My opinion of Stirling's ISOT and Emberverse Series

[Tom Kalbfus]

Or basically anybody from ancient Greece or Rome.

Go ahead, tell Caligula that he's an effeminate queer. Or Leonidas. Let's see what happens to you.

I feel uncomfortable talking about homosexuality, as I might get banned for it, so I won't, and I don't want to get banned for something so stupid as I'm working on other projects at the moment.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I think Stirling's problem is he's heavily influenced by the romantic literary tradition, which was a reactionary answer to the enlightenment. So he's not racist and sexist himself, but he draws from a body of work which implicitly has racist, sexist, and authoritarian overtones, so it oozes into his work.

Really? I read many of his books, and none of the one's I've read sounded the slightest bit like Nazi literature, you don't see him glorifying the master whipping his black slaves, and I thought alot of the old works of science fiction were classics.

Regardless, almost all of his protagonists are the same. An alpha male (or female) jock with brains. Someone who is ultimately good, but hardly noble - instead rather rough and tumble, and unafraid to beat the shit out of someone, or kill someone, if needed. The protagonist never has any real bouts of self doubt either. It's an archetype which is rather rare in science fiction, although it might be more common in fantasy I suppose.

Well alot of science fiction is about action/adventure and deadly peril, people who spend alot of time doubting themselves tend not to make great leaders in these dangerous situations. Decisions need to be made quickly for the survival of the group he or she is leading. Ever read Hamlet? Hamlet's tragidy was that he couldn't make up his mind on a course of action, he kept on having second thoughts, and was indecisive, and that proved his undoing. Sometimes its better to make a quick bad decision than no decision at all.

So I don't see his being nerdy having anything to do with his writing - unless he's a self-hating nerd. Come on - all sci-fi writers are nerds to some degree. They don't write protagonists based upon some absurd alpha male stereotype - they generally write about ordinary people, or dorky scientists.

The leaders of society tend to be Alpha Males and Alpha Females. I find the Alpha Females to be really interesting, I met one recently, her name was Sarah Palin.

As an aside, before he was banned on the forum he told me he was a a Democrat (in both senses of the term) which absolutely shocked me. That would make him on the *left* side of the Baen books stable of writers.

*shudder*

You sure that was the writer that was banned from this forum?
If so, then I think it was a real shame, because he is a talented writer and he has alot to contribute, I enjoyed his books very much. Especially the Sky People. I think by "racism" you really mean "not politically correct". My definition of "racism" is somebody who hates a different race and wants to kill them or at least do them bodily harm. Saying something that is merely racially insensitive doesn't qualify. Do you know what the 'C' in the initials NAACP stand for? If I said it here, I might get banned. Words like that which were said 100 years ago used to be perfectly acceptable among blacks, hence the name of their very old organization, but the black community keep on changing their list of words which they find acceptable and those that they do not, and if one does not keep up with the time, he may be called a "racist". Some communities of blacks are even trying to make the N-Word acceptable amongst them again, and they are carving out groups of people who can use the N-Word and those who cannot, and I find that is going to far. English is English after all, and I think two different groups of people should be allowed to speak the same language, shouldn't they? Does this sound reasonable?

 

[MerryPrankster]

I can easily imagine writers or poets being homosexual, and thus writing about characters they can identify with. Writing might have been seen as an effeminent career in ancient Greece and Rome, perhaps a lot of writers were homosexuals and those who weren't homosexual, didn't bother to take up writing as they had better things to do, like swing a sword or plow a field for instance. The writers can then write about Leonidas, and perhaps feeling a bit lonely, maybe he decided to make the Leonidas he wrote about gay. He may have been married, but the writer then added his little bit by adding that he kept boyfriends on the side. So who's to say whether the Ancient Greeks had a high tendency towards homosexual acts, or perhaps it was only the writers who had a high tendency towards homosexuality and so wrote about characters they could identify with. After all, if they can write about the gods and goddesses, centaurs, pegasus, ladies with snakes for hair who could turn people into stone just by looking at them, well its not so hard to imagine them making certain historical figures out to be gay who are not - just a little more "embellishment" with all those fantastic creatures running around in classical literature.

