After Dan Simmons lambasted teenage climate change darling Greta Thunberg on twitter, and came on the radar of Mike Glyer’s File 770 (which must still be experiencing technical difficulties, since I haven’t received any email notifications of new posts in quite a while), AND finding out that his signature novel Hyperion is a Hugo Award winner, I’ve been dying to read the book and learn more about him.
Yes, I think he went too far in his insults of a little teenage girl who is clearly being manipulated by adults, but he also stood up to the more leftist powers that be in social media and the science fiction creators and fandom community, and occasionally, they need to be stood up to. So I put a hold on it at my local public library and today it became available.
Guess what I’m going to start reading tomorrow?
12 thoughts on “The Next Book I’m Reading”
I’m reading Simmons’ Olympos right now myself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you found “time” to follow up on these?
Nope. Busy week and right now the grandkids are over.
I wonder why there are constant “proofs” that the left (as a foil) oppress you or your sense of self or your rights or something and hate white men and so forth and so on while the supposed foundations of the charge are continually left in the dust. It’s not personal or specific to you. As an example, someone with a different blog recently had a heading that rockstars were pedophiles (showing people in a video who are older now). Okay, the presenter said to “go to the police.” But a reference to Roy Moore was slipped in there, and the ultimate real point was that people only care about Republicans being pedophiles. The left supposedly likes pedophiles on the left. Doesn’t matter that clearly right wing rockstars (including a famous one that admitted to getting parental permission and even legal guardianship in order to have unfettered access) were left out of the presentation or that being a rock fan had no bearing on whether a fan was right or left, nor that being a policy/legal leader is different from selling records. Also doesn’t matter that pedophiles in the seventies weren’t limited to politics or music or anything else. I had friends who would get their first jobs, such as at a restaurant, and be assaulted by the managers (read male in those days).
The daughters of my mom‘s twin were victims of a pedophilia because of their dad. He wasn’t homosexual or even bisexual. He also wasn’t a lefty. He was rumored a Christian who didn’t go to church. Then, after being discovered, he became a supposed Christian who did go to church. He may or may not have believed himself to be a Christian in his head, but it seems his attendance served the purpose of his not going to jail and his finding a new wife with whom to have new children to abuse (while neglecting his earlier children financially because he was a moral loser even though he was a successful engineer in the realm of Saudi luxury airplanes). One cousin went to his eventual funeral, having been indoctrinated in always forgiving even if there is no change; the other of the two did not go because he afforded himself the ever judgmental role of the right wing (along with the ever forgiven role of an abuser). While the cousin who didn’t go was in a homosexual relationship (and is now married in that capacity), she is far more moral than he. Oh, and, yes, he was white and got all the perks that offered. Had he not been white, he’d be put on some list of statistics, have spent time in jail, had his career hampered and so on. But “poor, poor” heterosexual white men.
You’ve addressed me on similar issues before. I believe I’ve been attempting to call out a specific political and social perspective as attempting to control thoughts and emotions of those who they oppose without considering that the the world is not a “black and white” dichotomy. People whose greatest argument is that they are on “the right side of history” fail to impress me. This is certainly not against you and absolutely not pro-pedophiles. I do have issues, however, with those few on the “right side of history” who may also believe that someone can be absolved of crimes just because of their position politically and socially.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I shut down comments on that particular blog post because Richard and Cam were getting too “sparky” and the interaction wasn’t productive. Cam was right to call me on it and in response, I deleted certain portions of the comments and then closed them. I believe that also answers your subsequent query.
I saw why you shut down comments for the “evil-but” topic. That was understandable and made sense on its own as well as if or because you didn’t have time, then, to be more involved in the topic or its fallout. But there is a sustained effort to use the left as a foil, and I see this as a sickness (so to speak) for people on the right.
I’m not very impressed by a call to be on the “right side of history” either (although this wording wouldn’t be off base in a religious or faith context — we can likely agree it’s not necessarily all bad vis-a-vis the words themselves — but I think I know what you mean even though I haven’t gotten involved with the sci-fi/fantasy world.
[Myself, I stay away from stories about magic and all that — as a believer in truth — but am trying to understand your efforts as a writer who apparently disagrees with my interests and stance in that regard. Perhaps that’s the first mistake. I’m being too accepting of the quirk in time or history. Maybe that’s a separate topic.]
As for another portion of what you said, though, this is the point: who may also believe that someone can be absolved of crimes just because of their position politically and socially.
You stick to that even though you don’t check it out.
Evidence and response has been offered.
C.S. Lewis famously penned the Narnia books, which were both magical fantasy and Christian allegory, so there is some sort of allowance for Christians writing about dragons. In fact, according to this source, J.R.R. Tolkien (see item #7) brought Lewis back to the Christian faith, and, of course, Tolkien wrote the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Yes, I am aware of that. I’ve read a lot about them and do respect them. And C.S. Lewis was a favorite writer of mine in my childhood. His Narnia books meant a lot to me, and I don’t regret reading them. (I will say there is at least one book — not Narnia — I think he would’ve done well to skip, and that’s normal that people make mistakes. Yet there can be a question of whether, on the whole, the person is putting mostly good into the world or mostly confusion or misdirection. Not everyone is anywhere near Lewis or Tolkien, not only in writing ability in the sense of putting words together but in the laudability of forwarded thought processes.) I do know that as people wanted more and more to read (the insatiable tendency), they would go to other authors who put forth thinking that wasn’t really so Christian (even if called Christian or categorized that way, whatever Christian really is within the historical mess, but I mean in a way that leans toward truth) — and not only not Christian but not helpful (more, distorting). It is an area that requires great care or a blessed gift or tremendous timing or all of these. Lewis wrote things other than fiction and was mostly uplifting and clear-thinking as far as I perceive him (while I haven’t read every single thing). It matters to be as truthful and honest as possible, and not more or less licentious.
By the way, you’ve brought up dragons more than once as if you know this is an objection of mine. My concerns are far deeper and more diverse and nuanced than something so simplistic. I’ve never said to you that dragons are an issue. I find that rather curious. What do you think is an issue with dragons?
Did you get around to this?
Now that I’ve gotten into the book, I find out that it’s basically The Canterbury Tales in space.