Pixel Scroll 9/20 Scroll My Tears, The Would-Be Contributing Editor Said

(1) Ernie Hudson has filmed a cameo for the new Ghostbusters. All was forgiven sometime after gave this interview (quoted on The Mary Sue)….

Back in October of last year, Hudson told The Telegraph, “If it has nothing to do with the other two movies, and it’s all female, then why are you calling it Ghostbusters? I love females. I hope that if they go that way at least they’ll be funny, and if they’re not funny at least hopefully it’ll be sexy. I love the idea of including women, I think that’s great. But all-female I think would be a bad idea. I don’t think the fans want to see that.”.

 

(2) Mashable has the story – Astronauts on the International Space Station got an advance screening of The Martian.

Duncan Long asked, “Isn’t this a little like showing The Poseidon Adventure on a cruise ship?”

(3) Lincoln Michel in “Is It Time for Literary Magazines to Rethink the Slush” on Electric Literature.

Last month, I got entangled in a long twitter conversation about submission fees. The author Nick Mamatas took issue with The Offing magazine—an exciting new offshoot of the LA Review of Books focusing on promoting marginalized writers—deciding to charge a $3 fee for submissions. You can read Mamatas’s storify plus this follow-up blog post to see his side of things. Here’s a defense of fees from Nathaniel Tower for the other side. In general, the literary world is far too shy about talking about money, and publishing can be quite closed to marginalized voices who can’t afford unpaid internships, reading fees, and other entry barriers. This is a conversation we need to have.

Overall, I agree with Mamatas that there’s an ethical issue in charging submission fees. We never instituted them at Electric Literature for Recommended Reading, Gigantic, or any other magazine I’ve worked on. Plenty of journals barely take any work from the slush, but even a magazine that only publishes slush is likely only taking 1-2% of submissions. So the majority of unpublished writers are funding the minority of published, which isn’t a great foundation. Imagine if every worker had to pay to get a job interview? (Or, since most magazines don’t pay, maybe the analogy is paying to get an unpaid internship.) The defense of submission fees is that the fee is pretty small, perhaps only as costly as snail mail postage. But $3 adds up quickly. I’ve often heard the average story gets rejected twenty times before an acceptance. 21 x 3 = $63. The Offing pays $20-50, meaning you’d expect to lose between 13 and 43 bucks per story. Literary writers can’t expect to make much money from quiet short stories about cancer and obscure poems about birds, but surely we don’t need to actively lose money to get published!

I’d like to note here that The Offing is hardly the only magazine to charge a fee. Missouri Review, Sonora Review, Crazyhorse and so many others charge that when I asked about this on Twitter, I was told it would be easier to make a list of those who don’t. And the fact that The Offing pays $20-50 already puts them ahead of the vast majority of lit mags who pay nothing at all…

Could it be that The Singularity is not engaged in some kind of literary war crime but, in comparison to other magazines that don’t pay contributors, deserves to be commended for not charging a submission fee? (Rocks incoming in 5…4…3…)

(4) Yoon Ha Lee in “Outlining a Novel” —

[First 3 of 8 points.]

  1. I use parts of Randy Ingermanson’s snowflake method for writing a novel. If you haven’t looked at this (I’ve mentioned it several times in the past), it’s worth a look–it probably takes only a few hours to figure out whether or not it’s something that’ll work for you.

The parts I use are the first few steps:

– The one-sentence summary of the novel. I want to nail the core conflict and the protagonist. Ingermanson suggests fewer than 15 words. I use that as a rough guideline–sometimes I have to go a little over because the plot needs some sf/f setting setup. But not much over.

– One-paragraph summary. You can use three-act structure or similar if you like that. Ingermanson suggests “three disasters plus an ending.” It’s not a bad starting place.

– One-page summary. At this point I’m just expanding things out. I sometimes skip this step.

  1. I write down an unsorted list of elements and events that I want to make sure to include. Key scenes, particular relationships, cool tech toys, whatever.
  2. Determination of POVs. Mostly I base this on:

– Characters who are going to have growth arcs.

– Coverage of plot events.

