Easily Impressed?

Brian Niemeier (the guy who got a Dragon Award and who thinks demons are controlling the left) is up in arms that Amazon pulled Castalia House’s ‘Corroding Empire’ book. This book was Vox Day’s latest expression of his deep-seated resentment of John Scalzi (or Tor or Tor editor Patrick Nielsen Hayden or, who knows, some kid who was mean to Vox in pre-school). http://www.brianniemeier.com/2017/03/tor-gets-desperate.html

Naturally, for Brian, this is ‘censorship’ because literally anything is to the right these days but his defence is that the Castalia house book was clearly parody:

This is what used to be called “parody” before the Left turned into control freaks with zero sense of humor.

The cover is a parody but that’s the problem – that’s only an argument if the book itself is a parody and Vox already undermined that defence:

“This isn’t a lame Bored of the Rings-style parody, it is, quite to the contrary, a legitimate Foundation-style novel that effectively demonstrates how hapless Tor’s latest imitative mediocrity is by comparison.”

This comment section style of switching positions mid-argument is common among the alt-right. Arguments of the ‘this is X except it isn’t X but actually it is X but no it isn’t’ are annoying on the net but when it comes to legal niceties, they are just self-defeating. I’m reminded of the Trump-regime’s own self-sabotage of its legal defence against its recent visa bans on some majority Muslim countries. Trying to argue A & not-A simultaneously isn’t going to cut it when it comes to actual courts or business relationships with a major corporation.

However, Brian is deeply impressed by Castalia House re-releasing their book with a new cover:

“While I was writing this post, Vox Day unveiled the new cover for CH’s censored book.

Let that sink in: they got a new cover done in less than a day.

The updated book should be back in the Kindle store tonight. This is why the small, fast mammals are taking down the dinosaurs.”

A generic spaceship against a background cover in LESS THAN A DAY! Gadzooks! Hmmm. I think I can do that in under an hour to Castalia House standards…



59 responses to “Easily Impressed?”

  1. It’s pretty much a mark of Niemeier’s cluelessness that he is so incredibly impressed by “buy some stock art and slap title and author text on it”.

    On a different note, with your mad art skillz, I think that you will soon be giving John Harris a serious run for his money. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Neimeier *leaps* to the defence of the man who is paying him money for his next novel? This is my shocked face.

    There’s an unexamined assumption going on over there that TOR nobbled their not-parody. While it’s certainly a possible explanation, there’s a handy report button on every page in Amazon, and anyone could have clicked and pointed out the obvious; Amazon will have a policy on passing-off attempts and could easily have come to this conclusion on their own.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. When I read a post from one of the puppies, I’m always left with a question to ponder: Are they really as ignorant as they sound, or are they just hoping their readers will be ignorant enough to believe the tripe they spin?

    I still can’t decide.


    • A lot of the apparent weird double-think on censorship & free-speech we see from the right becomes a lot, lot clearer and consistent if you assume they see the world as consisting of group A that has rights and group B that does not have rights. Works for the weird double think on guns and self defence as well. Also, it is terrifying if you dwell on it.

      Liked by 3 people

      • It’s funny, I sense you were trying to critique “the right”…but you managed to describe your own sick, sociopathic mentality instead! How sad for you. I’ve screencapped this comment, and I look forward to using it the next time you try to pretend to be a “moderate” and “reasonable” person in a political or semi-political discussion. Thanks bunches! Ciao!

        Liked by 1 person

      • “…good faith discussion…”

        Yes, because entering a discussion with the assumption that the people you disagree with are monsters who believe that some people ought to have rights, and other people ought to be denied those rights simply because of who they are is the very *definition* of “good faith” in a discussion.
        I may be a narwhal, but even *I* can identify pure, unfiltered horse manure when I see it…and you sure have a lot of it! Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

        PS: it’s not an aquarium, it’s a space station!


        • //Yes, because entering a discussion with the assumption…//

          It’s not entering a discussion nor is it an assumption – it is a hypothesis based on observation, specifically based on prolonged engagement with people on the US right on a range of issues.

          However, this appears to be the first time *YOU* have engaged in a discussion here and yet *YOU* start with ‘sick, sociopathic mentality’.

          This is a kind of inconsistency of thought and double standards from the right I’m talking about. You expect *me* (or the left in general) to abide by rules of debate and decorum towards you that you don’t even pretend to abide by towards others.

          //is the very *definition* of “good faith” in a discussion//

          Expressing sincere views honestly is good faith. What? Do you want me to LIE to you about my views? Seriously? How would that be treating you with respect?

          Good faith doesn’t mean never saying anything that might upset you or which you might find challenging – treating the right like fragile artifacts would be at best patronizing. Yet here we are – and the right calls the left ‘snowflakes’; good grief, if there is any group more prone to hair-trigger outrage than the modern right I haven’t met them.

