MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I kind of assumed that Chuck Tingle was an assumed name and it was a dude having a lark.
Not an actual schizophrenic. Not to demean anyone with that particular mental affliction, but his entire persona seems very deliberate.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
I rewatched Supernatural S11E8 "Just my Imagination" and can confirm it's not anything like a troll nomination. Although I doubt the episode really holds up as a stand-alone because so much of the emotional heft rests on themes that have been developed across a decade of the series.
I'll be rooting for nevertheless because it was genuinely great.
Before the nominations were announced, George R. R. Martin gave a rather harsh interview in The Guardian, where he noted,
The prestige of the Hugos derives from its history. Robert A Heinlein won four times, Ursula K Le Guin won, Harlan Ellison won. That’s a club any aspiring writer wants to be a member of,” George RR Martin says. “When the Hugo ballot came out last year it was not just a right-wing ballot, it was a bad ballot. It was the weakest we’d seen for years.
John C Wright and an anonymous fan took exception to that...apparently with the aid of a Shakespearean manual of style. Noting that Martin once included one of Wright's stories in an anthology, Wright came to the conclusion that,
Either he is lying now, when he uses the prestige of his name to belittle my worthy work as unworthy, or he was lying then, by putting his name on a book to lure the unwary reader into purchase, ergo using the prestige of his name to inflate my unworthy work as worthy. Either way, it is a lie."
The entire response is absolute gold, but Martin dismantles Wright's complaint rather succinctly, pointing out that he thought the story he put in the anthology was good, but not one of the five best of the year (or even one of the five best in the anthology) and then points out how illogical Write's argument is.
All that being said, I do not know why Wright seems to believe that by purchasing and publishing one of his stories seven years ago, I am therefore somehow required to like everything that he writes subsequently, to the extent that I would feel it Hugo worthy.
It is definitely worth reading the whole bit.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+19
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
I'll say, John C Wright is the most fascinating moron out of all the Rabid Puppies fiasco
He is VERY RABIDLY (nominally) Catholic, but his Hugo-nominated mess of a "story" deals with the aftermath of the Rapture, basically, and rails violently against evolution
I characterized Vox Day as the saddest person I've met on the Internet; John C Wright is a much more entertaining one, an honest-to-goodness moron who is under the sincere delusion he is a master rhetorician
I'll say, John C Wright is the most fascinating moron out of all the Rabid Puppies fiasco
He is VERY RABIDLY (nominally) Catholic, but his Hugo-nominated mess of a "story" deals with the aftermath of the Rapture, basically, and rails violently against evolution
I characterized Vox Day as the saddest person I've met on the Internet; John C Wright is a much more entertaining one, an honest-to-goodness moron who is under the sincere delusion he is a master rhetorician
Yeah, Wright is is insane and hilarious, in a terrible away. Because I'm lazy, I'll copy and paste what I said about him a year ago, on this very thread:
John C. Wright, the guy that the Rabid Puppies nominated for like... everything and who's BFFs with Day, is in a whole different league of crazy. I read a couple of his series a long time ago and they weren't bad. His stuff reminded me a lot of Dan Simmons' Olympos stuff. The best I can describe it is "classicspunk". Basically, like Simmons, he was so enthusiastic about the Western Canon and the "glories" of western civilization that you realize he might have some problematic ideas about women and brown people. Not overtly racist, but yeah...
Then I found his blog, and holy shit, I regret ever buying anything that he wrote. I know it's been mentioned that he's fundamentalist Christian, but that's not exactly right. He experienced some sort of major life trauma and converted to Catholicism. American Catholics are often pretty liberal (I should know, as I was raised as such), but there is no zeal quite like the zeal of a convert. He became of the rare breed of radical traditional Catholic who longs for the return middle ages and the absolute authority of the church. So basically, a lot of his blog is super-weird musings and philosophizing on his crazy flavor of Catholicism, his absolute hatred of gays, and a fair bit of commentary on SF&F books.
I'm not going link his blog. I spend a few hours reading it and now I don't go back there anymore. But if you want some idea of just how bug-nuts insane the Rabid Puppies are, or if you want to hate-read someone who's hateful, you should look it up. Search his blog for posts about oral sex, gays and lesbians, Peter Watts, and China Mieville. Especially Peter Watts. Peter Watts' Blindsight freaked him the fuck out.
Before the nominations were announced, George R. R. Martin gave a rather harsh interview in The Guardian, where he noted,
The prestige of the Hugos derives from its history. Robert A Heinlein won four times, Ursula K Le Guin won, Harlan Ellison won. That’s a club any aspiring writer wants to be a member of,” George RR Martin says. “When the Hugo ballot came out last year it was not just a right-wing ballot, it was a bad ballot. It was the weakest we’d seen for years.
