Wolf’s Empire Is On The Way

By David Klaus: I was looking at SDCC videos on YouTube, including the first of three parts of the Babylon 5 cast panel, during which Claudia Christian mentioned that by the time of next year’s SDCC her novel Wolf’s Empire will be published by Tor.

It’s part of a saga/series, the first of four books.

Puppies will partially like it as she described it as, and I quote: “military sci-fi in a Rome which never fell.”  You don’t get more Manly Man than in a Roman Army story — if Rome had had firearms, they’d be beating their brains to peanut butter trying to invent a time machine to go to Puppy Heaven.

However they’re going have the problems that the protagonist is a “female gladiator and discus throwing bad-ass”) and the publisher is Tor, “one of [her] favorite publishers.”

She also said it was “more violent than Homer and more sexy than Game of Thrones.”

34 thoughts on “Wolf’s Empire Is On The Way

  1. I’m guessing she’s more of the “big-selling name” to put on the cover, and most of the writing will be done by this guy?

  2. “they’re going have the problems that the protagonist” — that phrase is so garbled I can’t even figure out what David Klaus thought he was saying.

    And what does Claudia Christian slapping her name on a novel that someone else will actually write have to do with the Puppies? Nothing.

  3. How about this, I won’t buy anything from Tor or Castalia House. Thus balance is returned to the universe.

  4. @JJ hard to tell with these collaborations how much is written by whom. She’s co-written with Buchanan before (her memoir)

  5. “Puppies would totally like this book if it was the type of book they liked. Which it isn’t.”

    Well reasoned argument he has there.

  6. It’s obviously Pink SF – it’s written by a pink, who played a pink character on TV (opposite a male captain).

  7. I don’t feel confident to state what a ‘puppy’ would or would not like. I don’t think there is a coherent explaination of what is ‘puppy-approved Sci-Fi’ that I could apply.

    The posting seems likely to invoke impassioned outrage by the easily outraged.

  8. @Jamoche

    Why would they slate those authors? I know nothing about their politics or where they fit in the cliques of fandom.

    Actually, that blog post kind of annoys me. It’s basically castigating Andy Weir for having the wrong tastes.

  9. rob_matic: that blog post kind of annoys me. It’s basically castigating Andy Weir for having the wrong tastes.

    No, it’s castigating Andy Weir for apparently not even stopping to engage in some introspection about why SFF books written by women aren’t even on his radar.

    That post links to another post describing a similar reaction from a guy who, when asked, discovered that he hadn’t read any books written by women in 2 years — then vehemently insisted that it was merely coincidence, rather than a subject worthy of some thoughtful introspection on why it might have occurred.

  10. JJ:

    No, it’s castigating Andy Weir for apparently not even stopping to engage in some introspection about why SFF books written by women aren’t even on his radar.

    Citation needed. From my reading of the post, Weir had tweeted some authors he liked which happened to be male, received a loaded question in response, and wisely didn’t respond (I suspect any answer would have received a critical response). That bothered this person to such an extent they sent him a long email on the same subject. He apparently responded with something about not seeing gender or race (as paraphrased by the post author). I didn’t see any statement by him that books by women or people of color aren’t on his radar.

    His response just resulted in more criticism. My view is that he would have done better just not to respond at all, because I strongly suspect there was no answer he could have given that wouldn’t have been taken critically, after his initial “mistake” of “only” mentioning male authors in his tweet.

    Sorry, Puppies aren’t the only unreasonable people around, and this reads to me as someone being quite unreasonable.

  11. From my reading of the post, Weir had tweeted some authors he liked which happened to be male,

    He was asked during a Q&A who he’d recommend as contemporary SF writers to high school students, and responded with three decidedly non-contemporary writers and three white guys. So the question wasn’t merely who did he like, but who would he recommend.

    received a loaded question in response,

    “Andy, have you read any women this year?” is not a particularly loaded question, particularly during a Q&A.

    and wisely didn’t respond (I suspect any answer would have received a critical response).

    Really? My answer would have been “Yes, sure,” along with a few names. What critical response do you think that would have gotten?

