Everybody Hates Keith

E. LeGuille · Post by **E. LeGuille** » 03 Sep 2009 03:59

Okay, so I have read this entire thread, and I thought about it a lot.

I have never liked Amazon, as I do not like either their website, nor do I like the fact they detest any sort of return policy or griefer policy. But, at the same time, the site just seems to be a spawn of "I hate this author, anyway" -- but KJA is so big a face -- notice, I said face, not body -- in SciFi, I'm not amazed there are more attacks on him. Yes, there are a lot of disappointing things, and yes -- every writer has a hit and miss -- and yes, everyone is going to hate something about something. Most of these reviews were to the point about why the did not like the book, and the one on his Terra Incognita book -- It definitely has it's points.

But let's be honest here, if I was to look for someone that disliked something -- Amazon is the place to go. Love him or hate him, someone will always dislike something.

Post by **lotek** » 03 Sep 2009 05:35

E. LeGuille wrote: but KJA is so big a face -- notice, I said face, not body -- in SciFi, I'm not amazed there are more attacks on him.

it's not because he's trying to put his fingers in all the pies that there are attacks.. hold on that's exactly why there are attacks! Because he's talking his way into becoming the writer he desperately longs to be, but that's just wishful thinking.

E. LeGuille wrote: Yes, there are a lot of disappointing things,

"a lot" being an understatement here, when the only good reviews he gets are from his cronies...

E. LeGuille wrote: and yes -- every writer has a hit and miss -- and yes, everyone is going to hate something about something.

he certainly has had his share of misses(not those), and it's not because some people would hate anything for the sake of it that this applies to this situation...

The fact that people from other "franchises", like Starcraft are so disappointed by what he does is symptomatic of how the general public is taken for a bunch of dimwits...
I mean one of these guys says the videogame storylines are better(I've worked in the gaming industry for a while and yes there are checks and double checks for consistency), whereas his drivel is plainly there for numbers and money.

I have only read some of the Nudune, so he could have the benfit of the doubt but I have been looking at SoD(it's in the bog it helps transit funny enough), and man is it poorly written!!You can tell that his constant explaining of everything comes from the fact he didn't get what Dune was about and made up his own kiddy explanation so he could at last be part of the crowd...

Redstar · Post by **Redstar** » 03 Sep 2009 05:56

I tend to agree with you, LeGuille, but in this situation we shouldn't look at the fact that KJA gets a lot of criticism, what we should be looking at is what's criticized. No matter the particular universe he's writing in, original or franchise, the complaints are consistent in that they point out the same thing: lack of attention to detail, constant re-capping, internal inconsistencies as well as universe inconsistencies, non-developing characters, and just plain bad writing.

If we're just "hating", then it's remarkable that we're all coincidentally hating him for the same exact, intellectually-reasonable reasons.

Nekhrun · Post by **Nekhrun** » 03 Sep 2009 07:28

E. LeGuille wrote:Okay, so I have read this entire thread, and I thought about it a lot.

I have never liked Amazon, as I do not like either their website, nor do I like the fact they detest any sort of return policy or griefer policy. But, at the same time, the site just seems to be a spawn of "I hate this author, anyway" -- but KJA is so big a face -- notice, I said face, not body -- in SciFi, I'm not amazed there are more attacks on him. Yes, there are a lot of disappointing things, and yes -- every writer has a hit and miss -- and yes, everyone is going to hate something about something. Most of these reviews were to the point about why the did not like the book, and the one on his Terra Incognita book -- It definitely has it's points.

But let's be honest here, if I was to look for someone that disliked something -- Amazon is the place to go. Love him or hate him, someone will always dislike something.

I would agree with you except for the fact that the reviewers provide specific details about things they dislike which are completely reasonable. kja fans simply write reviews that summarize the books.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 03 Sep 2009 08:16

E. LeGuille wrote:I have never liked Amazon, as I do not like either their website, nor do I like the fact they detest any sort of return policy or griefer policy.

