aka “Nobody puts Puppy in a corner.”
Today’s roundup features Rebecca Ann Smith, Nick Mamatas, Vox Day, Kate Paulk, John C. Wright, Ridley Kemp, Martin Wisse, Damien G. Walter, Lis Carey, Brian Niemeier, Joe Sherry, Tom Kratman, Joe Sherry, Lisa J. Goldstein, Katya Czaja, and Kevin Standlee. (Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editors of the day Kary English and Hampus Eckerman.)
Rebecca Ann Smith
“Who Owns Popular Culture?” – May 21
Something very weird happened in the run up to this year’s prestigious Hugo awards, voted for by science fiction fans. In the culmination of a long campaign against what they see as the takeover of the awards by liberals, progressives and feminists, a right-leaning group calling themselves the Sad Puppies, led by author Brad Torgersen, successfully lobbied for an approved slate of books to receive nominations.
Although the Sad Puppies actions are legal within the rules of the Hugos, they have also been controversial. Some people feel it’s not playing fair, and others are concerned by their motives.
Nick Mamatas in a comment on File 770 – May 21
Way back when the ballot was announced, I said that fandom shouldn’t bother trying to change the rules. (Hugo rules change too frequently as it is.) http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/1920331.html
There are three options as far I can tell:
The Hugos being a product a fandom, much of the discussion around “fixing” the issue boils down either angry blog posts about white people (ie, admissions of pathetic whining defeat) or statistical wonkery (ie foolishness). These are all wrongheaded—slating is essentially a political issue, and political issues need political responses. There are three possible ones:
- Suck It Up. Probably a pretty good idea. This bed was made some years ago when blogging culture sparked a shift from significant social sanction when people tried to get votes by asking publicly for consideration to “obligatory” posts promoting their own work, and later, the work of their friends. Loud Blogs win; Loud Blogs Plus Online Workshop-Clubhouses win more; and Loud Blogs plus political discipline win even more. Why should only the Loud Bloggers people have decided that they personally like and are “friends”* with win? Eventually, it’ll all even out, especially as what is most likely to happen is that the SPs get nominated and then lose decisively year after year.
- Castigate all campaigning, not just the campaigning you don’t like Pandora’s Box isn’t necessarily open forever. However, you can’t close half a lid. It would take significant effort to change widespread attitudes, but it is not as though those attitudes have not changed before. If campaigning was always met with eye-rolling or even outright disgust, it would stop being so effective. Some people would betray and try to promote, but if the audience was inured to such appeals, it just wouldn’t work and hopefuls would eventually stop.
- Counter-slates We’ll almost certainly see attempts at counter-slates. I’m against the idea, but the current cry to vote “No Award” in all SP-dominated categories is itself a counter-slate after a fashion. Someone will come up with Happy Kittens and stump for non-binary PoCs or stories with lots of scene breaks or or or…well, that’s the problem. One counter-slate would likely thwart the SPs, more than one would not. And we’re sure to see more than one. Disciplined slate voting works best when only one side does it and the other side isn’t even a side. Two slates split demographically. Three or more, uh… At any rate, it all comes around to political discipline again. If some party were to launch a counter-slate next year, would others who found that slate imperfect let it by without critique and another alternative slate. (There are actually two Puppy slates, but they are largely similar.) There can be slates that are so attractive that many more people sign up to vote for the Hugos, but I strongly suspect that people overestimate the amount of outside “pull” these slates have; general Hugo chatter across blogs and Twitter in general is driving increased education about supporting Worldcon memberships, and then there are all the free books voters might receive, which is also a new thing. One counter-slate would be effective, though of course the cure could be worse than the disease, and more than one would likely not.
So aggrieved Hugo Award followers, which shall it be?
Two is still the best bet.
Vox Day on Vox Popoli
“Three options” – May 21
[Commenting on Nick Mamatas’ analysis above.]
This is at least dealing with observable reality, unlike those who fantasize that tinkering with the rules is going to slow down any group that contains at least one individual with a brain, or worse, those who think that MOAR DISQUALIFY is magically going to accomplish anything. So, let’s consider their options from our perspective.
1. Suck it up
This is what they should have done. It would have taken a fair amount of the wind out of our sails. However, most of the potential benefits are now lost since they’ve already motivated our side through their histrionics and media-planted stories.
2. Castigate all campaigning
Won’t happen. Far too many people on their side are guilty of it, and far too many people are already invested in the idea that what is very, very bad for us is just fine for the Tor set and everyone who bought memberships for their children and extended families.
3. Counter-slates
This is the only real option for them now. It’s also the one that is most frightening for them, because it puts an end to their gentleman’s agreement to stick to logrolling and whisper campaigns as long as no one gets too greedy, and forces them to come out and compete in the open. They hate open competition on principle and the idea that they might come out for a fair fight next year and lose will strike them as so terrifying as to be beyond imagining. Furthermore, because they really, really care about winning awards, it’s going to be much harder for them to put together a slate, much less find the numbers to support it in the disciplined manner required now that a bloc of 40 votes is no longer sufficient to put something on the shortlist.
