M.A.R. Barker, author of Tekumel, also author of Neo-Nazi book?

[QuentinGeorge]

both LotR and Narnia were spawned from a wager between friends a d was Dianetics written as an experiment?

Only Narnia. Tolkien never finished his work written for the bet. Lotr was unrelated.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IMHO, if someone committed a particular odious world view to print or public action, holding them accountable for it is 100% justified.

The mere passage of time does not mitigate that.

Certainly, people DO change. But unless there is actual concrete evidence that they have done so, there is no reason to let them off the hook. Someone merely choosing not to be a Nazi apologist/sympathizer/practitioner in public is in no way an indication that the person has actually ceased believing in Nazism.

Put differently: sins in public require repentance in public.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Barker became a muslim didnt he? Not that it should preclude him also having National-Socialist sympathies.

I mean, yeah.

Considering that there's huge numbers of slavic people attracted to this sort of ideology (think about what Hitler might have thought about that), there's not really any religious or cultural background that necessarily precludes it. (Except Jewish, obviously except for the very bizarre cases, and I haven't heard of any Nazi-Jains either).

That being said, I think Barker's religious beliefs are incidental to this. He converted as a young man and there doesn't seem to be any real link.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

IMHO, if someone committed a particular odious world view to print or public action, holding them accountable for it is 100% justified.

The mere passage of time does not mitigate that.

Certainly, people DO change. But unless there is actual concrete evidence that they have done so, there is no reason to let them off the hook. Someone merely choosing not to be a Nazi apologist/sympathizer/practitioner in public is in no way an indication that the person has actually ceased believing in Nazism.

Put differently: sins in public require repentance in public.

He's dead though. So we can't really hold him unaccountable or know for sure how much he held these beliefs. (though based on the evidence provided, it doesn't really look to me like it was a "prank". If it was, there wasn't any payoff really.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He's dead though. So we can't really hold him unaccountable or know for sure how much he held these beliefs. (though based on the evidence provided, it doesn't really look to me like it was a "prank". If it was, there wasn't any payoff really.

Just because he is personally beyond our reach doesn’t mean we can’t discuss his flaws and make personal decisions on how we interact with his legacy.

For some, nothing will change- they won’t give up the things he made that they like, but they won’t support the reprehensible stuff. For others, they have gained a hero they didn’t know they had. Others still may choose to avoid his works in any form, and may even divest themselves of his non-Nazi writings.

Not only that, what happens to his legacy going forward will be instructive to others. Some will choose to keep their darker natures hidden from public view instead of committing them to media- even under pseudonyms and aliases. Even more will realize that idolizing humans is risky business. Humans are fallible and flawed, and even the best of us have ugliness within us.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Just because he is personally beyond our reach doesn’t mean we can’t discuss his flaws and make personal decisions on how we interact with his legacy.

For some, nothing will change- they won’t give up the things he made that they like, but they won’t support the reprehensible stuff. For others, they have gained a hero they didn’t know they had. Others still may choose to avoid his works in any form, and may even divest themselves of his non-Nazi writings.

Not only that, what happens to his legacy going forward will be instructive to others. Some will choose to keep their darker natures hidden from public view instead of committing them to media- even under pseudonyms and aliases. Even more will realize that idolizing humans is risky business. Humans are fallible and flawed, and even the best of us have ugliness within us.

Well, exactly, and probably more evidence is that your creative heroes can offer harbour dark secrets that you don't know are there. Personally I never really read anything Barker wrote nor was I a Tekumel fan so I guess my consumption habits re his works will remain at 0%. I won't judge anyone else for whatever decision they make, however.

 

[John R Davis]

He wrote an RPG world.
He wrote a fictional tale, which nobody had read or been offended by.

Is the takeaway here that fiction can no longer be controversial, or have an unsavoury theme?

Struggling?

 

[QuentinGeorge]

He wrote an RPG world.
He wrote a fictional tale, which nobody had read or been offended by.

Is the takeaway here that fiction can no longer be controversial, or have an unsavoury theme?

Struggling?

I don't think its a matter of who was or wasn't offended. I think its more fans being disappointed since they didn't know he held those beliefs.

 

[aramis erak]

According to Chirine, former archivist for the Tekumel Foundation, some members were aware of Barker's views well before he died. I can see no reason to doubt his account.

I can:

• Basic Human Decency
• Basic presumption of innocence
• The book is under a nom de plume; it's not a certainty that it's Barker.
  • Style can be faked. the examples I'd choose to illustrate this would violate the restrictions on RSP.
• The claim is by a former subordinate; it's as plausible that it's sour grapes as it is that it's true.
  • The default assumption is that the claimant is in unintentional error
• The claim is not consistent with the various descriptions of him by many others.

He's dead. Let him be, he can't defend himself.

 

[Parmandur]

I can:

• Basic Human Decency
• Basic presumption of innocence
• The book is under a nom de plume; it's not a certainty that it's Barker.
  • Style can be faked. the examples I'd choose to illustrate this would violate the restrictions on RSP.
• The claim is by a former subordinate; it's as plausible that it's sour grapes as it is that it's true.
  • The default assumption is that the claimant is in unintentional error
• The claim is not consistent with the various descriptions of him by many others.

He's dead. Let him be, he can't defend himself.

The evidence seems pretty convincing, and the accounts of his character all seem of a piece with it.