Pixel Scroll 7/21/18 Number Five: Where Am I? Other Number Five: In The File.

(1) THE MAN WHO LOST THE MOON. Where do you hide something this big? “Giant moon artwork goes missing in post on way to Austria”.

A giant replica of the moon which is displayed all over the world has gone missing in the post.

The 7m (23ft) orb, covered in detailed imagery of the lunar surface, has been created by Bristol-based Luke Jerram and was en route to a festival in Austria.

Mr Jerram said the disappearance of the structure, titled Museum of the Moon, was “really annoying and upsetting.”

Courier firm TNT said it was looking into the issue.

Mr Jerram said the artwork has been booked for a series of public events across Europe over the summer.

 

(2) FUTURICON. Rijeka, Croatia is going to host Eurocon 2020, which will be called Futuricon. Their bid was accepted this week at Eurocon in Amiens. Their site has been home to Rikon for almost two decades.

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Rijeka
October 2-4, 2020

Rijeka, the coastal city in Croatia in which the annual convention Rikon has already been held nineteen times, has won the prestigious title of European Capital of Culture 2020. As part of the ECoC nomination, the SF society 3. zmaj, is announcing Futuricon, our bid for Eurocon 2020, for which we will combine the most important things the city of Rijeka has to offer – centuries of culture, diversity and tolerance, and a fresh glimpse into a positive future created by the people who live and breathe culture. With the support of the City and University of Rijeka, as well as other Croatian SF societies, we are confident that we can create a unique European experience for everyone.

(3) ALWAYS IN STYLE. Debra Doyle, novelist and editor, makes a statement “With Regard to the Recent Email to Nominees for the Hugo Awards”.

Science Fiction’s Hugos would not be what they are without accompanying periodic outbursts of controversy. This year’s topic is the email sent out to nominees for the award, “encouraging” them to dress professionally for the awards ceremony. The backlash from the sf/fantasy community was, shall we say, vociferous and overwhelmingly negative.†

As well it should be. To quote my elder daughter, on an occasion some time ago when I was fretting about the advisability of going out in public with my hair pulled back using a kid’s Snoopy-the-Flying-Ace hair tie:

“Don’t worry, Mamma. You’re a science fiction writer. You can wear anything.”

(4) THE MORE THINGS STAY THE SAME. You may not have thought the question of what Worldcons want people to wear to events was a new controversy. But would you have expected E.E. “Doc” Smith to be the person complaining about it? In 1962? Here’s a letter the author of the Lensman Series wrote to Chicon III chair Earl Kemp before the con.

(5) ONE BIG CHECK. That’s what you’ll be writing if you want any of his stuff — “One giant sale: Neil Armstrong’s collection goes to auction”. ABC News has the story.

Admirers of Neil Armstrong and space exploration have a chance to own artifacts and mementos that belonged to the modest man who became a global hero by becoming the first human to walk on the moon.

The personal collection of Armstrong, who died in his native Ohio in 2012, will be offered for sale in a series of auctions handled by Dallas-based Heritage Auctions, beginning Nov. 1-2 and continuing in May and November 2019.
The collection includes a variety of artifacts from Armstrong’s 1969 lunar landing and private mementos that include pieces of a wing and propeller from the 1903 Wright Brothers Flyer that the astronaut took with him to the moon.

The article names several other flown artifacts that will be in the auctions.

(6) ACCLAIMED SHORT FANTASY. Rocket Stack Rank lists 46 outstanding stories of high fantasy from 2016-2017 that were either finalists for major SF/F awards, included in “year’s best” SF/F anthologies, or recommended by prolific reviewers in short fiction (see Q&A). That’s 46 out of 166 high fantasy stories from those two years, and out of 470 outstanding SF/F stories from 2016 and 2017.

For our purposes, we define “high fantasy” as a fantasy story that takes place in a secondary world. That is, something like Lord of the Rings, where Middle Earth is clearly not in the past or future of our world.

(7) ADDRESSEE UNKNOWN. There was just one problem with choosing John Crowley as the winner: “Maine Literary Award withdrawn because of ineligibility; new winner named”….

The winner of a 2018 Maine Literary Award was found ineligible because he is not a resident of Maine, and the Maine Writers & Publishers Alliance, which gives the awards annually, has named a new winner of its speculative fiction prize.

The award, which had gone to Massachusetts resident John Crowley for his book “Ka,” since has been given to Unity College writing instructor Paul Guernsey, who had come in second place for his book “American Ghost.”

