Author Topic: A Great Book: The 100,000 Kingdoms  (Read 11305 times)

knigget

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
    • apoGrypha
on: November 07, 2010, 12:58:12 PM
There once was a kind old man who loved not wisely but too well. His name was not Lear, but L, E, A and R are all letters found in his name, and he loved individuals too well, but, unwisely, did not love mobs, and so a mob made itself of individuals he loved, and it turned on him. It styled itself an intellectual mob, though of course no mob is intellectual. Not even one composed of intellectuals.


Now, this would seem to be a perfect occasion to apply social justice. I had social justice explained to me once, and now that I understand it, I always feed pigeons in the park to atone for making the dodo extinct. And social justice would require me to boycott, and urge others to boycott, each member of that mob. Which, of course, would require me to join a mob myself. I could do that for a good cause, like social justice. But...


But one of them wrote a great book. Better than great -- superb. Better than superb -- oh, what's the use? She wrote one of Top 10 fantasy novels of all time. It is complex yet readable. It is dark yet uplifting. It is -- The 100,000 Kingdoms, by N K Jamisin. And it's a book about individuals. Complex, dark, uplifting, imperfect, unreadable individuals. And if I applied social justice here, I would be deprived of one of the best reading experiences. Ever. If Frank Herbert collaborated with Samuel R Delany and Joyce Carol Oates, this book might have been the result. Which makes me wonder: how does an author who cherishes decent, if imperfect, individuals as characters in her work justify joining a mob to excoriate a decent, if imperfect, flesh-and-blood individual? I guess I don't understand social justice as well as I thought.  Or imperfect, flesh-and-blood individuals.


But I digress.


Drop everything. Go buy this book. Go buy the books (plural) of the kind old man named William Sanders; he wrote the absolute funniest of Top 10 alternate history novels of all time, it's called Journey to Fusang, and his other books are just as good. And if you feel selfish or guilty about it, you are not alone.


Let's just say I'm eating vegetarian today.

http://www.apoGrypha.blogspot.com

What would have been written. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


Scattercat

  • Caution:
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4904
  • Amateur wordsmith
    • Mirrorshards
Reply #1 on: November 07, 2010, 03:35:58 PM
Y'know, I hadn't encountered the William Sanders thing previously.  I just googled "William Sanders controversy" and found the letter he posted right at the top of a page.

That's not a mob reaction.  Just now, in total isolation, I decided to avoid having anything to do with the man myself.  That letter was way out of bounds, no outside influence needed to feel that way.  You're perfectly free to feel otherwise, but excoriating people for disliking the attitude evident in those nasty little asides is kind of not cool.  It's attempting to diminish the legitimate anger and offense felt by others by implying that they were all just caught up in hysteria.  Whether or not a full-on boycott was called for is another discussion, but having a negative reaction doesn't necessarily imply any groupthink.  If William Sanders were a personal friend, I might be able to overcome his relatively minor failure of tact and good taste in revealing that attitude, particularly if I could see that he just had a moment of thoughtlessness and was repentant.  But he's not a friend.  I don't know the man, and now I don't particularly care to.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #2 on: November 07, 2010, 04:34:49 PM
I tend to be against boycotts, because I believe that in almost all cases, they do more harm to the causes that inspire them than good. And in general, I really don't like boycotting art because of the opinions and/or actions of its creator, unless he or she uses the art as a mouthpiece for the opinions or actions I find abhorrant. So I wasn't, and still am not, particularly inclined to boycott Sanders.

However, knigget, I find your post rather disingenuous. First, you deliberately chose a rather misleading title. Second, I have no idea if Sanders is a kind old man or not, but I do know that what got him in trouble was not "loving not wisely but too well". In fact, it had nothing to do with love. I can imagine all sort of defenses for him, but your post skips all the way past defense into historical revisionism and outright lies.



Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #3 on: November 07, 2010, 04:58:26 PM
I donno, the Sanders thing just seems to be another issue of liking the material, disliking the man, such as, say Orson Scott "rather douchey" Card. In this case, why choose to naysay people who say that his behavior was unacceptable, as clearly certain aspects of it were? (Although I suspect things got blown out of proportion somewhat, as is the internet's wont). I don't think you have a very clear read on Jemisin's intentions in regards to whatever statements she's made on the subject. Furthermore, drawing conclusions about an author based on his or her novel is rarely a good idea. :p



knigget

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
    • apoGrypha
Reply #4 on: November 07, 2010, 05:29:49 PM
... I don't know the man, and now I don't particularly care to.