Kate Paulk on Mad Genius Club
“Of Puppies and Principles” – May 21
Anyway, this little piece of anecdata leads to some thoughts about what could be considered the Sad Puppy Manifesto (although it isn’t, since the Sad Puppy organizers were – and are – more interested in doing stuff and getting results from said doings than in writing manifestos….
5. More voters and more votes mean more representative results. In 2008, fewer than 500 nomination ballots were cast for the Hugo awards. There were categories where the nominated works had fewer than 20 votes. In that environment, it doesn’t take much for someone with an agenda and a loyal following to push out anything they don’t like. In 2015, more than 2000 nomination ballots were cast. That makes it harder for things like the Sad Puppies campaigns, or our not at all hypothetical person with an agenda to push out everything else – but it doesn’t make it impossible. More people voting means that absent corruption on the part of the officials (which doesn’t appear to be a factor based on the information that’s publicly available), the results will tend to reflect the desires of the broader public (because the voters are a sample – and by the very nature of statistics, larger samples tend to be more representative of the overall population than smaller samples – and yes, I know it’s not that bloody simple. I’m trying to keep this short and failing miserably).
….So, if you’re a member, read the stories, then decide which way you’re going to vote.
And while you’re at it, review the WorldCon 2017 Site Selection bids and pay your $40 to vote for the one you prefer: you’ll get automatic supporting membership for WorldCon 2017 before the price goes up.
John C. Wright
“The Customer is Always Right” – May 21
….On the 770 blog, that wretched hive of scum and villainy, I unwisely left a gentle remark where I noted that a hiccuping hapless lackwit quoted this passage of fulsome praise to support the contention of my alleged dislike of womankind, rather than taking it as evidence to the clear contrary.
Emma, a zealous Inquisitor of the Thought Police, helps explicate the enigma.
https://file770.com/?p=22617&cpage=11#comment-265630 ….
It is difficult for me to untie the Gordian knot of this intestinal bafflegab (madonna/whore ideology?) since I do not have my Morlock-to-Reality dictionary at hand.
John C. Wright
“The Uncorrectors are Never Right” – May 21
I was taught, and experience confirms, that the alleged correction of “the hoi polloi” is the very soul and exemplar of pedantic error and half-learned buffoonery.
No learned man ever offers that correction, and no one ever offers it innocently, but only in vulgar pretense of erudition they do not possess. (A man with a modicum of real education would look in the OED, and see this phase is correct in English.)
Ridley Kemp on Stay With Me, Go Places
“History Will Forget The Sad Puppies” – May 21
If you want my take on the Hugos, I’ll give you this:
In ye olden dayes, the players selected for baseball’s all-star game were elected by public ballots. In 1957, the ballots were being printed in newspapers instead of passed out to the fans at games (as I remember from the 1970’s) or online (as it’s done now). The Cincinnati Enquirer decided to help the fans out a little by printing pre-filled ballots with nothing be Cincinnati ballplayers selected. As a result, the starting lineup for the 1957 National League team consisted of Stan Musial, a St. Louis Cardinal, and 7 cincinnati Reds.
People rightly saw this as a subversion of the process. Ford Frick, the commissioner of baseball, immediately replaced two Reds outfielders, Wally Post and Gus Bell, with Hank Aaron and Willie Mays because, c’mon, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. The remaining Reds were allowed to start the game and then almost immediatley replaced once the game started, and the game looked like an All-Star game once more.
Martin Wisse on Wis[s]e Words
“Puppies wee on your shoulders and tell you it’s rain” – May 21
Nobody with any familiarity of Worldcon fandom’s history and culture believes that it’s dishonest to vote No Award over any nomination that got there through blatant slate voting, or that fans have a duty to be “fair” to nominations which stole their place on the ballot.
Marion on Deeds & Words
“The Hugos, 2015: Chapter Four, What Were They Thinking?” – May 21
To my mind, nowhere is the problem of the bloc-voting and the slate concept better demonstrated than in the Novella Category. Here is the short-list….
If you love short SF, you read a lot of SF magazines, or you enjoy anthologies, that list may be baffling you. You might wonder why, since the Hugos are for the best work of the year, you have probably only read, or even heard of, one of those works. You might wonder why one press, which you’ve never heard of before, has four of the five works on the list.
Having read these works, here’s what I can say with confidence; if the splinter group (who call themselves Rapid Puppies) wanted to demonstrate with this list the kind of fine, solid story-telling that they think is getting overlooked due to the distraction of more “politically correct” fare, they’ve failed abjectly.
