Pixel Scroll 1/30/17 There Are Studies Underway To Fluoridate Pixels. Children’s Pixels!

(1) CAPALDI MAKES IT OFFICIAL. Not unexpectedly, the Twelfth Doctor is leaving Doctor Who as new showrunner Chris Chibnall gets ready to take the reins.

“Doctor Who” star Peter Capaldi has announced he’ll step down from the role at the end of the year.

Capaldi has starred in the long-running sci-fi series as the titular Twelfth Doctor since 2013, following the departure of Matt Smith.

“One of the greatest privileges of being Doctor Who is to see the world at its best. From our brilliant crew and creative team working for the best broadcaster on the planet, to the viewers and fans whose endless creativity, generosity and inclusiveness points to a brighter future ahead,” Capaldi said in a statement. “I can’t thank everyone enough. It’s been cosmic.”

Capaldi will conclude his time as the Doctor with the 2017 Christmas special.

The actor’s departure will correspond with the exit of executive producer Steven Moffat, who previously announced his intention to leave his post.

(2) BURN OF THE DAY. J. K. Rowling knows how to deal with fantastical creatures, like frogs that tweet.

(3) DECOLONIZING SF. Strange Horizons has posted an Indigenous SF special issue.

It’s our second special of the month, and showcases fiction, poetry, and non-fiction by native and indigenous writers.

We have Drew Hayden Taylor’s story “Take Us To Your Chief” (from his collection of the same name); we have three poems apiece by poets Halee Kirkwood and Tanaya Winder; we have a round-table moderated by Rebecca Roanhorse; and of course reviews, including a double-feature look at Moana.

(4) THE HARP THAT ONCE OR TWICE. R. Graeme Cameron wrote a superlative column based on Walt Willis’ 1952 U.S. Trip report for Amazing Stories that combines his analysis with the old master’s storytelling.

Walt actually had a good time aboard ship. When asked what he did for a living he said he was a pulp fiction author going to America to pick up his earnings. The “Greenwich Village” pseudo-intellectuals on board coming back from bumming around Europe stood in awe of this creative type who actually earned money. Late in the voyage he was asked if anyone was meeting him in New York and he replied (more or less honestly) “Just a few fans.” This only increased his reputation. Sometimes fannish ploys work very well on Mundanes.

QUOTE

At last we docked, and hordes of officials swarmed on board … I had a whole stack of documents in an old Galaxy envelope and every time I came to an official I would shuffle them and deal him a hand. If I’d won I’d be allowed to go on to the next table, like a bridge tournament. I’d had some practice in this game already and at last I won the first prize, a clear view of the gangway. I found to my shocked surprise that suddenly there was absolutely nothing to stop me walking ashore. I promptly walked ashore.

Someone in a blue suit came up and shook my hand … It was Dave Kyle … Joe Gibson came along in a few seconds. After a few minutes chat the two revealed conspiratorially that Will Sykora and his henchman Calvin Thomas Beck were lurking outside to meet me. They suggested a cloak and dagger scheme by which they would go out and wait for me a couple of hundred yards outside the shed, while I strolled out by myself past Sykora and Beck, who wouldn’t recognise me.

I was thrilled. Nobody could have arranged a more fannish welcome. Not two minutes in the country and already I was up to my neck in New York fan feuds. However I temporized; I had nothing personally against Sykora … I had never been able to sort out New York fandom anyway … and I rather wanted to meet such a legendary figure. Besides, I knew Shelby had in his innocence asked Beck to meet me …

Outside, in the fresh clean smog of Hoboken … I had my first hamburger, closely followed by my second. As far as I was concerned, the food problem in America was now solved …

END QUOTE

(5) RECOMMENDATIONS. There are a bunch of sites whose Hugo picks I’m interested in hearing, and Nerds of a Feather is high on that list — “2017 Nerds of a Feather Hugo Award Longlist, Part 1: Fiction Categories”.

Given the vast number of Hugo categories, we’ve also made the decision to split the longlist up into multiple posts. Today we look at the fiction categories (Best Novel, Best Novella, Best Novelette and Best Short Story). For fiction that is available free of charge, we’ve embedded a direct link to the story. For novels and works of short fiction that are not available for free, the embedded link redirects to a review.

(6) TODAY IN HISTORY

  • January 30, 1933The Lone Ranger made its radio debut.

(7) GAME WRITING. “Guest Post: On Representation in RPGs, from Monica Valentinelli” on Jim C. Hines’ blog.

Why does representation in RPGs matter? The answer is simple: players play games so they can be the hero in their own stories. The characters they choose (or build) allow players to perform heroic acts with their group, and they’re crucial to a player’s ability to have fun. There’s even a joke told about this at conventions. What’s the best way to get a player excited to talk about their game? Ask them about their beloved character!

Characters are important, and I feel it’s a game designer’s job to acknowledge different styles of play to offer a broad range for players to choose from; the other side of that coin, however, is to remember that players also possess different identities. In order to consider both in the games we make, developers, designers, writers, and artists address inclusivity through the lens of representation.

(8) MOVIN’ ON. I had forgotten that James Cameron did Aliens, but that explains why someone asked his opinion about Ridley Scott’s upcoming trilogy that begins with Alien: Covenant “James Cameron On The ‘Alien’ Franchise: ‘I Don’t Think It’s Worked Out Terribly Well. I Think We’ve Moved On’” at ScienceFiction.com.

“The franchise has kind of wandered all over the map. Ridley [Scott] did the first film, and he inspired an entire generation of filmmakers and science-fiction fans with that one movie and there have been so many films that stylistically have derived from it, including my own Aliens, which was the legitimate sequel and, I think, the proper heir to his film. I sort of did it as a fanboy. I wanted to honor his film, but also say what I needed to say. After that, I don’t take any responsibility.

I don’t think it’s worked out terribly well. I think we’ve moved on beyond it. It’s like, okay, we’ve got it, we’ve got the whole Freudian biomechanoid meme. I’ve seen it in 100 horror films since. I think both of those films stand at a certain point in time, as a reference point. But is there any validity to doing another one now? I don’t know. Maybe. Let’s see, jury’s out. Let’s see what Ridley comes up with. Let me just add to that — and don’t cut this part off, please — I will stand in line for any Ridley Scott movie, even a not-so-great one, because he is such an artist, he’s such a filmmaker. I always learn from him.

(9) CASSINI ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Dr. Linda Spilker, Cassini Project Scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who was recently interviewed by Starship Sofa, appeared on Cassini’s Ring-Grazing Orbits Facebook Live today. You can view the half-hour video recording at the link.

