think about."
With that definition in mind, anyone who labels a book "message fiction" is saying more about themselves than the book.
I get what you are saying but what about author's intent? An author just trying to write the best story he or she can is obviously going to inject their own perspective into the writing but there are many works where this was the intention all along. Not to write the best story they could but to basically advertise for their social or political views. I feel there is a big difference between Anne Leckie and Ayn Rand.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, a book is message fiction when the author, as he or she is writing, is thinking, "Man, everything will be so much better when everybody reads my book and finally understands this fundamental truth about the world."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummm, you guys do know that the Puppies "slate" - actually suggestions - included for Best Editor - Short Form: Edmund R. Schubert, Orson Scott Card's InterGalactic Medicine Show, right?
And for best novelette: "Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium" by Gray Rinehart, Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show?
And was actually a pretty diverse list?
And if you haven't read Wrights "pale Realms of Shade" you're missing a treat.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably Rabid, since I hooked up through Vox's site - I've checked out site for many years of and on - and checked out the issues on Correia's and Torgerson's blogs.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, cool. I lived in Indiana for a while growing up and was technically a resident of the state until a few weeks ago. A good chunk of my family and friends still live there. From Minnesota originally, though.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if you came in through Vox, I'll go ahead and ask outright: what is your opinion on the numerous racist, homophobic, and misogynistic statements Vox has made not only about humanity in general but sci-fi writers in particular?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: Carmelite? Say it ain't so!
Silence, peasant!
Yeah, though to be fair it wasn't like that *at all* in the mid-90s when my family moved there. (they've since migrated to Fishers and Noblesville respectively) It's getting out of control, though... I went there last November when I was visiting home - went out to eat with my sister at the Bazbeaux off 131st/Main St and the Monon - and we actually got sneered at by an Ugg-beshod yuppie. It was surreal.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh - that's kind of tough to answer, don't you think?
I don't agree with him about a lot of things and we have engaged in his comments section on the odd occasion. He's always been fair to me.
I don't need to defend Vox - he's perfectly capable - but he's none of those things. Of course, if you've only seen quotes out of context then you'll never know because he is prone to incendiary dialogue and some of those quotes out of context makes him look really out there. That said, he doesn't pretend to be warm and cuddly.
He and Scalzi have had a hate-hate relationship for awhile now. I don't much care about his personal squabbles and normally skip that stuff. From what I've seen, it's mutual and they're both big boys. To my knowledge he doesn't respond unless provoked, and then he can be ruthless - if that's the right word? - but I've always found him to be fair.
Read his blog. He's not what you think. Definitely a small "l" libertarian.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
Well, if you got sneered at by an Ugg-beshod yuppie, you can't be all bad. I was once profiled by a Carmel cop - my car didn't look like I belonged in his town after midnight.
Although my car at the time might have got profiled in Haughville, so...
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW - I moved out of the area in 92 or so and up to the Lafayette area. The Monon was actually still train track when I moved out.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
There a lot of Vox quotes that are pretty hard to justify in *any* context, unless that context is prefacing said quotes with "this is what someone who I totally disagree with would say" maybe.
As far as Carmel: to give you an idea of how much the area has changed - we lived in a trailer park before my parents bought a house there because it was the only place they could find an affordable house that would fit all of us. Then word got out about the low crime rate and good schools and all that and now it's all gone to pot-er-potpourri and "artisanal boutiques" and a planned art district that actually has a big arch that says "Carmel Arts and Design District" just in case you didn't already notice from the literally palpable pretension in the air. *shudder*
I don't understand how people can live like that. It's so sad.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I therefore suggest that their assertions should be taken with at least a small grain of salt rather than credited to me. And it should be obvious that, being a libertarian, I am not actively attempting to take away anyone's "most basic rights". Jemisin has it wrong; it is not that I, and others, do not view her as human, (although genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens), it is that we simply do not view her as being fully civilized for the obvious historical reason that she is not.