The best of the lot is “Flow” by Arlen Andrews Sr. This is the type of the story that the original slate group, the “Sad Puppies” frequently talk about and say they like.
https://twitter.com/damiengwalter/status/601382433817165825
Lis Carey on Lis Carey’s Library
“Amanda S. Green Fanwriter Samples” – May 21
The sample provided is sixteen pages, several different selections of Green’s fanwriting.…
There is no interest or willingness to engage with anyone with whom she disagrees, or even to extend the most basic of respect to fellow human beings. If she disagrees with you, she must also make clear that she disrespects you. A complete waste. This has no place on the Hugo ballot.
Lis Carey on Lis Carey’s Library
“A Single Samurai (in The Baen Big Book of Monsters), by Steven Diamond” – May 21
Let it be noted that Baen, always a leader in trusting the reader with ebooks, included the entire Baen Big Book of Monsters in the Hugo packet, not just the nominated material. Which makes it a shame that I can’t like this story better. It’s not terrible, but at no point does it really grab me.
Brian Niemeier on Superversive SF
Because so much of storytelling relies on nudging readers’ imaginations to paint the images the writer intends, using stereotypes is inevitable and indispensable.
“What the reader wants not to do is to be asked by the writer to use the stereotype in his head in a tired, trite, shopworn, or expected way, because then the reader notices, and is rightly put off, by the trick being pulled on him.”
Wright thus counsels authors to employ two contradictory stereotypes to describe each character. Bilbo Baggins is a retiring country squire and a supremely accomplished burglar. Kal-El is both mild-mannered reporter and Superman. The tension between these contradictions creates depth.
Joe Sherry on Adventures In Reading
“Thoughts on the Hugo Award Nominees: Fancast” – May 21
Tea and Jeopardy appears to be in a class by itself. It is very slickly produced and seems to take place in the midst of a proper tea party. Again, this was one of the shorter episodes included and the limited run time accentuates what is cool and quirky about it while never letting what works run for too long. It is the most worthy of the nominees, I think. My vote:
1. Tea and Jeopardy
2. Galactic Suburbia
3. Adventures in SF Publishing
4. The Sci Phi Show
5. Dungeon Crawlers Radio
Lis Carey on Amazon
[Lis Carey gave Thomas Kratman’s “Big Boys Don’t Cry” a 2-star Amazon review and ended up in an exchange with Kratman who expressed his displeasure and included a fling at the Hugos.]
[Tom Kratman:] I want the Hugos utterly destroyed, No Awarded in perpetuity. I want “Aces and Eights.” I want the village destroyed and don’t care in the slightest about saving it. The best way to accomplish that is for the SJW types to succeed in getting general No Award votes this time around. So make it a one star and vote “no award.”
Lisa J. Goldstein on theinferior4
“The Hugo Ballot, Part 13: Novellas” – May 21
In “Flow,” by Arlan Andrews, Sr., we follow a crew riding an iceberg down a river to the Warm Lands. The first half of the story is little more than a travelog, as the main character, Rist from the Tharn’s Lands, learns about the Warm Lands from his compatriot, Cruthar. It’s not terrible. The two societies are different in interesting ways, and Rist makes a good naive traveler. But it is, once again, not a story but an excerpt; we’ve already missed the beginning and there is no real ending.
Katya Czaja
“Hugo Awards: Fanzine” – May 21
Ranking To be honest, nothing really grabbed me in this category. I’m not a Whovian so Journey Planet bored me. Tangent seemed well written, but I would not seek out another copy. Elitist Book Reviews fell below No Award because I can think of a half dozen book blogs that have stronger, more interesting reviews. The Revenge of Hump Day fell below No Award because it was a compilation of stuff other people had sent the editor, and not a particularly interesting compilation at that.
1) Journey Planet
2) Tangent Online
3) No Award
4) Elitist Book Reviews
5) The Revenge of Hump Day
Kevin Standlee on Fandom Is My Way Of Life
“Didn’t Just Fall Off the Turnip Truck” – May 20
From some of the suggestions and questions I’m getting, I think there are people who must think this is the first WSFS Business Meeting over which I’ve presided (even when those people have attended and participated in meetings over which I presided). I also think there are people who think that those of us organizing the Business Meeting haven’t heard anything at all about this Puppygate stuff, and feel the need to explain to me all about it. I suppose they’re all well-meaning, but it does get wearing after a while. Presumably this is what it feels like to be Mansplained to.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
>> I suspect that you are right. But I think it is a healthy response from the SP camp. >>
Or at least from Paulk. I suspect the others would ignore it the minute they wanted to object to or lionize something and those points didn’t serve them in doing so.
Considering the number of comments it has provoked, “the hoi polloi” is now the most entertaining thing John C. Wright has ever written.
@cmm (and maybe @Learned as well, if you’re interested): A long response to you about angels got caught up in moderation at 3:20pm, so scroll back when it gets through.
@Steven Schwarts:
Something something Big Lebowski
The Puppy abides.