“Ka” was nominated by the editorial director of Saga Press, a division of Simon & Schuster, whose marketing manager told the Maine Writers & Publishers Alliance that Crowley owned a home in Maine and lived here part time. Crowley, who was born in Maine, was named the winner of the award in a June ceremony.

According Joshua Bodwell, executive director of the Maine Writers & Publishers Alliance, Crowley notified the group that he did not live in Maine. While the award can go to seasonal or part-time residents, it is open only to people who live in Maine. Crowley reached out to say that he was unaware that his publisher had nominated him or that his publisher and his editor had said he met the eligibility requirements.

(8) STOPPING FOR ICE. Galactic Journey’s Ashley R. Pollard tells about the latest trend in fiction 55 years ago: “[July 21, 1963] Ice Cold Spies”.

I marvel at how quickly SF concepts have gone mainstream. With so many SF ideas transitioning into mainstream fiction, one of the current trends I see is the fascination with the Cold War and spies. Who as I’ve alluded to earlier, are it seems to be found everywhere.

The result is the creation of a new genre that blend SF with contemporary thriller to create what is being called a “techno-thriller.” A techno-thriller will use many of the ideas that were once purely science fictional, but set them within a conventional world that’s recognizable as our own.

A new novel by Allister MacLean called Ice Station Zebra has caught the public’s imagination. Whether this is as a result of all the stories of spies in the news I don’t know. MacLean is well known as a writer of action-adventure stories, but this new novel sees him move into a new genre.

Maclean is not the first author to do so. Fellow Scottish writer Ian Stuart wrote a similar techno-thriller, which came out last year called, The Satan Bug….

(9) A PAIR TO DRAW TO. SYFY Wire’s SDCC story “Guillermo del Toro confirmed to guest on The Simpsons in season 30” that confirms the celeb writer/producer/director Guillermo del Toro (The Shape of Water, The Hobbit trilogy, the Hellboy movies and games, and many more) will guest star on The Simpsons this coming season. He joins Gal Gadot (the Wonder Woman movies and others in the DC Cinematic Universe) in the “confirmed” column. There was apparently no indication the two would be on the same episode. The season’s first episode of their 30th season will will air September 30.

(10) FRONT ROW TO A SHARKNADO. Syfy Wire reports from SDCC: “Sharknado will return next year… with a live stage show!” Mike Kennedy says, “The article title pretty much says it all. I expect next we’ll have <engage echo effect> Sharks [arks… arks… arks] On [on… on… on] Ice [ice… ice… ice] !!!! <disengage echo effect>.”

You can’t keep a good Sharknado down. On Friday, at San Diego Comic-Con, the cast and crew held a panel on The Last Sharknado: It’s About Time. Yes, as you might imagine, this is the sixth and final in the Sharknado film franchise. But Sharknado will live on…

… with a live stage show.

Indeed, there is going to be a live stage version of Sharknado. No details were offered at the panel, other than it is expected to premiere at a resort/casino in 2019, and will be a sensory overload, if you will. An official announcement is expected later this year.

(11) HELL WARMED OVER. You may recall that Lucifer, canceled by Fox at the end of this past season, was picked up by Netflix for a 10-episode 4th season. At SDCC, star Tom Ellis dropped a few hints about what might be coming up after the major season 3 cliffhanger. SYFY Wire wraps up stories from other sources in “Lucifer’s Tom Ellis Teases Season 4 on Netflix”.

“We get straight back into it,” Ellis told TV Line of the start of Season 4, and teases that Lucifer was unaware that he had the devil face on at the time, so Chloe’s likely shock will come as a surprise. The pair are “apparently” still working together, but Ellis added that “The weird thing this year about coming to Comic-Con is that I can’t talk about the show and what’s going to happen so much, because I don’t know.” The scripts haven’t been written yet, and production begins August 13. Netflix has yet to announce a premiere date….

And he’s in no hurry to have Lucifer and Chloe embrace a romantic relationship. “I think it’s the heartbeat of the show, Chloe and Lucifer’s relationship,” he told [Entertainment Weekly]. “It wouldn’t be very wise to get these two characters together now… When you get the characters together, ultimately that’s kind of resolution. And you don’t want resolution till the very, very end.” But if/when that finally happens, “I am all for it.”

There were hints that Ellis could drop trou on Netflix, something that would have been Right Out on Fox.

(12) SHAZAM! Let’s catch up on our comic history before watching the trailer:  “DC’s ‘Shazam!’ Makes a ‘Big’ First Impression in Comic-Con Trailer”.

