Communique from the Continent of Stupidea

UPDATE! Stupidea issues another communique, after first deleting just about all comments from the prior entry. It reads in part: “Even though we are on opposite sides, I assure you that the real division in the world is not between Right and Left, not between Homophobes and Pervertarians, but between men of reason and good will, we men of the mind, and our mutual foes, the men of unreason, the men of mere emotion. Do not be fooled into thinking that because they agree with you for now, that they are like you.” Yes, we men of the mind. Men, mind you. You wo-men of the mind, clear off now. But we men of the mind, we jolly right-minded men of the mind…well, I’m a lumberjack and that’s all right. I work all day and…Oh, I give up. Stick a fork in him, he’s done.

Recently, a new communique came in from the continent of Stupidea.

Stupidea lies just off the shore of the Land of Reason, with a deep channel of purifying water lying between the two. Stupideans are generally characterized by having large brain-like organs in their heads that mimic real brains by allowing them to use advanced terminology, although to minimal effect. Their hearts are unique because their hearts are tiny. When looked at under the microscope, these hearts turn out to be composed of ashes mixed with ground-up pepper grains.


  1. says


    I’m thinking pretty much the same thing, except I have her book as a review copy. It seems interesting (I do like Shakespeare’s The Tempest, after all). I want to be able to divorce her husband’s views from her story, but when I see the dedication and the apparent amount of influence he may have had on the story, I hesitate…and I hate finding myself doing that.

  2. says

    Change that: After reading about Lamplighter’s actions at Worldcon, I think it’ll be much, much more difficult for me to go any further in her debut novel, not without thinking of what she said and did there.

  3. says

    I will (surprisingly) second Ian Sales’ basic comment. The justification for taking an author to task over their personal viewpoints occurs at the moment that they they use the audience they have acquired through to display and spread their personal viewpoints.

    The author created the situation – not the audience members who now refuse to purchase his works.

    Media-savy folk have been maintaining a wall between their professional life and their personal life for ages. The successful ‘public personality’ understands that their works need to appeal to a wide, general audience and maintain a persona that is appealing (or at least not offensive) to a wide, general audience.

    Does this intrude on their “right to express their views” – damn right it does – if THEY choose to want to continue to appeal to a wide, general audience.

    Compare pundits and personalities like Coulter or Hannity to Wright and Card. Neither Coulter or Hannity have any illusions about the fact that they have chosen to appeal to a specific audience – not a general one. By doing so they have retained the ability to say just about anything they want to publicly. Those of us who disagree with their views and don’t fund their efforts aren’t surprised at their statements, nor are they surprised that we don’t buy their stuff.

    Card and Wright, on the other hand, are trying to straddle; they want the sales they get from the general audience, but also want the right to say whatever they feel like saying. It just ain’t gonna happen.

  4. Matthew Pridham says

    How awfully amusing… And I do mean awful. I’d never heard of this guy until today. So nice to see the world of SciFi has its very own Michael Savage. The comparison goes beyond a faint physical one… Like Savage, Wright has that tone of the wannabe intellectual, all five-dollar words and quotations from the Greeks, the bluster about saving “Western civilization” from the degenerates. Of course, a good portion of that culture they are so eager to rescue was created by men & women they would classify as perverts. Socrates, Oscar Wilde, Michaelangelo, Proust, Virginia Woolf, Da Vinci, Christopher Marlowe, etc, etc. How about bisexual Shakespeare? How about the flaming King James, the same King who oversaw the translation of their favorite fantasy novel? There is a special genius in the ability to so strongly dissociate oneself from unwanted knowledge, and the far-right, at least at the moment, is rife with these geniuses. Also, like Savage, Wright oozes anxious machismo, and of that “Methinks he doth protest too much” variety. That kind of swagger doesn’t come about from anything like a healthy relationship with one’s Id. They both mention “self-control” as the real issue when it comes to homosexual attraction, not, you know, attraction. And of course, they both vehemently deny their religious beliefs have anything to do with the topic at hand. This is particularly laughable in Wright’s case, as he keeps using words like “sin” throughout his ranting. I may be wrong, but I think the concept of sin was excused from ethical philosophy, at least of the non-religious sort, before Kant. And he was a believer! Anyways, its irksome, the way they use religious arguments, as well as appealing to leftover societal taboos, and then angrily refuse that theirs is a faith-based bigotry. Have some guts, people out there! At least your Saudi Arabian kin don’t hesitate to pin their murderous attitudes toward women, homosexuals and most everybody else on the Koran. Someone like Wright wants to sound like a fiery intellectual/moralist, but he’s no William Blake, no Kierkegaard, not even a Tolstoy. He uses bigger words than Anne Coulter, I’ll give him that.

    One part of me believes we should have pity for creatures like this. At some point they were warped, who knows how? At one point they let in the poison and let it transform themselves into carriers of the poison. But then again, that’s the issue: they are carriers now. Pornographers of hatred. I for one have never been in favor of silencing voices, not with censorship or bans or gulags or any of that tripe. But calling them on their shit? That there is what the First Amendment is for. Criticism, parody, deconstruction, and laughter. Laughter hurts someone like Wright more than probably anything else.