Pity.  Because what he SAID (wrote?) is in clear opposition to what he had done, has done all his life, and particularly what he had done for each member of that mob.  N. K., although, technically, a participant in the Sanders ostracization, wrote what might be termed a dissenting opinion in which she acknowledged her debt to him.  I hope she finds solace in that when she discovers that not only justice, but also conscience, can only be individual, not social.

However, knigget, I find your post rather disingenuous. First, you deliberately chose a rather misleading title. Second, I have no idea if Sanders is a kind old man or not, but I do know that what got him in trouble was not "loving not wisely but too well". In fact, it had nothing to do with love. I can imagine all sort of defenses for him, but your post skips all the way past defense into historical revisionism and outright lies.

Misleading?  No.  It's a great book.  Buy it now, read it immediately, you can thank me later.

Outright lies?  No.  Sanders cherished individuals of all kinds.  He detested mobs of all kinds.  The epithet that got him in trouble was one that applies to a mob, a rabid, hateful, violent mob.  Now, there are two wrong answers about why this mob is rabid, hateful and violent: (1) Because of their race or religion, (2) Because hey have a good and valid reason for their behavior.  The right answer is, because they are a mob, and in a mob, hatred is additive and reason is suppressed.  And this, I think, was Sanders' point all along.  Using the epithet was unwise, as was the use of an adjective incorporating an item of underwear.  I did, myself, cringe at that.  But -- big but -- given the debt each member owes Sanders, given what each knew of what he has done, the reaction was a gross injustice.

I may be deluding myself -- and you -- on another subject, though I hope not.  "Actions speak louder than words" and "everyone worth cherishing has a dark side" are both themes I found reflected in the 100,000 Kingdoms.  I think NKJ has done considerable soul searching about this.  Like I said, it's a great book.

« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 05:31:26 PM by knigget »

http://www.apoGrypha.blogspot.com

What would have been written. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #5 on: November 07, 2010, 05:38:57 PM
Outright lies?  No.  Sanders cherished individuals of all kinds.  He detested mobs of all kinds.  The epithet that got him in trouble was one that applies to a mob, a rabid, hateful, violent mob.  Now, there are two wrong answers about why this mob is rabid, hateful and violent: (1) Because of their race or religion, (2) Because hey have a good and valid reason for their behavior.  The right answer is, because they are a mob, and in a mob, hatred is additive and reason is suppressed.  And this, I think, was Sanders' point all along.  Using the epithet was unwise, as was the use of an adjective incorporating an item of underwear.  I did, myself, cringe at that.  But -- big but -- given the debt each member owes Sanders, given what each knew of what he has done, the reaction was a gross injustice.


That is an extremely generous reading of Sanders's letter, to the point of totally rewriting it. Now, I have no idea what Sanders meant, but as a man whose writing is lauded, I doubt he would be so foolish and incompetent as to write such an offensive letter if he did not mean what he said.

But basically, since you yourself insist on using language that aims to elicit an emotional, rather than intellectual, response (repeatedly calling the peopel who disagree with you a mob being the clincher), I have no real interest in engaging in a discussion with you on this. As far as I am concerned, Sanders was clearly in the wrong, and the fact that you choose to defend him via ad hominum attacks on his detractors and rewriting the facts indicates to me that there is no justifiable defense possible.



ElectricPaladin

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1005
  • Holy Robot
    • Burning Zeppelin Experience
Reply #6 on: November 07, 2010, 06:04:37 PM
Knigget, I think a lot of your post descends into a peculiar territory of false absolutes favored by people like you and me, people concerned with ideals like justice and truth and compassion. The false absolute that you have fallen into here is this: individuals are always right and mobs are always wrong. Unfortunately, it's just not so. Sometimes the apparent underdog doesn't deserve to win. Sometimes the mob is right. Especially in situation where the mob's weapons are words and their outcry is in proportion to the individual's offense.

Let's be forthright here. Let's not beat around the bush. Let's have Sanders's letter, right out where we can see it:

Quote
No, I’m sorry but I can’t use this.

There’s much to like. I’m impressed by your knowledge of the Q’uran and Islamic traditions. (Having spent a couple of years in the Middle East, I know something about these things.) You did a good job of exploring the worm-brained mentality of those people – at the end we still don’t really understand it, but then no one from the civilized world ever can – and I was pleased to see that you didn’t engage in the typical error of trying to make this evil bastard sympathetic, or give him human qualities.