And for those of you asking, yes, he really is the first hero called Captain Marvel, debuting 20 years before Marvel Comics existed as a brand. Fawcett Comics was sued by DC in the early 1950s over claims that “Captain Marvel” ripped off “Superman,” and went temporarily out of business after it agreed never to publish the character’s comics again. However, in 1972 DC licensed “Captain Marvel” from Fawcett and brought the character into the DC universe.

But during the intervening decades, Marvel realized the trademark on the name “Captain Marvel” had lapsed, and introduced its own character of the same name. Which is why, to avoid legal problems, DC called its re-launched comic book “Shazam” and eventually changed the character’s name outright.

 

(13) SDCC TRAILERS. Here are several more trailers that got released this weekend.

(14) GRAND BOOK THEFT. These weren’t books he checked out. Now he may be checking into the pokey: “Men accused of stealing $8M in rare books, items from Pittsburgh library”.

Two men are facing charges of stealing or damaging more than $8 million in rare books and materials from the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh over more than two decades.

Investigators on Friday charged Greg Priore and John Schulman with the crimes, alleging the two men worked together to remove the items from the Oliver Room.

According to the criminal complaint, Priore worked as the manager and sole archivist of the library’s Oliver Room, which houses rare books and items, for 25 years before being fired in June 2017. Schulman is the co-owner of Caliban Book Shop in Oakland, which specializes in rare books.

The Oliver Room closed more than a year ago once authorities discovered the thefts.

Priore first contacted Schulman about the scheme in the late 1990s, according to the criminal complaint. Priore allegedly told police he made between $500 and $3,000 for items he stole and gave to Schulman to sell.

(15) BE ON THE LOOKOUT. Lou Antonelli, who was slated onto the Hugo ballot in 2015, mourns his “Lost Rockets” [Internet Archive link].

…I decided I’d start wearing my pins this year, and I took them with me when I went to SoonerCon in Oklahoma City June 22. After I checked in and got my badge, I took them out and I was going to stick them on.

I took the first one out, and as I tried to stick it on, I fumbled it. I never saw it land. It disappeared. I never saw it again. I put the second one back in its bag. The next day, I realized I’d lost it also.

After I told this story to one colleague at Libertycon, he said, “Well, you can always ask WorldCon for a replacement.”

I laughed. “You’ve got to be kidding! They didn’t want us to have them in the first place! Do you think they would ever give me a replacement!”

(16) JANELLE MONAÉ. Rolling Stone lets you “Watch Janelle Monae Perform ‘Americans,’ Talk Science Fiction on ‘Colbert’”. Video at the link.

Twice during Monáe’s Late Show appearance, the singer danced atop Colbert’s desk: Once to close out the interview portion – where she and the host talked about first meeting at Barack Obama’s 55th birthday party at the White House – and again to kickstart “Americans.”

During the 10-minute interview, Colbert and Monae also discussed their shared love of science fiction, which heavily influenced the singer’s new LP Dirty Computer.

“I loved being able to see these different worlds that were different from mine, that allowed me to kind of escape from where I was,” Monáe said of the genre. “It just stayed with me. I started to write science fiction as a teenager… It stayed with me throughout my work.”

(17) ONCE MORE WITH FEELING. I ran this link yesterday before seeing Mike Kennedy’s take, which I think Filers will enjoy seeing just the same.

[Item by Mike Kennedy.] Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. — George Santayana

In 2016. the British Antarctic Survey asked the public to pick the name for their new survey vessel. They picked Boaty McBoatface. Well, the BAS was not particularly happy with that, and named the craft the RRS Sir David Attenborough, though they did relent and name an autonomous underwater vehicle Boaty McBoatface (the lead vehicle of its class).

Jump to the present.

The European Space Agency and the UK Space Agency are asking the public for help naming an upcoming Mars rover to be launched in 2020 (and land in 2021).

You get three guesses what the public wants so far (and the first two don’t count). Yep, Time Magazine notes that Rovy McRoverface is already trending on Twitter. Gizmodo throws in Marsy McMarsface and Spacey McSpaceface as their suggestions.

But apparently ESA and UKSA did learn at least a little from the Boaty McBoatface incident, since they say that they’ll be using a panel that they appoint to make the final choice. Or, at least they do if you dig deep enough into their 5-page PDF of Terms and Conditions. With no mention of this on the page where you make your recommendation, it would be easy enough for someone to misunderstand and think this was a straightforward popular vote.