Homosexuality was a different thing back then.

I've got a relative who knew a jocky student on the football team who later came out as a homosexual and started prancing around.

He certainly wasn't effeminate before--perhaps he felt the need to conform to the stereotype.

Plus a writer of biographies might do that, but a writer of history wouldn't, and I remember hearing about an account of Spartan wedding customs where the bride was told to wear a fake beard during sex to not upset her new husband.

 

[Petike]

there will be several points that come up to the point of ridiculousness. WHAT'S WITH EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING GOING NEO-PAGAN?!! Now even SIGNE IS A PAGAN! WHO'S NEXT?!! Or remember the pastor from Suttersdown who opposed Juniper and her group, struck dead with a heart attack, the man who's family all wanted to go pagan and he didn't, dead as a doorknob after said battle with Arminger's goons. Make me think of the TVTrope - "ROCK FALLS EVERYONE DIES" (didn't understand that look it up but don't whine when you can't leave the site for hours on end)

Yeah, the whole wicca-wank in the Emberverse is utterly silly.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Homosexuality was a different thing back then.

I've got a relative who knew a jocky student on the football team who later came out as a homosexual and started prancing around.

He certainly wasn't effeminate before--perhaps he felt the need to conform to the stereotype.

Plus a writer of biographies might do that, but a writer of history wouldn't, and I remember hearing about an account of Spartan wedding customs where the bride was told to wear a fake beard during sex to not upset her new husband.

Lets just say that being sexually attracted to a man is in itself a feminine characteristic, while being sexually attracted to a woman is a masculine characteristic. In at least one respect a gay man is feminine and a lesbian woman is masculine, as the gay man shares the characteristic with women of being attracted to other males, and the lesbian woman shares the characteristic of being attracted to woman. Marion and some other man can together appreciate pretty women for instance, both might go to a burlesque show featuring female strippers. The main difference between Marion and a "Hereto" Man is that her body may prove attractive to the man standing next to her, she has to fend off advances of other men who may prove attracted to her.

Here is a thought experiment for you, imagine you woke up in the body of Carrie Prejean, you suddenly find yourself in the body of a young beautiful beauty contestant and you were formally a man, you feel like a man, you look at your new body in the mirror and you get "turned on", the main problem you face is alot of men find your body just as attractive as you do, and you don't want them sticking their "you know what" inside of you, or asking you out or asking you to dance, you'd rather go date a woman, but most of those would have nothing to do with you. I suppose you could spend all day looking at yourself in the mirror and getting "turned on". I suppose that is what being a lesbian is like, am I right or wrong in this?

Take this a little further, what if I woke up in Carrie Prejean's body? Her body still has two legs and two arms, and fingers etc, I'd be able to use those to do most of the tasks my former male body parts were able to do. There would be nothing stopping me from using her delicate little fingers to type out this message on the computer for instance. Another problem would be my wife and children, not sure how I would deal with those, since I would have Carrie Prejean's vocal cords I would sound like her when I talked, I'd have alot of trouble trying to convince her of who I actually was and explaining to her what I actually did with her husband. Carrie Prejean would likely find my clothes rather loose, my shoes wouldn't fit on her small feet, I would have a tendency to step out of them as I walked. I would also have to get used to the different way I walked as my body would be shaped differently, then there would be all the looks men would be giving me. In a way this would be like a nightmare, I probably would want to go live out in the forest and live the life of a hermit where I wouldn't want to deal with these issues.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

I guess that where you went wrong is where you said that a lesbian has the mind of a man, since you are operating from the assumption that is impossible for a woman to be attracted to a woman. I don't really know how hard it is to stop someone from denying reality, but there are enough global warming denialists out there to suggest that it's pretty easy.

