They can’t be that sad.
Writers on the Sad Puppies 3 slate have been demurely preparing to take a victory lap when the Hugo nominations are announced on April 4. They’ve been marking their territory on Facebook. Significantly quoting Jabberwocky. Effusively giving thanks for nothing in particular with promises to “say more when I can.” Or just blurting it right out like Michael Z. Williamson.
And Lou Antonelli, who appears twice on the Sad Puppies slate, may not have needed a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows in this forecast:
My prediction is that Sad Puppies will take 30 percent of the nominees in the writing categories, while the more hardcore Rabid Puppies slate will take half as many, 15 percent. That will give Puppies of either stripe 45 percent of the total noms.
So what comes next? More of the same!
Kate Paulk of the Mad Genius Club just announced Sad Puppies 4.
…in a fit of even greater insanity than usual, yours truly, Kate the Impaler of the Evil Legion of Evil, will be picking up the banner for Sad Puppies 4 and running with it. I even promised not to impale anyone with it (it’s such a pretty flag, and getting blood and… stuff… all over it would make those poor sad puppies even more sad. Even the Evil Legion of Evil has standards, you know. We’re completely against letting Sad Puppies stay sad. We want them to be happy).
There won’t be much action from Sad Puppies 4 for quite some time, but rest assured I will be lurking in the shadows looking for worthy candidates for the campaign to End Puppy-Related Sadness. When the time is right, announcements will be made and campaigning will begin in earnest. In the meantime, I shall rub my hands together and practice my evil cackle.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
I’m tempted to get at least a supporting membership in this year’s WorldCon, in order to vote for the Sad Puppies, but I don’t think there’s a Hugo category for either “Humor” or “Politics”.
Back in The Day, of course, Pros considered themselves too dignified to indulge in such shenanigans, and the fans who sent out copies of their fanzines to many members of the WorldCon just before nomination tine rolled around were scorned by many other Fanzine Fans.
I imagine modesty is not something the Sad Puppies deal with. They want their toys and they want them now.
And there is no category for “Bullshit”.
The Sad Puppies *are* treating this in terms of a political campaign, already planning the next “election” even before this one is decided.
With all due respect, Mr. Fitch, I suggest that a popular movement led by a woman named “Kate the Impaler” is not overly concerned with an appearance of dignity. In fact, her appellation tends to suggest what the members of the movement believe can be done with those historical concerns about professional dignity.
As for the notion of being scorned, well, that’s the benefit of having been roundly scorned before. It renders one immune. They had one bullet. It’s been fired. And it is worth noting that Sad Puppies are simply following the advice of Mr. John Scalzi.
“Change the Hugos by nominating, voting and participating, or (much more slowly and far less reliably) actively making your case to the people who are nominating, voting and participating. As a pro tip, explicitly or implicitly disparaging their intelligence, taste or standing to make choices when you try to do that is unlikely to persuade them to decide anything other than that you’re probably an asshole.”
– John Scalzi, April 5, 2013
@VD
The Sad Puppies are following the first sentence of that advice. The methods I deplore, since a political campaign and using the process to make political points is at best just tacky. Not against the rules, but its tacky.
However, Mr. Beale, the second sentence is where the Sad Puppies fall down. I’ve read Sad Puppies blogs, been banned from Sad Puppies blogs. Disparaging the intelligence and taste of “SJWs” is something your ilk every day. If you can’t refer to Teresa Nielsen Hayden as anything except the “Toad of Tor” sort of makes my point for me.
They could write good stories, you know. But that is not beyond them. Getting votes from people is not too complex a process. You need to come off as likeable.
It would help if the Sad Puppies would quit nominating stuff for political reasons. I had a look at the first part of “Wisdom From My Internets”; so far, if you took the politics out, the book would consist of page numbers.
Where is the stuff the Sad Puppies keep saying they’re about? Where is the exploration, the discovery, the action, the adventure, the bold, broad-chested heroes standing up for chivalry and freedom against impossible odds, the excitement, the explosions, the guns?