Kurt Busiek: “Or at least from Paulk. I suspect the others would ignore it the minute they wanted to object to or lionize something and those points didn’t serve them in doing so.”
Is Paulk in charge of the next Sad Puppy campaign? I may have got my puppies mixed up. Assuming she is that may make some difference (of course given that it was the Rabid slate that did the most damage that may all be moot anyway).
Either way anything would be an improvement on the SJWSCALZICLIQUEELITIST argument.
I think you’ve got that backwards. Vox Day believes in nothing, but whines about how it isn’t fair that we didn’t give him a Hugo. He cut off Brad Torgersen’s toe and everything …
Mr. Hauman: “No, that he made a mistake and is doubling down on it rather than admit error. Pride.”
I would like to see your argument. Why, and in what way, was it an error? By what metric would we call it an error in this context?
“You’re new here, so you’ve probably missed where I’ve pointed out that he’s also sinned by committing false witness. https://file770.com/?p=22617&cpage=12#comment-265739 As a “faithful Roman Catholic” he should be concerned; his final judge is believed to be tougher than the Hugo voters.”
Of what relevance is any of this to what we are discussing? In what way is this a response to any of the points I’ve made? Is this an argument?
I’m sorry to simply ask questions of you, but I am waiting for something more than assertions and poorly reasoned character slanders.
>> Is Paulk in charge of the next Sad Puppy campaign?>>
It seems so.
>> Assuming she is that may make some difference (of course given that it was the Rabid slate that did the most damage that may all be moot anyway). Either way anything would be an improvement on the SJWSCALZICLIQUEELITIST argument.>>
Well, we’ll have to see whether this replaces that argument or merely begins alternating with it, like all the other justifications.
@xs In addition the lack of compassion, a Christian virtue, shown in the second comment is truly appalling.
<blockquote<Something something Big Lebowski
The Puppy abides.
What does any of this have to do with the Fvck;ng Forever War, Owlmirror?
Also, the comment preview is working fine for me in Chrome for Mac OS. I particularly appreciate the You Are Engaged In Unproductive Recriminations About the Meaning of a Single Word With Another User warning. Is that one working for everybody?
David:
>> I am waiting for something more than assertions and poorly reasoned character slanders.>>
You’ve said you’re a newcomer here. So am I, as it happens.
But keep in mind that you’re also not in the judiciary. It may be that whoever you’re berating (I didn’t scroll back to check) isn’t that interested in having you render a verdict on whether his or her comments are well-supported or worth making. You’ve been heavily implying that the reason people are making criticisms is partisanship, and you seem quite partisan yourself, merely in the opposite direction to the one you’re assuming.
If you want to have a discussion, you might be successful. You might not, I don’t really know. If you want to make declarations about what arguments are worth making and what aren’t, you might be well served to remember that you’re expressing an opinion, not laying down the law.
You will be waiting a long time, David. Glenn Hauman is the lying SJW whose “What do you do with rabid puppies? Put them down.” quote was enough to even disturb other SJWs, of all people.
He is also the leader of a pathetic and unprofessional don’t read but downvote antimarketing campaign on Amazon. He is the sort that makes the very sane Mamatas “option #2” practically impossible to conduct.
If Nick telling him to shut the hell up can’t convince him, it is proof positive that there is an entrenched subset of SJWS who really would rather incinerate the Hugos.
On the Paulk Manifesto, all I can say about it is what I have to say about anyone’s esthetic manifesto: I suppose that works for you. But I personally can’t help thinking…
“Story” is a notoriously contestable term. Let alone the entirely metaphorical “grab by the throat” cliché.
“I really liked that novelette.”
“But did it grab you by the throat?!”
“Huh?”
“You know – did it grab you by the throat?”
“Maybe more by my collarbone? Or, what are the knobby parts along the top of your shoulders?”
“Doesn’t matter. That’s not good enough!”
So that’s thing one.
Thing two is, it doesn’t place worldbuilding in the hierarchy of values at all, which seems to be a huge omission in an SF/F esthetic. I’m by no means saying worldbuilding must be the supreme value. (Again, I’m not a manifesto guy.) But not calling it out as an issue seems like a dodge. How much worldbuilding are we willing to trade for how much throat-grabbing, and how nearly more important than worldbuilding are the characters?
If the most important award is sales, what are sales to Hecuba, or Hecuba to them? I mean, as the reader, what do I care how well your story sold? And if it’s a shorter work that comes bundled with a bunch of others, what did you even have to do with it, for good or ill?
“Respect the reader.” Is this where we finally acknowledge style, even if we refuse to name it? Ot is this a chimera of style and world-building and everything else?
I think what most of us really do is satisfice, unless we’re reminding ourselves we’re supposed to support a manifesto. This story’s worldbuilding is a little weak, but the ending is a gut punch, so I forgive it. That story’s characters are kinda type-y, but the setting is so well-realized that I can’t complain. That story’s very suspenseful, but I don’t care what happens to anyone, so the hell with it.
