Pixel Scroll 6/2/16 Scroll Songs of an Old Pixel

(1) WHO NEXT. From The Guardian, “Doctor Who showrunner says there was going to be a black Doctor”.

The starring role in BBC1’s Doctor Who was offered to a black actor but it “didn’t work out” according to the series showrunner, Steven Moffat.

Moffat said it would be “amazing” to have two non-white leads after Pearl Mackie, whose father is from the West Indies, was cast as the Doctor’s companion earlier this year.

He said the producers took a conscious decision to cast a non-white actor as the companion “because we need to do better on that. We just have to”.

Moffat said the show had tried to go one further by casting the first non-white Doctor, but the choice later fell through….

Moffat said Doctor Who had “no excuse” not to feature a diverse cast of black, Asian and minority ethnic actors. “Sometimes the nature of a particular show – historical dramas, for instance – makes diversity more of a challenge, but Doctor Who has absolutely nowhere to hide on this,” he said.

“Young people watching have to know that they have a place in the future. That really matters. You have to care profoundly what children’s shows in particular say about where you’re going to be.

“And we’ve kind of got to tell a lie: we’ll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn’t have been, and we won’t dwell on that. We’ll say, ‘To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we’ll summon it forth.’

“And, outside of the fiction, it’s about anyone feeling that they can be involved in this industry as an actor, a director, a writer … It’s hugely important, and it’s not good when we fail on that. We must do better.”

(2) ‘MASS EFFECT. Mark-kitteh is excited that “Quatermass will return to television in a new series on BBC America”.

Quatermass is returning to television – over a decade since the character last visited the small-screen.

Created by legendary writer Nigel Kneale, Professor Bernard Quatermass is a genius scientist who battles alien forces.

First appearing in the BBC’s 1953 serial The Quatermass Experiment, the character has gone on to feature in numerous TV and film projects.

Now, BBC America is revisiting the character for a new series written by The League of Gentlemen‘s Jeremy Dyson, reports Variety.

(3) TEA AND JOCULARITY. Rachel Swirsky did an interview with Ann Leckie, or rather a “Silly Interview with Anncillary Leckie, Yes I said That, I’ll Be Here All Night”. Includes photos of Leckie’s bead jewelry.

RS: I’ve been reading your Raadchai stories for eleven years now (Yeah, eleven years. Let that sink in.) and I know the gloves and tea were in them by the time I started reading. Were they part of the initial germ of the Raadch, or if not, how did they evolve?

They weren’t part of the initial germ, but they got into the mix pretty soon after that. And I’m not sure where they came from or why they stuck–it just kind of worked for me somehow.

Which is how a lot of things are when I’m writing. Sometimes I’ll see someone say, like, “Oh, and this detail here, this is obviously Leckie doing this profound intentional thematic thing” and I’m like, no, actually, it was shiny, or else it made the story work the way I wanted it to, but I am  not going to speak up and spoil the impression that I was actually doing this very sophisticated thing!

(4) SILLY SYMPHONIES. The Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra features LACO @ the Movies, an evening of Disney Silly Symphonies on Saturday, June 4 @ 7 pm The Orpheum Theatre.

Experience movie magic! Conducted by six-time Emmy® Award-winning conductor and composer Mark Watters, Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra performs the score live for an evening of Disney Silly Symphonies. These classic shorts, Walt Disney’s earliest experiments in animation, set timeless fables and fantastical scenes against a backdrop of lively classical music. With LACO providing the accompaniment live in the theatre, it’s an evening that’s sure to exhilarate your senses!

There’s no better setting for this night of classic cartoons than The Orpheum Theatre, one of LA’s most opulent and lovingly restored movie palaces in the historic downtown Broadway District. Bring the whole family and enjoy the show.

projecting on the silver screen a curated selection of landmark animated shorts including the first commercial short produced in Technicolor and five Academy Award winners!

  • The Skeleton Dance (1929)
  • Flowers and Trees (1932)
  • Three Little Pigs (1933)
  • The Old Mill (1937)
  • The Ugly Duckling (1939)
  • The Country Cousin (1936)
  • Music Land (1935)

(5) A SPAGHETTI EASTERN. Aaron Pound reports on Balticon 50 in The Tale of the Good, the Bad, and the Shoe-Cop.

The Good: There was a lot that went right at Balticon 50. This was a unique event, as Balticon invited all of its previous guests of honor back to celebrate the fiftieth time this convention had been held. As a result, the lineup of guests was quite impressive for a relatively small regional convention, and a similar event is probably not going to happen outside of a Worldcon for at least a few years….

The Bad: Balticon 50 had a lot of issues. Some were beyond the control of the convention staff. The following problems, however, are pretty much squarely on them.