NASA’s Cassini Mission to Saturn Project Scientist Linda Spilker and mission planner Molly Bittner are taking questions about these exciting orbits, the closest look ever at Saturn’s moons and ring particles — what we’ve learned so far and what we can expect to see as they continue.

(10) OPEN THE PILL BAY DOORS HAL. In our future, robots as care companions: “Robots could help solve social care crisis, say academics” at the BBC.

Humanoid robots, with cultural awareness and a good bedside manner, could help solve the crisis over care for the elderly, academics say.

An international team is working on a £2m project to develop versatile robots to help look after older people in care homes or sheltered accommodation.

The robots will offer support with everyday tasks, like taking tablets, as well as offering companionship.

(11) A BLACK AND WHITE ANSWER. Opus would be proud: penguins used as models for better software: “Hungry penguins keep car code safe”.

The communal, co-ordinated action helps the penguins get the most out of a hunting expedition. Groups of birds are regularly reconfigured to match the shoals of fish and squid they find. It helps the colony as a whole optimise the amount of energy they have to expend to catch food.

“This solution has generic elements which can be abstracted and be used to solve other problems,” he said, “such as determining the integrity of software components needed to reach the high safety requirements of a modern car.”

Integrity in this sense means ensuring the software does what is intended, handles data well, and does not introduce errors or crash.

By mimicking penguin behaviour in a testing system which seeks the safest ways to arrange code instead of shoals of fish, it becomes possible to slowly zero in on the best way for that software to be structured.

(12) THE RIVALS OF 1984. The BBC has hard data on dystopia sales surge.

It Can’t Happen Here – Sinclair Lewis

Sales: As of Friday, the eighth best-selling book on Amazon. It was out of print in the UK but publishers Penguin launched a new edition following the inauguration – promoting it as the book that predicted Trump – and has so far ordered three print runs, totalling 11,000 copies, a spokeswoman said.

Plot: A charismatic demagogue, Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip, runs for president on a promise to restore American greatness, dragging the country into fascism.

The Trump factor: Sales of this relatively obscure 1935 satirical novel took off when critics began claiming it was essentially the Donald Trump story. Sally Parry, of the Sinclair Lewis Society, claims there are parallels with Trump in the way that Windrip targets his message at disaffected white working class males – The League of Forgotten Men in the book – sweeping to victory on a wave of anti-immigrant, nationalistic sentiment.

But she adds: “Some of his satire is not necessarily towards Buzz Windrip, the fascist character, but towards the lazy intellectuals, the lazy liberals who say ‘well, things will go along’ and the constant refrain of ‘it can’t happen here’, this is America, we are exceptional.”

(13) MAKING LEMONADE. Someone has a plan for putting a contaminated area to use: “How solar may save Ukraine’s nuclear wasteland”.

Earlier this year Ostap Semerak, the minister for ecology and natural resources in Ukraine, announced plans to build a large-scale solar farm in Chernobyl’s Exclusion Zone. “The first phase will install solar panels with a total capacity of one gigawatt,” says a ministry spokesperson. “In the future [there] are plans for capacity increase.”

A large field of 25 acres, filled with solar panels, generates approximately 5MW. To put this into perspective, the football pitch at Manchester United’s Old Trafford ground is 1.75 acres and would only generate 0.35MW. So, for a solar farm to generate a gigawatt of power, it will need an area of 5,000 acres, which is nearly eight square miles. There is, fortunately, a lot of available land in the Exclusion Zone.

(14) BRUCE WAYNE’S ROOMMATE. Lego Batman explains why his movie is awesome.

Lego Batman hypes up his own upcoming Lego Batman Movie in a new behind-the-bricks featurette that breaks the fourth wall.

“Obviously after I made The Lego Movie, a monster hit $468 million worldwide, not that I’m counting of course, it seemed clear to everyone that the world needed more of me,” Will Arnett says as Lego Batman in the clip released Thursday.

 

[Thanks to Chip Hitchcock, JJ, and John King Tarpinian for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Steve “Dr. Strangelove” Davidson.]

141 thoughts on “Pixel Scroll 1/30/17 There Are Studies Underway To Fluoridate Pixels. Children’s Pixels!

  1. Thanks for posting our list, Mike! Glad people are enjoying it–and yes, the novella section is a bit Tor-heavy, but that’s how things shook out when we discussed our favorites among ourselves.

  2. Greg: that’s making it as a finalist, though. I was speaking of winning. I know it’s basically impossible to say but (since I’m having a hard time with that table) is there any sense that “Paul” could have won under any circumstances or that it’s Puppies, especially Sad Puppies fault in that regard?

    (That’s not an “I challenge you dis/prove something,” but a genuine, “I dunno, can you tell me?” question.)

    As far as name-calling, I see waaay more than enough of that to go around. Be nice if everybody’d refrain there. I mean, at least airboy didn’t call JJ a virgin, right? 😉

    Cat: Yup! And the approach’s worked great so far, leading to more members, more cool programs aimed at helping members promote books, grants supporting the genre community, and all sorts of other niftiness for the org. You’re going to have to do better than that.

    And Asimov’s and Analog have gone bi-monthly and Fantastic and others have shut down. I don’t know what book publication and sales numbers are doing but I hope they, at least, are going up in proportion to reading population, other genres, etc. I’m not saying the SFWA can control any of this but I consider such things much more important than membership numbers, themselves. Plus, while there is much outreach to various groups, I still see a lot of “white guys (many of whom aren’t white or guys) who write old-fashioned stuff (whether they do or not), who needs ’em?” (many members have loudly resigned while others have expressed an “I’d never join” attitude) when I’d like to see outreach to absolutely everyone who could possibly read an SF/F story. Again, this isn’t an attack. Just that you sounded a little happy and complacent and your work is never done. 😉

  3. I don’t usually get involved in discussions like these, but “almost all abortions are done for economic convenience of the mother” is just stupid. Until you’ve been involved in the very emotional decision to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, you can’t just make a blanket statement like that. I’m a dad, and my wife and I had to make that decision, and believe me, it wasn’t based on economics. The details are nobody’s business outside of my family. But pretending that it’s just about money is rather offensive.

    And please don’t hide behind the weasel word “Almost.” You can carve out exceptions all you want. Abortion is a tough decision. It’s also one that should involve families and doctors, not lawyers and the government.

  4. I am not touching an abortion discussion here with a 39-and-a-half foot pole.

    Nancy Sauer: I am in fact interested in your perspective; there was a reason I was cautious in how I phrased my commentary. Do you think that anti-virginity statements are mainstream or common feminism? Or simply that you have encountered such comments?

    Although I will lose interest quickly if you continue to pre-emptively snark at people with other experience.

  5. Jason: I try not to think about the Rabids and regard the two as completely separate. I took the first two as talking about the Sads and guess I just slipped your post in with that. Maybe they meant Rabids, too, and just didn’t specify. Still can’t blame even them. Somehow “Cat Pictures” (which wasn’t an RP pick) got on the list after the declined nom rather than “Paul” and neither were RP picks. The one non-RP pick won. If that’d been “Paul” it would have won. So it’s more like the non-RP folks supported “Cat” more than “Paul” in the early stages of nominating and that was the difference.

    Yes, but no: the difference is the Puppies and their cheating. If both “Paul” and “Cat Pictures”, as well as 3 other natural choices had been on the ballot, and there had been a genuine competition, “Paul” might very well have won. We can’t know what would the result would have been, because 5 natural choices on the ballot didn’t happen. And that is the fault of the Puppies.

    And the Sad Puppies have been perfectly content to ride the Rabid Puppies’ coattails to get works on the ballot as finalists. They have been quite happy to defend the Rabids’ actions as being legitimate. So you can claim that they are completely different groups if you wish, but the reality is that the Rabid Puppies were the ALF to the Sad Puppies’ PETA — and the plausible deniability is even less for the Sads than it is for PETA.

    Now, you can say that the Sads reformed themselves this past year and behaved less badly than they had in the past. That is indeed true — but the fact that they insist on maintaining the Puppy label, and persist in defending their own past actions (and those of the Rabids), means that they’ve chosen to continue lying in the flea-ridden doggie bed that they themselves made.

  6. airboy, Your post is utterly unhinged. You have forfeited the right to be considered a legitimate participant in this discussion, and I will not be engaging further with you on this subject.

  7. Would someone be able to give me a word count for The Sorcerer of the Wildeeps?

    Tor.com says it’s a Novella, but ISFDB is calling it a Novel.

  8. @airboy: you claim to be about freedom, and complain about the left taking things from people “at gunpoint”. How dare you demand that a woman give up her own body to house what you insist on calling a human being? How does a moment’s carelessness (or darker circumstances) justify this? And why do you charge only the woman? It takes two to tango; why should not the man be similarly constrained (e.g., by a couple of decades garnishing of wages) instead of the child (at the moment of its actual ]appearance[) being put in care of an institution as you recommend? Your demands show your libertarianism to be a lie.

  9. @airboy: you wrote “nfortunately, the only way individuals can obtain what the left views as these “freedoms” is taking the property of others at gunpoint.”
    Well Im a moderate-Left and I do enjoy freedoms, so according to your statement I took them at gunpoint. I didnt do that. Not even figuratively. I know you didnt mean me personally, but you still included me. Which is why I wrote a long post that Left and Right are not as clear-cut as you think it is.
    (And the irony of that statement coming from an American is not lost on me. Your countrys has history a history of taking freedoms from others at gunpoint. Im not blaming Americans for it -its history after all – but its ironic nevertheless)

    @Mike: Yes, its the swedish national anthem. I didnt want to use the American one, that clearly had been done before 🙂

  10. I was speaking of winning. I know it’s basically impossible to say but (since I’m having a hard time with that table) is there any sense that “Paul” could have won under any circumstances or that it’s Puppies, especially Sad Puppies fault in that regard?

    We know that when Today I Am Paul went head to head against Cat Pictures Please for the WSFA Small Press Award, that Today I Am Paul won.

    The hair-splitting over whether it was the Sad or Rabid Pups who are responsible is pretty silly though. They are two horns on the same bull. As a functional matter, there is no difference between the two, no matter how much the Sad Pups scream that it is not so.

  11. Aaron: We know that when Today I Am Paul went head to head against Cat Pictures Please for the WSFA Small Press Award, that Today I Am Paul won.

    That’s especially noteworthy because the award is the product of blind judging by the voters.

  12. The hair-splitting over whether it was the Sad or Rabid Pups who are responsible is pretty silly though. They are two horns on the same bull. As a functional matter, there is no difference between the two, no matter how much the Sad Pups scream that it is not so.

    And for the question wether Paul would have won its irrelevant which slates prevent it from being nominated. They both have. And without the Sad there never wouldnt have been rabids.

  13. Just that you sounded a little happy and complacent and your work is never done. ?

    I totally agree on that. I’ve got a list with literally (as a writer, I am using the word correctly) dozens of work items on it still for the coming year.

    But when I came on as VP, there were a lot of problems (not due to any one person, but created by a lack of process and oversight, miscommunications, and some other factors) and I am pretty proud of how much progress has been made in the past two and a half years. Including the fact that it’s adapted to a changing industry by opening up to independent writers as well as working to create more ways for our members to promote and support themselves. Right now I’m in a unique position to see how much Griefcom does, and they have surprised the hell out of me. That’s not the only SFWA program that has surprised with the depth of effort its volunteer members are engaged in. And we weathered the biggest financial crisis SFWA has seen in its 50 year history (again, lack of process coupled with bad assumptions and some antiquated practices) in a way that leaves me confident it’ll last another 50 years.

    Complacent? No. Proud of what the organization has managed to accomplish overall in recent years? Beyond question. You want to see a conference aimed at professional writers, giving them good, solid info, while celebrating the best of what the field is producing? Come to the Nebulas this May in Pittsburgh.

    I’m sorry for overenthusing. Beyond having drunk the Koolaid, I’ve become one of the brewers. But I think we’re mixing up a recipe that packs a pretty good punch, if you will excuse the muddled metaphor/pun.

  14. @Peer

    I remember Charles Wilson defining Left wing anarchy, as anarchy were people are starting to work together (in small groups) aand right wing anarchy that its everyone for himself.

    Those definitions provide a mildly amusing example of relative in-group vs. out-group perspectives. From my corner of the pool, left wing anarchists “work together” until an individual decides to follow a different course….and that’s when the Molotov cocktails come out – a la Animal Farm. Conversely, right-wing anarchists focus on people freely associating with one another to achieve mutually beneficial results. The latter perspective is tempered by the knowledge that in the U.S., our red/conservative states donate far more money to charitable causes than the blue/liberal states.

    But as you say, extremists have similarities beyond their differing ideologies.

    Regards,
    Dann

  15. Aaron: We know that when Today I Am Paul went head to head against Cat Pictures Please for the WSFA Small Press Award, that Today I Am Paul won.

    Cool. Thanks for that info, Aaron (and Mike). Wasn’t familiar with that award. It’s not a Hugo or a Nebula, but it’s something. (I mean, really something, not just “more than nothing” or anything dismissive.)

    As far as people’s characterizations of SP/RP, I don’t really want to get into it. I’m just unclear how people can speak so omnisciently of this monolith that is SP/RP. I never signed anything and don’t know the secret handshake but I do defend the SP idea of getting more people involved and having a greater sense of fun in fiction and I participated in SP4 to the extent of recommending stuff on its website. Everything is so Manichean in these days of tolerance and diversity. So am I one of these evil Rabid Puppies or am I violently opposed to every aspect of the morally bankrupt and pernicious Sad Puppy agenda? Seems there’s no other choice.

    Anyway, I was just talking about a story I loved and made the mistake of expressing my dissatisfaction with the awards these days and somehow, from a single “You can thank the Puppies for that,” it’s become a Puppy conversation. Goodness knows “Paul” is such a politically charged, polarizing story. It didn’t win the Nebula and I’m not generally happy with them either, so why are we talking Puppies? I’m not doing it anymore on this topic at least.

    Cat Rambo: literally (as a writer, I am using the word correctly)

    That made me smile. 🙂 Sounds like you are doing some good work. And, as a thing, a sort of “writer’s union” is just one of those “how did folks get by for almost forty years without it” ideas that I fully support. Just sometimes the specifics make me uneasy when the thing seems to stray too far from the main mission.

    I also definitely moderate one of my complaints based on today’s news – I may have misunderstood but I gather it was your idea to get Toni Weisskopf a Solstice Award? Again, not quite a Hugo for Best Editor in my book but the SFWA obviously has nothing to do with that and the competition can be fierce. Anyway, she’s obviously done some great and unique work and it’s nice to see her get some official recognition.

  16. I also definitely moderate one of my complaints based on today’s news – I may have misunderstood but I gather it was your idea to get Toni Weisskopf a Solstice Award?

    One of the joys of being SFWA President is being the person who gets to make the deciding call on Grandmaster, Solstice, and Service to SFWA award picks. The GM is done with the (often heated) advice of the group of past SFWA Presidents, and the Board has to approve the picks as well.

    I hadn’t realized that the award was usually given to one living figure and one less so; last year I just went with Pratchett. This year Steven H Silver, ever meticulous, reminded me of the circumstances. Kate Baker, our Operations Director, helped my thinking with a list of excellent suggestions that included Ms. Weisskopf, so Kate deserves full credit for the original suggestion. Overall I had a couple of dozen candidates, based on Kate’s list, my ideas, and other people’s suggestions.

  17. I’m just unclear how people can speak so omnisciently of this monolith

    Because most of us have been paying attention to this whole thing since the beginning. The notion that the Sad Pups were about “getting more people involved in the process” is complete bullshit. That sort of revisionist history simply won’t sell here, because the people here know better.

  18. Cat Rambo: Interesting. Congrats to Kate and yourself and everyone involved.

    Speaking of Grandmaster, I’m beginning to suspect I must be missing something – maybe he’s expressed disinterest in the award or made somebody mad or something I can’t know or understand – but I’d like to make another pitch (the internet is littered with posts where I do this) for Norman Spinrad, author of Bug Jack Barron, The Iron Dream, The Void Captain’s Tale, “Riding the Torch” and numerous other stories, past President of the SFWA, eminent critic, occasional editor, and not especially young man, to be made Grandmaster. 🙂

  19. Jason, I don’t dispute that your intention really was to get more people involved and to see more of the sort of fiction you like represented on the Hugo ballot. And I don’t think anybody here has any problems with the fact that you recommended some works for the Sad Puppies 4 list (in fact, some Filers who don’t define as puppies, made recommendations as well) or that you nominated stories you genuinely enjoy.

    The problem many people here, including me, have with the puppies sad and rabid both is the strident rhetoric that was present from the very beginning on and the slating tactics, i.e. people not nominating works they’d read/watched and enjoyed, but nominating whatever the sad puppy leaders suggested, even if those weren’t the works they personally liked best.

    At least regarding the sad puppies, the slating issue seems to have resolved itself with the open recommendation list approach of Sad Puppies 4 and 5. Besides, it’s obvious that the main problem in the past two years were the rabid rather than the sad puppies. However, Larry Correia was the one who dragged in VD during Sad Puppies 2 “to make liberals’ heads explode” (or maybe he really did enjoy “Opera Vita Eterna”) in the first place, which makes him at least partly responsible for the escalation.

    As for “Today I am Paul”, I did like the story (there have been several cases of dementia in my extended family), though the fire at the end was a bit contrived IMO. I didn’t nominate it, because there were several stories I liked more. I think at least some Filers liked the story as well – I recall some discussion about it at the time.

  20. Norman is definitely on my shortlist. The problem is that it’s a pretty full list. And every year one of the older members is likely to point out to me that originally it was not intended to be given every year, but limited to six per decade.

  21. Cora: That’s fair. I don’t really disagree with anything you say (which isn’t exactly what everyone says all the time – for instance, recognizing the connection but still distinguishing between SP & RP). Like I say, I don’t really want to talk about that much more, but I appreciate your post.

    Cat Rambo: good news. 🙂 That “six per” is something that I both agree with and lament. It was actually done backwards. I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that the award was initially structured that way to keep it at a very high standard. (And to me it is the most prestigious.) I think sometimes there were even fewer given than allowed. And everybody started dying and some greats were missed and the rule was changed to allow (but not require) it annually. But it should have been the other way around – make all the older greats GMs quick with annual presentations and then maybe slow it down to a few per decade. But it does seem there is quite a backlog again somehow. Ben Bova is another who deserves it and he’s I think a couple years older than Spinrad, even.

    Sorry. Wandering. Anyway, I agree with the principle that it ought to be prestigious but also that sometimes they should be handed out quickly. 🙂

  22. @Jason: Bova was a tolerable editor for about a decade; he’s written a couple of funny novels and a lot of pedantic blah. Spinrad is arguable but I can’t see Bova ever being worth this distinction.