John C Wright and an anonymous fan took exception to that...apparently with the aid of a Shakespearean manual of style. Noting that Martin once included one of Wright's stories in an anthology, Wright came to the conclusion that,
Either he is lying now, when he uses the prestige of his name to belittle my worthy work as unworthy, or he was lying then, by putting his name on a book to lure the unwary reader into purchase, ergo using the prestige of his name to inflate my unworthy work as worthy. Either way, it is a lie."
The entire response is absolute gold, but Martin dismantles Wright's complaint rather succinctly, pointing out that he thought the story he put in the anthology was good, but not one of the five best of the year (or even one of the five best in the anthology) and then points out how illogical Write's argument is.
All that being said, I do not know why Wright seems to believe that by purchasing and publishing one of his stories seven years ago, I am therefore somehow required to like everything that he writes subsequently, to the extent that I would feel it Hugo worthy.
It is definitely worth reading the whole bit.
Even the comments are worth glancing over. Not reading closely, mind you, but a few gems pop out.
yea! take the high road!
and take all this frustration out on the keyboard and turn in TWOW at the end of this month! That'll show all these puppies who is boss!
Ok ok, I may or may not be telling you this for my own selfish need of TWOW. In all honesty, I realize this debate is one of significance to you and you feel you are responsible to be a voice in this fight. But how often have you told yourself, 'Fuck it! This is distracting me of my work!'?
The weirdest thing about John C. Wright's religious beliefs is that he's nominally Catholic but his actual beliefs as I understand them are closer to the American evangelical movement.
Official Catholic doctrine is basically to shrug at Genesis and Catholic schools almost universally teach evolution - with the caveat that a person's soul is furnished by God and that God has guided the evolutionary process. The same applies to the Big Bang (a theory ordinated by a Catholic priest). The Catholic church also doesn't hold to the American evangelical idea of the rapture; they don't hold that good Christians will be suddenly whooshed off to avoid tribulations. Stuff like that.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
The weirdest thing about John C. Wright's religious beliefs is that he's nominally Catholic but his actual beliefs as I understand them are closer to the Anerican evangelical movement.
Official Catholic doctrine is basically to shrug at Genesis and Catholic schools almost universally teach evolution - with the caveat that a person's soul is furnished by God and that God has guided the evolutionary process. The same applies to the Big Bang (a theory ordinated by a Catholic priest). The Cathllic church also doesn't hold to the American evangelical idea of the rapture; they don't hold that good Christians will be suddenly whooshed off to avoid tribulations. Stuff like that.
He's a Radical Traditional Catholic. Basically, he believes that all church doctrine from Vatican II and onward are liberal lies and blasphemy. Unless he's gone crazier than since I read him last, I doubt he actually believes in the Rapture. He's probably sympathetic to overall social mores of the evangelical movement, though.
Edit: I should mention that rad-trads are a non-trivial conservative movement in Catholicism and that Wright is not unique in his beliefs. Google a bit on Vatican II, or god help you, "Novus Ordo", and you'll get a sense of how nutty the rad-trads are.
Readed some Vox Day last year for this mess and, well, he pretty much said that he rides controversies to put the books of his publishing house, specially his own, on top of Amazon ratings.
Though putting a My Little Pony episode and the author of a GG webcomic as Hugo nominations is a very nice troll, the whole thing seems like an excercise on viral marketing. I mean, he got GEORGE R.R. MARTIN to dedicate a lot of time to talk about him, so that seems like a win, if any publicity is good publicity. And in the Internet age, it probably is.
I'll say, John C Wright is the most fascinating moron out of all the Rabid Puppies fiasco
He is VERY RABIDLY (nominally) Catholic, but his Hugo-nominated mess of a "story" deals with the aftermath of the Rapture, basically, and rails violently against evolution
I characterized Vox Day as the saddest person I've met on the Internet; John C Wright is a much more entertaining one, an honest-to-goodness moron who is under the sincere delusion he is a master rhetorician
I've never read his fiction, but I will confess to having checked out his blog out of morbid curiousity... his prose is so cringe-inducing as to be almost physically painful. In it's own way, it's actually awe-inspiring. I've never read anyone so utterly convinced of both his own vast intelligence and moral rectitude and it sweats out of every single word.
I have a family member (extended family... thankfully) that has similar issues with both religious fanaticism and a very high self-estimation of their intelligence. It's nowhere near as bad as Wright, obviously, but it's still pretty bad. I have honestly wondered if some sort of intervention is not uncalled-for, but so far I've stuck to my general life rule of don't get mixed up in crazy.
EDIT: Upon reflection, I think a better way to put it is that his prose comes across as desperately trying to convince the reader that he is vastly intelligent and righteous.
Also wasn't he the one who called Terry Pratchett pure evil or some such?