I think it will turn out that most of the Hugo voters do not think that spelling the president’s name with a zero is an innovation worthy of a Hugo. Or even a Hugo nomination.
“Disparaging the intelligence and taste of “SJWs” is something your ilk every day. If you can’t refer to Teresa Nielsen Hayden as anything except the “Toad of Tor” sort of makes my point for me.”
It does nothing of the sort. As happens all too often, you completely ignore the fact that Teresa Nielsen Hayden is one of the SJWs, like John Scalzi and NK Jemisin, who was attacking me in public before I even knew who she was. Are you seriously going to assert that SJWs have a free license to slag off anyone they like for as long as they please without the targets of their public attacks being free to respond in kind?
You’re objecting to me calling a fat, ugly, and famously nasty woman “the Toad of Tor”, but have you ever objected to her repeatedly calling me things like “mentally unbalanced”, “a wuss”, “a singularly inept sockpuppet”, a virgin accustomed to “little or no social interaction of any sort”? My family and I have been attacked by these people for 10 freaking years and I have ignored most of it for most of that time. But no longer.
So if you’re going to come along a decade later and shake a finger at me for finally taking the battle to these grotesque control freaks, well, that’s your right, but I very much doubt you’re going to win over very many fair-minded people.
I very much doubt you understand how much hatred and contempt there is for SJWs in the gaming, comic, and SF world. #GamerGate has changed everything. Many of us now understand the extent of their web of lies. And if you don’t share their twisted mentality that claims the right to tell everyone else what everyone is permitted to think, say, write, develop, draw, and publish, I strongly suggest that you step back and take a look at the historical behavior of the people with whom you appear to be defending, if not siding.
Yes, I disparage the intelligence and taste of the SJWs. But much more importantly, I impugn their character, their integrity, and their honesty. They are prolific and shameless liars, and I am only one of many people who can prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt. Defend them at the risk of your own credibility.
Bringing in Gamergate ringers is pure Chicago style machine politics.
@ Cat, re: your 2nd paragraph, I direct your attention to the SP3 Gannon nomination. Shall we evaluate every SP3 nom. or do you prefer to harp on SP2?
“Bringing in Gamergate ringers is pure Chicago style machine politics.”
It’s probably a remarkably bad idea to repeatedly and publicly attack one of the lesser leaders of GamerGate then, isn’t it. As it happens, however, it’s easy to know that no one did anything of the sort. PNH says there were something like 2,100 ballots cast. You’ll know GamerGate has entered the scene when there are 21,000 ballots, Tor Books files for bankruptcy, and the SF scene looks like Fallout 4, complete with homeless refugees. Have a look at what happened to Gawker and Joystiq if you doubt it.
As for Chicago-style politics, no one had a problem when PNH and Scalzi pressured the SFWA Board into voting for my pseudo-expulsion by threatening to quit. So, I, for one, am not terribly inclined to listen to complaints on that score.
Sad Puppies is exactly what it claims to be, a broad spectrum group of writers and readers who love SF/F and want to rescue it from the SJWs and the shit they are shoveling. They are playing entirely by the rules and their efforts deserve to be respected accordingly. And if they’re not, and if the SJWs are successful in their anticipated attempt to change the rules in order to retain their control, well, that’s when the real fun will start.
@ratseal
For a Sad Puppy you seem to be unfamiliar with the slate. “Wisdom From My Internet” IS SP3.
It’s remarkably honest of you, however, to bring up the similar qualities of the SP2 slate. Thank you.
A group’s past behavior is widely considered reliable evidence of present intentions and future behavior. If the Sad Puppies had wanted to say publicly that SP2 was a mistake; they’re sorry, and from now on they will only nominate on the basis of quality, of course I’d have been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Until they nominated a purely political work of questionable quality like “Wisdom From My Internet” of course.
I have a family thing to attend shortly, so for the moment I can only point to Brad Torgersen’s latest exposition on Sad Puppies for those interested in a pro-Puppy take.