She is lying about the laws in Texas and Florida too. The laws are not there to let whites " just shoot people like me, without consequence, as long as they feel threatened by my presence", those self-defense laws have been put in place to let whites defend their lives and their property from people, like her, who are half-savages engaged in attacking them.
I admit I would be surprised to hear a context in which this weren't openly racist and misogynistic, Hoosier. And I'm not asking you to defend him, I'm asking what your thoughts on such remarks are.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vox occasionally does argumentum ad absurdum. There a couple of quotes I've seen promulgated that were lift from just such an argument. Like I said, it's best to take it up with him and see for yourself. I'd hate to deal with some of my quotes out of context, and I'm the nicest guy I know.
Parts of Carmel were always stuffy and pretentious. I did the trailer denizen thing myself here in Podunk while I was saving up for a house down payment. Except in tornado season, it didn't seem much different from any other crappy place I ever lived.
I'm going to have to get to bed soon, but I'll check back in from time to time. Good to "meet you" sir!
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
Vox says Jemison - who is a piece of work herself - is actually more homo sapiens sapiens than he is himself, given that there is Neanderthal genes in his DNA. "half-savages like her" isn't in itself a racist statement. It could apply to a half-savage of any race. Trust me, it's meth central out here in Podunk. I own a gun myself. I'll use it if I have to defend my property from the local semi-feral white meth-heads or semi-feral black hooligans down from the craphole of northwest Indiana. Self defense. I'd suggest civilized people of any race, creed, sexual orientation or religion buy a gun and do the same. So, no. Not particularly racist.
If there's a misogynistic statement in there somewhere, I don't see it. It's true Vox is an anti-feminist, but then so am I. Marxism really does ruin everything. One needn't be a misogynist to be an anti-feminist.
posted
I hadn't actually moved on to the misogyny, yet.
Does Vox have any way of knowing what sort of DNA she has in her background? And why on *Earth* would anyone read that piece and conclude 'oh, he's actually saying she is more Homo sapiens than I am' when he calls her a savage?
As for self defense, he explicitly talks about whites defending themselves, so no, I'm afraid your explanation there doesn't wash either.
As for not needing to be a misogynist to be a feminist...well. If you can say that with a straight face, it makes me frankly wonder how deep we would have to inquire into your thoughts on feminism or misogyny before we found something that smacked of the latter. Anyway, as for Vox and misogyny...well there's nothing quite like blaming women for the downfall of civilization, expressing fondness for honor killings and acid attacks, and praising the Taliban for targeting female education advocates to make someone wonder about misogyny.
That ain't an argument ad absurdum.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: Ummm, you guys do know that the Puppies "slate" - actually suggestions - included for Best Editor - Short Form: Edmund R. Schubert, Orson Scott Card's InterGalactic Medicine Show, right?
And for best novelette: "Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium" by Gray Rinehart, Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show?
And was actually a pretty diverse list?
And if you haven't read Wrights "pale Realms of Shade" you're missing a treat.
Hi there, and welcome, although I'm not around much myself anymore.
I think many/most of us DO know that those were on there, and that it was a pretty diverse list. For me, the issue is with the idea of suggested voting lists at all, regardless of who's on them.
I do not believe that if everyone who voted on either slate sat down to make their own list of the stories they enjoyed most for the year it would come up as exactly the same as the slate they voted for. Would there be some overlap? Probably, especially for the specific people who encouraged y'all to register and vote. And I have no problem with anyone encouraging people to register and vote.
Even if you read and enjoyed everything on the list that you voted for, is it really the list you would have come up with yourself, had you just decided to participate in the nominations? It makes sense, if a particular author or editor is encouraging their fans to vote, that those fans are likely to vote for that person. I would have no issue with that. I also have no issue with authors making reading recommendations throughout the year, or editor's noting who from their publishing house is eligible in what catagories. All of those things are different from putting out a slate. While putting out a slate is legal, it's in poor taste.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does Vox have any way of knowing what sort of DNA she has in her background? And why on *Earth* would anyone read that piece and conclude 'oh, he's actually saying she is more Homo sapiens than I am' when he calls her a savage?