  23. Jason: I’m just unclear how people can speak so omnisciently of this monolith that is SP/RP. I never signed anything and don’t know the secret handshake but I do defend the SP idea of getting more people involved and having a greater sense of fun in fiction and I participated in SP4 to the extent of recommending stuff on its website. Everything is so Manichean in these days of tolerance and diversity. So am I one of these evil Rabid Puppies or am I violently opposed to every aspect of the morally bankrupt and pernicious Sad Puppy agenda? Seems there’s no other choice.

    Anyway, I was just talking about a story I loved and made the mistake of expressing my dissatisfaction with the awards these days and somehow, from a single “You can thank the Puppies for that,” it’s become a Puppy conversation. Goodness knows “Paul” is such a politically charged, polarizing story. It didn’t win the Nebula and I’m not generally happy with them either, so why are we talking Puppies?

    We are talking Puppies because you blamed Hugo nominators for what was actually the Puppies’ fault. You are the one who brought it up.

    I know you’ve said that you don’t want to discuss it — but you’ve also said “I’m just unclear how people can speak so omnisciently of this monolith that is SP/RP”. If you shut down on learning about it, then you will still not understand why Filers are reacting they way they are (and why they will most likely react the same way if you step into it again with a similar comment at some future date).

    I believe you when you say that the only part of the Sad Puppies you saw was about increasing participation in nomination and voting.

    The problem is that the part you saw is just one very small bit of a much larger picture.

    And it seems to me that, upon finding out that there was a much bigger picture and that a great deal of that picture was hugely problematic, you took the stance “I don’t want to know”, instead of finding out more and putting yourself in the position to understand why Filers react the way you do when you say that the Sad and Rabid Puppies had nothing to do with each other, and that you thought what the Sad Puppies did was just fine.

    Filers, as a group and as Worldcon members, were subjected to incredibly vile accusations and hateful, derogatory remarks by Sad Puppies (as well as by the Rabids). People here saw their beloved Hugo Awards twisted by ill intent and cheating — by Sad Puppies as well as by the Rabids.

    I have a huge amount of resentment still against the Sad Puppies for all of the amazing, worthy works and people which did not get recognized the last couple of years because of their cheating. I’m obviously not the only Filer who feels that way.

    And you are going to read more comments about Puppies here on occasion, because what they did has had some long-lasting effects on the Hugos. So I encourage you to either gain some understanding about the whole situation — or to recognize that “Sad Puppy” does not refer to someone who just happened to offer some suggestions to the Sad Puppy list, and not feel as though you are being targeted when such comments are made.

    Filer Camestros Felapton has put together an excellent Puppy Kerfuffle Timeline. It contains brief summary statements of all the major things that happened, each with a link in case the reader wants to get the full story on that item. (Unfortunately, the summary statements do not cover the implications stemming from what was said or done, and the links really need to be read to understand the full implications.)

  24. When one of the Sad Puppy leaders call members of WorldCon “socialist cocksucking whores” for not voting for puppy picks and another Sad Puppy leader calls members of WorldCon worse than nazis for not voting for puppy pucks, well, lets say that they do not earn any good will for themselves and their supporters.

  25. JJ: We are talking Puppies because you blamed Hugo nominators for what was actually the Puppies’ fault. You are the one who brought it up.

    Quoting myself:

    10) OPEN THE PILL BAY DOORS HAL: More short fiction on the brain. If there’s anyone in the world who hasn’t read “Today I Am Paul” about a robot caretaker, then please do so. Yet another sign that awards aren’t on the ball these days – nominated but didn’t win. Didn’t even make the shortlist of the Hugos, apparently. Bah. Great story.

    If you see the word or even the implication of “Puppies” you have an overactive imagination. Besides which, there’s no way an SP who nominates is not a “Hugo nominator” and SPs have nothing to do with Nebulas so there’s no way I was trying to address any subset. It actually was the “big” Hugos and Nebulas on my mind when I said “awards” but I could have just as easily meant the Sturgeon award or anything else applicable.

    Quoting Aaron:

    You can thank the Pups for that.

    This is who brought it up (with relatively innocuous intent, I think) and I’d say further that his response implies that I had not said anything about “Pups.” Even Soon Lee said “and then Aaron said….” I’ll further say that there was still no problem at this point.

    JJ: I know you’ve said that you don’t want to discuss it — but you’ve also said “I’m just unclear how people can speak so omnisciently of this monolith that is SP/RP”. If you shut down on learning about it, then you will still not understand why Filers are reacting they way they are (and why they will most likely react the same way if you step into it again with a similar comment at some future date).

    JJ: I believe you when you say that the only part of the Sad Puppies you saw was about increasing participation in nomination and voting.

    The problem is that the part you saw is just one very small bit of a much larger picture.

    And it seems to me that, upon finding out that there was a much bigger picture and that a great deal of that picture was hugely problematic, you took the stance “I don’t want to know”, instead of finding out more and putting yourself in the position to understand why Filers react the way you do when you say that the Sad and Rabid Puppies had nothing to do with each other, and that you thought what the Sad Puppies did was just fine.

    For a guy who gave me a bunch of crap about being smug and condescending, you sure have a knack for it yourself. First of all, as I said, I was trying to talk positively about a good story. The thread automatically “went to the puppies” and then it turned negative. It had taken up a good chunk of the thread and had gone back and forth enough for me so I was trying to politely disengage from a fruitless digression. Second, I was also being polite when I said, “I’m just unclear how…” That’s just a nice way of saying “There is no good way to explain such thoughts and expressions.” Finally, I once posted without a truckload of qualifiers and got attacked for being smug and condescending. So, here, I phrase something as a statement of obviously polite, rhetorical perplexity, so I get “attacked,” so to speak, with smugness and condescension. On this, I don’t need your education (or anyone’s thought control). When it was current, I didn’t know a thing about SP1, which was Correia’s own little hobby puppy, but I certainly did know about Torgersen’s SP3 and I’m pretty sure it actually came to my attention during SP2, which the anti-SP people made famous. So, no, I’m not one of the insider cognoscenti but I didn’t just discover it yesterday either. I wasn’t saying “I’m ignorant, enlighten me” I was saying, “I appreciate some people’s posts and don’t want to look like I’m ignoring people but this isn’t productive and I’m signing off now.” The only reason I’m replying now is because of your inaccurate and unjust characterization and because it’s symptomatic of what seems to me to be a much larger problem.