Terry. Fucking. Pratchett.
Good call there, son. Real smart.
Terry Pratchett was like that goofy, beloved high school lit teacher, that you always secretly suspected was Santa Claus. Hating him would be like hating sunsets, ice cream and slood all at the same time.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I'll say, John C Wright is the most fascinating moron out of all the Rabid Puppies fiasco
He is VERY RABIDLY (nominally) Catholic, but his Hugo-nominated mess of a "story" deals with the aftermath of the Rapture, basically, and rails violently against evolution
I characterized Vox Day as the saddest person I've met on the Internet; John C Wright is a much more entertaining one, an honest-to-goodness moron who is under the sincere delusion he is a master rhetorician
I've never read his fiction, but I will confess to having checked out his blog out of morbid curiousity... his prose is so cringe-inducing as to be almost physically painful. In it's own way, it's actually awe-inspiring. I've never read anyone so utterly convinced of both his own vast intelligence and moral rectitude and it sweats out of every single word.
I have a family member (extended family... thankfully) that has similar issues with both religious fanaticism and a very high self-estimation of their intelligence. It's nowhere near as bad as Wright, obviously, but it's still pretty bad. I have honestly wondered if some sort of intervention is not uncalled-for, but so far I've stuck to my general life rule of don't get mixed up in crazy.
Let's get meta and criticize JCWs criticism of someone criticizing GRRM:
Likewise, here, one paragraph into Mr. Wilson’s critique, we have already established that he is tone deaf to the prose of others, awkward and elliptical himself, with word choices that are cliched (“let me count the ways”) clumsy (“liturgical violence” is as disjointed a word-pair as “pumpkin electric”) and inaccurate (“cathartic” means a psychological purgative) but also leaden (“bunch of demons” — do fallen angels come in bunches, like bananas, or in hosts, choirs, or aerie legions?).
Is the rest of Mr. Wilson’s column worth reading? That each reader for himself must determine: time pressed, and I say no more about it for well or ill, save this: He makes some valid points, and I salute anyone who analyzes the flaws in a work from a Christian perspective. The nihilism in Song of Ice and Fire is the main barrier to my own enjoyment of the work.
But to call Mr. Martin’s masterful prose pedestrian? Not so. I respectfully but sharply disagree. Mr. Martin wields a pen like a scalpel and creates precisely the intended effect in the reader’s soul.
"time pressed, I say no more about it for well or ill"
okay just one more then I gotta get away from his page
The rule in English is that males and male objects are “he”, and persons whose sex is unknown or undetermined is also “he.” One says “he or she” only in a legal document where that degree of precision overwhelms the need for good grammar. Otherwise is it an error. “They” used in a singular merits horsehwipping.
Read his reaction to the end of the Legend of Korra if you have the stomach. It makes the Puppies's position very clear to me, at least his branch of things. Anything he doesn't approve of is to be rooted out and destroyed.
I'll say, John C Wright is the most fascinating moron out of all the Rabid Puppies fiasco
He is VERY RABIDLY (nominally) Catholic, but his Hugo-nominated mess of a "story" deals with the aftermath of the Rapture, basically, and rails violently against evolution
I characterized Vox Day as the saddest person I've met on the Internet; John C Wright is a much more entertaining one, an honest-to-goodness moron who is under the sincere delusion he is a master rhetorician
I've never read his fiction, but I will confess to having checked out his blog out of morbid curiousity... his prose is so cringe-inducing as to be almost physically painful. In it's own way, it's actually awe-inspiring. I've never read anyone so utterly convinced of both his own vast intelligence and moral rectitude and it sweats out of every single word.
I have a family member (extended family... thankfully) that has similar issues with both religious fanaticism and a very high self-estimation of their intelligence. It's nowhere near as bad as Wright, obviously, but it's still pretty bad. I have honestly wondered if some sort of intervention is not uncalled-for, but so far I've stuck to my general life rule of don't get mixed up in crazy.
Let's get meta and criticize JCWs criticism of someone criticizing GRRM:
Likewise, here, one paragraph into Mr. Wilson’s critique, we have already established that he is tone deaf to the prose of others, awkward and elliptical himself, with word choices that are cliched (“let me count the ways”) clumsy (“liturgical violence” is as disjointed a word-pair as “pumpkin electric”) and inaccurate (“cathartic” means a psychological purgative) but also leaden (“bunch of demons” — do fallen angels come in bunches, like bananas, or in hosts, choirs, or aerie legions?).
Is the rest of Mr. Wilson’s column worth reading? That each reader for himself must determine: time pressed, and I say no more about it for well or ill, save this: He makes some valid points, and I salute anyone who analyzes the flaws in a work from a Christian perspective. The nihilism in Song of Ice and Fire is the main barrier to my own enjoyment of the work.