One glaring problem was that programming was a mess, and apparently so from the beginning of the convention. Balticon provided both a large convention book containing a schedule and a pocket guide that also had a schedule. The first problem was that these schedules were incompatible with one another, each listing events at different times – they diverged by a half an hour, which unsurprisingly served to make it difficult to figure out when an event was supposed to take place. The second problem was that many program participants had schedules that were, as Mur Lafferty described it, “temporally impossible”, with many participants double-booked for two events at one time, or booked with back-to-back events separated by several hotel floors…..

And the Shoe-Cop story? I musn’t lift all of Aaron’s material. Go read the post.

(6) LAW WEST OF THE AMAZON. “Amazon sues sellers for buying fake reviews”: TechCrunch has the story.

As part of its effort to combat fake reviews on its platform, Amazon sued three of its sellers today for using sock puppet accounts to post fake reviews about their products. Amazon has been aggressively pursuing reviewers it does not consider genuine over the last year, often using lawsuits to discourage the buying and selling of reviews, but this is the first time it has sued the sellers themselves.

Today’s suits are against sellers who Amazon claims used fake accounts to leave positive reviews on their own products. The fake reviews spanned from 30 to 45 percent of the sellers’ total reviews. The defendants are Michael Abbara of California, Kurt Bauer of Pennsylvania, and a Chinese company called CCBetter Direct.

(7) BYRON PREISS BACK IN THE NEWS. The late publisher’s clues have yet to be fully deciphered, as Vice explains in “The 35-Year Long Hunt to Find a Fantasy Author’s Hidden Treasure”.

There is a treasure buried somewhere in Milwaukee. Not just in Milwaukee, but in nine other North American locations, including (possibly) New York, San Francisco, and Montreal. And it’s not so much “treasure” as hunks of ceramic encased in Plexiglas. But one man’s trash is another man’s marketing strategy.

The treasures were hidden in 1981 by publisher Byron Preiss, as part of his plan to promote his new book, The Secret. Preiss’s fantasy paperback (which predated the identically titled self-help book by a quarter of a century) included a series of puzzles in the form of cryptic verses with matching images. If solved, they’d lead readers to a real-life ceramic bin, or “casque,” containing a key to a safe-deposit box, which held a gem worth roughly $1,000….

The next puzzle wasn’t solved until 2004, when an attorney named Brian Zinn tracked down a casque in Cleveland from a verse that mentioned Socrates, Pindar, and Apelles (all three names are etched into a pylon at the Cleveland Cultural Gardens). After four hours of digging holes, he found the casque buried next to a wall marking the perimeter of the gardens.

To date, the Cleveland casque is the last known resolved puzzle. “Byron Preiss, according to family and friends, figured all of them would be found upon publication. I don’t think he realized how difficult the poems were,” said James Renner, an author and filmmaker who’s working on a documentary about the book.

Preiss died in a 2005 car crash at age 52, and never disclosed the locations of the remaining casques. His publishing house went bankrupt and was acquired by a rival press. Many people viewed the sale as the last chance to redeem the gems, suggesting now, there may only be empty bins.

But 35 years later, people are still searching….

As for the gems, which were believed to be confiscated in bankruptcy proceeding after Preiss’s death, Preiss’s widow Sandi Mendelson told VICE they’re safely in her possession and will be available to the first people to recover the remaining casques.

“If somebody would find something, yes,” said Mendelson. “I haven’t done anything with them, so they’re still around.”

(8) FAN WRITER. Kate Paulk resumes her study – “Hugo Awards – The Nominee Highlights – Best Fan Writer”.  She frankly concludes, “At least one of the nominees probably should be there…”

(9) HEMSTREET’S WAVE. Ray McKenzie reviews The God Wave at Fantasy Literature.

Like The Martian before it, it is the science in The God Wave that makes for such an engrossing and convincing tale. The story feels utterly believable and meticulously researched, whilst not being overbearing; the novel will please hard- and soft-sci-fi fans alike. Hemstreet uses plenty of familiar tropes throughout, and you’ll recognise scenes reminiscent of Alien and Star Trek.

(10) VICTORIAN GAZING DRAGON. Hampus Eckerman said, “Seeing the nice posable dragon in the last pixel scroll reminded me of this dragon illusion.”

Hollow Face Illusion Dragon

Ever seen those illusions where there is a face that seems to turn toward you? I’ve seen it in theme parks and museums like the Exploratorium, and the Disneyland Haunted House thing. But, now you can make your own. All you need is a printer and some scissors!

 

(11) SEEING REALITY. Kameron Hurley asks “Is Living Worth It?”.

Being that close to death all the time changes the way you think about life. It’s why I feel such an affinity for other people who’ve been through it, or who are going through it. My spouse is a cancer survivor. He had just finished the last of his radiation a few months before we met. We understood life in a way that only people who’ve stared at death really do.  You appreciate the little things a lot more. You constantly feel like you’re running on borrowed time.