– Information control. For example, some characters can’t be POVs because they spoil the entire damn book to the reader.

There are other considerations that come into play sometimes but they tend to be edge cases.

(5) Michael Cavna of the Comic Riffs blog on the Washington Post reports women swept the Small Press Expo’s Ignatz Awards given for outstanding achievement in comics and cartooning.

I JUST want to know, cartoonist C. Spike Trotman joked, how she’s going to get those three bricks through airport security.

Trotman, as emcee of the Small Press Expo’s Ignatz Awards ceremony Saturday night, was quickly finding the funny as Sophia Foster-Dimino hit the brick trifecta, picking up three trophies — which are an inspired nod to George Herriman’s “Krazy Kat” — and leading the field for the esteemed indie award.

The night felt like a coronation for Foster-Dimino, who dazzled voters with her “Sex Fantasy” comic and was selected best Promising New Talent. At the lectern, the cartoonist looked genuinely moved by the moment. And how better to build a young career than brick by brick?

Sophie Goldstein also picked up multiple awards; her work “The Oven” was voted Outstanding Comic and Outstanding Graphic Novel. When Goldstein kept her remarks brief upon her second win, she warmly joked that she was following Foster-Dimino’s humbled lead.

And just two years after every presenter at the Ignatz ceremony was a woman, now, at this year’s event, every winner was a woman.

(6) Don’t miss out on the current membership rate for the Helsinki Worldcon!

(7) On Startalk Radio Neil deGrasse Tyson holds A Conversation with Edward Snowden (Part 1)

In this week’s episode, Neil deGrasse Tyson chats with whistleblower Edward Snowden via robotic telepresence from Moscow. The two card-carrying members of the geek community discuss Isaac Newton, the difference between education and learning, and even how knowledge is created. They also dive into the Periodic Table and chemistry, before moving on to the more expected subjects of data compression, encryption and privacy. You’ll learn about the relationship between private contractors, the CIA, and the NSA, for whom Edward began working at only 16 years old. Edward explains why metadata tells the government much more about individuals than they claim, and why there’s a distinction between the voluntary disclosure of information and the involuntary subversion of individual intent. Part 1 ends with a conversation about Ben Franklin, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the CIA’s oath of service, and government Standard Form 312, which is the agreement Snowden violated.

(8) David Gerrold wrote on Facebook

I’ve had the name “Noah Ward” registered as an official pseudonym with the Writers’ Guild since the late 70s. (I’ve actually used it twice.)

In the planning for the Hugo award ceremony, one of the gags in the script was that if No Award won, I would accept the trophy as “Noah Ward.” Tananarive would protest, and I would whip out the letter from the Writers’ Guild to demonstrate the official-ness of my pen name. Tananarive would then explain the difference between No and Noah and I would grumpily give up the trophy.

If a second category came in as No Award, I was prepared to do “You like me, you really like me.”

But …

As it became clear that we might be looking at as many as 5 categories with No Award and that the voters seemed to be heading toward a massive smackdown of the slates, that joke had to be jettisoned.

In retrospect, that was the right choice. No Award in any category is an uncomfortable moment, even if that’s the result you voted for. So any attempt to add a joke to the moment would have been in very bad taste. And as much as I love a tasteless joke, this wasn’t the place for it.

It was fun to think about, it was the kind of gallows humor that people indulge in to release energy and frustration, but when it came down to the final moments, it was obvious that it wouldn’t play.

Even when explained by somebody who thought the asterisks were a good idea, it’s impossible to see why it was a hard choice to cut this gag….

[Thanks to Michael J. Walsh, and John King Tarpinian for some of these stories. Title credit belongs to File 770 would-be contributing editor of the day Nigel.]

447 thoughts on “Pixel Scroll 9/20 Scroll My Tears, The Would-Be Contributing Editor Said

  1. Nick Mamatas: The point is why decide that someone who makes a part of his living hosting awards shows without incident was going to roast nominees and winners at this particular one?

    Because he’d demonstrated extremely poor judgment at awards shows in the past?