(18) VIDEO OF THE DAY. In “Fired on Mars” on Vimeo, Nick and Nate ask, “What happens if you’re a corporate drone who gets fired–except your bosses are on earth and you’re on Mars?”

[Thanks to Cat Eldridge, Mike Kennedy, Martin Morse Wooster, Chip Hitchcock, Andrew Porter, Carl Slaughter, JJ, Eric Wong, and John King Tarpinian for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Jack Lint.]

206 thoughts on “Pixel Scroll 7/21/18 Number Five: Where Am I? Other Number Five: In The File.

  1. Crazy bet stories: I’m reminded of a story in “Masterpieces of Humor”: “The Betting Scotchman” (by “Anonymous” about a fellow makes a deliberately losing bet – in order to win a quite different bet.

  2. John, thank you for doing the right thing. However, please allow us our entirely reasonable resentment against people who gamed the Hugos. That is in no way political.

    People didn’t like who made the ballot in 2015. That’s fine–there have often been nominees that I didn’t think should have been on the ballot over the years.

    But the rules were changed with the specific intention of making it harder for “those people” be on the ballot.

    That’s political.

    And one of the (several) reasons that I’ve retired from administering the Hugos after 2015.

  3. John Lorentz: We still have a few pins let over from when Ruth and I were the Hugo Administrators for Sasquan, and I’ve just sent email to Lou to verify his mailing address in order to send him replacements.

    Thank you for doing that. I am sure that this year’s Hugo Admins are currently up to their eyeballs.

  4. @ John L: The rules were changed to make it harder for a small number of people to stuff the ballot box during the nominations process. Spinning this as “to make it harder for Those People to be on the ballot” is (1) disingenuous and (2) very political indeed, and sits oddly against your earlier statement.

    There is a very bright line between something you don’t like being on the ballot and something getting onto the ballot by virtue of coordinated vote-stuffing. There are also a lot of people who seem very determined not to understand this.

  5. @John Lorentz.

    No. The rules were changed to make slating more difficult for everyone. If the aim had simply been to get rid of “those people” then much simpler and easier solutions were available.

  6. John Lorentz: People didn’t like who made the ballot in 2015. That’s fine – there have often been nominees that I didn’t think should have been on the ballot over the years. But the rules were changed with the specific intention of making it harder for “those people” be on the ballot. That’s political.

    I’m going to correct this for you, John:

    People didn’t like that way that opportunists used a vulnerability in the rules — which relied on nominators to behave in good faith — to cheat a bunch of works onto the ballot which couldn’t have gotten there on their own merit.

    The rules were changed with the specific intention of making it harder for anyone to cheat works onto the ballot. That is not political. It is sensible.

    A great many people, including me, were very insistent that the method chosen to block this sort of manipulation was agnostic and not arbitrary, that it would be applied equally to any nominations, regardless of the identity or politics of the nominators — and it really pisses me off to see you claiming otherwise.

  7. @John Lorentz, there are a number of things we do not agree on, but if by “those people”, you mean the people who would vote as an organised group to get their favoured creator(s) onto the Hugo Ballot, then I agree.

    (I remember seeing discussions on Livejournal (in the early 2000s?) saying that Hugo nominating participation was so low in some categories that with a little bit of “encouragement”, it would be possible to get your favourite minority creator on the final ballot. I did not like it then, and I do not like it now. No matter who does it.)

  8. John Lorentz: People didn’t like who made the ballot in 2015. That’s fine–there have often been nominees that I didn’t think should have been on the ballot over the years.
    But the rules were changed with the specific intention of making it harder for “those people” be on the ballot.

    I’m astonished and disappointed that you don’t seem to understand what happened. All the more so considering the correspondence we had at the time this was happening. It’s as if you have lost track of what you once clearly understood.

  9. I think John knows exactly what happened – there was a loophole and it wasn’t closed until “the wrong people” took advantage of it. Then everyone was galvanized into action.

  10. Lou Antonelli: there was a loophole and it wasn’t closed until “the wrong people” took advantage of it.

    Exactly. And what made them “the wrong people” is that they were so morally and ethically bankrupt that they used the loophole to cheat onto the ballot a bunch of sub-par works which couldn’t get on the ballot on their own merit.

  11. You checked in, got your badge, then went back to your rental car to put on your rocket pins. Righto. Forgive me for thinking your story doesn’t entirely hang together here.