 

[euio]

You sure that was the writer that was banned from this forum?
If so, then I think it was a real shame, because he is a talented writer and he has alot to contribute, I enjoyed his books very much. Especially the Sky People. I think by "racism" you really mean "not politically correct". My definition of "racism" is somebody who hates a different race and wants to kill them or at least do them bodily harm...

That's what he did. Said he wanted to kill all Muslims.

 

[Susano]

There are too many "booby traps" in this subject for me, so I feel I rather not talk about it at the risk of getting banned. I prefer to give my honest opinion and avoid political correctness, but as I don't want to get banned - hence the edit.

A "honest opinion" isnt worth shit if it cant be backed up with arguments. Where did people start to get the idea that just saying "thats my opinion!" makes it acceptable?

Also, if you dont want to talk about it, then I suggest you simply shut up. As it is, you skirt the issue and then avoid discussion whenever theres a counterargument being formed. And dear god, are there ever many counterarguments to the utter drivel you spew.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

That's what he did. Said he wanted to kill all Muslims.

Are you sure it wasn't just a screen name?
People have all sorts of screen names, some go by the name of "Stalin" for instance, and I know for a fact that the real Stalin is dead. I figure the more famous the name found on this forum, the more likely its a phony screen name and not somebody's actual name they use in real life. If you see somebody on this forum with the screen name "Sarah Palin" its probably not actually her, and a lot of the stuff this "Sarah Palin" tells you about her stuff is likely not to be true of the real Sarah Palin. The only way to tell if a person is actually who he or she says he is, is probably to meet them in person. I met Sarah Palin not too long ago, and guess what, she actually looked like Sarah Palin and that's how I could tell it was actually her, its almost fool proof.

 

[Susano]

Are you sure it wasn't just a screen name?
.

He used an emailaccount as username, not "Stirling". It was generally accepted that it was Stirling, anyways.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

He used an emailaccount as username, not "Stirling". It was generally accepted that it was Stirling, anyways.

He said he was Stirling, used the same email address as Stirling did on usenet, and posted exactly like Stirling did on usenet.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

A "honest opinion" isnt worth shit if it cant be backed up with arguments. Where did people start to get the idea that just saying "thats my opinion!" makes it acceptable?

Also, if you dont want to talk about it, then I suggest you simply shut up. As it is, you skirt the issue and then avoid discussion whenever theres a counterargument being formed. And dear god, are there ever many counterarguments to the utter drivel you spew.

Well the argument isn't important enough for me to get banned for it. I don't think my opinions are offensive, but knowing the moderator, I might get banned for them anyway, and I can make a clever argument here and get banned or work on other projects which are more important to me.

You see for me, its very difficult, I live in a country where we have the First Amendment, and I just say what I think without worrying about the consequences later. Which is what I have done with my previous posts, I then later edited them not wanting to risk getting banned because someone perceives them to be offensive, but you see I am not used to censoring my thoughts for fear of getting in trouble. You sound like you come from Europe, so maybe in certain parts of Europe speech isn't so free as it is here in America. Some people in Europe can get in serious trouble for saying what they think, so they have trained themselves not to say those things - I have not done that, so words tend to escape my lips which get me in trouble in other forums that don't share the same culture as the First Amendment. Do you understand now SusanO?

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Well the argument isn't important enough for me to get banned for it. I don't think my opinions are offensive, but knowing the moderator, I might get banned for them anyway, and I can make a clever argument here and get banned or work on other projects which are more important to me.

You see for me, its very difficult, I live in a country where we have the First Amendment, and I just say what I think without worrying about the consequences later. Which is what I have done with my previous posts, I then later edited them not wanting to risk getting banned because someone perceives them to be offensive, but you see I am not used to censoring my thoughts for fear of getting in trouble. You sound like you come from Europe, so maybe in certain parts of Europe speech isn't so free as it is here in America. Some people in Europe can get in serious trouble for saying what they think, so they have trained themselves not to say those things - I have not done that, so words tend to escape my lips which get me in trouble in other forums that don't share the same culture as the First Amendment. Do you understand now SusanO?