Most of all, you get how precious life is, and you do your damnedest to hold onto it.

In reading this post from Steven Spohn over at Wendig’s site, I was reminded of this again. I may have all the appearances of being able-bodied, but when people talk about tossing out people for being defective, I can tell you that somewhere on there, no matter how far down, I am on that list. I know that because before I got sick, I put people like me on that list. I believed in “survival of the fittest.” What I didn’t realize is that “fittest” is a lie. The “fittest” don’t survive. There are some truly ridiculous animals out there (pandas??? Narwhales??). Those who survive are the most adapted to their particular niche. That is all. They are not stronger or smarter or cooler or better built or more logical.

(12) THE DARK SIDE. Smash Dragons  interviews horror writer Hank Schwaeble.

What is it about horror and dark fiction that appeals to you the most? 

The peek behind the curtain.  Not necessarily a peek at something real, but a peek at the sort of things that we might wonder about that we don’t understand.  Few of us believe there really are goblins in the shadows, but what if there were?   That’s the nature of shadows—you don’t really know what’s in there.  What we do know, however, is that there is a dark side to life, to human nature.  Horrors and atrocities are real, so exploring them in fictional ways allows us to deal with them intellectually and philosophically.  I don’t believe it’s just morbid curiosity, either.  Our brains are wired to sense things about the world, about our environment.  We are driven to explore, to discover, to learn.  We enjoy so many creature comforts, so many sources of entertainment, so many colors and sights and recreations, I think many of us are drawn to seek out the opposite as a way of reminding ourselves of how good things can be.  It’s like listening to the blues.  People don’t play Muddy Waters to be depressed, they listen to him to be reminded of struggles, of adversity, of our common humanity.  People like me, I believe, like dark fiction because a part of ourselves like to swim in deep waters, to be reminded that we can be afraid, intrigued, mystified.  When we lift ourselves from the pages, the world seems a much brighter place.

(13) SPEND MORE MONEY. Disney and Lucasfilm are getting their prop makers into the retail business.

Propshop, in collaboration with Lucasfilm, is now making official prop replicas of its work from The Force Awakens available to collectors in a new line called Star Wars Collectibles: Ultimate Studio Edition. Wave one is a treasure trove of memorable gear from the film: FN-2187 (i.e., Finn) Stormtrooper Helmet (with blood streaks!), Kylo Ren Helmet, Poe Dameron X-wing Helmet, Darth Vader Helmet (Melted), Rey Staff, Chewbacca Bowcaster, Kylo Ren Lightsaber Hilt, and Rey Lightsaber Hilt. Propshop is making them the same exact way it made the original props: 3D prints of the final output made for the film, all hand-painted by the original prop makers.

For example, the melted Darth Vader helmet (a limited edition of 500) goes for $3,750.

(14) IS LONGER BETTER? There will be an R-rated extended edition of Batman v. Superman available for digital purchase on June 28 and on disc July 19 says CinemaBlend.

Although Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was especially intense for a PG-13 movie, the “Ultimate Edition” is including extended or brand new action scenes that are more comfortable nestled in rated-R territory. So if you liked the original version’s fights, get ready for even more bombastic throw-downs. Along with these sequences, this cut is also including 30 minutes worth of scenes cut from the theatrical release, taking the runtime to over three hours. This includes one (or several) featuring Hunger Games star Jena Malone. Several months ago, it was rumored that she was playing Barbara Gordon, a.k.a. Batgirl/Oracle. However, in this trailer, she’s seen with blonde hair and looks like she’s working at the Daily Planet with Lois Lane. Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean she’s still not Barbara. Maybe this version dyed her hair and took a job at the Planet to separate herself from the Bat-Family. Still, this is peculiar.

 

(15) HOWDY STRANGER. The Space Between Us comes to theaters August 19.

In this interplanetary adventure, a space shuttle embarks on the first mission to colonize Mars, only to discover after takeoff that one of the astronauts is pregnant. Shortly after landing, she dies from complications while giving birth to the first human born on the red planet – never revealing who the father is. Thus begins the extraordinary life of Gardner Elliot – an inquisitive, highly intelligent boy who reaches the age of 16 having only met 14 people in his very unconventional upbringing.

While searching for clues about his father, and the home planet he’s never known, Gardner begins an online friendship with a street smart girl in Colorado named Tulsa. When he finally gets a chance to go to Earth, he’s eager to experience all of the wonders he could only read about on Mars – from the most simple to the extraordinary. But once his explorations begin, scientists discover that Gardner’s organs can’t withstand Earth’s atmosphere.

Eager to find his father, Gardner escapes the team of scientists and joins with Tulsa on a race against time to unravel the mysteries of how he came to be, and where he belongs in the universe.

 

[Thanks to Hampus Eckerman, Martin Morse Wooster, Michael J. Walsh, and John King Tarpinian for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Doctor Science.]

327 thoughts on “Pixel Scroll 6/2/16 Scroll Songs of an Old Pixel

  1. Hello, Brian Z, come to say something relevant for once? Perhaps something that is not argle bargle?

  2. “come to say something relevant for once? Perhaps something that is not argle bargle?”

    Let’s be fair: it’s not easy to say something as relevant as “argle bargle” over and over again.

  3. @Brian Z: What a pile-on by callous, soulless fools who think it is fine and dandy to let grand masters die without receiving an honorary title because a few people, in secret and for petty reasons unrelated to the grand master’s acknowledged merit, were reluctant to bend an obsolete, unwritten customary rule when everyone agreed the honor was the grand master’s due, and yet those same callous, heartless people are literally tripping over themselves to repeatedly strike venerable and inflexible Constitutional requirements, signing their names year after year to failed amendment after failed amendment to prevent people they don’t like from getting nominated for the short list or maybe even just the long list of a popularly voted fan award.

    Appeal to emotion, false equivalence.

    If you really join Aaron in pretending that you can’t get it through your skulls that Ellison was fighting for principles of fairness, integrity and respect – social justice – you simply prove that social justice is not something you actually care about at all.

    Brian, was he fighting for all authors or for a set that met his approval?

    Mokoto, Aaron knows the range of things the word lobbying means in plain usage. In fact (IIRC) Aaron is some kind of gummint lawyer in Washington and literally swims in a vast sea of it. Yet, since Ellison used a word to criticize skewing the results of a popularly voted literary award by going on the internet and taking advantage of your own bigger readership to suck for more votes, and I said it is obvious that’s what he meant, so, ergo, somehow, lobbying can only mean one thing and any form must be always bad. Is that what you are jumping up and down and frantically waving your arms to agree with?

    I just said it was a rational position. Why do you think I believe in it?

    Aaron knows that it is nonsensical to claim every kind of urging people to change the outcome of awards is wrong. You are “lobbying” to “stop slates.” So am I. There was Ellison on TV lobbying for you to refrain from going on the internet to change the outcome by begging for Hugos.

    Brian Z on June 9, 2016 at 8:44 am said:

    Offering to chip in to fight slates was a joke.

    He even reminded you in uncharacteristically polite terms that sure, why not, he might come back on the air to urge everybody who gets his long-running Sci Fi Channel TV show to vote for him, if that’s what you really want.

    Just like Stephen King might address his Gentle Readers and mention in passing how he fondly remembers the win for Danse Macabre, and gee it sure would be nice to go to another Worldcon and see all those wonderful people.

    Why would they rig an award for their own benefit? How would that do anything but ruin their reputation?

    And you still can’t wrap your head around why he thinks you are creeps?

    Funny you should say that.

  4. Appeal to emotion

    Yes.

    was he fighting for all authors or for a set that met his approval?

    He argued, one by one, in favor of all of the authors the SFWA officers had identified as deserving, and pressed the case that there was reason to arbitrarily have six per decade because some were very old. In the end, everyone got it except Sheckley, who (despite being proposed by the SFWA officers) passed away ten years later without receiving his recognition.

    If you want to question whether it was wise for Ellison to do that on national TV, rather than the usual private discussion, or some middle way like a fiery article in a newsletter, I’m not sure that I know the answer. Certainly no one ever said he is without flaws.

    How would that do anything but ruin their reputation?

    The annual award season ritual self-pimpage hurt Scalzi’s reputation. That is a terrific argument for why people shouldn’t do it.

    Funny you should say that.

    Touché! But read the essay if you can.

    You might be interested in this rebuttal, from a convention GoH speech:

    Harlan Ellison wrote an article titled “Xenogenesis”… a catalog of all the wrongs that fans have done to writers, all the hideous behavior we have to put up… and it listed not only Harlan’s grievances but those of a number of other writers as well… it’s time for a member of the loyal opposition to speak up.

    I have been attending conventions since 1963 and writing science fiction professionally since 1967, and in all that time I have never been treated with anything other than courtesy and consideration by fandom.

    That was from a guy fandom not only no-awarded, but cheered raucously while doing so. That’s on you.

  5. “somehow, lobbying can only mean one thing and any form must be always bad.”

    I just said it was a rational position. Why do you think I believe in it?

    Ellison didn’t mean that every action that might affect the outcome of an award should be forbidden. How could he, when the Hugo video itself (56) was lobbying to change the outcome?

    He meant people shouldn’t go on the internet and ask for votes, because it unfairly skews the results in favor of the 800 pound gorillas.

    His reason wasn’t because he wanted any Hugos.

    He felt mortified watching the slow, painful attrition and death of magazines and small publishers. He thought awards going to the usual suspects practically all of the time, even when he thought they were terrific, would mean that fans had less opportunity to discover, buy, read and celebrate fiction from a wide variety of excellent sources across the industry as a whole. He was concerned for the health of the genre as a whole.