I've never had to return anything to them, but AFAIK they DO have a return policy. What exactly are you on about here, with that bit? And a "griefer" policy?

Yes, there are a lot of disappointing things, and yes -- every writer has a hit and miss...

I'm sorry, when has KJA EVER had "a hit"?

TheDukester · Post by **TheDukester** » 03 Sep 2009 09:41

rain_maker wrote:While reading the reviews of the Hack's StarCraft book (thanks SandRider) ...

*cough*

TheDukester · Post by **TheDukester** » 03 Sep 2009 09:45

E. LeGuille wrote:... nor do I like the fact they detest any sort of return policy or griefer policy.

1. What does this even mean?

2. You've missed the point entirely. I won't recap it for you again; read HBJ's or Redstar's posts for a pretty good summary.

rain_maker · Post by **rain_maker** » 03 Sep 2009 12:12

TheDukester wrote:
rain_maker wrote:While reading the reviews of the Hack's StarCraft book (thanks SandRider) ...
*cough*

Ok ... Ok, I gave credit to the wrong guy. May the blessings of Muad'Dib be upon you, Dukester, for identifying such an educational and unintentionally humorous Amazon entry.

A Thing of Eternity · Post by **A Thing of Eternity** » 03 Sep 2009 12:32

Freakzilla wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:
At another point we are told that light takes "decades" to cross the galaxy. Thousands of decades, I think.

This SEALS IT! The fucking idiot has no understanding at all of the size of the galaxy/universe and/or the speed of the speed of light! Considering galactic distances are measured in lightyears, I would think the amount of time it takes light to cross 100,000 lightyears would be relatively simple to calculate!!

This truly explains why KJA thought it was possible for that Omnius signal to travel for 10K years and somehow end up at the outer reaches of the galaxy/scattering!
Comcast has The Universe On-Demand and I watched "Light Speed" the other day.
From Sun to Earth: 8 min
Earth to Moon: 1.5 min
Earth to the Kuiper Belt: 28 hrs

KJA, you are a fucking moron.

I think the underlined is wrong, it should be maybe 1.5 seconds.

But yes, the man is a serious moron.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 03 Sep 2009 12:39

It's actually 1.3 seconds, my bad. (watched it again last night.)

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 04 Sep 2009 13:58

SandRider wrote:

A true treasure of understatement

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 08 Sep 2009 17:23

I don't know how old this actually is,
it looks like it was all archived in April 2004.

KEVIN J. ANDERSON ON THE RETURN OF THE STARJAMMERS
by Benjamin Ong Pang Kean
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.p ... 70&t=11723" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

{blah-blah-blah}
Old Keith blatherings is old.

04-14-2004, 10:45 AM
Dave Cummings

Oh, and I love how people are condemning the book before it actually comes out. God forbid you actually read it. What. Are you afraid that you might actually like it? So, then you couldn't whine about it?

~Dave

old 501st arguments are old.

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.p ... 723&page=4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

04-14-2004, 02:59 PM
The Marvel:

This is, quite frankly, retarded.

Take perfectly good charcters, do away with them, and start over for no reason. In other words, the Marvel Way.

And most importantly, they got an absolute hack like K. J. Anderson to "write" it. Anderson is truly pathetic - he releases something like 100 books a year, none of which have an ounce of quality or talent within them.

Anderson must have a computer program that has around 3 generic, cliche stories installed to which he then plugs in characters names and - voila! - produces yet another "new" book. This guy is a sad, sad excuse for a writer and I would again call him a hack, but that would really be unfair to hacks.

Anderson is so bad that he almost elevates Chuck Austen to a hack-level status.

Almost.

old hate is old

TheDukester · Post by **TheDukester** » 08 Sep 2009 17:25

That's good stuff, though, no matter what year it was written.

"Computer program": I like that. I could see TheKJA double-clicking on the "New Dune book" icon, then kicking back and stuffing himself with more food and booze.

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 11 Sep 2009 09:46

It's like a corporate slogan...

NuDune...and you're done. Wasn't that easy?

E. LeGuille · Post by **E. LeGuille** » 11 Sep 2009 21:35

TheDukester wrote:
E. LeGuille wrote:... nor do I like the fact they detest any sort of return policy or griefer policy.
1. What does this even mean?

2. You've missed the point entirely. I won't recap it for you again; read HBJ's or Redstar's posts for a pretty good summary.

If that's where you stopped reading, then there is nothing I can say in defense, since you obviously took that one piece, and made a trivial snipe about it.

But since you asked, I will answer:

1. It means that Amazon's return policy cost me money the last time I tried to return a book they had sent me as NEW, and was obviously USED. Griefer policy is a statement about how they allow many authors to become a target of hit and run 1-star reviews, and an obvious lack of statement about the book, and always about the author. Some reviews on there are maybe 2-lines and a 1-star review. That's pretty bad.

This does not include the Dune stuff, because those were legitimate complaints. I just wish the ADD of going from the book to the author, to his personal life, to his wife... that's not needed.

2. ... Honestly. You're posting for me to read someone else's re-cap of the thread, even though you obviously did not read them, because you would have quoted them. you quoted me, out of context, to make a point about something you didn't read? I can see where you post count went to.

TheDukester · Post by **TheDukester** » 11 Sep 2009 21:40

Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?

If you have a point, make it.

Here's a great hint for you: try using five words instead of eight. Then, try using three instead of five.

That one's for free.

E. LeGuille · Post by **E. LeGuille** » 11 Sep 2009 21:42

TheDukester wrote:Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?

If you have a point, make it.

Here's a great hint for you: try using five words instead of eight. Then, try using three instead of five.

That one's for free.

That was quick! Another post count for you!

And by the by, I did make a point. I'm sorry you didn't read it. (again).

TheDukester · Post by **TheDukester** » 11 Sep 2009 21:50

E. LeGuille wrote:And by the by, I did make a point.

You keep saying that ...

... but it just doesn't make it so.

(Maybe you left with your avatar? Or is the blue question mark on purpose?)

E. LeGuille · Post by **E. LeGuille** » 11 Sep 2009 22:01

TheDukester wrote:
E. LeGuille wrote:And by the by, I did make a point.
You keep saying that ...

... but it just doesn't make it so.

(Maybe you left with your avatar? Or is the blue question mark on purpose?)

What does my avatar have to do with anything?
So, this makes me wonder: Are you a fan of KJA as well? You seem to be in favor of quantity over quality. That's what you accuse him of, isn't it? Writing too much with too little substance?

You seem to be having issues, so I will end the conversation here. Unless, of course, you want the public last word. Which is yours to have: Go on, I know you want it.

TheDukester · Post by **TheDukester** » 11 Sep 2009 22:04

E. LeGuille wrote:Are you a fan of KJA as well?

Fuck off and die, you dickless wonder.

And what is your obsession with my post-count? You've now mentioned it three more times than I ever have.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 12 Sep 2009 00:22

E. LeGuille wrote:1. It means that Amazon's return policy cost me money the last time I tried to return a book they had sent me as NEW, and was obviously USED.

That's really weird; I thought all USED books offered at Amazon were handled by associated resellers. Is this not correct? Are you sure you didn't order a used book by mistake?

Griefer policy is a statement about how they allow many authors to become a target of hit and run 1-star reviews, and an obvious lack of statement about the book, and always about the author. Some reviews on there are maybe 2-lines and a 1-star review. That's pretty bad.

No worse than five-star shill reviews by people who obviously haven't even read the book. Some of them are only two lines long as well. (And that DOES include "Dune stuff", even WoD.) If Amazon is going to forbid the one, they ought to forbid the other as well, no?