    On 5 December 2007, Ross joked at the British Comedy Awards that his salary meant that he was “apparently worth 1,000 BBC journalists”. His quip came shortly after the BBC had announced plans for more than 2,000 jobs cuts, and was condemned as “obscene” by the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists.

    There is an avalanche of evidence that Ross does not know how to exercise good judgment in his public appearances. I sure as hell would not have trusted him not to stick his foot in his mouth, more than once, if he’d done the Hugos ceremony.

  2. @Laura Resnick: “Additionally, Ross seemed unprepared for negative reaction and quickly descended into exchanging insults on Twitter with people. How did he or LonCon think THAT was going to steer the ship anywhere but straight into shoals?”

    That’s just proof that he’s a major SF geek! Didn’t we all learn that after you GET FLUFF (the seat cushion one), you have to STEER TO CLIFFS until the speedboat’s autopilot takes over and delivers you right to the dock, where the crowd cheers wildly at your arrival? 😀

    (Why do I still remember every last move to that damn game?)

  3. JJ:

    So don’t be claiming that the majority of the cause — or even a significant part of it — was from Americans.

    Since you ignored everything I said in the post to which you are responding to instead wag a finger about someone I never so much as mentioned, I’ll take this as an admission that you’re just arguing for the sake of it, for some personal reason. I never used the words “majority” or “significant” either, I simply rejected Meredith’s false claim that USAmerican fans were not involved for the simple reason that they were: your link shows that PNH intervened early, for example, and he’s been a leading fan and pro for decades. The storify cited in your link also shows several people from the US intervening early. Ross’s first two happy not to host tweets are in direct response to an American fan and writer (and an acquaintance of mine who even took my creative writing class twice, on both coasts of the United States) and Tempest Bradford, an American fan and writer. If one US fan was involved, Meredith is wrong to claim the US fans were not involved. Several were involved.

    I’m not reading from some script titled “Old Arguments Well-Practiced By One Side.” Why are you?

    As far as your second remark, if you think the “apparently worth 1,000 BBC journalists” quip is an example of someone losing control instead of criticizing the BBC—and incidentally, the quip was at the Comedy Awards, not the BBC Poor Journalists Awards—then I am sure you’ll be spending all this energy you seem to have to keep Robert Silverberg off the Hugo stage from now on, right?

    If there is an avalanche of evidence that Ross can’t control himself at award shows, present it. Heck, give me a few snowballs.

  4. @LisCarey

    I was annoyed from the other direction: That American reactions are always so much more important and valuable and influential and relevant than those of anyone else… Even when most of them would have been asleep during the events in question.

    I suspect both your objection and mine are in play, here.

    @Nick Mamatas

    That timeline is off. Which of those are you quite certain were both from USAmerican fans and before he quit? Because Seanan McGuire’s were not, and they are presented as though they are.

  5. That timeline is off. Which of those are you quite certain were both from USAmerican fans and before he quit? Because Seanan McGuire’s were not, and they are presented as though they are.

    Asked and answered above. I’ll ask you and JJ one more time not to manufacture some claim about Seanan McGuire—or anything else, ever—put it in my mouth, and then ask me to defend it. If someone else made claims about McGuire, talk to those people.

  6. … Did you look at your link? At all? Where do you think her name came from?

    It came from your well-rehearsed script, but not from anything I said. That link, which I did look at, includes the tweet I have since pointed to twice more. Do you need a third go-round to make it clear that I am talking about American fan-writer Pixelfish, and American fan-writer K. Tempest Bradford ? They happen to be two people I follow on Twitter, so I saw it unfold in real time after waking up, reading Farah’s LJ post on the subject, and then going over to Twitter to look at the fight.

  7. @Nick Mamatas

    Well-rehearsed? When did I rehearse it? Can you point to that?

    I can, however, point to your link – that you put there as evidence – and say: Hey, that makes it look like Seanan McGuire’s tweets came before he withdrew, and maybe I can’t trust that all of the rest of those tweets did so.

  8. Well-rehearsed?

    Yup. As JJ tried the same exact thing, this is clearly a well-rehearsed trope. Right or wrong, and I am sure you are right about McGuire’s timing, it has zero to do with my point as I’ve explicitly pointed to the tweets I meant and which qualify as from US fans who are writers in question, via link, storify, and direct link to the archived tweets several times.

    So you’re just one of those people who likes to put words in people’s mouths. Understood. I’ll be sure to take you much less seriously in the future.

  9. @Nick Mamatas

    I checked, and you didn’t mention any names in the comment that included the link. Just the link and a reference to American’s – which would include Seanan McGuire. I’ll let you know when I learn to read minds, but until then I have to reply to the comment you actually made.

  10. As JJ tried the same exact thing, this is clearly a well-rehearsed trope.

    Clearly this is a conspiracy! How else could 2 people have a similar understanding of something that I disagree with?

    Also, I’m confused with “well-rehearsed trope”? Wouldn’t narrative be better instead of trope?

  11. I checked, and you didn’t mention any names in the comment that included the link.

    All the more reason not to insist that I am speaking about a specific person if I don’t mention specific people.

    Just the link and a reference to American’s – which would include Seanan McGuire.

    And several other people—recall when I said Several Americans?

    I’ll let you know when I learn to read minds, but until then I have to reply to the comment you actually made.

    And resolutely ignore all subsequent ones where I point out specific tweets and tweet threads that show Ross offering to resign specifically in conversation with American fan/writers who are not Seanan McGuire, repeatedly, because the alternative—acknowledging that you were wrong to say that no USAmerican fans were involved, or that you were wrong to suggest that I meant McGuire—is too terrible to deal with. Meredith Must Never Be Wrong.

  12. @snowcrash

    Oh, no, we must have co-ordinated somehow, rather than both been familiar with a commonly spread Wrong Fact. Why, whenever more than one commenter steps in to correct a Puppy Myth without first seeing each other’s comment, they must be collaborating in a rehearsed response! It’s the only explanation!

  13. Nick Mamatas: I never used the words “majority” or “significant” either

    Nick Mamatas: Several Americans, including fans who were also writers, were a significant part of the backlash.

    All right, you didn’t make clear whose tweets you were claiming were a significant part of the backlash. Let’s set McGuire aside.

    I don’t consider PNH’s or Bradford’s or pixelfish’s tweets to be “significant’, based on the veritable deluge of tweets from Europeans which were happening at the same time, including such prominent persons as Stross. But I’m happy to hear your evidence as to why those two three Americans were such “a significant part of the backlash”.

  14. How else could 2 people have a similar understanding of something that I disagree with?

    Well, I suppose they could both be semiliterate, or just committed to saying inaccurate things for religious reasons. That they’re repeating a well-rehearsed trope—which, incidentally, JJ even linked to—is the kindest alternative.

    As far it being a trope rather than a narrative, “You blame McGuire unfairly!” is a recurring motif in the discussion, not quite a full story.

    But do carry on with the derail.

  15. @Nick Mamatas

    Sigh. Go check the timestamps of your comment where you did mention other names and the one where I pointed out Seanan McGuire’s presence on that list. Do you think that maybe I didn’t see it because I was typing my own? Objecting to people neither being psychic nor so perfect as to avoid cross-posting is ridiculous – as is painting some grand rehearsal conspiracy from it.

    Regardless, one fan – or two, or three, or hell, a dozen – does not a majority make, and I’m uninterested in arguing pedantry.

  16. @Nick Mamatas

    I look forward to your explanation of how, from your original comment, which is what both JJ and I originally responded to, anyone could have worked out that you must not have meant Seanan McGuire to be part of your several American’s. Fully literate or otherwise.

  17. JJ,

    You’re right, I did say significant. My apologies.

    But I’m happy to hear your evidence as to why those two Americans were such “a significant part of the backlash”.

    As described and linked to more than once, Ross’s public suggestions that he would be happy to quit come in response to the tweets of American fan/writers Tempest and PixelFish. (He says it one time prior, as far as I can see, but more than once in response to the American fans.) These were significant enough to be quoted in your link, and the other storify also linked to above. If the interaction with US fans is significant enough to compel Ross to offer to quit more than once, and significant enough that observers preserve the specific tweets, well, I’d say that they were significant. (Hours earlier, Ross is mostly just offering to buy tickets from fans—mostly UK fans—and calling them stupid and complaining about libel and whatnot.)

    (Incidentally, Tempest’s interactions with Ross’s wife Jane Goldman led to Goldman deleting her twitter account. Histrionic on Goldman’s part, but clearly also significant part of the whole debacle.)

  18. But do carry on with the derail.

    Well, if you insist… A question to anyone – from Nick’s earlier post

    The point is why decide that someone who makes a part of his living hosting awards shows without incident was going to roast nominees and winners at this particular one?

    So from the article provided, whose tweets do you think most closely correspond to Nick’s description above in bold?

    Please remember to vary your spellings so it doesn’t come out as being rehearsed.

  19. Meredith:

    Do you think that maybe I didn’t see it because I was typing my own? Objecting to people neither being psychic nor so perfect as to avoid cross-posting is ridiculous – as is painting some grand rehearsal conspiracy from it.

    What might someone do in such a case? Well, they might say, “Oh, I see that we crossposted. Thanks for clarifying with further links to specific tweets that you didn’t mean McGuire.” This is, to be blunt, what a grown adult interested in having a good-faith conversation would do.

    And it is what you did not do. Instead, you’ve decided to double and then triple down on McGuire, timestamps, and other complaints, rather than simply acknowledge that your reminder that no USAmerican fans were involved was inaccurate.

    I look forward to your explanation of how, from your original comment, which is what both JJ and I originally responded to, anyone could have worked out that you must not have meant Seanan McGuire to be part of your several American’s.

    The easiest way would be to note that it is already well-known that McGuire’s tweets came after Ross quit. But let’s say you assume that I didn’t know that. Then you can ask “Who do you mean?” or you can ask “Did you mean McGuire, because she didn’t count? Who else were you thinking of?” Good faith questions, instead of heading right to the script.

  20. I feel that hacking out the exact details on who said what about Ross is very important. You have to choose your battles and in this case, civilization as we know it might hang on this. Battle on, brave comrades!

  21. @Nick Mamatas

    I see. So I shall look forward to you asking me nicely whether I meant no American fans whatsoever got involved at any point, then? Rather than just replying to the imprecisely worded comment I actually made?

  22. @Hampus

    Fair point. I should stop procrastinating from finishing City of Stairs, anyway. (Halfway!)

  23. So from the article provided, whose tweets do you think most closely correspond to Nick’s description above in bold?

    The article was linked to to demonstrate that several USAmerican fans were involved—as opposed to Meredith’s claim that zero were involved. You can tell this because the link is attached to the statement: “Several Americans, including fans who were also writers, were a significant part of the backlash.”

    That Ross might publicly abuse nominees and winners was certainly articulated by McGuire, but she was hardly the first to do so. The possibility that Ross would misbehave was clearly in play prior to McGuire’s tweets, as Lis Carey’s own comments of this evening show. They were built in to Farah Mendelsohn’s initial statement: “It is my firm belief that a person who has publicly harassed, humiliated and expressed prejudice to a wide range of groups in public and live media spaces, including award shows, is not a fit person to take the role of host of the Hugo Awards”, which is part of what led US fans to start their morning Googling. (Link leads to old File770 post as Farah made her LJ post on the subject private.)

    If I meant the link I provided to refer to the idea that Ross would be roasting people, I would have hyperlinked that link to that statement. I linked to it to show that more-than-zero Americans were at work on agitating against Ross.

  24. So I shall look forward to you asking me nicely whether I meant no American fans whatsoever got involved at any point, then?

    No, because you said something perfectly straightforward—that it was not US fans who were involved—and all I did was provide a link that showed that several US fans were involved. There was nothing bad faith about my correction to your claim. There is plenty of bad faith in your response though:

    I’m sure you’ve seen the timeline that shows McGuire’s tweets didn’t take place until after Ross had already offered to step down. So don’t be claiming that the majority of the cause — or even a significant part of it — was from Americans.

    I hand you a link that captures tweets from several people, you critique the inclusion of tweets from one person, and then you decide to tell me what not to claim by making up a claim I never made about a “majority”.

    That’s bad faith, period. You can own it or you can deny it again, it’s fine with me. All I can do is what I said I’d do, and take you much less seriously. Meredith Is Not To Be Corrected. Meredith Cannot Be Wrong.

  25. @Hampus

    When! When they said what they said is also important! Hugely so! Enormously so! Thro^H^H^H^

    *ahem*. I’ll be in my bunk.

  26. Just think, years from now we can relitigate all the other kerfuffles too. We’ll never run out of conversation.

    Son of the Return of Wossygate [INSERT NUMBER HERE]: Electric Boogaloo.

  27. Good writers make sure their comments are clear. If your frequently being misunderstood by people and they all have the same misunderstanding you might consider the problem is the lack of clarity in your communication.

    That’s what I was taught in school and again as I trained on several different writing jobs:
    Sales
    Marketing
    Technical writing
    Management
    Social media
    As I’m learning to write fiction

    It’s amazing how many times you are misunderstood Nick. The fallback on conspiracy theory is great. I can picture my teachers and bosses reactions had I used that one instead of admitting I could have communicated my point better. Something I’ve actually done a couple times over the last few days.

  28. I did screw up my comment (as I’ve already said) but most people got what I actually meant, so… I don’t know what that means. My comment was screwed up in a way that played into inherent assumptions of the majority better?

  29. Tasha,

    I don’t believe that I am frequently misunderstood. Most of the arguments/debates I’ve gotten into here, with Puppies or otherwise, have not centered around my claims being misunderstood. Feel free to dig up some links if you think I am misremembering. Most of what I’ve had to say on here has to do with the Mamatas Challenge (a succinct enough communication that other people have adopted it), the definition of the term political slate and how the definition “a list of candidates” is oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy, and the like.

    You might wish to review your school notes or feedback from supervisors. It’s pretty par for the course to be taught that misunderstanding can be created via poor encoding (as you describe), via the channel of communication the message travels through, and/or through poor decoding of the message. I am reasonably sure that school, if you studied communications, did not teach you to conclude that only encoding issues contribute to misunderstanding, even if the misunderstanding is of a single type.

    It’s hardly a “conspiracy theory” (to use the term I never used, but which you adopted) to point out that two people take what I had to say and decided to reference a popular (and accurate) debunking of media claims about Seanan McGuire. The problem is simply that I never said anything about Seanan McGuire. We actually have a term for the error of refuting an argument other than the one being made because it’s a common enough occurrence.

    As far as the balance of your work and career, good luck to you with it. I think I’m, doing pretty well with mine if you don’t mind me saying so, and I haven’t recently been told by my boss, or any of the editors to which I have sold short fiction, non-fiction, or novels, that I have communicated in an unclear manner.

  30. Meredith on September 23, 2015 at 12:49 am said:

    I did screw up my comment (as I’ve already said) but most people got what I actually meant, so… I don’t know what that means. My comment was screwed up in a way that played into inherent assumptions of the majority better?

    I thought it was fine. The general point was that the objections to J Ross were not caused by people not really knowing who he was. You demonstrated that there were substantial objections from British fans. That established your point. Whether there were US fans also objecting didn’t undermine the fact that people not-ignorant of Wossy were objecting vociferously.

    Also, not a lot of people know that I am an official Olympic Judge of internet arguments and can officially award people points and declare winners in such circumstances. I have a special hat and everything.

  31. @JJ

    Because he’d demonstrated extremely poor judgment at awards shows in the past?

    I think it would be fair to point out that he presented the British Comedy Awards annually from 1991-2008 so that’s one misstep in 17 years.

    It should also be pointed out that Ross has been the target of a massive tabloid hate-on for years. While a marmite figure for many his Friday night chat show was the UK’s highest rated pulling in the order of 4-5 million viewers weekly. As such he was one of their highest earning stars a fact that made him a target for all the right leaning anti-BBC press, particularly the Mail and Mirror which is why you’ll find so many Google hits from those publications which would cheerfully whip up the headlines whenever he made any remark in dubious taste. It was in fact the likelihood that those gutter organs would send in their goons to the Worldcon looking for lurid stories and harassing cosplayers that had Stross as concerned as anything.

    Ross in my experience is a very good interviewer with an ability to sense which interviewees he can banter with freely and which need to be treated more sensitively. In short he is not the UK’s Howard Stern.

    For an example see his very sensitive interview with British Olympic diver Tom Daley days after he publicly came out.

  32. @Camestros

    I applaud your fancy hat. \o/

    I once watched an utterly ridiculous libertarian presentation that accused people in fancy hats of secretly running and ruining the world. I mean, that was the actual wording: People in fancy hats. I’m still not sure what they had against hats.

  33. Meredith on September 23, 2015 at 1:45 am said:

    I once watched an utterly ridiculous libertarian presentation that accused people in fancy hats of secretly running and ruining the world. I mean, that was the actual wording: People in fancy hats. I’m still not sure what they had against hats

    damn! they must have found out about us somehow!

  34. Meredith:

    I once watched an utterly ridiculous libertarian presentation that accused people in fancy hats of secretly running and ruining the world.

    Well, at least the Ruler of Sweden has got some very fancy hats.

    http://zverige.com/kingkong/

  35. My main point about Ross is that Worldcon attendees on both sides of the ditch had plenty of legitimate reasons to be concerned that he was a far-less-than-optimal choice. He was.

    If the con chairs were intent on going with him, then they should have handled things completely differently. They didn’t. The ensuing fiasco was hugely predictable, given that no advance PR or preparation — either of the audience, or of Mr. Ross took place. He reacted like a total dick, which just validated all of the concerns — but to be fair, if the con chairs had done their job, that could have been different. Can I state unequivocally that Ross would have done something horrible if he had hosted? No. But his history of not knowing when it’s okay to take the piss — and how far it’s okay to take the piss — do not give me any confidence that he would not have said something hugely awful at some point.

    And as others have pointed out, at that point an apology is too little, too late, and there aren’t any do-overs.
     

    And don’t tell me that it’s Tempest’s fault that Goodman deleted her Twitter account. That account was deleted after Goodman posted the outrageous accusation that McGuire had “ruined her daughter’s weekend” by — HORROR OF HORRORS — not noticing the tweet amongst those of McGuire’s 17,000 followers and responding! — and then was called out for her outrageous behavior. Goodman brought that on herself.

    In WHAT UNIVERSE is someone entitled to a response to their tweet — and then entitled to complain that someone has behaved horribly and “ruined their weekend” by not responding?

    That level of rich-and-famous-person privilege and entitlement is just mind-boggling.

  36. @Hampus Eckerman, while I’m sure that the hats must be photoshopped, I will hold to my heart the possibility that at least one or two might be real. Because it makes me happy.

  37. And don’t tell me that it’s Tempest’s fault that Goodman deleted her Twitter account.

    Since we’re giving commands, here’s one: make it clear whether you’re speaking to some generalized inchoate apostrophe or to me. I already noted that Goodman’s response was histrionic. As far as the proximate response being McGuire or Tempest, the link and Tempest’s own testimony shows that Goodman credited Tempest to realizing that Twitter is “toxic environment.” Noting that this happened is in no way taking Goodman’s side or assigning blame to Tempest.

  38. @Darren Garrison, I know this is a stale thread and nobody’s likely to read it, but I agree with JJ and rochrist; I just finished The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet and Kizzy is not a Manic Pixie Dream Girl.

    I actually have a friend who is rather a lot like Kizzy, but who happens to be male. I like him a lot; he’s a lot of fun…. and frankly rather exhausting to be around for more than about six hours at a time. Intelligence, lots of energy, and attention deficit disorder (with the counter-intuitive ability to really focus in on things he finds important) have that effect. As I understand it, the most important part of the MPDG trope is “dream” — as in sexual fantasy — and Kizzy is too well-rounded an individual to be pigeonholed that way. (In fact, in some ways, I see her as the *least* sexual member of the humans in the crew.)

  39. Also, thanks to all who recommended this book. Chambers is going on my Campbell nomination list, unless I’m fortunate enough to encounter five even better new writers….

Comments are closed.