But to call Mr. Martin’s masterful prose pedestrian? Not so. I respectfully but sharply disagree. Mr. Martin wields a pen like a scalpel and creates precisely the intended effect in the reader’s soul.
"time pressed, I say no more about it for well or ill"
i died
I feel like there should be a bit somewhere on the web that can generate nonsensical ravings in similar purple Yoda prose.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I'll say, John C Wright is the most fascinating moron out of all the Rabid Puppies fiasco
He is VERY RABIDLY (nominally) Catholic, but his Hugo-nominated mess of a "story" deals with the aftermath of the Rapture, basically, and rails violently against evolution
I characterized Vox Day as the saddest person I've met on the Internet; John C Wright is a much more entertaining one, an honest-to-goodness moron who is under the sincere delusion he is a master rhetorician
I've never read his fiction, but I will confess to having checked out his blog out of morbid curiousity... his prose is so cringe-inducing as to be almost physically painful. In it's own way, it's actually awe-inspiring. I've never read anyone so utterly convinced of both his own vast intelligence and moral rectitude and it sweats out of every single word.
I have a family member (extended family... thankfully) that has similar issues with both religious fanaticism and a very high self-estimation of their intelligence. It's nowhere near as bad as Wright, obviously, but it's still pretty bad. I have honestly wondered if some sort of intervention is not uncalled-for, but so far I've stuck to my general life rule of don't get mixed up in crazy.
Let's get meta and criticize JCWs criticism of someone criticizing GRRM:
Likewise, here, one paragraph into Mr. Wilson’s critique, we have already established that he is tone deaf to the prose of others, awkward and elliptical himself, with word choices that are cliched (“let me count the ways”) clumsy (“liturgical violence” is as disjointed a word-pair as “pumpkin electric”) and inaccurate (“cathartic” means a psychological purgative) but also leaden (“bunch of demons” — do fallen angels come in bunches, like bananas, or in hosts, choirs, or aerie legions?).
Is the rest of Mr. Wilson’s column worth reading? That each reader for himself must determine: time pressed, and I say no more about it for well or ill, save this: He makes some valid points, and I salute anyone who analyzes the flaws in a work from a Christian perspective. The nihilism in Song of Ice and Fire is the main barrier to my own enjoyment of the work.
But to call Mr. Martin’s masterful prose pedestrian? Not so. I respectfully but sharply disagree. Mr. Martin wields a pen like a scalpel and creates precisely the intended effect in the reader’s soul.
"time pressed, I say no more about it for well or ill"
i died
for me it was "I respectfully but sharply disagree"
yes, we know, you went on about it long enough for that to be abundantly clear
Also wasn't he the one who called Terry Pratchett pure evil or some such?
Terry. Fucking. Pratchett.
Good call there, son. Real smart.
I believe that he said he could not believe the evil he heard, listening to Pratchett talk about ethunasia, and lameted that he lacked the 'strength of character' to walk up there and beat Pratchett down right then and there.
Also wasn't he the one who called Terry Pratchett pure evil or some such?
Terry. Fucking. Pratchett.
Good call there, son. Real smart.
I believe that he said he could not believe the evil he heard, listening to Pratchett talk about ethunasia, and lameted that he lacked the 'strength of character' to walk up there and beat Pratchett down right then and there.
Yeah, he's a full gauge douche-nozzle.
He's just bitter that no matter how much his buddy Vox tries to game the system, he will never get one of these...
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Also wasn't he the one who called Terry Pratchett pure evil or some such?
Terry. Fucking. Pratchett.
Good call there, son. Real smart.
I believe that he said he could not believe the evil he heard, listening to Pratchett talk about ethunasia, and lameted that he lacked the 'strength of character' to walk up there and beat Pratchett down right then and there.
Yeah, he's a full gauge douche-nozzle.
I just found his rant about that. I wish I hadn't.
okay just one more then I gotta get away from his page
The rule in English is that males and male objects are “he”, and persons whose sex is unknown or undetermined is also “he.” One says “he or she” only in a legal document where that degree of precision overwhelms the need for good grammar. Otherwise is it an error. “They” used in a singular merits horsehwipping.
I literally can't even
Good god, he can't even handle the possibility of a hypothetical woman without getting the vapors.
Also wasn't he the one who called Terry Pratchett pure evil or some such?
Terry. Fucking. Pratchett.
Good call there, son. Real smart.
I believe that he said he could not believe the evil he heard, listening to Pratchett talk about ethunasia, and lameted that he lacked the 'strength of character' to walk up there and beat Pratchett down right then and there.
Yeah, he's a full gauge douche-nozzle.
What
I don't
Does he then regret not having a time machine so he can go beat up Mister Rogers afterward?
