Survivor Appendix E (5e) Authors- Ursula K. LeGWINS!

[Ralif Redhammer]

Upvote for Jemisin. Her work is inspiring, the language vivid and beautiful.

Downvote for Lynch. As much as I love his books, if Martin and Rothfuss ostensibly got taken out for long delays in their book release schedule, Lynch at least deserves a ding for his five years.

Alexander, Lloyd 22
Cook, Glen 19
Jemisin, N.K. 17
Kay, Guy Gavriel 19
LeGuin, Ursula 22
Lynch, Scott 19
McKillip, Patricia 21
Peake, Mervyn 17
Pratchett, Terry 19
Sanderson, Brandon 7
Wolfe, Gene 20

 

[Gradine]

I didn't check the thread for a few days and, lo and behold, my go to +1 vote Clark Ashton Smith was eliminated.

As far as I can tell, nobody in the 6-7 pages of his slow burning elimination commented on their down vote. So, I'm curious, why did my boy CAS deserve the axe?

Speaking for myself, after the fair amount of research I did into all of the folks left (I didn't want to downvote any of the name I already recognized) it came down to simple guilt by association. "Great buds with H.P. Lovecraft" is not a descriptor that endears one to me, personally.

I've read both, and it was Kay's work that I felt was truly misogynistic, with Howard being more fairly categorised as "adolescent male power fantasy". Red Nails has a female protagonist who is the equal of Conan.

I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but most of the feminist critiques I've read of Kay (one of the many things I check to figure out which author I've never heard of to downvote) regard him fairly positively, if a little heavy-handed and at times too prescriptive. Howard's place in that discourse should, on the other hand, be pretty well-known at this point. Also, do recognize that the typical Howard female protagonist is also a part of that adolescent male power fantasy. I mean, Red Nails isn't exactly billed as "Conan... but for the ladies."

 

[Gradine]

Alexander, Lloyd 22
Cook, Glen 19
Jemisin, N.K. 18
Kay, Guy Gavriel 19
LeGuin, Ursula 22
Lynch, Scott 19
McKillip, Patricia 21
Peake, Mervyn 15
Pratchett, Terry 19
Sanderson, Brandon 7
Wolfe, Gene 20

 

[Yardiff]

Alexander, Lloyd 22
Cook, Glen 19+1=20
Jemisin, N.K. 18
Kay, Guy Gavriel 19
LeGuin, Ursula 22
Lynch, Scott 19
McKillip, Patricia 21
Peake, Mervyn 15
Pratchett, Terry 19
Sanderson, Brandon 7-2=5
Wolfe, Gene 20​

 

[CleverNickName]

Alexander, Lloyd 22+1=23
Cook, Glen 20
Jemisin, N.K. 18
Kay, Guy Gavriel 19
LeGuin, Ursula 22
Lynch, Scott 19
McKillip, Patricia 21
Peake, Mervyn 15
Pratchett, Terry 19
Sanderson, Brandon 5-2=3
Wolfe, Gene 20

 

[Blue]

Alexander, Lloyd 23
Cook, Glen 20
Jemisin, N.K. 18
Kay, Guy Gavriel 20
LeGuin, Ursula 22
Lynch, Scott 19
McKillip, Patricia 21
Peake, Mervyn 15
Pratchett, Terry 19
Sanderson, Brandon 3
Wolfe, Gene 18

Over half this list are included on my go-to authors list. I think at this point it's whichever is ranked lowest of hem will get an upvote, instead of just rationally rationing them out in a ratio of righteousness.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As an aside, am I the only one who sort of rolls my eyes whenever I see people accuse long dead authors of being sexists and/or racists based on modern day standards? It seems to me that it's low hanging fruit to try to score some sort of self righteous cred or something. It's an unfortunate reality that moral relativity is a thing, and should be considered. I'm not necessarily talking about guys like Lovecraft, who was clearly a racist even by the standards of the day. I just think it's a bit disingenuous to attack someone who can't defend themselves as a sexist for how they portrayed the trope of a damsel in distress, when that was the common thinking of the day. It misses the context, which is critical. For example, you can say person X was a sexist by today's standards, but in his time, he was very progressive and fought against the status quo. Thomas Jefferson comes to mind. Was he a racist pig because he owned slaves, which is clearly abhorrent by today's standards, or is that characterization unfair when you compare his ideals to the rest of the accepted world at that time?

Again, I'm not saying none of these authors were sexists or racists, but how did their views compare during the time of the writing? I think that's how people should be judged. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to be judged by your actions now based on society's standards 50 or 100 years from now.

 

[Reynard]

Alexander, Lloyd 23
Cook, Glen 20
Jemisin, N.K. 18
Kay, Guy Gavriel 20
LeGuin, Ursula 22
Lynch, Scott 19
McKillip, Patricia 21
Peake, Mervyn 15-2=13
Pratchett, Terry 19
Sanderson, Brandon 3+1=4 It won't save him at this point, but I am really enjoying Way of Kings so he gets an upvote.
Wolfe, Gene 18

 

[Prakriti]

Alexander, Lloyd 23
Cook, Glen 20
Jemisin, N.K. 18
Kay, Guy Gavriel 20
LeGuin, Ursula 20
Lynch, Scott 19
McKillip, Patricia 21
Peake, Mervyn 13
Pratchett, Terry 20
Sanderson, Brandon 4
Wolfe, Gene 18


Terry Pratchett Quote of the Day:
“Mr Lipwig, there's a lady in the hall to see you and we've thanked her for not smoking three times and she's still doing it!” - Making Money

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I can see where you’re coming from, but I disagree. No progress was ever made on human rights issues by giving someone a free pass on their problematic attitudes. Civil Rights, Women's Rights, these aren't things that just began with the modern era.

But it’s also okay to like stuff and still be critical of it. To examine those problematic elements and why they’re there. I mean, I love Tolkien with the passion to have gotten a Lord of the Rings-inspired tattoo. But I can also see that there are problems with his depictions of race in Lord of the Rings.

As an aside, am I the only one who sort of rolls my eyes whenever I see people accuse long dead authors of being sexists and/or racists based on modern day standards? It seems to me that it's low hanging fruit to try to score some sort of self righteous cred or something.