“You’re objecting to me calling a fat, ugly, and famously nasty woman “the Toad of Tor”, but have you ever objected to her repeatedly calling me things like “mentally unbalanced”, “a wuss”, “a singularly inept sockpuppet”, a virgin accustomed to “little or no social interaction of any sort”? My family and I have been attacked by these people for 10 freaking years and I have ignored most of it for most of that time. But no longer.”
Ah, so, “They called me names for years, so I feel free in being uncivil in return.”. I suspected this might be your defense, Mr. Beale.
” I strongly suggest that you step back and take a look at the historical behavior of the people with whom you appear to be defending, if not siding.”
I would point you to my interview with Adventures in Sci Fi Publishing (which I believe was on the SP3 list) if you want to hear my views at length.
Kate who?
“Sad Puppies is exactly what it claims to be, a broad spectrum group of writers and readers who love SF/F and want to rescue it from the SJWs and the shit they are shoveling.”
I will play along, and pretend this isn’t the paranoid blather of someone with only a passing acquaintance with reality, by asking for a single title. Name the book — just one — that has come out in, say, the past 5 years or so that has espoused “SJW” themes so noxious and tangibly destructive to the literary, critical, and/or popular reputation of science fiction that a movement to “rescue” the genre has become such a dire necessity. If it’s the view of the Sad Puppies that SF has been plunged into an ideological downward spiral of some kind, what is the work that started it on this alleged decline?
While I’m waiting, allow me to suggest that if you think SF — by definition, a genre of ideas — can really be harmed or even threatened by the inclusion of new ideas, new voices, new perspectives, then no, you do not actually love the genre, let alone respect it. It isn’t this “SJW” cabal, whoever they are, who are seeking to limit SF’s potential and declare that only a limited slate of ideas and viewpoints must be allowed beneath its umbrella. Care to guess who it really is?
Regarding the post linked in the comments, Mr. Torgerson is apparently unaware that the term “nail house” originated with people refusing to give up their property to make way for government-backed development projects in China. I’m fairly sure the Sad Puppies do not actually wish to cast themselves as a Communist Party committee attempting to steamroll the ordinary folks.
Mulling it over some more, one could argue for the analogy to be taken strictly in US terms as he uses it, but it’s still a rather unfortunate choice. Massive neighborhood changes of the sort he describes are generally associated with zoning restrictions and eminent domain and other such Big Government maneuvers that I do not believe the Sad Puppy thought leaders would ordinarily support.
Torgersen unfortunately makes up his own history while trying to make a historical analogy. And does it in front of an audience filled with the people who have led the modernization of the Hugos.
For example, I coauthored the rules change that required voting stats to be published. Others devised rules to enhance the eligibility of non-English-language works, electroncally published works,and works published in venues that are not defined as professional.
The Hugos are not a crappy little house somebody wants to tear down, either. It is an award backed by a long history of effective administration.
“Name the book — just one — that has come out in, say, the past 5 years or so that has espoused “SJW” themes so noxious and tangibly destructive to the literary, critical, and/or popular reputation of science fiction that a movement to “rescue” the genre has become such a dire necessity.”
Redshirts.
“It isn’t this “SJW” cabal, whoever they are, who are seeking to limit SF’s potential and declare that only a limited slate of ideas and viewpoints must be allowed beneath its umbrella.”
Yes, it most certainly is. You’re clearly not paying any attention. They are trying to declare all works they consider “racist” “sexist” or “homophobic” out of bounds, just as they have already done in comics and are trying to do in games.
Someone explain this to me: Just who the hell is Kate Paulk?
@alauda. Kate Paulk is a writer in Sarah Hoyt’s sub-circle of Sad Puppies, mostly a short story writer, although I think she has a novel out too.
Anyway, why does Kate Paulk need to be explained here? There’s a link.
VD: Dude. Seriously?