+9
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Ehh. Neil Gaiman noted, after his passing, that Pratchett actually carried a lot of anger. It seemed to mostly be anger at injustice in the world, naturally, although he'd occasionally point it at himself when he did something stupid.
+7
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
Which just reinforces the depiction of Pratchett and as deeply good person.
+28
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
The weirdest thing about John C. Wright's religious beliefs is that he's nominally Catholic but his actual beliefs as I understand them are closer to the American evangelical movement.
Official Catholic doctrine is basically to shrug at Genesis and Catholic schools almost universally teach evolution - with the caveat that a person's soul is furnished by God and that God has guided the evolutionary process. The same applies to the Big Bang (a theory ordinated by a Catholic priest). The Catholic church also doesn't hold to the American evangelical idea of the rapture; they don't hold that good Christians will be suddenly whooshed off to avoid tribulations. Stuff like that.
I'm a non-denominational Christian, closer to Catholicism than any other nomination, so I don't want to sound TOO preachy, but modern genetics' founder was an Augustine monk. To rail against evolution is a very, very non-Catholic thing to do.
The weirdest thing about John C. Wright's religious beliefs is that he's nominally Catholic but his actual beliefs as I understand them are closer to the Anerican evangelical movement.
Official Catholic doctrine is basically to shrug at Genesis and Catholic schools almost universally teach evolution - with the caveat that a person's soul is furnished by God and that God has guided the evolutionary process. The same applies to the Big Bang (a theory ordinated by a Catholic priest). The Cathllic church also doesn't hold to the American evangelical idea of the rapture; they don't hold that good Christians will be suddenly whooshed off to avoid tribulations. Stuff like that.
He's a Radical Traditional Catholic. Basically, he believes that all church doctrine from Vatican II and onward are liberal lies and blasphemy. Unless he's gone crazier than since I read him last, I doubt he actually believes in the Rapture. He's probably sympathetic to overall social mores of the evangelical movement, though.
Edit: I should mention that rad-trads are a non-trivial conservative movement in Catholicism and that Wright is not unique in his beliefs. Google a bit on Vatican II, or god help you, "Novus Ordo", and you'll get a sense of how nutty the rad-trads are.
The thing is, his Christian crazy is not Catholic Novus Ordo crazy. It's Evangelical crazy. He proclaims very loudly that he doesn't believe in the Rapture (as no Catholic should), but his Hugo-nominated garbage of a story ("The Parliament of Birds and Beasts") is basically a post-Rapture meeting of said Parliament. It's an unhealthy mixture of reactionarism, Evangelical doctrine, incredible purple prose, and a good idea wasted by a moron.
+6
Options
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
Not to be too down on this guy's writing
but
And yet I still have, drawn in a few, short clear strokes in a bar napkin, the diagram for building a time machine of my own. While I sit and type these words, I can hear my children playing downstairs, and I can see the sunlight shining through my study windows, and I rejoice in the goodness of life. It is only at midnight, when no one is near, that I take out the napkin, study the diagram, and vow to myself that someday I must plumb the secrets of time. Perhaps my actions are ones the universe will require to bring the universe into being? Perhaps the star beings will spare me?
Perhaps I, I will be allowed to see what other eyes have never looked upon? Is that not worth any risk? Surely it was not for now reason this diagram on this stained napkin came into my hands!
is not great.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
+1
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
My eyes kinda glazed over, then refocused on "perhaps the star beings will spare me"
Not the best.
0
Options
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
My eyes kinda glazed over, then refocused on "perhaps the star beings will spare me"
Not the best.
That's the end of the first story in the book, to be fair, but the story is about John C Wright meeting a man named Ellison (not sure if it's the SF writer because I jumped ahead a few times), they get drunk, Ellison draws the time machine on a napkin and says if anyone ever uses it, people from the future will destroy the user to protect the future status quo and that our planet didn't evolve from organic life, but from a time paradox where sapient creatures were accidentally dumped in the past.
Then Ellison shows John he built the machine, Ellison starts the machine, and John flees.
It's... odd.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
The weirdest thing about John C. Wright's religious beliefs is that he's nominally Catholic but his actual beliefs as I understand them are closer to the American evangelical movement.
Official Catholic doctrine is basically to shrug at Genesis and Catholic schools almost universally teach evolution - with the caveat that a person's soul is furnished by God and that God has guided the evolutionary process. The same applies to the Big Bang (a theory ordinated by a Catholic priest). The Catholic church also doesn't hold to the American evangelical idea of the rapture; they don't hold that good Christians will be suddenly whooshed off to avoid tribulations. Stuff like that.
I'm a non-denominational Christian, closer to Catholicism than any other nomination, so I don't want to sound TOO preachy, but modern genetics' founder was an Augustine monk. To rail against evolution is a very, very non-Catholic thing to do.