    [Admittedly, I wouldn’t have named the same names in the first place, partly because I know what contemporary means, and the-other-partly because I haven’t read Cline, Clines or Howey, though I expect I’ll get to at least one of ’em eventually.]

    That bothered this person to such an extent they sent him a long email on the same subject.

    He wound up the Q&A by mentioning his e-mail address at which he said he always answered fan mail. That would seem to be an invitation to e-mail him.

    He apparently responded with something about not seeing gender or race (as paraphrased by the post author).

    Not only not seeing it, but telling her that if she did see it she needed to reexamine her priorities.

    I didn’t see any statement by him that books by women or people of color aren’t on his radar.

    He apparently doesn’t notice whether books are by women or not even when they’re in front of him, so “not on his radar” would seem accurate at least to that level.

    His response just resulted in more criticism.

    His response, if we are to believe Tobler (and why not?) was to criticize Tobler, so it’s not as if further criticism would be untoward.

    My view is that he would have done better just not to respond at all, because I strongly suspect there was no answer he could have given that wouldn’t have been taken critically, after his initial “mistake” of “only” mentioning male authors in his tweet.

    Well, I didn’t see any statement by her that any answer he’d have given would result in criticism. So you seem to be projecting, or at least working forward from a combination of data and assumption in a way that you don’t want anyone to do to Weir.

    Plus, if he hadn’t responded at all, then if you’re right that any response would have gotten him further criticism, then a non-response surely would have too, so no winning strategery there.

    From my viewpoint, I think it’s more likely that Weir hasn’t read any SF by women recently than it is that there’s no answer to the question “Have you read any women this year?” that wouldn’t result in criticism. But both of those are guesses based on incomplete information.

  12. Thanks for that articulate response, Kurt. You said everything I would have said — only more, and better. 🙂

  13. Kurt Busiek:


    “Andy, have you read any women this year?” is not a particularly loaded question, particularly during a Q&A.

    She dotted the question so it would go to all her followers, and a question about author gender in response to his tweet strikes me as very loaded, especially with all the stuff going on lately.

    Really? My answer would have been “Yes, sure,” along with a few names. What critical response do you think that would have gotten?

    It sounded like a test, and given how critical the post and comments are, I would suspect a list would be dissected, with complaints if there were authors that weren’t approved of, if it was thought there weren’t enough names on the list, etc.

    Not only not seeing it, but telling her that if she did see it she needed to reexamine her priorities.

    Yes, according to a paraphrase, in response to what sounds like a lecturing email that all came about just because of a tweet where he mentioned male authors.

    Well, I didn’t see any statement by her that any answer he’d have given would result in criticism. So you seem to be projecting, or at least working forward from a combination of data and assumption in a way that you don’t want anyone to do to Weir.

    I’m going by the tone of her post, and how she *did* respond. She was extremely critical because he apparently said an author’s race and gender were not important to him. The horror! This strikes me as someone who is likely to complain if things aren’t said in exactly the way they approve of.

  14. Yes, according to a paraphrase, in response to what sounds like a lecturing email that all came about just because of a tweet where he mentioned male authors.

    It’s presumably a paraphrase because quoting private e-mail is considered rude.

    But it’s your presumption that the e-mail was lecturing, and the e-mail came not merely because he mentioned male authors but because he (a) didn’t respond to a question about female authors, and (b) invited people to e-mail.

    I’m going by the tone of her post, and how she *did* respond. She was extremely critical because he apparently said an author’s race and gender were not important to him.

    No, he said race and gender were unimportant to him AND that if she didn’t agree with him her priorities needed to be reexamined.

    This strikes me as someone who is likely to complain if things aren’t said in exactly the way they approve of.

    Given how you’re carefully leaving out anything he said or did that would make her responses seem as ordinary as they seem to me in context, and putting a harsher spin on her statements, I’m not surprised it strikes you that way.

    But oh well. I don’t see much value in continuing, since I found the questions interesting and you clearly found them threatening, and I don’t have any particular desire to threaten you further. I just thought her comments were pretty ordinary and his seemed defensive.