However, as I say, I can’t use it. Because Helix is a speculative fiction magazine, and this isn’t speculative fiction.

Oh, you’ve tacked on some near-future elements at the end, but the future stuff isn’t in any way necessary to the story; it isn’t even connected with it in any causal way. True, the narrator seems to be saying that it was this incident which caused him to take up the jihad, but he’s being mendacious (like all his kind, he’s incapable of honesty); he was headed in that direction from the start, and if it hadn’t been the encounter with the stripper it would have been something else.

Now if it could be shown that something in this incident showed him HOW the West could be overthrown, then perhaps the story would qualify as SF. That might have been interesting. As it is, though, no connection is shown and in fact we are never told just how this conquest – a highly improbable event, to say the least – came about.

There are some other problems with the story, but there’s no point in going into them, because they don’t really matter from my viewpoint. It’s not speculative fiction and I can’t use it in my magazine.

And I don’t think you’re going to sell it to any other genre magazine, for that reason – though you’d have a hard time anyway; most of the SF magazines are very leery of publishing anything that might offend the sheet heads. I think you might have a better chance with some non-genre publication. But I could be wrong.

Sorry.

William Sanders
Senior Editor
Helix

If Sanders had been torn to pieces by this mob, I'd have some sympathy for your waxing poetic about the power of the mob and the pitiful demise of the poor, misguided individual. He wasn't physically harmed. He was publicly humiliated for his foolish and hateful words, for his snide and underhanded use of a rejection letter to silence someone writing from a point of view he didn't appreciate. Sanders didn't need to write this rejection letter. He could have sent a form rejection letter. He didn't need to pepper his letter with things like:

"worm-brained mentality of those people"

"we still don’t really understand it, but then no one from the civilized world ever can"

"like all his kind, he’s incapable of honesty"

"sheet heads"

Over and over again in this letter, William Sanders identifies individuals of the Middle Eastern and Muslim communities with his idea of the hateful mob, "the terrorists." He sums them up as "these people" and a "kind," attributing to them a "worm-brained mentality" and saying they are "incapable of honesty." Later, defending his actions, Sanders claims to be talking about terrorists specifically, not Muslims in general, but there are several holes in this argument. For example: how many science fiction magazines are concerned about offending terrorists? When was the last time a science fiction magazine appeared on Al Queda's radar? For another example: Sanders refers to his knowledge of the Middle East and Middle Easterners - if he meant terrorists, is he claiming to have spent extended time with actual terrorists?

Worst of all, in my mind, is the last paragraph:  "And I don’t think you’re going to sell it to any other genre magazine, for that reason – though you’d have a hard time anyway; most of the SF magazines are very leery of publishing anything that might offend the sheet heads. I think you might have a better chance with some non-genre publication. But I could be wrong." In this paragraph, Sanders uses his position as the editor of a speculative fiction magazine to attempt to discourage the author from attempting to get this story published anywhere else. In almost five years of sending out stories, I've never had an editor attempt to dissuade me from trying. I've gotten politely worded form rejections, interested and friendly rejections urging me to make some edits or try the story elsewhere (this letter does the latter, but I don't believe you can call it interested and friendly, and I've gotten impolite but inoffensive silence. No one has ever said, as this letter says "I'm an editor; sit down, shut up, and don't try to sell this story in my genre."

Now, to give Sanders the benefit of the doubt: maybe he really did mean terrorists and not Muslims. Maybe he has an inflated idea of the importance of science fiction to Islamist terrorists and thinks that the offices of speculative fiction magazines are next on Al Queada's shit list. Maybe for a life-long writer he has a remarkably poor ability to communicate via the written word. If that was the case, he could have appeased the "mob" with a very simple apology.

As far as I can tell, Sanders never apologized. He defended his actions, wrote other letters that contained other racist remarks, and finally, when forced to withdraw stories by authors who no longer wished to contribute their stories to a magazine run by such an individual, responded with childish indignation.

Furthermore, to speak to Sanders's hatred of the terrorist mob, I would say that this hatred is equally unproductive. Even terrorists have what are subjectively good reasons for their actions. They are not some subhuman breed of hateful monster, out to destroy "the West" out of sheer spite. They are individuals who have made a choice to strike out against what they see as their enemy, their oppressor. In their personal stories, this enemy might have harmed them personally. Where does hating them help you to understand them, to help them see the error of their ways? It doesn't. It helps you hate them, it helps you kill them, it helps you kill their brothers and sisters and parents and children and friends and lovers so that they, in turn, hate you more.

