You have GOT to be kidding (Traviss' NEW blog)

SecondToDie · Post by **SecondToDie** » 2005-10-08 09:39pm

Who the hell is Karen Traviss? All I've been able to find out about her is that she wrote 2 books about the Clone Wars. Why does everyone dislike her so much?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-10-08 09:41pm

SecondToDie wrote:Who the hell is Karen Traviss? All I've been able to find out about her is that she wrote 2 books about the Clone Wars. Why does everyone dislike her so much?

The precursor thread

It gives you some insight as to why.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-08 10:34pm

Xess wrote:
Stark wrote:Does DM use the phrase 'discussing concepts not people' too much for anyone elses' liking? It's his silver bullet: when he wants someone to shut up/be banned etc, they were 'discussing people not concepts' and that's bad. Unless it's him or the 'VIPs', of course... and Dr Saxton deserves no such protection.
Indeed. I responded to Traviss' blog that discussed people and not concepts and got banned for doing the same. Fucking hypocrite.

I've made my views on websites with "civility" rules clear before. Civility rules are subjective, and as such, they are easy to apply in a grossly uneven and hypocritical fashion. To put it bluntly, when someone decides that any behaviour deemed "offensive" will be banned, what it usually means is that anything offensive to him will be banned. And the instant he has some emotional investment in an argument, "offensive" means "his opponents".

Xess · Post by **Xess** » 2005-10-08 11:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:I've made my views on websites with "civility" rules clear before. Civility rules are subjective, and as such, they are easy to apply in a grossly uneven and hypocritical fashion. To put it bluntly, when someone decides that any behaviour deemed "offensive" will be banned, what it usually means is that anything offensive to him will be banned. And the instant he has some emotional investment in an argument, "offensive" means "his opponents".

That is unfortunately very true, which is why I find SDN to be such a relief.

And I'm fairly sure this has been posted in one of the other GAR threads but here it is again.

Karen Traviss wrote:When I look at a fictional army, my first reaction is to do what I did as a defense correspondent -- try to understand how it works. I need to know how big it is, what its main roles are, how the command structure works, how it deploys, how it keeps itself supplied and so on. Show me an army of three million men and I'm going to ask where their commanders are and what's happening in their ops room. Some people say that doesn't matter in fiction, but yes, it does -- because the more real you make it, the better plots it gives you

So they're not only hypocrites they're damn liars as well. You can be sure Traviss isn't getting another penny from me.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-09 12:37am

What precisely is a "defense correspondent" anyway? How could someone be a "defense correspondent" while subscribing to such mind-bogglingly ignorant notions of troop strength requirements? And here I was, thinking that Rumsfeld was incompetent.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-10-09 02:06am

Darth Wong wrote:What precisely is a "defense correspondent" anyway? How could someone be a "defense correspondent" while subscribing to such mind-bogglingly ignorant notions of troop strength requirements? And here I was, thinking that Rumsfeld was incompetent.

I did some searching, and I believe a defense correspondent is a journalist who covers the military and interviews soldiers:

StarWars.com feature on Karen Traviss

A journalist by profession, Traviss also worked in advertising and in political public relations. In addition to her communications career, Traviss also led somewhat of a double life with her other vocation in the military. She was a rarity as a female defense correspondent. She also served in the reserve forces, first in the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service, and then the Territorial Army. But she wanted to give writing fiction a serious effort, so in 1998 she began taking a stab at it.

"Being a defense correspondent was a fantastic job," Traviss says. "Most people have never dived in a submarine or have been winched off ships by helicopter or have been out with the army in Northern Ireland. One of the most memorable days for me was standing on the deck of HMS Victory early one frosty morning on October 21 -- on Trafalgar Day -- to cover the annual commemoration of Admiral Lord Nelson's death. And interviewing servicemen and women about their experiences has been one of the most formative things in my entire life. I've heard first-hand accounts of war -- from WWI to the Gulf -- that have made me laugh, amazed me, moved me and even reduced me to tears in private. Service personnel have my utmost respect, all of them."

I'm amazed that anyone could be in such close contact with real military personnel (even serving in the reserves herself) and still buy into that "uber special forces" crap. Either she didn't understand a damn thing about what she was supposed to be covering, or she's a sloppy, careless writer who doesn't give a shit about numbers and internal consistency.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-09 02:24am

Ah, I see. So "defense correspondent" really means "I met lots of soldiers while taking their pictures and asking them fluff questions, but I don't actually know jack shit about military strategy or tactics".

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2005-10-09 02:37am

From her style of writing she sounds like your typical brown-nosing account management type...I am well acquainted with that kind of approach unfortunately.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2005-10-09 06:22am

Darth Wong wrote:Ah, I see. So "defense correspondent" really means "I met lots of soldiers while taking their pictures and asking them fluff questions, but I don't actually know jack shit about military strategy or tactics".

She will come back with "Oh, but I served in the TA, so I know all about that"
But she clearly lacks perspective and detailed knowledge of the subject because her 'service' would have been fairly limited.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2005-10-09 10:35am

Obviously the kind of "embedded journalist", who let themself be used as mouth-pieces for the Pentagon.

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2005-10-09 01:09pm

Even worse she is a UK defence correspondent. Apart from the guy in the Daily Telegraph, who is 'average', every other newspaper has somebody who goofs up completely in every article. Talking about a 'Stealth fighter'? Great, show a picture of a B-2! A warship in the news? Well, it must be called a 'battleship' then! I could go on but everybody knows what I am talking about.