  12. @Lou Antonelli

    If by “the wrong people” you mean “the first people to slate in bulk and deny everyone else their choices” then you’re spot on.

    Honestly, if all your persecution theories were correct, why would you have those pins at all, or be being treated like anyone else via the replacement offer?

  13. “But the rules were changed with the specific intention of making it harder for “those people” be on the ballot.

    That’s political.”

    Nah. It is you who are turning a simple rule against hacking to something political.

  14. Most of the discussion about amending the voting process took place in publicly visible space, in posts that are still online and can be checked if anyone feels the need. The emphasis was always on finding a neutral method of nullifying the effect of slate voting – one that would work whatever the politics of the slate might be. I agree one hundred per cent with JJ on this one – the “wrong people” are the ones who tried to game the system, it doesn’t matter what their politics are.

    Though I have to admit, I am old and curmudgeonly myself, and I remember the days when the right wing – however much I might disagree with them – were at least brought up with a belief in good old-fashioned virtues like honesty and straight talking. Time was when an upright Republican type would think it beneath his dignity to win by lying and cheating. I hope those times will come again.

    (And, yeah, the Puppy slate was cheating – morally, if not technically. I said at the time, and I say it again now: any time you find yourself saying “well, what I’m doing isn’t technically against the rules”, you know damn well you shouldn’t be doing it.)

  15. Oneiros – Well, yes, that’s what exactly happened. Why does that sound so strange? I checked in, got my badge, then remembered the pins were in my briefcase that was in the car, went back to the car, with the goal of putting the pins on the badge. Why does that sound fishy?

  16. @Oneiros: “You checked in, got your badge, then went back to your rental car to put on your rocket pins. Righto. Forgive me for thinking your story doesn’t entirely hang together here.”

    That’s not as unreasonable as you make it sound. There have been several times where I’ve parked my car just outside the lobby, gone inside to check in and pick up my badge, then gone back to my car to drive it to the closest parking spot I could find to my room. Granted, I don’t get a rental car (I stick to cons I can drive to), and I tend to pack my jewelry in my luggage instead of keeping it in a pocket or the like… but it’s not absolutely unheard-of.

    Also granted, when I do affix pins before getting to my hotel room at a con, I usually do so at home after getting dressed, when I start the trip. I actually had a magnetic name badge that I used to keep “stuck” to my almost-never-used passenger seatbelt socket, which meant I could just snap it on when I got ready to exit the car. (I very seldom have other people in my car.) I wouldn’t do it with pins, especially prestigious or valuable ones, for exactly the easy-loss reason that Lou cites, but if fandom has taught me anything, it is that mileage varies.

  17. Lou Antonelli:

    there was a loophole and it wasn’t closed until “the wrong people” took advantage of it.

    As I write this, the time here is a bit past midnight on July 22.

    I take it you attempt to claim political persecution here. But are you sure you want to start a discussion about the politics and opinions of the person who did most to recruit slate voters?

  18. I have lost and forgotten things in so many ridiculous ways that nothing surprises me anymore. Loosing two pins in one day seems like something I would do myself.

  19. Changing the rules was to prevent slating by anyone, of any political or non-political bent. There could have been a group of PoC lesbians banding together to do the same thing, just with opposite works. A group of Mormons determined to make sure the categories were nothing but Sanderson, Torgerson, Correia, etc. A bunch of continental Europeans looking to keep all Americans and Brits off the ballot. A Russian or Chinese bot uprising. A small group of really, really avid fans of one author nobody else has ever heard of.

    I’m very disappointed that after all those years of working to make sure the Hugos were administered fairly, John Lorentz has now bought into the false narrative of “political”, instead of realizing that the rule changes were made so that the Hugos would remain fair. Slating is bad, mmkay? Cheating is bad.

    (Funny how “it isn’t technically against the rules” for slating is fine, but voting all those cheating categories “No Award”, which IS explicitly in the rules, was somehow unfair. Double standards, much?)

    Also, CUL remains as passive-aggressive (tending to aggressive) as ever, with all his powers of projection undimmed, and false narrative clung to. Even when he gets what he wants, he’s still hateful about it.

    The Puppy slaters couldn’t even get GOOD works by conservatives on the ballot. The stuff they put up generally failed the basic mechanics of writing, and/or was there to gratify Teddy Boy’s ego. They’d have failed on merit — and that’s how people voted.

    For decades before Puppies knew what a Hugo was, I exercised No Award pretty regularly. I’m doing it again this year, which is slate-free. When something appears on my ballot that I think doesn’t belong, it goes below No Award. I’ve got works below No Award in every category but 3 this year, for instance.

