A way to keep time from hapening all at once.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
File 770
Mike Glyer's news of science fiction fandom
A way to keep time from hapening all at once.
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Jake said:
During SP3/SP4, there were a lot of loud proclamations about how VD was just this guy doing his own thing and they neither embraced nor rejected him because SP is all about true diversity and that means letting everyone play etc. etc.
But IIRC, there was a comment on an MGC post early this year to the effect that VD is the only person who’s ever been blocked from commenting there. (Can’t find it now, of course, because searching for words like “blocked” and “banned” on MGC brings up a ton of results.) My takeaway was that while no one at MGC would want to explicitly disavow him because that would mean they were bowing to the evil SJWs, for all practical purposes they don’t consider him an ally.
I think a better question is “are they capable of supporting life, in theory.” To answer that, you need to decide what life is and what conditions it needs to exist (and what conditions it needs to originate, if you mean native life and not transported life.) Two things that seem to be pretty fundamental to life is 1.) a medium in which chemical reactions can take place and 2.) an energy source to drive those chemical reactions. As for a medium, solids do not allow enough movement to make life possible (I’m not talking about life that lives in solids, I’m talking about life that is itself solid) and gasses allow too much movement. (And the idea of “pure energy” life is so silly that it Isn’t Even Wrong–if you believe in “energy beings”, then you really have no clue what “energy” is.) Eliminate solids and gasses, and you are left with a liquid medium for life. We don’t know that it is impossible for some sort of exotic life to exist in liquid methane or nitrogen, but the safest bet is to have that liquid be water.
So the question now is–is it possible for planets beyond Pluto to still contain sub-surface oceans of liquid water and still have enough of a geological heat source to provide the energy needed by life? And the answer to that is–yes, especially if it is closer in size to Earth than to Pluto, or if it has a largeish moon providing tidal heating. Even tiny Pluto may possibly have a sub-surface ocean. Any planet, moon, asteroid that retains a sub-surface ocean is in the “could in theory have some sort of life not totally unlike we know it” club. Even rouge planets could in theory retain sub-surface oceans, and life. (To be clear, by “life”, I don’t mean anything necessarily more advanced than chemosynthetic bacteria analogs eking out an existence around the equivalent of comfy black smokers, which are likely where life on Earth originated. By “life”, I go by the definition “a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.”)
Very, very major book recommendation: Life As We Don’t Know It by Peter Douglas Ward.
::ticky::
isn’t that the entire problem in a nutshell? Conservatives seemingly cannot stand the idea that people just want to be happy. Why they should care who with and how people have sex is beyond me … but there you are. Nope .. in their world, you’re stuck with their definition of how and what a relationship should be and tough if it makes you desperately suicidally unhappy.
Okay, somebody please tell me if this is an inappropriate topic to bring up and I will drop it.
I posted links to Strange Horizons earlier, and was having a look at their fiction. The most recent story was by Shira Lipkin, and I said “hey wait I know that name”. It was associated with drama in my mind (specifically Natalie Luhrs’ post about a party thrown in her room without her knowledge at a Readercon) so I did a Google and fell
down
the rabbit hole
where she accuses Lynne and Michael Thomas of being emotionally abusive, harassers, and “sexually predatory editors”. That’s…pretty huge, and I think relevant considering who just won a Hugo for semiprozine. I’m getting pretty anxious now from the links and discussion I’ve been reading, and I know I’m a couple years’ out of touch on this, but was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or links to share?
“Hey what’s in this can? OMG WORMS EVERYWHERE!”
Petrea: My guess is MGC liked VD taunting writers they hold in low esteem but they can’t really forgive that he embarassed the Sad Puppy effort by using it as a stalking horse and making it evident they had little impact on the Hugos of their own.
@Darren Garrison: Doesn’t Mars qualify as a rouge planet?
ETA: waves Hi Mike!
Uh, too late to edit, but that book title is Life As We Do Not Know It, not Don’t Know It.
Glad to see you Mike. 🙂
Doesn’t Mars qualify as a rouge planet?
