No matter how terrible you are, there are always people willing to defend you, Vox Day edition June 7, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Blogging, language and lit, wingnuts.trackback
It seems that someone named “Dudesky” has got his panties in a twist that I had the nerve to suggest that Vox Day’s terrible fiction is, well, terrible. Funny: if he wanted to make the case that Vox’s fiction was good, there are better choices than “everyone who criticizes Vox must be a bad writer.” I’m sure Vox is flattered to have mental giants like this rush to his defense:
Let’s see his stuff. Oh, but he’s a published poet, so copyright prevents us from being amazed by his artistic brilliance. People who call themselves poets are generally artist wannabes.
Ouch, it burns. How will I ever recover from someone I don’t know criticizing work he’s never seen? Maybe I can take comfort in this opening from one of Vox’s novels:
Jami stared intently at her Bible, but she was not reading any of the words on the tissue-thin paper. She was instead trying to keep a surreptitious eye on her brother, who was sitting on his couch two people over and looking as if he was about ready to explode.
That’s from Chapter 1, “The Ides of March.” Ouch. But maybe I’m not being fair to mock Dudesky for his poor taste. He’s probably got a lot to recommend him. Oh, wait. This is his response to Sean Carroll’s point that “science has established beyond reasonable doubt that humans evolved via natural selection”:
If I’m doubting it, given how long people have made the case for evolution, then it must not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ve shown I’m independently minded, unlike establishment players like Sean Carroll.
I wonder, would Dudesky then argue that the flat earth society is evidence that earth is a globe is not well established? After all, some people believe it so there must be a “reasonable doubt,” right?
Given Dudesky’s rigorous analytical skills, maybe I won’t loose too much sleep over his “criticism.”
Here’s another choice tidbit from Vox, this one from pg. 8:
“But she was not afraid of the night anymore, not as she’d once been. Although she couldn’t see her guardian angel any better than she could see the moon right now, she knew that Paulus was just as real and that he was somewhere nearby, watching over her and keeping her safe from evil.”
How’s THAT for exposition, I ask ye. :-)
[...] His new link: No matter how terrible you are, there are always people willing to defend you, Vox Day edition [...]
One of Dudesky’s “gems” of wisdom:
“Writing 8 to 32 or so lines for a poem is not what I’d consider a demonstration of great artistic skill. Doing it a thousand times might be.”
Truly a mind-boggling piece of argumentation right there.
As for his claim that short poetry != skill…
Exhibit A:
IN A STATION OF THE METRO
The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet black bough.
Exhibit B:
“next to of course god america i
love you land of the pilgrims’ and so forth oh
say can you see by the dawn’s early my
country ’tis of centuries come and go
and are no more what of it we should worry
in every language even deafanddumb
thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry
by jingo by gee by gosh by gum
why talk of beauty what could be more beaut-
iful than these heroic happy dead
who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter
they did not stop to think they died instead
then shall the voice of liberty be mute?”
He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water
Exhibit C:
so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens.
QED?
[...] June 19, 2007 Posted by Evil Bender in language and lit, arts and culture, Blogging. trackback Dudesky, who rushed to defend Vox Day from my accusation that he writes terrible fiction, has come around to finally actually offering some evidence–of a sort–in defense of [...]
[...] then wrote this in No matter how terrible you are, there are always people willing to defend you, Vox Day edition: …that I had the nerve to suggest that Vox Day’s terrible fiction is, well, terrible. [...]