Any manifesto goes against the grain of the pleasures people in their multiplicity derive from actual reading.
As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, there is a certain percentage of the Puppies who find anything that disagrees with their worldview “disrespectful.” So it doesn’t matter how good the story is. Or how well the characters are written. Or how seamlessly a message (the Puppies don’t like) is woven into the story. They would say it violates the “respect rule.”
Wow, yeah.
One thing I’ve noticed is how so many of the Puppy authors seem to have a weird, almost mercenary marketing obsession. There is this bizarre view that everything, from Wikipedia pages to anonymous Amazon reviews to awards to newspaper stories, is really and most importantly about the ring of cash registers somewhere.
Theodore Beale, remember, sold his followers on the idea of seizing the Hugos by describing their being “worth $13000” in sales, as if that were one of the most important things about them.
“Building a wider readership” sounds like marketing talk to me.
David:
Well, my contribution, at least, was from being word-nerd. ‘Though I will admit that I was somewhat befuddled as to why the dictionary (even one as venerable as the OED) was being used as a reference rather than a guide to usage or a style guide.
My choice of Fowlers’ was the grudging tone that they used to allow that, yes, either usage was correct. However, the AP, Guardian/Observer, Chicago style guides all agree. Ever the contrarian, the NY Times says “No”
Sometimes a cigar *is* just a cigar.
(Btw, Lis Carey, the quote I referenced was from a tee-shirt I had gotten for She Who Must Be Obeyed, which *another* t-shirt claims as a paraphrase of Nicoll)
xdpaul: “If Nick telling him to shut the hell up can’t convince him, it is proof positive…”
… of nothing. This isn’t VD’s blog. Those of us who participate here all get to decide for ourselves what we post or don’t post, and to choose whose advice we do or don’t follow.
@Steven & Owlmirror
‘
“Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it did not serve you well here. Care to expand?”
Something something Big Lebowski
The Puppy abides.’
What he said. The Puppy abides. I don’t know about you, but I do take comfort in that.
Upthread I commented that Tom Kratman’s ‘Big Boys Don’t Cry’ was, IMO, a Hugo-worthy example of short fiction and I that was curious as to other’s opinions. I’ve never read any ‘Bolo’ stories and so my most recent frame of reference was Elizabeth Bear’s Hugo winning ‘Tideline’. Both stories are immersive, believable and, dare I say, compassionate portrayals of the life, times and eventual demise of intelligent beings specifically created for war (Spartans, anybody?). To paraphrase an Amazon reviewer ‘ Who knew Tom Kratman has a sensitive side?’ (Presumably none guessed, except for Mrs. Kratman and all the younger assorted Kratmans).
Like Will, normally I’m more than content to be a fan community of one: building my wee little own library, book by book, beholden to no tastes but my own. *Sigh* I will however contend that recent events have made many of us act out of character. Yep, and it’s an election year to boot. Oh Happy Happy Joy Joy. That always brings out everyone’s best behavior.
Aside:
That Monday: Read everything ‘SJW’ – although I didn’t know what on earth that abbreviation meant until halfway through comments on Charlie’s thread. I totally groked the person who thought it was something pornographic.
Tuesday: Read everything Torgersen, Beale & Correia (TBC), and heard tales of the vast ‘culture war’ engulfing American Fandom – Ok normally not-my-problem, except for the whole ‘world’ part of World Con being rather concerned over the intended desecration of the Hugos, eh?
Wednesday: Still agog – family doesn’t understand overriding passion (Bloody Mundanes), and am madly shifting back and forth between threads when I finally realized that Requires Hate is not Puppy short-speak for Teresa Hayden (Bloody Hell).
Thursday: Buckled up, bought my Sasquan Supporting Membership and finally got down to reading some fiction for the first time in days.
What is it about solitary SF&F literary nerds that make us want to carry on ad nauseum?
So after substantial skimming for over a month now, I think I’ve got a pretty good handle on where TBC are coming from collectively and individually, but I’ve never seen it *clearly* articulated *why* Tom Kratman wants to ‘Burn Down the Hugos’. And what does that mean anyway?
I’ve read a lot of clever invective from both sides, but what does Tom Kratman stand for anyway? I’ve read many dubious motivations attributed to him and yes, I read him scaring the hell out of some kid who admitted he was trying to troll him on Brad Torgersen’s comments, and sure I read ‘Tell me About Tom Kratman’ (well, 20 pages or so anyway, tl:dr – and yes I’d like to obtain a signed copy of ‘Watch on the Rhine’ for posterity (hell I’d like a hc signed copy of ‘Throne of Bones’ too!)), among many other recent threads. So I ‘think’ I get *who* Tom Kratman is, but not *what* he’s all about.
So with apologies to this thread community, which successfully shunned him as above, I’d like to ask Mr. Kratman to help me understand his involvement, where he stands, and what are his objectives?