Not sure if this is a joke I don’t understand? A rouge planet is a planet that has been gravitationally ejected from it’s parent solar system into interstellar space. It is believed that there are a lot of them. Possibly even more than the number of planets still orbiting stars.
Has this series of posts been linked here yet? The day-by-day experiences of a Puppy-adjacent first-time Worldcon visitor. (Much more positive than that guy last year who whined about the lack of “gunnies” he could talk to.)
A rogue plant vs. a rouge planet.
So many World of Warcraft jokes coming to mind.
NERF ROUGES!
Heh, that’s one of my (typically on the internet) spelling pet peeves, rouge vs. rogue.
The other big one is of course, viola vs. voila.
Needless to say, I’m quite fluent in French. =)
(Rouge is also make-up, specifically pink/red.)
Pun.
“That’s…pretty huge, and I think relevant considering who just won a Hugo for semiprozine. I’m getting pretty anxious now from the links and discussion I’ve been reading, and I know I’m a couple years’ out of touch on this, but was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or links to share?”
If the editor of Strange Horizons tried to destroy the nascent writing career of someone with whom they had a failed romantic relationship through a court order barring that person from being able to attend science fiction conventions to network or market her work, then as a writer, I would be extremely leery of submitting my work to Strange Horizons.
“isn’t that the entire problem in a nutshell? Conservatives seemingly cannot stand the idea that people just want to be happy. Why they should care who with and how people have sex is beyond me … but there you are. Nope .. in their world, you’re stuck with their definition of how and what a relationship should be and tough if it makes you desperately suicidally unhappy.”
I wasn’t speaking to the validity or lack thereof of their attitude, only pointing out that it would be subject matter that they wouldn’t typically considered to be fun. I think whether you view that particular story as fun would largely depend on the prism of how you view things like the sanctity of marriage and so forth.
@idontknow:
Lynne and Michael Thomas are editors at Uncanny. Strange Horizons is where I saw the recent Lipkin story. Just to clarify.
ETA: damn you autocorrect!
Of course. It might be Shakespeare but if its got gay sex or even a hint of it … then … it’s trash. Ironic that Shakespeare had lots and lots of hints …
Honestly I don’t see guys like JCW having ‘fun’ in anything they do or write. But I freely admit that they might have an entirely different definition of what constitutes ‘fun’.
Hi, Mike!
Perhaps they are seen as “defending” Vox Day because they are simply ignoring his antics? Silence is approval?
I think most of the people talking about the lack of distinction between the Sads and the Rabids are pointing to the full-throated post-Hugo defenses that LC, BT, and others have made of the Rabid slate picks, and how terribly offended they are on behalf of the Rabid Puppy selections who finished behind No Award.
Dawn Incognito: I don’t know how accurate her accusations are, or how good her stories are (they must be at least somewhat good, to get published) but her blog postings are barely coherent, cringe-worthy ramblings on a Dave Freeresque level. (Take that for what you will.)
Not sure if this is a joke I don’t understand? A rouge planet is a planet that has been gravitationally ejected from it’s parent solar system into interstellar space.
That’s a rogue planet.
Mars is a rouge planet.
Of course. It might be Shakespeare but if its got gay sex or even a hint of it … then … it’s trash. Ironic that Shakespeare had lots and lots of hints …
It is kind of ironic for a group that has taken up the banner of “it should be about the quality of the work, regardless of who wrote it or what is in it” should be so quick to condemn stories based upon their disapproval of the contents of them.
@Dawn Incognito
Looks like relationship drama that split over to me, but impossible to judge at this distance.
@Mike
Hi!
—-
On the question of whether we’re getting SP5, Sarah Hoyt says:
I wish them well in all their future endeavors.
New thread
@Dawn: I know Natalie, and am aware of the Readercon incident. I would take Lipkin’s version of anything with a huge grain of salt.
A stroll down the rabbit hole has me agreeing with you on that. Damn…
@Darren Garrison: Ninja’d by many, but yes, that was a play on what I assumed to be a typo (‘rouge’ instead of ‘rogue’). Mars is the very archetype of une Planète rouge.
Although now I’m thinking of a new direction for the franchise with Star Wars: Rouge One, with Han Solo replaced by Han Collective.
