David Anthony Durham is the author of a fantasy novel, Acacia, and two historical novels. He was the initial impetus behind my previous post, Race in Writing in which I explain one of my views on race in direct relation to an interview he did with John Scalzi. (I linked it all on my other post.)
He is also a very cool guy.
David responded to my post with the utmost civility, which, if you read his blog, is pretty much how he does everything. So, because I’m new to WordPress and did not know specifically how to respond to his comment, I am responding here, just in case he pops over again.
David, I’d just like you to know, I really respect your comments and writings. No, I have not yet read your books, because I don’t really read historical fiction, and I generally wait until books are in mass market before I pick them up, unless the author does a tour (hint, hint). I am very excited, though, to read Acacia when it is in paperback, and I have plenty to tide me over until then. (I work at Border’s, so I’ll know. I’ll know.)
Now, the race issue.
People who know me will tell you I generally don’t censor myself. Occasionally, I edit myself, but that’s not really the same thing. So, when I post about something, I usually just say what is on my mind at the time; sometimes because I mean it, sometimes because I just want to see how it sounds so I can make up my mind, and sometimes as musings or consciousness streams. The previous post was some of the first, but mostly the second.
I leave all my writing up, whether good or bad; complimentary or rude; well-thought-out or off-the-cuff. I do this for many reasons, but the main one is Truth. I like people to know me. I like people to like me for my intelligence as well as my idiocy, and I like to see how I’ve evolved over time. When people comment on my posts, I love to see what they have to say, which is why I never delete comments, just like I never delete posts. I also use their comments as a reflection of what I’ve said, and pay attention. If I agree or not, I still appreciate them giving me something to think about, or even just an angry piece of their minds.
Well, David gave me something to think about, and while, as I’ve said, I won’t alter my previous post, I will answer David’s response to it.
David – you are correct. I based my opinion of you not only on the Scalzi interview, but on my ignorance of you, as well as some comments I’d gotten prior to writing that. Now that I’ve read your blog and conversed with you, at least within the confines of same, I know that my initial assumptions were very wrong. I stand by them as a documentation of a moment of space/time, but not as the truth. And while I do not regret what I said (since really, I don’t think I said anything insulting) I do now know it was a poorly informed opinion, and it has since been altered. (Although, if you read the first part of the post, I mentioned my desire to have David as a teacher. I stand by that assertion.)
All of what you put in your comment, David, I had already understood and had put behind me – but since you felt it necessary (and rightly so) to point out my faulty assumptions, I’m now stating what I’d already thought but never said. I do feel as if we would agree on quite a few things, as indeed we already have (even if I did mistakenly call your wife Irish.) I also feel that we would disagree on many things, as people often do, but in a good and constructive way, as people often don’t, as we both seem to be similar conversationalists. (Is that proper grammar? Oh well.)
At any rate, this is longer than I’d meant to make it, but I think I’ve made my point. David civil, Corby misinformed, “issue” past tense.