What he's going off is the fact that African people have less neanderthal DNA than other ethnicities.
My understanding is that Day thinks this means Africans have the worst genes of all humans, for the same reason that purebred dogs are dumber and less robust than mutts--the more genetic variety, the better. So being pure homo sapiens is worse than being a h. sapiens/neanderthal mix.
So, still pretty racist! And pseudoscientific.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, as for Vox and misogyny...well there's nothing quite like blaming women for the downfall of civilization, expressing fondness for honor killings and acid attacks, and praising the Taliban for targeting female education advocates to make someone wonder about misogyny.
That ain't an argument ad absurdum.
I find it profoundly delightful that anyone anywhere is going to attempt to write this off as "OH HE WAS JUST PLAYIN"
nope
beale has said straightforwardly that allowing women to vote and shit is destroying western civilization
beale has said straightforwardly that blacks are, genetically, violent brutes compared to whites
beale has said straightforwardly that homosexuality is a defect to be treated with conversion therapy
beale is an aggressively and insanely bigoted horrorshow whose views are expressly condemnable
no really — beale is a neoreactionary christian dominionist who thinks that blacks are inherently less capable of being civilized, that controlling women with honor killings and acid attacks is preferable to the alternative of the equality of the sexes, etc
let's try to defend him by saying he's merely being quoted out of context
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I went and read some full blog posts just to make sure I wasn't getting anything out of context. My opinion of him hasn't changed, the guy is either delusional or just plain old evil.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi again - an answer to some comments - Rakeesh, et al:
"Savage" is indicative of a level of civilization - not genetics. I don't have to walk very far down the street to find barely civilized (half savage) people - and they are white.
"Feminism" - is Marxist twaddle and should be vehemently opposed - it's politics, not sex.
"Misogyny" has a specific definition - look it up. Debating Humpty Dumpty is not my cuppa.
Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and should be treated, not celebrated. Never mind the LGBTWhatever political agenda, which is poisonous. In defense of natural law and a teaching of the Catholic Church. It doesn't mean homosexuals aren't endowed by their creator with inalienable rights or are somehow subhuman. I could relate personal experience, but as with discussion on race any argument is normally disqualified as "self-hating" in the case of overcoming SSA or patronizing in the case of "racism." For instance, I (white) am married to a beautiful Latina was in a long term relationship with a black woman. Somehow or another the very fact of my "white privilege" doesn't get me a pass in the eyes of some social justice warriors - see the vilification of Brad Torgerson for an example.
Regarding "social justice" - if it requires an adjective, it ain't justice.
And before we get any farther, I simply don't respond to charges that I am any kind of "-phobe." I'll play nice and explain my position rationally if everyone else does.
Now, I have to go check the stove. Senora "She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed is expecting dinner.
posted
Ah, yeah, dude, I don't think you realize how you're managing to come off as an obnoxious -- even odious -- stereotype. You are not sounding like a jovial, reasonable person; you are sounding like a person desperate to reconcile his obnoxiousness with his desire to be liked.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: Hi again - an answer to some comments - Rakeesh, et al:
"Savage" is indicative of a level of civilization - not genetics. I don't have to walk very far down the street to find barely civilized (half savage) people - and they are white.
"Feminism" - is Marxist twaddle and should be vehemently opposed - it's politics, not sex.
"Misogyny" has a specific definition - look it up. Debating Humpty Dumpty is not my cuppa.
Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and should be treated, not celebrated. Never mind the LGBTWhatever political agenda, which is poisonous. In defense of natural law and a teaching of the Catholic Church. It doesn't mean homosexuals aren't endowed by their creator with inalienable rights or are somehow subhuman. I could relate personal experience, but as with discussion on race any argument is normally disqualified as "self-hating" in the case of overcoming SSA or patronizing in the case of "racism." For instance, I (white) am married to a beautiful Latina was in a long term relationship with a black woman. Somehow or another the very fact of my "white privilege" doesn't get me a pass in the eyes of some social justice warriors - see the vilification of Brad Torgerson for an example.
