So as a result of the publication of this article of mine –UPDATED SF writer Charles Stross – Your Wish is my Command. You enter the Hall of Shame. Tobias Buckell waddles in to join you… – aside from the tweets from Tobias Buckell, Charles Stross and Paul Graham Raven that I responded to in an update (same article); we get a tweet also from Rose Fox, a genre editor and critic.
So the red wolf after his hunting saw the fox (a vixen no less) by the grass verge, having glanced his way and bared her teeth…
So here is the tweet from Rose Fox (in response to Buckell’s lame ‘I’m off my meds’ tweet. See previous article), Buckell then replies:
rosefox Rose Fox
@tobiasbuckell @cstross Also, “My ad hominems come with evidence see? That’s the BIG DIFFERENCE.” is the funniest thing I’ve read all week.
@rosefox @cstross someone learned a new phrase and wanted to trot it out
Rose Fox is a genre book reviewer and editor at Publishers Weekly in fact. An interview with her here.
Interestingly enough she is the daughter of Charles Platt, a leading and influential British ‘New Wave’ writer back in the 60s and 70s. Yeah Harlan Ellison’s big mate (that’s an inside joke of course).
Her blog is over here http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/genreville/
You’d never know from Rose Fox what my article is actually about given her selective off-the-point quoting, but then that is the point now, not so? You know the actual evidence I present for Buckell’s and Stross’s asininity. There is plenty more re Stross and Buckell that I don’t even bother mentioning, but I have a life. Naturally Rose Fox doesn’t think it’s absolutely hysterical that Buckell and Stross mistake solely baseless and lame ad hominems directed my way as some kind of legitimate argument and refutation of the points I make. Fox not only gives all that a free pass, she thinks it’s just hunky dory.
You would never know from this quote of mine (tweeted by Fox) what I was getting at in the relevant article at all. You know the odious stuff about Nick Mamatas, China Mieville’s vicious anti-Semitism, my query to Stross in this regard and the lame political correctness of the ‘genre thought police’ as a whole, and the details thereof (broadly speaking the vapid and unthinking knee-jerk Islamophilia on the one hand and deafening silence on extreme anti-Semitism from self-same genre pros on the other hand).
Also the quote she cherry-picks is intended to be somewhat humorous. It’s over the heads of Fox and Buckell that I was being just a little wry. Fox believes that I am being completely po-faced. To be fair, much is lost in solely written communication (no facial expressions, tone of voice etc). Also the context of that remark of mine is anything but humorous, so my full intent is easily lost. I shouldn’t expect my readers (whether they are sympathetic to myself or otherwise) to be mind readers. Anyhow I am certainly candid in my low opinion of Buckell and Stross (I’m not talking about their fiction skills of course) and I do back up my scorn and dismissal of them with something called evidence (this is over Fox’s and Buckell’s heads naturally).
Technically and pedantically speaking, it is something of a contradiction to speak of ‘backing up ad hominems with evidence’. I either should have made my humorous intent far more clearer (perhaps spelling it out very loudly) or I shouldn’t have used the exact term ‘ad hominem‘. However to repeat myself, note how Fox is oblivious and entirely nonplussed by her mate Buckell’s pathetic and baseless ad hominems directed my way, including the tweet of his, ‘off his meds’, that she is replying to. Also I do back up my disregard and ridicule for Buckell and Stross with something solid. It’s over Fox’s head entirely. Way over. Maybe Fox thinks it is simply oh so fuuuuuny that I would dare point out that Buckell and Stross are firing blanks my way. Maybe she thinks they have demolished me. You know just totally.
Maybe Fox thinks it’s sooo hysterical that I dare to consider my snide contempt for Stross and Buckell as actually being backed up with something heavy. Maybe, like plenty others, she just cannot comprehend the contents of my article/s at all (you know the rest of the article – basically the whole article – that she doesn’t quote from). Along with the ‘Catherynne Valente & the thought police‘ article that initiated all this (Buckell and Stross’s smug brush-off of myself was in reaction to that article). It’s just beyond her (as it is with Buckell and Stross and the rest of their ilk), like Quantum Mechanics perhaps. Fox in all likelihood, probably does think it’s just hysterical that I consider the case I present for Buckell’s and Stross’s obtuseness (and cowardice in the latter case), as actually being legitimate and valid. In that case we’re back at – she just doesn’t understand what I write at all. Maybe it’s just too difficult for her. Possibly. Probably.
Certainly many a dogmatic ideologue (especially one caught in vapid modern-day liberalism) would have great difficulty comprehending the otherwise easy peasy points I make.
I wonder if Charles Platt would be proud of his daughter’s rhetorical uh skills? You know where she chortles in ‘gotcha’ fashion over a minor pedantic point in a cherry-picked quote, having no bearing naturally to the main thrust and contents of my article whatsoever; in order to distract from the plain points made in the same article. Well if all that matters is shoring up one’s ideological position, rather than the facts at hand. For what it’s worth I think highly of Platt’s fiction.
Talking about the (unpleasant) facts at hand…
Rose Fox, since you have entered the fray – don’t think the questions I ask SF’s ‘Court Jews’ are only applicable to Jewry. It’s an open house. Feel free to answer the questions I asked of them re Nick Mamatas, and that indeed are originally addressed to Mamatas (namely in this article. Mamatas opted out see?). You have the public platform of your blog after all, not just twitter. SF’s Court Jews are all very shy in that respect you see?
Likewise you are more than welcome to answer the question I ask of them re Mieville – namely do you consider China Mieville to be anti-Semitic in light of my series on him? (make sure to read the articles before tweeting an answer) So far everybody is very very shy to answer the question (heck SF’s Court Jews – Charles Stross included – are going out of their way not to acknowledge the question at all). Your mate Buckell has ZILCH to say on this front likewise. Like you he is free to tweet an answer – if he ain’t chicken (like his mate Charles Stross). Open house to Jew and Gentile alike.
Set a precedent Rose Fox, be the first to have a backbone in this regard! Or not.
I guess it’s just way easier to launch yuck-yuck ‘gotcha’ insults my way over trumped-up blather in order to distract from all this. No?
Somebody needs to tell Tobias Buckell that the argument from condescension isn’t much of an argument (I mean it certainly has its place but if that’s all you got, well…) and in no way does it refute a single point I make in the article on him and Stross. Not that it would penetrate at all. Anyhow it’s par for the course with Buckell. What else is new?