And now, having composed this on Word and am cutting and pasting it to the web, I consign the above to Moderation. No doubt in due course it will flow through and be commented upon. But just to make sure, I Go To The Mirror:
Tom Kratman…Tom Kratman…Tom Kratman…
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan:@XS I can’t even parse that first Wright quote. I can’t for the life of me understand what the hell he is on about, only that he is quivering with indignation but has to stop along the way to his point to establish the ownership of every woman involved, which distracts him so much that he the point gets bored and takes off to go shopping, or maybe bowling.
Just bog standard equating of homosexuality with (horrible thing here). But like rcade said, it’s the stops at the morgue and the zoo that really make it stand out along with some horrifying notions about consent.
@Nate Harada
I can’t speak for all Christians (what with being gay and a heretic) but if it’s any comfort most I personally know feel equally dismissive of what JcW has to say about the people we love.
That and a ton of embarrassment.
“But a longer phrase might be something like.”
A shorter one could be “Wright, not right”
Jim Henley “Thing two is, it doesn’t place worldbuilding in the hierarchy of values at all, which seems to be a huge omission in an SF/F esthetic. I’m by no means saying worldbuilding must be the supreme value. (Again, I’m not a manifesto guy.) But not calling it out as an issue seems like a dodge.”
Good point. Again picking on Ancillary Justice and Lines of Departure as samples of puppy-hate v puppy-like, Kloos doesn’t so much world-build as pick up an off the shelf setting and puts his characters in it. That approach can still produce effective and entertaining fiction – for example the critically acclaimed Station Eleven doesn’t do a great deal of world building either. However it is a relevant and important aspect of the genre. Leckie on the other hand builds a substantial culture, complete with traditions (military, religious and tea orientated) and a sense of a language. That kind of culture building is hard to do well and Leckie achieves it to a Le Guin level of complexity and believability (IMHO).
@xdpaul “He is also the leader of a pathetic and unprofessional don’t read but downvote antimarketing campaign on Amazon”
So, you know that we can just click the links and read the original, right? So everyone who cares to look knows that you are lying about this. Why do you bother lying about something that is so easily disproved?
He wrote, “Here’s a list of all of Mr. Beale’s nominees, complete with handy links to Amazon. It might be a good idea to take a look at the reviews and see which ones are helpful. If you’ve read the works, you should add your own review.”
See that part about reading the works? Right there in black and white.
Though I do agree with the part of your post that wasn’t a lie. He should not have included the line about putting puppies down. Just because the Puppies fantasize about hitting people with axe-handles or punching people in the face of destroying fandom is no excuse. As adults, the rest of us don’t need to join in on that kind of thing.
>> One thing I’ve noticed is how so many of the Puppy authors seem to have a weird, almost mercenary marketing obsession.>>
Me too. Kratman’s expressed puzzlement with the point of negative reviews that aren’t motivated by animus is certainly one of them; it’s as if the only point he can see to reviews is to raise or damage sales, rather than to discuss or advise on potential enjoyment. Everything seems to be judged on how well it helps or hinders sales.
This fits with the Puppies’ occasional assertions that they’re here to entertain with rip-roaring stories, as opposed to that literary claptrap that nobody actually likes but SJWs lie about liking. They like what they like, what they like is intended as product, and many of them don’t seem to comprehend anything that isn’t focused on being product.
Which is another reason the anti-Scalzi stance is so absurd; he’s pretty product-oriented himself, when it comes to his own work. Nothing wrong with that; it’s just not the only thing there is.
>> “Building a wider readership” sounds like marketing talk to me.>>
To me too.
As a writer, I’m aware of the need for promotion, because I’d like to make money and send my kids to college and all that good stuff. So I get marketed as a multiple award winner, or as a New York Times bestseller, and so forth and so on. It makes sense.
As a reader, though, I’m not an extension of the publishers’ marketing departments, and I don’t care to be told that it’s my responsibility to be. As a reader, I’m a fan, and I want to find things I like, avoid things I don’t, and celebrate the cool. I didn’t volunteer to be a sales guy for the fields I like. If that was part of my responsibilities, I’d just as soon get paid for it, like I did back when it was my actual job.
But as things stand, I’d like to enjoy what I read, and if I want to proselytize for something I love, it’s up to me. It’s not the purpose of the Hugos to “grow the brand.” It’s fine if publishers make use of them to do so, but it shouldn’t be a factor in picking winners.
Suze: In addition the lack of compassion, a Christian virtue, shown in the second comment is truly appalling.
Yeah, when I first heard about it I couldn’t quite believe anyone would actually say that. Eternal optimist…
I’m not going to say that this is true for all of them, but a general lack of compassion and empathy for others definitely seems to be a common thread amongst certain Puppies and some decidedly non-Puppy abusive writers too.
It certainly shows in much of their writing, some more than others.