    (Honestly, Mike, I wish you hadn’t linked this item. Still have you at #1 on Best Fanzine, though.)

  20. As long as we’re reminiscing, Worldcon isn’t really the same for me without being asked to choose between four different episodes of Doctor Who!

  21. You ever notice how many people on the internet are psychics and mind readers? They will tell you why you did things and what you were thinking, regardless of what you know or think yourself?

  22. @Kevin: I can imagine LA showering Sasquan with email that after a while gets ignored; they were not heavily staffed, and Worldconcoms tend to fade (since there’s no continuing cause to hold most of them together). OTOH, someone so … connected to the field … should know this.

    @Johan P: I read Ice Station Zebra the year after it came out (when I’d been reading SF for 3 years) and didn’t think it was SF; in retrospect, the quality of satellite camera was probably not in use at the time (but may have been by the time you read it). OTOH, does that make The Hunt for Red October SF? IMO this can be sliced too finely; I call The Anti-Death League SF, perhaps because it’s social effects in which the technoporn (a rifle that fires tiny atomic bombs) is a driver rather the focus of the plot.

    wrt “crazy bet stories”: does anyone else remember http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?76256 “Satan and Sam Shay”?

    @John Lorentz: add me to the list of people disappointed at your misrepresentation.

  23. @Lou Antonelli: “You ever notice how many people on the internet are psychics and mind readers? They will tell you why you did things and what you were thinking, regardless of what you know or think yourself?”

    Why, yes. Yes, I have.

    I recall, for instance, a whole passel o’folks who solemnly pronounced that the Hugo voters who nominated and voted for works by people of color, women, and/or liberals were doing so as “virtue signaling” rather than because they actually liked said works.

    More recently, I remember someone confidently announcing that there was no way WorldCon would possibly replace his lost Hugo Finalist pins…

  24. Rev. Bob – That may be true, but I never thought anyone nominated works for the sake of virtue signalling. I can’t be held responsible for what other people said. Now, I did think some people had terrible taste in literature, but that’s different.

    And WorldCon didn’t get me the pins, John Lorentz did. Back on July 7 I brought the subject up on my Facebook page, and someone said at the time he had an in with the WorldCon junta and he was sure he could get me the pins. Today is July 22, so we see how much luck he had.

    If Mister Mike hadn’t brought the subject up here, I’m sure I would have never heard anything. I’m sure his motives are malicious – to make me look bad – but ultimately by making a public stink, he is responsible for getting me the pins.

  25. Lou Antonelli: It was up to you how it made you look. You could have taken the graciously offered solution and left it at that.

  26. Lou,

    Just stop.

    If you really believe what you have typed, that the Worldcon organising committee is a “junta”, why have anything at all to do with Worldcon? Why not just walk away?

  27. @Lou Antonelli: “If Mister Mike hadn’t brought the subject up here, I’m sure I would have never heard anything. I’m sure his motives are malicious – to make me look bad – but ultimately by making a public stink, he is responsible for getting me the pins.”

    Hey, look – more psychic mind reading!

    Perhaps you should consider putting the shovel down.

  28. Soon – I’m blacklisted anyway, what’s the practical difference? I was just talking about a pair of lapel pins, not being named GOH.

  29. Well , guys, I know this has been fun, but I have a real job and a business to run, and I need to get to sleep. Have a nice week doing whatever people like you do.

  30. Lou Antonelli: They will tell you why you did things and what you were thinking, regardless of what you know or think yourself

    I do have to be honest: I really am just dying to know what was going through the mind of someone who enthusiastically signed on to have their works cheated onto the Hugo ballot. Were they telling themselves,

    “Oh, yeah, the voters are going to read my works and totally think that they belong on the ballot! They aren’t going to mind at all that the works which are popular with Worldcon members got shafted off the ballot! They aren’t going have any bad feeling toward me for being so ethically bankrupt that I would participate in cheating!”

    Because only someone who was thinking those things could possibly be angry or resentful about being No Awarded and vilified after-the-fact. Anyone else would recognize that they had the vilification coming based on their choices, and suck it up and accept that they brought it on themselves, rather than continually claiming to be a victim and a “sufferer” and whining and complaining about it like a little baby.