    As for buying his books, frankly the dunderheaded tone of his blogging (and I’ve read some interviews now and found them snide, bombastic and silly) makes me want to avoid reading his work. It’s like walking into a restaurant and seeing the only cook blowing his nose with his fingers right before setting to work on your dish. The sortof jibberish Wright spouts has no doubt found its way into his prose, whether obviously or not. And yeah, Celine & Heidegger were Nazis and Lovecraft & Dickens were racists and Nietzsche & Dick had problems with women and etc., but then, these folks were also geniuses. It’s certainly true that having some distance from their cultural contexts makes some difference, as does an open understanding of the shadows their various works have cast. S. T. Joshi is the hardest of hardcore Lovecraftians around and he is the first to admit how ugly and embarrassing HPL’s bigotry is. I think I’ll let Wright’s work pass through the threshing machine that is literary history before seeing if there is anything to him but medieval prejudices & ill-concealed issues with what his pee-pee wants him to do with it.

    And I can only imagine Lovecraft’s blogging would sound like his letters: alternately profound, amusing, sentimental, boring, learned and, every once in awhile, vile.

  5. says

    Religious objection to homosexuality is not something I agree with, but it usually doesn’t effect my enjoyment of a book/movie/music. For instance, I love Flannery O’Connor’s work. It’s full of love for her weird characters, even if she is kind of off on the subject of race and she would probably condemn me for being gay. When a person goes into straight out hate rhetoric and wild irrationality, I draw the line. And Wright is foaming like Beck on a crystal meth bender.

    Additionally, both Wright and Lamplighter have bizarre views on race. He calls African Americans “Negroes” in an annoyingly anachronistic way. And Lamplighter referred to her son’s black friend as “a boy of pitch.” Where do they live where that’s OK? It’s like both of them are channeling Ignatius O’Reilly. They probably call Obama The Moor of Washington.

    And really–do they even think before they act? I mean, at least one editor, if not more, at Tor might be “deviant.” A person perusing their books might be a “person of pitch.”

  6. Matthew Pridham says

    “The Moor of Washington!”

    Yeah, Mrs. John C. Wright (as her husband calls her in a good number of blogs) seems pretty daft with her “I don’t even notice that people are African or Asian!” I can’t help wonder if she only “notices” this when she says something asinine and racist and gets called on it.

  7. says


    You’re a better reader than I if you can approach the Wright family books by themselves, without searching through them for hints of their views.

  8. says

    That’s it – it’s hard for me to do so, but then again, I read f’n Hitler for my graduate research, so I guess I have the stomach for that sort of crap :P

  9. says

    As of a couple of hours ago, Wright has closed his journal to comments, excepting those of “friends.” All comments to his grand “Communique from the Continent of Stupidea” have been erased.

  10. Eddie C says

    BEWARE THE MAN OF UNREASON!!!! For he might, um. Have emotion. Or something. And not spout randian bollocks. Or something.

  11. says

    And these posts are just the tip of the iceberg. With a little googling it’s easy to find out that he’s been rambling the language of “Stupidea” since his heart attack and supernatural christian revelations & visions. As was mentioned also earlier.

  12. Hannu Blommila says

    And to think I own three books by John C. Wright…The embarrassment. The shame…

    What a truly sad, sad person he is. Someone buy him a Capybara. Maybe it helps..

  13. TK Downtown says

    I’m not against reading fiction writers who are narcissistic, intolerant, or mad. I’ve read a couple of Wright’s novels and found them a mixed bag. I’ve also followed his blog for a couple of years for its rubbernecking value. It’s not a typical writer’s blog; it’s mostly a record of Wright’s certitudes and correctitudes, often framed as logical proofs complete with Latin phrases — and a whole lot of bile. Wright often describes himself as a philosopher and a gentleman; but I see someone who is lacking in sanity and humanity to a poignant degree. And it’s not just the gay issue that torments him; he has a long list of grievances — from wetbacks, to treehuggers, to hedonists, to the war against Christmas, to that vile pigmy Harlan Ellison who once dissed him, to people who want to take away his guns, to men who don’t stand when a lady enters the room… He’s also full of arcane wisdom such as “Few people realize that horses were put on earth to carry men into battle.” In my estimation, Wright’s daily demonstration of how he is exclusively right about everything, functions to help him keep his psyche freshly cleansed of any creeping ambiguity or compunction. He is where he wants to be, and will pray for all you evil, stupid naysayers.

  14. PhilRM says

    News flash for Wright: the opposite of “Homophobe” is not “Pervertarian”, it’s “normal, sane human”.

  15. Bev says

    Wright sounds like a raving lunatic! His response to negative comments is typical: he’s packing up his toys and going home because no one will “play fair” with him. Although I see he’s kept the comments open only to his friends. I guess he’ll have to lick his wounds and commiserate with the equally benighted.

  16. says

    Given today’s insanity, I’m modifying my evaluation. This is not the rantings of a homophobe.

    Wright (for some reason) bought into the evangelical (bs) world view and is now shocked, dismayed, upset and a bit put out that white, male evangelical christians are not immediately given patriarch status.

    I wonder – does his wife walk six paces behind him – oh wait, that’s oriental…

  17. says

    Though we can only ponder his motivations, Mr. Wright appears to have deleted the entry that has angered and boggled so many minds. I shall not interpret this as a retraction, but, perhaps, as a cowardly retreat.

  18. says

    It is speculated that most likely he deleted the original post because it got linked in his Wikipedia page.

    Although right now there’s no longer a direct link to individual entries, but simply to his entire blog, which the Wikipedia Gods said was enough (and they are indeed right in this case).

  19. says

    I am having some trouble getting to load this page. I visited it many times before and never got anything like this, but now when I try to load the site it just idles for for some time & then just stops. I have tried both with www and without. Does anyone know what could be the reason? Please ask your host support… I hope to be able to come back soon.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *