Canine Princes in Amber 5/22

Posted on by

aka Her Majesty’s Secret Puppy

On today’s docket: Vox Day, John C. Wright, Amanda S. Green, Jeff Duntemann, Lela E. Buis, Ken Liu, John Snead, Lis Carey, Spacefaring Kitten, Rebekah Golden, David Langford, and cryptic others. (Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editors of the day Jim Henley and Kary English.)

Vox Day on Vox Popoli

“Just a reminder” – May 22

And once again, SJWs have obediently responded to his call. Mr. Hauman’s actions strike me as a very good way to encourage publishers to stop participating in future Hugo Packets. I mean, why should we do so if it’s only going to provide the SJWs in science fiction with another means of attack? Mr. Hauman has demonstrated how the Hugo Packet can be destroyed in a single year; what publisher is going to even be willing to include excerpts when inclusion in the Packet means several hundred one-star reviews on Amazon within weeks?

 

John C. Wright

“Petty Puppy-Kickers on the March” – May 22

Alas, I am too busy today to comb through Amazon to downvote and report graffiti being left on my sale goods by malign Morlocks. I ask any reader impatient for my next work to be published to alleviate my workload by shouldering this task, please.

I ask any undecided onlooker who has noticed the kerfuffle to observe who has played straight, honest, aboveboard, and continually and openly identified their goals and platform, and who has lied, cheated, lied, slandered, lied, libeled, lied, betrayed, lied, invented falsehoods, resorted to dirsty tricks, lied, defamed, lied, called people racists, lied, organized defamation campaigns in major media, lied and lied again.

I ask any undecided onlooker who has noticed the kerfuffle to observe whether anyone on the Sad Puppies side of things has called for posting false and defamatory reviews of rival works, or attempting to blacklist or undermine the income of fellow authors?

 

Amanda S. Green on Nocturnal Lives

“Once again, the stupid burns” – May 22

How enlightened of the other side to paint us all with the same brush. How inclusive they are to try to construct a dialog — oh, wait. They haven’t. They don’t want to sully their reputations or whatever by trying to even listen to what we have to say or what our concerns are. They are too busy trying to shore up the bulwarks around their holy bastion of the Hugo. And, as they do, they completely prove our point that the Hugos are no longer an award of the fans but of a few self-appointed FANS. Hell, we’ve even been “schooled” by a Wolheim for not knowing our history of WorldCon or of the Hugos. Well, we do know the histories. We just don’t buy into the revisionist histories they have constructed.

Is controversy around the Hugos new to the Sad Puppy movement? Not only no but hell no. But to have folks who claim they represent the ideals of inclusivity to be doing their best to ruin careers through their personal attacks and through negative reviews based not on the quality of the work but the politics of the author takes it to a new low. What they don’t understand is that all they are doing is playing for a very small crowd. Those looking at the controversy from the outside aren’t impressed by their tactics. They are asking themselves when they last read a Hugo winner and enjoyed it. Instead of trying to keep the unwashed masses out, perhaps these authors and editors ought to be asking themselves why they have lost the faith of the readers. They should ask themselves if they would be able to make it as an indie author if they suddenly found themselves without a publisher to push their work. But that might take a bit of introspection they aren’t prepared to do, much less accept.

So, once again, I will repeat what I’ve said — what every other supporter of Sad Puppies has said. Read the material in the Hugo packet and vote based on the quality of the work (which will be more difficult than it should be in some cases because certain publishers pasted huge watermarks on each page and/or only included a sample of the nominated work. Once again proving that certain big publishers don’t trust readers, not even WorldCon members and think we are all pirates).

 

Jeff Duntemann on Jeff Duntemann’s Contrapositive Diary

“Rant: You Can’t Shame a Puppy” – May 22

The more important reason for authors not to withdraw is that withdrawing gives the anti-puppies (APs) this peculiar notion that they can use social pressure (shaming) to get authors to do things their way, up to and including refusing a major honor in the field. Note very well: I am not suggesting that either Kloos or Bellet withdrew because of social pressure. I take their explanations at face value. What I’m suggesting is that a certain nontrivial number of APs may assume it, and may further assume that social pressure is a tactic that can win, going forward. I’m already hearing that the 2015 Hugos need to be “asterisked;” that is, marked as disreputable, dishonest, and something that no upright fan or author will have anything to do with. The message is pretty clear: Any Puppy nominee who keeps their place on the ballot is to be shamed and shunned.

Now we can get down to business. The first of my two points today is this: Shaming is bullying. Shaming is about fear. Shaming is thug tactics. I’ll tell you what I hear when I hear people talking about shaming authors: “Nice little career you’re starting up here. Shame if anything happened to it.” Or, another interpretation that’s pretty much the same thing: “Stay on the ballot, and you’ll never work in this town again.”

In other words, we’re supposed to use mafia persuasion to get authors to refuse nominations that just might have been influenced by slatemakers like the Sad Puppies. (What if the works are just really good?) That’s bad enough. However, if you think about it a little more, you come to my second point for today’s entry: Shaming only works on people who value the esteem of the shamer.

 

Lela E. Buis

“The Hugo Awards: Follow the money” – May 23

So, is all this talk about traditional SF versus the new diversity just smoke and mirrors? Is the real issue here about a small publisher versus the large publishing houses? It’s hard to separate the right wing content from the publisher, which puts Beale at a disadvantage in today’s market. Because of the current social climate, I don’t personally think he would prevail in getting any stories on the ballot even in a perfectly free market. Still, I have to admire his mouse with a sword attitude.

 

Ken Liu interviews Liu Cixin in Publishers Weekly

“China at BEA 2015: Coming to America: Liu Cixin” – May 22

How do you feel about the Nebula nomination?

A: I’m honored and overjoyed. As a science fiction fan, the Nebula Award and the Hugo Award mean a lot to me. If I had to choose between the Nobel Prize in literature and the Nebula/Hugo awards, I would choose the latter without hesitation—though I’m not so arrogant as to think I could win the Nobel Prize. But the ultimate goal of my writing has always been delighting readers, not winning awards. For me, the most valuable affirmation comes from readers. Thus, the best thing about being nominated for a Nebula is that perhaps more people will read my novel, and the award will build more publicity for the two sequels in English.

 

John Snead on Synchronicity swirls and other foolishness

Three-Body Problem Review + Musings On Hugo Award Novel Voting – May 22

Yesterday, I finished reading Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu, a well done and interesting SF novel written by one of China’s premier SF novelists and translated in the English. I’ve looked at the covers of recent Chinese SF magazine (but not knowing Chinese, have only been able to read a handful of stories which have been translated). The covers remind me of tech focused US SF magazines from the 50s & 60s, but none of the stories have, until I read this book. There are a lot of ways that it’s entirely unlike US SF from that era, but there are also distinct similarities – some of which were clearly deliberate…. My votes for Hugo Award for Best Novel are as follows

  1. Ancillary Sword Ann Leckie: In addition to vastly better characterization than Three Body Problem, it didn’t fall down ½ to 2/3s of the way through and I enjoyed it more. I don’t think it’s as strong a novel as Ancillary Justice, but I also think it’s the best novel nominated
  2. Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu: Definitely a good novel and one I’m very glad I read, but not good enough to win.
  3. No Award: I don’t think any of the other three novels are all that good, and so No Award comes next.
  4. The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison: As I mentioned before, I gave up in utter boredom a bit less than halfway through. I’m not a fan of passive and incompetent protagonists who remain that way and while I wanted to like this novel, it was impressively dull.
  5. Skin Game by Jim Butcher: I didn’t read the first couple of chapters – I’d previously read 2.5 of Butcher’s Harry Dresden novels, and that’s pretty much my lifetime limit. Butcher isn’t a terrible writer, but this series isn’t for me (and I’m someone who quite liked the first 8 of Laurell K. Hamilton’s Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter (they weren’t good, but I enjoyed them)).
  6. The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson: The previous two were novels I didn’t like, but wouldn’t go so far as to say were bad – this is a bad novel.

 

Lis Carey on Lis Carey’s Library

“Dave Freer Hugo Fanwriter Nomination Samples” – May 22

There really isn’t much to say. A larger sample than Amanda Greens, 21 pages, but if anything there is even less here. All the hate-spewing at “SJWs” and “GHHs”, plus misogyny, plus a heaping helping of self-congratulation for being fair, open-minded, and helpful to aspiring writers.

Not recommended.

 

Spacefaring Kitten on Spacefaring, Extradimensional Happy Kittens

“’A Single Samurai’ by Steven Diamond” – May 22

“A Single Samurai”, unsurprisingly, tells the story of a lone samurai. He is traveling on the back of a mountain-sized kaiju monster that is demolishing everything in its way, and he intends to kill it.

I love this idea, and it’s a shame Diamond only mentions it and never gives the reader any insight into what it’s like to be on a moving mountain (if we don’t count one earthquake). The milieu feels like any standard fantasy environment, really.

 

Rebekah Golden

“2015 Hugo Awards Best TV Show: Reviewing the Flash” – May 20

Retrospectively the pilot was good enough to continue watching another fifteen or so episodes.

 

Rebekah Golden

“2015 Hugo Awards Best Professional Artist: Reviewing J Dillon” – May 20

For this review I’m going to focus on works created in 2014 which include some that I have enjoyed in the past and am happy to highlight why I enjoyed them now that I have a chance to write more formally on the topic.

 

Rebekah Golden

“2015 Hugo Awards Best Graphic Story: Reviewing Ms Marvel” – May 21

This comic is delightfully playful and full of Easter eggs and small side details in the frame.

 

Rebekah Golden

“2015 Hugo Awards Best Professional Artist: Reviewing K DouPonce” – May 21

The issue here is not that he refers to himself as a designer rather than an artist or that he admits to using stock imagery. The issue is his work looks like it was made by a designer not an artist and that the images look like a vaguely pleasant arrangement of stock imagery.

 

Rebekah Golden

“2015 Hugo Awards Best TV Show: Reviewing Game of Thrones” – May 21

I just don’t see the point of this sweeping epic outside of some catharsis and the catharsis isn’t there for me.

 

Rebekah Golden

“2015 Hugo Awards Best Professional Artist: Reviewing N Greenwood” – May 22

Greenwood is obviously an artist of some scope and skill.

Cover art by Nick Greenwood.

Cover art by Nick Greenwood.

 

David Langford in a comment on Making Light  – May 22

A voice from the past. While tidying up the look of the TransAtlantic Fan Fund site (now with free ebooks!), I noticed the following prophetic remark in one of Patrick’s and Teresa’s newsletters, TAFFluvia 2 dated August 1985:

What we meant was that TAFF is an institution created for a specific purpose, with its own agenda — promoting greater transatlantic amity between fans — and should not be used as a mechanism for pursuing unrelated issues; no more than, say, the Hugos should be used as an exercise in block-voting by a group with an ideological axe to grind, rather than in recognition of the single outstanding work nominated.

 

 

 

Discover more from File 770

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

654 thoughts on “Canine Princes in Amber 5/22”

  1. I am privy to some communications you were not, Snow. The key word there, though, is “privy.” So you don’t have to believe it. I have reason to believe it.

  2. Catholics tend to sortakinda sidestep that question, Danny, with something that might sound like, “Who are we to tell the Almighty how He can or can’t., did or didn’t, order His creation?” Since I am a Catholic, I just don’t get into it, as they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

  3. Tom Kratman: I am privy to some communications you were not, Snow. The key word there, though, is “privy.” So you don’t have to believe it. I have reason to believe it.

    Yep, and I’ll bet that the lurkers support you in e-mails, too.

    If you can’t back up your accusations, then stop posting them, because they’re just words… very badly written words.

  4. Okay, Mike, any idea which of the innocuous words in that post sent it to moderation?

  7. Try it sometime. At the very least, you might gain more converts to the faith if you actually lead the life of a good Catholic. You might even be happier.

  8. Oh, and make sure to add this to your list of sins during confession.

  9. JJ, “Thees words you are usink? I dunno thin’ they mean what you thin’ they mean.”

    I’ll also be sure to let you know when I decide that you have authority over what I say or do not say. That, however, is not likely to happen soon. In the interim, don’t believe. What, after all, are you to me but a bipedal skunk with pretensions?

  10. I will be sure to let _you_ know, Glenn, when I start to believe you have my best interests at heart. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Ha.

  11. TK: “I am privy to some communications you were not, Snow. The key word there, though, is “privy.” So you don’t have to believe it. I have reason to believe it.”

    Fair enough, if you have been given proof that such did occur, and I’m glad that you respect that they were given to you in confidence, rather than breaking such confidence just to prove your claims.

    I do agree that absent such proof, no one else has (or should, they are after all unsubstatiated, and the available evidence – ie, what people like Kloos, Bellet, & Wade have actually *said* – is against them) to believe your claims either.

    Have you given any thought to my latter query on the reviews aspect btw (from here: https://file770.com/?p=22668&cpage=9#comment-270433 ) Dave Freer has partially addressed it in the last roundup, but would like your perspective as well.

  13. With people like Mr. Kratman as such generous examples of what it is to be Catholic and spreading the love of Jesus, it’s no wonder one in ten Americans now identify themselves as ex-Catholics, and one of three raised as Catholic have defected.

    Hey, I don’t care if you love me or not. But I’d think you’d at least care about your own soul and your own love of God. The Catechism also teaches, “We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves.”

  14. Glenn Hauman: I know it would be a tall order to make Mr. Kratman a sympathetic character, but your repeatedly belittling his faith could possibly turn the trick. Do you really think he comes off worse in that exchange?

  15. Oh, as long as we are quoting Heinlein, I found this passage about the Hugos in one of my favorite books:

    “You! I’ve just awarded you the Hugo for Best Novel. Does it make you happy? […] No dodging, please. You have the prize — here, I’ll hand you the rocket.” He had actually come back to my seat and pinned it on my chest. “There! Are you happy? You value it — or don’t you?” Mr. Dubois had looked surprised. “It doesn’t make you happy?”
    “You know darn well I placed below No Award!”
    “Exactly! The prize for first place is worthless to you . . . because you haven’t earned it. But you enjoy a modest satisfaction in being nominated at all; you managed to sneak your way onto the list by being on a slate.”
    Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), pp. 93-94

    Though some of that might be off, it’s been a couple years since I last read it.

  16. Mike Glyer: I think he’s belittling his faith all by himself, by his words and deeds. And one does try to bring one’s neighbor onto the path of the righteous.

    But you’re correct, I don’t have to be his judge… he’s already got one.

  17. Oh hey it’s the manbaby that threatens people with weaselly Stand Your Ground-backed threats and keeps making the Author’s Big Mistake over and over and over and

  18. Minor point: evidence and arguments, not proof. These are often confused. The evidence was sufficient for me to think that, moire likely than not, a degree or moral blackmail took place.

    Haven’t really thought about it previously, no, Snow, wrt this. My prior personal observations, which are only that, are a) that normally a more or less U shaped Amazon review profile doesn’t really hurt and b) there is often a jump in overall sales, not just for the book attacked but for all or almost all books, immediately after a series of (somethimes spurious and fraudulent and sometimes not, but where not almost always political) drive by attacks. What I cannot answer is if that is a case of genuinely new, otherwise unreachable readers, or if the attacks just affect timing on the part of readers who would have gotten around to me eventually. Since life is short I don’t worry too much about the difference, either.

    That said, even if the attacks – like some level of piracy – do me some good, the intent to harm puts someone on the list of minor enemies and, if I can hurt them back and show them how it’s done, well, why not?

  20. It is very close, Max, and especially close to what the puppies think has been going on with the Hugo for a couple of decdes now.

  21. XS, thank you. Once again you add an increment of evidence (see the difference, Snow?) that the really BIG mistake was shoes.

  22. A sympathetic character where, Mike? Here? Generally? Nevah. Gonna. Happen. At least not generally. Other places, less infested with SJWism? Already done and fairly normal.

    It’s part and parcel of our lost ability to communicate, actually, and the resulting (and to some extent preceding; we’re in a cascade, you see) fracturing of our civilization.

  23. Tom Kratman: As a newswriter I often think of Jason Robards delivering Ben Bradlee’s line about Haldeman, and its moral about the consequences of self-righteousness.

  24. Can you quote the quote? I’m neither a huge fan nor a follower of the various press demi-gods and demons.

    Also, barring two “triggers,” Mike, I am too highly amused to quite make it to self righteousness. I _think_.

  25. Tom Kratman: I am on my Kindle at the moment and can’t open a second window to pull up the exact quote. Approximately, he chastizes Woodward and Bernstein about a fact they got wrong in a Watergate story by including Nixon’s chief of staff, saying “You’ve got people feeling sorry for Haldeman, and I didn’t think that was possible.”

  26. All the President’s Men has it coming from “Deep Throat,” not Bradlee:

    “You’ve done worse than let Haldeman slip away: you’ve got people feeling sorry for him. I didn’t think that was possible. In a conspiracy like this, you build from the outer edges and go step by step. If you shoot too high and miss, everybody feels more secure. You’ve put the investigation back months.”

    That one?