          //*I* can identify pure, unfiltered horse manure when I see it//

          And yet, here you are. Two posts in, lots of ranting and no substantive argument. Bluster but you haven’t even begun to show why what I said was incorrect – you are just offended I said it. Gosh how DARE somebody criticize the right! People like me shouldn’t be going around saying things like that!

          Well never mind. So much, as they say, for the tolerant left.

          //PS: it’s not an aquarium, it’s a space station!//

          OK, two-points for that 🙂

          Liked by 2 people

    • I’m inclined to the view that they really are that ignorant. While their readers’ ignorance shouldn’t be underestimated, for them to rely on it would require a degree of subtlety and forethought that has never been greatly in evidence in puppydom.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Having worked at Amazon and dealt with “bad merchants” I can tell you that Amazon keeps a list of “problem children.” After his previous two stunts (the Rape book and the Goodreads hack), I suspect Castalia House is on such a list. That would mean that it would require far fewer customer complaints to get a human involved that would normally be the case.

    In this particular case, it almost looks as though VD had hoped to bamboozle a few Scalzi readers into buying his book by mistake. Given the way purchasing on Amazon works, I can’t see how that would happen in real life, but the appearance is bad. The company is extremely allergic to anything that looks like an attempt (however maladroit) to defraud its customers. (In other words, if it looks like you’re trying to rip people off, the fact that you’re using a method that could never work won’t cut any ice.) That could also explain the speed of Amazon’s reaction. (I’ll add that I personally think VD only wanted attention–I doubt he thought this would look like fraud.)

    If I had to bet, I’d bet on a combination of all three. Scalzi complained to Amazon (or Tor did so on his behalf). Given Castalia’s history, that got instant attention, and the appearance of attempted fraud sealed the deal.

    I would also bet that some folks at Amazon had a discussion about whether it’s time to tell Castalia that they don’t want their business anymore. (This is called “kicking someone off the platform.”) They don’t do this without giving a warning. If that happened, he should keep in mind that one does not get very many such warnings.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. But, but … didn’t VD also brag about being prepared for this eventuality? Oh yes:
    “It seems that In any event, we will have CORROSION by Harry Seldon, complete with a new cover, back up soon. It’s not like we aren’t in the habit of anticipating enemy action, after all.”
    So in another example of arguing for x and not-x, Niemeier is both calling VD a liar and being impressed with VD’s quick work with the new cover.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Listen, it’s not like Teddy Boy and his tens of Dead Elk have the long-term brains necessary to remember what their previous lies were. I mean, they do at least usually manage not to contradict themselves in one sentence, which is better than ihr führer drumpf, but that’s a pretty low bar.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Really, this whole story is essentially the latest edition of Beale’s lifelong tale of “Man rushes face first into fist, hits floor, proclaims moral victory while crawling away, sobbing.” It’s also quite amusing to see he and his fanboys insist it was outselling ”The Collapsing Empire”.

    It wasn’t.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hey, don’t badmouth Hubbard. He actually had a prolific career prior to losing his mind. Hell, even his cult is better constructed than Beale’s ramshackle peanut gallery.

      Liked by 2 people

      • It’s true — I’ve read a few of LRH’s early works before Xenu ate his brain, and they’re perfectly enjoyable rip-snortin’ 50’s pulp. He was making a living just with his writing. And then he made big moola and had actual power when he ran the cult. So, like him or hate him, you can’t deny Ron was a success.


  7. And it seems after hours of Beale’s insisting that “The Corrosive Umpire” would be back up shortly, it’s been pulled again.

    Oh, and he was bitching about one-star reviews, prior to that.


  8. Someone should beat him to the punch and write “The Corrosive Umpire”, a tragic tale of a baseball official who has a bad effect on others. If it’s SF, he’s spitting acid. If it’s SF comedy, it’s an alien umpire, and nobody dares disagree with when he calls balls or strikes, safe or out. Hijinx ensue.

    Or Chuck Tingle could write it as another Pounded in the Butt story.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. @Camestros, I just want to say I burst out laughing at both cover and intro. For several minutes straight. And came back this morning to chuckle again. Kudos 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  10. You know, if I may wax rhapsodic on this matter–and I damn well may so don’t even consider stopping me–what makes it all so funny is, in some respects this is the closest to human Teddy’s been in a while. He’s written a book (and yes, it’s his, the Bealeness of the prose practically oozes off the page), one that he’s inordinately proud of, and things keep happening to prevent the book spreading among the public. Of course all these problems are ultimately of his own making, but he can’t accept that, no more than he can accept the fact that he’s highly unlikely to be as successful as Scalzi, or even the people who write Scalzi’s blurbs. And so the Dark Lord Gossage-Vardebedian schleps on, to the next failure to declare victory…

    Liked by 3 people

%d bloggers like this: