Pixel Scroll 9/19/19 The SJW Credential That Sleeps On You From Nowhere

(1) MATCHLESS PROSE, WE HOPE. Will Frank (scifantasy), Vice-Administrator of the 2016 Hugo Awards and Administrator of the 2021 Hugo Awards, who also identifies himself as a fanfiction writer on AO3 and a trademark attorney, is trying to pour some oil onto the stormy waters that separate parts of the Worldcon community from parts of the AO3 community: “HugO3”. (Please don’t strike a match.)

…If the Worldcon-running community doesn’t police use of the phrase, someone else–someone with less humorous, less celebratory, less free-spirited intent–might be able to plausibly argue that he can call his self-published book a Hugo Award Winner just because it was fanfic, or he has an AO3 account, because the term has lost all of its significance by not being protected.

Is that likely? Who the hell knows. Is it something the Worldcon-running community wants to risk, especially so soon after a concerted effort to undermine the award, not by fanfiction authors in celebration of their validation but by a group of politically-motivated writers with an axe to grind? Definitely not.

(I’ve also seen some people saying that there isn’t any prestige in a Hugo Award given some of the historical winners, and…well, get in line behind the Oscars and the Grammys and the others, I guess. The fact is that “Hugo Award” on the cover of a book does indeed help sales. It matters. There is still cachet in being a Hugo Award winner. Or even a finalist!)

So, no, the Worldcon-running community is not saying “Hey, don’t have fun.” It is saying, “please, don’t undermine our ability to stop people with malicious intent from poisoning the term Hugo Award.”

I’m not even telling you that you have to think I’m right. But at least, please know that this isn’t just a matter of “don’t have fun.” It’s a plea for your help.

(2) HEINLEIN’S OTHER VERSION. The Number of the Beast versus Pursuit of the Pankera – not the same book at all. Arc Manor would be delighted for you to put the claim to a test — http://www.arcmanor.com/as/Comparison.pdf

It is a different book. Of the 187,000 words in the new book, it shares the first 28,000. But then is totally different. The separation occurs in chapter XVIII and here is a side by side comparison of the chapters in the two books with the point of divergence clearly marked.

(3) HISTORIC CON MASQUERADE (AND OTHER) PHOTOS. At Vintage Everyday, “Wendy Pini Cosplay: 22 Rare and Amazing Photographs of Wendy Dressed as Red Sonja in the 1970s”.

Wendy Pini does it all. In the 1970s Wendy used to hit the cons dressed as Sonja. She was born in San Francisco in 1951, and from an early age demonstrated the talents later to come to fruition as a professional illustrator, and eventually as the creator of Elfquest.

(4) CHANGES AT TOR. Shelf Awareness is reporting a couple of promotions at Tom Doherty Associates:

  • Theresa DeLucci has been promoted to senior associate director of marketing of Tor Books, Forge, and Nightfire.
  • Renata Sweeney has been promoted to senior marketing manager, Tor.

(5) ELLEN VARTANOFF INTERVIEW. From Small Press Expo 2017 (but just posted on YouTube today.)

Rusty and Joe talk to Ellen Vartanoff about her decades in the comics field and the early days of comic conventions!

(6) TODAY IN HISTORY.

  • September 19, 1952 — “Superman On Earth” aired as the pilot episode for The  Adventures of Superman television series starring George Reeves.
  • September 19, 1961 — On a return trip from Canada, while in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, Betty and Barney Hill claimed to have been abducted by aliens.
  • September 19, 1986 — The Starman series debuted with Jeff Bridges replaced in the role of The Starman with Robert Hays. The series lasted for twenty-two episodes.

(7) TODAY’S BIRTHDAYS.

[Compiled by Cat Eldridge.]