  15. Well, Clarke was gay. Doesn’t that still tick the Social Justice diversity box?

  16. Stobor: Your having read or not read a book by a woman recently is not important to me.

  17. I’ll just note, since no one else has, that Weir was asked:
    “Which contemporary science fiction writers would you recommend to high school age readers? ”

    And Weir replied: “Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. For more recent authors, I recommend Ernest Cline, Peter Clines, and Hugh Howey”

    (Link to the Tweets et al: http://ecatherine.com/listening-being-heard/)

    Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke are not what I would call contemporary. Nor have they been all that active as writers for sometime ….

    The other three are far more current.

  18. Michael J. Walsh: Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke are not what I would call contemporary. Nor have they been all that active as writers for sometime

    Yes, there have been comments in the last few years about how con panelists and other SFF-knowledgeable people have been asked to recommend SFF authors to introduce young people to the genre, and that Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke are frequently-mentioned by much older men who don’t understand that their gateway drug (mine too, I’ll add) is no longer a good way to pull young people into SFF — but a good way to put them off it, perhaps permanently.

    Weir is clearly still in that mindset — perhaps because he’s never actually stopped to consider whether Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke would be appealing to most young people today.

  19. So far this year, I’ve read 26 novels by 11 different women, and 28 novels by 16 different men — and I haven’t been making any effort whatsoever to read diversely. I check a lot of different lists of “what’s coming out this month in SFF”, plus posts here on File770, and put anything that sounds interesting on my TBR list, in addition to slowly chipping away at past Hugo and Nebula nominees.

    It seems to me that someone would have to actively — whether consciously or unconsciously — be selecting for books written by men, in order to spend 2 years without reading an SFF book written by a woman.

  20. JJ:

    I’m 64, so Heinlein … Asimov … Clarke … are part of my early contact with SF.

    There’s a boatload of good, even great SF, being published these days. One problem is staying current. I wonder at folks like Gardner Dozois and his Annual Year’s Best collections, the volume of reading needed to try to stay aware of what’s new, what’s good.

    So … the question “Which contemporary science fiction writers would you recommend to high school age readers? ” really needs an answer.

  21. Michael J. Walsh: While you’re trawling for sf recommendations, I’m happy to suggest fantasy by Cassandra Clare, Rick Riordan and Eoin Colfer.

  22. It seems very odd to me that anyone would consider “have you read any women this year?” a threatening or contentious question. Or indeed as a question whose answer wouldn’t be “yes, [name], [name], and [name] are a few.”

    That two years’ worth of reading would exclude one gender purely by chance seems wholly unbelievable, though the process of arriving at that outcome needn’t necessarily be conscious.

  23. Someone hiding behind the pseudonym “Clack” quoted and wrote:

    “’they’re going have the problems that the protagonist’”

    “— that phrase is so garbled I can’t even figure out what David Klaus thought he was saying.”

    Let’s try again with a simpler sentence structure: They won’t like that the primary character of the book, a competent and powerful fighter, is female rather than male.

    That is based upon what some self-identified “puppies” have written online. It’s isn’t true of all of them, which I failed to make clear and should have. If I had realized that what I sent Mike would be reprinted verbatim, I would have been more precise; this is not any fault of Mike, but of my being jocular in my e-mail to him.

    False quotation:

    “ ‘Puppies would totally like this book if it was the type of book they liked. Which it isn’t.’ [sic]

    “Well reasoned argument he has there.”

    Don’t put quotation marks around a sentence I didn’t write, please.

    They will like certain aspects of the book, and dislike certain other aspects of the book. Is that idea that difficult to understand?

    “And what does Claudia Christian slapping her name on a novel that someone else will actually write have to do with the Puppies? Nothing.”

    Yes, that’s correct, nothing. Nor did I say that it did. This is the third time that you have completely misunderstood and/or deliberately mis-stated what I wrote. I don’t know if you have a problem with the English language, or if you’re that type of politico who deliberately attributes false statements to somebody who writes what you don’t like, making a straw man to then knock down.


    Well, Clarke was gay. Doesn’t that still tick the Social Justice diversity box?”

    No. Mr. Clarke never self-identified as a gay author for the audience to know or not know. He was of a different generation in which sexual orientation was not a political issue.

