Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

smugetsu wrote:KJA in a tux...comedy!

The latest Twatter update:

"Time to get the tux on for the Writers of the Future Awards tonight"

I wonder if it's worded just that way for our benefit? Sometimes, I think he reads every single word here ...

TheDukester wrote:

smugetsu wrote:KJA in a tux...comedy!

The latest Twatter update:

"Time to get the tux on for the Writers of the Future Awards tonight"

I wonder if it's worded just that way for our benefit? Sometimes, I think he reads every single word here ...

Pix or it didn't happen.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 37075.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"In my mind and in my heart, as a fan, and for many fans, Paul Atreides is one of the greatest heroes of science fiction," Anderson says. "But Frank Herbert did some terrible things to him, and when you read how he acts in 'Dune Messiah,' a lot of the things he does are virtually inexcusable. How can you sympathize with him? ... You have to get into this character. What would change somebody so much? What would drive him to do that?"

discuss.

Oh, for fuck's sake: there goes Keith again with his "Paul is a hero" routine. No wonder he and Bobo are completely incapable of writing anything related to Dune.

"FH did some terrible things ..." Jesus wept. This is the guy in charge of the entire Dune franchise now. It's unspeakable.

I knew you'd like that.

Good morning, Duke.

Always good to start your Sunday with some sweet KJA-hate ...

Start with the main character, the young Paul Atreides, who becomes Paul Muad' Dib. Over the course of the novels he is transformed into a prophet, a messiah and a chillingly cunning tyrant. In "Winds of Dune," which falls chronologically after "Dune Messiah," his behavior at the end of Frank Herbert's last book — abandoning his just-born children and disappearing into the desert of Arrakis — is explained.

Help me not to read WoD(I've already had enough of the rest)!
I'm sure their "explanation" must hold in a basic structure sentence(Paul disappeared because he couldn't see he was going in the deep desert because he was eye blind or something like that)

Dune Messiah wasn't my favourite so I'm kinda guessing from what i remember, but I'm pretty sure that if Paul leaves it's because he knows that the alternative is far worse and his prescience forwarned him of the horrors that will be committed in his name, no?
We're talking of a man who already lost a child and just lost(twice by refusing the BT offer of a ghola)the love of his life, so it shows a complete lack of trust in the writing quality of FH to imagine that he could have taken this direction without giving it some thought and finding a proper reason anyway...

SandRider wrote:

"In my mind and in my heart, as a fan, and for many fans, Paul Atreides is one of the greatest heroes of science fiction," Anderson says. "But Frank Herbert did some terrible things to him, and when you read how he acts in 'Dune Messiah,' a lot of the things he does are virtually inexcusable. How can you sympathize with him? ... You have to get into this character. What would change somebody so much? What would drive him to do that?"

In my mind, Paul was never meant to be viewed as a hero, or for that matter, as a villain. At his base level, Paul is human like the rest of us, meaning he makes mistakes even when he's trying to do the right thing. He helped the Fremen, and overthrew the Empire by defeating Shaddam. Those might be considered the acts of a hero, but consider the consequences. Those same actions sparked a jihad that took the lives of thousands or millions, some of whom, no doubt, were innocent people.

If Paul had ignored this consequence, he'd have been a villain. But he didn't. He had visions of his jihad and he knew what it would mean for human existence, and those visions troubled him deeply. He knew the terrible things that would be done in his name, but that being said...that didn't stop him, either.

Hero? No. Villain? No.

In my opinion (and I freely label it as such) Paul is in between, neither hero nor villain.

The fact that KJA doesn't seem capable of making this particular leap in logic makes him an idiot.

smugetsu wrote:The fact that KJA doesn't seem capable of making this particular leap in logic makes him an idiot.

And there you have it. To a writer of KJA's "ability" and less-than-average intellect, everything must be labeled, and preferably with very broad descriptions: good or bad; black or white; etc., etc.

Talented writers and careful readers can each handle shades of gray, or morally ambiguous characters, or — God forbid — characters who actually develop through the course of a story. Kevin J. Anderson, being a talent-free HACK, cannot handle this sort of thing; his tiny little hamster-brain automatically categorizes everything it comes into contact with, and those categories never, ever change. Thus, he views Paul as a hero — and he always has and always will.

TheKJA likes to bore people with his "I've written 100 books!" nonsense, but what he fails to add is that in none of them does a single character undergo even a hint of development or change. It's just staggering how bad he is at his job.

this is the line that burns me :

"How can you sympathize with him?"

how can you not ?

he's the fucking protagonist of the first two,
and if you're not sympathizing with him by
the third, when he returns as the Preacher,
you're a heartless, thoughtless bastard.

or just plain shallow & stupid.
(Hi, Keith !)

Merritt, in KJA's ass, 2003, wrote: BM: Does your wife, Rebecca [Moesta], help inspire you during your writing? Does she give you feedback before sending stories out to your publisher/agent?

KJA: She's a best-selling writer in her own right, but she also raises the bar very high for my own work. As I get more popular and more successful, I try to improve my writing with each book. That means going through more and more research, more and more drafts, extremely careful editing. Rebecca is my sounding board for brainstorming, my closest editor, and a big dose of common sense.

discuss.

SandRider wrote:KJA: She's a best-selling writer in her own right ...

Oh, bullshit.

First of all, she has no credits of her own!

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Rebecca%20Moesta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's Becky's complete output, virtually all of which is with that hack she married. When you get right down to it, there's really no evidence that she's ever written anything at all. Who's to say she didn't get a credit on those books just to have a paycheck coming in?

I absolutely defy anyone to show me where Becky is a best-seller "in her own right."

Freakzilla wrote:

TheDukester wrote:

smugetsu wrote:KJA in a tux...comedy!