  6. Sorry, missed a typo:

    and pressed the case that there was NO reason to arbitrarily have six per decade

  7. Brian Z.: The annual award season ritual self-pimpage hurt Scalzi’s reputation. That is a terrific argument for why people shouldn’t do it.

    You need to stop presenting your (at best spurious) opinions as facts. They aren’t. The only people who have ever argued this are Puppies like you who have a 2×4 on their shoulder about Scalzi.

     
    Brian Z.: That was from a guy fandom not only no-awarded, but cheered raucously while doing so. That’s on you.

    You also need to stop assigning blame to other people as if you’re in a position to do so. You’re not.

    I was there. You were not. There was no “raucous cheering”. There was applause that Hugos did not go to rigged nominations. This was entirely understandable.

    Resnick was extremely unhappy with what the Puppies did, and has received plenty of validation with many non-rigged Hugo nominations and wins in the years before last. You do not get to presume to assign blame to anyone on his behalf.

  8. @Brian Z:He argued, one by one, in favor of all of the authors the SFWA officers had identified as deserving, and pressed the case that there was reason to arbitrarily have six per decade because some were very old. In the end, everyone got it except Sheckley, who (despite being proposed by the SFWA officers) passed away ten years later without receiving his recognition.

    Slates are acceptable if they work in your favor. I understand.

    The annual award season ritual self-pimpage hurt Scalzi’s reputation. That is a terrific argument for why people shouldn’t do it.

    We were talking about Ellison and King. Why are we talking about Scalzi, now?

    Ellison didn’t mean that every action that might affect the outcome of an award should be forbidden. How could he, when the Hugo video itself (56) was lobbying to change the outcome?

    You didn’t answer my question.

  9. He argued, one by one, in favor of all of the authors the SFWA officers had identified as deserving, and pressed the case that there was reason to arbitrarily have six per decade because some were very old. In the end, everyone got it except Sheckley, who (despite being proposed by the SFWA officers) passed away ten years later without receiving his recognition.

    He argued in favor of authors he thought were deserving. He claimed that some people he talked to agreed with him. You have inflated that to “SFWA people thought these people were all deserving”. That’s some dishonest sleight of hand you’ve engaged in there.

    If you want to question whether it was wise for Ellison to do that on national TV, rather than the usual private discussion, or some middle way like a fiery article in a newsletter, I’m not sure that I know the answer. Certainly no one ever said he is without flaws.

    He was lobbying for individuals to be given awards. How do we know this? Because he said so. In the video. He specifically said he had been lobbying for van Vogt to get an award for two years. He wasn’t advocating a change in a rule: The rule had already been changed when he made the video. He was lobbying for specific people to be given a specific award.

    When Ellison made the video, did A.E. van Vogt have an SFWA Grand Master Award? No.
    Was Ellison advocating that van Vogt should be given such an award? Yes.
    Ellison was lobbying for van Vogt to get such an award.

    When Ellison made the video, did Kate Wilhelm have an SFWA Grand Master Award? No.
    Was Ellison advocating that Wilhelm should be given such an award? Yes.
    Ellison was lobbying for Wilhelm to get such an award.

    And so on.

    One might note that your construction of “lobbying is okay if it is altruistic and for the benefit of the community and others and not oneself” would be something that the Pups would claim is what their slates are. After all, BT didn’t put any of his own stories on his slate. BT claimed he was trying to help the Hugos, to fix their problems with his slate. If you are going to try to excuse Ellison’s lobbying here on the grounds that it was not in aid of himself and was for the greater good, you’re in the position of arguing that the Pups were right. Is that where you want to be?

    The annual award season ritual self-pimpage hurt Scalzi’s reputation. That is a terrific argument for why people shouldn’t do it.

    No, it didn’t. At least it didn’t with anyone but a handful of people like you. Most people find the kind of eligibility posts that Scalzi does to be helpful and useful.

    Ellison didn’t mean that every action that might affect the outcome of an award should be forbidden. How could he, when the Hugo video itself (56) was lobbying to change the outcome?

    So, lobbying is bad, except when you think it is okay? Lobbying on the internet, where almost anyone can have a say, is a problem, but lobbying on television is fine?

    He meant people shouldn’t go on the internet and ask for votes, because it unfairly skews the results in favor of the 800 pound gorillas.

    As opposed to going on television and lobbying for certain results, which is of course the way the common man does it.

  10. Why are we talking about Scalzi

    I’ll rephrase. Ya know, if some author did that, it sure would hurt their reputation!

    You didn’t answer my question.

    The answer is because you haven’t really thought about it.

    He claimed that some people he talked to agreed with him.

    If he told us what every SFWA member thinks it would be a long video, and they don’t select grand masters.

    He was lobbying for individuals to be given awards.