  • Born September 19, 1867 Arthur Rackham. English book illustrator who is recognized as one of the leading literary figures during the Golden Age of British book illustration. His work can be seen on genre fiction ranging from Goblin Market to Rip Van Winkle and The Wind in the Willows. Derek Huson’s Arthur Rackham: His Life and Work is one of the better looks at him and his art. (Died 1939.)
  • Born September 19, 1911 William Golding. Though obviously best known for the Lord of The Flies novel, I’m more intrigued by the almost completed novel found in draft after his death, The Double Tongue which tells the story of the Pythia, the priestess of Apollo at Delphi. (Died 1993.)
  • Born September 19, 1922 Damon Knight. Author, critic, editor. He is the author of “To Serve Man”, a 1950 short story which became a The Twilight Zone episode. It won a 50-year Retro-Hugo in 2001 as the best short story of 1950. Wiki says “He ceased reviewing when Fantasy & Science Fiction refused to publish a review.” What’s the story here? (Died 2002.)
  • Born September 19, 1928 Adam West. Best known as Batman on that classic Sixty series, he also had a short role in 1964’s Robinson Crusoe on Mars as Colonel Dan McReady. The less said about his post Batman films, including a softcore porn film, the better. (Died 2017.)
  • Born September 19, 1928 Robin Scott Wilson. Founder, with Damon Knight and others, of the Clarion Science Fiction Writers’ Workshop. He edited Clarion: An Anthology of Speculative Fiction and Criticism from the Clarion Writers’ Workshop, Clarion II and Clarion III. He wrote one genre novel, To the Sound of Freedom (with Richard W. Shryock) and a lot of short fiction. Alas, neither iBooks nor Kindle has anything by him available. (Died 2013.)
  • Born September 19, 1933 – David McCallum, 86. Gained fame as Illya Kuryakin in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and has rounded off his career playing medical examiner Dr. Donald “Ducky” Mallard in another TV series that is known by its initials, NCIS.
  • Born September 19, 1940 Caroline John. English actress best known for her role as scientist Elizabeth “Liz” Shaw in Doctor Who as companion to the Third Doctor. She’d repeat her role in Dimensions in Time, a charity special crossover between Doctor Who and the EastEnders that ran in 1993. Her only other genre role was playing Laura Lyons in The Hound of the Baskervilles. (Died 2012.)
  • Born September 19, 1947 Tanith Lee. I hadn’t realized that she wrote more than ninety novels and three hundred short stories in her career. And even wrote two Blake’s 7 episodes as well. I was more fond of her work for children such as The Dragon Hoard and The Unicorn Series than I was of her adult work. (Died 2015.)
  • Born September 19, 1952 Laurie R. King, 67. She’s on the Birthday Honors List for the Mary Russell series of historical mysteries, featuring Sherlock Holmes as her mentor and later partner. She’s also written at least one genre novel, Califia’s Daughters
  • Born September 19, 1972 N. K. Jemisin, 47. Her most excellent Broken Earth series has made her the only author to have won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in three consecutive years.

(8) COMICS SECTION.

(9) UNIDENTIFIED WALKING OBJECTS. Aliens have landed at the convention hotel (a couple years early) reports the Tonopah Nevada in 2021 for Westercon 74 page – see the photographic evidence there!

Starting to see some out of this world stuff in honor of Alien Weekend… these aliens came all the way from Michigan to check out the happenings…

(10) OH NO, NOT AGAIN. “False Tsunami Warning In Hawaii Triggered By Police Exercise”.

Emergency sirens wailed on Hawaii’s Oahu and Maui islands Wednesday evening, warning of a tsunami, but the alert turned out to be a mistake, sparking anger from residents who recalled a similar false warning last year of an imminent ballistic missile attack.

Within minutes of the alarm going off shortly after 5 p.m. local time (11 p.m. ET) authorities were trying to calm the public by getting out word of the mistake.

The National Weather Service in Honolulu tweeted: “***NO TSUNAMI THREAT*** We have received phone calls about sirens going off across Oahu, but we have confirmed with the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center that there is NO TSUNAMI THREAT.”

Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell also took to Twitter. “Mahalo to everyone for taking appropriate action & tuning into local media,” he tweeted, adding that the sirens had been “inadvertently triggered” during Honolulu Police Department training.

(11) I’M MELTING! FastCompany tells everyone “Burger King is melting down plastic toys to recycle them into something actually useful”.

… Burger King has decided to remove all plastic toys from its kids’ meals. Not only that but the initiative, created by agency Jones Knowles Ritchie and starting this week in the U.K., is also calling for people to drop plastic toys from meals past in “plastic toy amnesty bins” at Burger King locations to be melted down and recycled into things that are actually useful, like play areas and surface tools, which can be recycled many times over.

People in the U.K. who bring in toys to melt down next week will get a free King Junior meal when they buy any adult meal. To promote the project, Burger King has created a cast of melted-down plastic toy characters, including Beep Beep, a jeep-driving bunny, which the brand has installed a giant melting version of on London’s South Bank to promote the project.

(12) IF YOU WERE A PTEROSAUR AS TALL AS A GIRAFFE, MY LOVE. [Item by Daniel Dern.] Inside Science reports: “Newest Pterosaur Was Likely as Tall as a Giraffe”.

Ancient flying reptile dubbed Cryodrakon boreas, the “cold dragon of the north winds,” may shed light on the evolution of these dinosaur relatives.

CBC News agrees: “Giraffe-sized flying reptiles once soared over Alberta”

Newly identified pterosaur species had a wingspan of 10 metres

Mark Whitton’s 2013 article has additional details and a great illustration: “9 things you may not know about giant azhdarchid pterosaurs”

Despite their giraffian proportions, giant azhdarchid torso were relatively tiny. Witton and Habib (2010) noted that, like many pterodactyloid pterosaurs, their torsos were probably only a third or so longer than their humeri, suggesting a shoulder-hip length of about 65-75 cm for an animal with a 10 m wingspan. That’s a torso length not much larger than your own, although they were considerably more stocky and swamped with muscle. Azhdarchid shoulders, in particular, are well endowed with attachment sites for flight muscles, as are (for pterosaurs) their pelves and hindquarters.

(13) JURASSIC SHORT. Battle at Big Rock on YouTube is an eight-minute video, set in the Jurassic World universe one year after the events of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom that premiered on FX last night and was put online today.

(14) BRADBURY INTERVIEW. Here’s a 9-minute video of Ray Bradbury’s 1978 appearance on the Merv Griffin Show.

The always brilliant Ray Bradbury, one of the greatest sci-fi writers in history, talks with Merv about the movie “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, Steven Spielberg, his mission as a writer, the future of mankind, and ends by reading from his poem “If Only We Had Taller Been” from his collection “When Elephants Last in the Dooryard Bloomed.”

[Thanks to Cat Eldridge, John King Tarpinian, Andrew Porter, Chip Hitchccock, JJ, Mike Kennedy, Kevin Standlee, and Martin Morse Wooster for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day JJ.]

405 thoughts on “Pixel Scroll 9/19/19 The SJW Credential That Sleeps On You From Nowhere

  1. @Steve Davidson

    wow.

    when one sub culture tells another sub culture that they are using their own words incorrectly and are substituting their own meanings its not appropriation?

    OK.

    The fact that you are up in arms over the difference between the phrases “Hugo award winner” and “member of the Hugo award winning project,” but are offensively blaze about the difference between nerds fighting over what “Hugo Winner” means and a politically dominant group engaging in cultural appropriation against an entire people has not passed by unnoticed by at least this observer.

    I beg you to gain some perspective.

  2. @MRM

    is there some some history behind the MPC’s apparent reluctance to send C&Ds to, for example, the Kickstarter pin makers, where there is an infringing commercial use of the mark?

    How do you know it hasn’t been done? Maybe it has. Maybe they haven’t yet, but are giving the Kickstarter people 10 business days to comply with an informal request (or something). Maybe it’s more productive to do something like a DCMA through the Kickstarter hosting people.
    Regardless, I wouldn’t expect the MPC to conduct this kind of business in public.

  3. @Contrarius:

    It would be a lot easier to hold a productive discussion if people on both sides would stop imagining nefarious motives on their opponents. Ridicule and false accusations are how this thing got so heated in the first place.

    .

    How is it “expressing great pride” to essentially spit in the face of the organization that awarded you?

    .

    Making false claims is not “casual use of language” — it’s fraud.

    .
    Presented for your consideration.

    Also, if you’re now pushing to pursue people chatting on twitter for fraud… mate, I got bad news for you…

  4. @Nebiros —

    What everyone’s been trying to get across here is that AO3 isn’t the same thing as a fanzine, or a movie

    In this context, it’s exactly the same. The principle applies across all three: just because the sum of the whole wins an award, that doesn’t mean every participant gets to call themselves award winners.

    @Bill–

    I’m not sure that Oscars are a good example here. The studios behind most Oscar-winning movies have binding agreements with the guilds/unions

    That’s why I included both a nonprofit example and a profit example. The same principles apply across both.

    “Fraud,” too, has a specific meaning, and it includes taking money under false pretenses. This is not fraud.

    Merriam-Webster: Definition of fraud

    1a : deceit, trickery specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right was accused of credit card fraud
    b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick automobile insurance frauds
    2a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor He claimed to be a licensed psychologist, but he turned out to be a fraud. also : one who defrauds : cheat
    b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be The UFO picture was proved to be a fraud.

  5. @MRM —

    Presented for your consideration.

    Notice that in your examples I was describing ACTIONS, not motives.

  6. @Contrarius: But no one outside of the people explicitly selling merchandise with “Hugo winner” on it is trying to mislead people. Calling people who joke about it on Twitter as being “impostors” is flat-out histrionic. Even if you’re trying to separate motives and actions it still assumes the worst of the individuals.

  7. @Contrarius
    Providing a dictionary quote is just arguing from authority, but I’ve done it too, so we’ll let that slide.

  8. @Contrarius

    Making false claims is not “casual use of language” — it’s fraud.

    Making false claims is not in and of itself fraud; fraud has a specific legal definition.

  9. Is the AO3 discussion moving to this post too? I’m going to need more popcorn.

    Folks, it’s never going to end. It’s going to keep going around and around, with the people involved getting more and more bitter about it. The host would do best to quash the discussion and let people move on to a new subject instead, but probably won’t.

    And because I’m tired of all this, I’m not going to check for anyone replying to me.

  10. So … a few years ago, my best friend Chris “Munzi” Munroe wrote a story that was adapted for the podcast StarShipSofa. Now Munzi was rightfully proud that a few months later, StarShipSofa was on the Hugo ballot, and told us about this. Much like a lot of AO3 people, he’s not the sort of author whose work is often in prestigious publications that receive awards.

    Not once did I hear him say “I’m a Hugo Winner,” or any variation of that phrase. He was damned proud (and rightfully so) to say that he’d contributed to something that did win the Hugo.

  11. @bill Ah, sorry, I probably should have left the MPC out of that comment; you’re correct that they would not be expected to and probably shouldn’t be conducting that in public. My curiosity was really more about the attitude expressed here that them doing so would be an escalation that should only be reluctantly made. The majority of the sentiments expressed by the AO3 userbase don’t seem to view it nearly so severely.

  12. @N —

    But no one outside of the people explicitly selling merchandise with “Hugo winner” on it is trying to mislead people. Calling people who joke about it on Twitter as being “impostors” is flat-out histrionic.

    This has been covered many times, including right here on this thread. As folks like JJ have pointed out with examples, multiple AO3-ers are making serious claims that they have the right to the label.

    Additionally, as has also been covered many times, even humorous fraudulent uses of the “Hugo winner” label can easily damage the trademark if they become frequent. The label becomes a widespread joke, easily disregarded, instead of the mark of honor that it should be.

    Even if you’re trying to separate motives and actions it still assumes the worst of the individuals.

    No. I don’t think people started using the “Hugo Winner” label with the intent of hurting the Hugos at the outset. But you know what they say about the road to hell, right?

  13. Steve Davidson: when one sub culture tells another sub culture that they are using their own words incorrectly and are substituting their own meanings its not appropriation?

    Inserting the buzzword “appropriation” into an irrelevant context here is not like playing some sort of wild card that makes your preference more valid.

  14. @Contrarius

    Notice that in your examples I was describing ACTIONS, not motives.

    Okay, but since no one is literally spitting on anyone, using that to describe the statements AO3 users have made is implicitly attributing certain kinds of motivations to those statement-makers.

    I mean, unless you’re talking about that one person who wants to lick the rocket. Though that still would be licking the Hugo Award, not spitting on it.

  15. Contrarius said

    Making false claims is not “casual use of language” — it’s fraud.

    Then RSV said

    Making false claims is not in and of itself fraud; fraud has a specific legal definition.

    You’re both right! The word ‘fraud’ only has a specific legal definition when used in a legal context like a court case. Otherwise, when the word ‘fraud’ is used in conversation, one of its meanings is ‘making false claims.’

  16. Nebiros: What everyone’s been trying to get across here is that AO3 isn’t the same thing as a fanzine, or a movie, or whatever other examples you want to pull out here. I’m not going to reiterate the points that have already been made, but look. We’ve been over this. I suggest you perhaps go back to reread some of those comments if you truly find this so difficult to grasp.

    I think that most people genuinely understand that. The disconnect is that the AO3 members who keep saying this seem to feel that it therefore means that WSFS should have to agree that the individual AO3 members who wish to call themselves Hugo Award Winners should be allowed to do so.

    People can absolutely understand and agree that AO3 is a collective and a community which is different from a fanzine or fancast, and still not feel that means that a special exception is warranted.

  17. @Contrarius:

    But you know what they say about the road to hell, right?

    I’m not sure what frozen door-to-door salesmen have to do with this, unless your point is that they pursued their goals beyond the point of all reason.

  18. The disconnect is that the AO3 members who keep saying this seem to feel that it therefore means that WSFS should have to agree that the individual AO3 members who wish to call themselves Hugo Award Winners should be allowed to do so.

    I think the actual disconnect here is that AO3 members don’t feel they’re allowed or disallowed calling themselves winners in casual speech or jokes anymore than fans of a sports team care about anyone allowing them to call themselves winners when their team wins.

    I think most of us still agree that on a resume, you’re more careful with your phrasing.

  19. @Lorien Gray

    True, and I should have considered that reading! I was influenced by all of the other discussion of trademarks etc, but should have read it less narrowly. Apologies if the legal usage wasn’t your intent, @Contrarius.

  20. @MRM —

    Okay, but since no one is literally spitting on anyone

    Which, of course, is why I said ESSENTIALLY spitting on. And that’s exactly what happened. Something like 9 of the first 10 responses Kevin got over on that AO3 thread were either ridiculing him or applauding others for ridiculing him — and the tone has not changed much since.

    I mean, unless you’re talking about that one person who wants to lick the rocket.

    I’m all for licking the rocket. 😉

    Incidentally, I’m also all for — as I’ve repeated several times — using the “one millionth of a Hugo winner” labels. I think that’s cute, and it expresses pride in the award without causing offense or worries about the trademark. I have no clue why that isn’t enough for the AO3 folks who insist on claiming the whole pie.

  21. Incidentally, I’m also all for — as I’ve repeated several times — using the “one millionth of a Hugo winner” labels. I think that’s cute, and it expresses pride in the award without causing offense or worries about the trademark. I have no clue why that isn’t enough for the AO3 folks who insist on claiming the whole pie.

    Sadly, the detractors brought it on themselves. It’s been lost in favor of stating hugo-winning explicitly because those who used it were told off for even doing that and then doubled down just like the contrary stubborn fans they are when told not to do something they don’t agree is wrong.

  22. @Scribbler —

    I think the actual disconnect here is that AO3 members don’t feel they’re allowed or disallowed calling themselves winners in casual speech or jokes anymore than fans of a sports team care about anyone allowing them to call themselves winners when their team wins.

    I may be limited in my personal experience, but I can’t recall ever hearing a sports fan yelling “I won the Super Bowl!”. Something like “We won the Super Bowl!”, sure, but that’s a different claim.

    Similarly, I personally wouldn’t have an objection to seeing an AO3 user write “We won the Hugo!”. But, again “I won the Hugo!” is entirely different.

    Sadly, the detractors brought it on themselves.

    You mean like the abused wife brought her beating on herself? Yeah, no.

    those who used it were told off for even doing that and then doubled down just like the contrary stubborn fans they are when told not to do something they don’t agree is wrong.

    This. You, Tarasha, and others have made similar remarks, saying essentially that the real problem is that the fanfic community tends to react out of spite instead of reason when told something they don’t want to hear.

  23. @Contrarius
    I think the sports team analogy is muddying the waters a bit. It’s more like if every fan of the team played on the field and the Lombardi Trophy went to the team owners. What I’m trying to say is, with AO3 it’s a murky case because of the greater hand writers have in building up the site’s repertoire.

  24. @Contrarius

    Ah, I didn’t realize you were referring to the responses to Standlee. I thought you were referring to the act of people calling themselves Hugo winners in casual conversation, since this was the exchange where you made that comparison, beginning with Farasha’s statement that doing so was an expression of pride…

    to express our great pride in this award.

    This is another claim that I find really, REALLY puzzling.

    How is it “expressing great pride” to essentially spit in the face of the organization that awarded you?

    Unless you were confused about what Farasha was referring to, that’s clearly a reference to the casual language use, not the reception that Standlee got.

  25. @N —

    It’s more like if every fan of the team played on the field and the Lombardi Trophy went to the team owners.

    This…. may be a good example.

    The Lombardi Trophy goes to the TEAM. The TEAM is the winner.

    Now, the perceived head of the team — in this case, say, Tom Brady — might be referred to as a Lombardi Trophy Winner. But nobody is going to say that another team member, like Rob Gronkowski, is personally a Lombardi Trophy Winner — even though Gronkowski was on the field and made significant contributions.

    What I’m trying to say is, with AO3 it’s a murky case because of the greater hand writers have in building up the site’s repertoire.

    Now you seem to be denigrating the role that fanzine authors have in building up their zine’s repertoire. Do you really mean to do that?

    @MRM —

    Ah, I didn’t realize you were referring to the responses to Standlee.

    It started there, and continued with all the (yes, I’m paraphrasing) “Nyeah nyeah, you can’t make us, so there!” responses.

    I don’t think the initial use of “Hugo Award Winner” was spitting in anyone’s face. I think the CONTINUED use of it is.