Regarding the Paulk rules, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas fares far more poorly than it ever should.
He was quoting the faeries of Iolanthe, actually, and not necessarily literally claiming it was a Greek remark
Oh of course it was a reference to Gilbert & sullivan. That makes it all so much better.
It seems to be a characteristic of Puppy spaces that they do not read much, not books, not links, and not even their own posts on the same page. Judging from comments on posts on Puppy blogs, they do not seem to notice blatant contradictions in their own comments streams. I really am beginning to wonder if most of them are not in the habit of trying to verify things they are told.
Recall, wasn’t it Brad Torgersen who in comments on this blog tried to rewrite and recast what an author was doing and why in real time and in her presence with her flatly contradicting his account, right there on the page for all to see?
If I were of a more cynical frame of mind, I might suspect deliberate lies to be a tactic to try to win hearts and minds of lurkers and browsers.
Or just possibly the Puppies have no interest in truth and see no use for it in winning arguments.
Metatron is a rather special angel, being the Angel of the Presence, representing God Himself. (Most here will probably know of him from Good Omens, where he appears in that capacity.)
“… “that” being the ideal that the ballot ought to represent a wide cross section of the (nominating) voters. If they had been, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”
Well, in that case the SP crowd was right then.
“Reducing slate efficiency by changing the rules is a lengthy process, but in many ways it is also pretty straightforward: If Worldcon members wants it, it passes. Yes, it takes two years, and yes, it requires people to agree, but we know it can be done, and we know how to do it.”
OK, honest question here: If the SP crowd can take advantage of the low participation rate of voters to dominate a nomination process, what makes you think they won’t be able to do the same to a proposed rule change? A rules change that even long time Worldcon members are opposed to. Part of me says more than a few are willing to sit back and let any changes go through, as it will prove one of their points.
“Reducing slate efficiency by a vast increase in nominating is by comparison an unclear, indefinite process. We know there are potential voters out there, but we don’t know how they can be mobilized – or even if they can be mobilized. And it’s a vigil that needs to be kept every year, lest a new slate comes along.”
You’re right. In this day and age of Facebook, blogger, Livejournal, Twitter, blogs, Snapchat, Youtube, and other social media platforms, it is going to be next to impossible to raise any awareness, and as a result, increase participation, in the process.
@David: Frankly, there’s so much to dislike about JCW that HoiPolloiGate has been nothing more than a fun diversion into grammar/language nerd territory.
?????????????????? (hope I got that right, my Japanese is pretty appalling)
“Metatron is a rather special angel, being the Angel of the Presence, representing God Himself. (Most here will probably know of him from Good Omens, where he appears in that capacity.)”
Alan RIckman, Dogma. 🙂
Oh nevermind. Evidently the blog supports Japanese as well as it supports Greek. I really should’ve seen that one coming.
” He should not have included the line about putting puppies down. Just because the Puppies fantasize about hitting people with axe-handles or punching people in the face of destroying fandom is no excuse. As adults, the rest of us don’t need to join in on that kind of thing.”
It’s hard. (I actually write about this on my newly-created blog, along with a discussion of Clausewitz, puppies, and culture wars.)
Because when someone declares war on me, or claims to want to burn something I care about to the ground, it’s *hard* not to respond in kind. “Better Human Being” points are nice, but not as filling as red meat.
Indeed, I more often have to scare myself away from saying/doing things like that by the “No — I don’t *want* to be like them, I despise their behavior” — negative reinforcement rather than positive joy. It’s one of the reasons, I think, I go into their environments and engage from time to time; if it works, great; if not, I know once again what sort of people I don’t want to be.
And what makes me most angry are the people who poison the wells for other people’s discussion — whether that’s by proclaiming that “” and creating the impression of bad faith, or going “They’re all ist!”
They’re not all ist; and more than a few who are are probably ist-through-ignorance. It’s not X’s job to educate them, but I can make it part of my effort. And no, not all the always lie — and by saying so, all you’re doing is cutting people off from something they might enjoy.
One of the saddest moments of my life was the discovery that someone I knew had stopped reading Chip Delany, who he quite enjoyed — because he discovered that Chip wasn’t an older Jewish guy, but a younger black man, and he couldn’t accept that a black man could write that well.
Drawing hard lines except in the most specific cases* no one any good, and I hate the fact that I keep feeling pushed towards doing so, and striking back across them as hard as I can.
*I have no problem with someone going “You know, I don’t want to hang out with someone who calls people like me Morlocks, or asserts that everyone of my gender is a rapist.”**
** One of those is a true example; the other is made up to provide balance.
I’m not entirely sure, but I think people have to be actually present at the Business Meeting to propose and vote on proposals.
In other words, a significant number of Puppies would have to buy the much more expensive attending memberships and actually show up at the convention (entailing travel costs) if they wanted to game the voting proposals the way they gamed the Hugo nominations.