@Dawn Incognito
I could only find a couple of references (less than 5). The only person I could find saying anything about Lynne and Michael Thomas planting thought/blame on Shira Lipkin didn’t match someone who’d spoken to Natalie shortly afterwards. I couldn’t find anything on how Readercon ruled. Natalie never mentions speaking with either of the Thomas’s.
I’m not discounting Shira Lipkin. I’m saying I couldn’t find anything to support her claim they had talked to Natalie Luhrs to influence her. I could see from Natalie’s screenshots where Shira refered to “moving a party” and mis-attributes what room the “sparkle” party was in. From the initial tweets it was clear it was intended to be a small party and it clearly got much bigger. Shira in her comments and posts hold Natalie responsible for “not talking to her directly” and “continuing to have online contact” post Readercon which is something many of us do to avoid confrontation after feeling used/abused and predators use to prove they didn’t do what they are accused of. Again I’m not saying Shira did anything wrong but instead of apologizing for accidentally overstepping she makes a number of accusations and contacts the person who is feeling used/abused.
We’ve just talked about how one should leave a person alone once one is aware of the problem. Even if she did nothing wrong that night at Readercon her comment on Natalie’s blog post is inappropriate in the same way the “fans insisting on apologizing to Alyssa Wong” was.
I wish them well in all their future endeavors.
It is kind of adorable that Hoyt thinks that without the Pups’ support that Worldcon will be starved for dollars. I have to wonder how confused all of the Pups will be in five years when Worldcon and the Hugo Awards are continuing to thrive despite their lack of participation.
The only thing I’ve ever read by Hoyt was her introduction to the digital version of Starship Troopers and was left wondering who she was, and why was she ruining my enjoyment of a old favorite, and why did the publisher inflict her upon me?
The vituperation in that thread is breathtaking.
First, Lipkin’s “apology” does not pass the Scalzi Smell Test. Second, I detected so much gas lighting in her “apology” I could almost use the text for a reading lamp.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/04/15/apologies-what-when-and-how/
The difference between a rogue planet and a rouge planet is largely cosmetic.
Ah, yes, I can see that they are the folks with dignity, manners and good solid upbringings.
Dawn, my biggest memory of that situation, and it was some time ago so I don’t recall it all clearly, was that the third party dragged the Thomases’ very young disabled daughter into things and was fairly vile about the way they cared for her. (“Devotedly” seemed to be the universal opinion by the people who knew the Thomases.) It looked a hell of a lot like a smear attempt along the lines of “John Scalzi is a rapist”, only with added breakup ugliness and bringing the children into it. YMMV. I hadn’t heard the Luhrs story. She doesn’t come off very well there, either.
I sometimes wonder if Sarah Hoyt times these because she knows I’m about to pick one of her books up again. When it’s at hand, I’ve been enjoying the one I started, and it’s going to be at hand again over the weekend. And then she chimes in with her writing that is not intended to be fiction and I ask myself why.
@Cora on August 24, 2016 at 9:56 pm :
” Captain America #1 is a similar case – not eligible, since it came out in 1941.”
That’s what I thought, too, but I’m not as sure now.
Capt America #1 has a cover date of Mar 1941. Cover dates on newsstand periodicals don’t indicate the date of publication. They are the date the item should be removed from the shelf. So clearly, it was published before Mar 1941. But how much earlier?
Wikipedia says that two months was typical of monthly comics of the era. That would get us to January.
But if you check the copyright records, it was copyrighted on Dec 20 1940. Usually, copyright registrations were accompanied by deposit copies. So it is entirely possible that Timely had already published the comic in time for it to be mailed to the copyright office in late Dec, 1940.
One way to check would be to examine the original copyright registration paperwork at the national archives or at the Library of Congress. They may say if the registration included deposit copies, and on what day they were received.
I’m not saying for sure that it was a 1940 publication. I am saying that there is a good chance it was. And I’m not saying that the copyright date is determinative — I’m saying it is evidence that the publication date (which is determinative) may be in 1940.
Of course, it is all moot now. And I don’t think the error would have made a difference in the final award. Batman was on over half of the nominating ballots, while Captain America wasn’t even on a third. I think that preference would have carried over into the final vote tallies.