I didn’t ask “Which books have annoyed the Sad Puppies?” I asked which books have been “tangibly destructive to the literary, critical, and/or popular reputation of science fiction.” I find it — shall we say — unconvincing that a top-selling, generally well-reviewed novel that took home the Hugo Award by popular vote, by an author who currently has three television shows in development (one of which actually IS based on this book you think has wrecked the genre), has in any way caused critics or the general public to hold SF in disdain as a fount of reprehensible ideas. This, I suspect, is going to be a key failing of your camp if you wish to move your campaign to “rescue” SF forward: the inability of the Sad Pups to see what’s actually going on in the real world of fandom in a way not distorted by your ideological prism. Or just general silliness.
As for criticisms of books on the grounds of racism, sexism or homophobia: These are legitimate criticisms to bring up if a reader honestly feels a book contains such elements. Others are free to disagree with them. This leads to a process called argument and discussion. But as far as I can tell, authors most heavily criticized for their ugly personal politics (say, Orson Scott Card or John C. Wright) are still publishing, and people are free to read and recommend them or not. If Card hasn’t been on any awards ballots in recent years, it may be due to his politics, but it might just as easily be due to his failure to write anything of particular distinction lately.
Puppies like Larry Correia boast of strong sales, which is very true. He has an enthusiastic fan base and moves lots of units, and more power to him. So it’s a bit unpersuasive to claim the kind of SF the Puppies like is being suppressed by some shadowy cadre of PC thought police when its most popular writers boast of their awesome numbers.
“I find it — shall we say — unconvincing that a top-selling, generally well-reviewed novel that took home the Hugo Award by popular vote, by an author who currently has three television shows in development (one of which actually IS based on this book you think has wrecked the genre), has in any way caused critics or the general public to hold SF in disdain as a fount of reprehensible ideas.”
Redshirts is a mediocre ripoff with a 3.8 rating on Amazon. The idea that it was the Best Novel, or even one of the best 25 SF novels published that year is laughable. You may find it unconvincing, but tens of thousands of my blog readers don’t. That was a slap in the face to everyone who cared about the genre.
“As for criticisms of books on the grounds of racism, sexism or homophobia: These are legitimate criticisms to bring up if a reader honestly feels a book contains such elements.”
Of course criticism is fine. The point is that the SJWs want those dangerous ideas thrown out of science fiction altogether. They want Heinlein out because he is “racist as fuck”. They want Campbell out because he was racist and sexist. They want me out because I dare to talk back to an idiot black woman who lied about me in public. They ignore genuinely great writers like John C. Wright because he won’t fall in line with their ideological nonsense and fawn on his inferiors like Scalzi.
You can suspect whatever you like. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I am simply telling where we are coming from. You don’t have to believe me and I certainly don’t expect you to agree with me. But if you truly think this is “the paranoid blather of someone with only a passing acquaintance with reality”, well, don’t complain you weren’t given fair warning.
Here is an interesting statement on the SJW perspective:
“The Hugos don’t belong to the set of all people who read the genre…. The set of all people who read SF can start their own award.” – Teresa Nielsen Hayden, 30 March, 2015
How very inclusive! Especially coming from someone who, at least until recently, worked at the place with 86 Hugo and Nebula Best Novel nominations in the last 30 years.
Don’t forget the time you did this: I noticed that the number of fake reviews of my books on Amazon declined considerably after I tracked down the woman from Minnesota and posted her address on this blog.
Name the book — just one — that has come out in, say, the past 5 years or so that has espoused “SJW” themes so noxious and tangibly destructive to the literary, critical, and/or popular reputation of science fiction that a movement to “rescue” the genre has become such a dire necessity. If it’s the view of the Sad Puppies that SF has been plunged into an ideological downward spiral of some kind, what is the work that started it on this alleged decline?
“Neptune’s Brood” and “Windup Girl” are both left wing books. If you don’t like left wing books, I wouldn’t recommend. If you don’t like left wing books, you might use some of the verbiage in the previous paragraph. Personally, I don’t care whether they are left wing books or not.