  31. I’m glad that Lou is going to get his replacement rocket pins.

    It really bugs me that some people label the changes to the nomination process as political after a certain small press owner with strong political opinions of his own openly gamed the nominations so that 4 of 5 novella nominations came from his small press, 2 of 5 short story nominations, and 2 of 5 related works nominations, as well stacking the deck in several other categories with friends and writers for his small press. As pointed out by others, if there were a nomination gaming attempt by people with a different political viewpoint, it would make it harder for them to accomplish it too.

  32. Bruce A: it really bugs me that some people label the changes to the nomination process as political

    What’s interesting to me is when people who get called out for cheating, for harassment, and for abuse claim that they’re being called out because of their political beliefs.

    And I want to say to them: Really? You’re going to openly claim that dishonesty, harassment, and abuse are the result of you being a political conservative? That these are the “values” of political conservatives? You might want to think about what that says about your political party.

  33. Sadly, when I see people try to explain what the heck that sad/rabid puppy thing was all about, I almost never see anyone explain how Beale gamed it so that a bunch of stuff published by him, and was probably purchased by fewer people than the number who nominated them, became finalists. It’s usually about how a bunch of politically conservative SF readers tried to get works by politically conservative authors on the ballot without explaining how it was done.

  34. “whatever people like you do”? People like who? Filers? Hmm. Not many things likely to apply to everyone here. Nerding about books, maybe?

    To be honest, I don’t pay much attention to the Dramatic Presentation categories. Partly because watching stuff is Hard for weird biological reasons, but also, well, they tend to suffer from a limited field (compared to the text categories) and a few really, really dedicated fandoms. Their example is one of the reasons I’m extremely dubious about introducing a separate video games category, despite being a gamer.

  35. Sorry Lou, my half-asleep midnight brain interpreted “checked in” as to a hotel room, not the con itself.

  36. The loophole was not closed before the Puppies used it because no-one in the SF world used it since the Scientologists in 1987 (who also finished below No Award). No-one wanted to be That Asshole who hacked the nominations, and everyone knew what would happen to such nominees.

    Until Correia and Torgerson, who are kind of assholes anyway, and Beale, who very much enjoys being That Asshole. Lou will be catching flak for his association with Those Assholes for the rest of his life.

  37. Bruce A:

    It’s usually about how a bunch of politically conservative SF readers

    And they always pretend their political beliefs are an innocent, mainstream, slightly-right-of-center conservativism. So we have Beale arguing that it’s heroic to label political opponents as traitors and shoot them, and we have Lou Antonelli arguing that not letting Beale use a literary award for personal PR purposes is unfair political persecution. And he’s even clueless enough to do so on the anniversary of a terrorist attack Beale have applauded.

  38. But the rules were changed with the specific intention of making it harder for “those people” be on the ballot.

    That’s political.

    If you believe that bullshit, I’m glad you’re no longer involved in administering the Hugos. We changed the rules to stop a tactic, not a particular group of people. To claim otherwise after the extensive public discussion during the drafting process of these changes is exceptionally ridiculous.

    Lou is getting replacement pins and still is angry. Who could have predicted that?

  39. People who think Worldcon should reach out to Lou Antonelli really ought to revisit what he did to Carrie Cuinn, a magazine publisher who dropped his story from an upcoming issue because of what he did to guest of honor David Gerrold before Sasquan.

    Antonelli sent a letter to Spokane police claiming Gerrold was a dangerous threat who should be institutionalized, as he admitted on a podcast:

    I really didn’t know much about [Gerrold] before the Hugo nominations came out. Following his discourse and his level of discourse as a result, I personally wrote a letter addressed to the police chief in Spokane and said I thought the man was insane and a public danger and needs to be watched when the convention’s going on, and I mean it. I attached my business card. I said this guy’s inciting to violence. Somebody—a weak-minded might attack somebody because of his relentless strength of abuse. I think, honestly, I think he belongs in a secure psychiatric facility.

    After Cuinn emailed Antonelli to let him know she was dropping the story, he publicly released her email — without permission and with modifications to make her look bad. His actions led to her receiving threats of violence she reported to local police.

  40. @Lou Antonelli

    I think John knows exactly what happened – there was a loophole and it wasn’t closed until “the wrong people” took advantage of it. Then everyone was galvanized into action.

    I actually agree with you here–in part. I had a chat with a gentleman at LibertyCon (by the way, my husband and I sat next to you during the opening ceremonies) this month who tried to convince me the Puppies won. I told him the only way to make that argument is to say that Larry Correia pointed out a huge flaw in the Hugo Nominating system and then proceeded to lead an effort to exploit that hole, which led to WorldCon passing EPH. Nothing short of that would have made the members budge; it would have never been fixed without the slating disaster. But that means agreeing that EPH was a good thing, which, of course, he didn’t want to do.