Except for the fact that this story contains one man who managed to offend many with his hateful and ignorant comments, where do you see the injustice of the mob?

What I see is the justice of the public sphere. One man does something hateful, ignorant, and stupid, and the rest of the world turns on him, shaming him, and humiliating him. If he can't be bothered to seek education about a matter he knows too little about, perhaps in the future he will simply be content to keep his mouth shut and his pen schooled. Perhaps he will not write about matters he knows nothing about. Shame is a useful emotion. It teaches us when we are wrong. It reminds us to think before we speak and act.

Sanders deserved shame, and shame was what people tried to give him.

Unfortunately, it looks like he never got the memo.

I see no way to defend Sanders's actions, eloquent condemnation of the mob entirely aside. He did something stupid and got called on it. End of story.

(My source, by the way, is this website: http://transcriptase.org/what-happened/.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 06:09:10 PM by ElectricPaladin »

Captain of the Burning Zeppelin Experience.

Help my kids get the educational supplies they need at my Donor's Choose page.


knigget

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
    • apoGrypha
Reply #7 on: November 07, 2010, 06:08:00 PM


That is an extremely generous reading of Sanders's letter, to the point of totally rewriting it. Now, I have no idea what Sanders meant, but as a man whose writing is lauded, I doubt he would be so foolish and incompetent as to write such an offensive letter if he did not mean what he said.

But basically, since you yourself insist on using language that aims to elicit an emotional, rather than intellectual, response (repeatedly calling the peopel who disagree with you a mob being the clincher), I have no real interest in engaging in a discussion with you on this. As far as I am concerned, Sanders was clearly in the wrong, and the fact that you choose to defend him via ad hominum attacks on his detractors and rewriting the facts indicates to me that there is no justifiable defense possible.

A funny thing: I went to look for the complete, unedited text of the original rejection letter.  Could not find it.  It's been taken down where the link said it was supposed to be.  If you have it, please post it -- but only to the COMPLETE text.

Crosspost: Thank you for the complete text. 

In the meantime, here's a QUOTE from Sanders:

http://www.sff.net/people/sanders/mob.html

"Sheet head" is, of course, a rather crude play on "shithead". Obviously it refers to people who are known (stereotypically, and incorrectly) for wearing textile head coverings - and indeed requiring their women to do so. Therefore it should be obvious that "sheet head" refers to a Muslim who is a shithead. More exactly, to a Muslim who acts like a shithead in the name of his religion.

Consider, for example, the young thugs who have assaulted non-Muslim women on the streets of European cities for dressing in ways they considered "immodest." Obviously they were acting like shitheads; but "terrorist" would be too strong a term. Or the "religious police" of Iran and Saudi Arabia; no one would deny that they are shitheads of purest ray serene - well, no one but another shithead - but what they do isn't what is usually meant by terrorism.

Or the gibbering whackjobs who demonstrated in the streets of Europe because of a few cartoons in a Danish newspaper; it would be a great exaggeration to call them terrorists,
but they certainly were being shitheads.

Was the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas an act of terrorism? No, but it certainly was one of the most spectacularly shitheaded acts of the sheet heads.

End quote.

And, a quote (only an incomplete quote) from N. K. Jamisin:

So this is why I spoke out against William Sanders’ bigoted words when the story broke, and asked to have my work withdrawn from the Helix archives. It’s true that Mr. Sanders nominated my story “The Narcomancer” for the Nebula preliminary ballot. It’s also true that under his leadership, Helix did good things, like publishing lots of female writers, including at least two writers of color. But IMNSHO, all of this good is negated by the ethnic slurs Mr. Sanders used to describe Muslims (or terrorists, but I don’t really think that matters), his tokenism/ objectification of a writer of color, and his unprofessional behavior.

End quote.

I dragged all of this in here to show I am not making any of this up.  I'll freely admit a pro-Sanders slant -- but only because, having made a career of doing my best, I remain painfully aware how easy it would be to cherrypick and splice together an hour's worth of footage of me being a total schmuck.  And, under proper conditions, that's all anyone would remember.  Sanders deserves better.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 06:10:44 PM by knigget »

http://www.apoGrypha.blogspot.com

What would have been written. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


ElectricPaladin

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1005
  • Holy Robot
    • Burning Zeppelin Experience
Reply #8 on: November 07, 2010, 06:16:48 PM
In the meantime, here's a QUOTE from Sanders:

http://www.sff.net/people/sanders/mob.html

"Sheet head" is, of course, a rather crude play on "shithead". Obviously it refers to people who are known (stereotypically, and incorrectly) for wearing textile head coverings - and indeed requiring their women to do so. Therefore it should be obvious that "sheet head" refers to a Muslim who is a shithead. More exactly, to a Muslim who acts like a shithead in the name of his religion.

Consider, for example, the young thugs who have assaulted non-Muslim women on the streets of European cities for dressing in ways they considered "immodest." Obviously they were acting like shitheads; but "terrorist" would be too strong a term. Or the "religious police" of Iran and Saudi Arabia; no one would deny that they are shitheads of purest ray serene - well, no one but another shithead - but what they do isn't what is usually meant by terrorism.

Or the gibbering whackjobs who demonstrated in the streets of Europe because of a few cartoons in a Danish newspaper; it would be a great exaggeration to call them terrorists,
but they certainly were being shitheads.

Was the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas an act of terrorism? No, but it certainly was one of the most spectacularly shitheaded acts of the sheet heads.

No.

"Sheet head" is a play on "sheet head." It's a slur based on a group's difference - specifically, a difference in dress. The rest of accidental. There is nothing more noble about "sheet head" than other racist slurs based on group differences.

Try "fuzzy-wuzzy" - in many Middle Eastern countries men don't take as much effort to remain clean shaven. It's a cultural difference.

"Sand-niggers" - I'll let that one rest on its own... merits.

And, of course, sheet head's less attractive cousin: "towel head."

Epithets are never noble. They are never kind. They never point to a truth. They are a way of identifying and dehumanizing the enemy. They're not people, they're just sheet heads. Or towel heads. Or faggots. Or kikes. You don't need to feel bad about hurting them, or depriving them, or killing them.

To be clear, I'm not trying to say that Sanders is a homophobe or a Judeaphobe. I'm saying that a racist slur is a racist slur, and no justification can ever suffice.

Captain of the Burning Zeppelin Experience.

Help my kids get the educational supplies they need at my Donor's Choose page.


knigget

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
    • apoGrypha
Reply #9 on: November 07, 2010, 06:39:19 PM
And yet...

It's still about 100,000 Kingdoms.  Jamisin wrote a great book.  She wrote with love and care about characters fully as flawed as she considers Sanders to be, she wrote of their forgiveness and redemption.  It talks of hatred based on a misperception of what is in someone's heart, and it talks of reconciliation. 

Is this something that only works in a fictional universe, like magic?

And can we talk about the book, please?  Or am I now a thought criminal, too, worthy of self-righteousness indignation?

Wait.  can't end on that note.

Can we talk about the book, and what you loved about it?  Or has no one actually read it?  The last book I put down with the same feeling -- 1980, I had only been able to read English for 3 or 4 years by then, and on a hot summer afternoon I started DUNE.  I looked up from the words "...call us wives..." as the sun was rising the next day.  I hadn't had that feeling of a new dawn with any other book since then.  Until now.  Even if I'm too old to read through the night.

http://www.apoGrypha.blogspot.com

What would have been written. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #10 on: November 07, 2010, 07:09:05 PM
And can we talk about the book, please?  Or am I now a thought criminal, too, worthy of self-righteousness indignation?

No, of course you aren't. You're the only person discussing things in those terms.

I haven't read 100,000 Kingdoms - it's one of many books on my "to get to soon" list. I'm bumping it up quite a few slots thanks to your comments, though - I'm always happy to give a chance to a book that can affect someone in that way.



ElectricPaladin

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1005
  • Holy Robot
    • Burning Zeppelin Experience
Reply #11 on: November 07, 2010, 07:17:40 PM
Looks neat, but I'm not in an epic fantasy kind of mood right now (my moods are remarkably shifty). I might download it to kindle in the near future, though. Even if it has to languish there for a while before I feel like reading it, it might be worth it to grab it now, before I forget about it. It does look neat. As Eytanz said, if it can effect someone that way I do want me some of that.

Eventually.

Captain of the Burning Zeppelin Experience.

Help my kids get the educational supplies they need at my Donor's Choose page.


knigget

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
    • apoGrypha
Reply #12 on: November 07, 2010, 07:32:03 PM
Looks neat, but I'm not in an epic fantasy kind of mood right now (my moods are remarkably shifty). I might download it to kindle in the near future, though. Even if it has to languish there for a while before I feel like reading it, it might be worth it to grab it now, before I forget about it. It does look neat. As Eytanz said, if it can effect someone that way I do want me some of that.