When I first read Torgersen’s Nailhouse analogy I thought he was talking about the Sad Puppies being the nailhouse. It wouldn’t have been a bad analogy–the Sad Puppies are resisting the changes in the SF neighborhood, want to return it to what it used to be, *certainly* don’t want any of these Johnny-come-latelies, these gay authors and trans authors, walking right in and getting comfortable in *their* house.
And while I wouldn’t have changed my mind, it would have appealed to my sympathies; I don’t care for big-money development that turns neighborhoods into soulless canyons of concrete and glass either. He could have made an appeal for new science fiction that preserved the good things about the past while meeting the needs of the new neighborhood members, sure.
Come to find out he was turning the whole thing on its head. It’s not the Sad Puppies he thinks are the nailhouse–it’s the Hugo voters. I didn’t see *that* coming.
If it had made sense it might have been clever; as it is, I ended up puzzled. He thinks it’s *good* to present the Sad Puppies as steamrollering the past for big money development? He thinks the Sad Puppies aren’t nostalgic about the potboilers of the past, but rather want the innovative SF of the future? What?
Also the person telling the Sad Puppies they aren’t real fans is… the leader of the Sad Puppies. Ooookay.
I’m not sure how Redshirts advances SJW ideology, but gosh it’s an unworthy winner of the Hugo. The Left Hand of Darkness and The Dispossessed are both leftist by inclination, but both are good books.
I am gonna just read all the nominees and vote for the best books, regardless of ideology. If that results in me voting for Sad Puppies, Angry Puppies, Rabid Puppies, or no Puppies, so be it.
I do think that Vox’s point is fair — if in fact he’s been abused repeatedly and without provocation, it is justified, if not particularly nice, for him to respond in kind. I would not make fun of Teresa Nielsen-Hayden for being unattractive and overweight, but I can see how years of abuse might lead him to do so.
Why is it that some people are condemned for being rude, while others are not?
@Cat: SPx, and in particular SP3, has been described by ‘pro’ SP’ers as a politically diverse group. That Williamson’s book is recommended next to Gannon (albeit in a different category) supports this. I’m saying that slate is not principally political, you are focusing on works that may be and insisting that the entire slate therefor must be. You reference an author from SP2 in order to characterize SP3 – to you SP, SP2 and SP3 are all the same thing.
Whatever.
From this point on I am spamming any comments that are insulting about Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s appearance.
Not only does it make for a disgusting drumbeat on my blog, I also think it’s chickenshit for anonymous posters to call out other people’s looks when we don’t get to appraise your fat ass, bad teeth, ugly tats, poor taste in shoes, and any other physical shortcomings we might be able to pick on you for.
“Don’t forget the time you did this”
I haven’t. Or the time you were dragged down to the police station after five years of cyberstalking me.
“Also the person telling the Sad Puppies they aren’t real fans is… the leader of the Sad Puppies. Ooookay.”
No, that would be the Toad of Tor herself, Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
“The Hugos don’t belong to the set of all people who read the genre; they belong to the worldcon, and the people who attend and/or support it. The set of all people who read SF can start their own award.”
– Teresa Nielsen Hayden, March 29, 2015, 03:43 PM
Straight from the Toad’s mouth. The Hugos, the premier science fiction awards, don’t belong to everyone who reads and loves science fiction. Those people should just go away and start their own award.
Now, do you seriously wonder why we have nothing but contempt for her, and for those who share her attitude? If the Hugos called themselves “Tor’s Big Fish in a Little Pond”, no one would care. But they openly claim to represent “the greatest books and stories in the science fiction field”. And that makes it of interest to us.
Except Vox hasn’t been abused.
“From this point on I am spamming any comments that are insulting about Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s appearance.”
Roger. NP.
“Except Vox hasn’t been abused.”