    I never heard any reference to him being gay until just a few years before his death — before then, to me he was an Englishman who wrote great science fiction books, was credited with inventing the concept of communications satellite (although Robert Heinlein used it with regard to our natural satellite, the Moon, before that, cf. “The Man Who Sold the Moon”) , and also wrote tongue-in-cheek stories based on British fandom. He remains just those, as I have never seen anything definitive about him being straight, gay, or bisexual, all I have encountered is the late rumor.

    I don’t think he regarded his sexuality as having anything to do with the fiction he wrote. I know as a reader I didn’t, and I presume that until the rumors began no other readers who had no access to his private life did, either.

    And I don’t choose which science fiction to read because of the author’s rumored or stated sexual preference anyway, or skin color, or religion. I’m not making the silly claim that “I don’t see color,” just that sexual preference, skin melanin content, or religion of the writer are irrelevant criteria for choosing recreational reading. For me. YMMV and all that.

    If you’re looking at my words and seeing that other straw man, the “Social Justice Warrior”, that would make the fourth time you misunderstood or deliberately mis-stated what I wrote.

    P. S.: To whom it might matter, I never heard of Andy Weir before reading these comments. What I wrote has nothing to do with him one way or the other.

  24. CPaca (whoever that is) wrote:

    “It’s obviously Pink SF – it’s written by a pink, who played a pink character on TV (opposite a male captain).”

    Other than inferring from context that you don’t mean “pink” in the way it’s used by the Church of the Sub-Genius, I have no idea what that means. Definition, please, if you would.

    I suppose you could mean it was written by a “girl”, who played a “girl” on television (‘blue is for boys, pink is for girls,’ as I deliberately ignored them telling me in the clothes department when my kids were babies), but beyond that your words are opaque.

  25. MJW: I’ll just note, since no one else has, that Weir was asked:
    “Which contemporary science fiction writers would you recommend to high school age readers? ”

    And Weir replied: “Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. For more recent authors, I recommend Ernest Cline, Peter Clines, and Hugh Howey”

    Well, you know how it is – he was talking about high school age readers. If the questioner had meant “female high school readers”, they should have added the qualifier for such an esoteric minority. Perfectly understandable error on Weir’s part.

    More seriously – let’s see – out of the 19 authors I have out from the library at the moment, 7 of them are female, which seems about indicative for my reading. I don’t consciously try to lean male or female – perhaps I do have a bias, or perhaps the bias is in the subgenres I read.

  26. DMK : Other than inferring from context that you don’t mean “pink” in the way it’s used by the Church of the Sub-Genius, I have no idea what that means. Definition, please, if you would.

    There’s a certain group of idiots around who insist on dividing SF into “Pink SF” and “Blue SF”, which are nebulous and ever-shifting terms never quite pinned down. From observation, what they mean by “Pink SF” is “that written by women, or by men whose manhood we will question to devalue their opinions by comparing them to women” and by “Blue SF”, “stuff we write or stuff we like assuming its written by a male or a honorary female who makes a point of buttering up our prejudices unless and until the author pisses us off in which case they were Pink all the time”.

    Using “pink” as a synonym for “female” is sarcasm aimed in their direction.

  27. To whom it might matter, I never heard of Andy Weir before reading these comments.

    THE MARTIAN is really good.

  28. @David, Clarke was of a generation in which sexual orientation absolutely was political, in that it could be actively dangerous to be known to be gay. Consider, if you will, the life of Alan Turing.

    CPaca is referring to Theodore Beale’s delineation of Pink SF, which, yes, involves GIRLS and “feminine” concerns such as romantic elements, and Blue SF, which is Properly Manly. CPaca is mocking that, as Beale’s pronouncements are often mocked here.

    CPaca and Clack have both been regulars here through the Puppy Kerfuffle. I am unable to opine on whether they were before the Puppy Kerfuffle, because that’s where I came in.

  29. @ David Klaus :

    It was not made clear that your post originated as a casual email, and was not meant as a polished piece of work. On that basis, I judged it too harshly.

Comments are closed.