Eventually.

 ;D  (evil grin)

The kicking of yourself you will do for inflicting upon yourself the delay in enjoying this book will be more than sufficient punishment for your earlier statements.

http://www.apoGrypha.blogspot.com

What would have been written. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


knigget

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
    • apoGrypha
Reply #13 on: November 07, 2010, 07:39:22 PM
And can we talk about the book, please?  Or am I now a thought criminal, too, worthy of self-righteousness indignation?

No, of course you aren't. You're the only person discussing things in those terms.

I haven't read 100,000 Kingdoms - it's one of many books on my "to get to soon" list. I'm bumping it up quite a few slots thanks to your comments, though - I'm always happy to give a chance to a book that can affect someone in that way.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion:


addendum: the title of the complete poem should NOT be construed as part of my answer.  Nor should the entire poem be so construed.  WYISWIM  (what you see is what I mean).
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 07:49:30 PM by knigget »

http://www.apoGrypha.blogspot.com

What would have been written. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


Scattercat

  • Caution:
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4904
  • Amateur wordsmith
    • Mirrorshards
Reply #14 on: November 08, 2010, 02:36:41 PM
... I don't know the man, and now I don't particularly care to.

Pity.  Because what he SAID (wrote?) is in clear opposition to what he had done, has done all his life, and particularly what he had done for each member of that mob. 

A scifi fan working to help members of the scifi community?  Well, that clears up any other wrongdoing he/she may have engaged in. 

Oh, wait, except being helpful to a community you're a member of has nothing to do with being a good person elsewhere.  Even insects with brains smaller than pinheads work to help their own communities.

I clicked the link because I'd not read "The 100,000 Kingdoms" and was still on the fence about it.  I was hoping to read something that would enable me to decide one way or the other.  Instead, I got to read a finger-wagging semi-coherent diatribe attempting to excuse a racist old man on the grounds that he wrote pretty words.  One can appreciate someone's good works and still hold them accountable for their personal failures; it's not an either-or proposition.  Racism is inexcusable, and pretending that what he wrote isn't racist solely because he was a good editor is the worst kind of hypocrisy.

Next time you're going to write a book review, try to talk about the book instead of haring off on your personal hobbyhorse.



ElectricPaladin

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1005
  • Holy Robot
    • Burning Zeppelin Experience
Reply #15 on: November 08, 2010, 03:02:15 PM
Damn you 'Cat. I was going to get out of this thread.

While we're beating up on you, Knigget, I want to add that your understanding of social justice is really flawed. For your edification and enlightenment, social justice has nothing to do with atonement, guilt, or making you feel better about something bad that happened before you were born and everything to do with doing the right thing because it's the right thing. Perhaps that's where you went awry in the first place.

I'm a teacher in one of America's most impoverished urban school districts. I don't teach there to atone. I teach there because my kids deserve better than they have, and I think I can give it to them. Why me? Because I enjoy the work, because I'm good at it, and because someone has to if things are ever going to change.

I like to fall back on my religious background for this. In Hebrew, the word "charity" is "tzedakah." But "tzedakah" doesn't mean charity, it means righteousness or justice. It means making the world correct and whole again. It isn't charity - something you give because you're so nice - it's justice, something you make because it's right and it needs to be done.

If you go into social justice for yourself, looking for atonement or gratitude or that rush that comes from doing the right thing, you will leave social justice embittered and frustrated. You know why? The people you are helping don't owe you a damned thing. You aren't descending from on high to give them something nice and special, you are giving them what they already deserve, what they should have had a long time ago. They owe you nothing more than the check you get for doing your job. Gratitude outside that is nice, sure, but don't expect it.

Similarly, if your work is about yourself, you will make it about yourself. You will make yourself indispensable to the community you want to help and they will never stand on their own feet. You will showcase yourself and your wonderful, charitable achievements in everything you do. You will always be the center of your efforts. That's dysfunctional, because the people you help are supposed to be the center of your efforts.

Perhaps understanding this disconnect will help you understand why your review wasn't very helpful, to me at least.

Captain of the Burning Zeppelin Experience.