    While I’m not aware of all specific contacts and quotes between people calling themselves SP or anti-SP or being called those things by others, such as the incidents Hampus cites, I’m not so ignorant that I “saw one very small bit” of the picture. I’m fully aware that such things go on generally and that both sides participate with gusto. If you resent them (ironically, I suspect that is one of the few times understatement comes into play on this subject) that is your choice. And they feel the same way about you. And maybe everybody should hate each other. But I prefer to choose what is good from every “side” and refuse what is bad. I try to encounter individuals as such and not decide which “side” they must be on and blindly love or hate them accordingly. The mentality I see in the SP/anti-SP thing is the same as that from those who mock the ideals of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution because the US has done bad things or the mentality of Americans who attack foreigners or foreign people who attack Americans because of their group association and the wrongs some other constituent of that group has done them when the individual they are attacking has done nothing to them. The innocent individual of a type is treated as a token of the guilty individual of a type. I see a similar trauma reaction in which everything is interpreted through a narrow lens. You say I’m likely to “step into it again” which is also ironic as I never stepped into it the first time. In a puppy-free comment I mentioned a story and awards (that I have been unhappy with since 2000 at the very latest). Aaron says this particular result is the Puppies fault. Puppies? Okay, but I’m not positive they can be numerically isolated and held accountable so I asked about that. Then, as I mentioned above, it “turned negative.” How did that happen? Further irony. It was you who came in with “the difference is the Puppies and their cheating…that is the fault of the Puppies…the Sad Puppies have been perfectly content to ride the Rabid Puppies’ coattails to get works on the ballot as finalists. They have been quite happy to defend the Rabids’ actions as being legitimate…the reality is that the Rabid Puppies were the ALF to the Sad Puppies’ PETA — and the plausible deniability is even less for the Sads than it is for PETA….the fact that they insist on maintaining the Puppy label, and persist in defending their own past actions (and those of the Rabids), means that they’ve chosen to continue lying in the flea-ridden doggie bed that they themselves made.” So don’t lecture me about how to avoid “stepping in it” when I stepped in nothing; you started flinging it.

    BTW, people often seem to forget they are in a public space on the internet and not in a private club. Innumerable people who never post see these threads and the thousands like them everywhere on the internet – they are reading and thinking everyone, of any stripe, who reads SF is extremely unpleasant and traumatized over the most trivial things and they are moving on to better things rather than participating in this field. And, of the few who stick around, many of the few moderates are forced into choosing sides rather than remaining moderate but they may not be choosing the side you want.

    BTW2, on the Enlightened Liberal and Righteous Conservative flags, pardon my “country,” but I encourage everyone to endure three minutes of it.

  26. @Jason:

    Didn’t even make the shortlist of the Hugos, apparently. Bah.

    .

    If you see the word or even the implication of “Puppies” you have an overactive imagination.

    For me at least, any mention of the Hugo shortlist from the past two years automatically carries the implication of Puppies. You can’t say “bah” that something didn’t make the shortlist and then express shock that somebody would go to the Pups from there. It’s not an overactive imagination, it’s a pretty logical next step given the amount of Puppy slate items on the ballot.

  27. Jason: If you see the word or even the implication of “Puppies” you have an overactive imagination.

    That’s exactly my point, Jason. You’ve apparently chosen not to educate yourself on what the entire Sad Puppies history has encompassed. That’s fine — you certainly don’t have to do so — but then you still have to accept responsibility for when you step in it yourself by making a clueless statement.

    Because saying “Didn’t even make the shortlist of the Hugos, apparently. Bah. Great story.” is bringing up the Puppies. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not, it is the truth.

     
    Jason: I’m not so ignorant that I “saw one very small bit” of the picture.

    I think you’ve indicated that you are. If you’re talking about “sides”, it’s clear that you really don’t understand the big picture of what went on. There were no “sides”. There was just the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies — and in 2015 they were coordinating: BT very clearly left one spot each on Best Editor Long Form and Short Form for VD to slot himself into on the RP slate, and BT later bragged about how he had “talked VD down” from nuking the Hugos completely. (I don’t think that BT realized just how thoroughly he had been owned and used by VD until much later.)

    The “other side”, as you put it, simply consisted of everyone who wasn’t trying to take over and sabotage the Hugo Awards by cheating, to serve a political agenda.

    As long as you don’t understand that, I can pretty much guarantee that you will step in it again at some point without realizing why.

  28. Dawn Incognito: For me at least, any mention of the Hugo shortlist from the past two years automatically carries the implication of Puppies. You can’t say “bah” that something didn’t make the shortlist and then express shock that somebody would go to the Pups from there.

    JJ: That’s exactly my point, Jason…. Because saying “Didn’t even make the shortlist of the Hugos, apparently. Bah. Great story.” is bringing up the Puppies.

    And that’s exactly my point, JJ (and Dawn). Because those are nicely selective interpretations and quotes you’re pulling out of what should paraphrased as:

    File 770 post: Robot caretakers.

    My comment:
    I like this story about a robot caretaker. Please read it.
    By the way, it didn’t win a Hugo or Nebula which is a shame.
    By the way of being by the way, now that I’m looking at the nominee list, I see it didn’t even make the shortlist of one of them.

    Your comments: HEY! LET’S ATTACK PUPPIES!!!

    Okay, if you think that’s reasonable and you think that was really my point – to fixate on a tangent you select relative to a second-level digression without implication of responsible party – and you keep repeating “You’ve apparently chosen not to educate yourself on what the entire Sad Puppies history has encompassed” over and over when I keep telling you I’m not quite so ignorant as you condescendingly insist I am as though you can make it true, then I’ll repeat over and over that many of you folks seem to be psychologically traumatized and no longer engaging in discussion on a rational level. But I don’t doubt that you guys have the energy to repeat it more than I do.

    I like the way some of you will not engage with explaining how the Puppies, which my comment was obviously all about, can explain the Nebulas or the Sturgeons. How I brought it up (seriously, folks, come on). How I turned it into a point of anger. How two of you were able to understand the real spirit of the comment and brought up the WSFA award that it did win and I said that was very nice news and how that fits into your narrative. How I’m supposed to be responsible for your problems. Of all the many, many points I tried to make, you would think that if you only tried to rebut one or two of them, you could do a better job since you’d presumably pick the weakest of the bunch.

    Even if you disregard everything I have said, please understand this: you are not engaging rationally. If I say I prefer cats to dogs or say I am sad, those are not connected to the Sad Puppies. If I were Correia and the other core SP folks, I would be amazed at how important I had become to you. If I mean to raise the Sad Puppies, I will raise the Sad Puppies. I will say, in almost exactly the reverse of what I said and meant, “The Sad Puppies are the only sensible nominators. If they’d had their way, that story would have won and, somehow, by osmosis, it would have extended to the Nebulas, too. And when that had happened, the awards would again be GREAT!”