Regarding "social justice" - if it requires an adjective, it ain't justice.
And before we get any farther, I simply don't respond to charges that I am any kind of "-phobe." I'll play nice and explain my position rationally if everyone else does.
Now, I have to go check the stove. Senora "She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed is expecting dinner.
More possibly later.
Hoosiertoo,
Just a heads up, with me your time in hatrack doesn't have to be centered on this. I bring it up because I'm interested and because it was tied directly to your entry here. Anyway, if you don't want to discuss it that's fine.
The way Vox Day uses 'savage', as tied explicitly to genetics, it is indicative of behavior *and* genes, so I'm afraid your argument falls totally flat there.
Rejecting something as 'Marxist' is not actually an argument at all. You skipped the reasons. In any event, to boil down feminism as Marxism makes me *extremely* skeptical you have even a half-decent understanding of it. If you get to simply say 'it's Marxism!' instead of actually allowing people to define it for themselves, then I get to point out that point out your rhetoric is homophobic racism and I don't have to pay heed to your explanations. Right?
Misogyny has more than one definition, and if you believe that a defense of acid attacks and honor killings doesn't fit the bill, then you need to look it up. Badly.
I don't follow the Humpty Dumpty bit?
I frankly have no patience at all with any sort of lecturing by the Catholic Church on sexuality, Hoosier. That might offend you but if we're going to go forward in this discussion it's useful for us to know when we're speaking a completely foreign language, so to speak.
Simply put, neither you nor anyone else has a basis for a statement like 'intrinsically disordered' to describe homosexuality. To do so asserts an understanding of human sexuality far in excess of what you or anyone actually possesses. In order for you to claim homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, that means you understand 'proper' human sexuality on a fundamental level. You don't.
As for not responding to any sort of -phobe remarks, that's all well and good. Perhaps you should consider extending the same sort of consideration to your opponents-such as 'Marxist' feminists-that you demand for yourself?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I could relate personal experience, but as with discussion on race any argument is normally disqualified as "self-hating" in the case of overcoming SSA or patronizing in the case of "racism." For instance, I (white) am married to a beautiful Latina was in a long term relationship with a black woman.
Well if you're going to count being an LUG as overcoming same sex attraction, yeah, it certainly happens, lol
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Misogyny has more than one definition, and if you believe that a defense of acid attacks and honor killings doesn't fit the bill, then you need to look it up. Badly.
Just curious, what other definitions are there? First four links in a google definition search all give just one definition: hatred of women.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
I am a Catholic and proponent of Natural. If you can't accept arguments from natural law then discussion is useless since we'll just talk past each other.
posted
I wasn't precise enough there: I meant that misogyny could exist where overt, outspoken hatred didn't, such as mistrust and prejudice.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Natural law' is not an argument-first you need to actually demonstrate that this natural law *exists*, and homosexuality violates it. Especially if you're arguing from a religious perspective, I wonder if you're going to skip that step?
As for your being Catholic and that being utterly invalid to me as a basis of sexual ethics, well. I'll just point out that an institution which has such a despicable track record on policing itself for pedophiles and contraceptives among the most poor and vulnerable in the world...that institution is in an *incredibly* bad position to lecture homosexuals on their behavior being 'natural' or not.
As for feminism, again, you're asserting 'it's Marxism!' as some sort of argument. Even if we accepted that feminism was completely Marxist in its origins for the sake of argument-it's not, but for the sake of argument-that has little relevance to what feminists might be *now*. Anyway it's just plain strange that you would use as a source for your claim that feminism is a Marxist construct a site which says in the very first line that Marxist feminism is a *branch* of feminism.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
You seriously want me to go into a history of Natural Law and defend it's existence? 800 years of Scholastic thought, 2000 years of Church teaching based on 5000 years of Jewish thought and history and Hellenic and Roman synthesis on a forum topic about a kerfuffle over a Hugo award?