Help my kids get the educational supplies they need at my Donor's Choose page.


knigget

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
    • apoGrypha
Reply #16 on: November 08, 2010, 03:32:14 PM
EP, I think we quibble over definitions.  What you do -- and what I do -- is our best for each individual member of the communities we serve.  If either of us quits now, we will not leave our communities totally independent of our services; but we will (hopefully) leave them having educated its members to expect a higher standard from the next provider of such services.  Making the world whole one person at a time.  Rambam, was it not?  You call it social justice, I call it justice, period -- BEING just rather than "dispensing" justice.  And that should include a bit of empathy.

But Scattercat is an honourable man.

100,000 Kingdoms gets even better when you take it in context.  I've already spoken of one context and see no need to repeat myself.  Suffice it to say that it rings true in contexts of relationships, old and current; in context of family dynamics and skeletons in closets; in context of politics and war -- to the extent that I can see people at all ends of the political spectrum (except religious fundamentalists of all stripes -- 'twould be a spoiler to say more on the subject) hail it as their manifesto.  It is a big fat book that I had trouble putting down, and the truths in it defy easy classification -- as do all truths.

But Scattercat calls him a racist, and Scattercat is an honourable man.

Look. give the book a break.  If my praise puts you off it because everything I say is now suspect, the convoluted irony will be too much to bear.  I'd rather y'all come back here in a week and we can all praise it in agreement.  Let's chain the dogs of war.




http://www.apoGrypha.blogspot.com

What would have been written. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #17 on: November 08, 2010, 05:52:51 PM
Well, this is an odd conversation. I clicked curious about what someone though of Jemisin's book and instead got...William Sanders redux?

Knigget, thanks for dropping in and recommending the book. I know Anna's reading it (or has finished it by now) and had nothing but praise for it. (And I think Ann's read it to and really enjoyed it.) Also, Jeff Vandermeer called Jemisin's The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms one of the ten best book SF/F books of the year. So, yeah, I'm really, really excited to dive into it and the numerous recommendations have me pushing it to the top of my slush TBR pile.

That said, I have to agree it's odd that I have to dig so far into your initial post to find the review of the book, and that you resurrected the whole Helix/Sanders thing to do so. I'm guessing though this has as much to do with you and your reaction Sanders' comments and (subsequent comments made by others) as it does anything else.

FWIW, I'm glad you liked the book. I'm confused by your definition of social justice. I really dislike your suggestion that Jemisin "joined a mob." Even Sanders realized that Jemisin was speaking out because she felt passionately about what he'd said in that letter. Honestly, I think you re-examine that statement.

Also - and I could be reading you incorrectly here - but I don't think Jemisin's book was inspired by Sanders rejection letter, epithets, etc. I'm relatively certain she'd completed the manuscript before by the time it all happened.

I'm tempted to ask that we focus on Jemisin's book in this thread and start a new thread for this other stuff. Unfortunately, because of how this thread was started it seems like generally this has been a discussion of the other stuff, and not the actual book. Which is disappointing. Still, I would suggest that we try and focus on The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms here, and if we want to start another thread about How Not to Write a Rejection Letter, or Stupid Things Written by Smart People, or racism and/or sexism in SF/F we create a new thread for it.


knigget

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
    • apoGrypha
Reply #18 on: November 08, 2010, 08:27:20 PM
Wholeheartedly agree with DKT and Jeff Vandermeer. 

OK, small spoiler from the book -- small because it is casually outed in the first 100 pages or so -- one of many things I really liked about it: Gods have their own spoken which no mortal can speak -- not because it is difficult, but because the meaning changes depending on exactly where in the Universe the speaker is, which only gods can know for certain.  Mortals inevitably say the wrong thing sooner or later, with unpredictable and usually fatal results (for the language has power of its own).  Is this what I did?  Yeah.  Probably.

A non-spoiler (you will become aware of it from Page 1) -- NKJ's language is anything but vague.  If you combine poetry of Samuel R Delany with grandeur of Frank Herbert with immediacy of Joyce Carol Oates and clarity of Heinlein or Asimov (say what you will of them, they never lose their readers in the labyrinth of plot), you begin to get the idea.  And the way she handles infodumps -- just exquisite.  Watch and learn. 

DKT, thanks for putting things back on track.


http://www.apoGrypha.blogspot.com

What would have been written. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


Mav.Weirdo

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 34
Reply #19 on: November 08, 2010, 09:27:49 PM



Scattercat

  • Caution:
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4904
  • Amateur wordsmith
    • Mirrorshards
Reply #20 on: November 08, 2010, 10:02:30 PM
But Scattercat is an honourable man.