  26. @MRM – “My curiosity was really more about the attitude expressed here that them doing so would be an escalation that should only be reluctantly made. The majority of the sentiments expressed by the AO3 userbase don’t seem to view it nearly so severely.”

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but here is my experience. Firstly, I posted not long ago about my experience with the company I worked for scaling up from a letter notification to a C&D and only filing a lawsuit under the worst situation. I got the impression from our company lawyers that using that progression was not unusual.

    Secondly, I remember the uproar when Rowling’s lawyers sent C&D letters to children who were quoting too much of Harry Potter on their personal blogs. Pretty much everyone agreed that it would have been better to have sent a less intimidating letter to someone who clearly was a fan and expressing their love for the work.

    Strangely, considering the vitriol of this argument, I’d guess the MPC or WSFS was trying not to come down too hard on fans who were just expressing their excitement. Rather, they were trying to give everyone a heads up about potentially problematic behavior (Defcon 4) without going to Defcon 3 (C&D).

    The impression I’m picking up from AO3 discussions is that it would have been better (from their point of view) to wait until the behavior rose to a legal issue and then send C&D letters to just those individuals who warranted it. That fits with my experience over there from before all this. After all, this is a community who intersects with copyright and other IP issues a lot. They’ve had so much experience defending the concept that transformative works don’t rise to the level of infringement that something on this scale doesn’t even register. I am a bit surprised at some of the reactions though because my experience of AO3 is that we’re a community who takes seriously that people have different levels of sensitivity to subjects, and likes to treat each community’s sensitivities with respect.

  27. Happy (belated) birthday to The Adventures of Superman, Adam West, et al.! Truly an exciting day in DC history.

  28. @contrarius

    I’m not limited in experience. We is for when multiple fans were rooting for the same team. I is for when one does. Obviously, this will vary person to person, but I won! is pretty common in the sports fans I’m around when they are the only fan of the team. And AO3 started off with I won one tiny percentage of a Hugo, which is essentially the same as “we won.”

    Yes, those who wanted them to acknowledge it as a we brought it on themselves by specifically saying I won one tiny percentage did not acknowledge it as a we. Not like an abused housewife at all, but because they tried to police casual speech by pushing back even on speech that was not inappropriate. Most of the original pushback was very much on obvious jokes that only turned more serious as the wank went on.

    “the real problem is that the fanfic community tends to react out of spite instead of reason when told something they don’t want to hear. they disagree with for well-founded reasons and view as inappropriate policing.” Some will even explain their reasons to you, whether or not you agree. Some will even reason their way to a position they didn’t formerly hold, like actually claiming to be Hugo-winning in casual speech instead of winning one tiny percentage of a Hugo.

    This is human nature in general though. Most humans when told not to do something that isn’t wrong push back, especially when members of a community that is constantly told not to do any of the not wrong things they love.

    Tbh, I don’t call myself a Hugo-winner and I don’t care one whit for either side of the argument, but this entire wank was utterly predictable and like many said, you should have just said no one fanfic won, addressed anyone trying to monetize, and left the “I won one tiny percentage of an award” fans alone.

  29. I don’t think the initial use of “Hugo Award Winner” was spitting in anyone’s face. I think the CONTINUED use of it is.

    And I would argue that describing it as such is attributing a motivation to its use that, in many cases, isn’t there.

    And, as you say:

    It would be a lot easier to hold a productive discussion if people on both sides would stop imagining nefarious motives on their opponents.

  30. @N: I didn’t denigrate the writers of fanzines and don’t appreciate being talked down to/it being implied as if I’m doing so. It’s already been stated here that AO3 functions differently than a fanzine. This feels like more of ascribing intent of maliciousness where there is none.

  31. Thanks Lorian. I’m not sure I have any real thoughts in response yet, but I appreciate you replying and want to say so now in case it gets buried.

  32. @scribbler “… like many said, you should have just said no one fanfic won, addressed anyone trying to monetize, and left the “I won one tiny percentage of an award” fans alone.”

    I’ve seen this statement made before and I don’t think it’s entirely accurate. Although I do recognize that many people have become convinced it is.

    Everyone agrees that the monetization is wrong. Everyone also seems to agree that ‘I won one tiny percentage of an award’ is the functional equivalent of ‘I contributed to a Hugo winning project.’

    The fight is about the people saying ‘I won a Hugo Award’ which is an entirely different thing to many people.

  33. @MRM —

    And I would argue that describing it as such is attributing a motivation to its use that, in many cases, isn’t there.