    But. (once more with feeling) That’s. Not. What. I. Said.

    I will not admit to any relevant ignorance or take any responsibility for your inappropriate reactions to stimuli. Unless you care to admit that you are indeed psychologically traumatized in a clinical sense and can’t help it. Then I suppose it would fall on me to “never mention the Germans” or to leave.

    And, once more, to try to politely disengage: I would like to value you all and discuss science fiction (that’s the writing – y’know, the fun stuff and why we’re all supposed to be here) but I don’t value you (and certainly don’t value this topic) to the extent that you value the Puppies. This has taken too much of my time.

    (Just to reiterate, though, Dawn, you made me smile and made me very happy when you simply introduced yourself earlier and asked what I like and I was able to ask you the same. That I’m willing to do all day.)

  29. Jason: I like the way some of you will not engage with explaining how the Puppies, which my comment was obviously all about, can explain the Nebulas or the Sturgeons.

    You didn’t mention the Nebulas or the Sturgeons in your original statement. You mentioned the Hugos. You are attempting to move the goalposts.

    I can tell you why the story didn’t get recognized by the Hugos: the Puppies.

    I can’t tell you why the story didn’t get recognized by the Nebulas or the Sturgeons — apart from the fact that there is usually a large disconnect between those two and the Hugos, as there is between almost all the SFF awards. You’d have to talk to the people who nominate for the Sturgeons and the Nebulas — and there is a relatively tiny number of Filers who are able to nominate for either of those, so I don’t know why you would be demanding that the people here explain it.

     
    Jason: If I say I prefer cats to dogs or say I am sad, those are not connected to the Sad Puppies.

    To paraphrase you: That’s. Not. What. You. Said.

    You complained about the Hugos not recognizing the story, and you are still refusing to acknowledge that the reason it didn’t get recognized by the Hugos was the Puppy cheating.

    You can project motivations onto me and anyone else here all you want. It does not change reality. 🙄

  30. If you see the word or even the implication of “Puppies” you have an overactive imagination.

    You cannot complain that the story did not make the list of Hugo finalists and not acknowledge that it was the influence of the Pups that resulted in that situation. But for the Pups actions, it is almost certain that Today I Am Paul would have been a Hugo finalist in 2016.

    You complaints about the Nebulas are odd, since it did receive a nomination for the Nebulas, and then lost to an excellent story by Alyssa Wong.

  31. JJ: You didn’t mention the Nebulas or the Sturgeons in your original statement. You mentioned the Hugos. You are attempting to move the goalposts.

    Aaron: You complaints about the Nebulas are odd, since it did receive a nomination for the Nebulas, and then lost to an excellent story by Alyssa Wong.

    W…T…F…? All right. That’s enough being polite. For people who gave me a hard time about supposedly being smug and condescending (when I wasn’t) and bragging on your own intelligence it is ludicrously ironic that you are so utterly reading challenged that I couldn’t even imagine how off you are. But now I finally see the enormity of your incomprehension. For the umpteenth time, I will quote in full:

    Me: Yet another sign that awards aren’t on the ball these days – nominated but didn’t win. Didn’t even make the shortlist of the Hugos, apparently.

    [Mr. Rogers voice]”Awards,” boy and girls, is plural. Can you say “plural”? I knew you could. “Nominated” refers to the Nebulas for which it was… wait for it… nominated. “Didn’t even” is a contrast, saying the Hugos did even worse because it wasn’t nominated for that.[/Mr. Rogers voice]

    Now that’s being condescending (albeit in a comical way because this is ridiculous). I suggest you re-read this entire thread with those facts in mind and watch it transform before your very eyes. I will grant that I did not say “Yet another sign the [Nebulas and the Hugos] aren’t on the ball these days – nominated but didn’t win. [At least it made the Nebula shortlist but it] Didn’t even make the shortlist of the Hugos, apparently,” but I REPEATEDLY explained that basically as a by-product of a general defense and that was REPEATEDLY disregarded due to Puppy fixation or what now seems to also be a simple inability to comprehend the obvious and logically implicit.

    If you still do not comprehend or believe me, try this on for size: 2016 Nebula Award Finalists (c.2015 fiction). And I will point out that, once again, I did not raise the Puppies there, either, but they came up anyway. And, again, for my attitude on SP, I point to the fourth post in that thread. Almost a year ago; different website; same points. Same placement of goalposts. Only difference is, that thread stayed on topic with comprehension all around. (For the Hugo side, there’s this.)

    I’m not even going to address the rest of your attacks on my integrity because they spring from the same freakish myopia and uncharitableness and incomprehension. If you ever get straight on the first point, your other objections will melt away. If not, it’s pointless to address.

  32. Jason: Yet another sign that awards aren’t on the ball these days – nominated but didn’t win. Didn’t even make the shortlist of the Hugos, apparently…

    [Mr. Rogers voice]”Awards,” boy and girls, is plural. Can you say “plural”? I knew you could. “Nominated” refers to the Nebulas for which it was… wait for it… nominated. “Didn’t even” is a contrast, saying the Hugos did even worse because it wasn’t nominated for that.[/Mr. Rogers voice]

    As I pointed out, your original post does not mention the Nebulas or the Sturgeons. It does specifically mention the Hugos.

    As you are now trying to retcon your original statement by pretending that “awards” explicitly implies the Nebulas, and trying to introduce irrelevant posts made elsewhere as proof of something something something, I am now going to go with the presumption that you are operating on bad faith here.

    As Aaron said: You cannot complain that the story did not make the list of Hugo finalists and not acknowledge that it was the influence of the Pups that resulted in that situation. But for the Pups actions, it is almost certain that Today I Am Paul would have been a Hugo finalist in 2016.

    You’re not willing to acknowledge that. You’ve impugned your own integrity. You can stop trying to blame other people for that.

  33. Okay, rhetorical question. I said “awards” plural. I said “the Hugos didn’t even” nominate it. Right in between there, I did say it was nominated. So what award was I talking about when I said it was nominated? Can you say “Nebulas”? I knew you could! (Actually, I’m beginning to doubt you can.) But that’s what is meant by “logically entailed.” It’s an inescapable conclusion.

    JJ: I am now going to go with the presumption that you are operating on bad faith here…. You’re not willing to acknowledge that. You’ve impugned your own integrity. You can stop trying to blame other people for that.