    It had nothing to do with the politics of the individuals involved; the reaction to the slating would have been the same if a liberal group tried to do the same thing. The over-the-top blow-your-stack reaction was because the slate swept many categories. It’s one thing to think someone “cheated” their way onto the ballot; it’s another to think a small minority exploited a flaw in the rules, hogged the ballot, and ruined it for everyone else. Politics probably mattered for a few people, but the sweeping-the-ballot thing is what inspired thousands of people to get involved who didn’t know anything else about it. That includes me.

    The funny thing is, EPH actually makes it easier for any given passionate minority to get one work onto the ballot. It’s harder to get two, and harder still to get three, but that’s how it should be. Larry was right about the original system; it was broken. It would be nice if everyone involved could agree that the new system actually represents a solid improvement. Yeah, it’s complicated,but it’s quite elegant once you understand it, and a science-fiction convention ought to have a space-age voting system.

  41. @rcade

    People who think Worldcon should reach out to Lou Antonelli really ought to revisit what he did to Carrie Cuinn, a magazine publisher who dropped his story from an upcoming issue because of what he did to guest of honor David Gerrold before Sasquan.

    He earned his pins fair and square (according to the rules)–even if we don’t like that fact that he violated the tradition that said you don’t exploit that loophole in the rules. So if he lost his pins, he’s entitled to the same replacement process as any other Hugo Finalist. That’s the only principled response. Whatever else he did in his life shouldn’t matter.

  42. @Greg Hullender:

    You’re missing the point. My comment was about whether Worldcon should proactively contact him (as some here advocated), not whether it should provide replacements if he requested them from Worldcon. I have not questioned Worldcon following ordinary procedure in response to a request.

    I am surprised you would claim Antonelli and the other beneficiaries of bloc voting earned their pins “fair and square.” The pins he is receiving as replacements are just as undeserved as the originals he lost. They cheated their way onto the ballot. Nothing about that was fair.

  43. Greg Hullender: So if he lost his pins, he’s entitled to the same replacement process as any other Hugo Finalist. That’s the only principled response. Whatever else he did in his life shouldn’t matter.

    That’s a very judicial conclusion. How ironic is it that he wasn’t even going to ask if this was a possibility, but has been rewarded for acting out on his blog.

  44. @rcade

    You’re missing the point. My comment was about whether Worldcon should proactively contact him (as some here advocated), not whether it should provide replacements if he requested them from Worldcon. I have not questioned Worldcon following ordinary procedure in response to a request.

    You’re right. I missed that. Yeah, there’s certainly no reason they should go above and beyond the call of duty.

    I am surprised you would claim Antonelli and the other beneficiaries of bloc voting earned their pins “fair and square.” The pins he is receiving as replacements are just as undeserved as the originals he lost. They cheated their way onto the ballot. Nothing about that was fair.

    They followed the rules. There was no actual cheating. Everyone sort of knew the rules were extremely vulnerable to slating, hence the tradition that it was unseemly to campaign, but there was never any rule against it. I’ll sometimes say the puppies “cheated,” but I always use quotation marks to signal that I know it wasn’t really cheating. It’s important not to start believing your own propaganda, I think. 🙂

    As to whether it was fair, it was certainly so in a literal sense. Anyone else could have done the same thing. They had no advantage anyone else didn’t have. What they did was dishonorable, but not unfair or dishonest.

    The real crime, of course, was the works they nominated.

  45. @Mike Glyer

    That’s a very judicial conclusion. How ironic is it that he wasn’t even going to ask if this was a possibility, but has been rewarded for acting out on his blog.

    Actually, now that I think about it, this is yet another case of someone going public with a grievance before they even gave WorldCon a chance to do the right thing. I can certainly agree that that’s behavior we shouldn’t be rewarding.

  46. Greg Hullender: Actually, now that I think about it, this is yet another case of someone going public with a grievance before they even gave WorldCon a chance to do the right thing. I can certainly agree that that’s behavior we shouldn’t be rewarding.

    Bearing in mind that I have programmed a Worldcon, chaired a Worldcon — I don’t consider there to be any etiquette that obliges people to keep quiet about things a committee has done that upset them. I would prefer, as a committee member, to have established some level of trust where people might give us a chance to make things right. But I also believe people are entitled to speak out about their experience.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.