@XS ‘Regarding the Paulk rules, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas fares far more poorly than it ever should.’
If you think they wouldn’t like that one, just imagine how they would react to one of my favorites- Starship Troopers. Talk about message fiction where the narrative stops for lectures!
They are interesting and well-written lectures, IMHO, but nevertheless…
Peace: I’m not entirely sure, but I think people have to be actually present at the Business Meeting to propose and vote on proposals.
Yep. You have to be an attending member and present at the meeting to vote.
http://sasquan.org/guide-to-business-meetings/
Not in response to anything, but merely because I found it amusing, and apropos in more than one way:
http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=1238
Alan RIckman, Dogma. 🙂
YES.
“We went through five Adams before we figured that one out.”
And to be quite serious, the conversation with him by the lake still stands out as a beautiful, fantastic moment.
XS “Regarding the Paulk rules, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas fares far more poorly than it ever should.”
Yes, they really could only work with novels and novellas.
However The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas really only falls down on 1.a “characters nearly first”*. It passes 2 because the action doesn’t stop for a sermon – because the whole things is a parable :). It then picks up 3 and examines it with a steely gaze – it respects its readers sufficiently to assume them capable on reflecting on their lives. To speak hard truths to someone is respect. To tell them comforting lies is not.
[*unless we extend the notion of ‘character’ to include the people and culture of Omelas as a whole – in which case it passes 1a. also. But then I’m bending the rules like one of them grud-dammned SJW intellectuals**]
It then picks up 3 and examines it with a steely gaze – it respects its readers sufficiently to assume them capable on reflecting on their lives. To speak hard truths to someone is respect. To tell them comforting lies is not.
Point. 🙂
We’ve probably seen some of these already:
The Puppy, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
(or perhaps The Lion, the Bitch, and the Warpig)
Three Hearts and Three Puppies
A Boy and his Puppy
The Moon is a Harsh Puppy
Kurt Busiek on May 22, 2015 at 4:48 pm said:
Which may explain the weirdly triumphant guy who taunted Lis by saying he’d just bought a copy of the book based on her review. All I could think was um, yeah, that’s what reviews are FOR. He seemed completely oblivious that she’d posted a review that told him exactly what he’d LIKE about the book.
I’ve bought books based on two star reviews also. What the reviewer didn’t like about it was just my cup of tea. That’s a WELL DONE REVIEW if you’re good enough to articulate what you didn’t like to the point I can tell I will like it. So good for Lis!
.
Peace Is My Middle Name on May 22, 2015 at 5:10 pm said:
Any Attending/Military/Youth or Supporting member may propose business. Just get it in before the deadline (August 9, I think).
However, you not only have to be present in person, you must also hold an Attending or Military or Youth membership. Supporting Members with one day memberships do not have Business Meeting Voting Rights.
Usually day-members can sit in and watch. But I’ve seen Kevin say that only voting members will be allowed in, unless there ends up being room for non-voting members to observe. It depends on how crowded the room is.
Apropos of Will We Fill the Room, we should all state if we’ll attend the business meeting. Kevin can send minions around all the blogs in their Copious Spare Time ™ to count attendees. 😉 Two will attend from my household.
I have a comment in moderation, I say forlornly.
Mike – love that you did put the wright ‘scum and villainy’ quote on the site!
Peace: “No one here has said anything remotely like that.”
Read Wright’s original article. He was not responding to File 770. Wright was discussing a WSJ piece, not File 770.
“That was cleared up, apologized for, and the argument ended pages and pages back. You are a bit behind.”
I see that you apologized for it, for which I applaud you. But in that case, I am not addressing you, but other commenters.
“That would be Nick Mamatas, I am presuming. He is a native Greek speaker.”
I’m not sure what to make of this. You apologized to Wright and said that described his use of “hoi polloi” as “perfectly acceptable”. Are you now saying, though, that you believe Mr. Mamatas demonstrated that Wright was in error? What am I missing?
“Sorry? I see a lot of different people with different interests talking about SF and books they have read and the Hugos and the esoterica of voting and writing filk and poems and playing with language. What do you see?”
I was not addressing people “with different interests talking about SF and books they’ve read”, etc. I was addressing people who are breaking out the pitchforks over the idiomatic usage of a Greek term by a man whose religious and political views they find to be anathema. If that is not what you or other commenters are doing, then I am not addressing you.
I complain about “the hoi polloi” and people pronouncing the second letter of the alphabet “bay-tuh” and “octopi” whenever I see them.
And nobody brought out any pitchforks. We snickered; he ran to his blog to fume about it, and you appeared to wag your finger. That’s what happened.
David
In fairness, hubris is not regarded in that sense as a sin for a Roman Catholic; Wright may be slotting up vast numbers of down votes on Mount Olympus but since he declines to recognise that pantheon it’s not a problem…
Ultragotha
Excellent use of ‘forlornly’; please accept my commendations.