I live in a terrifying police state where I am in constant fear that the most innocent slip might get me imprisoned, or worse, banned.

 

[eschaton]

Really? I read many of his books, and none of the one's I've read sounded the slightest bit like Nazi literature, you don't see him glorifying the master whipping his black slaves, and I thought alot of the old works of science fiction were classics.

Well, the nazis did end up being (comparably speaking) the good guys in the draka novels. And of course, the idea that a society like the Domination could survive hundreds of years is itself a bit bizarre. If I remember, he actually had to defend himself against accusations the Draka were meant to be seen in some sort of a positive light. In Conquistador, essentially everyone in New Virginia is racist to some degree (and the idea that someone would want to write a book about a second chance at white colonialism boggles my mind). Essentially all of his books have a racial hierarchy in them as well. Look at the weird cannibals who have somehow lost humanity in the Emberverse, or how most people in the Raj naturally accept the right of the Sahib-Log to rule in The Peshawar Lancers. The masses are almost always shown as being frail and weak in the face of strong leaders - the idea of a successful democratic revolution in *any* of his books seems absurd.

Second, it all depends on which classics you mean of science fiction. Asimov was very good for his time at not having bigoted subtext to his novels (unsurprising because he was a socialist). On the other hand, Heinlein had racist themes more than once in his books, and he was certainly a lecherous old man. Stirling is more influenced by an even older generation of writers though - pulp writers like Edgar Rice Burroughs and the like, who most assuredly were racist and sexist, given they were products of their times, when essentially everyone who wasn't a red was to some degree.

Well alot of science fiction is about action/adventure and deadly peril, people who spend alot of time doubting themselves tend not to make great leaders in these dangerous situations. Decisions need to be made quickly for the survival of the group he or she is leading.

Methinks you read very different science fiction than I did growing up. I grew up in a house with Asimov, Clarke, LeGuin, etc - and when I was a teenager I started reading a lot of hard science fiction and space opera (Brin, Bear, Benford, Baxter, etc). Certainly some of the books had heroes, not I can't think of any which fit the jock sterotype - much more likely they were scientists exploring some alien ruin or something.

The leaders of society tend to be Alpha Males and Alpha Females. I find the Alpha Females to be really interesting, I met one recently, her name was Sarah Palin.

I'm going to assume this is flamebait and thus make no response here.

You sure that was the writer that was banned from this forum?
If so, then I think it was a real shame, because he is a talented writer and he has alot to contribute, I enjoyed his books very much. Especially the Sky People. I think by "racism" you really mean "not politically correct". My definition of "racism" is somebody who hates a different race and wants to kill them or at least do them bodily harm. Saying something that is merely racially insensitive doesn't qualify. Do you know what the 'C' in the initials NAACP stand for? If I said it here, I might get banned. Words like that which were said 100 years ago used to be perfectly acceptable among blacks, hence the name of their very old organization, but the black community keep on changing their list of words which they find acceptable and those that they do not, and if one does not keep up with the time, he may be called a "racist". Some communities of blacks are even trying to make the N-Word acceptable amongst them again, and they are carving out groups of people who can use the N-Word and those who cannot, and I find that is going to far. English is English after all, and I think two different groups of people should be allowed to speak the same language, shouldn't they? Does this sound reasonable?

He was banned from the forum for advocating genocide. If I recall correctly, he said something like the world would be a better place if every adult male Muslim died. Ian gave him the option to retract his statement, and he did not.

 

[Susano]

What the fuck? So your response is a slur of Europe? Fine show going there
Yes there are restrictions on free speech in Europe. No, I dont agree with them and have at times vehemmently spoken out against them. However, to make a general concept of "Europe is not used to free speech" out of it is silly, offensive and really just you again trying to weasel a way out.

Of course you can say what you want. Its just that "Thats my opinion" is no valid argument by any definition of the term. If you have nothing better to back your position up, then you SHOULD not say a thing. You may, of course, and make yourself appear ridicolous, but really, you shouldnt. Now, if you think you cannot speak your opinion about an issue on AH.com without being banned, then, and that was my suggestion, you better shut up entirely about that issue.

