John C. Wright’s roller coaster ride began May 7 when his essay “Heinlein, Hugos and Hogwash” was posted by Intercollegiate Review.
There followed an immediate plunge to the depths. [See Update below.]
– of which this comment from John Scalzi is representative:
Not reading another Elizabeth Moon or John C. Wright book. Many other authors who don’t support racists and bigots. http://t.co/X2YV4CpEgW> The same John Scalzi who hosted a Wright contribution to “The Big Idea” on Whatever in 2011 and ran interference with readers determined to snark about Wright’s politics. The same Scalzi that Wright spoke well of earlier this month.Dozens of others followed suit with their own epitaphs for Wright’s career.
Then today, the roller coaster suddenly bottomed out and swooped skyward again, launching Wright on a completely unpredictable ascent when Locus Online posted Paul Di Filippo’s very favorable review of Wright’s novel The Judge of Ages, released in February —
I go must go on to affirm that the novel provides much pleasure. Wright marshals up a big backstory of human evolution that proves to have some secrets we had not known before. The titanic battle scenes are full of mind-boggling super science. The camaraderie among Montrose and his pals evokes Arthurian depths of feeling. Alien psychologies are plumbed, along with Montrose’s old-fashioned, native Texan, dogmatic pureness of intention. And the book’s surprise ending does represent a sea-change of sorts.
After reading that endorsement, fans who have not already made a firm decision to avoid Wright’s fiction may leave the door at least slightly ajar after all.
Update 05/13/2014: John Scalzi confirms that the comment linked above wasn’t written by him. I apologize for spreading this disinformation, and offending the two writers involved. Next, how to deal with this post? Ordinarily when it’s pointed out to me that I have published an error I fix the article and add a note like this. However, since this example has already been widely read, and linked to, I have decided a better plan is to line through the bad information and associated commentary and point to this explanation. Otherwise it will look like I’m pretending it never happened. Or, to phrase it ironically, I feel I should not deprive latecomers of the opportunity to see for themselves that stupid thing Mike Glyer did on the internet.