    It’s not a popular vote. Ellison urged SFWA officers to hurry because of Van Vogt’s age and health, they agreed he was in line but hemmed and hawed, Ellison feared the whole thing was in danger of becoming a glorified popularity contest, he lobbied to cut out that nonsense and return to the spirit in which the award had been created, and you have become such a heartless monster that I’d be surprised if you can look in the mirror to shave.

    Repeating that somebody said all forms of lobbying are always bad doesn’t make it true. Did you say it? Did I? Did Ellison? Maybe Mokoto did.

    The rule had already been changed when he made the video.

    Nice try. It was long after the by-laws were changed and yet it was still the practice.

    BT claimed he was trying to help the Hugos, to fix their problems with his slate. If you are going to try to excuse Ellison’s lobbying here on the grounds that it was not in aid of himself and was for the greater good, you’re in the position of arguing that the Pups were right. Is that where you want to be?

    BT made a lot of mistakes. Putting his friends and mentors on a recommendation list? Borrowing Correia’s dada self-pimpage schtick (which had barely evolved past Bacon Cat) but twisting it into something halfway serious? Tossing in needlessly controversial references to politically charged issues? Dumb, dumb, dumb and dumb. I didn’t think it was intended to be malicious. But I don’t excuse it.

    You know his worst mistake? Agreeing to take people off that recommendation list on demand, because of the precedent it set.

    Most people find the kind of eligibility posts that Scalzi does to be helpful and useful.

    “Most people” Heh. You know my thoughts on Scalzi. He’s doing better, but not great.

    As opposed to going on television and lobbying for certain results

    Everybody lobbies for “certain results.” grrm does. Making Light showcased Bruce Schneier to get more eyeballs on theirs. Ellison’s choices may or may not have always been completely appropriate. But the specific objection is to using access to a bigger audience to unfairly get more votes in a popularly voted award. That’s true whether you ask people for those votes with a bigger radio tower, print circulation, TV network or blog following.

  11. @Brian Z: I’ll rephrase. Ya know, if some author did that, it sure would hurt their reputation!

    You’ve gotten some ink out of false equivalence.

    The answer is because you haven’t really thought about it.

    Some dogs just don’t want to look at mirrors.

    Everybody lobbies for “certain results.” grrm does. Making Light showcased Bruce Schneier to get more eyeballs on theirs. Ellison’s choices may or may not have always been completely appropriate. But the specific objection is to using access to a bigger audience to unfairly get more votes in a popularly voted award. That’s true whether you ask people for those votes with a bigger radio tower, print circulation, TV network or blog following.

    By equating slates to the unrelated and imaginary, anything can be justified. This is why it’s impossible to stop all the internet campaigns— How can we stop doing what we aren’t doing?

  12. I’ll rephrase. Ya know, if some author did that, it sure would hurt their reputation!

    Except that eligibility posts don’t seem to have hurt any author’s reputation among anyone except for the tiny minority of you.

    The answer is because you haven’t really thought about it.

    The answer is that you can’t answer him because you’ve gotten yourself so twisted up on knots by lying that you don’t even know what you are agruing for at this point.

    If he told us what every SFWA member thinks it would be a long video, and they don’t select grand masters.

    Yes, the officers and past presidents select the recipients. He didn’t say they agreed with him.

    It’s not a popular vote.

    That doesn’t mean he’s not lobbying.

    Ellison urged SFWA officers to hurry because of Van Vogt’s age and health, they agreed he was in line but hemmed and hawed, Ellison feared the whole thing was in danger of becoming a glorified popularity contest, he lobbied to cut out that nonsense and return to the spirit in which the award had been created, and you have become such a heartless monster that I’d be surprised if you can look in the mirror to shave.

    He says some people agreed with him. (1) We don’t know if they actually did, we only have Ellison’s version to go by, and (2) even his description of their “agreement” is ambiguous. You have a tendency to take vague or ambiguous statements made by someone and claim they meant something specific (which always happens to be exactly what you want them to have said). That’s dishonest and it is your stock in trade.

    The fact remains that Ellison was lobbying for certain people to get awards. It doesn’t mean that those people didn’t deserve those awards. What it means is that while taking a “lobbying for people to get awards is bad” stance, Ellison had already been lobbying for people to get awards. Either Ellison is a big hypocrite, or what he meant by “lobbying” is something different from what you think it is.

    Repeating that somebody said all forms of lobbying are always bad doesn’t make it true. Did you say it? Did I? Did Ellison? Maybe Mokoto did.

    You did. You said everyone should stand down from all forms of campaigning. You made the claim that lobbying was bad. Period. Full stop. You claimed that Ellison’s statements backed you up on that. Only now, when you have discovered that Ellison has feet of clay on this subject have you desperately tried to switch gears and say some lobbying is okay, just not the lobbying you personally disapprove of.