The weirdest thing about John C. Wright's religious beliefs is that he's nominally Catholic but his actual beliefs as I understand them are closer to the Anerican evangelical movement.
Official Catholic doctrine is basically to shrug at Genesis and Catholic schools almost universally teach evolution - with the caveat that a person's soul is furnished by God and that God has guided the evolutionary process. The same applies to the Big Bang (a theory ordinated by a Catholic priest). The Cathllic church also doesn't hold to the American evangelical idea of the rapture; they don't hold that good Christians will be suddenly whooshed off to avoid tribulations. Stuff like that.
He's a Radical Traditional Catholic. Basically, he believes that all church doctrine from Vatican II and onward are liberal lies and blasphemy. Unless he's gone crazier than since I read him last, I doubt he actually believes in the Rapture. He's probably sympathetic to overall social mores of the evangelical movement, though.
Edit: I should mention that rad-trads are a non-trivial conservative movement in Catholicism and that Wright is not unique in his beliefs. Google a bit on Vatican II, or god help you, "Novus Ordo", and you'll get a sense of how nutty the rad-trads are.
The thing is, his Christian crazy is not Catholic Novus Ordo crazy. It's Evangelical crazy. He proclaims very loudly that he doesn't believe in the Rapture (as no Catholic should), but his Hugo-nominated garbage of a story ("The Parliament of Birds and Beasts") is basically a post-Rapture meeting of said Parliament. It's an unhealthy mixture of reactionarism, Evangelical doctrine, incredible purple prose, and a good idea wasted by a moron.
Well, he has a series of books about the reappearance of the gods of the ancient Greek pantheon, too, but I don't think you can credibly call him a devotee of Hellenism. I was simply interested in pointing out that he says he's a rad-trad Catholic and that rad-trad Catholics have their own flavor of crazy that shares many common features with evangelical crazy. I'll also give him credit for having enough intellectual flexibility to write about religious doctrine he doesn't personally believe in.
But yeah, he is indeed a reactionary moron who spews purple prose. He's like a demented combination of Jack Vance and an SSPX Sunday-school teacher.
0
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
The weirdest thing about John C. Wright's religious beliefs is that he's nominally Catholic but his actual beliefs as I understand them are closer to the American evangelical movement.
Official Catholic doctrine is basically to shrug at Genesis and Catholic schools almost universally teach evolution - with the caveat that a person's soul is furnished by God and that God has guided the evolutionary process. The same applies to the Big Bang (a theory ordinated by a Catholic priest). The Catholic church also doesn't hold to the American evangelical idea of the rapture; they don't hold that good Christians will be suddenly whooshed off to avoid tribulations. Stuff like that.
I'm a non-denominational Christian, closer to Catholicism than any other nomination, so I don't want to sound TOO preachy, but modern genetics' founder was an Augustine monk. To rail against evolution is a very, very non-Catholic thing to do.
The weirdest thing about John C. Wright's religious beliefs is that he's nominally Catholic but his actual beliefs as I understand them are closer to the Anerican evangelical movement.
Official Catholic doctrine is basically to shrug at Genesis and Catholic schools almost universally teach evolution - with the caveat that a person's soul is furnished by God and that God has guided the evolutionary process. The same applies to the Big Bang (a theory ordinated by a Catholic priest). The Cathllic church also doesn't hold to the American evangelical idea of the rapture; they don't hold that good Christians will be suddenly whooshed off to avoid tribulations. Stuff like that.
He's a Radical Traditional Catholic. Basically, he believes that all church doctrine from Vatican II and onward are liberal lies and blasphemy. Unless he's gone crazier than since I read him last, I doubt he actually believes in the Rapture. He's probably sympathetic to overall social mores of the evangelical movement, though.
Edit: I should mention that rad-trads are a non-trivial conservative movement in Catholicism and that Wright is not unique in his beliefs. Google a bit on Vatican II, or god help you, "Novus Ordo", and you'll get a sense of how nutty the rad-trads are.
The thing is, his Christian crazy is not Catholic Novus Ordo crazy. It's Evangelical crazy. He proclaims very loudly that he doesn't believe in the Rapture (as no Catholic should), but his Hugo-nominated garbage of a story ("The Parliament of Birds and Beasts") is basically a post-Rapture meeting of said Parliament. It's an unhealthy mixture of reactionarism, Evangelical doctrine, incredible purple prose, and a good idea wasted by a moron.
Well, he has a series of books about the reappearance of the gods of the ancient Greek pantheon, too, but I don't think you can credibly call him a devotee of Hellenism. I was simply interested in pointing out that he says he's a rad-trad Catholic and that rad-trad Catholics have their own flavor of crazy that shares many common features with evangelical crazy. I'll also give him credit for having enough intellectual flexibility to write about religious doctrine he doesn't personally believe in.
But yeah, he is indeed a reactionary moron who spews purple prose. He's like a demented combination of Jack Vance and an SSPX Sunday-school teacher.
Oh sure, I'm not disagreeing with much of what you're saying. The thing is, I'm not sure if him writing a post-Rapture fiction is him having "intellectual flexibility" or having no idea whatsoever about Catholic doctrine, which simply means you're disinterested in Catholic doctrine if you're, well, disinterested in Catholic doctrine, but also means that you're a complete moron when you're a fundamentalist Catholic
I read a few of John C Wright's stories (they're ok) and blog posts (range from horrifying to good). He does write good stuff (apparently GRRM liked Wright's Vance pastiche)--but nothing to particularly make me want to read anything of his again. I read vox's blog regularly. The thing they have in common that makes them so fascinating to me is: I did not know people like this existed. (I am probably both very naive and very lucky)
JCW's Legend of Korra, pronoun and Terry Prachett rants are just so unbelievable. I know he's a real person and actually believes this stuff but I find it so hard to credit. Mostly he seems like this giant nerd with purple prose and then he gets to talking about euthanasia or homosexuality and he turns into a cartoon-villain Catholic. He's mostly boring though.
Vox is at least interesting. He's a smart guy who has crazy views on literally everything. It's fascinating. He also has this strange sense that his commentariat is incredibly intelligent when they're youtube comment level bad. A few smart people but as a whole not reliably intelligent or interesting.
Posts
Not an actual schizophrenic. Not to demean anyone with that particular mental affliction, but his entire persona seems very deliberate.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
missed this earlier, but pfft
takes a whole hell of a lot more to freak out this buckaroo
it was an "oh my god" of glee
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
I'll be rooting for nevertheless because it was genuinely great.
The great thing is, having read his AMA, I immediately got the reference
Before the nominations were announced, George R. R. Martin gave a rather harsh interview in The Guardian, where he noted,
John C Wright and an anonymous fan took exception to that...apparently with the aid of a Shakespearean manual of style. Noting that Martin once included one of Wright's stories in an anthology, Wright came to the conclusion that,
The entire response is absolute gold, but Martin dismantles Wright's complaint rather succinctly, pointing out that he thought the story he put in the anthology was good, but not one of the five best of the year (or even one of the five best in the anthology) and then points out how illogical Write's argument is.
It is definitely worth reading the whole bit.
- John Stuart Mill
The mental image you have of him is almost certainly accurate.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
- John Stuart Mill
He is VERY RABIDLY (nominally) Catholic, but his Hugo-nominated mess of a "story" deals with the aftermath of the Rapture, basically, and rails violently against evolution
I characterized Vox Day as the saddest person I've met on the Internet; John C Wright is a much more entertaining one, an honest-to-goodness moron who is under the sincere delusion he is a master rhetorician
Yeah, Wright is is insane and hilarious, in a terrible away. Because I'm lazy, I'll copy and paste what I said about him a year ago, on this very thread:
Even the comments are worth glancing over. Not reading closely, mind you, but a few gems pop out.
Terry. Fucking. Pratchett.
Good call there, son. Real smart.
Official Catholic doctrine is basically to shrug at Genesis and Catholic schools almost universally teach evolution - with the caveat that a person's soul is furnished by God and that God has guided the evolutionary process. The same applies to the Big Bang (a theory ordinated by a Catholic priest). The Catholic church also doesn't hold to the American evangelical idea of the rapture; they don't hold that good Christians will be suddenly whooshed off to avoid tribulations. Stuff like that.
He's a Radical Traditional Catholic. Basically, he believes that all church doctrine from Vatican II and onward are liberal lies and blasphemy. Unless he's gone crazier than since I read him last, I doubt he actually believes in the Rapture. He's probably sympathetic to overall social mores of the evangelical movement, though.
Edit: I should mention that rad-trads are a non-trivial conservative movement in Catholicism and that Wright is not unique in his beliefs. Google a bit on Vatican II, or god help you, "Novus Ordo", and you'll get a sense of how nutty the rad-trads are.
Though putting a My Little Pony episode and the author of a GG webcomic as Hugo nominations is a very nice troll, the whole thing seems like an excercise on viral marketing. I mean, he got GEORGE R.R. MARTIN to dedicate a lot of time to talk about him, so that seems like a win, if any publicity is good publicity. And in the Internet age, it probably is.
I've never read his fiction, but I will confess to having checked out his blog out of morbid curiousity... his prose is so cringe-inducing as to be almost physically painful. In it's own way, it's actually awe-inspiring. I've never read anyone so utterly convinced of both his own vast intelligence and moral rectitude and it sweats out of every single word.