    I’ll repeat again a very honest remark that Farasha made a couple of days ago:

    And, correct or not, fic fandom is a contrary beast and our first response to being told “don’t do that,” especially by people outside our community, is to keep doing that but now even MORE, out of spite.

    and a similar comment that Scribbler made this morning:

    doubled down just like the contrary stubborn fans they are

    Those are the very essence of spitting in someone’s face.

    Now I’ll repeat my question: how does that behavior function to “show great pride” in the award?

    They ignore and even ridicule the awarding organization’s request for them to stop their behavior — how does that respect the organization? Alternatively, how do they have pride in an award from an organization that they don’t respect?

  34. @N —

    I didn’t denigrate the writers of fanzines and don’t appreciate being talked down to/it being implied as if I’m doing so.

    Nope, I’m trying to get you to think about the implications of your statement.

    You say that it’s okay for every individual AO3 member to claim a Hugo win, but not okay for every individual fanzine author to claim a Hugo win. Why? What is the difference?

    It’s already been stated here that AO3 functions differently than a fanzine.

    In what way that is relevant to claiming individual credit for an organizational award do they function differently?

  35. @MRM – Thank you! As a member of both communities, I’m finding this whole argument very upsetting.

  36. @Contrarius: I did not say every member has right to a Hugo win, nor was I saying that is what people were doing before this all exploded, merely that those humorously claiming right to one shouldn’t be scolded at as if that’s what they were doing. I came into this discussion late, and to be honest my position is that the Hugo was won by those on the OTW board rather than individual writers. But since you seem keen on putting everyone who disagrees with you under the same umbrella, I think it’s best I disengage before I say something stupid. Apologies.

  37. @Lorien Gray

    The impression I’m picking up from AO3 discussions is that it would have been better (from their point of view) to wait until the behavior rose to a legal issue and then send C&D letters to just those individuals who warranted it.

    Yes. The folks that tend to write fanfiction and hang out on AO3 are pretty intimately familiar with IP law. We kind of have to be, given that we’ve been fighting with IP holders about fair use for decades. We’re long past the days of Anne Rice or Anne McCaffery or JK Rowling engaging in, as Denise put it, spurious legal thuggery against people who weren’t at all profiting off their work. Nowadays, the general attitude toward fic fandom is “don’t try to sell your fic and you’re fine.” Which is why most AO3 users accept it as a given that, when someone crosses over that line, they’re going to get slapped down. This is a necessary check and balance to make sure our whole hobby doesn’t get wiped out by one person self-publishing their Star Wars novels for sale without the Mouse Mafia’s approval.

    Which is I think another source of the disconnect for the larger, less-legally-informed audience to this debate. Most AO3 users know and accept that trying to monetize other people’s intellectual property is going to result in them getting slapped down. It does not logically follow that just speaking to each other with insufficiently correct speech, which nobody is monetizing and profiting from, is worthy of action or censure. When censure came, it very much felt like being ordered to only use approved speak in approved ways for nebulous, unclear Reasons. One could see how this would be met with some laughter and then “Oh wait, you’re serious?” responses.

    I truly believe that if, at the outset, the statement had been, “We would really rather not, but here are the legal reasons why we will have to start sending C&D letters to people who do these specific legally damaging things. The law is a bummer, but we have to enforce it or we’ll lose our trademark, please stop doing these things.” – this would not have sparked off in the way it has.

    If the MPC wanted to send a cautious warning shot about not wanting to have to engage legally, it needed to clearly define what was actually damaging to the trademark and specifically request that those things stop. And, if they had ignored the memetic use of “won a Hugo,” it would have died eventually with no action necessary on the part of the MPC, as internet memes tend to do. Then the time and energy of the MPC could have been spent on people who were demonstrably doing harm, like falsely representing themselves as having won an individual Hugo or selling merch.

  38. At this point it feels like a lot of commenters here are deliberately missing the point and doing bad faith readings in order to continue flinging about accusations because how dare AO3 users not view the Hugos with the same exact weird reverence as folks here do.

  39. @Scribbler —

    We is for when multiple fans were rooting for the same team. I is for when one does.

    And, obviously, there are many AO3 fans on the AO3 team. So “we” should be the appropriate term, not “I”.

    And AO3 started off with I won one tiny percentage of a Hugo, which is essentially the same as “we won.”

    I think we’ve all already agreed that “one millionth” wouldn’t ruffle feathers.

    Yes, those who wanted them to acknowledge it as a we brought it on themselves by specifically saying I won one tiny percentage did not acknowledge it as a we.