Pray, tell me - where are you coming from? Do you have a worldview? How do define it? Where does it derive it's authority? Or do you make it up as you go?
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wasn't precise enough there: I meant that misogyny could exist where overt, outspoken hatred didn't, such as mistrust and prejudice.
Ah I see. Quite true.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: You seriously want me to go into a history of Natural Law and defend it's existence? 800 years of Scholastic thought, 2000 years of Church teaching based on 5000 years of Jewish thought and history and Hellenic and Roman synthesis on a forum topic about a kerfuffle over a Hugo award.
Because...I was asking you to do that, I guess?
In any event, I wasn't. You could start by stating which parts of 'natural law' homosexuality transgresses against? And why, even if this is so, what two consenting adults do between themselves should be any business of yours when our society allows plenty of other 'transgressions'?
As for my worldview, weren't you just criticizing me for asking such big questions? On this particular set of questions, my worldview is this: until and unless you can demonstrate a credible threat to others posed by consenting homosexuality-in a secular way, mind you-keep your Bible and your Church at home and in your church, and out of the bedrooms and lives of nonbelievers.
quote: And while you're answering - or not - the other questions,
an institution which has such a despicable track record on policing itself for pedophiles
Do you really want to go there? Pedophile priests, homosexuals almost to a man. Really?
Do you know the basis of the Church's teaching on contraception?
Dude, I'm not harping on the questions you haven't answered yet for two reasons: you've said you were busy and a short time has passed. But there are more than one statement you've left unaddressed, so don't get snippy with me on that, alright?
Moving on: ok, setting aside for a moment your contention that pedophilia is tied to homosexuality, as though it's not a distinct aberration...and as though there aren't a whole shitload more fathers and mothers in the world molesting their daughters and sons and nieces and nephews than there are priests...let's say for the sake of argument, again-that's twice now we've had to do that with your arguments now-we accepted that pedophiles priests are also homosexuals, open and shut.
That still serves as catastrophic damage to the credibility of the RCC to preach sexual ethics to the rest of us. Put simply? If an institution can't promptly get behind the idea that protecting its members from the violence of its leaders as the first priority, and can't get behind immediately expelling those leaders when they do? They get to put their pointing fingers down because they've lost whatever feeble claim to moral authority they had in the first place. And if they do make proper reforms, *without* being compelled by governments? They damn well get to wait awhile, at least a few years, before they claim moral authority again.
Anyway, back to your 'pedophiles as homosexuals' bit: goodness, not so long ago you were stating your belief that homosexuals weren't subhuman. They're just the chief source of pedophiles, amirite?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for contraception, I'm familiar, but that's not the point. Are you familiar with its handling of the question of contraception when it comes to, say, societies riddled with HIV/AIDS?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we really going to debate with this poor guy in an attempt to explain to him why what he considers a well-considered worldview is hollow philosophy and impossible to logically defend?
Because while it is, and I hope he someday comes to realize that, I've only ever seen these sorts of discussions actually reinforce someone's foolish beliefs as they dig in and feel compelled to defend them. Hoosiertoo's opinions on these topics are sad and ridiculous, but I don't know that engaging him on them is going to help him.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, we're not. Because it's neither hollow nor impossible to defend, and certainly no more so than whatever passes for anyone else's well-considered and impossible to logically defend worldview.
I've stated my premises.
I have to get up early tomorrow and spend my day with Mongols, Sons and other assorted patches. Much more clarity.
And by the way, pedophiles aren't subhuman either - they're beings made in the image of God, broken and in need of salvation, even while we call out the sin.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Are we really going to debate with this poor guy in an attempt to explain to him why what he considers a well-considered worldview is hollow philosophy and impossible to logically defend?
Can only speak for myself, but nope. Too old, too many bunions, too little time. That there kitchen floor ain't gonna scrub itself.
--- Edited to add: Lord, y'all, I just realized I have known some of you for more than a dozen years. When the heck did that happen?
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