And given what youve said, its not like anything of value would be lost.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

He said he was Stirling, used the same email address as Stirling did on usenet, and posted exactly like Stirling did on usenet.

Have either of you ever actually met Stirling in person? Did he, in person, actually tell you what his e-mail account was, did he pull out a laptop in front of you and actually type out a post on this forum and submit it in front of your eyes?

Unless he does that, how can you be sure its actually him.

If someone posts here with the screen name of "Bill Clinton" for instance, how sure can you be that its actually him. Lots of people have studies Bill Clinton, some make a career out of impersonating him. Some people have even used my name as a screen name and they weren't me, I don't like that much, but what can you do. I suppose the more famous I get the more Tom Kalbfuses you would start to see on the internet, so if I become a celebrity, I'm in trouble!

 

[Doctor What]

Have either of you ever actually met Stirling in person? Did he, in person, actually tell you what his e-mail account was, did he pull out a laptop in front of you and actually type out a post on this forum and submit it in front of your eyes?

Unless he does that, how can you be sure its actually him.

On the other forums that he is known to post on, he complained about being banned from this site.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

What the fuck? So your response is a slur of Europe? Fine show going there
Yes there are restrictions on free speech in Europe. No, I dont agree with them and have at times vehemmently spoken out against them. However, to make a general concept of "Europe is not used to free speech" out of it is silly, offensive and really just you again trying to weasel a way out.

Of course you can say what you want. Its just that "Thats my opinion" is no valid argument by any definition of the term. If you have nothing better to back your position up, then you SHOULD not say a thing. You may, of course, and make yourself appear ridicolous, but really, you shouldnt. Now, if you think you cannot speak your opinion about an issue on AH.com without being banned, then, and that was my suggestion, you better shut up entirely about that issue.

And given what youve said, its not like anything of value would be lost.

Europe includes Russia and Belorus, by definition Europe stretches out to the Urals and includes all the countries west of the Urals on that landmass. People still do go to prison in Russia and Belorus for speaking their minds, and I feel a Russian would be alot more skilled in staying politically correct as far as his own country defines it and thus staying out of prison. Most Belorussians and Russians develop these skills from early childhood, American kids are taught that the truth is always better. Well in Russia, telling certain truths to the wrong people can land you in big trouble - this is no slur, it is a fact. Some European countries are better about free speech than others of course. In Great Britian, you can get away with saying alot more than you can in Russia for instance.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Have either of you ever actually met Stirling in person? Did he, in person, actually tell you what his e-mail account was, did he pull out a laptop in front of you and actually type out a post on this forum and submit it in front of your eyes?

Unless he does that, how can you be sure its actually him.

If someone posts here with the screen name of "Bill Clinton" for instance, how sure can you be that its actually him. Lots of people have studies Bill Clinton, some make a career out of impersonating him. Some people have even used my name as a screen name and they weren't me, I don't like that much, but what can you do. I suppose the more famous I get the more Tom Kalbfuses you would start to see on the internet, so if I become a celebrity, I'm in trouble!

Thank you, I had no idea that it was possible to impersonate someone online! FYI, I am not actually the Democratic Senator from Montana, just in case you were wondering.

S.M. Stirling is well-known for maintaining an active online presence in AH-related sites. He has never complained on this site or elsewhere that someone was impersonating him on alternatehistory.com, which is hardly an obscure site if you move in AH circles. Also, he was specifically banned when someone brought up comments he had made elsewhere and pointed out they were bannable here and he said "I said that before and I still believe it!"

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

On the other forums that he is known to post on, he complained about being banned from this site.

I would still rather meet him in person and talk to him for a spell before actually coming to any definite conclusions about him. I'm not about to judge him based on what his screen name says, there are also people known as hackers, they can hack into other peoples accounts and make them say bad things, so who really knows. Anyway, I'd rather be offended than censored, that is my position on the matter.