The latest Twatter update:

"Time to get the tux on for the Writers of the Future Awards tonight"

I wonder if it's worded just that way for our benefit? Sometimes, I think he reads every single word here ...

Pix or it didn't happen.

It will be broadcast online the awards ceremony.

http://www.writersofthefuture.com/w25/live.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Starts at 815 Pacific Time.

Rob

Schweet!

It's as close as I'm ever going to get to TheKeith, live and in person. Woot!

Here's hoping you screw up your lines and feel very bad about yourself, Kevvie!

was that tonight ?

dangit, missed it - was watching "Futurama"

and was that a "new" one or four left over episodes ?

it was two hours, but broken up into 4 "to be continued" episodes.

there was one "Windows 7" reference, but that was the only
current thing I caught. coulda been edited in there, I guess.

but they were riding sandworms (Lynch-style) on mars ....

Paul walking into the desert was a "fuck you" to the BG, BT and SG cabal which allowed him to not abdicate, not renounce his religion and finally adhere to Fremen law.

SandRider wrote:was that tonight ?

dangit, missed it - was watching "Futurama"

and was that a "new" one or four left over episodes ?

it was two hours, but broken up into 4 "to be continued" episodes.

there was one "Windows 7" reference, but that was the only
current thing I caught. coulda been edited in there, I guess.

but they were riding sandworms (Lynch-style) on mars ....

4 straight to DVD movies have been release so you caught one of them.

TheDukester wrote:

smugetsu wrote:The fact that KJA doesn't seem capable of making this particular leap in logic makes him an idiot.

And there you have it. To a writer of KJA's "ability" and less-than-average intellect, everything must be labeled, and preferably with very broad descriptions: good or bad; black or white; etc., etc.

Talented writers and careful readers can each handle shades of gray, or morally ambiguous characters, or — God forbid — characters who actually develop through the course of a story. Kevin J. Anderson, being a talent-free HACK, cannot handle this sort of thing; his tiny little hamster-brain automatically categorizes everything it comes into contact with, and those categories never, ever change. Thus, he views Paul as a hero — and he always has and always will.

TheKJA likes to bore people with his "I've written 100 books!" nonsense, but what he fails to add is that in none of them does a single character undergo even a hint of development or change. It's just staggering how bad he is at his job.

Exactly this. The man uses the 'Mad libs for Star Wars' to write and is adept at screwing that up. While Frank left gaps for us to fill in with our imagination, KJA is incapable of doing this: His gaps are incidental, not only apparent from his writing but from his philosophy: the man whines that Frank didn't show Dune getting blown up. Frank did that so that even the reader wouldn't know what the obliterator weapon was or did, he built tension by not showing something. Kevin is like an OCD kid forced to sit in a chair while people spread colored blocks apart, as soon as he gets permission, he starts putting the blocks back together. Unfortunately he is colorblind and dyslexic and his peer group takes pity on him and gives him a pat on the back rather than explain his mistake.

I don't know much about his family history but I would imagine he's either an only child or any siblings he has are much older or younger than he is. He seems to have been raised with a philosophy of absolute praise for whatever he does and very very little punishment or discipline. I get this from his writing because no one ever thinks outside the box, and everyone lives in a very luvy-duvy forgive everything society even if they were assassins who tried to kill you or a super jedi tween who emos a star cluster out of existence or a young noble who almost lost two Great Houses their shipping rights.

good insight there, Amp.

and until some interviewer or objective biographer get ahold of him,
I don't see a problem with this kind of psychological speculation.

we know from past experience that he is less-then-honest
and transparent in his interview answers, so armchair analysis
is justified.

It comes from his complete lack of understanding of consequence. It almost seems to me that his psychological development is based off the idea that when you get sent for the corner, its to think of something that justifies what you did, rather than to understand why what you did was wrong. I think it explains his fear and hatred of any critical review and his smug attitude while he's still in print.

Sometimes it's what you DON'T put in the sauce that makes it good.

Ampoliros wrote:I don't know much about his family history but I would imagine he's either an only child or any siblings he has are much older or younger than he is.

Only child seems likely. I can't recall a single mention of a sibling, either in official marketing materials or interviews. Not even an off-hand comment like, "One day, my sister said ..."

But let's not paint with too broad of a brush. I'm an only child, and I'm pretty confident that I do not share TheKJA's pathetic, desperate need for acceptance and validation. And I think other social factors — I'm thinking mostly of friends and peers (or the lack thereof) — played a big role in Kevvie's development into a permanent 12-year-old.

Overall, I'm with SR: until Kevin J. Anderson grants an honest interview, then armchair psychology is fair game. But we should remember that we're mostly just speculating.

I didn't mean to demean only children with a broad brush, simply pointing out that some children get coddled by their parents to the point that it hinders their development.

Ampoliros wrote:I didn't mean to demean only children with a broad brush, simply pointing out that some children get coddled by their parents to the point that it hinders their development.

I was an only child. I don't think it's the coddling that is hindering but the lack of interaction with siblings.

I do have a half-brother, half-sister and two step-sisters, but I never lived with any of them for a lengthy period of time.

I go back and forth on it: some days, I'm convinced that I was actually lucky to be an only. Other days, I'm just as convinced that having a sibling would have really been much better.

My wife and I made an interesting choice early in our marriage. Either we wouldn't have children at all (which, knowing my wife, probably wasn't going to happen) or else we'd have more than one. But we wouldn't have just one (barring medical issues or some sort of other unforeseen event, of course). She has a brother, and she's really convinced that siblings are very helpful.

So ... we've got two. A few weeks after the oldest was born, I remember thinking, "I wonder when mommy is going to start asking about getting you a brother or sister ..."

Two is a good number, just enough to replace yourself and your partner.

I have just one brother, I'd say it was a good experience growing up with him, though we aren't as close as we should be.