    I have not seen anyone on the WSFS “team” object to the “one millionth” label. Of course, I mostly don’t do Twitter or Facebook, so if it was there I wouldn’t have seen it. But I did check Kevin’s statements on that AO3 thread, and I can’t find anywhere that he made any comment about it. Can you point us towards anyone who actually objected to the “one millionth” bit?

    they tried to police casual speech by pushing back even on speech that was not inappropriate.

    Where? Who objected to the “one millionth” label?

    they disagree with for well-founded reasons

    Scribbler, when an organization that gives you an award tells you their own rules for their own award, ignoring those rules is not “well-founded”. As you and Tarasha have both said, it’s simply spite and contrariness.

    Most humans when told not to do something that isn’t wrong

    Why do you believe that an awards organization isn’t allowed to set its own rules for how its award is used? And as I’ve asked MRM — how can you have “great delight” in winning an award from an organization that you are unwilling to show respect for?

  40. Any rule based on legally protecting the mark would apply just as much to “I won one-millionth of a Hugo” as it would “I won a Hugo.” Or wouldn’t it?

  41. @Contrarius

    It was to the specific phrasing “We won a Hugo!” rather than “I won one millionth of a Hugo,” but scifantasy’s response to my question about made it very clear they did not think it was a settled matter that that phrasing was okay. It may be agreed that it wouldn’t ruffle feathers here, but it isn’t everywhere.

  42. @Contrarius
    I’d put spitting on someone in the same class as striking them — both are physical assault. You can get a greater injury from being struck, but spitting carries some of the same sense of contempt as other acts involving bodily waste — pissing on someone, or worse. So to figuratively use the expression is much worse than you are giving it credit for, I think.

  43. @Farasha —

    When censure came, it very much felt like being ordered to only use approved speak in approved ways for nebulous, unclear Reasons.

    I agree with you that both the original OTW announcement and Kevin’s addendum were regrettably vague. So we can hold that point in common.

    BUT — you knew there was going to be a but —

    How does that justify the uniformly dismissive, spiteful, and contrary responses?

    As I’ve asked a coupla other people — How can folks using the “Hugo Award Winner” label have “great delight” in winning an award from an organization that they are unwilling to show respect for? If they don’t respect the organization, why do they even care about the award in the first place? And if they do respect the organization, how do they justify being so flippant about ignoring its request?

  44. @Bill —

    Any rule based on legally protecting the mark would apply just as much to “I won one-millionth of a Hugo” as it would “I won a Hugo.” Or wouldn’t it?

    I don’t think so. IANAL.

    @Rivine —

    It was to the specific phrasing “We won a Hugo!” rather than “I won one millionth of a Hugo,” but scifantasy’s response to my question about made it very clear they did not think it was a settled matter that that phrasing was okay.

    Obviously, “We won a Hugo” is not at all the same thing as “I won one millionth of a Hugo”. And I’m not going to search through the scifantasy thread to find out which specific response you’re referring to.

  45. @Farasha – I’ve seen you express this before and I think I do understand where you’re coming from.

    If I may, I’d like to address one specific part of your response: “…it very much felt like being ordered to only use approved speak in approved ways for nebulous, unclear Reasons. One could see how this would be met with some laughter and then “Oh wait, you’re serious?” responses.”

    As a member of AO3 myself, I’m more accustomed to seeing a different community response to a request that specific terminology not be used because it’s causing hurt. I’ve always seen the community be very responsive to requests to drop certain terminology. Sometimes that request was because the terminology was out-of-date, other times it was because the terminology was now considered disrespectful. My opinion is that however awkwardly the request was made we should try to understand and respect why it was being made. And if changing a phrase from ‘I’m a Hugo Winner’ to ‘I contributed to a Hugo-winning project’ will decrease the upset a community feels, then it seems worthwhile to me.

    Now maybe I came to that conclusion because I’m a member of both communities. I don’t know. But I believe that both my communities are well-meaning at heart and generally try to understand other viewpoints, although we’re not doing a great job at it in this moment.

  46. @Contrarius

    when an organization that gives you an award tells you their own rules for their own award

    Not sure if you’ve been in the other thread recently, but several commenters there (such as @Rosefox) have taken pains to point out the actual Hugo Award rules mean a work receives the award, and a strict interpretation means that even e.g. John Scalzi is not a Hugo Award Winner but rather the author of a Hugo Award Winning work. The custom of naming a few people to be listed beside the work in the records, and of those people being able to say “I won a Hugo Award” is merely that, and not stipulated in the WSFS’s rules.

    n.b. that others did the work of looking that up; I have not looked at the rules myself.

Comments are closed.