4 ms·
Read the article linked in that link, even he comes straight out and says "This is in no way a Hitler biography." It's a bad sign when your linked citations con
by Jacquass12321 16y ago
Read the article linked in that link, even he comes straight out and says "This is in no way a Hitler biography." It's a bad sign when your linked citations contradict your point. The rest of it is an anecdotal and largely unrelated mess, you can scroll farther down for some of the responses to it.
I think OSC's political positions are nigh idiotic, and frankly confusing given the very reasonable positions he presents in some of his books. E.G. Homosexual characters in his books are not society destroying monsters. Yet even given that you're still overstepping sane literary analysis when you start the Hitler biography bullshit. Attack the man on his politics all you want, his positions are easy to verify and highly public, just leave the stupid smears to die.
- Semiapies 16y ago"frankly confusing given the very reasonable positions he presents in some of his books" Yes, that has always puzzled me - going from portraying gay characters as alright people suffering from straight society's marginalization to ranting about the Gay Agenda. I suspect it has something to do with a remark he made in the late 80s or early 90s about local church (CoLDS) officials encouraging him to spend more of his pro writing time on religious propaganda or other pro-church material. It was in a non-fiction piece or an afterword in a book of his, and I wish I could remember which one.
- zacharycohn 16y agoInteresting. I didn't read any of the comments, I suppose that would have helped. What I thought was more interesting than the Hitler comparisons were the allegations of ghostwriting. I thought THAT was the real point of the article, that it was clear he didn't even know what was in his books, and when presented with something he definitely wrote, it was incoherent and poorly written.