  27. That’s the one. So it’s Deep Throat that delivers the line? Wonder what Bradlee actually says in the scene I’m visualizing.

  30. And, further, one notes that you, at least, are much too afraid to use your own name. How’s that for small and insecure, eh?

  31. @TK: “Also, barring two “triggers,” Mike, I am too highly amused to quite make it to self righteousness. I _think_.”

    To readers who aren’t you, you go way past self-righteousness and into self-parody.

  33. And, further, one notes that you, at least, are much too afraid to use your own name. How’s that for small and insecure, eh?

    Or reasonable, considering how doxx-happy your lot is.

  34. Krapman: And, further, one notes that you, at least, are much too afraid to use your own name. How’s that for small and insecure, eh?

    And, once again, my comment about you misspelling my surname goes zooming right over your head, as do so many other things.

  36. I’ve been following the train wreck that the comments section on this one has become. TK is largely sending Glenn Hauman’s and Steven Schwartz’s heads over the center field bleachers almost at will. You keep coming back for more without stepping up your game. I’m not even certain whether or not TK’s even serious half the time here.

    On a tangential note, as a practicing Catholic, the only behavior I’m at all concerned with is my own and that of the church itself. TK has to answer to someone higher than myself and that’s his business, not mine.

    I try to live my life with the book of Matthew as a reference and try to treat people accordingly. I don’t always manage that, but I’ll leave it to my Lord to decide if I’ve done it well enough.

    The mud fight will continue as it will.

  37. As I believe I mentioned, Robert, I am, for the most part, just highly amused.

    As for my Catholicism, the Church (I only ever capitalize one denomination, on its own) is, as you’re certainly aware, much more theologically flexible than it generally gets credit for.

  38. TK is largely sending Glenn Hauman’s and Steven Schwartz’s heads over the center field bleachers almost at will.

    That’s funny. My impression is that TK is mostly hitting himself in the face with his bat.

  39. Odd, is it not, Aaron, how people can have such wildly different impressions of things?

    I commend to you recovering liberal Professor Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind for an explanation.

  40. @Robert Reynolds “TK is largely sending Glenn Hauman’s and Steven Schwartz’s heads over the center field bleachers almost at will.”

    Perhaps if your standard is “Insults per minute”. I’m not trying to insult TK. I’m not even particularly trying to persuade him. He is, in many ways, my best argument — just letting him talk, occasionally asking for clarification, draws out the kind of behavior and rhetoric that I believe those who are reading will react to as I would hope.

    But realistically, TK has already said he’s not engaging with me on anything significant due to “history”. So all he has is insults and idle wordplay, which might be amusing, but isn’t really worth much at all.

  41. I commend to you recovering liberal Professor Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind for an explanation.

    If you had understood it, you would be better able to articulate it.

  44. Krapman : I can’t imagine you having anything to say that would be worth me payign very close attention, o small and insecure one.

    No, I don’t suppose you can.

    Fortunately, there are sf writers who are not so smug about their limited imaginations. Which is why they get Hugos legitimately.

  46. Possibly the “Gallup says X percent of the American people don’t give a fuck”?

    Because I just feel a bit peckish for some pedantry about the past, in the last Gallup poll taking right before Nixon’s resignation, 57% said he should resign. As I recall, the polls on Election Day were quite favorable for the Democrats that year too. Evidently people did give a damn about being lied to by someone who once assured them that he wasn’t a crook.

  48. Please don’t feed the troll folks, he’s silly and only able to post right now because the adminstrators here has to sleep at some point – don’t make their job cleaning up after the troll more time consuming than it already is by replying to his low quality bait

  49. ‘and especially close to what the puppies think has been going on with the Hugo for a couple of decdes now.’

    But not proof. Never proof.

  50. @Tom – How do you tell the difference between an attack and an honest review by someone who just didn’t like a story?

    The only review I’ve seen of BBDC was from someone who is going through all of the nominated works in detail and had clearly read the story.

    (Went and read many of the reviews-)

    Hmmm. Well, I can see you are used to the five star reviews from your existing fans. One of them even called you ‘The Old Master’. To me that would be Heinlein or maybe Asimov. A lot of the negative reviews objected to being hit over the head with politics and a number of them recommended things by Weber, or Drake, Laumer, or Banks(!) instead, authors who put in less about current politics. These people are the types who would normally not be reading your books at all. It seems entirely plausible that they are leaving what they consider to be honest reviews.

Comments are closed.