Yes, Andrew, I have. If I posted even a small part of the long, long list of insults to which I have been subjected for the crime of posting my own thoughts on my own site that don’t directly concern any of the people who have attacked me, Mike would rightly want to delete it. In my response to the SFWA report, I noted 60 different attacks by John Scalzi alone, and 15 by Teresa Nielsen Hayden, many dating back to 2005. And most of them completely unprovoked.
And yet you provoked every one of those insults.
“And yet you provoked every one of those insults.”
How do you provoke insults from people you don’t know, have never heard of, are not addressing, and don’t even know are reading your syndicated column or blog post, Andrew?
I’m not a Sad Puppy supporter, and a brief skimming of Vox’s blog suggests to me that he’s basically on the complete opposite end of the political spectrum from me, but …
1. I don’t really see Vox giving it to anyone that isn’t giving it right back. I don’t care for the insults he throws at Hines, Scalzi, or TNH… but they aren’t exactly playing nice either. I don’t know who started it, but let’s not pretend that the insults are one sided.
2. Based on nothing but my own reading preferences , I think there is some good stuff on on the SP slate (Gannon, Butcher) and some not so good stuff. I could say the same for every Hugo rec list I’ve seen.
3. I have to (partially) agree with him on Redshirts. Obviously, I’m not the final authority on quality, but I was shocked that anyone considered it the best sf book of the year… and I liked the book just fine. The general vibe I got from most of the sf/f forums I belong to was that a lot of people thought Scalzi won for being Scalzi.
On a side note, I don’t think I’ve been as interested in the Hugo as I am right now. It’s been some damn entertaining drama.
Now can we can please get a movement to get Peter F. Hamilton and Joe Abercrombie some award love, because that’s a cause worth fighting for.
What’s this about, then?
voxday.blogspot.com/2014/12/such-nice-little-song.html
voxday.blogspot.com/2014/12/art-by-andrews-friends.html
He thinks the Sad Puppies aren’t nostalgic about the potboilers of the past
To be fair, anyone at all familiar with “the potboilers of the past” know they were fairly generic mass produced objects with absolutely no soul or attempts at actually saying anything, as their purpose was to make money via pandering to the lowest common denominator via the most formulaic and easy fashion. Like Justin Bieber but with worse writing.
Comparisons to the ugly concrete prefab brutalist architecture of Stalinist Russia seems fairly apt then, as the purpose of both the architecture and what the sad puppies are referring to when they talk of the bygone “pulp” days* they want us to return to were the exact same: Give the absolute minimum that the publishers or members of the politiburo deemed that the maximum number of people might need, and nothing more. And if people aren’t grateful for it then they obviously shouldn’t be published or exist, let alone have anyone pay attention to them just because they “like” and “want” that stuff!
* which must be distinguished from the ACTUAL pulps of Jack London, Wells, Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard and their ilk, full as they were full of the vile, nay EVIL, “political” messages and ideas that the sad puppies despise when its contained in fiction.
Here’s my problem with Sad Puppies; they’re doing exactly what they claim was such a horrible thing to have done. Namely, they claim the Hugos have fallen into the clutches of a particular political philosophy. So they feel they have to mount an organized voting bloc campaign to overcome it so their political views (with a side order of self-interest; I’d at least be a lot more impressed with their claims of noble reasons for doing this if the organizers didn’t keep happening to all show up on their specified slate).
But if it’s been a coordinated mass plot by SJWs to rig the Hugos, they at least have been a *lot* more subtle about it than the Puppies. Subtle to a point that as someone active in Worldcon and convention fandom, and who has friends in fandom and prodom who are very to the left*, I’m completely unaware of any organized campaign to throw the Hugos to the left based on political motivations. There may be small cabals that get together and agree what to vote on en bloc, but since word hasn’t broken about such, I’m thinking they’re pretty small if they actually exist (the larger the group, the harder it is to keep a secret).
But the Puppies are doing just that sort of campaign, with a specified slate (not a recommended list, but a “vote these and only these, this year exactly equalling the number of slots on the ballot” slate. And which based on their own statements is significantly determined based on political leanings.
