Scott – Please keep your politics to yourself
Neither. Newt is a miserable excuse for a human being and not worth an ounce of anyone’s time as a politician. And Romney can’t seem to make a decision on where he stands about anything for more than 5 minutes. I would vote for neither, because neither will be any better than the past 3 presidents we’ve had. And no I don’t like Santorum or Obama either. And before you say it…no its not because he’s black.
But I have noticed larry that rather than replying to my actual post you change the subject to something completely meaningless….so it seems there’s no point to your dialogue here since you have no interest in addressing the opinions of others and merely spouting your own. This conversation would be more productive if I was poking a zombie with a stick and expecting an award winning speech.
And I have missed the snippets of your work that you have shared with us. When can we see (or better yet buy) more of your awesome work????
One of the great things about well-written fiction is the characters are believable. Just like real “characters” we all know in the real world, good fiction has a diversity of characters–well-rounded ones who are more than one diminutional, and who are distinct from one another, whether I like everything about them or not. This is one of the reasons I love Scott’s books–lots of, unique, complex characters. Some I love, some I can’t stand, and then there’s a diverse mass in the middle! I, for one, thank you and hope you keep it coming Scott!
I am in agreement – what happened here?
There is a certain element, who post on this site, who are intent on stirring up trouble. While I agree that debate and opinion is healthy, and can lead to some interesting and informative discussion, some of that is… how shall I put it…‘nasty and unhelpful’.
That’s my two cents worth.
I agree; the name calling and rudeness is going a bit far.
Wow… I haven’t been active in the forums for a while now, so what the heck happened? Everyone piling on one person, political discussions, name-calling that is meant to be hurtful instead of just silly fun? I remember (back in the “old site” days) when we all used to just ignore posts like the one that started this thread because we all knew that it’s never worth it to get into a discussion about politics or religion, and we just didn’t want to see that kind of strife here. Please guys, lets try to keep the trolling, arguing, and name-calling where they belong… on the FARK forums.
Oh no, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me…frankly I don’t even know what the hell you’re disagreeing with so its hard to say whether there’s a disagreement or not. What I do make a career of is pointing out the fundamental flaws and idiocy in narrow minded thinking whether it comes from the left, the right, the middle, or if it’s brought to you by the color purple.
What I do make a career of is pointing out that by insisting on you getting your own way you are trying to handicap the freedom of speech that you will shout about and demand to have protected from the rooftops if someone tried to take it away from you.
And I do make a career of poking irrational people with sticks to see just how much idiocy I can provoke them into revealing. Like, for example, being alienated by a fictional character in a book.
I can’t believe that this one is still going. Can’t we change this to something with a little meat and more relevance than politics?For example, I’m totally against the fact the Robert Heinlein’s major character, Lazarus Long, aka Woodrow Wilson Smith, is a polygamist. I mean, how wrong is that? He’s got like 10 wives and even has co-husbands. Hell, he even slept with his own mother!!! I think Robert Heinlein needs to come back from the dead and revise all of his future history stories so they are less objectionable.No wait.That would be friggin’ stupid because Lazarus Long is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER.Isn’t there enough oppression of real live people and their belief systems? Now we have to try to oppress fictional characters? Dear lord… it’s a free podcast. Lighten up.
I checked on the link and the comments by the members of the looney left have sold me on that book. You complain about politics in books but I bet if the characters were bashing Fox news and Rush Limbaugh you would think it was a fine example intellectual literature and should be required reading at all public schools. Go troll on the Huffington post where your self righteous views will be appreciated.
Wow, I don’t know what I can add to this but I think your premise of “it’s going to alienate some of Scott’s readers” is akin to Homer Simpson buying Marge a bowling ball for her birthday when she doesn’t even bowl. I love when people say, “I’m just looking out for you”, when what they mean to say is “I would feel better if you didn’t do that”. I don’t think he needs your help larrym and it looks like this “tight group” would like to squeeze you out of their tight little rusty sheriff’s badge like the turd you seem to be. By the way, I tend to wave the flag and pray for things so I guess you don’t like me either. I guess I’ll just take my religion, patriotism, and guns and go join my “tight little group”.
Steffiebaby140 – Are making a career out of busting just my balls or everyone or doesn’t agree with you in general ?
Oh, I am offended by politics in general almost daily., or more accurately politicians, whether I agree with their view or not. But never by the political opinions of someone else…and by someone else I do mean real living breathing people and not fictional characters.
These books wouldn’t be the same without the diversity of the characters that they show.