I just wish the ADD of going from the book to the author, to his personal life, to his wife... that's not needed.

Your opinion and you're welcome to it.

2. ... Honestly. You're posting for me to read someone else's re-cap of the thread, even though you obviously did not read them, because you would have quoted them. you quoted me, out of context, to make a point about something you didn't read? I can see where you post count went to.

This is Conway-worthy nonsense. Congratulations!

E. LeGuille · Post by **E. LeGuille** » 12 Sep 2009 00:38

SandChigger wrote:
E. LeGuille wrote:1. It means that Amazon's return policy cost me money the last time I tried to return a book they had sent me as NEW, and was obviously USED.
That's really weird; I thought all USED books offered at Amazon were handled by associated resellers. Is this not correct? Are you sure you didn't order a used book by mistake?

No, because Amazon admitted that what had happened, and they just gave me hell for it because they did not know how to handle it. The order is placed, and I have the email confirmation somewhere: But that's a non-issue, it's over now.

SandChigger wrote:
Griefer policy is a statement about how they allow many authors to become a target of hit and run 1-star reviews, and an obvious lack of statement about the book, and always about the author. Some reviews on there are maybe 2-lines and a 1-star review. That's pretty bad.
No worse than five-star shill reviews by people who obviously haven't even read the book. Some of them are only two lines long as well. (And that DOES include "Dune stuff", even WoD.) If Amazon is going to forbid the one, they ought to forbid the other as well, no?

Totally agree. Shill reviews are the worst. At best I rated one of Kevin's book a 4. Never a 5.

SandChigger wrote:
I just wish the ADD of going from the book to the author, to his personal life, to his wife... that's not needed.
Your opinion and you're welcome to it.

Thank you.

SandChigger wrote:
2. ... Honestly. You're posting for me to read someone else's re-cap of the thread, even though you obviously did not read them, because you would have quoted them. you quoted me, out of context, to make a point about something you didn't read? I can see where you post count went to.
This is Conway-worthy nonsense. Congratulations!

How so? He took one item out of many, out of context, and made critical of it, and never gave a poignant reason as to why, or even a reasonable explanation as to what his point was. That is not nonsense. He took it out of context and could not gratify it with a point. He added only to his post count, not the subject. Like what Kevin does to Dune books. Quantity over Quality.

The fact is, if you're going to quote me, at least quote me in context. I don't quote you like this...

SandChigger wrote:... Congratulations!

. ...because we all know you'd never congratulate me, except maybe that other post.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 12 Sep 2009 06:47

E. LeGuille wrote:The fact is, if you're going to quote me, at least quote me in context. I don't quote you like this...
SandChigger wrote:... Congratulations!
. ...because we all know you'd never congratulate me, except maybe that other post.

Oh, get the fuck over yourself already, cupcake. Since you were the only one I quoted in my post, there was NO need to include your name in quotes after the first.

(I assume that's what you're on about. Anyone following the thread probably wasn't confused. Anyone with a brain can scroll up the thread and check previous posts for themselves. Kindly pull head out of asshole now.)

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 12 Sep 2009 10:34

I have no idea what y'all are arguing about and am not about to scroll up and find out,
hell, I ain't even sure what thread this is and don't care, I just like the animosity ...

TheDukester · Post by **TheDukester** » 12 Sep 2009 10:37

E. LeGuille wrote:How so? He took one item out of many, out of context, and made critical of it, and never gave a poignant reason as to why, or even a reasonable explanation as to what his point was. That is not nonsense. He took it out of context and could not gratify it with a point. He added only to his post count, not the subject. Like what Kevin does to Dune books. Quantity over Quality.

Zero idea what any of this means.

My only guess ... you've been high for two days now, right? I mean literally. You are stoned right this very minute, aren't you?

I can think of no other explanation.

J A C U R U T U

Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith

Re: Everybody Hates Keith