    Oh, right. You’re not impugning my integrity. It’s me. Because I’m presuming I’m operating in bad faith? I’m not “willing to acknowledge”? We left off with Greg having the decency to provide numbers and my saying that I wasn’t following his table well and asking for clarification, saying, “(That’s not an “I challenge you dis/prove something,” but a genuine, “I dunno, can you tell me?” question.)” In other words, I don’t especially care whose fault it was because surely enough people of a variety of types could have participated to counteract the influence of any other group and I’m not sure any one group can be so easily analyzed and so on but, if there are convincing analyses with numbers, sure I’d be willing to acknowledge it. I’m not willing to stipulate it, but I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge it. And, as I’ve said over and over, it still wouldn’t address the Nebulas or any other award besides the WSFA. And as I’ve said over and over, it’s not to my point.

    I’ll tell you what. I’ll be generous and allow three possibilities for you. A) Right back at you: you are operating in bad faith. B) You are even stupider than I thought in that it is impossible for you to understand something so simple even after it is repeatedly explicitly and expressly explained in the simplest terms. C) You are simply too embarrassed to admit you are wrong and have been wronging me. I’ll continue being more generous to you than you are to me and allow for “C” but, either way, fork you; you’re done. (“I say, I say, that’s a joke, son. A play on words.”) I think we’ve taken up enough of Mr. Glyer’s fine pixels and I think everyone can see the truth of the matter here no matter how many times you come back at me and there’s no point in my wasting any more time on you. So you are welcome to continue talking to yourself. It would only be fitting since you certainly aren’t listening to anyone else.

  34. Jason, when you first posted your comment, and a couple of people pointed out that you were incorrectly blaming Hugo voters for not recognizing the story, what you could have done was say “Whoops! I totally forgot about how the Puppy slating totally skewed the final ballot results, and I realize that there’s no way to know what would have happened without that skewing, and it was unfair for me to blame Hugo voters for that.”

    That’s it. That’s all you had to say, and it would have been the end of it.

    Instead, you have doubled-, tripled-, and quadrupled-down on your original statement, posting lengthy, irrational rants which include ridiculous attempts to change the subject and meaningless “proofs” of something.

    You say I’m not listening to “anyone”. But you’re the only one who’s defending your statement. Why do you think that is?

  35. Jason, I’m kind of glad you’ve chosen to hang around. It’s tempting to dig in, but, well, this crowd is surprisingly tolerant once good will is shown to them, and I’ve walked away from rockier starts than yours, and I’ve seen others do it as well. This doesn’t have to end badly.

  36. Jason, it’s obvious that you really loved “Today I Am Paul”.

    A lot of people clearly agreed with you, because the story won the WSFA Award, was nominated for a Nebula Award, was on the Locus Recommended Reading List, was on the Hugo longlist and would have made the shortlist, if not for Rabid Puppy interference. It did not appear on the shortlists for the Theodore Sturgeon Memorial Award or the Eugie Foster Memorial Award. Nonetheless, “Today I Am Paul” is clearly one of the outstanding short stories of 2015.

    However, in the end, the story only won the WSFA Award, because apparently the juries/voters of the other awards preferred other stories. That’s life. The SFF works I enjoy most rarely get nominated for awards and often don’t even make the longlist.

    I don’t especially care whose fault it was because surely enough people of a variety of types could have participated to counteract the influence of any other group

    The way the Hugos work is that the Hugo voters individually nominate their favourite stories. If a given story shows up on enough ballots, it makes the shortlist. It’s a good system that has worked just fine for more than sixty years. However, the range of works that have gotten at least one or two nominations is huge – I think there were more than 700 individual stories nominated this year. And this is specifically what makes the Hugos (or used to make them before EPH) so vulnerable to slating tactics. Because a minority all nominating the same works can drown out a majority which nominates some, but not all of the same stories.

    Last year, I nominated the five short stories I enjoyed most. One was the eventual winner, another made the longlist. The remaining three got nowhere near the longlist. My Mom, who doesn’t read a lot of short fiction, nominated two stories. Neither of them made the longlist. And we are not unique – most Filers had similar experiences. So even with record nomination ballots cast in 2016 (I even made sure my mother nominated), you can’t blame people for nominating whatever stories they personally enjoyed rather than strategically nominating stories that aren’t their favourites, but that have a bigger chance of winning. Because that’s not how the Hugos work.

    I also don’t see why you feel the need to be rude to JJ.

  37. @Jason,
    You do realise that anyone who cares to can go back & read your original comment here?

    10) OPEN THE PILL BAY DOORS HAL: More short fiction on the brain. If there’s anyone in the world who hasn’t read “Today I Am Paul” about a robot caretaker, then please do so. Yet another sign that awards aren’t on the ball these days – nominated but didn’t win. Didn’t even make the shortlist of the Hugos, apparently. Bah. Great story.

    I’ve bolded the relevant word. Dude, let it go already.

  38. Right in between there, I did say it was nominated. So what award was I talking about when I said it was nominated? Can you say “Nebulas”?

    There are about a half-dozen notable science fiction awards that you could have been referring to other than the Nebula. The Sturgeon Award, the Locus Award, the Prometheus Award, the BSFA Award, the Tiptree Award, and that’s without delving into some of the more obscure awards.

    There’s also the fact that you seem to take affront to the fact that it was nominated for the Nebula but didn’t win. Being nominated for a Nebula (or a Locus, or any number of other awards) is a huge honor by itself. There are hundreds and hundreds of works of short fiction produced every year. Five make the shortlist. Usually all five are really strong stories. Did you bother to read the other nominated works to see how good they were? Given your presentation here, I suspect the answer is no.

  39. I don’t especially care whose fault it was because surely enough people of a variety of types could have participated to counteract the influence of any other group and I’m not sure any one group can be so easily analyzed and so on but, if there are convincing analyses with numbers, sure I’d be willing to acknowledge it.

    You seem to be looking for an explanation for why Today I Am Paul didn’t make the list of Hugo finalists. At the very least you have been complaining that it was not a finalist. The reason it did not is pretty clear to anyone who paid attention to the Hugos last year: The Puppies. Mostly the Rabid Puppies, but to a certain extent the Sad Puppies too. It is not that hard to estimate the impact of the Puppy campaigns on the Hugo ballot, and for the most part, when one does that, one finds that the impact has been almost universally negative. Pushing stories like Today I Am Paul off of the list of finalists is just one example of this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *