Talk:Piers Anthony: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
removed last two comments per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX ... the article doesn't include discussion of pedophilia, and will not |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=start|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=Low|listas=Anthony, Piers}} |
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=start|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=Low|listas=Anthony, Piers}} |
||
{{WPBooks|class=start|listas=Anthony, Piers}} |
|||
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
||
Dear Jimmy, |
|||
Intellectually incredible, but socio-economically quite understandable, there's a fact this long-time SF-fan has trouble believing. |
|||
Why has the SF-Community, along with Wikipedia, to such a degree jumped bugling on the bandwagon of "Piers Anthony's a pedophile!" as touted by guilty religionists? Searching Amazon, Goodreads, Google, Wiki or Yahoo in this context gives me the impression that the Vatican has a secret IP-backdoor for selective deletion. |
|||
Anthony's novel FIREFLY should be generating unending discussion on his scathing indictment of US child-protection laws, as he intended it to. |
|||
How anyone could construe Piers' repugnant description of a mother whose religious compulsions make her negate her poor daughter's confession, his description of a father who's happy to molest his daughter as long as she keeps silent, his description of a brother enjoying his sodomy of his five-year-old sister, as anything _close_ to pedophelia, is absolutely beyond me. |
|||
The horror story behind the fairy-tale allowing for adults to spend some thought on their sexual motives might have some weaknesses, but God the Fucking Damn It he's right: the percentage of youthful molestees is actually low, from my experience as a doctor, and the religionist reaction -supported by their publishing house allies - underscores my view that Piers' agnosticism is more than justified. |
|||
Eb_theDoc[[Special:Contributions/24.61.199.179|24.61.199.179]] ([[User talk:24.61.199.179|talk]]) 20:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Note about this talk page== |
==Note about this talk page== |
||
Line 36: | Line 22: | ||
Like in TATHAM MOUND, where the adult male protagonist has (frighteningly described) sex with a 10-year-old (her idea, of course); or in FIREFLY, with an even more detailed pedophilic sex scene, described by the five-year-old girl (again, the whole thing was instigated by her...). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/131.107.0.73|131.107.0.73]] ([[User talk:131.107.0.73|talk]]) 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Like in TATHAM MOUND, where the adult male protagonist has (frighteningly described) sex with a 10-year-old (her idea, of course); or in FIREFLY, with an even more detailed pedophilic sex scene, described by the five-year-old girl (again, the whole thing was instigated by her...). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/131.107.0.73|131.107.0.73]] ([[User talk:131.107.0.73|talk]]) 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:Please check the archives before raising this again - [[Talk:Piers_Anthony/Archive_1#Pedophilia]]. [[User:Ash|Ash]] ([[User talk:Ash|talk]]) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) |
:Please check the archives before raising this again - [[Talk:Piers_Anthony/Archive_1#Pedophilia]]. [[User:Ash|Ash]] ([[User talk:Ash|talk]]) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
::You know, there's a reason it keeps coming up. Why not just include a themes section, like many other author's pages have, because a major theme of this writer is SEX WITH CHILDREN!!! [[User:Snookumz|Snookumz]] ([[User talk:Snookumz|talk]]) 22:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:25, 17 May 2012
Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Books Start‑class | |||||||
|
Note about this talk page
This talk page is for discussions about improving the article. Additionally, please observe WP:BLP. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This applies to this talk page as well as the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
"What of Earth" and reputation
Not sure why the "What of Earth" section takes up so much of the article -- from what appears, it seems to have been a nasty but somewhat minor publishing squabble resolved 30 years ago. Also, there should be something on his general reputation -- some of of his early works such as Macroscope and Rings of Ice etc. are fairly well-respected, but a very significant number of people among hard-core science fiction fandom regard him as having cashed in on somewhat puerile cookie-cutter works of little ultimate value (such as most of the Xanth, and Apprentice Adept books, etc.) -- it was a regular topic of discussion on Usenet's "rec.arts.sf.written" whenever Anthony's name came up, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2009
- Concur. The discussion of But What of Earth seems like a clear undue weight issue. john k (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've trimmed it down and attempted to improve the wording. —Torchiest talk/edits 12:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed this section entirely, as it was lacking in sources of any kind. Perhaps it wasn't much of a BLP issue, as it didn't reflect too badly on Anthony himself (and the two people it did reflect badly on, Roger Elwood and Robert Coulson, are both dead), but even so I don't think it belongs in the article without some kind of source to demonstrate that it was significant enough to be worth mentioning. Robofish (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just wanted to clarify that the removed material reflected poorly on Elwood, not on Buck Coulson. Buck was not accused of being at fault for what Elwood told him; just of edits that Anthony didn't like (a question of artistic judgement, not of ethics). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC) (knew Buck; knows Juanita)
Reputation among SF fans
There still should be some way to indicate that his general reputation among regular science-fiction readers has declined precipitously beginning around 1976 or 1977... AnonMoos (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, something about some of his adult men with v. under-aged girl sex scenes...
Like in TATHAM MOUND, where the adult male protagonist has (frighteningly described) sex with a 10-year-old (her idea, of course); or in FIREFLY, with an even more detailed pedophilic sex scene, described by the five-year-old girl (again, the whole thing was instigated by her...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please check the archives before raising this again - Talk:Piers_Anthony/Archive_1#Pedophilia. Ash (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)