The handsome and hard-working Larry Correia fisks the Guardian.

[agilebrit]

Right here. Read it all.

This right here is the money quote: They were bored with dying polar bears, murderous bigoted Christians, lectures about the dangers of capitalism, and thinly veiled Dick Cheneys as bad guys. You can really only slap half of the country upside the head and tell them their beliefs are stupid and backwards so many times before they quit buying your stuff.

Because that is the precise reason I quit reading it a couple of decades ago, and I started reading it again because Jim Butcher dragged me back in with Michael Carpenter. I asked Jim about that, and he said that, yes, he wrote Michael on purpose to be the opposite of the "evil Christian" trope, because he was tired of it too.

And now I'm writing SFF myself. Heck, my 12th story was just published yesterday. I've managed to slide in a couple of good-guy Christian characters into my own fiction here and there. A couple of them have even been published.

And Larry "kept me down" (because that's what he wants, is to keep lady writers down! At least, according to Damien Walter. Oh, wait, am I allowed to say "lady writers"?) by telling an editor to put my story at the top of his stack, and by introducing me to others he was talking to by saying "This is Julie Frost. She's awesome."

THAT BASTARD.

Comments

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

I'm kind of glad Correia, Hoyt, Bagley, Paulk, Ringo, Kratman, Williamson, and especially Day are both terrible writers and terrible people.

[redxcrosse.livejournal.com]

WTF are you doing here bothering agilebrit with your inanity? Go back to Jordan where you belong.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Eh, he's just giving more people the opportunity to point and laugh at him.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Clamps, sweetie, why are you stalking me? Getting bored after Larry banned your dull-as-dirt troll ass?

Also, I've read their writing, and I've read yours. They are vastly better than you will ever dream about being.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Because making bullshit accusations about people doesn't endear me to them.

I don't know of any left-wingers who act like Correia, Day, or Simmons.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

I've seen plenty of left-wingers act much worse.

Including you.

...I'm having trouble parsing your first "sentence" there. I suppose this is an example of your own stellar prose.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Maybe that's a problem on your end.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Or maybe you can't write clear, understandable sentences.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

That was clear enough.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

No, it really wasn't. I asked why you were stalking me, and your answer appeared to be, from what I can parse there, that some vague person is making bullshit accusations about someone in an effort to make them love you.

That makes no sense. I am fairly certain you meant "endear them to me," but you completely blew it. And I still have no idea why you're stalking me, because I have made no "bullshit accusations."

So, yeah, buddy, toddle off and work on your craft.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

What I'm saying is "Fuck Larry Correia with a saguaro cactus."
And there are better books by better people you could be reading.
Also, "Fuck Larry Correia with a saguaro cactus" again. For emphasis.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Wow! That's so articulate! I can't imagine why publishers aren't flinging piles of cash at your head!

So why don't you say that to him instead of me? You still haven't delineated what the "bullshit accusations" are.

OH THAT'S RIGHT. YOU CAN'T. He banned you for being boring!

But see, the thing is, you were terrible to him first. He's never been anything but nice to me--and I knew him before he was a NYT bestselling author and thus before I ever had any reason to kiss his ass (which I don't; I genuinely like the guy), or he had reason to kiss mine (which he doesn't, because I'm nobody yet).

So the bullshit accusation is "Larry Correia wants to keep women writers down." Which is patently, demonstrably, laughably false.

[roseaponi.livejournal.com]

Ooh, a reading list!

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

I don't know who Paulk and Bagley are, but I'm going to find out!

[foxfire74.livejournal.com]

So much this. I still read SFF, just...not as much and not as joyfully, and that's a bit sad. But I do get tired of "tee-hee, people who don't think like me are all dumb inbred racist hicks and probably child abusers to boot" (THANK YOU, Margaret Ball, for your shining example of that one). I try to read stuff on the other side of the aisle to keep my mind flexible, but after a while it gets predictable (oh look, Sheri S. Tepper thinks horror fans are evil and masculine men are a waste of skin. Again).

I was highly unimpressed by the Walter article. Man needs a spine; the wet noodle he's using is dangerously wobbly.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Yep, pretty much. Stephen King is especially guilty of this, from Carrie's mother onward.

At least most of the stuff I'm reading now isn't actively hostile to me and mine anymore. It was bad there, for awhile. Finding the right writers is key.

[chuck shingledecker (from livejournal.com)]

Why is there even an "other side of the aisle" in SF/F community at all? Why can't people just read the stories they love to read regardless of a person'a political stance? For example, I have no intention of supporting "line marriages" but I think The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is one of the classic pieces of literature from the 20th century.

If you like a book then read it. Unless the author has DONE something horrible (as opposed to just saying stuff I might disagree with) I will read his or her books based on the story. I do understand that others feel differently. And as long as people can articulate that in a civil manner, I'm totally fine with them not reading someone because they disagree with someone's politics. But in my estimation people will miss out on a lot of awesome fiction doing that.

People say things I disagree with all of the time and I know I say and write things people disagree with too. If all I ever did was reading authors whose political positions were just like my own, I wouldn't be reading anything since no has the exact same thought process I do.

But if someone has put some serious thought into it, and in their heart, cannot read someone they disagree with, more power to them. As long as it is not a knee jerk reaction, I'm all for whatever they decide. But most of the time, boycotts are knee jerk reactions. And it only hurts our community at large.

Just my fifty cents worth of morning wisdom. :)

[chuck shingledecker (from livejournal.com)]

Oh wow! Typos galore...LOL! That'll teach me to have "deep thoughts" before 7am. :)

[dogeat-underdog.livejournal.com]

I have said over and over that if I only consumed entertainment from people I agreed with, I would consume very little entertainment indeed. How ironic that the people who take great pride in their "tolerance," "diversity," and "inclusion" are the ones being intolerant, one-size-fits-all, and exclusive.

They hate people like me doubly, because I'm a woman and am therefore supposed to think exactly like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer. The fact that I'm a pro-life gun-toting conservative Christian makes me a Traitor to the Sisterhood.

Diversity is literally skin deep to these people.

(this is me, just too lazy to log out of the account I'm using to write a collaborative story with my roleplay partner)