I love writing characters whom I disagree with and showing them in good and bad lights. That’s the beauty of humans. We’re all different shades of rainbow and that’s so fun to explore.
If someone feels alienated reading about characters they don’t agree with, then Scott’s books probably aren’t for them because you can bet that somewhere is going to be at least one character you disagree with or even don’t like.
But there are plenty of us who can appreciate that and don’t feel alienated in the slightest. <3
Steffiebaby140 – One is almost never offended by politics one agrees with.
Soooo…your way of proving that Scott is just a political talking head is to point out that other people are just as narrow minded as you are? I read the reviews of Flashback before I ever considered reading it, and I thought ya know I have to find out what the big deal is. And frankly I didn’t put the book down from page one to the end, it was fascinating and truly an excellent story.
Just because there are other people who cannot separate reality from fiction doesn’t mean it’s somehow an awful thing to give fictional characters an opinion. So, I have a suggestion for you, create a website that lists books with even the most insignificant and slight political references so that you (or anyone who thinks like you) won’t have to be offended. Seriously, this argument is so ridiculous I hardly know where to begin, but it appears the ideal of “you have freedom of speech as long as you agree with me” is alive and well.
As a brief example of what I am talking about I humbly point you towards the reviews at Amazon for the book “Flashback” by Dan Simmons – who is best known for his fine work in the “Hyperion” series.
Ya know it’s hard to figure. Here’s something unique, cool and free, what’s that, free, oh yeah! So let someone start bitching about political content. Honestly has this ever been mentioned here, they’re not even real people, the characters are all so vastly different it would be almost impossible to purport an agenda.
Interesting. If Scott is a Republican (and he has never said that he is), living in San Francisco is an odd choice. That Connecticut Yankee in King Aurthur’s Court thing going on.
What I find offensive about larrym’s post is that anyone would be so intolerant as to ask, or demand that an author of fiction be “politically correct.”
larrym – Scott’s stories are one of the outlets that we (Junkies) have that is safe from the thought police. The latest editions of Tom Sawyer and and Huckleberry Finn have been censored, and even some modern translations of the Bible have been made “more inclusive.” Where does this stop?
Look at the bright side – if a character in one of Scott’s novels says something that offends you, that character is probably going to die a horible death anyway so your justice will be served.
Like any other stereotype, personal politics is an excellent device to establish your character’s personality in very few words. Think about the images you get when you read “he had spent some time in prison”, or “they were raised in a commune”, or “she lived in a luxury penthouse”. A brief reference to a particular politician or policy can sum up a character’s entire values and belief system. (I know it shouldn’t, but it does).Authors often, intentionally or unwittingly, promote one political view over another (and I think that’s perfectly ok), but if EVERYONE in the story had the same political views, it would be unrealistic. The world doesn’t work that way.For the record, Scott’s THE ROOKIE is one of the best dissections (vivisections?) of politics that I have ever read. As a political tragic myself, I’ve recommended it to many parents as a fun and accessible way to get their kids/teens to really think about politics (and religion) and the way they shape our societies.
So if I remember correctly, the rough draft audio version of ‘Nocturnal’ has:
But you took umbrage with an off-handed political statement about Al Gore? If you think those kind of political statements would deter a true fan of Sigler’s work, then you’d also be interested in this.
- A homeless person being assaulted for “fun”
- A nightmare creature raping her captives and feeding them to her chilren
- Unnecessary violence (which I personally enjoyed)
- People pissing on other people, crime scenes, etc
Well said FDO and A. But I wish to take issue with something. Your books are not fiction…..Those things really happened!!! ; – )
And somehow work in “shoes cause cancer” in a later book. Junkies will get the joke.
You are alienating at least a portion of your audience – for no reason whatsoever. If there was a “reason” for the characters to be thinking/saying this (crap) I would understand. But there is no reason, that I can see anyway. So what purpose does it serve ? Other than to make you feel better.
Feel free to stop listening to the free podcast any time you like.
I’m almost finished with the Nocturnal podcasts and it’s a GREAT story – but – what’s up with the comments:
Al Gore appeals to people who are easily manipulated.
Ronald Regan won WWIII single handed.
Really ? All by himself ? Isn’t that a bit like saying since 99% of all people who die of cancer wear shoes – therefore shoes cause cancer ?
What’s up next Mr. Sigler ? People praying and waving flags and Bibles ? Are you really a Republican ? Oh man – I’d like to keep reading your books so eaither say ‘No’ or keep politics out of your books – PLEASE.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.