The hell I am.  I've done stupid and pointless and wrong shit.  Everyone has.  But I don't expect people to say, "Hey, you write pretty words, so we'll forgive you for being an arrogant douche."  If I'm an arrogant douche - and Lord knows I can be - then I damned well expect to be called on it.

More to the point, this isn't about me at all.  It's supposed to be about the book, but isn't, because you for some reason decided to rant about N.K. Jemisin's part in a mob-that-wasn't instead of talk about her book on its own merits, and THEN get all butthurt when people called you on the roundabout review and damning-with-faint-praise discussion of her reasons for writing it.  This isn't about you, either, and all you're doing is scuffing that cross when you try to scramble up on it without a step-stool.

Quote
Look. give the book a break.

I ain't done jack-all to the book.  I don't know the book.  I read the back, went "Ehhh," heard some people with good taste recommend it, went, "Hmmm," and am still uncertain if I want to plot down 10-15 bucks for it.



Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #21 on: November 08, 2010, 10:14:10 PM
I'll tell you what put me off the book - the promo. I mean its a good promo, but the way it portrayed the book it didn't sound like the type of thing that would be to my tastes at all.

So what do you guys think. Does the promo do the book justice? In other words, if I wasn't interested in the story the promo portrayed, is it still worth it to check out the book? Because all these good recommendations are making me rethink my decision to pass over it..



DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #22 on: November 08, 2010, 10:17:08 PM
Talia, you might want to check out the first three chapters of the book (available at Jemisin's site) and see what you think.


knigget

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
    • apoGrypha
Reply #23 on: November 09, 2010, 03:59:25 AM
I'll tell you what put me off the book - the promo. I mean its a good promo, but the way it portrayed the book it didn't sound like the type of thing that would be to my tastes at all.

So what do you guys think. Does the promo do the book justice? In other words, if I wasn't interested in the story the promo portrayed, is it still worth it to check out the book? Because all these good recommendations are making me rethink my decision to pass over it..

Oh hell no.  The more I read ABOUT the book, the more it sounded like the type of thing that usually bores me silly.  Then I picked it up and started reading.

Remember STAR WARS?  It's 1977, you walk in the theater, sit down, this lame text scrolls up  the screen, you go blah blah I just wasted 4 bucks (1977, see?) -- and then the giant Imperial destroyer starts rumbling over your head, and keeps going, and you hunker down and say to yourself, holy cow, this is gonna be great!

It was like that.  She had me hooked very, very quickly.

Not only should one never judge a book by its cover, but judging by synopsis, or by the promo campaign for that matter, is likely to steer you very wrong.  As for negative criticism -- I can't tell you how many movies I rented just to see what got... a certain reviewer... so exercised, in a negative way.  And, being a peasant and a philistine, liked them for much the same reasons he disliked them.

Scattercat:

"If I'm an arrogant douche - and Lord knows I can be - then I damned well expect to be called on it." 

Called, yes.  But not damned for all eternity.  You are not defined by your worst moment, and neither is anyone else.  Pretty words, arrogant douchisms, and the time you did that really amazingly good deed that no one knows about and no one ever will -- it's all you. 

And damme if she didn't do a great job with this very concept, among others, in the book. 

If you can find any faint in this praise, by all means call me on it.  In the meantime, I hope you come back to the discussion having read the book.  You might just come back with a different insight.  And maybe then you'll see some relevance, at least, in statements you now consider gratuitous.

Or not. 


http://www.apoGrypha.blogspot.com

What would have been written. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


RedEyedGhost

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Reply #24 on: November 14, 2010, 03:30:41 AM
The prose is excellent and that makes the book very readable including the very interestingly confused narration (which is explained). The book is just very shallow; especially the politics, the peripheral character (caricatures might be more accurate for some of them), and the worldbuilding (there is a lot of worldbuilding, but the focus is so narrow that most of it just felt off). With less than 20 pages left I almost set the book down, because the climax was so gag-inducing, but I had no other book to read on hand so I went ahead and finished it.

The praise it's getting around the internet is not completely undeserved, because it is a very readable book... The best things it had going for it were the prose and the confused narrative; however, the entire time I was reading it all I could think was that I would rather be rereading Last Dragon by J.M. McDermott because he did that narrative style and the barbarian goes to civilization for revenge thing much, much better.

I think this book should have been marketed as a romance within a fantasy setting and not epic fantasy. To me it reads like Jemisin's wish fulfillment and that just wasn't for me; in fact, at this point this is the least enjoyable book I've read in 2010. I won't be reading the sequels.