    Nice try. It was long after the by-laws were changed and yet it was still the practice.

    Not “nice try”. You keep claiming that he was just arguing for a procedural change, using some deception in your argument. He couldn’t have been arguing for a procedural change, because there was no procedure to change. He was nakedly arguing for people to be given awards.

    BT made a lot of mistakes. Putting his friends and mentors on a recommendation list? Borrowing Correia’s dada self-pimpage schtick (which had barely evolved past Bacon Cat) but twisting it into something halfway serious? Tossing in needlessly controversial references to politically charged issues? Dumb, dumb, dumb and dumb. I didn’t think it was intended to be malicious. But I don’t excuse it.

    You think that the people Ellison was pimping for the SFWA Grand Master Award weren’t his friends and mentors? The argument you are making in favor of Ellison’s lobbying is exactly the same argument made by the Pups. The difference is that you think that Ellison’s goals were noble. The problem is that almost everyone thinks their goals are noble. Misguided as they are, the Pups think they are doing something selfless and noble that will help the Hugo Awards. If intent is the determining factor, then by your argument, all lobbying is fine.

    “Most people” Heh. You know my thoughts on Scalzi. He’s doing better, but not great.

    Yes, we know you’re thoughts on the matter. You’re a giant hypocrite on that score. You’re also an outlier whose opinion seems to be shared by precious few people. Maybe you should consider why that might be.

    Everybody lobbies for “certain results.” grrm does. Making Light showcased Bruce Schneier to get more eyeballs on theirs. Ellison’s choices may or may not have always been completely appropriate. But the specific objection is to using access to a bigger audience to unfairly get more votes in a popularly voted award. That’s true whether you ask people for those votes with a bigger radio tower, print circulation, TV network or blog following.

    So Ellison going on television to pimp for certain people to get awards was improper lobbying. I thought that before you said that it was proper lobbying.

    One might note that in the Ellison post you’ve pointed to as evidence of what he thought was “sucking for votes”, he actually uses his popularity to lobby for the Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. Which means he was lobbying. On the internet. “Sucking for votes” in the very post in which he complains about people sucking for votes.

    I know you have a bee in your bonnet about Scalzi’s eligibility posts, but they aren’t and never have been the problem. He didn’t ask for votes, and made posts highlighting the eligibility of other authors. You can keep whining about Scalzi and keep lying about what Ellison said and did, or you can do what you should have done several posts ago and slink away like the lying sack of crap that you are. Either way, you shouldn’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

  13. eligibility posts don’t seem to have hurt any author

    Maybe not as much as “Self-pimpage”.

    what you are agruing

    I doubt Mokoto really thinks all lobbying is always bad.

    Yes, the officers and past presidents select the recipients.

    He spoke to them. Was he lying? He wasn’t told that Van Vogt was in line for the honor along with the other people (which he agreed with)?

    That doesn’t mean he’s not lobbying.

    So? You asked me what Ellison meant by begging for votes and lobbying, in his video about Hugos and Nebulas.

    I said the clear meaning is that it’s when you ask people to vote for you and give you the award.

    He was very specific in his complaint about doing it on the internet. It gives an unfair advantage to those with big audiences and shuts others out.

    Did AE van Vogt lobby or beg SFWA officers and past presidents to vote for him for an award? If you have evidence of that, prove it happened and that Harlan Ellison condoned and supported it with his video.

    Did lobbying for AE van Vogt shut anyone else out? In the two years Ellison was trying to convince SFWA to give him an award, no award was given. They still don’t give them every year.

    Come to think of it, if you went on TV with a plea for SFWA to honor a great elderly writer, Aaron, I’d break down in tears knowing that you hadn’t lost every last shred of humanity.

    there was no procedure to change

    It was no more than six times per decade even after the requirement was removed from bylaws. After Ellison spoke, it happens almost every year.

    we know you’re thoughts on the matter

    Good.

    improper lobbying. I thought that before you said that it was proper lobbying.

    Going on television was very positive. Those authors were showered with moving, heartfelt public praise from a legend in the field. They deserved it. It may have embarrassed a few people, and for that reason I really don’t know whether on balance it was the wisest thing to do or not. That’s Ellison’s call and unrelated to the question at hand.

    uses his popularity to lobby for the Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. Which means he was lobbying

    He was hawking the magazine. He urged people to buy and read it. You want to forbid that now?

    No one said lobbying is always inherently bad.

    On the internet.“Sucking for votes”

    Point to where he went on the internet and asked for votes for something for a Hugo and we’ll talk.

    Scalzi. He didn’t ask for votes,

    He did, and also asked fans to consider certain items more than others. The ones he asked fans to consider included Shadow War of the Night Dragons and The Day the Yogurt Took Over.

    and made posts highlighting the eligibility of other authors

    Irrelevant to Ellison’s complaint. I have not seen him comment since the late 2000s.