@John A Arkansawyer
That got a legitimate chuckle out of me. 🙂
The vituperation in that thread is breathtaking.
I see from looking through the comments that I am still taking up space in Brad Torgersen’s head. It’s like he has a crush on me but it too timid to ask me on a date and needs to ask someone to pass me a note during recess.
bill: My understanding is that cover date rules when it comes to Hugo eligibility. [checks]
So no, it was not an error: the cover date says 1941, so it was not eligible.
Okay, I wasn’t going to post the de-puppified longlist that I attempted to create, but since Stephanie Zvan did, so will I. I used a very different method than her and got different results. By my calculations, some Sad Puppy favorites would be on the longlist but none on the ballot except Toni Weisskopf.
@Cally
It says that publication date trumps copyright date, or cover date trumps copyright date. (I checked the same place before posting).
It does not say which takes precedence between cover date and publication date. We know here that the two differ, and that cover date is wrong by a fair amount. I think the spirit of the eligibility rules goes with publication, and we know that cover date is off, so there is an argument to be made for Captain America #1 being eligible as a 1940 work.
If you disagree, that’s fine. Like I said, it’s moot anyway.
@Bill, @Cora: I wasn’t sure if Captain America #1 was eligible or not, but I nominated it anyway, and planned on voting for it. I’m not bummed about it not making the ballot. But if it isn’t up for a retro Hugo next year because someone claims it isn’t eligible, I’m pretty sure my nipples will go spung.
@Vasha
I like your method of looking at the likely amount of RP in each category over Zvan’s.
“Publication date, or cover date in the case of a dated periodical, takes precedence over copyright date.”
I read that as flat-out saying that in dated periodicals, cover date takes precedence over everything. Despite the fact that publication date is still no doubt theoretically discernible in the case of dated periodicals (call up the printer or publisher and ask!) (ok, this doesn’t necessarily work for Retros, but it’s still theoretically discoverable), the cover date is explicitly what takes precedence over copyright, not the publication date.
How are you parsing it? It’s always interesting to get other interpretations, even (especially?) when I think they’re wrong.
@Vasha: Thanks for the list!
One possible error I noticed – in novella, shouldn’t Perfect State be at position 10? (By your calculations it should have 602 – 440 = 162 pupless nominations.)
How are you parsing it?
Where you have everything, I have copyright date (like the rule says).
More specifically, I parse it as:
1. Publication date trumps copyright date.
2. If it is a dated periodical, cover date trumps copyright date.
3. The rule does not express a primacy between publication date and cover date.
From other elements of the set of rules, I think that publication date is most important. Therefore references to copyright date and cover date are there to help decide when publication date is unknown.
Here, it is unknown, but there is a good case to be made for 1940, and there is a path for getting a definitive date for publication (copyright registration records).
I don’t think the admins were “wrong” in the sense of misinterpreting the rules. But with more information, they may have made a different decision.
Bill, I would interpret that “or” as exclusive: either publication date or cover date trumps copyright date. In the case of dated periodicals, cover date trumps copyright date. In all other cases, publication date trumps copyright date. As you note, if “or” is not treated as exclusive then it creates an ambiguity, and I believe it’s a general rule that if a provision has two readings, one of which is unclear and one of which isn’t, then you should choose the reading that gives clear instruction.
I’m not trying to convince anyone that Captain American was wrongly taken off the ballot. I’m laying out a set of arguments that could lead to a different decision.
Also, the fact that comic book cover dates ca. 1940-1941 are definitely known to be late by some amount in excess of several weeks, is important in this case. If the cover date was trustworthy, I’d be more inclined to weight it higher.
I understand the need to have have rules that streamline decision making. One of the reasons to lay this out is to stimulate the possibility of tweaking the rule to eliminate the ambiguity.
Cally, Steven — if I posted a scan of a copyright registration form that clearly showed that the copyright office had received a copy of Captain America #1, cover-dated Mar 1941(I don’t have one to post, just thinking hypothetically), on Dec 20, 1940, would that make a difference to you? Would you think it should have been eligible for a retro-Hugo last weekend?