So what the Puppies are doing, in my opinion, is trying to effectively destroy the Hugos. So barring something on their slate that, in my opinion, is truly “OMG, that is so fantastic it *has* to get a Hugo”, I’m going to list anything from their slate that makes the ballot under No Award/leave entirely off my ballot.
*Note to those who don’t know me: If you infer from that that I’m an SJW or what my political beliefs are, I and those who know me will be laughing at you. I have friends across the political spectrum, excluding only hardcore social conservatives, and dating back to grad school have frequently managed to get both far left and far right pissed off at me…but also getting a fair amount of respect from each side)
For those wondering about Ms Paulk:
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?117488
Wowzer. I remember rough patches in the old days, but I’m sure glad to have dumped fandom before it came to this.
It’s always easy to find your way back. Just follow the river of blood to its source.
Tom,
Moderates never push for change.
That’s why they are moderates. If you want improvement (i.e. change) to come for the Hugos so they actually start going to competitive quality books again, the truth is that is only going to be the radicals who care enough to make it happen.
Oh, and you aren’t alone, Pacific Standard Simon. The PW sales declines of SF bear testament to literally millions of people like you leaving SF readership for greener pastures. There’s definitely a problem in the genre – one that extends far beyond which book wins prom queen.
Vox Day loves to play the victim, loves to fall back on his 1/8 Cherokee princess ancestory when called on his racism and it’s never, ever his fault that people are mean to him, despite his long and sordid history of being a racist, sexist gobshite.
He doesn’t care about science fiction, not even to the extent a Correira or Torgedsen still care about it, he just cares about sticking it to the liberals in his head.
What the Sad Puppies are doing is just your bog standard wingnut culture war, fighting an imagined persecution of their “art” when the truth is that their work is at best mediocre and worse, not nearly as popular of that of their perceived enemies. It burns them up inside to have Redshirts winning the Hugo and optioned for a tv show.
“Vox Day loves to play the victim, loves to fall back on his 1/8 Cherokee princess ancestory when called on his racism and it’s never, ever his fault that people are mean to him, despite his long and sordid history of being a racist, sexist gobshite.”
One does not play the victim, one IS the victim when attacked unprovoked, as I have often been. I just don’t happen to be a helpless victim. I find it amusing that you call me racist while mocking my Native American ancestry, which is neither fictional nor “1/8 Cherokee princess”. If you saw my brothers or my mother, I very much doubt you would be dumb enough to do so.
Moreover, I noticed the tweets below were posted on Brad Torgersen’s site by one of his readers. Since you don’t believe it is possible to engage, that’s fine, I will cease to engage. Just remember, we gave you the chance to discuss these things reasonably with us. You chose otherwise.
Cora Buhlert ?@CoraBuhlert 3h3 hours ago @PrinceJvstin @shaunduke @SFReviewsnet Are we talking about VD vomitting all over File770?
Paul Weimer ?@PrinceJvstin 3h3 hours ago @CoraBuhlert @shaunduke @SFReviewsnet yes, and how I’m crazy for trying to engage with him.
Cora Buhlert ?@CoraBuhlert 3h3 hours ago @PrinceJvstin @shaunduke @SFReviewsnet I tried to engage with these people, too, at first, but I really think they’re beyond engaging.
shaunduke ?@shaunduke 2h2 hours ago @CoraBuhlert @PrinceJvstin @SFReviewsnet It would be nice if one could reasonably expect an actual engagement, but you can’t, really.
Paul Weimer ?@PrinceJvstin 2h2 hours ago @shaunduke @CoraBuhlert @SFReviewsnet I’ve tried. Lord knows I have tried
I’m pretty liberal in my mundane politics, but I don’t generally go shoving it in people’s faces. To me, that’s the problem with both the hardcore Randroids and the holier-than-thou lefties. They seem unable to stop looking through their politcal lenses and to focus on enjoying a good story. Luckily, both extremes seem mainly to exist on the Internet. Most of the flesh-and-blood fen that I know are more into stories than counting political coup.