    Would you like to know what I think about the posts highlighting the eligibility of other authors? I bet you don’t.

  14. @Brian Z: “Point to where he went on the internet and asked for votes for something for a Hugo and we’ll talk.”

    Is the reverse true? If we don’t, will you fer the luvva Ghod STFU?

  15. Is the reverse true? If we don’t, will you fer the luvva Ghod STFU?

    The thing about BZ’s “challenge” that is funny is that Ellison didn’t have to go to the internet to do his lobbying – he had a pulpit on television to do it, such as in Harlan Ellison’s Watching 45 where he directly asked people to write to the SFWA to get them to give specific people awards. At this point, BZ is just spinning incoherently trying to reconcile his hatred of Scalzi’s eligibility posts with Ellison’s pimping people for awards.

  16. Yup. After much argle bargle and dosidoing and limboing and trampolining, we have reached a point of understanding. We are all clear on BrianZ’s Big Book of Important Definitions and Judgy-Judgy Pious Pronouncements. Any given item in the Big Book is whatever he says it is this instant in time, but it may change to something else in the next instant, as long as whatever it is puts people BrianZ doesn’t like in a negative light and puts people BrianZ does like in a positive light. So even if Person A (for example, Scalzi) and Person B (for example, Ellison) have done or said PRECISELY the same thing, BrianZ’s pious pronouncement will split the hair betwixt them and find SOME new reason why OF COURSE it’s completely different and obviously so. Because he says so and he wrote the Big Book where the definitions are kept and all knowledge sits. Of course! Anyone who says differently is heartless and horrible and just, just, just (imagine a quiver of heartfelt indignation here) MEAN.

  17. This has gone on ad naseum, Aaron.

    No. Ellison said it’s wrong for people to lobby to get themselves awards. The gorillas squeeze out the small fry and that’s not good for the genre. Period.

    If you need a “gotcha,” show where I said he thought all lobbying is wrong.

    I’ll wait.

    You can’t find a time he went on television to ask for votes for something for a Hugo either. If you could find one, that would be a genuine edge case where he let feelings trump principles. And if he’d asked for votes for himself in the way that he criticized unnamed others for doing, he’d be a hypocrite.

    Got that ace up your sleeve, Aaron? If so, you’d have saved a lot of time by putting it on the table. Apparently you don’t.

    I watched your new video. He asked fans to urge SFWA to give out grand master awards because a generation of grand masters was dying. He named no authors. He said tell them the literature belongs to all of us.

    To do it for Bob.

    Who was dead.

    You sick fuck.

  18. “You’re also an outlier whose opinion seems to be shared by precious few people.”

    Paging Socrates.

  19. @Brian Z: BT made a lot of mistakes. Putting his friends and mentors on a recommendation list? Borrowing Correia’s dada self-pimpage schtick (which had barely evolved past Bacon Cat) but twisting it into something halfway serious? Tossing in needlessly controversial references to politically charged issues? Dumb, dumb, dumb and dumb. I didn’t think it was intended to be malicious. But I don’t excuse it.

    It’s at least as dumb as the rubbery goblin nominating himself and his vanity press.

    You know his worst mistake? Agreeing to take people off that recommendation list on demand, because of the precedent it set.

    It’s a recommendation list, now?

    I doubt Mokoto really thinks all lobbying is always bad.

    Brian, false equivalence is. You’ve equated Cherryh and Ellison yelling at clouds to the puppies rigging the awards for their own benefit. You’ve equated Ellison’s lobbying to the puppies rigging the awards for their own benefit.

    But, they were just recommending books they liked, without any personal or political goal. When they stated those goals they weren’t being malicious. You have your justifications lined up.

    Why did you reach for Ellison instead of Hubbard? Why not the obvious comparison?

  20. Has anyone ever noticed that the more BZ posts, the more people seem to think his position is incoherent babble?

  21. If he puts this bottle cap on his head, he’ll be invisible. There’s got to be something small enough to cover him.

  22. @Aaron

    That’s because it is incoherent babble. There isn’t any actual thinking involved in it.

    I don’t know why he continues to post here. He’s not going to change anyone’s mind, nobody likes him much, and he’s not going to stop the march towards EPH+ and 3SV. You would think he’d get tired of spinning his wheels.

  23. Brian Z only gets tired of spinning his wheels if people stop interacting. He feeds on interaction. On any thread where you stop interacting with Brian Z he does STFU. Yes he gets the last word but anyone with a working sense of logic will see he is spouting nonsense and has lost his train of thought and even done several 180s during the discussion as well as gone off on 3-5 tangents and resorted to namecalling because he has no logical defense. Anyone who can’t see that isn’t going to be convinced by ongoing arguments as they are so deep in their own confirmation bias nothing will change their minds.

  24. Pingback: Top 10 Posts For June 2016 | File 770

Comments are closed.