Great Moments in Author Filibuster History

Oh yeah, I remember that hypocrisy filibuster, and that also kind of p.o.'s me- it's a major strawman that the people who talk about Victorian (or Moral Guardian) hypocrisy are depraved themselves.

I think there's also an issue that people who are hypocrites look badly because they tend to do themselves what they would deny others- that's probably a lot of why people poke fun at every evangelical who turns out to be gay. Stephenson has a point that some hypocrites are moral people who fall short of their own standards, but really, that isn't why people get angered at hypocrisy.

Hodor

I strongly suspect that that filibuster wasn't quite meant to be taken at face value with regard to the neo-Victorian society, actually. And as far as depravity goes, remember that the heroine of the book is a porn scriptwriter.

I will keep my soul in a place out of sight, Far off, where the pulse of it is not heard.

One note to Myrmidon. . . I noticed that you described Stephenson's beliefs as "liberal bullshit." I won't argue whether they're garbage, but if he's really a libertarian, then his social beliefs would be considered conservative, not liberal (and in fact the belief that merit transcends culture is typically associated with conservatives rather than liberals.) Careful who you tar here—I'm a social liberal, and I don't believe what Stephenson believes.

edited 2nd Jun '10 5:48:11 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

He was talking about the opinions of a set of (postmodern liberal) academic characters in Cryptonomicon, not of Stephenson himself. Those characters are often taken as straw men, even though the protagonist arguably loses that argument.

I will keep my soul in a place out of sight, Far off, where the pulse of it is not heard.

Stephenson had postmodern liberal academics argue that people can transcend their culture? Strawmen indeed.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

No, the protagonist was arguing that, or approximately that.

I will keep my soul in a place out of sight, Far off, where the pulse of it is not heard.

I think on some issues, Stephenson is socially liberal, but I'm not sure to what extent.

Pretty much the reason (besides my interest in the time period) why I like the Baroque Saga more than his other works is that in the 17th and 18th century, it's ok for everyone to be libertarian and politically incorrect.

Hodor

I was trying to say that it's easier to hold a philosophy about self-reliance if you haven't really struggled that much to get where you are. It doesn't discredit the philosophy itself, but it might suggest that the person holding it doesn't truly understand it's implications.

Kill all math nerds

Author filibusters...

I have a love-hate thing with them. Les Miserables being the prime example. Let's see: I hated the digressions on Waterloo and the sewers, got mildly interested in the ones on Louis-Philippe and the convent (the latter being because of my own upbringing in a convent school), and I got quite interested in the ones on argot and the chapter that technically isn't a filibuster, but is one long speech anyway (Enjolras' speech on the barricade).

I hate filibusters in fiction that isn't satire.

1984 works, but the Author Filibuster is still the weakest part. Show, don't tell, people.

edited 8th Nov '10 7:00:43 PM by jewelleddragon

I hate bad grammar in posts that isn't trolling.

Kill all math nerds

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person who enjoyed the filibuster in 1984. It made me think, anyway.

no one will notice that I changed this

1984 is my favourite dystopic novel. I haven't read them all, of course.

But I really love all the stuff about language and the use of social conditioning.

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.

Dr. Ian Malcolm on Scientific Power and Discipline

And for something far more lengthy, Victor Hugo on Religion/Spirituality in Les Mis.

I say, as long as it's interesting and agreeable to me, let the writers spout off for as long as they want. Well, as long as it fits in with the tone of the book too. If Malcolm started talking about racism or something, that be dumb. But if it's in line with the "moral of the story"? Sure, go nuts.

They can be good. At about a page long there's probably no reason good enough, but if your character's entire world view is changing in response to some momentous revelation you probably need some sort of filibuster on their new philosophy. And even very obvious observations can be well written if it's built up right and not filled with clichés.

He's the Doctor. He could be anywhere in time and space.

GK Chesterton was an endless fount of Author Filibusters in his fiction—both the Father Brown stories and the less celebrated stuff. However, he was such a gifted, entertaining essayist & journalist that his inserted filibusters are fully as readable as the stories surrounding them.

edited 3rd Sep '13 8:45:03 AM by Jhimmibhob

Cashing my chip in the three-year-old discussion with those who hated the filibuster of His Dark Materials. I've seen subtler arguments from Christopher Paolini.

Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.

Dunno, the filibuster really didn't bother me that much since it was buried beneath two and a half good books.

I do agree that the filibuster in Dark Materials disrupted the narrative a bit, but other than that I don't see why it has so much hate.

Being a Catholic and not finding the books that good in the first place might have to do with it. But other than that, I did find them very disrupting and unsubtle.

Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.

I was born Catholic and I quite liked the books, but I don't remember that much about them now. I have read a heckuva lot of other books since then.

On the topic of author filibusters, I quite liked the ones in the Sword of Truth series. Particularly because I seem to remember agreeing with most if not all of them when I was reading them.

It was okay, not great. I liked the concept of Dust, thought it was a neat idea.

Another Kim Stanley Robinson one, his global warming trilogy. The first two books are excellent but the third is one long exercise in kissing FDR's dead ass.

Interesting that Ayn Rand and Victor Hugo are mentioned a lot in this thread since he was her favorite author of all time (Also high on her list: Dostoyevsky and...Mickey Spillane?)

edited 7th Sep '13 5:52:37 AM by tricksterson

Trump delenda est

Victor Hugo was Rand's favourite author?

I can't think of two people whose ideologies were more different.