I have a family member (extended family... thankfully) that has similar issues with both religious fanaticism and a very high self-estimation of their intelligence. It's nowhere near as bad as Wright, obviously, but it's still pretty bad. I have honestly wondered if some sort of intervention is not uncalled-for, but so far I've stuck to my general life rule of don't get mixed up in crazy.
EDIT: Upon reflection, I think a better way to put it is that his prose comes across as desperately trying to convince the reader that he is vastly intelligent and righteous.
Terry Pratchett was like that goofy, beloved high school lit teacher, that you always secretly suspected was Santa Claus. Hating him would be like hating sunsets, ice cream and slood all at the same time.
- John Stuart Mill
"time pressed, I say no more about it for well or ill"
i died
I literally can't even
Also LOL at "male objects".
I feel like there should be a bit somewhere on the web that can generate nonsensical ravings in similar purple Yoda prose.
- John Stuart Mill
for me it was "I respectfully but sharply disagree"
yes, we know, you went on about it long enough for that to be abundantly clear
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Chuck Tingle is making some... I can only say, frothy? maybe? santorumy? posts about "the voxman" on Twitter and it is... delightful
edit to add because oh my fucking god
His entire feed is just delightful.
edit to add: and Rachel Swirsky continues to be the best with her Patreon page:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/that-i-mentioned-5388950
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
- John Stuart Mill
I believe that he said he could not believe the evil he heard, listening to Pratchett talk about ethunasia, and lameted that he lacked the 'strength of character' to walk up there and beat Pratchett down right then and there.
Yeah, he's a full gauge douche-nozzle.
He's just bitter that no matter how much his buddy Vox tries to game the system, he will never get one of these...
- John Stuart Mill
I just found his rant about that. I wish I hadn't.
What
I don't
Does he then regret not having a time machine so he can go beat up Mister Rogers afterward?
I'm a non-denominational Christian, closer to Catholicism than any other nomination, so I don't want to sound TOO preachy, but modern genetics' founder was an Augustine monk. To rail against evolution is a very, very non-Catholic thing to do.
The thing is, his Christian crazy is not Catholic Novus Ordo crazy. It's Evangelical crazy. He proclaims very loudly that he doesn't believe in the Rapture (as no Catholic should), but his Hugo-nominated garbage of a story ("The Parliament of Birds and Beasts") is basically a post-Rapture meeting of said Parliament. It's an unhealthy mixture of reactionarism, Evangelical doctrine, incredible purple prose, and a good idea wasted by a moron.
but
is not great.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Not the best.
That's the end of the first story in the book, to be fair, but the story is about John C Wright meeting a man named Ellison (not sure if it's the SF writer because I jumped ahead a few times), they get drunk, Ellison draws the time machine on a napkin and says if anyone ever uses it, people from the future will destroy the user to protect the future status quo and that our planet didn't evolve from organic life, but from a time paradox where sapient creatures were accidentally dumped in the past.
Then Ellison shows John he built the machine, Ellison starts the machine, and John flees.
It's... odd.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Well, he has a series of books about the reappearance of the gods of the ancient Greek pantheon, too, but I don't think you can credibly call him a devotee of Hellenism. I was simply interested in pointing out that he says he's a rad-trad Catholic and that rad-trad Catholics have their own flavor of crazy that shares many common features with evangelical crazy. I'll also give him credit for having enough intellectual flexibility to write about religious doctrine he doesn't personally believe in.
But yeah, he is indeed a reactionary moron who spews purple prose. He's like a demented combination of Jack Vance and an SSPX Sunday-school teacher.
Oh sure, I'm not disagreeing with much of what you're saying. The thing is, I'm not sure if him writing a post-Rapture fiction is him having "intellectual flexibility" or having no idea whatsoever about Catholic doctrine, which simply means you're disinterested in Catholic doctrine if you're, well, disinterested in Catholic doctrine, but also means that you're a complete moron when you're a fundamentalist Catholic
JCW's Legend of Korra, pronoun and Terry Prachett rants are just so unbelievable. I know he's a real person and actually believes this stuff but I find it so hard to credit. Mostly he seems like this giant nerd with purple prose and then he gets to talking about euthanasia or homosexuality and he turns into a cartoon-villain Catholic. He's mostly boring though.
Vox is at least interesting. He's a smart guy who has crazy views on literally everything. It's fascinating. He also has this strange sense that his commentariat is incredibly intelligent when they're youtube comment level bad. A few smart people but as a whole not reliably intelligent or interesting.
Zoe Quinn.
Godspeed, you glorious anal-obsessed buckaroo.
I like Chuck Tingle now.
Fucking Vox.
Though I can imagine him now writing some sort of screed about the plan to unveil Tingle as some sort of SJW or something.