Reading reviews from Phillip DiFlippio (a writer who's short stories I have previously enjoyed) for Locus, I came across his review of the book I mention in the og post. Now I have no idea what his political affiliations are, and based on the review wouldn't know where Wright's lay either.

On the one hand I'm like yeah maybe that shouldn't be in there, but then on the other I recall how the politics (or cultural mores) of an author tend to be a focal point when reviewing women or people of color. Even white male authors can have their ideologies shape their reviews when they wear them on their pages. So it has me wondering if Wright's shit doesn't show up on the page (i doubt it) or if I have to wonder if DiFlippio is a supporter or appologist.

It would seem that the only way to address these things from the community is if these types of issues are being addressed in reviews. But can we really be critical about these things or just speak to them objective (eg Wright's political leanings show their face in the relationship between x and y and y's apparent prejudices). I don't know it's delicate.

Anyway that led me to this:

http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2014/05/07/heinlein-hugos-and-hogwash/

Of course its worth noting the audience there. But objectively speaking it is a good counter argument.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."